American Civil War cliches

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Confederates didn't give a damn about Maximilian AFAIK. Hell, they could easily supply the Republicans as much as the US did OTL. Not sure why every scenario has them propping up a corrupt, weak, and unpopular government as their closest ally geographically speaking.

Another cliche I hate about ACW timelines are the massive Confederate land-grabs. Doesn't strike me as the kind of thing they'd ever be likely to do. The even worse cliche, and God knows how it actually became common, whenever Texas becomes independent in a Confederate-Victory TL (which would probably be 90% of them) they make HUGE goddamn Mexican-landgrabs ON THEIR OWN! IIRC OTL Texas was pretty damn weak before joining the Union. What about Texas makes it stronger on its own?

[Jord839]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Confederates didn't give a damn about Maximilian AFAIK. Hell, they could easily supply the Republicans as much as the US did OTL. Not sure why every scenario has them propping up a corrupt, weak, and unpopular government as their closest ally geographically speaking.

Another cliche I hate about ACW timelines are the massive Confederate land-grabs. Doesn't strike me as the kind of thing they'd ever be likely to do. The even worse cliche, and God knows how it actually became common, whenever Texas becomes independent in a Confederate-Victory TL (which would probably be 90% of them) they make HUGE goddamn Mexican-landgrabs ON THEIR OWN! IIRC OTL Texas was pretty damn weak before joining the Union. What about Texas makes it stronger on its own?

1. Maximilian is usually around as a sign of increased relations between France and the CSA. With the CSA's undivided support, Max can be propped up, unlike OTL, and this in turn will keep France on the CSA's side in politics.

2. Which confederate landgrabs are you talking about? From the USA? Or Mexico? Or somebody else? Regardless, I expect the reasoning is the author of the TL wants to even the scales between the CSA and USA come rematch time, and giving them more land and resources helps.

3. Texas was significantly more advanced than large parts of Mexico, so a short war can conceviably be won. It helps that the closest regions of Mexico to Texas are the largely unpopulated Northern states, which Mexico City would be hard pressed to defend and more willing to give up. They certainly aren't going much farther than there though.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

1. Plausible, but the CSA could work on their friendship with France without pumping precious resources into protecting a fail-monarch south of the border. Also, what makes this cliche worse is that it pops up EVERY CS-Victory TL, even the ones where they don't win from French support, I'm sure. It gets to the point where I'm sure the sole reason most people do it is because Turtledove did it. Hell, you're actually the first person I've heard an explanation from after reading enough CS TLs.

2. Yes, but implausibility still overrules "cool-factor" or "fair-factor". The CSA in most scenarios tends to take Cuba, Sonora, Chihuahua every time, in addition to other territories much of the time too. This'd be another example of Turtledove-Did-It excuses, and you actually brushed up on another annoying and needless CSA-cliche: The inevitable CSA-USA War, round two.

3. Maybe nowadays Texas is more advanced than large parts of Mexico, but I don't think it was the same in the 1860's. I don't think Texas's adult, male white population was large enough to form an army that could take all of Mexico north of the City itself on its own.

[Eurofed]

Personally, one of the CSA victories clichès I find most irritating is the way they always manage to get all the border states, even the ones that stayed in the Union, if they win at all, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, the whole set. There is never a compromise peace where they win independence, but they are forced to give up the Union border states and Tennessee.

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this?

Hresvelgr,

There are tons of ACW cliches, but that isn't one of them. It's a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation instead.

Not surprisingly because it was an OTL aim of the CSA government, nearly all CSA Victory scenarios involve some sort of foreign recognition. That foreign recognition will involve France and France is the power who put Max on the throne, so any recognition of the CSA by France will undoubtedly involve some sort of quid pro quo.

Of course, an official CSA acceptance of Max doesn't mean there won't be unofficial efforts to help oust him or that Max will remain on the throne for long.

About the cliched landgrabs, you're correct in pointing to their size. However, given the South's enthusiasm for the Mexican American War, Central American and Caribbean filibusters, and fears of being shut out of the western territories by the US Federal government, I think it's safe to say that a CSA will definitely be "frisky" south and west of her borders.

Of course, just how frisky a CSA gets will depend on her relationship with the US and how much of a leash her European patrons allow her.


Bill

[Hapsburg]

I always thought the CSA victory and Mexican Empire victory bits were just a combination of things the writer wanted to see anyway, and just thought "Meh. Why not throw both in?"

But, politically, it makes sense if France is the guy to support and supply the CSA. They'd probably form a kind of allied bloc in the region. Maybe tie in the Central American republics and Spain too, with her pretty little Caribbean empire.

[Emperor Norton I]

There's a failure to take into account US relations with Russia (which would likely end up similar to relations between the CS, Britain and France), and via Russia, Prussia which occasionally irks me and I consider it a cliche since the South gets off scott free and gets allies in Europe while the North wallows and never takes advantage of its own allies and possible allies.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

There's a failure to take into account US relations with Russia (which would likely end up similar to relations between the CS, Britain and France), and via Russia, Prussia which occasionally irks me and I consider it a cliche since the South gets off scott free and gets allies in Europe while the North wallows and never takes advantage of its own allies and possible allies.

Very true, although the ability of Russia and Prussia to project force outside Europe before the balance of power is resettled to their advantage with German unification is limited.

[Emperor Norton I]

Russia may be somewhat limited, but is in 3rd place on the globe with France and Britain in Second and First, and would likely offer more raw power than those two to any conflict thus giving it an edge. Or, be a good ally post-war at least, which is never taken into account. Similarly, Prussia is a Hercules in the Cradle and will emerge in ensuing decades as a strong competitor and a good ally for the US (and the US will be its ally via Russia, who had good relations with Prussia in the latter 19th century).

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Russia may be somewhat limited, but is in 3rd place on the globe with France and Britain in Second and First, and would likely offer more raw power than those two to any conflict thus giving it an edge. Or, be a good ally post-war at least, which is never taken into account. Similarly, Prussia is a Hercules in the Cradle and will emerge in ensuing decades as a strong competitor and a good ally for the US (and the US will be its ally via Russia, who had good relations with Prussia in the latter 19th century).

Oh, the US becoming best buddies of Germany and/or Russia (depending on whether this butterflies away the Franco-Russian Entente or not, which in turn depends on Germany preferring the Russian alliance to the Austrian one) if Britain and/or France stick their nose in the ACW is an absolute given. This kills American isolationism for good, US diplomats shall be busy drafting alliance treaties in Berlin and/or St. Petersburg before the dust from ACW settles. Regardless of the ACW's outcome, the USA shall eventually claim revenge for this on France and Britain, they have just kissed their American possessions and chances of winning WWI away.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Regardless of the ACW's outcome, the USA shall eventually claim revenge for this on France and Britain, they have just kissed their American possessions and chances of winning WWI away.

At the time of the ACW Britain and France had no fear of the upstart Americans whose martial prowess was that of beating up savages and Mexicans. In contrast they had recently taken on a proper county in the form of Russia and defeated her in the Crimean War. Thus, if the Americans picked a fight with them, she was lining herself up for a damned good thrashing.

Instead of thinking of America as she has come to be, we should look at how she was perceived in many quarters even until WW2, namely a country whose arse would be easy to kick. We all know that it is wrong but people as late as the late Adolf Hitler did not take the USA seriously.

Thus any C19 European country who goes into an alliance with the USA as opposed to one of the Great Powers is probably rather desparate for friends.

[Alexandru H.]

Well, I hate most American Civil Wars scenarios... way too many...

But the thing I hate is making the Confederacy into some kind of centralized southern USA.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Alexandru H.

But the thing I hate is making the Confederacy into some kind of centralized southern USA.

Please, I cant believe Im saying this, but define Centralize
(I feel like a F***ing idiot now, wondering what Centralized means)

The most annoying ACW scenario is having Britain and France allying with the CSA

[catboy637]

The ever present cliche of the CSA always becoming a world power with Britan and France it's total allies and thye crush the now Fascist USA.

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

3. Maybe nowadays Texas is more advanced than large parts of Mexico, but I don't think it was the same in the 1860's. I don't think Texas's adult, male white population was large enough to form an army that could take all of Mexico north of the City itself on its own.

Actually, Texas of 1860 was a lot different from Texas of 1840.

During the Civil War, Texas contributed over 70,000 men to the Confederacy for example. They'd need some outside help to sustain a prolonged conflict mind you, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, an independent Texas beating Mexico during this time period.

That said, even I the self proclaimed Texas Nationalist, find it hard to see Texas leaving the Confederacy seemingly on a whim as it does during some of these TLs.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by lothaw

Actually, Texas of 1860 was a lot different from Texas of 1840.

During the Civil War, Texas contributed over 70,000 men to the Confederacy for example. They'd need some outside help to sustain a prolonged conflict mind you, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, an independent Texas beating Mexico during this time period.

That said, even I the self proclaimed Texas Nationalist, find it hard to see Texas leaving the Confederacy seemingly on a whim as it does during some of these TLs.

Beating Mexico: Plausible. Taking all the territory north of Mexico City and sometimes even more than that without suffering MASSIVE consequences? Eh...

Another cliche: However plausible it is, the whole idea of every TL ending up in a world with a CSA/Britain/France vs. USA/Germany/Russia set of power blocs is just so tired that I might just start personal vendettas against everyone who does it from this point onwards. Isn't the point of AH to look at new ideas and What Ifs than to repeat Turtledove?

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Beating Mexico: Plausible. Taking all the territory north of Mexico City and sometimes even more than that without suffering MASSIVE consequences? Eh...

WANTING all that territory... eh...

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Wanting territory and being able to take it are two different things. The whole Texas grabs half of Mexico deal or CSA taking the Caribbean are part of the big AH cliche I hate more than any other: arbitrary imperialism. People just hand over chunks of land to countries they like or to other places for dramatism to set up a big enemy, without any regard to plausibility, morality, etc. There is no question in most events as to how the colonized or conquered feel, or whether they could resist them. Oftentimes this shows an extreme lack of knowledge of the writer, for example, I've seen TLs in the early 1800's where Brazil just scoops up the whole of Paraguay despite the fact that for a long time their army was smaller. Only country-size is considered, sometimes not even that.

[lothaw]

I was saying why would Texas even want all that territory. Seems to me it'd bring a lot more problems than it's worth.

Same with the CS grabbing all of Central America.

Guess I could understand grabbing a land route to the Pacific for either one, but beyond that?

Grabbing large chunks of land with large cultural and lingusitic differences has always been a big problem for said country.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by Michael B

At the time of the ACW Britain and France had no fear of the upstart Americans whose martial prowess was that of beating up savages and Mexicans. In contrast they had recently taken on a proper county in the form of Russia and defeated her in the Crimean War. Thus, if the Americans picked a fight with them, she was lining herself up for a damned good thrashing.

Instead of thinking of America as she has come to be, we should look at how she was perceived in many quarters even until WW2, namely a country whose arse would be easy to kick. We all know that it is wrong but people as late as the late Adolf Hitler did not take the USA seriously.

Thus any C19 European country who goes into an alliance with the USA as opposed to one of the Great Powers is probably rather desparate for friends.

The British were actually persistently fearful of America. The US was viewed as a Hercule's in the cradle that could and was and had been challenging British authority and was evolving by leaps and bounds economically. I believe around this time it was the 4th most industrialized state, and would by the end of the century become the 1st.