Worst Civil War Alternate History

[TheRockofChickamauga]

I'm going to go ahead and suggest whatever train wreck of a series this appears to be. Without even having to read the books, I am almost certain they are Lost Cause or something close to it, with absolute no quality to it. I was pretty much tipped off to this fact when it said "Can President Davis and his heroic Generals Lee and Jackson save the union from Lincoln's rebellion?" I'm going to make another assumption here, and I'm going to say yes. The author probably ends it with Lincoln hanging from a sour apple tree. The strangest thing about it is that I found out about it from an advertisement in a Civil War magazine I'm subscribed to. You'd think they would filter out the wacko stuff like that.
If You Feel Inclined to Look at the Abomination

Honestly, if you dive deep enough into Amazon, or know where to look on Amazon, you can find a lot of self-published Civil War crap that probably deserves to never see the light of day.

 

[Jedi Dragon]

Most of the AH books I've read, I've found on Amazon. There's a virtually endless rabbit hole of garbage that shouldn't have been published, along with a few good ones here and there, which are all the more notable for being able to stand out. The collection Dixie Victorious, edited by George Tsouras, is kind of a mixed bag. Some of the scenarios are good, but a couple are really iffy, like the last one, where the South wins in 1864 and both countries remain broken and impoverished for years, which feels a bit excessive.

 

[sampleswift]

Never really liked "Guns of the South" by Turtledove, but that was supposed to be fanciful in the first place. Completely implausible scenario for me made it hard to go further. It's an ASB timeline, I know, but I thought this wasn't Turtledove's proudest moment.

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

Most of the AH books I've read, I've found on Amazon. There's a virtually endless rabbit hole of garbage that shouldn't have been published, along with a few good ones here and there, which are all the more notable for being able to stand out. The collection Dixie Victorious, edited by George Tsouras, is kind of a mixed bag. Some of the scenarios are good, but a couple are really iffy, like the last one, where the South wins in 1864 and both countries remain broken and impoverished for years, which feels a bit excessive.

Yeah, one of the scenarios that particularly stands out to be bad in my opinion is the one about Chickamauga where Longstreet takes command. Sure, Longstreet probably could have prosecuted Chickamauga better than Bragg, and sure he probably could have gotten in more casualties for the Union, but where it falls apart for me is when Tsouras decides that Longstreet, notorious for lacking the skill at independent command he showed in a subordinate role, is able to hold off the run of the Union's best generals, including Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan, etc. with an army whose high-command was notoriously known as back-biters and wary of outsiders. Not only is he able to hold out, but he is able to cause such a long waste of time that McClellan is able to win the presidency, and decides to end the war despite his pro-war sympathies. I just don't see that in either Longstreet or the heavily outnumbered Army of Tennessee being able to accomplish that. I think he probably just heard of enough Forrest fanboys saying "If only Bragg had let Forrest attack the Yankees after Chickamauga! He would have wiped out the lot of them!", and decided that a Chickamauga victory scenario was needed, even if it is unlikely.

At least in that essay, he goes into detail, and it seems he put effort in and had a good understanding what was going on, rather than a slapped together sloppy mess that many bad ACW Alt-Histories tend to be.

 

[edgeworthy]

Ins't be shot by a former USCT trooper while in a KKK hood? Something along those lines. And I'm not re-reading to check, I need all my remaining brain cells.

He's shot by a member of the alt-KKK for abolishing slavery. He decided to do this because of a rousing speech from an abolitionist. Really.

He's actually shot in the both the first two books. Somehow surviving being shot in the chest by a former Confederate Cabinet member in book one. Only to join the alt-Klan, the author neglects to even mention Nathan Bedford Forrest at all.

Any reviews of the other books you can point me to?

I do on occasion threaten to do a review of book two, only I don't hate myself enough to follow through with it. And I'm not sure I want to inflict it on everyone else. Believe it or not we have had members post trying to defend the Stars and Stripes Trilogy, quoting Harry Harrisons biographer in an attempt to portray it as a thought exercise in describing an idealised utopian United States.
This rapidly falls apart if you have in fact read the books where the author boasts of his research, and explicitly claims "Events, as depicted in this book, would have happened just as they are written here".

The death of Jefferson Davis is one of the examples of how atrocious the books are in their portrayals of historical figures. Its less characterisation and more character assassination, while he was never anything resembling open minded on matters of race, there is no evidence he had anything to do with the KKK. Certainly nothing to the extent of him wearing a white sheet and riding around at night.
The circumstances surrounding his death also make strange reading. The former USCT, although such did not exist at the time he claims to be a member ... a common failing, soldier is rescued from a potential lynching by the members of the Texas Brigade. Their presence as the local military garrison is explained by their being dispatched to maintain Internal Security by Judah Benjamin the "Secretary of the South" a position the author creates that seems to equate to that of Military Governor of the former Confederate States, as illustrated by his ability to issue orders directly to an Army unit, bypassing the President, the Secretary of War and the commanding general.
Secretary Benjamin explains the situation due to reasoning that defies belief. The Texas Brigade is chosen for the job as before the war Texas apparently had "Very few slaves and no Plantations", the author seems to think 30% of the population is very few!? The brigade's commander is said to be Braxton Bragg, he has a full General commanding a Brigade, who is also ideal as he is claimed to have never owned slaves, before the war he had a Plantation in Louisiana with over a hundred.

You would probably not even have to criticise the factual errors to condemn this book. Its probably possible to do so just on the grammar, structure, casual racism, advocation of ethnic cleansing, the attempts to justify slavery, internal contradictions and continuity errors.

Sorry about the rant.

 

[Jedi Dragon]

He's actually shot in the both the first two books. Somehow surviving being shot in the chest by a former Confederate Cabinet member in book one. Only to join the alt-Klan, the author neglects to even mention Nathan Bedford Forrest at all.

I do on occasion threaten to do a review of book two, only I don't hate myself enough to follow through with it. And I'm not sure I want to inflict it on everyone else. Believe it or not we have had members post trying to defend the Stars and Stripes Trilogy, quoting Harry Harrisons biographer in an attempt to portray it as a thought exercise in describing an idealised utopian United States.
This rapidly falls apart if you have in fact read the books where the author boasts of his research, and explicitly claims "Events, as depicted in this book, would have happened just as they are written here".

The death of Jefferson Davis is one of the examples of how atrocious the books are in their portrayals of historical figures. Its less characterisation and more character assassination, while he was never anything resembling open minded on matters of race, there is no evidence he had anything to do with the KKK. Certainly nothing to the extent of him wearing a white sheet and riding around at night.
The circumstances surrounding his death also make strange reading. The former USCT, although such did not exist at the time he claims to be a member ... a common failing, soldier is rescued from a potential lynching by the members of the Texas Brigade. Their presence as the local military garrison is explained by their being dispatched to maintain Internal Security by Judah Benjamin the "Secretary of the South" a position the author creates that seems to equate to that of Military Governor of the former Confederate States, as illustrated by his ability to issue orders directly to an Army unit, bypassing the President, the Secretary of War and the commanding general.
Secretary Benjamin explains the situation due to reasoning that defies belief. The Texas Brigade is chosen for the job as before the war Texas apparently had "Very few slaves and no Plantations", the author seems to think 30% of the population is very few!? The brigades commander is said to be Braxton Bragg, he has a full General commanding a Brigade, who is also ideal as he is claimed to have never own slaves, before the war he had a Plantation in Louisiana with over a hundred.

You would probably not even have to criticise the factual errors to condemn this book. Its probably possible to do so just on the grammar, structure, casual racism, advocation of ethnic cleansing, the attempts to justify slavery, internal contradictions and continuity errors.

Sorry about the rant.

I forgot exactly how Davis died, I apologize. Yes, the claim that Texas had very few slaves and no plantations is blatantly false. There may not have been as many plantations as in other states, but they certainly existed, mainly along the Gulf Coast. One of the factors behind the Texas Revolution was a fear that the Mexican government would enforce its laws against slavery in Texas, and that fear of abolition remained three decades later.

 

[Resurgam]

He's shot by a member of the alt-KKK for abolishing slavery. He decided to do this because of a rousing speech from an abolitionist. Really.

Why can't I stop laughing at this?

 

[Resurgam]

He's actually shot in the both the first two books. Somehow surviving being shot in the chest by a former Confederate Cabinet member in book one. Only to join the alt-Klan, the author neglects to even mention Nathan Bedford Forrest at all.

Or this?

I do on occasion threaten to do a review of book two, only I don't hate myself enough to follow through with it. And I'm not sure I want to inflict it on everyone else.

I for one would like to have this inflicted on me. Maybe I can inflict something from my wheelhouse in return?

 

[TastySpam]

Sadly no mention of my TL.

 

[Odinson]

Sadly no mention of my TL.

I was under the impression this thread was for published works on the American Civil War.
Sides, yours is one of the best timelines on the ACW on the site, it wouldn't belong in this thread.

As for worst, I'd say CSA: The Confederate States of America is the worst I've personally seen. A lot of its in-universe history makes no sense what so ever, including the 1960 Confederate election having the Republicans as the opposition party.

 

[Enigmajones]

CSA The Confederate States of America is my personal choice.

 

[frustrated progressive]

CSA The Confederate States of America is my personal choice.

Well, that wasn't trying to be serious AH.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

I forgot exactly how Davis died, I apologize. Yes, the claim that Texas had very few slaves and no plantations is blatantly false. There may not have been as many plantations as in other states, but they certainly existed, mainly along the Gulf Coast. One of the factors behind the Texas Revolution was a fear that the Mexican government would enforce its laws against slavery in Texas, and that fear of abolition remained three decades later.

For anyone in the African-American community, the idea being with few slaves and plantations in Texas is absolutely hilarious. Just mention the word "Juneteenth", 2 months after the surrender at Appomattox, and Lincoln's assassination:

Juneteenth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

I was under the impression this thread was for published works on the American Civil War.
Sides, yours is one of the best timelines on the ACW on the site, it wouldn't belong in this thread.

As for worst, I'd say CSA: The Confederate States of America is the worst I've personally seen. A lot of its in-universe history makes no sense what so ever, including the 1960 Confederate election having the Republicans as the opposition party.

Yeah, don’t they have William McKinley, a former Union soldier, as president of the CSA at one point?

 

[Odinson]

Yeah, don’t they have William McKinley, a former Union soldier, as president of the CSA at one point?

According to the movie's website (or in my case, I just checked Wikipedia) he was also assassinated by an abolitionist in 1901.

Except except for when they elect a member of the Fauntroy Family every few election cycles, it seems that all of the presidents post Jefferson Davis are OTL presidents.

I get that it's not "hard" alternate history, but still at least put in some minor effort

 

[PGSBHurricane]

According to the movie's website (or in my case, I just checked Wikipedia) he was also assassinated by an abolitionist in 1901.

Except except for when they elect a member of the Fauntroy Family every few election cycles, it seems that all of the presidents post Jefferson Davis are OTL presidents.

I get that it's not "hard" alternate history, but still at least put in some minor effort

My three main gripes with it are the CSA-Nazi Alliance, conquering the Americas (except Canada) and large parts of Asia, and there still somehow being slavery in the 21st century. The CSA-Germany Alliance itself isn’t bad (Assuming WW1 ends the same way) but there needs to be an actual explanation other than the fact they were racist regimes. Maybe we can see CSA relations with Britain and France break down or something? And whose to say Nazi Germany would even exist?

Second, the CSA was too poor to expand much beyond its OTL borders except maybe Kentucky and Missouri (hence thirteen stars on the Confederate flag) and maybe Oklahoma. Even the Golden Circle (awful as it was) had no plans to expand beyond the region surrounding the Caribbean Sea, unless I’m mistaken.

Lastly, yes the CSA constitution prevented the states or national government to abolish slavery but with the rise of oil and industrialization in Louisiana, Texas, and the Upper South (assuming it happens like OTL) will make slavery obsolete in those places by the early 1900s to the point it could be de facto abolished. Slavery wasn’t cheap and industrialization would make it look even more expensive. Even in the Deep South, the boll weevil of the 1920s and the Great Depression of the 1930s (assuming it still happens) would have a big roll in ending slavery.

Correct me at any point if I’m wrong but this is just my two cents on the film.

 

[Worffan101]

CSA was meant more as a satire than as a serious AH. I cut it some slack for that.

Stars and Stripes Forever, otoh, gets no such mercies from me.

 

[Resurgam]

CSA was meant as satire and as an exploration/expose of just how deep slavery and persecution of African-Americans has dug its claws into American history - and all you really need to do is look at the front page right now to see that the director had a point.

 

[Resurgam]

I'm going to go ahead and suggest whatever train wreck of a series this appears to be. Without even having to read the books, I am almost certain they are Lost Cause or something close to it, with absolute no quality to it. I was pretty much tipped off to this fact when it said "Can President Davis and his heroic Generals Lee and Jackson save the union from Lincoln's rebellion?" I'm going to make another assumption here, and I'm going to say yes. The author probably ends it with Lincoln hanging from a sour apple tree. The strangest thing about it is that I found out about it from an advertisement in a Civil War magazine I'm subscribed to. You'd think they would filter out the wacko stuff like that.
If You Feel Inclined to Look at the Abomination

Honestly, if you dive deep enough into Amazon, or know where to look on Amazon, you can find a lot of self-published Civil War crap that probably deserves to never see the light of day.

So... the gimmick is what if the Civil War but the North were the asshats?

That... actually could work. In competent hands.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

CSA was meant as satire and as an exploration/expose of just how deep slavery and persecution of African-Americans has dug its claws into American history - and all you really need to do is look at the front page right now to see that the director had a point.

The problem is that, from what I’ve seen, is that it was explicitly advertised as an Alt-history piece before its release and that the creators only started calling it a “satirical mockbuster” during/after its release.