Why do you like a Confederate victory?

[usertron2020]

<snip>But it appears to be overlooked by those who so relish the concept of a rebel victory...as it does for those who equally relish that of an Axis one.

Best,

I wish to point out that there are sometimes reasons those who relish a Confederate victory that have nothing to do with White Supremacy or Lost Causer ideology[1], just as the Holocaust and Naziism isn't what all fans of Axis victory are about[2].

1] The subsequent expected dissolution of the American Evil Empire (in the crib), while other nations' empires last forever and ever

2] Nationalist glorification of the Axis empires of Germany and Japan, while turning two blind eyes to what they really were

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, but ...

I wish to point out that there are sometimes reasons those who relish a Confederate victory that have nothing to do with White Supremacy or Lost Causer ideology[1], just as the Holocaust and Naziism isn't what all fans of Axis victory are about[2].

1] The subsequent expected dissolution of the American Evil Empire (in the crib), while other nations' empire last forever and ever

2] Nationalist glorification of the Axis empires of Germany and Japan, while turning two blind eyes to what they really were

Yeah, but ...



There's a duck named Occam somewhere...

Best,

 

[Fiver]

A Confederacy Victory means that they get to set the terms, and one of them would be to guarantee the right of every state to break away if they so wished.

The Confederacy only gets to set the terms if they are holding the US government at gunpoint. The Confederacy would never insist on a specific guarantee to the right of secession for the same reason they didn't put one in their Constitution - because it would be and admission their secession was illegal.

 

[Fiver]

Those Confederates really were big on self-determination all right.

Unless you were black. Or lived in a slaveholding state that didn't secede. Or in the US territories of Kansas, Arizona, and Colorado.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I would. How far back in time are you going and what are your parameters for what constitutes a capitalist state? And by what means are these killings occurring?

Also, which forms of "killing" are we counting? Killing people specifically for the sake of advancing capitalism? Killing their own citizens for whatever reason? Killing anybody, including enemy soldiers during times of war?

"Coercive racial oppression" is horrible; it is not, however, slavery.

And slavery, whilst more horrible than coercive racial oppression, is not the same as war.

At any rate, the realities of that war, the short one from 1861-65 and the long one from the Seventeenth Century to the Nineteenth are plain to anyone who bothers to look; those who revel in the grognardish details, much less those who think of the conflict as some sort of intellectual Disneyland, but without recognizing the realities that the rebellion was, at center, over the "right" to kidnap men, women, and children and sell them as livestock, make clear their beliefs.

As I said earlier, it is tragic enough that any Americans think of the realities of the antebellum era and the war as some sort of moonlight and magnolias entertainment at best and something else entirely at worst; that some Europeans do as well is particularly illuminating, given the continent's recent history.

"Coercive racial oppression" is horrible; it is not, however, slavery. As has been said, in 1861, children and adults could be legally sold in much of the United States; in 1865, they could not.

That reality seems worth considering in the balance of the 1861-65 conflict, and of the previous centuries' worth of violent resistance.

Without invoking Godwin, there is certainly a parallel with 1939, and 1945, which one would think might come to mind - especially to Europeans and Americans.

But it appears to be overlooked by those who so relish the concept of a rebel victory...as it does for those who equally relish that of an Axis one.

Best,

Yes, Smith, the only reason people don't accept your unilateral redefinition of a common English word is that they're racist. Obviously.

 

[zoomar]

One could ask the victims, of course... many of them saw it that way:


For African Americans, war commenced not in 1861, but in 1661, when the Virginia Colony began passing America’s first black codes...

I think you are using uneeded hyperdole to make oppression and war equivalent. By your logic, as long as there is oppression there is war. Since there has always oppression in all human societies, this confuses the very real distinction between peace and war.

I don't deny that traditional American history always looked at the American Civil War from the perspective of the white ruling/dominant classes in both the USA and Confederacy. Even for northern abolitionists, the black slaves were inactive participants to be freed -objects - not subjects whose own perspective mattered.

And that is in fact the way the entire "civilized" world saw the conflict. For Britain, France, Mexicans, Native Americans, and others, the Civil War was between white Americans who differed on key cultural, economic, and political issues. Chattel slavery was the key reason for the war but there were others. There are plenty of legitimate (and not inherently immoral) reasons Mexicans, American Indians, Britons and other Europeans might welcome the dissolution of the United States through a Confederate victory that have nothing to do with desiring a continuation of its slaveocracy. In fact, among those people today who believe national secessionist movements should be seen as a good thing, a successful Southern secession in 1861-65 would remove one of the main reasons many people (Americans largely) see it as inherently wrong and treasonable.

This probably sounds insensitive, but sometimes an overemphasis on seeing history through the lens of disfranchised and oppressed peoples obsures the unfortunate fact that their experiences often did not matter in the sense of having any substantive effect on the broad course of history. It was, and always will be, the powerful and influential who do this. And in the western world throughout the 19th century that meant rich, educated, politically astute, white people.

 

[Seleucus]

This probably sounds insensitive, but sometimes an overemphasis on seeing history through the lens of disfranchised and oppressed peoples obsures the unfortunate fact that their experiences often did not matter in the sense of having any substantive effect on the broad course of history. It was, and always will be, the powerful and influential who do this. And in the western world throughout the 19th century that meant rich, educated, politically astute, white people.

On the other hand, their lack of influence on the broad course of history, as you put it, is certainly an influence in itself.

If a ASB plague killed off 100% of the United States white population in 1870, they would no longer have any substantive effect on the broad course of history, being all dead. Their newfound lack of influence, however, is also an influence.

 

[zoomar]

On the other hand, their lack of influence on the broad course of history, as you put it, is certainly an influence in itself.

If a ASB plague killed off 100% of the United States white population in 1870, they would no longer have any substantive effect on the broad course of history, being all dead. Their newfound lack of influence, however, is also an influence.

I can agree with your point from a philosophical perspective, but since actual (not ASB) history does not arbitarily eliminate the rich and powerful from the equation, I also see it as largely irrelevant to understanding why history occurred as it actually occurred...or for that matter how it realistically could have occured. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the perspectives and experiences of each person had equal influence on how our societies evolved over the last 10,000 years. Maybe, I guess. It would certainly make our societies different, that's for sure. It would also be great if we could all flap our wings and fly.

 

[Indigo]

Frankly, Confederate victories appear almost exclusive in TLs with a civil war POD(where it falls under the common AH flaw of almost no one ever making the winning side be more victorious) whereas in U.S. TLs with PODs before that, it's much less frequently butterflied in. This says something about how much people like it as just an alternative. A Confederate victory is implausible and frankly rather horrifying in the consequences, but it's largely popular to write about because it's takes more imagination to try to avert the trope cleverly than to play into it. I'm working on my own "antislavery more successful" tl, and it's largely uncharted territory in terms of how to have an interestingly different U.S. as a result.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not my redefinition; I included two quotes and a link

Also, which forms of "killing" are we counting? Killing people specifically for the sake of advancing capitalism? Killing their own citizens for whatever reason? Killing anybody, including enemy soldiers during times of war?



And slavery, whilst more horrible than coercive racial oppression, is not the same as war.



Yes, Smith, the only reason people don't accept your unilateral redefinition of a common English word is that they're racist. Obviously.

Not my redefinition, per se, although I certainly agree with it. Perspective is a useful thing for any scholar, and the understanding that American slavery was an undeclared war against the enslaved is foundational to the resistance interpretation. Someone can chose to disagree, but it is akin to trying to study the Holocaust and the Second World War in Europe absent the realities of Nazi Germany when it came to the impact on Nazism's victims.

But the grog nerds cannot be denied.

It's just what they are so enthused about that one has to wonder sometimes...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Yes and no - 200,000 men in uniform are not "objects"

I think you are using uneeded hyperdole to make oppression and war equivalent. By your logic, as long as there is oppression there is war. Since there has always oppression in all human societies, this confuses the very real distinction between peace and war.

I don't deny that traditional American history always looked at the American Civil War from the perspective of the white ruling/dominant classes in both the USA and Confederacy. Even for northern abolitionists, the black slaves were inactive participants to be freed -objects - not subjects whose own perspective mattered.

And that is in fact the way the entire "civilized" world saw the conflict. For Britain, France, Mexicans, Native Americans, and others, the Civil War was between white Americans who differed on key cultural, economic, and political issues. Chattel slavery was the key reason for the war but there were others. There are plenty of legitimate (and not inherently immoral) reasons Mexicans, American Indians, Britons and other Europeans might welcome the dissolution of the United States through a Confederate victory that have nothing to do with desiring a continuation of its slaveocracy. In fact, among those people today who believe national secessionist movements should be seen as a good thing, a successful Southern secession in 1861-65 would remove one of the main reasons many people (Americans largely) see it as inherently wrong and treasonable.

This probably sounds insensitive, but sometimes an overemphasis on seeing history through the lens of disfranchised and oppressed peoples obsures the unfortunate fact that their experiences often did not matter in the sense of having any substantive effect on the broad course of history. It was, and always will be, the powerful and influential who do this. And in the western world throughout the 19th century that meant rich, educated, politically astute, white people.

Yes and no - 200,000 men in uniform were not "objects" and denying the agency of men and women of African ancestry has long been a favorite tactic of Lost Cause types and their sympathizers.....

Best,

 

[Johnrankins]

Not my redefinition, per se, although I certainly agree with it. Perspective is a useful thing for any scholar, and the understanding that American slavery was an undeclared war against the enslaved is foundational to the resistance interpretation. Someone can chose to disagree, but it is akin to trying to study the Holacaust and the Second World War in Europe absent the realities of Nazi Germany when it came to the impact on Nazism's victims.

But the grog nerds cannot be denied.

It's just what they are so enthused about that one has to wonder sometimes...

Best,

Yes, but what you are doing is the equivalent of going back to the 18th century for Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. If you want to include Russian Empire and Chinese Empire deaths as "Communist ones" it is fine with me. It is as relevant as 18th century deaths are for capitalists.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Not my redefinition, per se, although I certainly agree with it. Perspective is a useful thing for any scholar, and the understanding that American slavery was an undeclared war against the enslaved is foundational to the resistance interpretation. Someone can chose to disagree, but it is akin to trying to study the Holacaust and the Second World War in Europe absent the realities of Nazi Germany when it came to the impact on Nazism's victims.

But the grog nerds cannot be denied.

It's just what they are so enthused about that one has to wonder sometimes...

Best,

Who are these "grog nerds", exactly? You keep talking about them, but never seem to provide any examples of people actually defending the Confederacy.

Also, perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly rejecting your bizarre assertion that the American Civil War started in the seventeenth century is "akin to trying to study the Holacaust and the Second World War in Europe absent the realities of Nazi Germany when it came to the impact on Nazism's victims," because I just don't see it.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I think the discussion is getting a little too far away from the OP.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I think what is often most annoying in ACW TL's is the fact that they tend to only focus on the ACW in the context of it following the exact same history of OTL's with the outbreak of war at Fort Sumter, Lincolns election, the battle fronts going along the same lines, ect.

What is far more interesting (to me at least) is a POD before the war (because butterflying away the war or some sort of conflict in and of itself is rather difficult with how American society was stratified at the time of Independence and thanks to the entrenched political power of the slavocrats) which creates a war totally different from the one we know. The war could see fewer states secede, more states secede, hell the US might even bungle its way into a foreign war in order to cause some national unity!

There's so many possibilities people seem to ignore!

 

[usertron2020]

Yeah, but ...

There's a duck named Occam somewhere...

Best,

Simplest explanation doesn't mean ONLY when dealing with a large population base of AH members.

The Confederacy only gets to set the terms if they are holding the US government at gunpoint. The Confederacy would never insist on a specific guarantee to the right of secession for the same reason they didn't put one in their Constitution - because it would be and admission their secession was illegal.

Also, if the CSA enshrines secession as legal within the CSA, how do they justify their invasions of New Mexico and West Virginia?

Unless you were black. Or lived in a slaveholding state that didn't secede. Or in the US territories of Kansas, Arizona, and Colorado.

Kansas was a state by this time, pretty sure.

I think you are using uneeded hyperdole <snip>.

That's the silliest...oh. Ninja'd by TFSmith121

And its hyperbole

usertron2020 in spelling cat mode

I think what is often most annoying in ACW TL's is the fact that they tend to only focus on the ACW in the context of it following the exact same history of OTL's with the outbreak of war at Fort Sumter, Lincolns election, the battle fronts going along the same lines, ect.

What is far more interesting (to me at least) is a POD before the war (because butterflying away the war or some sort of conflict in and of itself is rather difficult with how American society was stratified at the time of Independence and thanks to the entrenched political power of the slavocrats) which creates a war totally different from the one we know. The war could see fewer states secede, more states secede, hell the US might even bungle its way into a foreign war in order to cause some national unity!

There's so many possibilities people seem to ignore!

People write what they know, so there is a natural tendency to stick to that, by having an ATL with a POD relatively recent from the storyline. Do a story starting in 1950 in which the CSA survives and you either have an unrecognizable Alice-though-the-Looking-Glass subreality, or else a largely artificial framework where the world is largely unchanged save where the author wishes to go. One reason why I think Turtledove kept going for non-historical but descended from historical persons (Jeb Stuart Jr, Jeb Stuart III, Jeb Stuart IV, Jeb Stuart MMMDCCXCIII) was his desire to keep things "real" for his readership.

 

[TFSmith121]

Um, not really...

Yes, but what you are doing is the equivalent of going back to the 18th century for Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. If you want to include Russian Empire and Chinese Empire deaths as "Communist ones" it is fine with me. It is as relevant as 18th century deaths are for capitalists.

Um, not really... the point is that slavery stems from war. The enslaved were rendered into that position by warfare, and they and their descendents were kept there by what amounted to a decades-long low intensity conflict.

If you've read anything about American slavery, this is not controversial, as witness Baptist, Johnson, Stephanie Camp, Genovese, McCurry, Gutman, and Thavolia Glymph.

Ira Berlin's Generations of Captivity is excellent; Stephanie Camp's Closer to Freedom is well worth reading, as well.

It is basically a frame that asks the reader to recognized what is really being spoken of when one talks of "slavery." The phrase "plantation agriculture" conjurs up one picture - "slave labor camp" something else entirely, but the realities for the "targets" of the conflict was pretty close to the same thing.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

It doesn't take much effort to find them, actually...

Who are these "grog nerds", exactly? You keep talking about them, but never seem to provide any examples of people actually defending the Confederacy.

Also, perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly rejecting your bizarre assertion that the American Civil War started in the seventeenth century is "akin to trying to study the Holacaust and the Second World War in Europe absent the realities of Nazi Germany when it came to the impact on Nazism's victims," because I just don't see it.

It doesn't take much effort to find them, actually... read just about any "confederacy triumphant" work and they show up.

Again, the point is that slavery stems from war. The enslaved were rendered into that position by warfare, and they and their descendents were kept there by what amounted to a decades-long low intensity conflict.

If you've read anything about American slavery, this is not controversial, as witness Baptist, Johnson, Stephanie Camp, Genovese, McCurry, Gutman, and Thavolia Glymph.

Ira Berlin's Generations of Captivity is excellent; Stephanie Camp's Closer to Freedom is well worth reading, as well.

It is basically a frame that asks the reader to recognized what is really being spoken of when one talks of "slavery." The phrase "plantation agriculture" conjurs up one picture - "slave labor camp" something else entirely, but the realities for the "targets" of the conflict was pretty close to the same thing.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

It was my lunch break...

oh. Ninja'd by TFSmith121

People write what they know, so there is a natural tendency to stick to that, by having an ATL with a POD relatively recent from the storyline. Do a story starting in 1950 in which the CSA survives and you either have an unrecognizable Alice-though-the-Looking-Glass subreality, or else a largely artificial framework where the w0orld is largely unchanged save where the author wishes to go. One reason why I think Turtledove kept going for non-historical but descended from historical persons (Jeb Stuart Jr, Jeb Stuart III, Jeb Stuart IV, Jeb Stuart MMMDCCXCIII) was his desire to keep things "real" for his readership.

I thought some sort of weird EB White/Turtledove "Jeb Stuart Little" mashup was coming...

Little hi, little low...

Best,

 

[usertron2020]

It doesn't take much effort to find them, actually... read just about any "confederacy triumphant" work and they show up.

Again, the point is that slavery stems from war. The enslaved were rendered into that position by warfare, and they and their descendents were kept there by what amounted to a decades-long low intensity conflict.

If you've read anything about American slavery, this is not controversial, as witness Baptist, Johnson, Stephanie Camp, Genovese, McCurry, Gutman, and Thavolia Glymph.

Ira Berlin's Generations of Captivity is excellent; Stephanie Camp's Closer to Freedom is well worth reading, as well.

It is basically a frame that asks the reader to recognized what is really being spoken of when one talks of "slavery." The phrase "plantation agriculture" conjurs up one picture - "slave labor camp" something else entirely, but the realities for the "targets" of the conflict was pretty close to the same thing.

Best,

The war over Slavery started with the first raids on the West African coastline by the Spaniards and Portuguese in the 15th century. The West Africans certainly felt like they were in a war. The war ended by-and-large with Brazil's abolition of the foul practice four hundred years later.

Jeb Stuart mashup??