Status
Not open for further replies.
The comment about Sw
I also like that the CSA and USA are having better relations as of 2013. The trope of "The CSA and USA will always hate each other for decades and decades no matter what" flies in the face of how international relations works historically. The two countries have a lot in common, so it stands to reason that as soon as the bad blood over the GAW subsides (time heals all wounds after all) that they'd be if not BFFs then at least cordial.
I'm actually the other way around on this. The fact that this was viewed as a breakthrough in 2015 (the 100th would have been in 2015, not 2013) on the 100th indicates that USA/CSA relations have been hostile longer than *any* of the oppositions of WWI in Europe. Yes, I realize that WWII overlays that, but (to pick an example), Italy and Austria would have commemorated the Battles of Isonzo in 1965-1967 without much of a problem.

By the standards of WWI & the US Civil War, a good turnout of US Leaders at Hilton Head in 1965 would be expected and 1990 would have been "boring" with the number of sailors from each side down to a handful (a sailor who was 18 in 1915, would be 93 in 1990)
 
The comment about Sw

I'm actually the other way around on this. The fact that this was viewed as a breakthrough in 2015 (the 100th would have been in 2015, not 2013) on the 100th indicates that USA/CSA relations have been hostile longer than *any* of the oppositions of WWI in Europe. Yes, I realize that WWII overlays that, but (to pick an example), Italy and Austria would have commemorated the Battles of Isonzo in 1965-1967 without much of a problem.

By the standards of WWI & the US Civil War, a good turnout of US Leaders at Hilton Head in 1965 would be expected and 1990 would have been "boring" with the number of sailors from each side down to a handful (a sailor who was 18 in 1915, would be 93 in 1990)
There’ll be year-specific reasons for this; relations will ebb and flow and happen to be at nadirs coincidentally in 65/90
 
I'll probably create the thread so there's a spot to land on after I request this get moved to "Finished" but every time I wrap a writing project I try to take a few days off at least to clear my head and pat myself on the back, lol

Finished Timelines and Scenarios is essentially just "reader mode" in its own sub forum. Im pretty sure you have to create the thread there yourself.
 
A few points.
1) Having Confederate Politics reflect Long so that the *more* Religious part of the political spectrum is more hostile to raw Capitalism is closer to what Latin American politics is.
2) Could the confederate central government end up so weak (beyond immediate post war) that the Union ends up doing the equivalent of Pancho Villa expedition into the CSA?
3) So a 60th anniversary event in 1975 might see more attendance.
 
A few points.
1) Having Confederate Politics reflect Long so that the *more* Religious part of the political spectrum is more hostile to raw Capitalism is closer to what Latin American politics is.
2) Could the confederate central government end up so weak (beyond immediate post war) that the Union ends up doing the equivalent of Pancho Villa expedition into the CSA?
3) So a 60th anniversary event in 1975 might see more attendance.
LatAm is, indeed, the inspiration - so you’d definitely see that

As for Pancho Villa-ing the CSA… maybe. It’s not a bad idea, certainly
 
2) Could the confederate central government end up so weak (beyond immediate post war) that the Union ends up doing the equivalent of Pancho Villa expedition into the CSA?

As for Pancho Villa-ing the CSA… maybe. It’s not a bad idea, certainly

Could be another reason why Texas goes independent. No help from the central government when Panco Villa invades so they take matters into their own hands.
I mean, if the 1920s is a Confederate Civil War,...it could explain a Huey Long rise of Louisiana is on the border of a "hostile" - especialy is the Confederacy and Texas relations are not that good when he gets elected - so "hostile" power.

Ah, well, nvm then. Good to know
Yeah,
if you want a commentless thread, put your stuff in there, but make sure this one is locked. so to speak
 
I wonder how this TL's modern day Confederacy will confront the legacy of slavery? Not only has the institution continued 50 years beyond OTL, but is the foremost justification for the Confederacy's existence as a sovereign state (and a very explicit one at that). How will future generations of young Southrons (?) react as social progress accelerates in the rest of the world? I could see the nation facing an existential crisis in the latter half of the 20th century.
 
Could be another reason why Texas goes independent. No help from the central government when Panco Villa invades so they take matters into their own hands.
I mean, if the 1920s is a Confederate Civil War,...it could explain a Huey Long rise of Louisiana is on the border of a "hostile" - especialy is the Confederacy and Texas relations are not that good when he gets elected - so "hostile" power.


Yeah,
if you want a commentless thread, put your stuff in there, but make sure this one is locked. so to speak
I don't think that KingSweden24 has said whether or not Texas leaves before or after the USA occupation troops leave. I'm thinking before. (Possibly as early as before the final peace treaty is signed). Though Long having to deal with a Texas secession could enable him to Federalize the CSA much more effectively. (and would be a good way for him to hate Standard Oil iTTL as well!
 
I wonder how this TL's modern day Confederacy will confront the legacy of slavery? Not only has the institution continued 50 years beyond OTL, but is the foremost justification for the Confederacy's existence as a sovereign state (and a very explicit one at that). How will future generations of young Southrons (?) react as social progress accelerates in the rest of the world? I could see the nation facing an existential crisis in the latter half of the 20th century.

I mean, the existential crisis is already looming - meet, I believe, the 1920s and 1930s. But the nation already has 50 years of independence, and a Union that is unwilling to bring them back into the fold (smart on the Union's part). So I believe the answer is some combination if anti-Yankeeism (whatever the Union is doing is the opposite of what we do), white supremacy (sadly, the same bent they took in OTL) and potentially yeoman populism (the Yankees are run by the bankers and captains of industry. We're a true White Man's Republic, who kicked the planters to the curb and are now the Republic that was envisioned by Jeferson and the founders! Ave Long!) Once the Civil Right's movement picks up in, say, the 1970s, 80s and 90s, there will be another eistetial crisis. But it will be helped by the fact that at that point the Confederacy has been independent so long it has its own internal inertia and isn't going to vanish from the face of the earth. Even if they have their own Nelson Mandella figure!
 
Last edited:
I wonder how this TL's modern day Confederacy will confront the legacy of slavery? Not only has the institution continued 50 years beyond OTL, but is the foremost justification for the Confederacy's existence as a sovereign state (and a very explicit one at that). How will future generations of young Southrons (?) react as social progress accelerates in the rest of the world? I could see the nation facing an existential crisis in the latter half of the 20th century.
It’ll be… difficult, to say the least
Novum Eboracum delende est!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not an accidental comparison - the pre-Harper PCs, even with the more neoliberal/Reaganesque Mulroney in charge, read VERY much like Rockefeller Republicans even moreso than “wet” British Tories
I mean, the existential crisis is already looming - meet, I believe, the 1920s and 1930s. But the nation already has 50 years of independence, and a Union that is unwilling to bring them back into the fold (smart on the Union's part). So I believe the answer is some combination if anti-Yankeeism (whatever the Union is doing is the opposite of what we do), white supremacy (sadly, the same bend they took in OTL) and potentially yeoman populism (the Yankees are run by the bankers and campains of industry. We're a true White Man's Republic, who kicked the planters to the curb and are not the Republic that was envisioned by Jeferson and the founders! Ave Long!) Once the Civil Right's movement picks up in, say, the 1970s, 80s and 90s, there will be another eistetial crisis. But it will be helped by the fact that at that point the Confederacy has been independent so long it has its own internal inertia and isn't going to vanish from the face of the earth. Even if they have their own Nelson Mandella figure!
Resisting the obvious temptation of MLK = Mandela
 
Resisting the obvious temptation of MLK = Mandela
Would be more interesting if a more radical strain than MLK's nonviolence was the main black Civil rights ideology.

Elijah Muhammad was born in Georgia, as was Malcolm X's father. Having one/both or someone in that vein be the one instead of MLK could be interesting.
 
Would be more interesting if a more radical strain than MLK's nonviolence was the main black Civil rights ideology.

Eh, I'd argue against seeing MLK's non-violence as nonradical. Indeed, in so far as it goes against natural human tendencies, its probably far more radical than more violent ideologies. Its important to seperate what MLK was actually saying, and doing(!), and the watered down version of wuch that was spoonfed us in elementary school (and trust me, i was oh so there when i was younger.)

I could, however, see something akin to Liberation Theology taking off amongst the African-American Southron population here. Which, in and of itself, could be rather fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Honestly? MLK is a bit too obvious. I'd suggest someone like John Lewis or Jesse Jackson, honestly. And of those two, I'd lean more towards Lewis.
WAY too obvious. Hence why I’m resisting!

(Jackson being a titan of history rather than that guy who ran in some primaries is more interesting anyways)
Eh, I'd argue against seeing MLK's non-violence as nonradical. Indeed, in so far as it goes against natural human tendencies, its probably far more radical than more violent ideologies. Its important to seperate what MLK was actually saying, and not the watered down version that was spoonfed us in elementary school (and trust me, i was oh so there when i was younger.)

I could, however, see something akin to Liberation Theology taking off amongst the African-American Southron population here. Which, in and of itself, could be rather fascinating.
Would fit the Latin American vibe, certainly. Deep Fried Tridenism, perhaps?
 
WAY too obvious. Hence why I’m resisting!

(Jackson being a titan of history rather than that guy who ran in some primaries is more interesting anyways)

It's an interesting change of history, for sure. And it leads into Jesse Jackson Jr as a potential successor, which plays into the machine-based politics of the CSA you've set up (and the corruption ride therein)

Would fit the Latin American vibe, certainly. Deep Fried Tridenism, perhaps?

Does kinda fit a few ideas we've discussed in the past :)
 
wikipedia.en - Battle of Nashville
The Battle of Nashville was a major military engagement of the Great American War, fought between July 1914 and May 1915 in the Midlands Theater. Also known as the Siege of Nashville and in some select historiography as The Graveyard of the Old Confederacy, it is widely regarded as the pivotal campaign of the conflict in the Midlands Theater and perhaps the entire war. The battle was typified by gradually encroaching United States offensives against the greater Nashville area in the Cumberland Valley of central Tennessee, contested against a major Confederate force in defense along with support from Mexican divisions; as such, the battle was defined by grueling trench warfare and the use of novel weapons such as aerial attacks, chemical warfare via phosphene gas attacks, and the deployment of rudimentary landships and flamethrowers for trench clearance. It was a decisive American victory which effectively ended the Confederate defense of central and western Tennessee and is regarded as breaking the back of the Confederate war effort.

Following the Confederate retreat from central Kentucky in May and June of 1914, the key railroad and manufacturing center of Nashville became the focus of all offensive and defensive operations in the Midlands. The fighting is generally broken up into three phases; the first was engaged along the Outer Line of defenses stretching from the Donelson-Henry fortress complex in northwestern Tennessee between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers to Glasgow, Kentucky, a period running approximately from July to November, when the Outer Line of trenches was largely abandoned in favor of the Inner Line, located entirely in Tennessee behind the Cumberland River and along the Highland Rim of forested hills and elevated terrain forming a rough semicircle around the industrialized Nashville Basin. The United States initially appeared to make genuine progress in the closing months of 1914, but in February 1915 a counteroffensive on the Cumberland drove the United States back across the river to the proximity of Clarksville, with heavy casualties at the same time that a potential threat from the Memphis area to Confederate lines was defeated. This set the stage for the third and final phase of the ten-month battle, in which American efforts were reconcentrated with a campaign of attrition at a weak point in the Inner Line around Gallatin along with aerial terror bombing of Nashville itself having already begun in December against industrial and civilian targets. A breakthrough on this point was achieved by General Michael Lenihan's 2nd Army in late April and on May 1st he crossed the Cumberland River in the direction of Lebanon, successfully pulling several divisions of Confederate defenders east; exhausted, much of the remaining defenses collapsed on May 5th (the same day as the decisive naval defeat at Hilton Head) and American forces successfully secured Nashville after seven days of vicious urban fighting that destroyed much of what was left of the city.

The battle was one of the bloodiest of the war; roughly a tenth of Confederate war dead and sixth of total aggregated casualties were realized there, while one in five of every casualty sustained by the United States occurred in the Nashville Campaign. Much like at the Susquehanna and the Potomac, the importance of artillery and machine guns for defensive purposes were proven again, though the gapingly disproportionate American casualties of previous battles were not as obvious here and it was the first genuinely decisive defeat in terms of personnel killed or wounded for the CSA. The violence of the fighting, particularly atrocities against a large city's civilian population to break the defenses, became notorious and were a preview for further battles in Tennessee and Georgia over the following year and a half, particularly the Sack of Atlanta.


1679371085511.png
 
It's an interesting change of history, for sure. And it leads into Jesse Jackson Jr as a potential successor, which plays into the machine-based politics of the CSA you've set up (and the corruption ride therein)



Does kinda fit a few ideas we've discussed in the past :)
Jesse Jackson Jr. as a Southern Fried Jacob Zuma is possibly the most blursed idea I've ever seen bandied about on this site lol. Not saying I'm going to do it, because it might make the South Africa motif way too on the nose, but it would suit my oeuvre very well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top