Popular misconceptions about 19th century History

Lenwe · Nov 7, 2018

Damn @Tripledot , you post it before me. Just to give more weight to you point of deliverate massacre of the Californian Indian:

"On January 6, 1851 at his State of the State address to the California Senate, 1st Governor Peter Burnett used the following words: "That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected. While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert."

Clandango · Nov 7, 2018

Lenwe said:
Damn @Tripledot , you post it before me. Just to give more weight to you point of deliverate massacre of the Californian Indian:

"On January 6, 1851 at his State of the State address to the California Senate, 1st Governor Peter Burnett used the following words: "That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected. While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert."

Hell, in the 1890's we had L. Frank Baum advocating to murder ever last 'Redskin'. And he was in South Dakota.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...m-advocated-extermination-of-native-americans

Brunaburh · Nov 7, 2018

The Gunslinger said:
Before the decline there were probably 100,000+, after the decline they'd be lucky to have 1/10 that. Mexico in 1840 said there was 8,000 people in California and I doubt they ignored some 100,000 people.

There was an estimate which looks credible to me of 130k in 1770. That will have fallen more in the following 3/4 of a century. This was already post- the initial epidemics, so 80k-120k looks plausible.

The Gunslinger · Nov 7, 2018

Tripledot said:
According to this, estimates of California's pre-contact population set it at roughly 300,000. The 150,000 figure is for 1845, while it decreased to 100,000 by 1850.

I was somewhat off, but a decline from 150,000 to 50,000 (1845-55) matches the Comanche decline from 1840 to 1870. Wikipedia needs to remove the 8,000 figure for 1840 Mexico. I had assumed that there was more of a decline prior to 1850.

Ivoshafen · Nov 7, 2018

Well... this seems like it got roughly off track.

Mine would be the concept that the world was destined to be Anglophone in terms of international affairs, or that Britannia would always rule the waves, America would always stretch sea to shining sea, all of that. It was a few strokes of luck that history went that way, and it’s far from the midterm likely outcome for the era.

Gloss · Nov 7, 2018

Ivoshafen said:
Well... this seems like it got roughly off track.

Mine would be the concept that the world was destined to be Anglophone in terms of international affairs, or that Britannia would always rule the waves, America would always stretch sea to shining sea, all of that. It was a few strokes of luck that history went that way, and it’s far from the midterm likely outcome for the era.

Well starting from 1815 I'm not sure how the US would not reach the Pacific(even if just through Oregon-Washington) a fair amount of time or how the British would not be at least the most dominant power, what's the stroke of luck?

Brunaburh · Nov 7, 2018

Gloss said:
Well starting from 1815 I'm not sure how the US would not reach the Pacific(even if just through Oregon-Washington) a fair amount of time or how the British would not be at least the most dominant power, what's the stroke of luck?

US survival to 1900 is not inevitable with 1815 PODs. Balkanised US is probably the most likely result in many scenarios.

MrGreyOwl · Nov 7, 2018

Gloss said:
Well starting from 1815 I'm not sure how the US would not reach the Pacific(even if just through Oregon-Washington) a fair amount of time or how the British would not be at least the most dominant power, what's the stroke of luck?

Starting from 1815: different outcome of the Napoleonic wars could have seen France eclipsing Britain

A more devastating US Civil War could have ended up in completely broken up North America.

JJohnson · Nov 7, 2018

Popular misconceptions:
The Union is always going to win against the Confederacy
The CS would always devolve into an authoritarian state if it managed to win
The Union will fight a second or more wars to retake the Confederacy instead of just letting them go.
The CS would keep slavery or be racist well into the 20th century. (Virginia nearly abolished slavery in the 1830s)

Gloss · Nov 7, 2018

Brunaburh said:
US survival to 1900 is not inevitable with 1815 PODs. Balkanised US is probably the most likely result in many scenarios.

I don't see how and why that would be so likely.

MrGreyOwl said:
Starting from 1815: different outcome of the Napoleonic wars could have seen France eclipsing Britain

A more devastating US Civil War could have ended up in completely broken up North America.

By 1815 the war is over and the British dominance was being set in India in mere years.

Why do you think that would be likely as opposed to possible?

Veiovis · Nov 7, 2018

JJohnson said:
Popular misconceptions:
The Union is always going to win against the Confederacy
The CS would always devolve into an authoritarian state if it managed to win
The Union will fight a second or more wars to retake the Confederacy instead of just letting them go.
The CS would keep slavery or be racist well into the 20th century. (Virginia nearly abolished slavery in the 1830s)

dude,the union is racist even in the 21th century,and you think its plausible for the CS to stop being so in the 20th? utter nonsense.

and the CS can't devolve into an authorian state,because it starts as one. The southern US was made up of banana republics,and there are arguably still leftovers.

TRH · Nov 7, 2018

Veiovis said:
dude,the union is racist even in the 21th century,and you think its plausible for the CS to stop being so in the 20th? utter nonsense.

and the CS can't devolve into an authorian state,because it starts as one. The southern US was made up of banana republics,and there are arguably still leftovers.

As I said before, the South was authoritarian even before they seceded. Abolitionist newspapers weren't allowed, and Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states in 1860. It's one thing to believe they could have improved eventually (and as I've been saying, kind of outside the scope of this thread, which is supposed to be about OTL history), but IOTL, the CSA was undeniably authoritarian for its entire existence.

Anneessens · Nov 7, 2018

One popular misconception about the 19th century is that it started on January 1st, 1800

Another one might be the idea that support for and opposition to colonialism was clearly based on the political spectrum, the right being in favour.
Less knowledgeable people (*) would also probably assume that nationalism is and always has been a conservative, rightist thing. (* People in countries with important contemporary leftwing nationalist movements - eg. Catalonia - probably excepted.)

Walle Ras · Nov 7, 2018

TRH said:
As I said before, the South was authoritarian even before they seceded. Abolitionist newspapers weren't allowed, and Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states in 1860. It's one thing to believe they could have improved eventually (and as I've been saying, kind of outside the scope of this thread, which is supposed to be about OTL history), but IOTL, the CSA was undeniably authoritarian for its entire existence.

So every country that censors press in war time is authoritarian?

OH WAIT!

https://fee.org/articles/woodrow-wilson-made-the-world-unsafe-for-democracy/

I guess the U.S. is authoritarian...

cmakk1012 · Nov 7, 2018

JJohnson said:
Popular misconceptions:
The Union is always going to win against the Confederacy
The CS would always devolve into an authoritarian state if it managed to win
The Union will fight a second or more wars to retake the Confederacy instead of just letting them go.
The CS would keep slavery or be racist well into the 20th century. (Virginia nearly abolished slavery in the 1830s)

-Without foreign intervention or extreme political reluctance within the Union, well beyond anything seen IOTL, the Union will always win against the Confederacy.
-The CSA was already authoritarian as others have said.
-If the Confederacy broke free it’s almost certainly because of foreign interference so I agree with the US not attacking them again
-The South still has many, many racists today, and thinking that a nation founded based on the Cornerstone Speech’s ideals is going to embrace the black population is ludicrous

TRH · Nov 7, 2018

Walle Ras said:
So every country that censors press in war time is authoritarian?

OH WAIT!

https://fee.org/articles/woodrow-wilson-made-the-world-unsafe-for-democracy/

I guess the U.S. is authoritarian...

They censored the press in peacetime, too. Notice I mentioned all of that started before 1860?

Brunaburh · Nov 7, 2018

Gloss said:
I don't see how and why that would be so likely.

I think we are drifting back on topic somehow!

Myth: The inevitable survival of the US due to the unique wonder of its constitution* meant that even under the exceptional strain of deciding what to do about slavery** the US survived.

In fact, the US was simply lucky that it survived without serious challenge to a point where its stability was assured, it could have collapsed under British or French pressure, and was well led enough to avoid confronting either of these powers except for when one of them was literally fighting for its very life.

The survival of the US looks preordained OTL, however, all states are vulnerable to disintegration. Especially large young ones based on ideology which contain strong localised power bases. A catastrophic defeat in a war pushed by one geographical constituency would allow this. US losing New Orleans any time before 1840 puts US control of the whole of Trans-Mississippi in doubt. As well as Slaverland, a New England secession is possible, as is total Balkanisation and repudiation of the union. Some kind of Kantock state emerging is one of my favourite ATLs.

All kinds of state collapse occurred in Latin America to which the US could have succumbed.

*see recent midterms for debunking

**the abolition of which caused no other civil wars

Tordenskjold · Nov 7, 2018

A few of my “favorites”

- The American civil war was very closely fought and could have gone either way

- France was always destined play second fiddle to Britain and/or Germany in Europe

- Japan never became a colony due to its powerul WARRIOR SPIRIT

XFE · Nov 7, 2018

That Japanese WARRIOR SPIRIT was unique to Japan and not East Asia in general (though to a lesser degree, I'd think)
Japanese WARRIOR SPIRIT permeated Japanese society along all of its history through all social strata
Chinese technological stagnation was purely the fault of the Qing Dynasty
All European colonies were profitable ventures
Prussian discipline and rigidness was the determining factor in Hohenzollern prominence.
National stereotypes in general are all invariably true and determine the fate of countries.

JJohnson · Nov 8, 2018

Walle Ras said:
So every country that censors press in war time is authoritarian?

OH WAIT!

https://fee.org/articles/woodrow-wilson-made-the-world-unsafe-for-democracy/

I guess the U.S. is authoritarian...

President Lincoln is cited as shutting down newspapers during the war, along with jailing political opponents and journalists, and suspending habeas corpus. That also sounds authoritarian to me.