The Butterfly Century

Welcome. This TL, titled The Butterfly Century, will explore a Confederate States of America that “won” the Civil War. However, and before we go any farther, I would like to say that this will not be a TL-191 CSA-becomes-a-world-power story. However, the outcome might surprise you, as the butterflies from this war will spread around the globe. In the first part of TL, we will mainly deal with North and Central America, with glimpses of the outside world starting in the 1880’s. With WW1, we will shift our focus away from just North America to cover events all around the globe. The Century part of the title is so because this TL will roughly cover the years 1860-1960, with glimpses into the later years to present day. But first, let’s take a look at how this whole thing started:
The 1860 presidential election was perhaps one of the most predictable elections in the history of the United States. William Seward, an old Senator with a favorable reputation and lots of experience, was deemed best able to handle the pressing problems facing the nation. Thanks to the backing of the influential Thurlow Weed, Seward handily won the Republican presidential nomination against his rivals, men such as Salmon Chase and an little-known Illinois lawyer, Abraham Lincoln. The Southern States, weary of his anti-slavery rhetoric, finally decided to secede from the Union on April 4, 1861, with the capture of Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Besides South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas eventually withdrew from the Union. The war dragged on for two years, as the ineffective McLellan was constantly humiliated in battle by the ingenious Robert E. Lee. Lee, realizing that the Union would win in a prolonged war and that he had won a nearly uncontested string of victories in the East, pushed up in a final attack upon Union soil. As Confederate troops approached Gettysburg, Seward panicked, forcing a Surrender of all Union Troops on June 30, 1863. Davis, president of the Confederacy, met with Seward in Washington to discuss the peace treaty, which can only be described as draconian. The US was to surrender Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona and New Mexico to the CSA. Seward, feeling trapped, signed the agreement. The American Civil War was over.
 
Alright, a good start, let's see you continue and implement the butterflies. Are you going to attempt to cover the whole world?
 
Could I ask one thing from this TL.

Please for the love of god do not have America in the CP or have them conquer Canada I beg of you I have waded through so many of those TLs I have gone mad.
 
Could I ask one thing from this TL.

Please for the love of god do not have America in the CP or have them conquer Canada I beg of you I have waded through so many of those TLs I have gone mad.

I promise the US will not control Canada :D. And I will cover the whole world, but the first few chapters will focus on North America, as the rest of the world will continue on much as OTL.
 
The 1860 presidential election was perhaps one of the most predictable elections in the history of the United States.


Predictable? Four major candidates and the winner from a party which didn't even exist six years earlier?

William Seward, an old Senator with a favorable reputation and lots of experience, was deemed best able to handle the pressing problems facing the nation.

A favorable reputation? Really? Why is his reputation ITTL favorable when it wasn't in the OTL?

The Southern States, weary of his anti-slavery rhetoric...

Which "his"? Seward's or Lincoln's?

... finally decided to secede from the Union on April 4, 1861, with the capture of Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

So secession was sparked by the capture of Sumter? Why was the fort assaulted if South Carolina wasn't seceding?

The war dragged on for two years, as the ineffective McLellan...

McLellan? Who is that? Do you mean McClellan?

When the war started, McClellan wasn't even in the US Army anymore. He didn't re-enter Federal service until May of '61 and then after serving as the commander of the Ohio militia.

And why is he immediately in charge of all the Union's forces anyway? He never gained the position in the OTL, only receiving the AotP job in mid '61 after a successful campaign in West Virginia and then because of powerful patrons in the Cabinet.

As Confederate troops approached Gettysburg, Seward panicked, forcing a Surrender of all Union Troops on June 30, 1863.

What? Lee is threatening a small market town in Pennsylvania whose only claim to fame is that a number of roads converge there and the President of the United States surrenders?
Wasn't there any fighting going on anywhere else? Along the Mississippi? New Orleans? The Outer Banks? Tennessee? The blockade? Lee reaches Gettysburg in 1863 and Seward gives up?

Davis, president of the Confederacy, met with Seward in Washington to discuss the peace treaty, which can only be described as draconian. The US was to surrender Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona and New Mexico to the CSA. Seward, feeling trapped, signed the agreement.

Huh? Why is Seward going to cave in? What's happened out west? Hasn't the war been fought anywhere but between "McLellan" and Lee?

The American Civil War was over.

Wow. All I can say is wow.
 
Thank you for your feedback. This will help me make a better timeline. My real passion and knowledge is for ww1 and the modern era, so this is almost a prologue. However,
Predictable? Four major candidates and the winner from a party which didn't even exist six years earlier?



A favorable reputation? Really? Why is his reputation ITTL favorable when it wasn't in the OTL?



Which "his"? Seward's or Lincoln's?



So secession was sparked by the capture of Sumter? Why was the fort assaulted if South Carolina wasn't seceding?



McLellan? Who is that? Do you mean McClellan?

When the war started, McClellan wasn't even in the US Army anymore. He didn't re-enter Federal service until May of '61 and then after serving as the commander of the Ohio militia.

And why is he immediately in charge of all the Union's forces anyway? He never gained the position in the OTL, only receiving the AotP job in mid '61 after a successful campaign in West Virginia and then because of powerful patrons in the Cabinet.



What? Lee is threatening a small market town in Pennsylvania whose only claim to fame is that a number of roads converge there and the President of the United States surrenders? [/SIZE][/FONT] Wasn't there any fighting going on anywhere else? Along the Mississippi? New Orleans? The Outer Banks? Tennessee? The blockade? Lee reaches Gettysburg in 1863 and Seward gives up?



Huh? Why is Seward going to cave in? What's happened out west? Hasn't the war been fought anywhere but between "McLellan" and Lee?



I will go more in depth on the war in the next post/s. If you still have questions or comments then, please tell me.
 
I like that Seward became President as it was a more likely outcome than Lincoln getting the nomination. However, although I can see the Union losing under Seward i believe it is ASB that the President would simply "panic" and surrender such a huge amount of Union territory to the CSA. The most likely case in a CSA victory is only the territory of the orginal CSA states (i.e. no New Mexico, Kansas, Indian territory, etc.)
 
Thank you for your feedback. This will help me make a better timeline.

In order to make a better time line, you'll need to throw all this out and begin again.

Along with WW2, the American Civil War is one of the most discussed topics on these boards. Quite frankly, what you posted and the level of understanding about the topic that post revealed won't cut it. You chose what essentially is a doctoral level topic here then posted something that didn't reach that level.

Given the popularity of the topic, you're probably wondering why more people didn't respond to your original post. I'd suspect that, once they saw what you'd posted, most couldn't be bothered. I only checked in to see what sort of time line someone who couldn't find the New`Thread button even after they were shown a picture of it would write.

Let's just say my expectations were met.

If you still have questions or comments then, please tell me.
I won't have any.
 
I like that Seward became President as it was a more likely outcome than Lincoln getting the nomination. However, although I can see the Union losing under Seward i believe it is ASB that the President would simply "panic" and surrender such a huge amount of Union territory to the CSA. The most likely case in a CSA victory is only the territory of the orginal CSA states (i.e. no New Mexico, Kansas, Indian territory, etc.)

I agree with this.
 
In order to make a better time line, you'll need to throw all this out and begin again.

Along with WW2, the American Civil War is one of the most discussed topics on these boards. Quite frankly, what you posted and the level of understanding about the topic that post revealed won't cut it. You chose what essentially is a doctoral level topic here then posted something that didn't reach that level.

Given the popularity of the topic, you're probably wondering why more people didn't respond to your original post. I'd suspect that, once they saw what you'd posted, most couldn't be bothered. I only checked in to see what sort of time line someone who couldn't find the New`Thread button even after they were shown a picture of it would write.

Let's just say my expectations were met.

I won't have any.

If you're going to make criticism, be more constructive and less of a jerk.
 
Predictable? Four major candidates and the winner from a party which didn't even exist six years earlier?

A favorable reputation? Really? Why is his reputation ITTL favorable when it wasn't in the OTL?
Probably predictable from TTL's perspective. It's not hard to improve Seward's reputation, he did come back and start sounding more moderate after being out of the country. If he stays in country campaigning AND sounds more moderate it makes his chances better.

Which "his"? Seward's or Lincoln's?
He clearly means Seward.

So secession was sparked by the capture of Sumter? Why was the fort assaulted if South Carolina wasn't seceding?
I'll concede that is a bit sloppy but it's likely he means that from that point on conflict was inevitable.

McLellan? Who is that? Do you mean McClellan?
Really criticizing this? In general McClellan could happen similarly as to OTL but be slightly more pro-active and lose a number of battles from middle 1861-1863 in the east if Seward doesn't remove him. As it happens though, I agree with you about Gettysburg. It sounds like this is Lee's first invasion of the north in TTL but I still question why there would be a panic, surrender and then a humiliating peace especially without a battle or at least attacking Lee on his return south even putting aside why he went for Gettysburg which was somewhat of an accidental meeting in OTL. And that's also leaving aside the west which was fairly important early on as a place for some Union successes.

Look, you consistently come off as contemptible of people in your responses. I don't know if this crosses the line but I reported you so a mod can look at it and decide.
 
In order to make a better time line, you'll need to throw all this out and begin again.

Along with WW2, the American Civil War is one of the most discussed topics on these boards. Quite frankly, what you posted and the level of understanding about the topic that post revealed won't cut it. You chose what essentially is a doctoral level topic here then posted something that didn't reach that level.

Given the popularity of the topic, you're probably wondering why more people didn't respond to your original post. I'd suspect that, once they saw what you'd posted, most couldn't be bothered. I only checked in to see what sort of time line someone who couldn't find the New`Thread button even after they were shown a picture of it would write.

Let's just say my expectations were met.

I won't have any.

Oh. Thanks for sharing your completely negative thoughts on the topic. Happy New Year.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Huh....

Glad you took my advice to start small. :p

I would suggest that you need to get a bit more background and some sort of solid Point of Departure. Right now much of what you have is of the "handwavium" variety.

It is both difficult and tedious to write up the background of a T/L, particularly one with the rather sweeping scope of what you are putting into place here, but it is critical that you do so.

To give just one example: George McClellan was not the first commander of of the Army of the Potomac, he was also relieved of command due to his inability to take the instrument he had created and use it with any success and his general timidity. To keep him from being relieved after Sharpesburg you need to come up with a reason, and it needs to be quite the reason since most everyone in Washington wanted his head after that little screw-up. For that matter, if McClellan is left in command it is very unlikely that the war proceeds in a manner close to OTL. This means that the ANV does not move into the North in late June of 1963, it may have done so in April or it may have sent forces to help Vicksburg (which fell at the same time as Gettysburg was being fought) leaving it unable to go onto the offensive.

The reliance on a historic event that is very likely to have been butterflied out of existence by an earlier PoD to create a second PoD is also quite difficult to support. If McClellan is still in command Gettysburg simply never happens.

It is also important to justify a HUGE change in position by a real political leader. Jefferson Davis would never, in OTL, have had ANY territorial demands. All the Confederacy wanted as a war goal was to be left alone, recognized as a separate nation. If it had managed to achieve that recognition all of its war aims would have been met. Given the make-up of the Confederate Congress it is as likely as not that Davis would have been impeached for even trying to make such a demand.

If it is important to your T/L to have these additional territories in the Confederacy you need to find a plausible way for it to happen. This is true for pretty much everything you will put into the T/L. This also means that you have to have a very good foundation to build from. That foundation is your PoD. Right now your foundation is weak, that will make the rest of the T/L built on it difficult to keep stable.

As a final point: The American Civil War is one of the best studied, and beloved by AH members, periods in U.S. history. It is also perhaps one of the great pivots of world events given the influence of the United States across the 20th Century. As such it is extremely well known and understood here, you need to have your research up to speed if you are going to alter it.
 
Huh....

Glad you took my advice to start small. :p

I would suggest that you need to get a bit more background and some sort of solid Point of Departure. Right now much of what you have is of the "handwavium" variety.

It is both difficult and tedious to write up the background of a T/L, particularly one with the rather sweeping scope of what you are putting into place here, but it is critical that you do so.

To give just one example: George McClellan was not the first commander of of the Army of the Potomac, he was also relieved of command due to his inability to take the instrument he had created and use it with any success and his general timidity. To keep him from being relieved after Sharpesburg you need to come up with a reason, and it needs to be quite the reason since most everyone in Washington wanted his head after that little screw-up. For that matter, if McClellan is left in command it is very unlikely that the war proceeds in a manner close to OTL. This means that the ANV does not move into the North in late June of 1963, it may have done so in April or it may have sent forces to help Vicksburg (which fell at the same time as Gettysburg was being fought) leaving it unable to go onto the offensive.

The reliance on a historic event that is very likely to have been butterflied out of existence by an earlier PoD to create a second PoD is also quite difficult to support. If McClellan is still in command Gettysburg simply never happens.

It is also important to justify a HUGE change in position by a real political leader. Jefferson Davis would never, in OTL, have had ANY territorial demands. All the Confederacy wanted as a war goal was to be left alone, recognized as a separate nation. If it had managed to achieve that recognition all of its war aims would have been met. Given the make-up of the Confederate Congress it is as likely as not that Davis would have been impeached for even trying to make such a demand.

If it is important to your T/L to have these additional territories in the Confederacy you need to find a plausible way for it to happen. This is true for pretty much everything you will put into the T/L. This also means that you have to have a very good foundation to build from. That foundation is your PoD. Right now your foundation is weak, that will make the rest of the T/L built on it difficult to keep stable.

As a final point: The American Civil War is one of the best studied, and beloved by AH members, periods in U.S. history. It is also perhaps one of the great pivots of world events given the influence of the United States across the 20th Century. As such it is extremely well known and understood here, you need to have your research up to speed if you are going to alter it.

Sage advice.

And GT, I agree with some other posters in that you should rethink the opening. (OTOH, this came from a guy who was born in Canada and knew next to nothing about the American Civil War, so... :D:p)

Marc A
 
Besides South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas eventually withdrew from the Union

Flordia stays? in the Union :eek: its gonna be isolated by this new nation.

The US was to surrender Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona and New Mexico to the CSA.

And Not Flordia?

also does this New Mexico mean the Northern Half which didn't seccede in the Civil war? or OTL New Mexico? also does the confederacy get the southern notch of Nevada?
 
My main problem is that you put Steward in as President -- Then keep everything the same as OTL till 1863.
?Would Steward send the Supply Ship to Sumter? ?Order Scot South to Bull Run [General Scot didn't think the troops ready]? ?Handle the Trent Affair?
?Allow Juarez to shelter in Arizona? Hire the Pinkertons as "His" intelligence Service, Etc.
?Heck would Steward have gone to war in the first place? ?Arrested Davis' 1861 delegates[ambassadors] that were sent to Washington to discuss a peace settlement.

I doubt a Steward ACW would last long past the 1862 elections.
 
My main problem is that you put Steward in as President -- Then keep everything the same as OTL till 1863.
?Would Steward send the Supply Ship to Sumter? ?Order Scot South to Bull Run [General Scot didn't think the troops ready]? ?Handle the Trent Affair?
?Allow Juarez to shelter in Arizona? Hire the Pinkertons as "His" intelligence Service, Etc.
?Heck would Steward have gone to war in the first place? ?Arrested Davis' 1861 delegates[ambassadors] that were sent to Washington to discuss a peace settlement.

I doubt a Steward ACW would last long past the 1862 elections.

Excellent points (it's Seward BTW). I would go so far to say that the OP's whole war scenario and the terms of peace are both implausable and extremely unlikely.
 
My main problem is that you put Steward in as President -- Then keep everything the same as OTL till 1863.
?Would Steward send the Supply Ship to Sumter? ?Order Scot South to Bull Run [General Scot didn't think the troops ready]? ?Handle the Trent Affair?
?Allow Juarez to shelter in Arizona? Hire the Pinkertons as "His" intelligence Service, Etc.
?Heck would Steward have gone to war in the first place? ?Arrested Davis' 1861 delegates[ambassadors] that were sent to Washington to discuss a peace settlement.

I doubt a Steward ACW would last long past the 1862 elections.

I can answer some of these questions. Seward more than likely would have gone to war, as he supported this as a member of Lincoln's cabinet. The reason that the war progressed as OTL was that I was somewhat lazy :D and it worked so good anyway, just chop it short before the South starts falling. I will start doing a more detailed description of the war next post aka weekend and if there are discrepancies, they are intentional, as this TL is work in progress. Thanks for the comments and advice.
 
Quick Question All: Do you think that the CSA would annex West Virginia if they won? Or would they just leave the Union alone? Sorry I didn't get a post up last weekend (#%$@*^& Midterms :mad:) but I will try to get a post up next weekend.
 
Top