Perhaps there could at least be a vague understanding that trauma exists and isn't any kind of moral or character flaw, but is akin to an injury or disease. Even if they have basically no idea how to actually treat it, removing the social stigma around trauma and other forms of mental illness could be revolutionary. In particular, it would facilitate the creation of support groups that could not only provide a lot of help on an informal basis, but lobby for the government to fund research into mental illnesses. Having even that level of understanding in the 1800s would prevent an incalculable amount of suffering.
Perhaps some prominent clergyman, having spent time trying to console traumatized soldiers, gives a sermon about "Injuries of the Soul".
It would be a nice start. If people start making the connection that those soldiers in the thick of the guerrilla war are those who suffer the most from "War Madness" then an acceptance that horrible circumstances can damage the mind and that understanding is needed for healing could indeed be revolutionary.
Sorry if this has been already discussed but I remember that for this timeline, Lincoln goes on to survive and fully serve his 2nd term.
I'm glad for it of course, but I'm curious... what shall become of Booth's attempt though? Will it simply not happen? Perhaps somebody catches on to the conspirators earlier and rats them out?
I will say that Booth will appear later. The specifics of what he does I will not tell.
I did not expect that. I thought he would be the voice of reason as I read the build up.
Unfortunately, our Ted is far too gone. Even if he had tried, it's unlikely he could have calmed down an enraged mob.
We talking here about massive butterflies. Maybe with Washington and Baltimore for some time under confed controll, Booth openly join the southern cause. If not, his pro-southern attidute will get him in trouble in a more radicalized North.
I think it's unlikely he could end up as an actual soldier in the Confederate Army. He claimed it was because dear mom asked him to stay out of the conflict, but Booth never seemed willing to actually join them, though he did help them in other ways. Certainly, by this point, if those other ways were discovered (which include contacting Confederate spies and smuggling supplies) he would probably end up before a firing squad. It's the more likely because Maryland is still under Butler's iron fist, and with discontent simmering due to the new constitution the general is all too happy to bring out full force against those who are (apparently) disloyal.
I'm not sure about that. One of Napoleon's famous maxims - many of them may be apocryphal, but I'm fairly certain he said this one - was that "the moral is to the material as three to one". As I just posted, twenty years of almost unending conflict had worn down most of the peoples of Europe almost as badly as the Thirty Years' War had done less than two centuries previously. The psychological impact if Napoleon had been able to beat Wellington and Blucher - or even worse, if he had been able to destroy either the Anglo-Allied or Prussian Army in Belgium - might have been enough to split off at least one of the Coalition nations and force the others to the table. The Russian Army, the largest contingent of the Coalition forces, was still out of position at the time of the Waterloo Campaign and didn't take part in any of the actual fighting (battles were still ongoing into early July IIRC).
I mean, the Napoleon quote can be applied to the ACW too. Many think the South never stood any chance, and it may surprise some, but I think the South could have won with some well timed victories. Say, a flashy victory just before the 1862 midterms could have brought the Lincoln administration to a halt, and/or resisting successfully until the 1864 election could then bring in a new President who would accept peace.
I find it interesting that in both book and movie, as terribly flawed - damaged, in fact - as Scarlett is, she often comes across (unintentionally, I don't doubt) as the only sane woman in the room when it comes to the "Lost Cause", so to speak, and Rhett even more so (we have our introduction to him when he tries to, Sherman-like, convince an unfriendly audience of Georgia planters that the South simply doesn't have the manpower and resources to defeat the North), It's even more interesting that Rhett, who is often looked askance at by respectable society if not outright shunned, actually has more of an ethical center than Scarlett.
A TTL version of the book would basically have to turn Scarlett into at least an antihero, acknowledging that she was right about the Southern cause being foolhardy and foredoomed - and find a way to have both her and Rhett turn, if reluctantly, antislavery. That means, naturally, beefing up "Mammy's" role even more, which is just fine with me - it's a testament to Hattie McDaniel's acting chops that she turned what could very easily have been a stereotypical caricature into the living, breathing moral center of the film. Oh yes, and give her an actual name, too. Maybe the TTL version ends up with Scarlett and Rhett turning Tara over to her and her family and lighting out for New Orleans (which Scarlett adored in the book) or even further west, San Francisco say.
I love Rhett's introductory scene for that reason. Well, that and Clark Gable's almost irresistible charm.
Regarding the idea of the book ending in then turning over the plantation to "Mammy" (how did I not realize she didn't have an actual name?), that could be a nice ending, I agree, but I don't think it would fit with the rest of the story or Scarlett's character. I was thinking rather of Rhett and Scarlett becoming scalawags. Rhett out of principle and self-preservation, Scarlett out of just self-preservation. It's worth noting, too, that going by the rules Lincoln established ITTL Tara actually wouldn't be in any danger - legal danger, at least, for the O'Haras never occupied any prominent place in the Confederate military or government, so the plantation would be spared from confiscation as long as they took the loyalty oath. Even Ashley Wilkes would be safe from prosecution, as long as he didn't commit war crimes or something. Now, something interesting would be that Ashley, and maybe Rhett, actually joined the Klan in the book. The movie kind of dances around that, but the book is explicit, and the Union authorities are unlikely to feel very merciful.
I must say, I don´t think it would work this way. If in this Alt-America something is created, what halfway is comparable to our "Gone with the wind", I think it needs this three points:
1. It must at least have a slight pro-southern bias! Don´t get me wrong, it will not be the lying piece of Lost-Cause-propaganda it is in OTL, because that would be ITTL as popular as "the Turner Diaries" IOTL. But it will at least say: "Not everything about the Old South was bad. Some things wereactuallyquite charming!"hc
2. Scarlett will never become a good person. This is just her thing and that the way Mitchels wanted her. A woman going her own way, which don´t sacrifice herself for her family. Maybe she will even realize, how much she personal gained from the new times, but she will still complain, that its destroyed her southern fairytail-fantasy with Ashly.
3. Scarlett and Rhett will not have an happy ending. Its sort of the point of the book. Scarlett is a terrible person, which got rich and gained personal independence. Giving her also personal happiness, would be to much.
Rhett on the other side, I see as a good person,, which desperatly wantto be bad. Maybe there is a reason for this, a "dark" secret. Maybe he found out as a boy, that that famous one drop of negro blood runs through his veins and thats his life, his family and the entire South is build upon a lie.
Maybe I will write something more later.
The topic of post-war memory has already been discussed. My position was and remains that some affection for the South is inevitable, with the accompanying minimizing of its problems. I envision something similar to old folks talking about the 50's - ignoring, rather than romanticizing, the problems that existed. Less "the slaves were happy!", more "yeah slavery was bad and all but those were times of chivalry and good manners". Ultimately, this should all be distilled into a kind of "Clean Confederates" myth, that says that the poor Confederate soldier fought honorably and valiantly, but only because a greedy aristocrat deluded him. The cause was not good, no one would deny that, but surely you can't blame old Papa, who only fought for home and hearth, had no slaves and was actually quite friendly to them once the war was over, right?