Will there ever be a Good Civil War TL?

[President Sam Houston]

People right now are still reacting to the "Jake Vektor Experience," which has soured many people to the whole idea of a timeline based on an ACW POD. But Vektor's gone now. It's safe to go back into the water now.

Perhaps there needs to be a "Vector Award" given to the clueless non-troll poster who manages to get himself banned the quickest.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

There will be a good ACW timeline......I just haven't written it yet!

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Well you were kind enough to insult just about everyone on AH.com. Bravo

I sense sarcasm. I'd like to know why considering
1. People need to be insulted, that's the only way they learn and change their ways
2. I don't see how anything I said was particularly insulting. Headstrong and hasty yes, but not overtl, unnecessarily insulting. The fact is that people are interested in history, historical education is limited to a few events therefore alternate history tends to centre aroudn thoes events, whether they bethe ACW, the Roman Empire or whatever.

 

[robertp6165]

I'm a yank and pretty well-read on the war and the military, but I also liked Young Man, Go South. Not only is it well-written, but it's also as plausible as alternate reality gets. I'd long been convinced that you need a change in at least one President for the result to change, and TTL featured an effective swap - Instead of the mediocre Davis, the South has the really good Lincoln, and the North has the mediocre Seward, whom had the mo going into the GOP convention in '60.

How'd that happen?

Read it and find out for yourself...

 

[robertp6165]

I'll be honest...I just get sick of the same tired ACW arguments, many from the same posters repeating the same opinions, repeated ad nauseum every time an ACW WI or TL pops up. Whatever the POD, original or not, it quickly devolves into the same tired meta-duels.

Frex, I'm incredibly sick of every other good WI degenerating into a debate over which ACW generals were good or not, always citing the same statistics from the same historians, always coming down in the end to "I like General X better, so I'm pimping his accomplishments and downplaying his limitations".

It makes me, someone honestly interested in the ACW as a historical event rather than a neopolitical one, hesitant to click on any ACW threads. It makes me doubly hesitant to post one of my own.

As a resident of Fredericksburg, VA, and one actually professionally taught ACW history by one of the big names in ACW history, I've been dying to do an alt-Fredericksburg scenario, but I'm really afraid it'll be completely consumed by tired arguments, trolling comments, and opinion-based nitpicks that utterly miss the greater picture.

I can certainly understand your feelings here. But if you refrain from posting what could be a very good timeline because of fear of what the trolls on the board might do, you've allowed the trolls to win. There are two better options.

1) Confront them and make them take their off-topic tirades out of your thread; or

2) Put them on "Ignore" and you won't have to read all their crap and can simply read comments which are actually related to your timeline.

Surrender and appeasement are never the answer.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

I can certainly understand your feelings here. But if you refrain from posting what could be a very good timeline because of fear of what the trolls on the board might do, you've allowed the trolls to win. There are two better options.

1) Confront them and make them take their off-topic tirades out of your thread; or

2) Put them on "Ignore" and you won't have to read all their crap and can simply read comments which are actually related to your timeline.

Surrender and appeasement are never the answer.

I'm with you and I do still plan to do the scenario (not really a full TL) some day when not so busy elsewhere. It's more that I'm afraid my actual posts will be lost in the usual pissfest and the scenario will become "just another stupid ACW thread" rather than actually provoking thought and discussion as I intend. I fear no trolls...I do fear I'd just be wasting my very limited time, however...

 

[Jared]

I've sometimes thought of writing a Civil War TL. There haven't been that many of them on the board that I'm aware of, although the recent effort "Glory to the Crown" looks interesting.

Oh, wait, this was about the American Civil War.

I've thought of writing a TL on that, too, although I don't think it's likely to happen since there'd be too much overlap with DoD.

Based on my experience of what happens on this board, though, I'd write it very carefully. My only interest in an ACW TL is what happens after the war is won (or lost, or negotiated). I couldn't care less about the military details of how the war was won and lost, and trying to explain them on this board would simply see the thread completely derailed by endless arguments about military minutiae.

So if I were to write an ACW TL, it would start after the war was over. I'd probably write it from the POV of a few characters who might vaguely think about some aspects of the war, but for whom the war was firmly in the past. The military details of how things happened would never be spelled out. That would mean that I could write about what happens after the war, which frankly sounds much more interesting (at least to me) than a rehash of the military details.

Of course, the most likely PoD I'd use for successful Southern independence would not be an ACW TL at all - it would be a "South is left to go in peace" TL. There is a plausible way to achieve that, but the South which would be produced is not much like the South which existed during the ACW.

 

[MNP]

I've sometimes thought of writing a Civil War TL. There haven't been that many of them on the board that I'm aware of, although the recent effort "Glory to the Crown" looks interesting.

Oh, wait, this was about the American Civil War.

I've thought of writing a TL on that, too, although I don't think it's likely to happen since there'd be too much overlap with DoD.

Based on my experience of what happens on this board, though, I'd write it very carefully. My only interest in an ACW TL is what happens after the war is won (or lost, or negotiated). I couldn't care less about the military details of how the war was won and lost, and trying to explain them on this board would simply see the thread completely derailed by endless arguments about military minutiae.

So if I were to write an ACW TL, it would start after the war was over. I'd probably write it from the POV of a few characters who might vaguely think about some aspects of the war, but for whom the war was firmly in the past. The military details of how things happened would never be spelled out. That would mean that I could write about what happens after the war, which frankly sounds much more interesting (at least to me) than a rehash of the military details.

Of course, the most likely PoD I'd use for successful Southern independence would not be an ACW TL at all - it would be a "South is left to go in peace" TL. There is a plausible way to achieve that, but the South which would be produced is not much like the South which existed during the ACW.

I mostly agree with you in the post war. Being a staunch Unionist, I have no interest in Confederate-Win TLs, but a PoD where something where E.P. Alexander's suggestion to fight a guerrilla war is allowed by Lee or he or someone else launches it without approval behind Lee's back. I don't think it would change the history of the war that much in and of itself but the ripples might have interesting repercussions.

 

[robertp6165]

I'm with you and I do still plan to do the scenario (not really a full TL) some day when not so busy elsewhere. It's more that I'm afraid my actual posts will be lost in the usual pissfest and the scenario will become "just another stupid ACW thread" rather than actually provoking thought and discussion as I intend. I fear no trolls...I do fear I'd just be wasting my very limited time, however...

Well, if the timeline is good enough, people will be willing to wade through the pissfest in order to read it.

 

[robertp6165]

Based on my experience of what happens on this board, though, I'd write it very carefully. My only interest in an ACW TL is what happens after the war is won (or lost, or negotiated). I couldn't care less about the military details of how the war was won and lost, and trying to explain them on this board would simply see the thread completely derailed by endless arguments about military minutiae.

So if I were to write an ACW TL, it would start after the war was over. I'd probably write it from the POV of a few characters who might vaguely think about some aspects of the war, but for whom the war was firmly in the past. The military details of how things happened would never be spelled out. That would mean that I could write about what happens after the war, which frankly sounds much more interesting (at least to me) than a rehash of the military details.

Well, what you are proposing is the surest way to ENSURE the discussion about your timeline becomes a pissing contest between those who normally create such in threads related to the ACW.

You will get people who are going to be anal about the POD. Assuming it's a Southern victory TL, they are going to demand to know exactly HOW the South won, because how the South won will necessarily have great impacts on the future. Also WHEN the South won, because that, too, will have great impacts on the future. In the end, you'll have to write a military timeline to please these people, and then the pissing over military details will begin.

If it's not a Southern victory TL, but one based on the North winning early or later than in OTL, then you will find the same thing happening.

Your solution is not really a solution, unfortunately.

Of course, the most likely PoD I'd use for successful Southern independence would not be an ACW TL at all - it would be a "South is left to go in peace" TL. There is a plausible way to achieve that, but the South which would be produced is not much like the South which existed during the ACW.

That could be interesting.

 

[Jared]

Well, what you are proposing is the surest way to ENSURE the discussion about your timeline becomes a pissing contest between those who normally create such in threads related to the ACW.

Only if I engage them in discussion. Fortunately, I have an ignore list. I don't use it that much, but it will make it much easier

And I don't think that it will be as bad as spelling out the details. Sure, people can say "exactly how did the South win/North win sooner?" and repeat the same question over and over. But ignoring that takes much less mental effort on my part than providing any detail, only to have people ask for more and more, and then have people disagree with whatever detail is supplied, ad infinitum.

Also WHEN the South won, because that, too, will have great impacts on the future.

When I would specify, but not how. It's the "how" which leads to the infinite regress.

That could be interesting.

I've mulled over it various times, but unfortunately I have far more TL ideas than I have time to write them. Even my current timeline is stalled at the moment due to lack of time to sit down and write the next instalment.

 

[robertp6165]

I've mulled over it various times, but unfortunately I have far more TL ideas than I have time to write them. Even my current timeline is stalled at the moment due to lack of time to sit down and write the next instalment.

I know that feeling. LOL Well, good luck in your endeavors. May we both find the time we need to finish our projects.

 

[usertron2020]

That aside....most TLs are Confederate-Winning for a simple reason. There are three possible ATLs for the Civil War: the South wins, the North wins earlier than OTL, or the North wins later than OTL. It is certainly possible to create an interesting TL falling into one of the latter two categories. However, psychologically, it does not seem to be as "great" a TL as those in the first category, because the overall alteration from OTL is not as great, no matter how in-depth and well laid out the TL is. This leaves aside current-day NeoConfederate political issues.
The end result is a huge number of Southern Victory TLs. We first sift through those that are horribly written, those which are not well-researched, and those which are at least competent in these two requirements but are Uber-Wanks. Perhaps 50% of what is left, at least, has a BP with S.O.191, some others with Perryville, many with Gettysburg, a few with Vicksburg. For a person who is a good author and is willing to do research, but is not at the top-tier of knowledge about the Civil War, these BPs are the obvious BPs. That they are obvious does not mean that they are bad - simply that they are overdone. But as more and more of them are written, the challenge of keeping them original becomes ever-more insurmountable.

So this leaves us with a tiny handful of TLs, still usually Southern Victory, which are well-written, well-researched, not inherently a Wank, and do not have one of the above as their BP.

Once these TLs are published, if they are not ignored, then they are almost always referred to as "near-ASB". Clearly some on this board do not believe me, so I shall give an example.

August 1863: Bragg is wounded. Army politics and ability limit Davis' choice of replacement - very half-heartedly he sends Lee west to command the AoT. Chickamauga is an amazing Confederate victory with 20,000 US casualties and 15,000 prisoners including Sheridan. Lee follows up, besieges Chattanooga, sends a relieving force to Knoxville 3x OTL size, crushes Burnside, comes back in time to take another 15,000 US prisoners including Sherman, then cuts Grant's supply line, forces him all the way back to Nashville and almost captures his whole army. In Spring 1864 Lee faces Thomas in Virginia in a campaign of maneuver ending up with Thomas in front of Richmond and Petersburg but no luckier than OTL about breaking in, and with Lee's army larger, healthier, with Ewell long gone, Early, Gordon, and Mahone promoted, and Hood an active division commander. In the west Grant faces Johnston from Nashville - Johnston in turn has gotten rid of Polk, and has Hardee, Stewart, and Cheatham as corps commanders (so much better than OTL) - and after 6 months is finally forced back to, but not out of, Chattanooga in a campaign of maneuver. Lincoln loses the election to (insert Democrat here), and by Inauguration day the Confederates still hold Richmond, Atlanta, and everything in between - and so they make a negotiated peace.

You see? That sounds very much like ASB territory to me, with the Confederates having that string of luck. If, on the other hand, I went to ten pages explaining all of the details of this TL, it would show how the Confederates, while lucky, were certainly not ASB - how every individual event in there is extremely plausible and follows naturally from those before.

On the other hand, how often is minutiae debated in a thread? Minutiae is precisely what would have to be debated to declare this TL ASB or not-ASB. However almost all board-wide criticism is about the bigger picture, which looks very much like ASB, even if it's not.

--------------

Wow, that was long. So anyway, Leper of Outremer, I am very sorry that I have no good answer. Look in the archives for those TLs that read well and are plausible but are not commented on much, and revive them. Or post your own for every single tiny BP that you can think of. I mean that seriously.

A brilliant study. My own earlier reply was about Union Victorious TL (UVTL), whether Wankish or not, ASB or not. If you are doing a Southern Victorious TL, I've found that the NeoConfederate issues of today will mean you will have a heavy cheering section whether knowledgeable or not. But a Unionist Victory? Well, IOTL the Union won, so it's more along the line of "Who cares"? Except if you ARE doing a ACW UVTL, you are going to feel like a B-17 in the Eight Air Force doing a bombing run over Berlin without escort! Unless you are a professor of American History specializing in the ACW, you can expect to be curbstomped from every point of the compass.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Unless you are a professor of American History specializing in the ACW, you can expect to be curbstomped from every point of the compass.

Even if you ARE a professor this will happen!

 

[benjamin]

Even if you ARE a professor this will happen!

Right, and its this attitude which is killing the creativity of many of the posters here. At the risk of being laughed at myself, I kinda enjoyed Jake Vektor's posts. They made me laugh. Sure they were bad in a very un-PC way, but he did try to make some changes and he listened to suggestions despite the venom some people threw at him.

As we have not lived through the ACW none of use truly understand the events and so all we have are some basic facts, cherry picked scholarly work and our own biases to work from. It is through this filter that our ATL arise. And when this doesn't exactly match how another person believes events would occur, despite the fact that it is meant to be ALTERNATE HISTORY, they jump all over it and immediately declare it ASB or poorly researched or whatever they can to get it discredited.

I for one don't like that approach. Unless I see outright lies or incorrect information presented as fact, I ignore threads that I don't agree with. If other people like them than so be it. Personally, I find many standard ACW ATLs to be a bit boring now. That's why i tend to focus on the years leading up to the war as there are so many great political PODs to be had. My own TL, "War of the Two Commonwealths" was leading up to an alternate ACW, but writer's bloc and other obligations have gotten in the way. I hope to continue it sometime soon.

Benjamin

 

[Typo]

From what I heard in the professional history field the French revolution is ltreated on the same way. As in you write something and everyone else will jump on it and hack it to pieces.

 

[othyrsyde]

From what I heard in the professional history field the French revolution is ltreated on the same way. As in you write something and everyone else will jump on it and hack it to pieces.

I so far haven't seen the sheer amount of venom spilled on the few ACW TLs I've read on here, occur on ATLs involving the French Revolution. Then again, from my understanding, the French Revolution gets an equivalent treatment and use in the France, as the ACW does in the US.

 

[counterblitzkrieg]

So far, any TL with a POD on the civil war always has something with CSA victory and ended up as either an Ameriwank with CSA taking the carribbean islands while the USA took Canada. To answer your question, probably not. People can call me a cynic or overly critical but I have yet to see a TL with Civil War POD that is satisfying with no overly-wank or anvillicious or badly written.

 

[usertron2020]

How about a DELAYED but still Union Victorious TL?

So far, any TL with a POD on the civil war always has something with CSA victory and ended up as either an Ameriwank with CSA taking the carribbean islands while the USA took Canada. To answer your question, probably not. People can call me a cynic or overly critical but I have yet to see a TL with Civil War POD that is satisfying with no overly-wank or anvillicious or badly written.

Hello everyone I just had an idea. How's this for a fair and even ACW ATL? "Western Blue/Eastern Grey". A TL where the Federals are more successful in the West (Mississippi Campaign, Trans-Mississippi), and the Confederare are more successful in the East (Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, the ports, Maryland, and points north)? These changes would be proportional so the outcome is unchanged, merely that the tide of victory flow along a diiferent path to that outcome. IOTL, no matter how awful the West got for the South, General Lee refused categorically to go west and take command. What if the reverse were true? Grant stays west gobbling up MORE territory while the Army of the Potomac gets whipped and whipped again? Or put under officers far less patient with timid/slothful/insubordinate generals (Sherman and/or Sheridan)? You have a more successful Eastern campaign for Lee, even to the point of another invasion of Maryland (even Pennsylvania) in 1864? And rather than a "March to the Sea", Grant has by this time swallowed up Southern Missouri, Arkansas, and the Deep South states.

If this is done I can see an end to the War that still Re-Elects Lincoln, and the North wins, but General Lee could find himself fighting in Virginia with no other CSA state except Western Louisiana and Texas! BUT, the war could still be going on in 1867!

Opinions?

 

[usertron2020]

Looking at my last post I realize that for the NeoConfederates NOTHING short of a Southern Victorious result will please them. But I would hope that anyone else would find it satisfactory. I don't worry about UnionistWanks since they are so few and far between and their writing skills are, to put it kindly, limited.