There were more radical abolitionists calling for secession for years before the Civil War, and the South was politically dominant for decades. With that in mind, it would be entirely within the realm of possibility for things to skew slightly more in the slave states' favor and provoke the North into seceding. The outcome of such a war is more up in the air than OTL, but I feel like the same factors that allowed the North to win IOTL would still work in their favor, especially since the fact they explicitly oppose slavery raises their chances of gaining international recognition.
Worst Civil War Alternate History
- Thread starter Jedi Dragon
- Start date
Was it? I just remember it coming out while I was in college, watching it once or twice, seeing the grave issues and going "...oh jeez" at the coda at the end, then not really thinking of it until recently. One of my advanced students likes discussing social issues, and it came up. I linked her to the film and said if you want we could have it as our discussion next time. She said yes so I rewatched it with the same reaction. She really liked it, though.
One thing that seems to happen in every "Confederate victory" scenario is we are suppose to believe that Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee would see the error of their ways, and that slavery would be abolished, despite the fact that it was built into their constitution. If anything, the argument is always made that "market forces" would simply show that it was unfeasible to sustain, yet seem to believe that market factors were the only reason for its sustained nature...
True. Many victorius CSA see abolishment of slavery befeore 1900 what is pretty hard if not impossible. And Robert E. Lee as president is too quiet common thing despite that him hadn't much of any political ambitions and him hadn't very good health (he got heart attack slightly before Gettysburg).
What makes it even more insulting is that in the CSA Victorious stories, in "Bring the Jubilee" by Ward Moore, and "What if the South Won the Civil War" by Mackinlay Kantor, it's openly stated that the South is supposedly better off economically by withholding emancipation for 50 years. Apparently we are supposed to believe that freedom for African-Americans damaged the South.
By 1900 I can see it as half and half, the original seven states still having it and the others (including Kentucky and Missouri if they get ceded to the Confederacy, plus Oklahoma) moving away from the practice if not outright abolishing it.
But if we’re talking specific novels and not entire series then American Empire and Settling Accounts would be up there. It’s just a rehash if the Interwar Period and WW2.
The kind of fiction Turtledove ended up writing compared to his actual literary skill-set is frankly one of the bigger mismatches I've read. He's not that good with worldbuilding, but got associated with "alternate history as a genre".
Has anyone ever noticed that in Civil War ATL stories or novels, especially any piece before 1980, there are almost zero to no actual African-Americans mentioned as either historical characters, outside as slave stereotypes ?
One item I have to point out is that one particularly creepy part of Civil War ATLs is the idea that somehow Robert E. Lee would help end the system of slavery, when he had a reputation within the African-American community as a cruel slave driver:
Last edited:
The only one I give a pass is "The Guns of the South", and that's only because Lee literally has information about the future that slavery is abolished worldwide and makes countries pariahs