Writing an original 'Independent Confederacy' Timeline

I've abandoned work on an earlier timeline, and am keeping much of the detail on Russia's revolution intact (which still happens ATL) in a much longer timeline dealing with a Confederate victory in the American Civil War.

I was inspired by my love of history and by this post from the Alternate History Weekly Update:

This brings me to my last major point about American Civil War alternate histories: do your research. It is possible to create a timeline that gives the reader a realistic portrayal of an independent Confederacy, especially in the Information Age where you have access to virtually infinite amounts of content on the war, along with the opinions of scholars with varying viewpoints

...In conclusion, American Civil War alternate histories are very difficult to write. The most common PODs tend to be implausible and should be avoided. Do not allow your personal bias to replace good research and be ready to deal with intense criticism from every side. I do not mean to discourage would be alternate historians who wish to tackle this significant period of history, just be warned that to do it right is a lot harder then it looks.

In doing research for my timeline, I'm curious as to whether or not it would be possible in the long run to avoid cliches and other pitfalls in a period of alternate history which has been dealt with a lot both online and offline.

I think that its possible to provide new insights and to offer up a believable and non-cliche original timeline.

What do you all think? Comments and advice would be greatly welcomed.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I've written a very detailed timeline while working on my novel Shattered Nation: An Alternate History Novel of the American Civil War (which will be available on Amazon as early as next month!). Needless to say, I've done an enormous amount of research to make it as realistic as possible and I've found that lots of cliches have very little ground on which to stand.
 

Deleted member 14881

I've written a very detailed timeline while working on my novel Shattered Nation: An Alternate History Novel of the American Civil War (which will be available on Amazon as early as next month!). Needless to say, I've done an enormous amount of research to make it as realistic as possible and I've found that lots of cliches have very little ground on which to stand.

Anaxagoras, which cliches do you mean?
 
In the long run, it's impossible to avoid cliches and the like. But plausibility is only a part of writing a good TL. No one wants to read lists of calculated numbers. Write your TL for enjoyment, and if it's plausible, great, if it's not, not a big problem.
 
In the long run, it's impossible to avoid cliches and the like. But plausibility is only a part of writing a good TL. No one wants to read lists of calculated numbers. Write your TL for enjoyment, and if it's plausible, great, if it's not, not a big problem.

Absolutely the truth! All that is posted here are fictional essays at most.
 
Specifically the blog post on the Alternate History Weekly Update suggested that a writer who wants to create a plausible timeline involving an alternate civil war wherein the South wins should avoid common POD's (Gettysburg, the Trent Affair, etc.) and should focus on less well known aspects of civil war history (such as IMHO the Western Theater, Lee's defensive proposals which would've made invading the North superfluous, etc. to name a few lesser known points of the civil war)

I'm of the opinion that's its unoriginal-if not lazy-to explain a Southern victory by simply saying "Gettysburg" or "the Trent Affair" and so forth. POD's like that are obvious and have been done almost to death, while there are numerous lesser POD's which could've still resulted in a Confederate victory.
 
Glad to hear you read the AHWU :D

I know what you mean - one of the big goals in my Communist Confederacy works (TL planning thread in my sig) is to invert a lot of the tropes and clichés that follow works where the Confederacy is independent, mainly by aiming for realism.

A good example is that my take on the standard issue Confederate invasion of Cuba - the Confederate troops get butchered or bled dry, eventually being beaten back by Spanish and Cuban forces (with American arms and aid). So not only does the genre standard Confederate Cuba get brutally averted, but the Confedero-Spanish War is a crushing defeat for the Confederacy, and the poor whites sent to fight there, many of whom couldn't even vote under Confederate law, end up deeply resentful of the Confederate Government. It's one of many factors that eventually sees the Confederacy swap the Stars and Bars for the Hammer and Sickle :D

As you can see, avoiding the common Civil War era pitfalls and clichés and tropes can allow for some pretty interesting stories and TLs. Don't be afraid to use old standbys though - they become old standbys for a reason.

As far as PODs go, while it's true using Gettysburg or the Trent affair has been overdone, if done well, it's not a bad thing to use what works. That said, there are quite a few PODs you can use to great effect - I myself used the Seven Days Battle. I've seen others use the election of McClellan in 64 or the Confederates electing someone aside from Davis, the additional secession of other states, various battles of the war being changed, or the war itself being dragged on longer than OTL. Using Gettysburg or one of the other more common ones isn't a big deal, but by using something different, you make your work standout from the rest, which is always a plus, and it makes people more interested in what happens next.

Above all else, be passionate, do your research, and enjoy fleshing out the TL. Best of luck, I look forward to seeing just what you do!
 
In doing research for my timeline, I'm curious as to whether or not it would be possible in the long run to avoid cliches and other pitfalls in a period of alternate history which has been dealt with a lot both online and offline.

We had a thread on Irritating Cliches about pre-1900 AH. Part of the problem is lingering effect of the Lost Cause leads many to overestimate Confederate capabilities.

Most AHs have a single battle being all that is needed to win the war. A single battle can be a turning point, but is very unlikely to end the war. The most likely turning points do not involve Robert E Lee.

The Confederacy was poor at force projection outside its borders. Every attempt to invade and seize Union territory failed. Post-war Confederate expansion will have to overcome this. They'll also have to conquer people who were firmly opposed to foreign control. And in most cases, Confederate expansion would put them into direct conflict with more industrialized nations.

Other powers will only ally with the Confederacy if they have something to gain from it. The smaller economy and lack of industrialization means a credible independent Confederacy should lag at least a decade behind OTL's US.
 
I guess it depends on what he wants. If he wants just to write a good yarn/story, fine. If he wants people to accept the viability of his premise that is another. Maybe just a brief comment at the start of the TL to make the expectation clear?
 
has anyone ever tried to do a TL where James Buchanan just recognizes the first seven states to go and there is no war?
 
A single battle can be a turning point, but is very unlikely to end the war. The most likely turning points do not involve Robert E Lee.

Agreed, Gettysburg or any similar battle is not the be-all-end-all scenario its often (inaccurately) portrayed as being.

Pivotal to the South's continued security during the war is the defense of Tennessee/the western theater and, preferably and IMHO, the breaking of Grant's Siege of Vicksburg which was wholly possible assuming a few changed circumstances.

If they can keep the Union forces out of the Mississippi and preferably out of central Tennessee, then its possible that the South can last long enough until the 1864 presidential elections oust Lincoln assuming that Lee is doing well in the east (esp. defending on his own territory, rather then attacking the north)

The smaller economy and lack of industrialization means a credible independent Confederacy should lag at least a decade behind OTL's US.

Industrialization would nonetheless take place post-war to make the Confederacy more self-sufficient economically as part of the Confederate nation firmly asserting its independence (both political and economical) from the northern Union.

An interesting development IMHO (and a topic of interest for me) would be how labor unionization would develop in the post-war Confederacy in the late 1800's, which would be affected more so as industry is partially opened up to slave labor (assuming that industry is opened up to an expanding slave labor, that is)

I'm currently working on the first chapter of my new timeline, and won't release it until its fully done.

Wish me luck. ;)
 
in my TL Dixieland: A Confederate TL https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=282257 I had changes to both the Western & Eastern Theaters. Like Albert Sidney Johnson survives Shiloh & one of Shermans near misses early on at Shiloh turns into a hit & kills him, which has Shiloh become a Confederate victory. In the East Jackson manages to not get shot & in turn while a battle at Gettysburg its just a smaller battle fought leading up to a bigger one
 
I had changes to both the Western & Eastern Theaters.

While both theaters are pivotal for if the South is to survive and ultimately win the war, the western theater and the subsequent splitting of the Confederacy in half following the implementation of the Anaconda Plan to the Mississippi river is what finally destroyed the South's ability to fight esp. as a result of Sherman's March to the Sea.

In the east however, it's somewhat lazy IMHO to simply say "Gettysburg" without any elaboration as to easily explain a victory for the South in the eastern theater. It is far more likely that Lee would have had a better shot at winning in the east if he stayed on the defensive spec. in and around northern and/or eastern Virginia along the Rappahannock river and esp. after Chancellorsville after which Lee was busy formulating a plan for his next operation (which IOTL led to the fatal decision to launch a second invasion of the North, a military exercise which never truly suited an army lacking in men and supplies in comparison to the much larger and more well-equipped Union Army of the Potomac)

Assuming that Lee decides to go on the defensive instead of going on the offensive as IOTL, its possible that the North would lose its will to fight and would by 1864 replace Lincoln as it becomes apparent that the South has effectively thwarted the North's efforts to win the war across both the eastern and western theaters.

So IMHO both theaters are doubly important esp. when taken together for if the south wishes to win the war in the long run.
 
Top