Writing Contest 5. Debunking misconception challenge.

For those of you who may not know this is a thread for a AH writing contest, find the main thread here.

Your challenge for this round is to Write an article debunking a common misconception in your world. It can be on any subject, religious, economic, historical, military, anything.

This contest will be open for approximately one week, and then voting will begin to decide a winner.
Based on a comment I posted on this DWBI thread: DBWI: Why didn't the British and French intervene in the American War of Reunification?

From The Big Book of American Lies: The Stories You Were Told As a Kid that Just Don't Hold Up by Walter Thomas

Chapter Seven: The CSA Survival Myth

It has sometimes been assumed that the Confederates States of America (1861-1881) had a chance to survive as a legitimate country. In theory, this is true, but certainly not following the path they took, contrary to what might be believed from reading Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederacy. Perhaps the moment that can be pointed to as the time that the hammer hit the final nail on the CSA's coffin could be the election of 1867. In this presidential race, the CSA's current Vice-President Alexander Stephens, running with Texas Senator Louis T. Wigfall, defeated a ticket of Howell Cobb and William A. Graham. The reason the author points to this as the moment the Confederacy sealed its fate is because of their platforms. Stephens had run on a platform of maintaining plantation system of the CSA, and taking no actions to create a more favorable relation with the United States. This would plant the seeds of their ultimate downfall, as having no diplomatic barriers between them and the United States created a much easier path for their former countrymen to declare war on them, and unite their nation once more. If Cobb had been elected, he would have found it quite simple to try and establish friendly relations with his northern neighbor, as President Horatio Seymour was trying to find an achievement to show off to his citizens following the conniving nature of his rise in stealing the presidential nomination from incumbent Augustus C. Dodge, successor to the deceased Thomas H. Seymour. During his presidency, one can also note an marked rise in political conflict and disagreement, even in a country known for suffering from such issues. In his diary, Secretary of State John Slidell would record an incident in the CSA Senate, in which Senators Henry S. Foote and Isham G. Harris got into a particularly heated argument with Senators John H. Reagan and James M. Mason. He records that the disturbance likely would have resulted in a brawl had it not been for the intervention of Senator Albert G. Brown, and even after the tension was defused, both sides left with a scowl on their face and hatred still remaining in their hearts towards the foe. Slidell would note in his diary "The fighting between these "noble gentlemen" of the Confederate Senate was started over a topic so menial as to cause my memory to forget. My mind falters in the attempt to record the cause of every such incident."

If one is hesitant to believe that a single moment 14 years before their ultimate demise is not a certain enough point of no survival for the CSA, than the author will acquiesce. While the election of 1867 was likely the point of no return for the CSA, the election of 1873 ensured their downfall. In it, a ticket of Georgia Senator Robert Toombs and South Carolina Senator William P. Miles decisively defeated a ticket of Virginia Senator Robert M.T. Hunter and former U.S. vice-president John Breckinridge. Seeing the precarious state of their nation, Hunter would repeat the cry of Cobb, and urge the nation to improve relations with the U.S., or at least starting industrializing for the war he viewed as inevitable. Instead the CSA would again choose a man campaigning on support of the plantocracy, which more and more was become a less viable system, and Toombs would be elected. Of course, the Toombs presidency would become notorious for its scandals, especially financial ones, but that is not what it became infamous for. It would reach its level of infamy for, of course, the rebellions and the deposings. Following Toombs open rebuking of British and French diplomatic officials asking him to draw up a plan for the eventual end of slavery in the CSA, and the following diplomatic repercussions that followed, as well as the terrible state of the CSA economy and the lack of equality among the citizens, four main rebellions would occur, each with a general from the American Civil War at its head. These four men would become known as the Four Horsemen across the Confederacy due to their role in its downfall, in reference to the Biblical book of Revelation.

First of the rebellions were Jackson's rebellion, a Virginia based rebellion with Thomas "Ironrod" Jackson, A.P. Hill, William Mahone, and John S. Mosby at its head. Second was Longstreet's rebellion, a rebellion based in Georgia and parts of South Carolina led by James Longstreet, Lafayette McLaws, and E.P. Alexander. Then came Cleburne's rebellion, which at one point installed their leader, Patrick Cleburne, as governor of Arkansas. Finally, there was Bate's rebellion, with William B. Bate leading the way. Bate's rebellion was also the only one officially supported by an incumbent CSA governor, in this case Tennessee Governor Lucius E. Polk. Of course, all of these rebellions would be brought to an end due to Toombs' declaration of martial law, and the brutal efficiency of the CSA Army under Nathan B. Forrest and John B. Hood. Other rebellions were planned as well, such as Hill's rebellion, in which D.H. Hill and Cadmus Wilcox were planning to incite rebellion in North Carolina in supposed connection with Governor Alfred M. Scales before Forrest swept in and had both men executed, or the Wheeler Revolt, led by Joseph Wheeler in parts of Alabama and Georgia, only to be crushed by Hood and their leader given the same fate as the others. This is not mentioning, of course, the exile of some of the CSA's most prominent generals, including Joseph E. Johnston, P.G.T. Beauregard, and J.E.B. Stuart, to Canada due to Toombs' fear that they too might rebel. In these rebellions, Toombs lost many of his best generals and veteran soldiers from the Civil War to the fighting and subsequent executions, which would come back to haunt the CSA in the American War of Reunification. Once all the violence had ceased, most people merely desired a return to normalcy. Toombs would deny them this, and instead launch what is quite possibly the most controversy move of his career, the deposing of three democratically elected governors, as well as two senators. In one case it made sense as Polk made been in connection with Bate's rebellion, but in the other two cases, in which Virginia Governor James L. Kemper and North Carolina Alfred M. Scales were deposed, the evidence that Toombs' prosecutors brought against them was flimsy at best, with almost everyone seeing through it as a way for Toombs to get rid of two of his political rivals. He would also oversee the impeachments of North Carolina Senator Zebulon Vance and Georgia Senator John B. Gordon. Toombs would accuse Vance of seditious actions against the government. His evidence for this was speeches Vance delivered to the CSA Senate criticizing Forrest's brutal retributions against the rebellions, and how these actions were leading to the deaths or executions of many of the CSA's most venerated heroes. Despite Toombs wanting to see Vance hung, the North Carolina senator would instead be sentenced to exile in Canada. A similar fate would befall Gordon, a long time rival and critic of Toombs, who he managed to have exiled based on forged documents that claimed Gordon was planning Toombs' overthrow. The public, especially in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, railed against this ruling.

It is undistributable that by the time the election of 1879 rolled around, the CSA was a broken country, with the U.S. only needing to sweep in to finish off the remains. Politically divided, rampantly corrupt, and in many places ruled by fear, the CSA was far from a model democracy. All three of these things can be pointed to as reasons for the election of Nathan B. Forrest, running with Alabama Senator John T. Morgan, to the presidency, defeating former senator Clement C. Clay and former secretary of state and senator Judah Benjamin, in one of the most corrupt elections in history. Forrest's men would throw Clay votes into rivers in open daylight, and burn them in bonfires at night. By now, Clay's call for improving relations and industrialization sounded like a broken record, and both Clay and Benjamin knew that even if they were elected, the chances that they would be to successfully bring these policies into action, or even survive as nation were minimal. With Forrest in office, he began to take openly hostile measures against the U.S. government, such as doing nothing to stop fugitive slave catchers from stealing African-Americans from the United States, and forcing them into slavery in the CSA, even if they were not former slaves. For the United States under President James A. Garfield, a man who had gotten into office by promising to bring the Confederacy to heel and reunite the nation, Forrest's actions were too far. Now unleashed were the legions of United States soldiers under William T. Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and Winfield S. Hancock, destroying the burnt out remnants of the CSA in the American War for Reunification. The remains of the CSA Army under John B. Hood and Jubal Early could hardly even muster enough men to stand and face the Americans. By the end of 1881, the CSA had ceased to exist, and President Forrest was dead, hit by a lucky shot by Private John J. Williams while overseeing construction of the defenses of Richmond. Thus came to an end one of the most horribly mismanaged nations in history, one, that by its own nature, seemingly sacrificed itself to destruction.
Last edited:
The Myth of "British Columbia" ever being sympathetic

From my timeline of “Jefferson’s Anti-Slavery Crisis”

A common misconception is that “British Columbia” (OTL Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee) was sympathetic to begin with. This was a territory of an empire that was founded because the delegates of the Carolinas and Georgia fled the Continental Congress on fears that the United States of America, once it had gained independence, would move to end slavery… but it was even worse than that. Those delegates left because Jefferson had, among other complaints, criticized the British Empire on keeping the slave market open in the colonies. It was not just the fear that slavery would end; it was merely the criticism of slavery and the slave trade that caused these delegates to leave and “British Columbia” (originally GA, SC, NC) to form.

Even after its formation, “British Columbia” was still not a sympathetic area of the world. From after the independence of America in 1784 to the Panic of 1837, “British Columbia” was a part of the British Empire seemingly designed for the benefit of their British overlords and the plantation elite. The plantation elite was known for slavery due to using slaves to work large plantations (especially cotton, but also indigo on the coast). The plantation elite, besides horrifically abusing blacks due to the system of slavery, also looked down on yeoman whites and caused a class subdivision even among whites. The rot does not stop there. “Aunt Manny’s Cabin”, a book about the horrors of slavery in that area, does a good job at portraying just how bad everything was there, from the lashings, to the malnutrition. The stagnancy of “British Columbia” until the Panic of 1837 also made it difficult to relate to. The basic problem of “founded around slavery” and all the repercussions, and the violence performed to keep that system in place, remained. The British Empire was unwilling to make changes (and the local burgesses were mostly planters also unwilling to effect change there), cemented “British Columbia” as an area that no one respects.

Part of the myth of “sympathetic ‘British Columbia’” centers around a man who became larger than life—Andrew Jackson. His claims for “frontier democracy” never worked out and became consigned to the theory books due to the British Empire disliking it. Jackson was never able to get his theories to work—he may have wanted more autonomy and self-governance, but all that really amounted to was centralizing more power in the planter class. The “great Jackson” ended up becoming a royal governor in North Carolina where he was able to accomplish… surprisingly little. The British only put him there to keep an eye on him, and to prevent him from potentially starting a frontier rebellion. A great democratic proponent he was not.

The Panic of 1837, also known as the “Southron Rebellion” (1837-1842) arose when the British Empire had developed plans to eventually abolish slavery starting from 1836 (this would be phased, and the total abolition of slavery in the British Empire would arrive in 1848. Nevertheless, this caused panic in “British Columbia” and many of the colonial militias originally used for clearing land of Native Americans had risen up in rebellion, along with the formation of other divisions. The British sent armies over to stop the rebellion, crushing it with extreme force. While many people do think the British Army was excessive down in “British Columbia”, especially because some of the massacres, especially the “Sack of Charleston”, where the city of Charleston was burnt to the ground, resembled later British fiascoes, “British Columbia” was a cesspit of slavery. This area revolted—again—to protect slavery; this is revolting.

Some books claim that the gallantry of the “British Columbian” forces in an ultimately doomed war gives them at least some semblance of credit. That… does not excuse the fact that they were fighting for slavery. Even their actual conduct in battle left much to be desired. In the later stages of the war, many of their forces were simply unable to stand up to the might of the British Empire, with not as many “gallant last stands” as seen in the early dime novels. There was a large amount of running away at those stages and failing at that too. The early part of the “Southron Rebellion” saw some large-scale battles such as the Sack of Charleston (April 1837), the Raleigh Rout, and the various Marches Inland. In those battles, much of the youth of “British Columbia” was almost callously thrown away in forward assaults against the well-drilled professionals of the British Army and pointlessly killed. There is no courage in the wasteful destruction of that kind of warfare. The chief offender here is the Raleigh Rout, where Southron brigades charged the fortifications of the British Army in an attempt to relieve the defenders in Raleigh, and ended up with most of the brigades killed, the rest fleeing in a rout (disorderly retreat), and the city falling. The rebellion ended ignominiously in unconditional surrender on August 8, 1841. Most of the ringleaders of the rebellion ended up executed by the British forces on the charges of high treason.

Even after the end of slavery in "British Columbia", it still was not very sympathetic. The tenant farming system that arose was an improvement, but in practice, still exploited rural poverty (which was still disproportionately black). Some of the royal governors (like Toombs of Georgia in the 1860s and Vance of North Carolina in that time period) almost caused a crisis with the United States of America that caused the British Empire to force "British Columbia" to back down. Specifically, "Storm Riders" (members of a hate group that often lynched blacks in the USA) were fleeing to British Columbia to avoid federal marshals. An international flashpoint ensued. Britain, unwilling to risk a conflict with the USA, forced "British Columbia" to hand over the "Storm Riders". Economically, "British Columbia" still had an economy largely based on cash crops, which continued the large amounts of rural poverty. Many "British Columbians" were also enthusiastic about the British Empire even during some of its worst excesses like the Anglo-Indian War, the Scramble for Africa, and the China Crisis. This boiled over by 1911 in the Bull Moose Flashpoint, where violence started by hate groups coming from "British Columbia" which led to the assassination of important U.S. political figures spiraled into a war between the U.S. and its allies and the British Empire and its allies that led to a British Empire defeat and the end of "British Columbia"
Last edited:
The myth of Hindustan disunity

From my ASB timeline : To the last letter, but screw the spirit, where time travelers traveled to interwar period to fuck shit up, however the timeline by the 1950s did took a far more serious tone.

The Hundistan Civil War (1949-1984) was the bloodiest war in the 20th century, surpassing the Second Sino-Japanese War (even including casualties from the mostly unrelated Pacific War), the Great War, and the Euro War (both the Western War and the Soviet Eastern War) with a total death count in excess of 70 million. Although from a superficial glance it appeared that due to the sheer number of factions that the subcontinent was never meant to be unified under one government. Such an assessment was incorrect in the face of recently declassified documents from numerous countries in the great dam break* of 2004

The most vocal of this theory was, to the surprise of no one, from their former colonial overlords the British Empire, with many even in parliament claiming that had their guiding hand been there much of the bloodshed could have been avoided. This is simply not true as during their colonial rule the British were not shy about killing off their colonial subjects, even in bulk as in the artificial Bengal famine of 1942, or their more selected assassination of peaceful figures advocating Indian independence (such as the assassination of noted non-violent protest leader Gandhi in 1944). Even in relinquishment of the region (a fact little noted in most British apologists, if not actively ignored) the colonial authorities made every effort to dismantle the organs of governance, administration, infrastructure, and management, ensuring that the independent state had no chance of functioning as such. With the declassification of documents in 2004 revealed that these actions were planned malice rather than spur of the moment acts of jealousy. Headed by a group of mysterious individuals known as the Kipling Society, the group's goal was explicitly stated as the destruction of any independent state as a functional geo-political entity, thus vindicating of the Raj and ushering a return of the British. back to the subcontinent. The Kipling Society had members as high as members of the House of Lords.

The Republic of China, along with their political & economic patron the Republic of Germany being the next most vocal supporters of the myth, in their case their example being that the independent nation of the Republic of Pakistan (1955-1973) was proof of self determination. Even before declassified documents were leaked it was almost blatantly apparent that the so called Republic of Pakistan was little more than a Chinese puppet state, with much of their military officer corps to even their vice president and financial minister being members of the Chinese military. Many of the other rebel groups were also funded and aided in part or whole by the Chinese state, an investment so large in scope that it boggled the mind. However the real reason of their involvement wasn't apparent until the 2004 leak, where it was revealed that former president Chiang-kai Shek clearly stated that "A unified Indian subcontinent... cannot be allowed to form. As we have seen in another timeline their manpower, their democratic institutions, and their better relations with the West would mean it would be a matter of time before they surpass us as the titan of Asia. Therefore, in the interest of national defense we must ensure that their spirit of unity must be destroyed, and their united nationalism discredited."

The Tragedy of India is not mainly the product of internal problems, but rather an international conspiracy of gigantic magnitude. The blood of tens of millions are still on the hands of the world, and it is unlikely anyone will ever pay for them.

*with no watergate in this timeline, huge leaks of classified data/info were called dam breaks, the term coined due to a corporate breach which a company's CEO straight up claimed that they skimped out on construction materials in building a dam, the collapse of which led the death of over 10,000...
From a alternate history time line of mine, thus far only in my head, where Alaska is an independent state with centuries of history.

Unit three, myths of the second world war, self assigned topic draft one.
Student must show comprehension of the issue, dealing with it in broad strokes for further development in the final paper. A brief overview thus being all that is required.

Topic Chosen
The myth of Alyskan exhaustion in 1943.

The Myth
Following the end of 1943 the kingdom of Alyska was exhausted, militarily, economically and culturally. Intense fighting since 1938 against the Argentines, Brazilians, Italians and Germans had destroyed the nations ability and will to fight. The Japanese invasion of the country in 1943 was the final nail in the coffin. And after the expulsion of the Japanese from Alyskan soil the kingdom was finished, being unable to meaningfully contribute to the war again until the Dutch revolt of 1945.

The Truth
By the end of 1943 the kingdom of Alyska had been at war for six years, since the Argentine surprise offensive into Megalania which opened the third Patagonian war. During this time the nation had been steadily increasing its industrial capacity. Building up a modern force of tanks, aircraft and warships. However, following the intensive actions against the Japanese in the battle of the Alyskan gulf, as well as the emperor islands, the navy was worn out. Having lost many important warships and creating a gap in the fleet.

As 1944 dawned the Alyskan military found itself for the first time in six years largely free of major commitments anywhere. And while the kingdom did tone down the pace of its operations, withdrawing many troops to the kingdoms borders, disbanding units and taking their warships into drydock for major repairs and refits, they did not halt operations completely. Deploying three quarters of a million men to aide the Russians in March of 1944, as well as modernizing and standardizing the equipment fielded by many units, ditching old and worn out vehicles, guns and other gear to create a force much improved in its combat capabilities.

The reasons for doing this are plainly obvious when it is considered that the nation had been at war on numerous fronts since 1938. Rushing to raise units and equipping them with whatever could be found or produced. What resulted was an army and air-force which operated many different and confusing types and marks of aircraft, tanks, guns and trucks. And a navy which had not been able to properly conduct repair and refits to many of its ships due to their need against the Japanese. In short the Alyskans took the first three quarters of 1944 to modernize and retrain their forces before committing them to action again.

Cause of the myth
For many years following the end of the second world war the western world lacked any reliable sources of wartime intelligence from within the kingdom. Historians as a result relying on the information provided to them by the Americans and British who had, not knowing the real reasons, concocted a theory about a worn-out population and exhausted industry to explain the kingdoms halt on new operations. While information regarding Alyskan participation on the Russian front is all but non-existent even today. Thus the British and Americans, who estimated that Alyskan participation in the war could have saved tens of thousands of their own troops, and perhaps shortened the war by several months, felt understandably betrayed. And passed that feeling onto the early post war historians.

In reality however the kingdom was merely taking the first opportunity it had been given in six years to breath, modernize their forces and ready themselves for the final push against the empire of Japan and Socialism in Europe. And once this had been done they readily threw themselves completely back into the fight. Deploying considerable forces to assist the Dutch revolt and participating in the final drive on Berlin which would eventually end the war. And that their commitment to victory did not cease, as evidenced by the continued presence of Alyskan vessels in the Pacific, Atlantic and other oceans, Alyskan warplanes in the bomber streams and Alyskan ground troops in Russia.

Alyskan archives for the prosecution of the second world war, third Patagonian war.
Dunst, a history of the second world war. North star ascendant, 1938-1946.
Numerous life accounts collected under the "Heroes silent no more" project, 1988.
There persists a myth, particularly among Mexican Bonapartists, that Mexico could have retained the Spanish Cession had the North American engagement in Florida during the 1810s not resulted in a broader war that resulted in the cession of Spanish lands north of the Gila River and the Rio Grande to the United Sates. The claim is particularly absurd given the track record of the Mexican emperor historically.


The shocking demise of Napoleon Bonaparte following injuries sustained during the disastrous Battle of Regensburg resulted in a hasty French retreat thereafter from the Iberian Peninsula and an accord that returned Ferdinand VII on the throne and secured his marriage to Charlotte Bonaparte. The reign of Ferdinand VII was tumultuous, and resulted not only in the war with the United States, but simultaneously conflicts resulting in the independence of the former Spanish possessions on the mainland of the Americas. The new nations of South America would opt to build republics largely modeled on the United States as well as influenced by the French revolution, but Mexico opted for monarchy. Ultimately, the elites in Mexico would opt for the younger half brother of the Spanish consort.

In Spain, a dispute arose late into the reign of Ferdinand VII over succession, as his only surviving children were daughters. Under Spanish tradition, women in certain circumstances could inherit the throne, but since the First War of the Spanish Succession, Bourbon house law forbidding female succession had prevailed. Making matters worse was that the conflict between liberals and conservatives simmering in Spain since the Peninsular War took on a dynastic component, with liberals supportive of the accession of Princess Isabella, and conservatives backing the accession of the king's younger brother, Charles V.

As the death of Napoleon I left many issues unsettled, the intervention of France in the Spanish succession conflict inevitably resulted in a broader war. The decision of Emperor Charles of Mexico to intervene on behalf of his half niece in the war had profound consequences, namely the secession of the former Kingdom of Guatemala from Mexico, and, later, the fall of the monarchy itself. Isabella too would lose for reasons that ultimately had little to do with domestic politics.


To be clear, much of the Bonaparte legacy in Mexico endures to this day, but the monarchy itself was inevitably going to lose ground. As it was, the British officially, and Americans informally actively worked against his regime, particularly during the Second War of the Spanish Succession. This would surely have still happened, only perhaps with more formal American involvement had the Mexican Empire inherited Alta California, Nuevo Mexico and Nuevas Filipinas. Deserts and rivers separate these lands from the bulk of Mexico, and given the brief rise of republics in northern Mexico and on the Yucatan as opposition to the Spanish war grew across all classes of Mexican society, it simply is not plausible that Mexico could have kept the then-sparsely populated areas acquired historically by the United States.

Bonapartistas like to point to the Virginia slave revolt as evidence that U.S. expansion into what had been the Spanish Empire beyond Florida was not inevitable. There are a few problems with this argument. Firstly, if, as they argue, the U.S. only gains Florida during the skirmishes of the 1810s, there may not be a slave revolt in the 1830s. To this, they respond that if there was not a slave revolt, or if it had happened differently, perhaps there would have been a civil war. This is possible, but the timing would be different, and, postulating such is the opposite argument from the first. If historical events would happen anyway, then they are not necessarily going to be substantially altered in their broader effect. But, if historical divergences result in profound consequences, then there's no reason to assume that the mainland portions of New Spain could or would stay together.

It''s important to remember too that the Florida War also resulted from disputes over the exact borders of the Louisiana Purchase. If Mexico is busy fighting a war in Europe, then the U.S. would have a prime opportunity to resolve the border issue by force in its favor. Sure, perhaps the border would be different, or these lands would have a population base that was more thoroughly Mexicanized, but as it is, leading Catholic families in the area would provide noteworthy U.S. politicians within a generation anyway, as this happened anyway. If though U.S. rule does not materialize, British influence or domination is very possible. Remember, it was American intervention and the Canadian revolution that saw the British abandon their efforts at propping up a client state in Comondú .

I totally get that explorations of scenarios shrinking the United States are popular. Many are worth exploring, but there are better and more interesting ways of achieving this. One way is suggesting that the Americans end up at war wit the British in the 1810s instead of Spain. That though, is an exploration for another time.
The Calvinist Confederate Church: A Rebuttal
It has been claimed by some that religion in the Confederation is controlled by cabal of Calvinists as domineering as that historically blamed on Catholics. Hopefully this editorial will shed some light on why that's more akin to conspiracy than fact.
Firstly, let's look at the established lack of a single church shared between our nations. While the national Reformed Churches of England, Denmark, and the Netherlands, are in communion there is no single administrative synod at Confederal level that allows for a single common decree. And the Compromise of 1763 allowed representatives into the Parliamentary Upper Houses not only of Nonconfirmist Protestants but also Catholics, indeed in Ireland Catholics form the majority while in the New Wendish Provinces Lutherans and Presbyterians also outnumber Reformants.
Secondly, claiming the Reformed Churches are Calvinist ignores the differences between our more Arminian Reformed Churches and actual Calvinist Reformed Churches in favour of the common word Reformed. Whilst Arminian Reformation shares roots with the Calvinist Reformation, Jacob Arminius being a longterm associate of John Calvin, it differs in a number of theological points. Primarily it considers that one's salvation by God is conditional on one's free will, essentially that God's selection includes one's ability to freely choose salvation and continue to do so. This is unlike the Calvinist "once saved, always saved" theology.
Thirdly, there is the idea of control. While the early days of Confederation occurred during the Reformation such that most of the Confederation is Reformant by default, the Religious Wars have indelibly marked a distrust of both political misuse of religion, and religious misuse of politics. Indeed it was the Irish violent rejection of a French yoke over their view of Catholicism that lead to the first of the Compromises, the series of Acts of Parliament in each nation that opened up full participation in politics, first of Nonconformists such as Lutherans and Bucerists, then finally Orthodoxans and Catholics.
Essentially religion in the Confederation is more an association of mostly Arminian churches than a single Calvinist one. A choir of voices not a preacher's sermon.
From a series on an ATL website:

10 facts everyone knows - which are wrong
2. The first words spoken on the moon
In second place, the famous first words spoken on the Moon - except they weren't.​
What everyone knows is:​
(1) the first Moon landing took place in 1970;​
(2) Adam Scott was first out of the Artemis lander;​
(3) his colleague, Alexander Selkirk, filmed Scott climbing down the ladder;​
(4) he stepped on to the surface of the moon and said: "This is not a step into the unknown but a step into a better future for all mankind."​
Let's look at each of those in turn.​
(1) Yes, the first landing on the Moon with someone stepping out on to the surface was in 1970. Of course, there had been other landings on the moon before then. The first automated lander was in 1964, with at least one every year after that. And it is impossible to forget that Adam Scott was not the first man on the moon, merely the first live man. Had it not been for the tragic accident with the lander in 1968, it would have been Michael Martin to speak the first words on the Moon. Incidentally, the archives of the Philadelphia Reporter include a draft headline 'Moon Man Michael Martin's Magic Morning' which is certainly alliterative but probably not their best! On balance, though, this part is true.​
(2) This depends on how you interpret it. It was Selkirk who first opened the hatch of the lander, because of how they were seated inside it. He then had to climb out of it on to the top step of the ladder, fasten the hatch safely open, then move back inside to allow Scott to go past him and down the ladder. According to documents recording decisions made about the design of the lander, originally the hatch should have been by the pilot's position, so would have been opened by Scott. However, a mistake in the manufacturing rotated that layer of the lander by 90 degrees, putting the hatch beside the co-pilot instead. By the time the error was spotted, the lander was almost completely assembled and it was too late to change anything. So Alexander Selkirk was the first man out of the lander. However, Adam Scott was the first to leave the lander entirely, so we are going to say that this part is also true.​
(3) There is no problem with this statement - yes, Selkirk did film Scott climbing down the ladder. Of course, this was with the reserve camera, because Scott had picked up the primary camera by mistake before going out. That's why the film of Scott's steps down on to the Moon is in black-and-white but the film of Selkirk climbing down is in colour! So, true.​
(4) Now we come to the crux. Everyone knows that the first words spoken on the Moon were 'This is not a step into the unknown but a step into a better future for all mankind.' In this case, however, everyone is wrong. Scott did say those words, but he said them before he stepped off the ladder. The first words he spoke when standing on the surface of the Moon were a bit more mundane: "The rock looks mostly grey but there's some white and brown speckles too." Interesting for geologists perhaps (or selenologists, if we want to get pedantic), but not as inspirational! So this is false!​
So there we have it. What everyone knows is wrong...again.​

Added bonus: the ATL website in question:

...and scrolling down...
Misconception: East America always was a brutal oppressive communist dictatorship.

Why does it exist? East America as of 1995 with the foundation of the American Socialist Federation has been an oppressive communist dictatorship. However the view of its predecessor United Socialist States of America as a full dictatorship is inaccurate. It follows the popular but inaccurate trope of extending the current situation backwards through history. Other examples of such are the view of premodern Japan as a great power, Prussia/Brandenburg as great military powers before they became that way. Looking behind the last 25 years is often hard for the general populace.

Truth: The United Socialist States of America was, as obvious from the name, a constitutionally socialist state. And it did limit the legal political parties to the far left (except for the 1994 election). However except for such ideological limits the USSA still saw reasonably free, multiparty elections.The first election in 1946 saw the incumbent acting government of the CPUS(S)A replaced by the Socialist Party, who themselves were replaced in 1954 despite 8 years of rule. East America of the time saw one of the most harmonious socialist states in history when viewed from a perspective of intra-socialist conflict. In the USSA you could be an orthodox Marxist-Inkpinist (OTL: Marxist-Leninist), a Syndicalist or a Chenist and be an active politician without the fear of getting purged. USSA was also fully open to immigration and emigration within the socialist bloc. And also accepting of any person wishing to become an East American citizen. USSA also saw an explosive rise of racial and gender equality, surpassing both the Pacific States and the United States (West America). In fact outside of the late Sixties Great American War the USSA had one of the best reputations of all socialist states. Its citizens shared many rights and protections their West American and Pacifican counterparts did. It might have been a dominant party democracy with limits on the allowed ideologies but it was a decent nation. The 1994 election between CPUSSA and the "Independent Democratic Reform Alliance" was where it all was truly decided. With the IDRA decisively losing the election due to a combination of apathy from voters and some amount of cheating from the Communist Party establishment. At the time it was expected that President Eugene Debs Smith would not run for 1998 (following the tradition of two term presidencies) and that IDRA could win in time if the people really wanted it to. This was true even for the leadership of IDRA who expected the system to continue as it did before. The President Smith's "Reorganization" abolishing states and creating new subdivisions creating the American Socialist Federation in 1995 was unexpected by most. The increase in controls and decrease in political and personal freedom was also a surprise. The first President Smith would remain in power till his death in 2005. During the entirety of his reign all remained quiet and peaceful but tensions were high in the background. With his death an 8 year long civil war would start, with IDRA leadership being a prominent part in it. This brutal civil war and the following oppressive administration until President Jack Reed Smith's resignation in 2016 is what is most remembered about East America in the mainstream these days. When the current President Albert Inkpin Smith's actions do not overshadow his predecessor in the eyes of the mainstream with his actions like handing the Bahamas to UK, wanting ASF sport teams to join in pan-North American championships to be established or making grand speeches.