Cliches and unrealistic things to avoid in my Confederate victory scenario.

[World Mapping]

Hello, y'all.

I have a Confederate victory timeline in the works (the map of which c. 1914 can be seen below).

What are some cliches, unrealism, and other things I should avoid?

 

[Meshakhad]

Having the Confederacy's acquisitions in the Caribbean be fully integrated. There should be some conflict there between the largely Catholic population and the majority Protestant Confederacy.

Also, don't have Robert E. Lee as having been President. He never showed an interest in politics, and he died in 1870, so he wouldn't have even made it through one term.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I mean i would call the golden circle one such matter, but they're what they are. Now, personally i think this specific CSA is going to be super diplomatically isolated- it's obviously pissed off the union by being expansionist in the new world. even britain and France will likely be very aggressive since it clearly wants their stuff. so if it has any friends, they'd be with the central powers. so i would avoid the typical CP US and Entente CS

. I'm also not one to say that the CSA would never industrialize- with how powerful the executive branch would've become, and the roll of the army, i can easily see it haveing a robust, nationalized industry in Appalachia and texas, with the more traditional deep southern slave system persisting in the region. but it will also not have the industry to compete with the Union. the only advantages Richmond has are the width of the border and the Appalachian mountains.

as a side note, i doubt the venezuela-guiana dispute would go OTL since it was settled with American mediation and the US doesn't seem to be in a position to do it TTL https://history.state.gov/milestone...uted the,thirds of British Guiana's territory.

 

[Intosh]

Hello, y'all.

I have a Confederate victory timeline in the works (the map of which c. 1914 can be seen below).

What are some cliches, unrealism, and other things I should avoid?
View attachment 751684

Cliches about a Confederate Victory is to see the Confederation being able to win a war against Mexico or Spain and conquering anything in the Caribean or in Central America. Basically any war that the Confederation will fight will see the USA coming for round 2 and it will impossible for the Confederates to fight on two fronts.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Don't have them willingly abolishing slavery. Harry Turtledove could do it in Timeline-191 because the CSA needed British and French help against the USA in the 2nd Mexican American War. They're not going to do in response to normal diplomatic pressure, force, or at least the credible threat of it would have to be involved if you go down that path.

Avoid having the USA make friends with Britain. A CSA victory would almost certainly involve a lot of fighting along the USA-Canada border. This would be the third war the USA had fought against Britain. Having the USA join the Central Powers is cliché but it's quite plausible, assuming we get recognizable forms of the Entente and Central Powers. If the pattern of alliances changes so that we don't get recognizable forms of the Entente and Central Powers, then the USA would most likely sympathize with whichever side is against Britain.

Also I recommend avoiding CSA Kentucky. The Kentucky state legislature was firmly against seceding as was public opinion in the state, despite being a slave state. In fact if any Union state legislature was going to go over to the CSA, it would Maryland, though chances are good Lincoln would act to prevent that as in OTL.

 

[Elfwine]

i can easily see it haveing a robust, nationalized industry in Appalachia and texas, with the more traditional deep southern slave system persisting in the region. but it will also not have the industry to compete with the Union. the only advantages Richmond has are the width of the border and the Appalachian mountains.

Given how contested centralization was during the ACW, I'm not wholly sure I agree with "nationalized" - unless I'm misreading you, in which case this is just underlining a thing.

I don't think the Confederacy is going to smoothly sail into something where Richmond sets policies and everyone has to live with it either politically or economically. That feels like something that would be a very likely heated issue more than say an equivalent to the United States Railroad Administration (of WWI) being implemented without a fierce struggle at best.

Won't stop railroads from being built or anything, just that "national standard" is going to be a fraught and frustrating process even compared to the OTL US.

On the other hand, that's probably entirely separate from government arsenals and such.

I doubt the timeline is (and it certainly doesn't need to) dwell on the details for railroads specifically, but as one of my interests they come to mind as far as having some things to say on the politics.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Given how contested centralization was during the ACW, I'm not wholly sure I agree with "nationalized" - unless I'm misreading you, in which case this is just underlining a thing.

well, i was thinking of it basically as the military itself being the one building and operating the roads and a lot of the factories, and simply letting civilians use it for employment or buying of good

 

[Elfwine]

well, i was thinking of it basically as the military itself being the one building and operating the roads and a lot of the factories, and simply letting civilians use it for employment or buying of good

Yeah, I'm not sure if that would work or not, but the military's opinion of policies (and politicians) is going to be extremely relevant for at least some years after the war ends.

That may be rather ugly, even if not anti-democratic.

 

[SlickerVyn]

Avoid having the USA make friends with Britain. A CSA victory would almost certainly involve a lot of fighting along the USA-Canada border. This would be the third war the USA had fought against Britain. Having the USA join the Central Powers is cliché but it's quite plausible, assuming we get recognizable forms of the Entente and Central Powers. If the pattern of alliances changes so that we don't get recognizable forms of the Entente and Central Powers, then the USA would most likely sympathize with whichever side is against Britain.

Um... okay, this one? I have to contest this. The United States has long enjoyed a kind of 'special relationship' with Great Britain. It would certainly take a blow from Britain getting involved in the conflict, but... I think it would have recovered, largely because in Britain the majority were very, very pro-Union. The British people, they'd probably be furious with their government for having sided with the slave-holding South. Think of it like Vietnam, in a loose kind of way.

Ultimately, I'd say US-British relations would be interesting but ultimately favorable because, well, the government is gonna want to do everything in its power to ensure that they don't have to get involved in another damn conflict between the states and so makes good relations with both North and South.

Okay, that's more my take, and the OP is welcome to do as they please, but I still think they should avoid the cliche of this ruining US-British relations.

Turtledove's timeline had the CSA eventually become Nazi stand-ins, and while I'd say avoid this cliche, I'd also say it's... not that far off from what could have happened. The CSA was founded on the belief black people were inferior and should be enslaved. That's one step away from outright genocide. If they become villainous, don't turn them into outright Nazis, but they should still be heavily racist, because, well... it's the freaking CSA!

Also, don't just ignore Alaska. Russia now has a very, very expensive colony to deal with they don't have much value for.

 

[Elfwine]

My two cents:

There's fifty years (assuming the alt-WWI happens around the time of OTL's) for things to cool or things to become entrenched, and fifty years of a different US with different concerns to do different things. Work the strain on Anglo-American relations into the second, don't just skip from "Britain is somewhat supportive of the CSA" to "the USA allies with Germany specifically to oppose Britain and for no other reason." or have things be "OTL, but there's also the CSA." here.

The fact the Crimean War didn't mean Britain and France were now buddies despite being on the same side there comes to mind.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Um... okay, this one? I have to contest this. The United States has long enjoyed a kind of 'special relationship' with Great Britain. It would certainly take a blow from Britain getting involved in the conflict, but... I think it would have recovered, largely because in Britain the majority were very, very pro-Union. The British people, they'd probably be furious with their government for having sided with the slave-holding South. Think of it like Vietnam, in a loose kind of way.

Ultimately, I'd say US-British relations would be interesting but ultimately favorable because, well, the government is gonna want to do everything in its power to ensure that they don't have to get involved in another damn conflict between the states and so makes good relations with both North and South.

There is also the fact that the british upper class definitely won't approve of Confederate expansionism because it means there is an aggressive, credible threat to british citizens in the area. Belize especially is gonna be on the chopping block.

Okay, that's more my take, and the OP is welcome to do as they please, but I still think they should avoid the cliche of this ruining US-British relations.

Turtledove's timeline had the CSA eventually become Nazi stand-ins, and while I'd say avoid this cliche, I'd also say it's... not that far off from what could have happened. The CSA was founded on the belief black people were inferior and should be enslaved. That's one step away from outright genocide. If they become villainous, don't turn them into outright Nazis, but they should still be heavily racist, because, well... it's the freaking CSA!

Also, don't just ignore Alaska. Russia now has a very, very expensive colony to deal with they don't have much value for.

Edit: surveyors actually figured out some ways to make Alaska worth it for russia to keep but that would take too long so I could see them making something worth it

 

[ahmedali]

The expansion of the Confederate states is a cliché and the possibility of the state shrinking even more (Texas independence is very likely)


(And if the second Mexican Empire is established and stabilized, it will be a very strong opponent of the Confederacy, and Maximilian may lead a Mexican vengeance to recover what was lost in 1848)


Also, we may see Spain as Hohenzollern or Carlissest recovering from its problems and flexing its muscles on the Confederates and hitting them hard.)


We may see France claim New Orleans and take it back from the Confederates in a quick war


Confederate victory = vulgar British-American hate


France will support the Confederates (the British will often be neutral)


The victory of the Confederacy = the alliance of the Americans with the Germans vulgar


The Confederate States, not Mexico, may become the ones to receive an alternative copy of the Zimmermann telegram and lead to Mexico and America joining the Entente instead of the other way around


The Confederate States will not be a possible paradise later, but we may see an alternative Soviet Union there instead of Russia


(The Confederacy would provide exactly the same conditions for the next communist revolution.)

 

[athgtq16129]

Don't want to sound rude but the CSA expanding to Mexico and Cuba for some reason is one of the most common clichés and unrealistic scenarios in a CSA victory timeline, even in TL-191, which was not that "realistic" but alright when compared to other more ASB ones like Bring the Jubilee, the CSA only purchased land in Mexico strictly for it gaining access to the Pacific Ocean, and Cuba, nothing else.

 

[Socrates]

The biggest cliche is the CSA staying together as a single country. They have already embedded political brinkmanship and secession as fundamental principles. It's near inevitable that the conflicting interests between states is going to end up with massive arguments which lead to more states cutting the cord. Whether that is Northern states wanting to re-enter the US or oil rich states declaring independence. And given the number of hostile neighbors without, combined with an African American fifth column within, it's a recipe for Balkanization.

 

[athgtq16129]

Also, a Confederate Haiti in your map brings me some very sad TL-191 black holocaust flashbacks, why would the CSA want the black-majority nation of Haiti of all places, and most importantly, what would they do with its local black population? assuming that this occurs in the late 19th century or early 20th century of course, and ignoring all international condemnations and reprisals, which could be the Belgian Congo scandal on steroids.

 

[SlickerVyn]

The expansionist CSA is honestly one of the more plausible cliches; mind you, I don't mean it would have happened, but I suspect the CSA would have tried. There was the Knights of the Golden Circle thing.

 

[Aghasverov]

Also, a Confederate Haiti in your map brings me some very sad TL-191 black holocaust flashbacks, why would the CSA want the black-majority nation of Haiti of all places, and most importantly, what would they do with its local black population? assuming that this occurs in the late 19th century or early 20th century of course, and ignoring all international condemnations and reprisals, which could be the Belgian Congo scandal on steroids.

I think that it's much more likely that a victorious CSA would take advantage of the unrest in Santo Domingo (and political instability in Spain) and attempt to seize the (comparatively) sparsely-populated Eastern 2/3 of Hispaniola, and basically ignore Haiti... possibly build a fortified line along the border (which frankly few of the locals in Santo Domingo would've objected to, given the previous history....)

 

[AltoRegnant]

Also, a Confederate Haiti in your map brings me some very sad TL-191 black holocaust flashbacks, why would the CSA want the black-majority nation of Haiti of all places, and most importantly, what would they do with its local black population? assuming that this occurs in the late 19th century or early 20th century of course, and ignoring all international condemnations and reprisals, which could be the Belgian Congo scandal on steroids.

the south, when part of the union, had more than a few episodes of posturing about getting at haiti basically to restore white supremacy

 

[ahmedali]

I think that it's much more likely that a victorious CSA would take advantage of the unrest in Santo Domingo (and political instability in Spain) and attempt to seize the (comparatively) sparsely-populated Eastern 2/3 of Hispaniola, and basically ignore Haiti... possibly build a fortified line along the border (which frankly few of the locals in Santo Domingo would've objected to, given the previous history....)

I don't believe in that


It is possible that Spain was able to retake Santo Domingo (the Spaniards took advantage of the civil war to try to retake it, but left with the victory of the Union)


They can survive taking it back, and Napoleon III may try to retake Haiti and New Orleans, so it will prevent the Confederates from expanding.

 

[Elfwine]

Napoleon III trying to retake New Orleans seems like it would stir up fairly negative reactions with...well, most people, really. Possibly including within France.