The South Wins the Civil War--Thinking the Butterflies Through

[Rockefeller]

Ok, so I have been contemplating doing a 'South Wins the Civil War' timeline...

Good idea, right?  I mean there hasn't been one in a while and you can pretty much take the story anywhere.  So, I started thinking about it and I decided that if I am going to do it, I want it to be as detailed and as realistic a possible.  There is only one problem--the South winning the Civil War would have HUGE butterflies...and that is a daunting task for any althistory writer.  I realized the following things:

--The Civil War happened at one of the most pivotal moments in American history, the birth of industrialization.  If the Civil War had happen 50 years earlier (or 50 years later for that matter) it would have, in a way, been less "dramatic".

--The South actually winning the war would require intervention by a Europen nation on behalf of the Confederacy.  The most likley nation to do so is Great Britian due to its dependence on cheap, American cotton.

-- --The fact that G.B. helped the C.S.A. gain independence would put A LOT of bad blood between the U.S. and G.B.  The deterioration of relations between the two nations could lead to (foreseeable) two things.  1) The beginning of a industrial “arms race” between the U.S. and G.B.  Think of the Cold War, but in the late 19th Century.  2) The United States begins to align itself with the Central European powers, so now the U.S., Germany, and Austria-Hungry are B.F.F.’s.

--The situation described above sets an interesting scene for WWI.  The United States, still reeling from the economic crash that came with the South’s victory is in no position to intervene in the matter.  Meanwhile, the Confederacy (whose economy is still largely dependent to agricultural exports to Europe) has pursued an isolationist foreign policy and, quite frankly, doesn’t have the military power to be of much use to either side.  This means that the European powers would ultimately fight each other into oblivion.  The Rhine Valley would be more or less left a “wasteland” and all the nations involved would pretty much stay intact.  This leads to a far more “splintered” and “war prone” Europe, even in the 21st Century.

--Without WWI (as we know it) there is no post-war inflationary economic boom in the U.S. or Western Europe.  In fact the 1920’s would probably turn-out to be a decade of economic recession as world markets try to adjust to the concept of a Europe where war could break out at any moment.  The nation the best off would probably be the Confederacy who can survive on its agricultural exports and limited industry.

--No boom of the 1920’s means no Great Depression.  No Great Depression means that fascism never really has a chance to talk hold in Europe.  However, the CSA does seem like the prime place for a far-right government to talk hold (hmmm…).  Thus, the Soviet Union is able to essentially steamroll its way through Europe (metaphorically speaking) and communism is the primary economic system in Europe by 1950. 

--Because the U.S. never developed into a world power because it didn’t enter WWI and there was no WWII, then there is no real opposition to the Soviet Union. 

Who would have guessed that an independent South would lead to global, Soviet domination?

So, guys…does this seem right to you?  Is this realistic?  Any other suggestions, comments, criticisms.

Your response is very much appreciated…

[CathKhan]

Sounds awesome, & since Antonio isn't doing his & because this board needs some good timelines, I strongly encourage you to do it. One thing I'd disagree on us the US's economic state. I think that after fifty years, we'd have recovered economically.

[Senator Snowstalker]

The best timeline on this is Timeline 191 by Harry Turtledove. Basically (spoilers ahead),





WWI is won by an alliance of Germany, Italy, Austria, and America against an alliance of Russia, France, Britain, and the CSA. World War II is the CSA led by a Hitler-like figure who attacks and nearly destroys the USA. However, the US wins, and the CSA is dissolved and occupied like in Reconstruction. Texas, however, becomes an independent country.

[Frodo]

First you would need to figure out how the South would win the Civil War, and to do that a few key elements would need to fall into place.  I have some suggestions:

1. Get the Kentucky and Missouri legislatures to vote to secede from the Union, and join the Confederacy, especially after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's subsequent call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion.  

2. The 1860 presidential candidate John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky -and NOT Jefferson Davis- becomes the first President of the Confederate States of America.  Jefferson Davis gets to command an army like he always preferred.  

3. Over 200,000 southerners remained loyal to and fought for the Union in OTL -if you can get the vast majority of those to follow their states and families in joining the Confederacy, like John Buford, George Thomas, John Gibbon, and a few other key figures, that would greatly augment the ranks of the Confederate army, and cancel out the losses they suffered in OTL by the end of the war.  
---------------------------------------------------------

With these changes at the starting point of the war, you could really have some butterflies later on.  

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Well I take it like this. Stonewall Jackson lives and doesn't get injured in that friendly fire incident. He aids Lee and the South wins Gettysburg. Some of the western states (Indiana, Missouri, Illinois) and the border states swing to the southern side. Lincoln ,at this development,agrees to peace talks in which slavery is ended in 1876 as is the northern income taxes. Full civil rights for minorities and women  would be given by 1900 stemming the rise of progressivism in the early 1900's.

[izixs]

I like your general plan, but tis leaving out a major player of the first half of the 20th century: Japan

Let's start with the Russo-Japanese War. Is Teddy Roosevelt isn't president or in a position to help in the negotiations, what sort of peace comes about (if any) between Japan and Russia? If the war lasts longer and the Tsar is forced to negotiate from a much weaker position, that would likely both lead to Japan gaining more in the resulting peace (perhaps all of Manchuria including Vlodivostok instead of just Korea). This also leads to a weaker Russia as it was also facing rebellion at the time. One possibility there is that the 1917 February style revolution happens in 1905-6 instead. This can drastically change who Russia is playing for in WWI or could even push it off a ways. Or it could have it happen sooner!

A Russia with a semi-stable democratic structure (barring bolshevik revolutions of course) might seek to prove itself but engaging in a massive military build up with the intent of beating up on a power they have better access to: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Sweden et al, or the Ottomans. An attempt at a small war against one of these powers could place WWI starting in 1910 as the new Russia tries to show the world that its powerful and only lost their previous battle because of the Tsar and/or the distance to the east theater.

And of course that leads to new butterflies all over the place.

Back east, Japan, empowered by its win over Russia, seeks to expand its influence as it did in the original time line, but starts a few steps up from where it did in reality. Eventually this leads to Japanese imperial expansion, potentially earlier before they did in the original time line. The question is then, assuming they take advantage of WWI and the decline of European influence in the far east, they'd be in a good solid position by the 1940s to find some allies and start an alternative WWII.

My guess would be that a Europe dominated by either a democratic or soviet russia would have some hold outs who would look to Japan for assistance given that Japan was the last to deal well with the Russians. So the UK and maybe Spain or France might of survived as free from Russian influence and thus would sign on to alternative Axis. The question is then what does the US/Confederates fall in this? There might be legitimate fears that Russia has its eyes on retaking Alaska so they can begin to dominate the pacific (assuming Alaska is part of the US at all at this point), but some fears might also be that Japan seeks pacific dominance and is in a better position to gain it. The Confederates might be prone to taking the opposing position to the US by default, but if they're allied with the UK and other Anti-Russians and the US is going anti-Russian, they might find themselves on the same side during such a war.

But the question would be, who does the US view as a threat?

Other questions:

What happens to UK controlled India? If they loose in WWI might they have to give it up to another power?

What goes on with Canada?

And South America?

And Africa?

Do the Ottomans have a resurgence and last to the present?

Does China ever become independent of foreign powers? If it does, does it form a united China? What kind of united China?

Without fascism, how does the political culture evolve post 1935?

Is there a league of nation/united nations at some point?

Who participates in the space race?

Who uses the first atomic bomb?

If the US doesn't become a super power and Japan/Russia do, what sort of cold war does that lead to? Or is it very hot for a very long time?

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

I was mainly thinking from an American  perspective. I'm m scenario the north and south reunify after the war as part of the treaty.

Teddy Roosevelt is a prominent general and serves as Secratary of War under Grover Cleveland. The Great White fleet does happen.

I haven't though all the way to world war 1 or much of the world scene at this point.

[Frodo]

So what's happening with this? 

[ChairmanSanchez]

The best win for the South would have Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. However, this is unlikely. The Alternate History Forum (not the Atlas one) is a great resource!

[Rockefeller]

So what's happening with this? 

I'm still thinking it through.

THE SOUTH WINS THE CIVIL WAR--Coming to the Atlas Forum Fall 2011

Or should I do a "Hughes wins 1916" timeline? that POD is very rarely discussed. 

[CathKhan]

So what's happening with this? 

I'm still thinking it through.

THE SOUTH WINS THE CIVIL WAR--Coming to the Atlas Forum Fall 2011

Or should I do a "Hughes wins 1916" timeline? that POD is very rarely discussed. 

NiK did a Hughes in 1916 tl, though he stopped it in the mid-thirties. It was really interesting and he's at some points discussed re-starting it though I haven't seen any action. Search for "Vive Le Hughes".