Talk:Brothers No More

Keep up the good work. A truly entertaining read! 

Stepintime (talk) 16:49, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It feels good to know that someone is enjoying my work. Vavent (talk) 05:08, March 3, 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, do you have any spoilers in the direction on where this is headed? I liked the section about South-North border control. 

Stepintime (talk) 20:30, March 3, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have most of it planned out in my head up until about the 1950's. The rest of the 19th Century will be pretty uneventful. There won't be a Second Civil War or anything. The National and American Parties will join into one and win the presidency in 1884, reversing Democratic policies like the second fugitive slave act. Slaves will continue to flow across the border. I'm not sure exactly what I'll do about slavery- the Confederacy certainly won't outlaw it on their own. I think it will begin to die out on its own as cotton prices fall due to international markets like India. This will cause a collapse of the C.S. economy and a brief period of industrialization. The C.S.A. will join the Allied Powers early in World War I, as their president (unsure exactly who) will be hawkish. This will lead the U.S. to join the Central Powers and go to war against the Confederacy. The Entente still defeats Germany in Europe, though the process is much more drawn out, and eventually force the U.S. into a white peace. World War I has grave economical effects on both the U.S. and C.S., leading to the rise of radical movements in each. The U.S. will eventually experience a successful socialist/communist revolution in the 1930's, with the Western states splitting off to form their own democratic nation. The Confederacy will see a rise in fascist influence and will almost succumb to a fascist dictatorship, but Huey Long will be elected president and force the country through a period of rapid industrialization and social progression. The C.S. and Socialist U.S. will fight together in WWII against the Axis. I'm unsure what happens after that point, but I think a mini-Cold War will start between the North and South while Soviet influence goes mostly unchecked. The C.S. will probably see a conservative backlash in the 60's, with leaders like George Wallace taking control. Segregation will have to end through international embargo, like what happened with South Africa in the 90's. All of that is subject to change, of course.

Sorry if that was too detailed, but I'm really enthusiastic about the future of this timeline. Let me know if you see anything that could be improved. Vavent (talk) 03:36, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

If you want I can help you write if you would like to collaborate.

Specifically, on slavery, we have to realize (as you said) that they will not abolish slavery willingly, and that state governors and local leaders will fight near to an end to keep the system in the deep south. I think a good extinction date for Slavery will be the Bowl Weavel, (the infamous pest) that struck Cotton so badly in the turn of the 20th century. Naturally, the pest will cause a fall in Cotton Production, and with western powers developing their colonies in Asia and Africa they will have less of a need to accept the inmoral practices of the South even more. Also consider the butterfly effects this will have on Brazil (which was very big on slavery). The experience of the American Civil War influenced Pedro's II decision to abolish slavery gradually and peacefully. One might imagine that the victory of the South would embolden conservatives in Brazil. However if Pedro II still ends slavery without a war, this would make the Confederacy the last European country to use slavery (because Slavery exisited in East Africa in the 1890s until the British brought that to an end).

Are you sure you want WWI to be of the same model, or that it will even start in 1914? Maybe try to think of how the alliances could be different, regardless the Confederacy and the Union will be on opposite sides, and the U.S will not be able to win a total victory if must also fight with Great Britain at the same time.

One idea that comes to me when I think about the bowel weaval is the cultural effects, if Slavery is brought to an end due to this natural disaster it will be a very common literary tool to say 'plauge delivered, the victims from their cruel masters'.  The metaphor then between the Slaves and the famous Old Testement story will be even greater.

Stepintime (talk) 18:23, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this subject. Ideally, I want to find a way for slavery to go mostly extinct before 1914. I'm not sure if the Allies will ally with the Confederacy if they still have slavery, and the rest of my timeline is based around the South being on the winning side of WWI against the U.S. (Because if the U.S. wins, they will almost certainly retake the South and that's not where I want this timeline to go.) We should consider why the Southern politicians fought so hard to protect slavery/segregation- was it because racism was so deeply ingrained in them, and because they needed to feel superior to the slaves? Or was it a way to rebel against the North? Basically, I'm wondering if they would still want to protect slavery as much if it became unprofitable. If I recall correctly, slavery almost died out in the 1790's due to it being fantastically unprofitable before the cotton gin was invented. Since the boll weevil migrated from Mexico, and the Confederacy controls Northern Mexico in this timeline, I could also move the date of the infestation up to the early 1900's.

I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to World War I (in fact, out of all the major wars of the last 200 years it's probably the one I'm the least familiar with). However, my understanding is that the U.S. didn't have much of an impact on European politics before WWI, as they were isolationist prior to that. I'm not sure if any of the changes so far would cause the background of the war to be much different. Perhaps Spain will retain possession of Cuba and their other colonies due to the lack of a war with America, and then remain strong enough to enter the world war. I know one thing: I don't want the Central Powers to win. That would turn the focus of this timeline from a "South wins Civil War" timeline into a "Germany wins WWI" timeline. American and Confederate forces will be mostly absent from Europe, as they will be fighting on their own front. If the Allies then go on to win anyway, it will be a longer affair. I think the war in Europe will last until 1920 or 1921, which has big butterfly effects on its own.

As far as the idea of collaboration goes, I had mostly envisioned this as a solo effort. On the other hand, you are very knowledgeable and bring up points I hadn't considered before. I'll have to think about it. I know next to nothing about slavery in Brazil, so at the very least you could do a section on that. Vavent (talk) 03:05, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

I saw that you added links, but perhaps a template would be a better way to organize the article tree.

The reason why Slavery was so important, is that it was the chief foundation for the enterprises of those who held political power. Remember that most Southern Whites did not own slaves, but the slave owners were almost always financially superior to the majority of the population. In the context of the Civil War, outside the moral issue of abolition, the biggest conflict was political control. If Southern elites lost their slaves, they would have no answer to the massive industrial production of the north and would lose relevance both in Washington and their local communities.

Also, remember that at this time suffrage for white men without property was less than twenty years old at this point and politics was often a rich man's matter. There was historically a huge disconnect between slave owners and nonslave owners in the upper south, where there were fewer slaves by percentage. Virgina and North Carolina were the most reluctant to join the  Confederacy, and in North Carolina, there was a bitter divide among whites (certainly class based). Secession was only agreed to when all surrounding states had already joined the Confederacy and Raleghi believed it had no choice.

However there were so many slaves in the deep south the poor whites resented them there and were more enthusiastic to fight for the Confederacy even though nothing material was offered to the poor whites in this area except 'glory'

The case of the pre Civil War was two groups of elites with different economies competing with each other for control of the country. Southern Elites having smaller populations were paranoid that they would be subsumed by an ever-expanding Northern industrial belt. One aspect I like about your timeline is your 'compromise' of giving up West Virgina for western territories (I think this makes sense within the Southern Mind) 

If the South wins, slavery has still been a bedrock of the economy and even more so if a wartime ally becomes a good consumer of Southern Goods. Also remember that the military victory will give legitimacy to the system (even if it is true that generals such as Robert E Lee disliked the institution and that is not entirely agreed upon). Now it will eventually become more of economic pain and a foreign policy embarrassment, but at that point, the ideas you mention about class and racism will be more important in keeping slavery. However, between Bowl Weavel and the threat of diplomatic isolation the I imagine the South will finally abolish slavery between 1890-1920 or encourage states to let it go.

As far as WWI goes, Germany has the advantages of a large army, industrial base, slightly better commanders and coal production. The French leadership infamously used 'plan 17' which involved a Napoleanic like a sacrifice of soldiers v.s machine guns. By all accounts, a German Victory in WWI is likely as Great Britain's blockade while effective could not fix the situation for France all by itself. Another possibility (which might not also be what you have in mind) is a total collapse of European empires across all sides as workers suffering from economic hardship storm government offices which occurred in Germany historically. If WWI continues for more than four years it is not unreasonable to imagine soldiers might mutiny as well. Now whether this becomes a 'Socialist' event is more up for question.

That being said an allied victory could still be plausible  really is Great Britian's blockade can make German civilians deperate and miserable. And France holds on (though historically it may had been overrun without U.S help). You are right that America was largely uninterested in Europe until WWI (and most citizens didn't really care until the second red scare)

Finally, I could imaigne the Confederacy being aggressive and eager to wage its own war against Spain if an easy opportunity is found. Remember there was an infamous incident where Southerners tried to take control of Cuba before the Civil War to expand slavery.

Yet another possiblity is to have Great Britain and Germany alligned with each other v.s Russia and France, which was historically considered in the 1905-1912 by British policly makers, before they truly became intimdated by Germany's desgins. Stepintime (talk) 17:05, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my linking is pretty disorganized at the moment. I'm waiting until I'm fully caught up with writing articles for the stuff that happened up to 1879, then I'll organize it more.

You bring up a lot of interesting points, and I agree with all of them. I'll speak on two things: I have also thought about the prospect of a Spanish-Confederate War. If they had already won a war against Mexico, I think it would be appropriate for them to think they could do it against Spain. Do you think they could win a war against Spain? I know the U.S. won because of their vastly superior navy at the time, and I'm not sure how the Confederate navy would compare. It would be interesting even if they lost, as a way to humble them and make it clear the Confederacy was not as invincible as it had seemed since 1866.

Second, I fully realize that Germany winning is probably the most likely outcome in this timeline. I just can't let it happen. The Confederacy's early entry to the war should provide a minor boost to the initial war effort, but that would be moot by the time the U.S. enters. There would be virtually no American or Confederate soldiers fighting in Europe after 1915 or 1916 as they defend their home. I don't want to make changes just for the sake of it, either- my philosophy is that every change that happens in this timeline should be caused in some way by the initial point of divergence (the South winning the Civil War). I remember reading somewhere that even as Germany approached Paris before the U.S. entry to the war, their supply lines were faltering and it may have been unsustainable. I don't know how true that is. The idea of mass socialist revolution is very interesting; it makes me think of the possibility of a U.S. led socialist block going against a Soviet led communist block in a war of western socialism vs. eastern socialism. In that case, World War II would likely be a Soviet vs. America/Western Europe conflict, but that would also mean that the Confederacy and the American splinter state in the west wouldn't be involved. I kind of want the imagery of Americans and Confederates fighting together against Nazis in Europe, but either way would be interesting. It should also be noted that Russia still owns Alaska in this timeline, since the U.S. was unable to buy it off them after the war. Vavent (talk) 00:14, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

1. While I am inclined to say yes given Spain's troubles in Cuba and at home, (constant unrest, and revolutions) the question goes to the South itself. Does the New Confederate Party succeed in creating a military, industrial complex, do they come to also appreciate naval power? How are their relations with the northern states? Perhaps the greatest obstacle to going for Cuba will be the potential Union opposition to further expansion. 

It may be possible for the Confederates to lose, especially with butterflies, if the South is embroiled in itself, and conservative figures retain power. An overconfident Confederacy could throw itself into a jingoistic conflict on the beleif that the 'Catholic'  foes were sub-par fighters.

Hmm.

I have never seen a timeline where Confederate and Northern armies fight together as allies. Its a bit more of a unique concept, hypothetically it could happen if a force in Eurasia truly came to threaten the entire world. Even if the North or the west is tecihncally socialist, if they can be convinced that the Europeans collectively wish to return the days of the colonies to the New World they could still fight along side.

If you would like we can certainly explore the collaspe of the European Empires of WWI, and a joint mutiny, of the soliders of opposing armies, for plausibility's sake lets say that soliders on the western front will start to consider mutiny as an option if its persists for five years without end admist impatient commanders that continue to sacrifice their subordinates with impunity.

Russia did wish to give away for Alaska, to prevent a British annexation, if the United States is not a buyer there is not too many other interested parties to sell to. Though France and Prussia might be contenders, if Alaska stays with Russia, plans to link up the area with the newly taken Amur river valley will go underway. Eventually Alaska will become more developed but may face oncoming English speaking migrants.

An idea that has been explored in another timeline is the giving away of Alaska to Japan. If the Russo-Japanese war contiunes the way it did historically. If Alaska cannot make a big difference in the war v.s Japan. 

Stepintime (talk) 20:50, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly a lot to think about. I think I'll have the Confederacy beat Spain and take Cuba. Even if their navy wasn't at the level of the OTL U.S., it still would've been enough to land an invasion force. Combined with the revolutions and the failing Spanish state, they probably would win. I don't think they would want Puerto Rico or the Philippines, as their war goal would be focused completely towards taking Cuba. If they didn't take those two, the U.S. could also declare war on Spain later to gain their own foothold in the Caribbean.

For the World Wars, I think I'll do something in between what happened in OTL and total socialist revolution. Germany will almost win the war in 1919, but the Entente will manage to fight them off long enough to completely demoralize their soldiers and start discontent in their own nation. The Kaiser will be thrown from power in a coup composed of both democrats and socialists, who will form their own German Republic. The disorganization would lead them to lose the war in Europe (or perhaps surrender as soon as the revolution is complete). At the same time or soon after, France will fall to a leftist revolution. That will leave mainly the U.K. to support the C.S. and knock the United States out of the war. The remaining democratic nations will be disorganized and face revoltion at home; the U.K.'s government will successfully fight off revolutionaries on both the left and right, the C.S.A. will overcome an attempted fascist takeover, but the U.S.A. will fall to the socialists (with the Western states splitting off, and Missouri and Kentucky applying for statehood in the Confederacy.) Hitler will still take control of Germany, and they will invade socialist (communist?) France. As the Nazi threat grows, the U.S. and C.S., along with the U.K., will have to team up to take them down. The Western states will have to fight Japan alone, and they could very well lose. When the Nazis are defeated, leftist France will be restored by the U.S., while Germany is eventually partitioned into three nations (one controlled by the Soviets, one by the socialist Americans, and a federation set up by the Confederates and British). The Soviets would then attempt to take down Japan, and I'm not sure how successful they would be. Nukes would be developed by one of the C.S., Western American states, or the Soviets at some point (the exiled German scientists like Einstein would probably end up in the West). A Cold War would then commence between the socialists and the democratic U.S. nations, with all sides having nuclear weapons. The socialist Americans and the Soviets would not be warm friends, either, with their visions of socialism/communism being vastly different (the U.S. socialism would still be somewhat democratic, even if only under a few leftist parties). I think the Soviets and U.S. will eventually lose the Cold War and fracture apart, with a new democratic United States trying to regain the glory of the original. That's far in the future though, and we'll get to that when we get there.

One other thing I'm trying to decide is when the Confederates would admit the Mexican territories as states. I know they would be somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of states that are majority Hispanic, so I think they would wait until they are thoroughly settled with white Southerners. The same question applies to Cuba. If the Mexicans were thoroughly "Americanized", would they be allowed full citizenship? Vavent (talk) 22:19, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

They will not grant them citizenship. Historically even the U.S as a whole treated Spanish speakers in the former Mexican territories badly, and marginalized the former Spanish middle class in every way possible. With a combination of religious, linguistic and racial prejudice, the Latin American territories will be treated as exploited colonies

This is also a good point to talk about how immigration will change from Asia. Though not as famous as American immigration, many Chinese did arrive in Mexico in the 19th century. However, with Cocyua ,this will certainly bring the Chinese into Confederate territory- even if many Chinese just decide to pass through on their way to Mexico.

Chinese if they are permitted at all, will be treated in atrocious ways and will have their own segregation in place. For fun details I can even imagine some ultra-conservatives arguing for the enslavement of Asians- which could provoke an ire with the declining Qing Empire- but, I cannot imagine the move succeeding as it would be an international embarrassment for the CSA. 

Stepintime (talk) 23:51, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess if statehood ever does come for those territories it will have to be because enough Southerners moved there.

I agree that Chinese will be treated terribly if they ever come in contact with the Confederates. They weren't treated well even in the U.S. at the time. I'll make sure to include the enslavement of Asians thing somewhere down the line. Vavent (talk) 05:09, March 7, 2019 (UTC)

I would say no statehood, unless 40% has a protestant background is requried and perhaps over 50% after slavery is abolished.

Looking forward to more on this timeline!Stepintime (talk) 06:34, March 7, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! More is coming soon, after I finish organizing the new articles. Vavent (talk) 00:40, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to write about Native Americans too? It would be cool if they got an article :)

Stepintime (talk) 02:55, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

I certainly plan to. I considered giving them their own state within the Confederacy (like the attempted OTL State of Sequoya), since the Native Americans were allies with the Confederates during the war. I think I'll just have Oklahoma admitted as a regular state instead, but the dynamics of Native-Confederate relations will be explored. Vavent (talk) 20:11, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

I know Stepintime has already said this, but I really enjoy this timeline and come back everytime you make an addition to see what’s new. Southern victory timelines sometimes all merge into one, but yours really stands out. Keep it up!

 DukeDevon “Until we talk again!”

Thank you! I honestly never expected this timeline to get so much praise- as you said, most Southern Victory timelines end up being the same. I just thought it would be fun to make my own.

I'm really excited to write more and I hope you continue to stick around! Vavent (talk) 00:54, March 13, 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you another fan :)

And I really like the Sequoya idea, if it could work

Stepintime (talk) 02:26, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I think it has a lot of promise.

 DukeDevon “Until we talk again!”

Well, now I'm coming around to it. There's no reason there can't be both Oklahoma and Sequoya :) Vavent (talk) 00:54, March 13, 2019 (UTC)

Is the Indian territory going to be split, tell us more!Stepintime (talk) 05:39, March 14, 2019 (UTC)

It would seem that is now the plan, yes. It was split in OTL under the U.S. government, but the proposed plan by the Native Americans in the area to create their own state was denied. I think the Confederates would accept such an offer, because for some reason they were more friendly to the Natives than the U.S. was. So, there will be two states in the area that is OTL Oklahoma- Oklahoma, run like any other state, and Sequoya, run by the five Native American tribes in the area. I'm not sure exactly how that state government would work, but I can flesh that out when we get there. Vavent (talk) 04:31, March 15, 2019 (UTC)