Talk: Timeline (No Gettysburg)

Some Questions[]

Why does Lincoln agree to a ceasefire while still in office?
Why does Southern Missouri join the CS? From what I understand, most of the Confederate sympathizers were in the northern parts of that state. And even if not, why would the US agree to let Missouri and Maryland be partitioned?
How did the CS get New Mexico? I'm assuming the division is the north-south division recognized by the CS Congress (see Wikipedia:Arizona Territory (CSA)) The CS in OTL never claimed New Mexico
Why does the CSA form an alliance with Deseret? The Confederates were no more sympathetic towards Mormons than the North, and I can't see any reason they'd want to risk angering their more powerful northern neighbor. And why does the US allow Deseret to secede?
Mexico - Why does the CS take so much territory? What gain would it have for them? And why would they rename and combine states? I'd think it far more likely they'd only take Sonora, to give themselves a Pacific coast
Why does Spain attack the CSA? In OTL, the Spanish-American War was triggered by an explosion on the Maine which was most likely an accident, but was blamed on the Spanish. Spain never actually attacked
Why did slavery continue so long? Nik 05:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A response[]

Wow, excellent questions - and so FAST! I just got through the door here at althistory.wiki! I'll answer here, rather than on your Talk page, hoping you "watched" it, and for the convenience of others who come by with questions/comments.

Bear in mind that I wrote this TL many years ago, and have just only recently looked at it again (after over a year of not looking at it at all) since I finally cut ties to my ISP. I'll address some of these now, and try to think through the rest later.

Lincoln agrees because the situation on the ground, by my Timeline's 1865, look dire. Not "hopeless," but certainly like it could drag on for another year or so. Maybe that wouldn't have happened in that TL, but in this TL, politics trumps other considerations, and despite some successes, unrest at home and the prospect of a longer war take their toll.
Missouri was the scene of the most viscious fighting in the war, so it's only natural that it would be torn apart. I will revisit the division of the state. I think the map I drew had simply a "stub" of the state in the CSA, given as a compromise measure during treaty negotiations only, and in this TL, it should probably come from in the west, where many Confederates were.
Again, I'll check the map, but I think your'e right that any AZ/NM division would be north/south, not east/west as it was in our TL. As you point out in OUR Timeline, NM was never claimed by the CS. It was in mine, though I don't explain why. Probably should.
As for Desret, they are allowed to leave probably for the reason you mention, they are not liked. Also, the chaos in the aftermath of the war in that TL means they probably didn't want another full-scale war again so soon - and over UTAH? Notice that they acted to stem any rising tide of seccession in the rump-USA the following year, once they got their bearing on the situation. And anyone who seceeded from the US would have been a natural ally of the CSA. Even if it was as loose relationship, with few ties. One would think, though I dont' go into details, that relations (and trade) betw. the US and Deseret would be frosty and infrequent after a secession. Hence, the chance to embarass the US arises and the CS takes it.
As for Spain's attack - you can't assume the same situation exists 36 some odd years after a point of departure. Spain faces a totally different foe here, with decades of diplomatic exchanges that would likely have been far different than it experienced with the US in OTL. (McKinley was far less open in his beligerence than was Pres. Reagan in this TL, openly supporting a "Bay of Pigs-like" insurrection.) Just some creative specualtion, though, I suspect that they felt the CSA was far weaker than they perceived the USA in OTL, and thought a preemptive attack would be to their advantage.
Slavery is a tough issue. I think part of my thinking back in the late 90s was to counter the prevailing stereotype in Alternate Histories that somehow, had the South won the war, they would simply turn around and free their slaves the same year. (I think Turtledove had Pres. Lee doing this. Ludicrious.) I do know that there were Constitutional amendments on the table to do this, and your Rebellion of 61 seems to be based on these kind of agreements, which is plausible, under the circumstances you cite. But it's not reasonable for them to simply abandon slavery on their own, immediately. It sounds more like a guilty 20th/21st century writer fearing being seen as "pro-slavery" if they "allow" their fictional characters to let it exist.

That rant aside, I took what I think is a more realistic approach - gradual emancipation, based on economic pressures that render slavery obsolete. In part two (which I don't have up yet) I do forsee emancipation in the CSA, but in the 1920s and 30s. Some would say that was too EARLY. For an old copy of the site's second section (to give you a preview) see it on archive.org [1]. This first section [2] is archived there, too, but changes to the 1997 TL only go back to 2001. (Actually, the map showed up there on that first page, and I did indeed originally do NM/AZ incorrectly. When I do a new map, I'll change that, as well as fixing MO.) Thanks Nik! Your comments are appreciated! Nhprman 22:24, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Some replies:

Perhaps it's not so much that Lincoln consents to a ceasefire because of the Confederate victories per se, but because Congress threatened to cut off funding for the war? Lincoln himself seems to me to be near-fanatical in his intention to preserve the Union.
Utah/Deseret connects California to the rest of the Union. Without it, California would be even more isolated
Spain - Good points about the CS being weaker. They might even have misjudged the likelihood of the US siding with them (perhaps believing the US was looking for vengeance and/or regaining lost territories
Given the strong international sentiments against slavery, I doubt it would survive in name so late as the 20's. 1860's is certainly too early, but I don't think 1880's would be. I'm sure, however, that de facto slavery would continue to exist, much like the sharecropping in OTL. Personally, I suspect slavery would be eliminated on a state-by-state basis. Tennessee already had a program of gradual emancipation, for example. Slavery would be difficult to maintain in those areas that had been occupied by Union troops.
An additional comment: I like that you have the CS and the US on a friendly basis. I'm rather skeptical of althists where they remain bitter enemies.
I'll take a look at your second half tomorrow. It's too late right now :-) Nik 06:48, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln was fanatical, but with extensive political pressure, remember that Andrew Johnson ended up politically bullied, and I suspect that even though Lincoln was strong-willed and (in OTL) was quite strong politically, by the time this alternate TL reaches 1865, things are quite different. Remember also that the Deification of Lincoln largely came after he was assassinated. In my TL, he is not, and does not garner that fuzzy warmth and heroic stature as a leader history has given him and all presidents who are cut down mid-term. Plus, in this TL, he lost the war! Cutting off funding is an interesting line of thought, though. I'll consider that.
In my map of the CS/US, which I'll publish to the site when I rework it a bit more, there is a link to California for the U.S. below Deseret.
In my TL, slavery pretty much withers by the 1920s, but you're right, maybe it should die at least in name a lot earlier. I'm certain it wouldn't survive in name well into the 20th century. The amendment was precipited, as you will see, by some of the states' de facto abolition of slavery.
I think the idea that these nations would always be hostile is a stereotype of AltHist writers. I used to have a Webpage about AltHist stereotypes when it came to the Civil War. I may post excerpts of it again somewhere here.

P.S. I added a map. And the presidents page isn't showing up in the No Gettysburg category. What's wrong? Nhprman 05:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)\

Slavery in Confederate Victory ATLs[]

My view on slavery is that it would have eventually died out by the late 19th Century, possibly lasting no more than 20 years after the end of the war. England and other European countries would have been under enormous pressure from their populations to stop trading with the CSA unless it ended slavery. Note: The last American slave nation was Brasil which ended it in 1888 under the same pressures.

Now that would certainly mean a "Jim Crow" era in the South, but probably would NOT have seen the rise of the Ku Klux Klan (which came about from a white Southern revolt against Reconstruction) and possibly a "kinder" but nonetheless oppressive "apartheid"...which like South Africa could have lasted well into the 20th Century.

A few more questions[]

Overall a nice job, I like it. Here are a few questions, however:

It seems that the poor and agricultural Confederacy is better at building rail roads than the rich and industrial Union; why?
You spend some time discussing the growth of railroads East-to-West but what about commerce from South-to-North? What I'm thinking about here is the cattle industry which went from hooves in Texas to dinner plates in Union states.
Given the poor race relations in the Confederacy towards both slaves and American Indians; what are the relations like towards "Mexican-Indians"?

For your first question, they aren't, they simply built more. - 82.38.98.206 16:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The great question[]

is that TL the same that timeline-191 because i

feel a copy paste way--Fero 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No it is nothing like timeline-191--Histbuff 22:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Flags,Maps, and Timeline[]

Hi this needs to have flags when completed and maps for World Wars and one for every passing decade after WW2 and i have been helping alot with the timeline so i please ask that whoever works on this please let me put stuff down and then edit as you please though that is what you have been doin i would like to see you do at least 10 years on your on.--Histbuff 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work[]

Em, you seem to rip characters out of Turtledove's books. And also:

There are some confusing areas, especially Central America and Germany. I recommend that you make their status clearer.

Germany would probably have imposed restrictions on Britain's navy, so they probably would not build an aircraft carrier.

With Lenin rising to power, there is not a chance in hell of Debs getting into the white house. He was also dying by that stage, so another socialist should get the Job (NOT something form Turtledove btw, maybe Robert Todd Lincoln)

Some suggestions. Buk5 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well i didn't start the timeline i just added on from the the year 1900 and the guy who owns it has helped so what i need is some actual work and maybe some cahnges(after end of Part 1)--65.11.112.179 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Libertarian" Party[]

Even though the party that comes to power in the CSA in the 20s is called the "Libertarian" Party, their practices don't seem to square very well with libertarianism.