The Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove

[HappyWarrior]

This series by Harry Turtledove is excellent.  Starting at the confederate victory at Camp Hill and culminating in the nuking of Philidelphia, this series is a must read for anyone interested in alternative history.  (And most surprising of all the two main U.S. parties are the Socialists and Democrats)

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No. The presence of 20th century historical figures plus exact parallels of OTL's european history makes it implausible plus HT inserts endless disturbing and badly placed(in story terms) sex scenes. Really if you must read anything by HT read the colonization books, A different flesh, his war between the provinces series or either of his short story anthologies instead.

[NDN]

No. The presence of 20th century historical figures plus exact parallels of OTL's european history makes it implausible plus HT inserts endless disturbing and badly placed(in story terms) sex scenes. Really if you must read anything by HT read the colonization books, A different flesh, his war between the provinces series or either of his short story anthologies instead.

[Jake]

Turtledove's books are generally jokes, though In the Presence of Mine Enemies was solid.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Turtledove's books are generally jokes, though In the Presence of Mine Enemies was solid.

In the Presence of Mine enemeis was ok if a bit cliched.

[Colin]

It's really a shame that, mostly because of lack of competition, Harry Turtledove is the best-selling author of alternate history. In Southern Victory, or TL-191 as it is usually called, he makes all the amateur mistakes that you learn to avoid as you begin to write better alternate history. Even without the presence of RL characters at later dates in his books they are still highly implausible to say the least and ever since the end of the Great War books they have basically been running a course that is exactly parallel to OTL pre-War era. It's hard to imagine a world in which Germany winning WWI does nothing more to the history of Europe then countries changing roles, with France and England replacing Germany and Italy. I've read the entire series though, except for the last book, mostly because it is one of the few Alternate History series out there. I bought his latest book but have yet to read it, I know how it ends and it just holds no appeal for me.

SM Stirling is a better writer than Turtledove however his situations are mostly just molded so he can create a medieval type novel, or a novel of colonization and exploration, or a dystopia, or to explore his wacked out ideas on governance, not to create actual believable AH.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Never read Turtledove.. he stricks me as a typical AH writer tbh.

As for the Scenario listed above, while it's not quite Alternative History in the classic sense (though it does deal with a victorious CSA) this is the only great book out there.. one of the best actually.

[Hash]

It's really a shame that, mostly because of lack of competition, Harry Turtledove is the best-selling author of alternate history. In Southern Victory, or TL-191 as it is usually called, he makes all the amateur mistakes that you learn to avoid as you begin to write better alternate history. Even without the presence of RL characters at later dates in his books they are still highly implausible to say the least and ever since the end of the Great War books they have basically been running a course that is exactly parallel to OTL pre-War era. It's hard to imagine a world in which Germany winning WWI does nothing more to the history of Europe then countries changing roles, with France and England replacing Germany and Italy. I've read the entire series though, except for the last book, mostly because it is one of the few Alternate History series out there. I bought his latest book but have yet to read it, I know how it ends and it just holds no appeal for me.

SM Stirling is a better writer than Turtledove however his situations are mostly just molded so he can create a medieval type novel, or a novel of colonization and exploration, or a dystopia, or to explore his wacked out ideas on governance, not to create actual believable AH.

If you really want solid and plausible AH material for the Confederacy, I recommend Roger Ranson's "Confederate States of America". Turtledove is just German history 1918-1945 with names changed.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Read For Want of a Nail for good AH.

[Colin]

If you really want solid and plausible AH material for the Confederacy, I recommend Roger Ranson's "Confederate States of America". Turtledove is just German history 1918-1945 with names changed.

I have read that book and found it a nice piece of academic alternate history, and shows a very plausible look at a post-Victory Confederacy from a historians prospective.

Read For Want of a Nail for good AH.

I second this completely. For Want of a Nail is possibly the best AH book ever written and it is the most unique. A 400 page college level history textbook from an alternate world, complete with 20 page bibliography filled with fake books from this alternate world.

[12th Doctor]

No. The presence of 20th century historical figures plus exact parallels of OTL's european history makes it implausible plus HT inserts endless disturbing and badly placed(in story terms) sex scenes. Really if you must read anything by HT read the colonization books, A different flesh, his war between the provinces series or either of his short story anthologies instead.

First off, he cut way way back on the sex scenes after about the fourth book. 

Secondly, he didn't directly mold European history onto America.  In fact, the conclusion of both World Wards is acctually quite different.  The United States wins WWI with its use of concentrated armor attacks... armor didn't even play a major factor in the real war.  The Second World War ends more of less like the real Civil War, with a strong hint of Vietnam thrown in.  While the premise in the same, there are several areas where Turtledove significantly diverges for strict "analogy".

Thirdly, Alternate history is good and entertaining when there are recongnizable characters in recongnizable situations.  Your alternate histories rarely contain these elements, which is why they suck.  No offense, but you know my opinion of them.

[12th Doctor]

It's really a shame that, mostly because of lack of competition, Harry Turtledove is the best-selling author of alternate history. In Southern Victory, or TL-191 as it is usually called, he makes all the amateur mistakes that you learn to avoid as you begin to write better alternate history. Even without the presence of RL characters at later dates in his books they are still highly implausible to say the least and ever since the end of the Great War books they have basically been running a course that is exactly parallel to OTL pre-War era. It's hard to imagine a world in which Germany winning WWI does nothing more to the history of Europe then countries changing roles, with France and England replacing Germany and Italy. I've read the entire series though, except for the last book, mostly because it is one of the few Alternate History series out there. I bought his latest book but have yet to read it, I know how it ends and it just holds no appeal for me.

SM Stirling is a better writer than Turtledove however his situations are mostly just molded so he can create a medieval type novel, or a novel of colonization and exploration, or a dystopia, or to explore his wacked out ideas on governance, not to create actual believable AH.

I agree that American Empire kinda dragged, but one gets the sense that he was writing it because he had to.

In temrs of the Return Engagments series, I find the early analogous elements to be somewhat entertaining, but he completely abandons those after Drive to the East.  Hardly anything that happens in the last two books i mirrors the acctual war, except the concentration camps and trials afterwards.

[12th Doctor]

Never read Turtledove.. he stricks me as a typical AH writer tbh.

As for the Scenario listed above, while it's not quite Alternative History in the classic sense (though it does deal with a victorious CSA) this is the only great book out there.. one of the best actually.

I did NOT like that story.  The main reason being it was too fanciful.  The authors attempts to adapt the existing technology that existed pre-Civil War and simply say that because the TL did not turn out exactly the same way would mean that such scientific realities as eletricity woudl never be harnased made the very premise of the book harder for me to swallow.  In short, it diverged too far from reality.  When an author does that, he loses me.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Harry Turtledove is a TERRIBLE alternative history novel writer. Most of his scenarios are unplusable, especially his series where the South and the North are seperate nations and all that. If you do want to read a good Alternative History novel than read Fatherland by Robert Harris (where the Nazi's win WWII, JPK Snr is President, ect.) or as Hashemite said before Conferderate States of America by Roger Ranson, magnificant reading right there.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Never read Turtledove.. he stricks me as a typical AH writer tbh.

As for the Scenario listed above, while it's not quite Alternative History in the classic sense (though it does deal with a victorious CSA) this is the only great book out there.. one of the best actually.

I did NOT like that story.  The main reason being it was too fanciful.  The authors attempts to adapt the existing technology that existed pre-Civil War and simply say that because the TL did not turn out exactly the same way would mean that such scientific realities as eletricity woudl never be harnased made the very premise of the book harder for me to swallow.  In short, it diverged too far from reality.  When an author does that, he loses me.

Not at all fanciful when you consider that the enviorment Edison, Telsa, et al would have worked in would have been extremely different. (And as we talking about Electricity here; let's not forget Edison bullying of Telsa's Alternative Current; without which we might be living in a different world as we speak of.)

I respect your opinion though and if one does not like a book, well, one does not like a book. Personally I loved it, though I admit it's far from being typical Alternative History but I'm really more of a fantasy type guy.

[12th Doctor]

Never read Turtledove.. he stricks me as a typical AH writer tbh.

As for the Scenario listed above, while it's not quite Alternative History in the classic sense (though it does deal with a victorious CSA) this is the only great book out there.. one of the best actually.

I did NOT like that story.  The main reason being it was too fanciful.  The authors attempts to adapt the existing technology that existed pre-Civil War and simply say that because the TL did not turn out exactly the same way would mean that such scientific realities as eletricity woudl never be harnased made the very premise of the book harder for me to swallow.  In short, it diverged too far from reality.  When an author does that, he loses me.

Not at all fanciful when you consider that the enviorment Edison, Telsa, et al would have worked in would have been extremely different. (And as we talking about Electricity here; let's not forget Edison bullying of Telsa's Alternative Current; without which we might be living in a different world as we speak of.)

I respect your opinion though and if one does not like a book, well, one does not like a book. Personally I loved it, though I admit it's far from being typical Alternative History but I'm really more of a fantasy type guy.

IIRC, the book takes place in the early-mid 20th century.  I think that, by then, someone would have invented consumer electricity.  "Great Man Theory" doesn't really apply to basic scientific discoveries, because they are already realities, someone just needs to figure that out... and electricity was already known.  For there, it doesn't take that much of a leap to assume that someone out there would have developed a way to use it.  In fact, it is almost a certainty.  Just because the North was poor doesn't mean a Southerner or "Southron" as they are called in the book IIRC, would not have invented it.  Also, while it took an accident to get a working telephone, the idea for one was being researched by many people when Bell achieved his goal.  I think someone would have eventually figured out how to make one, certainly within 50 years of its acctual invention.  Same goes with the combustion engine, etc, etc.  The view of the book it too America-centiric, as it plays to what many of us were told in grade-school... that Americans invented everything, and no one else was working on a similar project at the time.  Certain mass production and the assembly line would have been developed in an alternate world... Henry Ford wasn't the only businessman with common sense.

[12th Doctor]

And as for AC vs DC... point the differences between the two out to a 10 year old child... using Christmas Lights as an example, and they would quickly be able to tell you which one is better.  AC would have won out anyway.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No. The presence of 20th century historical figures plus exact parallels of OTL's european history makes it implausible plus HT inserts endless disturbing and badly placed(in story terms) sex scenes. Really if you must read anything by HT read the colonization books, A different flesh, his war between the provinces series or either of his short story anthologies instead.

First off, he cut way way back on the sex scenes after about the fourth book. 

Secondly, he didn't directly mold European history onto America.  In fact, the conclusion of both World Wards is acctually quite different.  The United States wins WWI with its use of concentrated armor attacks... armor didn't even play a major factor in the real war.  The Second World War ends more of less like the real Civil War, with a strong hint of Vietnam thrown in.  While the premise in the same, there are several areas where Turtledove significantly diverges for strict "analogy".

Thirdly, Alternate history is good and entertaining when there are recongnizable characters in recongnizable situations.  Your alternate histories rarely contain these elements, which is why they suck.  No offense, but you know my opinion of them.

My Scenarios win because they lack recognizable elements. I find AH scenarios which have parallelism and figures from OTL in them to be epic fail and unoriginal.

[12th Doctor]

No. The presence of 20th century historical figures plus exact parallels of OTL's european history makes it implausible plus HT inserts endless disturbing and badly placed(in story terms) sex scenes. Really if you must read anything by HT read the colonization books, A different flesh, his war between the provinces series or either of his short story anthologies instead.

First off, he cut way way back on the sex scenes after about the fourth book. 

Secondly, he didn't directly mold European history onto America.  In fact, the conclusion of both World Wards is acctually quite different.  The United States wins WWI with its use of concentrated armor attacks... armor didn't even play a major factor in the real war.  The Second World War ends more of less like the real Civil War, with a strong hint of Vietnam thrown in.  While the premise in the same, there are several areas where Turtledove significantly diverges for strict "analogy".

Thirdly, Alternate history is good and entertaining when there are recongnizable characters in recongnizable situations.  Your alternate histories rarely contain these elements, which is why they suck.  No offense, but you know my opinion of them.

My Scenarios win because they lack recognizable elements. I find AH scenarios which have parallelism and figures from OTL in them to be epic fail and unoriginal.

Okay, but lets be real about this. 

#1 History is made up of forces along with great people.  Generally speaking, by the time a divergence happens, the ball has been set rolling on several trends that, unless specifically blocked, are going to manifest themselves in some way or another.  There would be some level of paralellism, and the level of which would reflect the level of the divergence.  To say otherwise is totally unrealistic.

#2 For the most part, children who have already formed personalities at the time of the divergence would have more or less the same attitudes, preferences, etc that they would have in the OTL.  As such, they would probably marry the same person, or the same kind of person they would have married in the OTL.  If they did so, then they would have children who probably have the same names they would have in the OTL, and would behave in much the same way as they would otherwise, due to their similar upbringings and gentics.  This would go on for at least a few generations until things had finally diverged enough to dillute the pool.

#3 As history has shown, grand historical events rarely have an impact on the lives of ordinary people living in in the time they take place.  Look at 1066, for instance.  Most people's lives were seriously effected until hundreds of years down the road.

#4 If you like AH because it is fanciful and original, then fine.  If you have a hard time buying something that seems too unrealitic, like me, or fails to hold my attention because it tries too hard to be different, then I usually have no trouble putting it down.

[Jake]

#2 For the most part, children who have already formed personalities at the time of the divergence would have more or less the same attitudes, preferences, etc that they would have in the OTL.  As such, they would probably marry the same person, or the same kind of person they would have married in the OTL.  If they did so, then they would have children who probably have the same names they would have in the OTL, and would behave in much the same way as they would otherwise, due to their similar upbringings and gentics.  This would go on for at least a few generations until things had finally diverged enough to dillute the pool.

I don't agree with this at all.

Let's say a kid is twelve in 1850 and lives in the South. If we have a POD that leads to a compromise on slavery and averts the Civil War, that twelve year old will be shaped by significantly different forces than he would if there was a Civil War. Think about how many lives were changed by the Civil War and how different they would've been had there been a different outcome to the entire slavery issue. In Turtledove's scenario, you have less (by 100,000s) young men dying, a smaller break in trade between the South and Europe, no Reconstruction, Grant is not a President, etc.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

#2 For the most part, children who have already formed personalities at the time of the divergence would have more or less the same attitudes, preferences, etc that they would have in the OTL.  As such, they would probably marry the same person, or the same kind of person they would have married in the OTL.  If they did so, then they would have children who probably have the same names they would have in the OTL, and would behave in much the same way as they would otherwise, due to their similar upbringings and gentics.  This would go on for at least a few generations until things had finally diverged enough to dillute the pool.

I don't agree with this at all.

Let's say a kid is twelve in 1850 and lives in the South. If we have a POD that leads to a compromise on slavery and averts the Civil War, that twelve year old will be shaped by significantly different forces than he would if there was a Civil War. Think about how many lives were changed by the Civil War and how different they would've been had there been a different outcome to the entire slavery issue. In Turtledove's scenario, you have less (by 100,000s) young men dying, a smaller break in trade between the South and Europe, no Reconstruction, Grant is not a President, etc.

That post was VIP Quality!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I recognize you have a point there I still think it's somewhat wrong (and I'm not a fan of the great man theory), for a start the economy of the north in the post-civil war period was based around innovation and technological advancement as was typical of urban, industrial based societies since well.. the mid-19th Century while it's unlikely that developments have been achieved at such a pace in a semi-feudal mainly agricultural society like the south; who had they won the war would have at least, retarded technological and industrial development in the CSA - until perhaps the next crisis in the cotton economy struck.

And no doubt too had the CSA won the war the US economy would have been fairly crippled with war debt (reperations perhaps?) and it's unlikely, nay, imposssible that US would have had a particularly strong economy in a Civil war loss scenario. While it's unlikely that it would have totally become the economic backwater described in the book (unless of course there is a great deal of political mismanagment going on.) it's situation would have been one of a minor trading partner somewhat dependent on it's more powerful brother to the south (perhaps a bit like Canada?) - this o\c presuming that the United states doesn't fall apart once the next economic crisis comes.

I agree that it's unlikely that electricity would not have been discovered by the time of the book's setting.. but it would almost certainly be in Europe and therefore at a different date in time, with perhaps totally different applications and in the end completely different distribution (no general electric company in this scenario for sure... which of course means no Ronald Reagan - who only developed into a conservative in the 1950s after working with GE's [fantically anti-communist\nationalist] movie department. Before that he claimed he was a typical hollywood liberal. Which sort of gives an example to disprove point #2.)

Btw in the book iirc there is electricity but it's confined to the worldwide centres of Economic book such as well, the CSA and the German Empire. I don't think that's the greatest historical flaw in the book btw. But as I said, I'm really more of a fantasy-type reader.

And I totally with Straha and Jake. Which is funny given that is (one of) the point(s) of the book - that small individual events can have a huge impact on the fabric of history.

[12th Doctor]

While I recognize you have a point there I still think it's somewhat wrong (and I'm not a fan of the great man theory), for a start the economy of the north in the post-civil war period was based around innovation and technological advancement as was typical of urban, industrial based societies since well.. the mid-19th Century while it's unlikely that developments have been achieved at such a pace in a semi-feudal mainly agricultural society like the south; who had they won the war would have at least, retarded technological and industrial development in the CSA - until perhaps the next crisis in the cotton economy struck.

Very common misconception about the South before the Civil War is that it was almost exclusively agricultural.  Not true, Atlanta, the Piedmont of North Carolina and Richmond were already developing into industrial cities, the very start of the war kick started that growth until those three areas were just as industrialized as the North by 1864.  Had the war ended in 1862 or 1863 then the South still would have had major industrial centers.  Eventually, someone would have discovered the iron ore and coal deposits near Birmingham, which would have led to the industrial development on that city, even more so than the OTL, since people would have been encouraged to "buy Confederate."  Also, Chatanooga would have still developed into a major industrial center because of the raw materials and rail lines linking up there.  New Orleans would have remained the major center of commerce it was before the war, since years of Federal occupation would not have stiffled the economic growth of the city.  Also, the remaining 100,000-150,000 or so Confederates who would not have died in the war in the NTL would have needed jobs.  The Confederates would have needed to keep thier army and navy running and supplied, which would mean more industry, esspecially for Norfolk and Charleston, both of which would have had active Navy Yards long before they did in real life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The CSA would have never have charged the US reperations.  It was never even mentioned as a consideration.  And, yes, the US economy would have taken quite a hit, but not so bad that it would turn what was left of the US into a banana republic, and it would have recovered if, for no other reason, because of the massive deposits of raw materials present.  Also, lose in the war probably would have acctually help spur on western growth, since the higher population would have driven people out of the Northeast and into the Midwest and Pacific.

The forces that were going to create the economic growth of the last half of the 20th century were already well in place by the time the civil war came.  If the divergence were decades earlier, I could see a better argument for your points.

Also, you are contradicting yourself here, first by saying that the CSA would have had trouble advance, then by saying that the US would have been crippled because the CSA would be stronger on the world scene.  Which is it?  I think it most likely that both counties would enjoy growth after the war, even if it took them sometime to right themselves and while the CSA might have been the stronger for the first two decades, eventually the USA would have righted itself.  In fact, the USA might have been helped in the long run, because they would have an active, vibrant neighbor to the south that could act as an economic stablizer, rather than having the festering corpse that was the reconstructionist south clinging to our legs for four generations.

On top of that, the US has massive debts from the war anyway, that is payed off through the economic growth of the 1870's and 80's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I see no evidence that the US would suddenly just plunge down a hole.  In fact, history has shown that war can acctually be very kind to the loser, since it tends to spur on desire for imporvement and innovation.  Who is to say thatr instead of one Thomas Edison, we might not have had two (perhaps one in the North and South).  And why would the distribution have differed?  DC is clealry inferior to AC as a means of distibuting power.  And even had the discover come in Europe, it wouldn't have taken long to get to the US and then someone with a bit of time would start tinkering with it and invent new uses.

As for the Ronald Reagan thing, not so, he brought his ideas to GE which is were he developed them, true, but the seeds were already there.  He might have found another way to get to where he got.  Besides, chances are we don't have a Ronald Reagan anyway, because we are now talking three generations away from the divergence.  We might not have had a Soviet Union either, which would preclude the need for a Ronald Reagan.  If things managed to happen the same way, then odds are another Reagan type figure would have emerged eventually.

Lets invent a senario.  The divergence we are discussing occurs.  Joe P. Kennedy gets involved in Democrat politics in Boston, since the Republican Party is on the outs and a more radical Leftwing party takes its place, old Joe wants to be a member of the party in power.  Being a man of few principles, he joins the more conservative "in" party.  The Soveit Union arises.  He has a son named Joe who doesnt get killed in whatever war, becomes a hero and as a charismatic figure, he runs for office, becomes president in 1972 as a staunch conservative and anti-communist, confronts communism and brings down the Soviet Union and we can all go home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said small events can't cause huge changes, but as is often the flaw with "fantasy"type alternate history writers, they take one event that woudl be a big change, but use it to explain changes that probably wouldn't have happened.  For instance... like saying that because Pittsburgh was never settled there would be no steel industry, or because there is no Stalin, there would be no Soviet communism or... in this case, the North losing the war somehow wipes away decades of historical currents and scientific, technological and economic developments that had occured up to the point the divergence and assuming that things that don't make any sense, like the US of DC over AC, or the end of the Industrial Revolution and Coperations would occur just because someone lost a war.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well here I bow to superior historical knowledge (assuming the above is true) but it should be pointed out that the confedracy was ruled by agrarianists which makes it quite different to the North in many ways. Though what would have happened afterwards depends on alot of things; especially the price of cotton worldwide and of course what happens to southern society afterwards. It's values based around traditional Jeffersonian agrarianism would it create a society of dynamic citizens who were aiming towards economic (meaning Industrial) success. What happens to the American Dream? And so on. I often find in history that what I might as well call the "spirtual" dimensions are ignored; as in how did Americans sense of identity shape their economy (it made them a superpower); development of American culture would of course be quite different. And would probably significantly diverge (Actually would there even be an America; after all the Confedracy would set a precedence of seccession whenever a state was not on good terms with Washington so what would happen in this Alternative scenario to America, the idea? Would Americans even have wiped out the buffalo and spread out as far as they did into Indian Terriority (Probably is the answer; but while fighting among themselves. Further more minor wars are certainly possibilities.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See My point on the Indian terriority for the last bit. I agree that the Author probably took it too far in his deciption of the Future US as a total backwater; but I think it addresses issues in history which most books ignore. (Plus Tyss, the book store owner is a fantastic character and hey, It was the Authors book.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It might have shock American Self-Belief. Which is a pretty invaluable resource imo. Plus with a significant "other" as a rival who has already beaten you in a war just to your southern border would have a significant influence on American Trade. Not to mention, as you said the possibility of immigration from the Northeast; which I imagine would distrupt their foreign trade quite a bit (perhaps becoming more a self-sufficient country?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should note that I am just putting ideas out into the open. With Alternative History pretty much anything is possible; perhaps Haggershaven might not have been the invention of a 1950s Author? There is no reason why it shouldn't except for the limits of our minds?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly; and what would the impact of having Two Thomas Edison's have; increased competition between Rivals? Oh for the Record I suspect that had the confedracy won the war US technologically advances would have been significantly retarded though would probably have continued at a slower pace (assuming no other crisises happen in the mean time); so there would probably be no Spanish-American War (At least not involving the USA; but maybe the CSA?) it is also likely that in place of US becoming the centre of technological power and industry the newly formed German Empire would do so instead. Which would probably we would have slightly different technologies today. (The technology we have after all is an accident of history; for Example there is no reason for Cars to be the way they are; except they are modelling on Horse driven carriages) What this all mean.. well.. only the imagination of a novelist could sort that out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True; but it wouldn't be Americans distributing it to the world like GE did (Actually here America might have a situation of reserve globalisation where European Industries make profits  off American consumers while also exporting their cultures); perhaps also they would find uses for the technology no-one else ever has. Edison only invented the Electric Chair to spite Telsa so when personal issues like this get involved it's impossible to tell.

Oh btw, Please tell me you don't believe that "Reagan won the cold war" Crapola, do you? (And would there even been a Soviet Union. Actually there's another thing in post-civil war America there was alot of Class tension in the North; with perhaps it's most important point being the Putnam strikes. With a defeated and demoralized nation with a significantly weaker economy there would perhaps be a significant degree of internal instability. Perhaps even Socialism would have caught on, as it threatened to do until FDR stole it's most obvious clothes.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Corporations (I assume this is what you meant) were pretty much unleashed onto the war after the Union victory; and reached the aphex of power (and haven't left it since) with the 1876 supreme court Santa Clara v Pacific Railroad decision. So yes had the Union lost the war the history of Corporations would have been very different (not to mention there would probably be no GE, no coke, no Kodak, no Ford, etc. That isn't say that Cameras or Coke would not have been invented; just probably not in the US - or at least marketed in such a way)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really see the Parellels with the book in these examples.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Historical patterns are very easy to spot once they have happened; probably didn't feel that way at the time.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of the areas of the country that remained loyal to the Union had been settled primarily by New Englanders.  The Civil War was not all about slavery, it was a war about different ways of thinking and different cultures.  Since most of the people living in Ohio, Illinois, etc still maintained a strong cultural identity with those in the Northeast, its unlikely that they would have seceded the the South did.  Granted, cultural differences between the Midwest, Northeast, Pacific did develop, but not until generations after the initial secession occurred, making it less likely the country would have just Balkanized.

The movement towards and settlement of the West was almost an inevitability at this point.  If you want to go back to 1760 and have the Native Americans start to form their own land and modernize it, then I can see  how you might stop it... or if you stop the invention of the railroad, but not by the time the Civil War happened.  It would take a truly earth-shattering event to stop it.

Certainly, the culture changes, I don't disagree with you there.  In what way, hard to say.  It's often be thought that the result would be a more progressive United States, economically, but this is based largely on anachronistic thinking, especially since, until recently, the South gave tremendous power to the economically liberal party.  A lot of what happens depends on how Southerners treat the blacks.  I'm personally of the opinion that things would have gotten progressively better, but that's not guaranteed.  Then from there, to what extent is the influence of black culture (specifically black music) accessible to whites?  Hard to say.

As you pointed out, a less economically inhibited North might invite radical change in and of itself, but it is hard to say whether any change would be progressive or revolutionary.  If a revolt were attempted and put down, then would immigration policies in the North have become harsher as immigrants were blamed for the troubles?  Perhaps.

I never claimed to be able to make sure statements about these things.  I can't replay the game again with something else happening (though I wish I had that power, because that would be quite interesting, provided I could fix it when I was done looking at all the possibilities).  I can, however, look at what was going on at the time and reasonably extrapolate certain probabilities and use common sense to fill in the rest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While you might be right, I think the war would be seen by many in the United States as less a confidence shaking moment and more as an inevitability that was bound to happen.  It might seem harsh to say this, but the South factored very little into the "American Dream" until around the 1960's.  They were quite simply a non-factor until the Civil Rights movement redefined what the American Dream meant.  As I said, the South was a dead water.  It is possible and indeed likely that a South that wasn't prostrate for 80 years would have contributed a lot more to culture and economy of the world.

Granted, so much of this depends on when the war ends.  If the war ends with Lee's 1st Invasion of the North in 1862 (which is almost always the one I use, since I see it as most likely to have happened and most likely to produce a viable Southern nation) then we get a totally different result than if it happened during Lee's 2nd Invasion (1864) or if the Confederacy had simply ground down the Unions resolve in 1864 (if Lincoln lost reelection, basically).  If its option 1, then I see the mostly likely scenario to be a partnership between the two countries, with the war being seen as something that was bound to happen, and oh well, lets just get over it.  Things would be better in the South and about the same in the North.  However, the later a Southern victory occurs, the more animosity would build, the more traumatized and ravaged both countries would be after the war was over, and thus, we probably would see two dept ravaged 2nd World (at best) countries, for at least a long time with the South being damn near unsustainable if the victory were in 1864 (though I won't even say that for certain, perhaps the industrial might the South had accumulated, combined with a decreased desire and will to defend slavery would have meant a strong and progressive South... though that's unlikely).

As for your comment about the migration, I don't see how that would effect trade, as it would just be a movement of the "surplus" people, if you will.  The same number of people would stay in place to keep things running.  Western settlement would have just happened a little faster... or actually at about the same pace, since the Southerners who migrated West from the post-war South wouldn't have done so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but I can pluck anything out of my ass that I want and call it "fantasy".  In my mind that doesn't make it good writing.  In order for something to be worth reading, it has to have some basis in reality.  Just like a good joke has to contain some element of truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is simply no reason to believe technological advances in the US would have been significantly hindered in anyway.  And indeed, healthy competition usually drives innovation and discover.  If you had Edison in the North (no reason to think it wouldn't have been him) and lets say E.P. Alexander in the South (oddly enough, this arrangement comes from a TL I made up years ago), then their drive to compete with one another might have actually advance technology another 10 years during their lifetimes.  And a healthy Southern economy would have been enough to fuel Alexander's experiments and inventions.  Never forget that the educated in the South took one Hell of a hit during the War.  So there would have been more minds around to help think sh**t up.

There likely would have been some effort by the CSA to gain effective strategic control over the Caribbean, in which case, they likely would have gone to war with Spain for Cuba and Puerto Rico... again, provided we are using the 1862 victory scenario. 

Germany was already a center technological power, they just were the center of another continent, which is my point.  It is likely these thing might as gone up and down a bit, but like a merry-go-round, everything is still going to head in more or less the same direction, at least for a while.

And, yeah, there is a reason cars are the way they are.  That's because having the driver in the front, with the means of control in front of him and others in the back or to the side with four wheels is the most logical way of assembling a moving vehicle.  That's why carriages were designed the way they were and its a design that has been repeated independently throughout the world.  Even if the carriage had never been invented and the car had been, chances are they would have looked more or less the same as they do now.