Alternate History

[Jonny Powers]

Hey guys! I was just watching AlternateHistoryHub's new video, "What if Lincoln Was Never Assassinated?" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUHKoCaC-rw ) and that got me thinking of the forum! Have any of you guys checked out AHH's videos? What do you all think? What's y'all's opinions in regards to other AH material, i.e. Turtledove's works? Let the general Alternate History (or Counterfactual History, if you prefer) discussions begin! :cool:

[Soulfly]

I have seen some of his videos, though the facts he presents are not 100% correct, i like them. The question "What if..." is a really really tricky one in war, like "What if Jackson would have been at Gettysburg" or "What if the american revolution had failed ?" (and there is a huge chance it could have)

But yes, i like such scenarios.

[Sorta]

I don't really like "what if's" when talking about history.

[Pvt.Scott]

omg im in boy scouts so when we were t Gettysburg this past summer I watched alternate history's hub video about the civil war and I was telling them that the us and the csa would be 2 separate countries if the confeds won but they're like "NO THE CONFEDERTAES WOULD HAVE TAKEN OVR THE UNION AND THERE WOULD BE 1 COUNTRY THE CSA!" and here's me "no you're wrong." so you're telling me that when the America revolution ended we took over England because that was a civil war. the civil was fought because the southerners wanted slavery and they wanted to preserve that. there's a kid in my school who keeps telling me that the civil wars main reason for starting was over states rights to be free. and im like no the MAIN I said MAIN reason the civil war happened was slavery. and he throws a fit.

[Dipington]

it was about 3 top reasons actually, states rights, lincoln becoming president, and slavery

[A. P. Hill]

it was about 3 top reasons actually, states rights, lincoln becoming president, and slavery

On the contrary Sir.

It was about States Rights and the option of states to secede from the union. Period.

Take a look at any early war recruitment poster and note that all information there alludes to the rights of state to chose for themselves a right course, even if that included secession. Lincoln's call for troops always came with the call to "Preserve the Union" ... meaning keeping all the states united as the United States, and not seceding to become the Confederate states.

True, there was a "fear" of what Lincoln, (the first republican president,) would do should he win, but that was much lesser than the states feeling their right to chose their own sovereignty was at risk over federalization.

Slavery, while an underlying issue, did not come to the fore until after Antietam when Lincoln pushed forth (without congressional support,) his Emancipation Proclamation, freeing an estimated 3 million people from the southern states only. I say this, because it is also fair to note, that many Northern states had slaves as well, and in fact the greater number of slave trader operations existed in the north to serve the south.

So, really slavery was not so much an issue as it was a national situation at the time.

One of Lincoln's less used quotes is ... "What are we going to do with all those people now that they're free?" ... Lincoln had a solution and he was in process of implementing it prior to Booth's dirty work. I can't recall right now what the operation name was, but the operation consisted of rounding up all the freed people, and sending them to an uninhabited south pacific island and make them a colony of the U.S.

In saying this, I am not in anyway justifying slavery, I just accept history as it was and live with it.

And in closing I do have to ask one final question. There were over 600,000 casualties of American lives lost in the civil war, and many more who fought and survived, do you honestly think all those people would come together and form armies and kill each other over the issue of slavery? State pride was very prevalent ... that's why we have regiments named after states in this war. Otherwise it would be as it was sometimes in the North where you would have the "Regulars" that didn't belong to a state organization but rather belonged to the federal organization.

Fully 98 percent of the soldiers both north and south were not slave owners. No slavery was not a top reason.

[Rithal]

On the contrary Sir.

It was about States Rights and the option of states to secede from the union. Period.

Take a look at any early war recruitment poster and note that all information there alludes to the rights of state to chose for themselves a right course, even if that included secession. Lincoln's call for troops always came with the call to "Preserve the Union" ... meaning keeping all the states united as the United States, and not seceding to become the Confederate states.

True, there was a "fear" of what Lincoln, (the first republican president,) would do should he win, but that was much lesser than the states feeling their right to chose their own sovereignty was at risk over federalization.

Slavery, while an underlying issue, did not come to the fore until after Antietam when Lincoln pushed forth (without congressional support,) his Emancipation Proclamation, freeing an estimated 3 million people from the southern states only. I say this, because it is also fair to note, that many Northern states had slaves as well, and in fact the greater number of slave trader operations existed in the north to serve the south.

So, really slavery was not so much an issue as it was a national situation at the time.

One of Lincoln's less used quotes is ... "What are we going to do with all those people now that they're free?" ... Lincoln had a solution and he was in process of implementing it prior to Booth's dirty work. I can't recall right now what the operation name was, but the operation consisted of rounding up all the freed people, and sending them to an uninhabited south pacific island and make them a colony of the U.S.

In saying this, I am not in anyway justifying slavery, I just accept history as it was and live with it.

And in closing I do have to ask one final question. There were over 600,000 casualties of American lives lost in the civil war, and many more who fought and survived, do you honestly think all those people would come together and form armies and kill each other over the issue of slavery? State pride was very prevalent ... that's why we have regiments named after states in this war. Otherwise it would be as it was sometimes in the North where you would have the "Regulars" that didn't belong to a state organization but rather belonged to the federal organization.

Fully 98 percent of the soldiers both north and south were not slave owners. No slavery was not a top reason.

Great answer. I have tried to get this idea out on this forum for months in various threads and I always seem to mess it up somehow :p

[A. P. Hill]

Great answer. I have tried to get this idea out on this forum for months in various threads and I always seem to mess it up somehow :p

Thanks. :)

Trust me this answer wasn't formed in the time it took to write it ... and please note also this might be the condensed version.

[LTC Philip A. Work]

Reading the Britannia's Fist series right now.

I hope we will be able to mod this game to add British Grenadiers and French Algiers, a what-if Britian and France intervened.

[PGT Beauregard]

Another seldom mentioned fact is that the Underground Railroad, a network to help slaves escape, ended in Canada, not in any northern state. The reason for this is that most northern states had laws that should a runaway slave be found there they would be beaten and sent back to their owner.

[Forlorn Hope]

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world. -Alexander Stepehens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861

Bolding added.

[Jonny Powers]

I was gonna nip this in the bud back with the first mention, but I figured people could digress without derailing the thread; when posts regarding the topic returned (Thank you Philip), I figured all was groovy, till I run into the above text wall.

This is not a "Why the Civil War Happened" thread. This is an "Alternate History" thread. Now, if you're noticeably tying this into alternate history, great, but please stay on topic. There were two other threads that you could have kept that in and we all know what happened to those. Please, don't go putting it where it doesn't belong.

[PGT Beauregard]

Harry Turtledove has a series of books on the Civil War that are fantastic and really well thought out. Really great alternative/what if history. Just a very small pinch of sci-fi and a whole lot of what if. I can't recommend them highly enough.

[Jonny Powers]

Harry Turtledove has a series of books on the Civil War that are fantastic and really well thought out. Really great alternative/what if history. Just a very small pinch of sci-fi and a whole lot of what if. I can't recommend them highly enough.

Yes, I agree! I'm in the middle of the first book in the Great War series, which is really good. Once the semester is over I'll be finishing it off.