For a long time I've toyed with the concept of writing a novel based in the mid-late 20th century under the supposition that the South had won the US Civil War. That led me to try to envision the world of that century were there no unified power in North America.

Here's one concept that evolved on which I would like comments.

Premise 1: Had the South won, it is very possible North America would be comprised of six or seven countries rather than the three we have now and they probably would, like Europe, not be particularly homogeneous.

Premise 2: WWII and WWI are essentially the same war. The Nazi ascendancy is directly related to the economic hardship in Germany due to the draconian nature of the Treaty of Versailles.

Premise 3: WWI was essentially a stalemate until 1917, when the US entered the war and tipped the scales towards England and its allies. Since there was almost equal sentiment anti-British as pro-British leading up to the US entry, one might assume that no single US means no tipping of the balance of power in 1917.

Conclusion: No change in the balance of power suggests no Treaty of Versailles which suggests less economic hardship in Germany so maybe no Hitler.

Questions: How would this have changed what the world looks like today? Is no Nazi ascendancy 100% a good thing, or does it suggest too much power for Stalin? How does Asia look? Does Japan then run roughshod over Asia or do the Soviets have the power to keep them in check.

Looks like a bunch of smart people on this board. All comments, theories, criticisms welcome.

Could you elaborate on two things you touch on:

1. How did the South win, (resounding military victory; just avoided defeat long enough to be considered inevitably independent, third-party mediated selttlement...) and to what degree was foreign involvement significant (whose)?
2. Which six or seven countries do you see forming (four obvious ones and two or three others), and why?

Also, could you tell us what you see happening regarding these things that you haven't touched upon:

1. The development of trans-continental railroads
2. Hawaii - does the deposition of the monarchy still occur, and if so, does the Republic join any of the American states?
3. The Spanish-American War
4. Relations between Mexico and whatever country or countries border it to the north
5. The development of the Panama Canal

I ask because all or nearly all of these matters will affect what happens in the rest of the world during the thirties to fifties significantly, and may impact upon the 1900s to the twenties somewhat as well.

That's fine as far as it goes, but the Nazi ascedency is also part of a polarization and left-right totalitarian split happening thoughout much of Europe and Asia that mostly wasn't a product of the treaty of Versailles.

While I'm sure this is a popular viewpoint in the US, I doubt it is universally accepted by the countries that actually fought the decisive battles of the Great War. I'm going to suggest to you that whatever stalement had developed 1n 1915-16 had ceased to exist before the US landed any troops in Europe. Both the Germans and the British Empire had developed new offensive tactics that were considerably more effective in a trench-warfare environment. 1917 saw the collapse of the Russian Imperial government, the Communist Revolution and the withdrawal of Russia from the War. By the end of 1917, the British had effectively defeated Germany's unrestricted submarine war with convoys, hydrophones and depth charges. 1917 also saw effective use of tanks by the British and new set piece attack methods employed by Canadian assault troops. Together these latter developments resulted in more signifcant gains (hence less stalemate) than in the preceding two years.

In 1918, the Germans used the forces that had been released from the Russian front, in conjunction with their own new infiltration tactics, to wipe out the substantial British/Canadian gains of 1917 and threaten Paris for the first time since 1914. The British and French stabilized the line without any signifcant help from the US. The casualties suffered in the final German push, combined with the ongoing effects of the British naval blockade, left Germany too weak to offer continued effective resistance. Also, from late 1917, British Empire forces inflcted a series of crushing defeats on the Ottoman Empire.

US military involvement did not change the balance on the West Front. All it did was speed up some of the last French advances and make the inevitability of the German collapse even more obvious. My conclusion would be that the war would have ended at almost exactly the same time without US involvement.

The significant difference would have been seen in the peace process that followed the armistice. Wilson had a considerable influence on the tone and content of the negotiations. Without him, it is likely that the resultant terms would have had a more imperialistic and less nationalistic theme. They may have been even more punitive towards Germany. That it turn could have reinforced the developments that actually occurred or it could have led to the French being in more of a position to stop Hitler's rise to power. It likely would have led to even more guerilla and civil war in southern Europe.

It's not really possible to say that the lack of significant American involvement in the peace proceess following the Great War would have prevented the rise of Nazism or something similar in Germany. But such a rise is only one of many possibilities. A civil war (which could go either way) between the left and the right, ala Spain, would be one possibillity. A democratic Germany surviving as a client state of a more right wing France is another possibility. Certainly a fascist western Europe opposed to a communist Russia is a possibility. IDK what happens to Poland, Hungary and Rumania in that scenario.

AFAICT, what happens in Europe is up in the air. The situation in the Pacific and east Asia changes considerably. With Spain still in possession of the Philipines and Guam, and quite likely friendly with Japan, with perhaps no US naval base in Hawaii, with a British/French Panama canal, I think Japan is a lot less threatened, and more motivated to confine its Imperialist activites to the continent. This probably means they are more successful. China may fall apart, or the Communists may consolidate control earlier. Russia is unlikely to be able to project sufficient force eastwards to interfere, but is probably waging proxy wars in the Balkans, and possibly the remains of the Ottoman Empire.

Another area that might change considerably is corporate law. With a slave-owning South, a defeated and weakened industrial North, a more imperialist Europe with perhaps greater fascist but non-Nazi tendancies, or alternatively, a communist Germany, the notion of corporate personhood would not likely have taken such a strong hold.

As DoTheMath your premise number 3 is incorrect. The US did not materially effect the outcome of the war.

I would look towards the Spanish-American war. Does it even occur? Many American leaders saw expansion to Cuba, just 90 miles off the Florida coast, as natural and inevitable. Ultimately the US did not annex Cuba, but it definitely played a role in the lead-up. If Florida is Confederate I think they would be much less interested in helping the cause of the rebels who were mostly black (can you imagine a Confederate territory made up of mostly free blacks???), and Cuba is also much farther away from Union concerns.

If the Spanish-American war does not occur then the US does not annex the Philippines. IIRC Japan felt conflict was inevitable with the US because Japan wanted the Dutch East Indies for their oil and rubber. The Philippines lay smack between them and that goal. So if Japan doesn't attack then it seems unlikely that any of the American states join the war in Europe, which could very well lead to another posters hypothesis of Europe becoming communist...

Also if the Spanish-American war doesn't occur then Spain might be seen differently by the other European powers (getting beat handily by an upstart like the US was VERY embarrassing). This could affect political maneuvering prior to the war.

A Spanish-Confederate War takes place no later than the 1880s IMO over the fate of Cuba and Puerto Rico, which Southern politicians had wanted to annex for years. The Confederacy likely moves to make territorial gains in the Caribbean and Latin America if they are militarily able. Projecting into the era of the World Wars is much more difficult, but I think it highly plausible that fighting actually occurs in the Americas as well, with Union and Confederacy on opposite sides of the conflict.

OP, is the book about Europe or N. Am? If Eur, why start in US? Just imagine a different Great War. And call it that because there's no WWI until WWII.

If starting with Confederacy, the more logical novel is about N. Am., struggle of slave owners against their slaves and industrial capitalism, competition with North over western territories, Northern abolitionists becoming more and more of a nuisance. Continuing guerrilla war would be interesting. Underground railroad would go both directions -- slaves up and guerrillas down. Assuming slavery couldn't last much beyond 1900, Confederate apartheid would outlast South Africa's. Or, Confederacy destroyed by black revolt, and this time it doesn't get 100 year interim Jim Crow.

Late in his career historian Eugene Genovese began thinking of slave owners as anti-capitalists, with a distinct system of paternalism maintaining very different values. South would still be slow to industrialize, still get overwhelmed by North. PBS would be only TV, without corporate dominance.

A political breakdown in North, Lincoln losing support for the war, and a negotiated settlement (which many Democrats wanted) would be most credible way for Confederacy to survive, rather than a Rebel military victory.

Many domestic consequences. Without empire, North would be a peaceful socialist land of milk and honey. Plus no N.Am. participation in WWI or II. No Iraq war, or Vietnam. Full health plan.

Even if Secession succeeded, I think a new war over western territories would be likely in a couple decades.

With an enemy like slavery, Latin American guerrilla movement of 1960s-- would be much stronger, especially without US empire to help quash it. More Cubas than just Cuba.

Impact on race relations would be very interesting to think about. Black Panthers become liberation front rather than police monitoring community group. Less migration north = less racist north.

I would imagine there have already been several takes on a Confederate alternative history novel.

Yes. Confederate expansion attempts throughout Caribbean, clash with Mexico certain. Mexico gets to refight 1846 -- with Washington bullets.

When would slavery have ended?

When it would have been economically feasible and beneficial to do so with the important side issue of political ramifications and foreign relations of a sovereign state stirred in.

No later than the 1880's if I had to toss out a timeframe.

Mechanical picker.

I disagree. There was a lot more to the social function of slavery than simple economic exploitation and the presence of a ready labor force.

We both know this is very speculate, but if you had to guess to say within a decade timeframe to when slavery would have ended in a supposed southern US sovereign state, what decade would you choose? Does Bill Haywood's post have impact. Would a Southern US still have Slavery today, 1980, 1960, 1930, 1900? Would the southern slavery system have been modified and codified different in legal terms than as it existed in the 1860's?

As abolition challenged slave holders, they became more defensive and cultish in their advocacy for it. Slavery was the foundation of a uniquely patriarchal system, (Genovese) with each owner the lord of an isolated plantation, with all the snatch he wanted. It was run as family system of mutual obligations. Slavery "helped" the simple ones with discipline and religion, and it kept the lid on the Negro's dangerous tendency for mass murder. So the economic and other threats to the peculiar institution would have led to fanatical efforts to maintain it. Who knows how long it might last. Slavery is still practiced elsewhere today.

What the hell happened to OP? Will we be in acknowledgments? Or was he wanting to do a myth of the lost cause fantasy and we're saying the wrong things?

I have a hard time believing that a generation that fought to preserve slavery would voluntarily give it up. So unless they lost a second War Between the States (which runs counter to OP's premise), then slavery would last into the 20th century. How far into the 20th century depends on the tension between economic matters and a sense of social identity. I can't see slavery remaining economically viable much past the 1940s. So there is a 50 year window during which slavery would be phased out in the CSA - 1900-1950. If the CSA manages to gain territory in the Caribbean, slavery might last there a few years longer.

(For those who think slavery would be too outdated an idea to last well into the 20th century, I remind you that slavery was used intensly in parts of Europe for a few years during the 1940s, and arguably during the '30s and '50s.)

As slavery lost profitability, you'd see lots more manumission. I don't see a reason for a precipitous collapse. So the idea of slavery could remain intact even as the practice changed. It might successfully endure as household slavery. But then there'd be all those freed slaves . . .

I am also curious as to the use of nuclear weapons if the South had won. Would another country develop them first and what impact would that have on politics in the alternate timeline?

If we assume that nuclear weapons would have inevitably been developed in any plausible post-1860 alternate reality, I think we can assume that they would be developed first by the country or alliance with the best combination of scientists, economic resources and urgent need.

Historically, the Manhattan Project was a combined ABC undertaking (American/British/Canadian). It was started by the Brits, but mostly funded and hosted in the States. Most of the key scientists had moved to the US from central Europe because of the policies of Hitler and Mussolini.

If the US was not involved in the next Great War, they would not have become involved with developing the bomb. If the aftermath of the first Great War did not lead to racist right-wing governments in Germany and Italy, then the key scientists might have stayed in central Europe. If we still get Hitler and Mussolini, then Great Britain might look more attractive than a divided America. Certainly there is little likelyhood of nuclear scientists fleeing racist policies in Europe moving to the CSA.

If the next conflict in Europe developed into a strugle between a right-wing West and a Communist East, then western Europe, led by Germany and Britain, would likely develop the first bomb. If the stuggle is in the West, between Britain and France vs Germany and Italy, There would probably be a race. The winner would be the side that attracted the most scientists. The Brits get a slight edge because of their government's 20th century tendancy to adopt any number of harebrained schemes floated by academics. (Historically, the impetus to develop atomic weapons came from the British. The Germans looked at the idea and relegated it to a back shelf.)

As for impacts of the development of nuclear weapons in an alternate history, I shudder to think what would have happened if either Britain or Germany had developed them in a war between them. If they had jointly developed them in a war against Communist Russia, it might mean the end of the Stalinist version of Communism. Also, Russia would not have been able to develop its own atomic weapons within five years as they wouldn't have the access to central-European academic resources. The absence of MAD might led to future uses of A-weapons in Asia.

With regards to this, I think if Germany had developed them first then they would have had no qualms about using them on the Eastern front and would then have used the threat of this to force Britain into surrender or some sort of peace pact (heavily weighted in German favour obviously).

It Britain developed them first I'm not sure what the outcome would've been. Given the fire bombing of certain German cities I think Britain may have gone ahead and dropped a bomb on a German city with the threat of more to follow. It then comes down to whether there is some sort of coup within the German leadership that allows a German surrender. Of course all this is complicated by the fact that Germany and Russia were basically involved in a war of annihilation so it's difficult to see how Germany could surrender or offer any acceptable peace terms to Britain.

not sure why it repeated

Is this a joke? You want to write a book about North American History and Geography and you think North America has 3 counties? You must have been educated in the US.

Here is a list of the countries that are not single small islands. If you add the islands there are a bunch more.

Canada
The United States of America
Mexico
Greenland
Iceland (straddles the plate boundary between North America and Europe)
Guatemala
Belize
Nicaragua
Honduras
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Panama
Cuba
Haiti
Jamaica
The Bahamas
The Dominican Republic

The term "North America" is ambiguous. It has a number of more or less inclusive connotations. It can be as broad as you assert, or as narrow as just the USA and Canada alone. When used as a term for a geopolitical grouping (as opposed to a continent), by English-speaking Canadians or Americans, it most usually refers to Mexico, the US and Canada. In this usage, it is one of four divisions of the Americas, the others being Central America, the Caribbean and South America. Your usage is more common in Europe and in Ibero-America. OP is not necessarily displaying ignorance by his choice of usage, just an adherence to an alternate convention.

FIFA agrees! The defunct North American Football Confederation included Canada, Mexico, the US .... and Cuba?

edit: and Greenland isn't a country either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America

North America is not ambiguous. It's a F---ing continent with clear boundaries. It's more like lol USA and it's school system that teaches ambiguous geography.

How can you write a book on how North America might be different if the South has won the war, without including Cuba(one of the most interesting political situations in North America since 1959). Would Cuba have made friends with the North or South instead of The Soviet Union.

Oh wait, Cuba is not part of the US taught "North America". So never mind.

Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat [kaˈla:ɫit ˈnuna:t]) is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark,.........


Saying Greenland is not a country is like saying Canada and Australia are not countries.....

Canada and Australia are independent. Greenland is not.

So, are you suggesting that the term "North America" is only correctly employed as a name of a continent, and not as a name of a collection of countries? What does the term "Central America" mean?

If the continental boundaries of North America are so clear, can you tell us precisely where the boundary between North and South America is? For instance, is it at the political boundary between Panama and Columbia, or at the Panama canal? If Iceland is part of North America because it is on or at the edge of the North American tectonic plate, where are those parts of California, British Columbia and Alaska that are on different tectonic plates?


The very wikipedia (LOL) article you cite to support your claim that "North America" is not an ambiguous term shows the ambiguiity in several ways, including:

• In the Demographics section of the entry, the first map of North America show only Canada, the US and Mexixo. The third map of North America shows only Greenland, Canada and the US. The second map shows both North and South America.
• The Article references the North American Free Trade Agreement, which covers only Canada, the US and Mexico.
• In the Infrastructure section, the railay map shows only Mexico, the US and Canada.
• Perhaps most importantly for his discussuion, the Regions sections contains the phrase "the term North America is also used to refer to Canada, Mexico, the United States, and Greenland".
• In the subsequent Countries, territories, and dependencies section, there is a chart. The first section of that chart is titled "North America", and it lists only Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, Mexico, St. Pierre et Miquelon, and the United States. Of these, only Canada, Mexico and the US are independent countries. The remaining three are territories or dependencies.

Hence, according to the wikipedia (LOL) article you cite, OP is correct that there are only three countries in North America.