CSA: The Confederate States of America

[Tages]

Someting like THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA is brilliant because it takes a drastic turn, and extrapolates in a very real way what plausibly could have happened. It has no overt political points (although the subtle ones are well-played), and is not out to paint things as black and white.

In Roth's book, there are no clear villains, just a gradual cultural shift for the worse, that could very well have happened. He certainly didn't have to imagine from whole cloth a reality that just wouldn't have been feasible, ever, ever, in this country.

I hate that book.

(And yes, I've read it, but Bill Kauffman does a more succinct job summing up my problems with it, particularly the bizarre treatment given to Burton K. Wheeler and Gerald P. Nye, about whom Roth apparently did no research at all)

[Tages]

The film even posits that women's suffrage would never have happened, so that 21st century America would still exclude women from voting.

Ironic, given that one of the biggest supporters for universal suffrage in our timeline was the KKK (the logic goes that it would double the "white vote").

[Grazzt]

Ironic, given that one of the biggest supporters for universal suffrage in our timeline was the KKK (the logic goes that it would double the "white vote").

The KKK do realise that there are black women, too, right?

[Ray R.]

Or until they were faced with the option to either continue being a backwater nation or join the US and European nations as equals. Sheer economic logic makes it extremely unlikely that the single-digit percentage of the population that owned large slave plantations would have been able to hold complete sociopolitical advantage for long.

Yup. Slavery was more or less dead at the time of the Civil War, but the body was still warm.

My recollection of biographies of people like Jefferson Davis, were that they were more iconoclastic traditionalists than hardcore racial supremacists, which is hardly much of a distinction when you look at the results, but I say that for the point that I agree with Dread and others that both the willingness to federalize slavery and apply it to solidly abolitionist or abolitionist-in-spirit states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, etc., would just have created another Civil War, or a longstanding guerrilla action with no chance of ceasefire. In other words, no chance of success, hence no suspension of disbelief.

I have seen the movie, and agree it is better looked at as a mirror on popular culture, albeit a funhouse mirror view, than a legitimate alternative history. The filmmakers have the conceit of the true way of things, in order to exploit that to point out absurdities. Personally, I think they took the easy way out and could have settled less for the whack-a-mole attempt at slick and spotty bites across many popular if superficial cultural icons and put some meat on the bones of what would have been a locked-in caste system, and the inner struggle against it.

[cactusmaac]

Or until they were faced with the option to either continue being a backwater nation or join the US and European nations as equals. Sheer economic logic makes it extremely unlikely that the single-digit percentage of the population that owned large slave plantations would have been able to hold complete sociopolitical advantage for long.

How significant were homegrown anti-slavery movements in the South prior to the Civil War?

And exactly where would Southern abolitionists have sprung from? The bulk of the wealth there was tied up in agriculture. Any industrial middle classes would have been a long time coming.

The idea that the Southern states would proliferate it is insulting to the many southerners that fought it, freed slaves, helped slaves escape, etc.

If they had been victorious in the Civil War, the CSA leadership planned to take over swathes of Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Dominican Republic and establish and reinforce chattel slavery there.

It's tempting to think the South would have voluntarily abandoned slavery, but as far as I can tell there would have been little internal impetus to do so, particularly as victory would have been seen as confirmation of the superiority of agrarian, slave-holding society over an industrial, free labour one.

[Ray R.]

If they had been victorious in the Civil War, the CSA leadership planned to take over swathes of Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Dominican Republic and establish and reinforce chattel slavery there.

It's tempting to think the South would have voluntarily abandoned slavery, but as far as I can tell there would have been little internal impetus to do so, particularly as victory would have been seen as confirmation of the superiority of agrarian, slave-holding society over an industrial, free labour one.

Well, in many of those countries, slavery had already been ended and the slaves emancipated for decades. I think Haiti was a cautionary tale for any CSA takeover.

One of the most interesting characters to come out of that time was William Walker. With a mercenary army he took over Nicaragua and tried to make a slavery empire in Latin America. He ended up being executed in Honduras. Fascinating story -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(soldier)

[Grazzt]

I hate that book.

(And yes, I've read it, but Bill Kauffman does a more succinct job summing up my problems with it, particularly the bizarre treatment given to Burton K. Wheeler and Gerald P. Nye, about whom Roth apparently did no research at all)

One criticism of that review:

(Lindbergh) was no more a Nazi than FDR was.

Didn't Charles Lindbergh say that if the US had to choose a side to enter the war in, that the Americans should have sided with the Nazis?

[Tages]

One criticism of that review:



Didn't Charles Lindbergh say that if the US had to choose a side to enter the war in, that the Americans should have sided with the Nazis?

Not to my knowledge. He was against entering the war at all.

He declined to refuse a medal from the Nazi leadership and in a speech said that certain Jewish Americans (and he made it very clear he wasn't talking about all American Jews) were for entering the war for reasons not in the best interests of the US. To Roth, that makes him a Nazi.

[Tages]

How significant were homegrown anti-slavery movements in the South prior to the Civil War?

What abolitionists lived in the South tended to be driven North, since many of them were encouraging slaves to rise up and kill their masters. You can imagine that this spooked them a little.

And exactly where would Southern abolitionists have sprung from? The bulk of the wealth there was tied up in agriculture. Any industrial middle classes would have been a long time coming.

The majority of the population that didn't own slaves and was therefore harmed by slavery, since they still had to pay for its upkeep?

[LtMarvel]

Hmmm....I've already long considered an alternate history when I was repulsed by HW Jr's "If the South Would've Won.." The US was so instrumental in WW II that I can't imagine how Axis would've lost WWII. Certainly, the Manhatten Project wouldn't have happened. How would the W. Europe allies survived the Nazis? Would the Nazis still run out of fuel or could they have broken the blockade??

And...shudder...would the CSA join the Axis and battle the rest of the USA?

[Tages]

Hmmm....I've already long considered an alternate history when I was repulsed by HW Jr's "If the South Would've Won.." The US was so instrumental in WW II that I can't imagine how Axis would've lost WWII. Certainly, the Manhatten Project wouldn't have happened. How would the W. Europe allies survived the Nazis? Would the Nazis still run out of fuel or could they have broken the blockade??

Depends, is there still American aid short of war? If not, it's possible the Germans could have won a narrow victory, though after Hitler's death their empire likely would have collapsed once his cronies started squabbling over the remains. Nazism was an extremely unstable philosophy held together only through perpetual conflict and the sheer force of Hitler's personality.

With American aid, the Nazis still bite it. After Stalingrad they can't stop the Soviets. Fascism dies a horriffic death, though it's possible Europe goes Red as a result, which is about as bad actually.

And...shudder...would the CSA join the Axis and battle the rest of the USA?

What possible reasons could they have had for doing so?

[cactusmaac]

The majority of the population that didn't own slaves and was therefore harmed by slavery, since they still had to pay for its upkeep?

I suppose that's why they submitted to fighting an extremely bloody and destructive war where the issue of slavery was the paramount one.

[Grazzt]

Not to my knowledge. He was against entering the war at all.

He declined to refuse a medal from the Nazi leadership and in a speech said that certain Jewish Americans (and he made it very clear he wasn't talking about all American Jews) were for entering the war for reasons not in the best interests of the US. To Roth, that makes him a Nazi.

Well, there is the Desmoines speech he made. And that makes it pretty clear that he's talking about all Jews, although he characterizes it there as simple self-interest.

He was also an apologist at times for the actions of Nazi Germany: "Germany has pursued the only consistent policy in Europe in recent years. The question of right and wrong is one thing by law and another thing by history.", "if England and France had offered a hand to the struggling republic of Germany, there would be no war today.", and "Our accusations of aggression and barbarism on the part of Germany, simply bring back echoes of hypocrisy and Versailles," for instance.

I'll try and look harder for a reference to his wanting to side with the Nazis. If I remember the context correctly, it was what he considered to be the better alternative if America couldn't (for whatever reason) stay out of the war. Its probably because he was a racist and thought that the Soviet Union needed to be held back at an cost: for instance he said "If the white race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction". However, assuming I can't find it, I'll assume that it was some other quote taken out of context, and apologize for making that accusation.

[Charles RB]

The US was so instrumental in WW II that I can't imagine how Axis would've lost WWII.

American involvement didn't make the Nazis attack the USSR at the coldest time of year whilst still being repulsed by the RAF. It's not inconcievable that the Allies could've won against Germany & Italy without America (Japan I'm less sure on), albeit in a much worse state.

[cactusmaac]

Nope. If it wasn't for American production, neither Russia nor Britain could have stayed in the war.