- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @SpanishSpy here
See a Three Way American Split feels fun, that’s not particularly common in ACW alternative history’s, but the Soviet Union?He has these three American nations fight in both world wars together and oppose the Soviet Union together before reunifying in the 1960s.
This is part of the tendency in historical US alternate history (probably found in other countries too but it's most noticeable in the US) to act as though everything outside the country is unconnected and will follow a neat historical trajectory regardless of what happens.See a Three Way American Split feels fun, that’s not particularly common in ACW alternative history’s, but the Soviet Union?
What the hell is happening there?
These three developments, right there, are indeed ubiquitous in CSA Victory TLs. There is some justification for the second one, as a victorious Confederacy would rapidly become a mess of which Texas would feel little need to remain a member (and probably several other states as well); but the other two are completely gratuitous. If anything, international pressure would result in the CSA taking a perverse pride in the practice of slavery, and its military would be too busy dealing with domestic unrest to go conquering other territories.He has the Confederacy abolish slavery due to international pressure. He has Texas split from the Confederacy. He has the Confederacy engage in a war with Spain and annex Cuba.
This is part of the tendency in historical US alternate history (probably found in other countries too but it's most noticeable in the US) to act as though everything outside the country is unconnected and will follow a neat historical trajectory regardless of what happens.
I think a balance is good. I think it's reasonable to wave away the strict butterfly effect for, at most, twenty years, but beyond that it starts falling apart in terms of believability and starts turning into 'why should I care because nothing these different leaders are doing seems to have any longterm impact'.I kind of prefer that approach, tbh. It's more interesting as a thought exercise to go 'so how will this changed usa deal with this otl crisis' then go 'oh, butterflies means that otl crisis doesn't happen so we don't see how this new usa deals with the cold war etc.'.
He has the Confederacy abolish slavery due to international pressure. He has Texas split from the Confederacy. He has the Confederacy engage in a war with Spain and annex Cuba
I think a balance is good. I think it's reasonable to wave away the strict butterfly effect for, at most, twenty years, but beyond that it starts falling apart in terms of believability and starts turning into 'why should I care because nothing these different leaders are doing seems to have any longterm impact'.