Blogcritics: Comments on Alternate History I'd Like to See

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:31:18 EDT

If you like alternate history, you shold check This Day In Alternate History, which includes timelines where the reactionary South tried to incite a civil war against the Communist United States, and where the Confederacy of Nations consisted of the aborginals, aliens and European settlers, among others. Also, I really like the timeline where Pete Best is an international pop superstar, and his former sidemen try to cash in on his success.

Comment by Justene

Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:16:48 EDT

My family at the time were poor dirt-farmers in Eastern Europe where their part of the world changed hands now and then. I think it was the Austro-Hungarian empire then. One of the commenters at Calblog pointed out that slavery ended in various parts of the world at that time, without a war. I vaguely knew that from a trip to Guadaloupe, which was the first country to free the slaves. 1200 cruise ship passengers. About 10, including my daughters and I (and a flu-ridden husband) made the trek off the beach to the local museum which, as far as I can tell, was devoted to the ending of slavery. I say "as far as I can tell" because I speak no French. Of course, the US was larger economically so the international efforts may have had no effect. MD may have a blast but it's her blast. It's been a long time since I changed my behavior or opinions because of someone else's blast.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:05:06 EDT

Some pretty balanced research work on this question: data: slaveowners as percentage of confederate enlistees ie. 30--35% confederate soldiers came from slave-holding families. Which means that around 60 -65% of confederate soldiers DIDN'T own slaves, ie the bulk of the Southern army. Whether or not they 'supported' slavery is another question, but despite many attempts to paint the Civil War as a simple, strict battle over slavery vs non-slavery, it ain't that simple. Slavery was definitely THE defining issue, (there wouldn't have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist), but both sides (north & south) painted the conflict in various implicit and explicit terms that included a number of other 'important' issues that tried to marginalize the 'slavery' issue. It can also be argued that doing away with slavery meant a virtual economic collapse of the southern states -- which built their agricultural economy on the zero-cost labor of slaves. On some levels, for Southerners, it was an economic debate moreso than a moral debate. (money usually trumps morals on either side of the Mason-Dixon line!) DISCLAIMER: Shark's 19th century ancestors were all poor dirt farmers on the peripheral of the slave-owning states, and they were all virtual slaves in that they were poor white sharecroppers holding the shit-end of the indentured stick while working for The Man. PS: Oh boy, Justene, you do realize that MacDiva is gonna have a blast with this one, and I'm starting to dig a foxhole in anticipation.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:37:54 EDT

Interesting - how prevalent was his view, though? We watched Cold Mountain over the weekend and there were hints that this view was not unknown, but I wonder what percentage fought for what.