Shattered Nation-Filling the Gaps

CanadianCanuck

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
This is something I touched on multiple times with Confederate victory timelines. The Republic of the Rio Grande, or at least the concept of it, is not stomped out by the Federalists. A potential balkanization of Northern Mexico could happen.

Also, on Confederate holidays. Should I retain the use of February 8th as Confederate Independence Day as it was the day the Confederate constitution was ratified. Or just keep it was February 4th, as it was when the country was founded, as that would basically be analogous to the founders on July 4th?

I'd keep it as February 4th. Makes for a good analogous holiday.
 

CanadianCanuck

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
As a more general question for @JeffBrooks, I was actually re-reading these two novels last summer, and it struck me, when Butler is being interrogated by Sumter in the Senate, he makes the offhand remark that the Union has an army of 'several hundred thousand' was that a more offhand way of saying that it's a large army, or is the Union actually keeping 700,000 men under arms?

Also, having just finally watched Gone With the Wind all the way through, I'm fairly certain I caught some references to it in your stories. Very clever if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
As a more general question for @JeffBrooks, I was actually re-reading these two novels last summer, and it struck me, when Butler is being interrogated by Sumter in the Senate, he makes the offhand remark that the Union has an army of 'several hundred thousand' was that a more offhand way of saying that it's a large army, or is the Union actually keeping 700,000 men under arms?

Also, having just finally watched Gone With the Wind all the way through, I'm fairly certain I caught some references to it in your stories. Very clever if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing.

Only reference I can remember was Atlanta's rail terminus made an appearance. The rail yard appeared in GWTW, and it was burned in the retreat from Atlanta.
 

CanadianCanuck

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Only reference I can remember was Atlanta's rail terminus made an appearance. The rail yard appeared in GWTW, and it was burned in the retreat from Atlanta.

I'm decently sure the Blockade Runner Captain who appears in the dinner Johnston attends at Atlanta, from his description to his vocation, is a nod to Rhett Butler, who at that time in the movie is Captain Butler who commanded a blockade runner and was something of a dandy in Atlanta society. Then when there's that siege of the hotel in House of the Proud there's a 'Georgia woman' in a red dress who I think is a nod to Scarlett.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
I'm decently sure the Blockade Runner Captain who appears in the dinner Johnston attends at Atlanta, from his description to his vocation, is a nod to Rhett Butler, who at that time in the movie is Captain Butler who commanded a blockade runner and was something of a dandy in Atlanta society. Then when there's that siege of the hotel in House of the Proud there's a 'Georgia woman' in a red dress who I think is a nod to Scarlett.
Does this mean that “Frankly my dear I don’t give a ****!” Still happens in Shattered Nation? It would only increase my appreciation for the book.

 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
I'm decently sure the Blockade Runner Captain who appears in the dinner Johnston attends at Atlanta, from his description to his vocation, is a nod to Rhett Butler, who at that time in the movie is Captain Butler who commanded a blockade runner and was something of a dandy in Atlanta society. Then when there's that siege of the hotel in House of the Proud there's a 'Georgia woman' in a red dress who I think is a nod to Scarlett.

I just looked that back over in House of the Proud! When Saul's men are occupying New Iberia, she gets manhandled by Saul with a gun to her head to keep the Confederate troops away.

Do you think I made the right call in showing the first rumbles of a populist swing in the CSA by having James Longstreet in the Liberty Party and throwing the 1879 Election to the House? And eventually leading to Wade Hampton III becoming the State's Rights Party's first president?
 

JeffBrooks

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Location
Manor, TX
I'm decently sure the Blockade Runner Captain who appears in the dinner Johnston attends at Atlanta, from his description to his vocation, is a nod to Rhett Butler, who at that time in the movie is Captain Butler who commanded a blockade runner and was something of a dandy in Atlanta society. Then when there's that siege of the hotel in House of the Proud there's a 'Georgia woman' in a red dress who I think is a nod to Scarlett.

No Comment.

(Mischievous Grin)
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
This is something I touched on multiple times with Confederate victory timelines. The Republic of the Rio Grande, or at least the concept of it, is not stomped out by the Federalists. A potential balkanization of Northern Mexico could happen.

For a good read on the subject, I'd suggest Mexican Projects of the Confederates by J. Fred Rippy, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Apr., 1919, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Apr., 1919), pp. 291-317; It's available on JSTOR if you have access to that. Beyond giving early coverage to the Vidaurri offer, which R. Curtis Taylor would return to in detail decades later with Santiago Vidaurri and the Confederacy (The Americas, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jul., 1969), pp. 66-76), Rippy also covers other fascinating adventures, in particular overtures to Terrazas of Chihuahua and Pesqueira of Sonora, fellow strongmen in the same vein as Vidaurri. Further, planning was afoot at least as early 1863 for many Confederates to settle into Mexico.

All these things together make me suspect that the Confederacy could, at the least, eventually annex Northern Mexico and puppet the rest; personally, and I have advocated it before, I think they could possibly gain the whole of the nation. If the local strongmen are aligned with the Confederates and the aforementioned settlers control the economy and military, that is a very stable basis from which to absorb the country. In the interim, when France is inevitably forced to retreat due to events in Europe, the C.S.A could establish itself as the patron of Mexico and then move to intervene when the Emperor dies. Historically, he was in poor health and was likely infertile, having produced no heirs.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
For a good read on the subject, I'd suggest Mexican Projects of the Confederates by J. Fred Rippy, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Apr., 1919, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Apr., 1919), pp. 291-317; It's available on JSTOR if you have access to that. Beyond giving early coverage to the Vidaurri offer, which R. Curtis Taylor would return to in detail decades later with Santiago Vidaurri and the Confederacy (The Americas, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jul., 1969), pp. 66-76), Rippy also covers other fascinating adventures, in particular overtures to Terrazas of Chihuahua and Pesqueira of Sonora, fellow strongmen in the same vein as Vidaurri. Further, planning was afoot at least as early 1863 for many Confederates to settle into Mexico.

All these things together make me suspect that the Confederacy could, at the least, eventually annex Northern Mexico and puppet the rest; personally, and I have advocated it before, I think they could possibly gain the whole of the nation. If the local strongmen are aligned with the Confederates and the aforementioned settlers control the economy and military, that is a very stable basis from which to absorb the country. In the interim, when France is inevitably forced to retreat due to events in Europe, the C.S.A could establish itself as the patron of Mexico and then move to intervene when the Emperor dies. Historically, he was in poor health and was likely infertile, having produced no heirs.

Remember, in Shattered Nation, Texas goes it's own way before the turn of the century. So Mexico could be a colony of sorts to a resurgent Republic of Texas.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Remember, in Shattered Nation, Texas goes it's own way before the turn of the century. So Mexico could be a colony of sorts to a resurgent Republic of Texas.

Personally, that's one issue I'd have; the Confederate Constitution specifically stated that it existed in perputity i.e. no secession.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Personally, that's one issue I'd have; the Confederate Constitution specifically stated that it existed in perputity i.e. no secession.
The Confederate Constitution says nothing about secession just like the United States Constitution.

The Confederate Constitution goes into extreme specifics about states being sovereign in their own independent character.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
The Confederate Constitution says nothing about secession just like the United States Constitution.

The Confederate Constitution goes into extreme specifics about states being sovereign in their own independent character.

From their preamble:

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."

The C.S. in actuality had the most centralized government in North American history until the New Deal era. Texas v. White, which was the SCOTUS case which declared secession illegal, used the Articles of Confederation as the basis for the Court's decision, stating that they [The Articles] created a perpetual union between these states. The C.S. Constitution is doing the same here by saying they are forming a permanent federal government.

From the Articles:
"And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual..."
 
Last edited:

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
From their preamble:

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."

The C.S. in actuality had the most centralized government in North American history until the New Deal era. Texas v. White, which was the SCOTUS case which declared secession illegal, used the Articles of Confederation as the basis for the Court's decision, stating that they [The Articles] created a perpetual union between these states. The C.S. Constitution is doing the same here by saying they are forming a permanent federal government.

From the Articles:
"And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual..."
That still doesn’t tackle the issue of unilateral secession. Only that the Richmond government is perpetual.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
That still doesn’t tackle the issue of unilateral secession. Only that the Richmond government is perpetual.

To which the Southern States, having ratified the Constitution, are subscribed to keeping in perpetuity; withdrawl from the Federal Government would thus break this tenet. It's basically contractual-legalese English in play here.
 

CanadianCanuck

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
I just looked that back over in House of the Proud! When Saul's men are occupying New Iberia, she gets manhandled by Saul with a gun to her head to keep the Confederate troops away.

Do you think I made the right call in showing the first rumbles of a populist swing in the CSA by having James Longstreet in the Liberty Party and throwing the 1879 Election to the House? And eventually leading to Wade Hampton III becoming the State's Rights Party's first president?

Wow I missed this! Sorry to take so long to reply.

I think the first rumbles of populism would probably show up in the 1880s or closer to the 1885 election personally. From vague memories I do remember that Mr. Brooks put some comments about communism still rising in TTL, so the later 1880s and 90s (which seems to prompt some of the events we see in the past from 1907) would seem more appropriate.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Wow I missed this! Sorry to take so long to reply.

I think the first rumbles of populism would probably show up in the 1880s or closer to the 1885 election personally. From vague memories I do remember that Mr. Brooks put some comments about communism still rising in TTL, so the later 1880s and 90s (which seems to prompt some of the events we see in the past from 1907) would seem more appropriate.
I think that in any Confederate victory scenario an extremely radical form of Marxism would emerge in reaction.

Karl Marx was a garbage human being with garbage worldviews that eventually killed millions of people. But the United States fragmenting and Lincoln being discredited would push Marx even further left.

That’s why for the Confederacy I chose rural, conservative, economic populism to being the driving force for change there.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Wow I missed this! Sorry to take so long to reply.

I think the first rumbles of populism would probably show up in the 1880s or closer to the 1885 election personally. From vague memories I do remember that Mr. Brooks put some comments about communism still rising in TTL, so the later 1880s and 90s (which seems to prompt some of the events we see in the past from 1907) would seem more appropriate.

Also, I seem to get the impression that the Tredegar Iron Works becomes a nationalized firearms designer for the Confederacy.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Wow I missed this! Sorry to take so long to reply.

I think the first rumbles of populism would probably show up in the 1880s or closer to the 1885 election personally. From vague memories I do remember that Mr. Brooks put some comments about communism still rising in TTL, so the later 1880s and 90s (which seems to prompt some of the events we see in the past from 1907) would seem more appropriate.

Reading through the epilogue of the last book I've also caught hints of a possible economic divide in the Afro-Confederate community.

One seems to have flavorings of Booker T. Washington and self reliance, the Saulists perhaps are of the WEB Dubois flavor with Marxist underpinnings.
 

CanadianCanuck

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Also, I seem to get the impression that the Tredegar Iron Works becomes a nationalized firearms designer for the Confederacy.

Hmm, out of curiosity what gives you that impression?

Reading through the epilogue of the last book I've also caught hints of a possible economic divide in the Afro-Confederate community.

One seems to have flavorings of Booker T. Washington and self reliance, the Saulists perhaps are of the WEB Dubois flavor with Marxist underpinnings.

Well, there would definitely be an economic divide. Six years after the end of slavery in the CSA and the former slaves would have a hard time pulling themselves out, especially if competing with poor whites for work as well.

I think the Saulites are a populist/militant group who adopted insurgent tactics on a small scale over the course of the latter half of the 19th century. So the Confederacy probably had an issue with Saul's memory spurring killings, sabotage, and the like throughout the years. Be interesting to see what Mr. Brooks thinks up.
 
Top