New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

I like Drifter's Union better Combat Medic. The Union designation is meant to be about better outcomes for the American Civil war. In both of your Unions the Civil Rights of all American, and especially Black folks, are weaker and less able to be defended. How is that a better outcome?

[ericthered]

I think 'Civil War turns out better' should be interpreted as: "More complete rights of African Americans earlier on" OR "The united states (as in the federal government) comes out stronger politically and/or economically". And that it should be measured at the 'present'. At least that's the feel I'm getting.

This is not to say that Seward-3 (renamed Union-5) is not a bad timeline: Its had a more pleasant history in some ways. But the USA of Seward-3 almost certainly doesn't have the clout of homeline's foremost superpower. Succession has been ruled to be both legal and reversible. States will keep a strong individual flavor, at least in the east. The federal government will have more power in the west, but that will be through land ownership. I also don't know that the USA will get involved in the World wars in this timeline-- and thus will occupy a considerably different location on the world stage.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Bold.

But where did the advanced tech come from? Tanks in the 1870s?

Is this a steampunk setting, then?

A little steampunkish. Think steam locomotives on treads. But it is a huge leap in tech that might not be justified (cough). To make "sense" there would had to have been a second divergence with some sort of Da Vinci working in the North.

I suppose you can get the same outcome without tanks. Maybe tweaks on Gatling guns and artillery, used with very primitive air support.

I guess this timeline has a better outcome for African-Americans. But the Northern cities don't see the Great Migration, so what acceptance they have in those areas in the Homeline is far less. So the situation isn't perfect by any means.

[ericthered]

I look at Union-2, and modern times just aren't that interesting-- but from Lee's presidency to WWI bring up all sorts of unanswered questions-- which is a good thing, as long as you can get to that time period.

the questions I have are:
Lee's manumitted slaves: What happens when no state is willing to take them? remember that the abolition movement is exhausted and politically discredited. Sending them out west really isn't feasible without someone sponsoring the farming equipment. So where do they end up? do they get a version of the Jim Crow Laws?

Loss of Wealth: Slave owners in the south had lots and lots of money tied up in slaves, and it takes a lot to break that kind of a lobby. Does the government just free them in the 1920's without reimbursement? I can't see that happening without a shift in wealth away from land-owning. I can see that happening in a couple of ways. Laws that require a certain standard of living to be given to slaves and other such regulations could make them unprofitable, at least compared to free workers. An international boycott of slave-produced cotton may also take the wind out of the slave industry (the leader here would be GB, of course). Mechanization of agriculture would also go a long way towards reducing the demand for slaves: why buy 20 slaves when you can buy a cotton picker that does twice the work? This technology was developed in the 30's in OTL, but as we're having more american inventors in this time line and they come from civil war losses (of which the agrarian south took more) it actually makes sense to move agricultural mechanization up in history -- as is noted in the original description.[this question is heavily influenced by the movie amazing grace, about similar proccesses working in england]

----------------------------------------------------------

The version of Union-2 I want to see is the world wars. You have much greater mechanization, and this WWII will be much bloodier for the US -- The entire western front saw less than a million military deaths on the part of the allies, while the eastern front saw around 15 million soldiers die. The first world war will have an even larger tech gap from previous wars: tanks may have already been developed. I am assuming, of course, that the Western world keeps up with each other for the most part (pre-world war I american inventors were notorious for selling military inventions in europe after offering them to a home government that showed little interest).

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

It's funny you mention tech,....

Check out Union 2.

It's got:

• better tech
  
• shorter and less horrible ACW
  
• end of slavery (later, but it does end)
  
• full civil rights by about now-ish

It's a bit out there, but certainly no more so than yours (which I do like; it's fun speculation).

Heh, they're all fun speculation. I haven't seen one I don't like yet. They all have their problems, but they are all very rough sketches after all. ericthered brought up the same issues I thought of, but they're not deal killers. And I'm not so keen on seeing the world war take - as mentioned earlier not every timeline has to have a world war, or threat of destruction hanging over its head.

[ericthered]

The devil is in the details: History isn't clean, and its hard to simply change one thing without cascading a whole bunch of others. When working with Alt Hists, its important to work out intermediate stages in order to sell the whole, even if you don't present the intermediate steps.

I started out presenting the questions above as a refutation, but it turned into a 'consider this when using the world'. I think I find it believable enough now. I still stand by my statement that I'd use it in the early 1900's rather than 2019.

the hard part about a deep alt hist is how the rest of the world is affected, and actually rewriting history over the course of decades.

The real joker in that deck here is what happens in europe. We're proposing a technological change that will severely alter what WWI looks like-- trench warfare may never exist. or World War I may kick off early under the accelerated technological progression (and resulting arms race), catching the US more isolationist. The tech change is as large a lever on history, if not more so, as the civil rights issues.

As for why there has to be a world war: for the same reason there has to be a europe. Europe's history is pockmarked with wars between great powers. Without a radical political change, a great war is pretty much a given in any time-line with a recognizable europe. Two great wars are not, and the line-up isn't a given, but if you remove a war in which the great powers of the world realize just how much damage they are capable of without producing a winner, you have a lot of explaining to do.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I look at Union-2, and modern times just aren't that interesting-- but from Lee's presidency to WWI bring up all sorts of unanswered questions-- which is a good thing, as long as you can get to that time period.

the questions I have are:
Lee's manumitted slaves: What happens when no state is willing to take them? remember that the abolition movement is exhausted and politically discredited. Sending them out west really isn't feasible without someone sponsoring the farming equipment. So where do they end up? do they get a version of the Jim Crow Laws?

Loss of Wealth: Slave owners in the south had lots and lots of money tied up in slaves, and it takes a lot to break that kind of a lobby. Does the government just free them in the 1920's without reimbursement? I can't see that happening without a shift in wealth away from land-owning. I can see that happening in a couple of ways. Laws that require a certain standard of living to be given to slaves and other such regulations could make them unprofitable, at least compared to free workers. An international boycott of slave-produced cotton may also take the wind out of the slave industry (the leader here would be GB, of course). Mechanization of agriculture would also go a long way towards reducing the demand for slaves: why buy 20 slaves when you can buy a cotton picker that does twice the work? This technology was developed in the 30's in OTL, but as we're having more american inventors in this time line and they come from civil war losses (of which the agrarian south took more) it actually makes sense to move agricultural mechanization up in history -- as is noted in the original description.[this question is heavily influenced by the movie amazing grace, about similar proccesses working in england]




----------------------------------------------------------

The version of Union-2 I want to see is the world wars. You have much greater mechanization, and this WWII will be much bloodier for the US -- The entire western front saw less than a million military deaths on the part of the allies, while the eastern front saw around 15 million soldiers die. The first world war will have an even larger tech gap from previous wars: tanks may have already been developed. I am assuming, of course, that the Western world keeps up with each other for the most part (pre-world war I american inventors were notorious for selling military inventions in europe after offering them to a home government that showed little interest).

UNION 2 notes



20th Century end of slavery in CSA:
In essence, the way most of the Yankees did it: grandfather it out. As I recall, only Massachusetts and Vermont actually freed their slaves outright, at once. And it was a bit more complex in Vermont, not that that little jurisdiction was overflowing with slaves. The other Northern states phased slavery out. Say everyone born after July 4th of Year X is born free. Or will become free at such and such an age (21 or 18, say).Somebody born before that remains a slave unless manumitted. Possibly the law will require apprenticeships of the first generation.
This was actually done, and it worked. It also protects the slave owners investment. It moves a population through slavery to freedom in stages.

New Jersey still had a very small number of lifetime ''apprentices'' on the eve of the RW ACW.

Compensated manumission was probably the last stage, and might not have been universal. It's possible there were still old slaves alive in the 1960s in this timeline. There might have been legal wrangling about whether that made a state a ''slave state'', but of course it would not. As noted above, several ''free states'' in the first part of the 19th Century had some older slaves left in them. But it's not a slave state with no new slaves, no imports, no one being born into slavery.

You are dead on about the tech. TL 7 hits a bit early, with the wave cresting in America.
TL 6 might have come a decade early, too. This can make a difference.

Ditto international pressure. Think South Africa under apartheid.


CURRENT YEAR/RECENT TIMES
Modern times are less interesting, yeah. Maybe if I develop the international situation more fully?




Lee's workers

Likely no state would take them, not en masse. But territories are not states. Thus the wording of the law that set up the works program, and thus Lee's advice to settle in the territories.
I'm sure they faced discriminatory treatment from many of the White settlers in the West. That's implied with the Free Soil remarks ( my home state's constitution forbad free blacks to settle in its bounds from 1859 on for decades). Probably not full on Jim Crow, as this timeline lacks the Reconstruction history that helped create conditions and attitudes which led to that system. We aren't talking about the same kind of scale of population or the same upheaval of the social order.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by ericthered

The devil is in the details: History isn't clean, and its hard to simply change one thing without cascading a whole bunch of others. When working with Alt Hists, its important to work out intermediate stages in order to sell the whole, even if you don't present the intermediate steps.

I started out presenting the questions above as a refutation, but it turned into a 'consider this when using the world'. I think I find it believable enough now. I still stand by my statement that I'd use it in the early 1900's rather than 2019.

the hard part about a deep alt hist is how the rest of the world is affected, and actually rewriting history over the course of decades.

The real joker in that deck here is what happens in europe. We're proposing a technological change that will severely alter what WWI looks like-- trench warfare may never exist. or World War I may kick off early under the accelerated technological progression (and resulting arms race), catching the US more isolationist. The tech change is as large a lever on history, if not more so, as the civil rights issues.

As for why there has to be a world war: for the same reason there has to be a europe. Europe's history is pockmarked with wars between great powers. Without a radical political change, a great war is pretty much a given in any time-line with a recognizable europe. Two great wars are not, and the line-up isn't a given, but if you remove a war in which the great powers of the world realize just how much damage they are capable of without producing a winner, you have a lot of explaining to do.

I don't have a clear picture of the World Wars in Union 2, but some notes-

The Allies still win WW1. The war might have been even more destructive ion this timeline than in OTL. I'm not sure. The Tsar and the Kaiser still lose power (though perhaps some of the Tsars family manage to get out alive?).

The Nazis still rise to power in Germany. But the great leader is one of the Strasser bothers, not Hitler. Nazism emphasizes the socialism part more. No Night of Long Knives, or not the same, anyway.

Trotsky comes out on top in the post-Lenin power struggle. The USSR aligns with Germany.


WILD CONJECTURES FOLLOW

I'm undecided on how Japan fits in.


I noted 49 states. I didn't name them all. It's possible that Alaska was never purchased by the USA and remained a thinly inhabited backwater of the Russian Empire. Maybe send an exiled Romanov there and set up a government-in-exile with British backing?

[Astromancer]

[QUOTE=combatmedic;1805034]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The Union designation is given to worlds where either the Civil War leads to better more honorable outcomes in reguard to American racial issues or Reconstruction was far better handled with similar benefits.

Union-7

Union-7 may or may not deserve the "UNION" designation. QUOTE]

I note the first example Astro gives is one he notes ''may or may note deserve'' the designation.

If he doesn't find Union 8 or Seward 3 fitting, I wonder what he thinks of Union 2?

The point of Union-7 was an alternate reconstruction with opportunities for adventure. Reconstruction generally is an interesting timeframe for a Infinate Worlds campaign. Like Eric, I see an ACW or Reconstruction leading to full civil rights for Black Folk sooner than Homeline and a stronger healthier USA as good outcomes.

Let's face it Combatmedic, your heart is with the CSA and the USA means little to you. So let's let this drop.

[Flyndaran]

[QUOTE=combatmedic;1805498]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

That's a grotesque mischaracterization of my views and sympathies, but I'm not doing this here. I suggest that you delete your post and we can talk by pm.
Check your inbox.

-Ewan

I think the legitimate misunderstanding comes from how you seem to value lives in the past more than rights of the more recent or game present.
While most players value situations in the game present far more than anything in the past.

I don't read any ill will on either of your parts.