1) The Confederate constitution was like 95% copied from the US constitution, so it wouldn't have been the same as the Articles of Confederation. They still would have had a constitutional basis for at least a stronger government than the Articles had. 2) Slaves did not have the numbers to just rebel successfully. They made up around one-third of the population of the South. Still large, but not the majority like Haiti or South Africa. Numbers alone wouldn't win it. 3) In the book the Battle of Antietam didn't happen. That happened because the Union intercepted Order 191. Without them winning that battle Lincoln felt he didn't have the political clout to change the focus of the war to ending slavery. Without that and with the Confederates taking Philadelphia, Britain and France would have less reason to not support the South.
If you like Medieval fantasy, Turtledove wrote some of that too. The Videssos Chronicles are about a Roman legion that got lost in a Medieval fantasy world with magic and all of the usual hallmarks thereof.
Now for the rest of the series if you like. Yes some stuff is not really realistic and Turtledove does draw an bit too many parallels to our history but I loved the series.
I'm almost finished with this eleven book series again, it's probably better this go around because I'm not having to wait a year or two between books when they were coming out
Your logic is flawed, and here's why. Turtledove's Battle of Philadelphia was (I believe) the Battle of Antitem in our world, which was before The Emancipation Proclamation would be signed. Europe already was sending diplomats to the confederates, and the North was losing the war in most cases in 1862. After Turtledove had a incredible southern victory in Philadelphia, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Europe to at least *recognize* the south. They also desperately needed the cotton that the Union's blockade was preventing them from getting, further swaying support in favor of the Confederacy.
Egypt and India were already under European control and much closer to Europe than the south... like Egypt was a condominium and India was right for the taking, not to mention Morocco was trading a lot of cotton with England and France.
I'm glad they touched a little bit on the industrial revolution. As someone who runs a livestock based agribusiness and assists with the operation of a crop based agribusiness, I love to debate how improvements in agmechanics and agritechnology would have impacted the institution of slavery and (possibly) even caused its eventual demise. (it also makes great debate material for my American CW reenacting)
Original “constitution” was the Articles of Confederation. As for the economy, with little industry they’d remain poor and not have the taxes of the north that sustain them now.
The war was not yet about slavery at the time of the Fall of Philadelphia. In a meeting with the British ambassador, President Lincoln laments the draft of the emancipation proclamation in his desk drawer would never enacted. In real history, the loss of special order 191 lead to the battle of Anteedum. Only after that battle does the war officially become about slavery. President Lincoln had decided to wait for a victory so the reframing of the war would be done from a position of strength. Without that victory, the British and French intervene in a war that is still about state's rights.
With slavery v 1800’s capitalism you are accounting for lots of different costs than the actually important ones. It was unsustainable just for more complicated reasons. With modern capitalism the problem is the textbooks were wrong, as was the propaganda- it worked for Ford sure, the market isn’t like it was in Ford’s day. Long term maybe it’s a concern to destroy the middle class and dismantle workers rights but the US economy and corporate structure is one of the best in the world at not thinking long term, and building legal and banking instruments to support creative destruction. Its why Silicon Valley worked so well for a while (while unions were disappearing) it’s why Amazon and Uber have insane valuations despite never turning a profit. They are able to think incredibly short term and base their valuations on a much longer term of myopic success. Uber isn’t betting the market will catch up (it can’t the middle class can’t support it) it is betting by 2027 it can fire all of the “independent contractors” to replace with self driving cars which will then replace car ownership by 2035; it is betting it will literally become all of transportation infrastructure and have to pay no workers to do it. Amazon cannot be punished for being a monopoly cause being a monopoly isn’t illegal, making things worse for consumers by being a monopoly is- so as long as it only buy’s or bankrupts all alternatives then buy’s off anyone who would legislate against it until like a frog in a boiling pot we didn’t notice they own literally everything, well then they own the economy. The problem is that people think it’s unsustainable and worse for everyone to pay workers less so then they think “corporations are just dumb” or if they are conservative they think “then clearly they aren’t and everyone is just whining”. It isn’t unsustainable, monopolies are inevitable, efficiencies only compound that problem with automation and AI, and always on the short term burning shit to the ground to sell it to make investors and owners happy has made them the most money. The problem is the next tech revolution means whoever has the most power, most AI, most data to learn from when it starts can replace the concept of work with whatever the hell they want and be infinitely more powerful on the back end. They are betting they can use the current system as fuel to purchase the future and unless someone stops them they are absolutely right. PS German corporate governance is basically the antithesis of this, but it has plenty of its own problems. Also too few unions, everyone is in one but if there is only 8 and they aren’t responsive to local concerns it defeats the point.
Don't think UK would have had anything to do with Confederacy, due to 1833 legislation. Too busy. Issues in Europe, India and Africa. Kissed America bye bye, in 1815
They could do several things at once. It's not like Britain or France would have invaded the North, they had diplomatic leverage and could have pushed for a negotiated settlement. You can't just say 'nah.'
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
how likely do you think this world is? I say my thoughts in the video, let me know yours :)
1) The Confederate constitution was like 95% copied from the US constitution, so it wouldn't have been the same as the Articles of Confederation. They still would have had a constitutional basis for at least a stronger government than the Articles had.
2) Slaves did not have the numbers to just rebel successfully. They made up around one-third of the population of the South. Still large, but not the majority like Haiti or South Africa. Numbers alone wouldn't win it.
3) In the book the Battle of Antietam didn't happen. That happened because the Union intercepted Order 191. Without them winning that battle Lincoln felt he didn't have the political clout to change the focus of the war to ending slavery. Without that and with the Confederates taking Philadelphia, Britain and France would have less reason to not support the South.
React to Alternatehistoryhub's The invasion that changed everything: Soviets in Afghanistan
@@Pyth0n313 Great video
I realize Im kinda off topic but does anybody know a good site to watch new tv shows online?
@Moses Dominic meh try Flixportal. just google for it:P -robert
If you like Medieval fantasy, Turtledove wrote some of that too. The Videssos Chronicles are about a Roman legion that got lost in a Medieval fantasy world with magic and all of the usual hallmarks thereof.
Now for the rest of the series if you like. Yes some stuff is not really realistic and Turtledove does draw an bit too many parallels to our history but I loved the series.
Oooh....lighter hoodie I see.......sorry I had to XD XD XD
You've finally did it!
That message that was lost was found wrapped around a cigar.
React to Alternatehistoryhub's The invasion that changed everything: Soviets in Afghanistan
I'm almost finished with this eleven book series again, it's probably better this go around because I'm not having to wait a year or two between books when they were coming out
Your logic is flawed, and here's why. Turtledove's Battle of Philadelphia was (I believe) the Battle of Antitem in our world, which was before The Emancipation Proclamation would be signed. Europe already was sending diplomats to the confederates, and the North was losing the war in most cases in 1862. After Turtledove had a incredible southern victory in Philadelphia, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Europe to at least *recognize* the south. They also desperately needed the cotton that the Union's blockade was preventing them from getting, further swaying support in favor of the Confederacy.
Egypt and India were already under European control and much closer to Europe than the south... like Egypt was a condominium and India was right for the taking, not to mention Morocco was trading a lot of cotton with England and France.
I'm glad they touched a little bit on the industrial revolution. As someone who runs a livestock based agribusiness and assists with the operation of a crop based agribusiness, I love to debate how improvements in agmechanics and agritechnology would have impacted the institution of slavery and (possibly) even caused its eventual demise. (it also makes great debate material for my American CW reenacting)
Original “constitution” was the Articles of Confederation. As for the economy, with little industry they’d remain poor and not have the taxes of the north that sustain them now.
The war was not yet about slavery at the time of the Fall of Philadelphia. In a meeting with the British ambassador, President Lincoln laments the draft of the emancipation proclamation in his desk drawer would never enacted.
In real history, the loss of special order 191 lead to the battle of Anteedum. Only after that battle does the war officially become about slavery. President Lincoln had decided to wait for a victory so the reframing of the war would be done from a position of strength.
Without that victory, the British and French intervene in a war that is still about state's rights.
Not to mention that Europe had Africa and Asia... England had just found Egypt and India which have cotton
Between industrialization and number of citizens, there was no way that the Confederacy could have won the war.
If it got foreign recognition, it could.
Why are you so awesome???????
Can you please check out Alternate History Hub's video about national anthems?
With slavery v 1800’s capitalism you are accounting for lots of different costs than the actually important ones. It was unsustainable just for more complicated reasons.
With modern capitalism the problem is the textbooks were wrong, as was the propaganda- it worked for Ford sure, the market isn’t like it was in Ford’s day. Long term maybe it’s a concern to destroy the middle class and dismantle workers rights but the US economy and corporate structure is one of the best in the world at not thinking long term, and building legal and banking instruments to support creative destruction. Its why Silicon Valley worked so well for a while (while unions were disappearing) it’s why Amazon and Uber have insane valuations despite never turning a profit. They are able to think incredibly short term and base their valuations on a much longer term of myopic success. Uber isn’t betting the market will catch up (it can’t the middle class can’t support it) it is betting by 2027 it can fire all of the “independent contractors” to replace with self driving cars which will then replace car ownership by 2035; it is betting it will literally become all of transportation infrastructure and have to pay no workers to do it. Amazon cannot be punished for being a monopoly cause being a monopoly isn’t illegal, making things worse for consumers by being a monopoly is- so as long as it only buy’s or bankrupts all alternatives then buy’s off anyone who would legislate against it until like a frog in a boiling pot we didn’t notice they own literally everything, well then they own the economy.
The problem is that people think it’s unsustainable and worse for everyone to pay workers less so then they think “corporations are just dumb” or if they are conservative they think “then clearly they aren’t and everyone is just whining”. It isn’t unsustainable, monopolies are inevitable, efficiencies only compound that problem with automation and AI, and always on the short term burning shit to the ground to sell it to make investors and owners happy has made them the most money. The problem is the next tech revolution means whoever has the most power, most AI, most data to learn from when it starts can replace the concept of work with whatever the hell they want and be infinitely more powerful on the back end. They are betting they can use the current system as fuel to purchase the future and unless someone stops them they are absolutely right.
PS German corporate governance is basically the antithesis of this, but it has plenty of its own problems. Also too few unions, everyone is in one but if there is only 8 and they aren’t responsive to local concerns it defeats the point.
Don't think UK would have had anything to do with Confederacy, due to 1833 legislation. Too busy. Issues in Europe, India and Africa. Kissed America bye bye, in 1815
They could do several things at once. It's not like Britain or France would have invaded the North, they had diplomatic leverage and could have pushed for a negotiated settlement. You can't just say 'nah.'
React to Alternatehistoryhub's The invasion that changed everything: Soviets in Afghanistan