Confederate-victory series nixed

[lpetrich]

We Will Be Spared Game of Thrones Creators' Confederate Series | The Mary Sue

When it was announced that HBO’s Game of Thrones creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss were working on an alt-history series that imagined a world in which the South had won the Civil War, titled Confederate, most sensible people were like, “No thank you.”

... Thankfully, it seems like that project isn’t happening.

...
This kind of story, even when well-meaning, is always just very meh, because in the end, we may live in a society in which slavery is illegal, but the ramifications of slavery are still ever present in modern life. Why not create an alternative universe where the Reformation was allowed to be tough on the South and allowed Black citizens to have more legal protections so they could govern themselves fully? Why not a story where chattel slavery never happened? Why do we need to bring up the Confederacy and open up a bag of worms that this country has never been comfortable enough to pick through?

DB and DW might find some other studio willing to do this project, if they decide to continue with it.

HBO plans "Confederate", a series where the US South successfully seceded - an earlier thread about it

 

[Politesse]

The Reformation? Do they mean Reconstruction? It was tough on the South in many ways. Sparing Southern feelings wasn't the reason Reconstruction didn't end up in full agency and reparation for the enslaved population, it just was (and still is) the excuse for inaction. Unless you were talking to an actual abolitionist (very much in the minority) Southern whites and Northern whites had different economic incentives but very similar ideologies of race. Full and equal citizenship for the black American was never the goal of the Republican Party to begin with. And things have changed, but not that much. Of course people are uncomfortable with the subject.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not too long ago there was an indie film, done on a small budget, called CSA, about a South that had won the war and had carried on with slavery. It's a somewhat uneven film, but has some delectable moments, including TV spots for products to help slave owners keep their slaves in line, and a spot-on spoof of a D.W. Griffith film about the capture of Lincoln by a Southern patrol. It came out on DVD and is worth a look if you're into speculative history.

 

[Patooka]

Just read Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 series. Though you could skip How Few Remain.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why turn to fiction when we're seeing a perfect glimpse of it emerging right now in Trumputin Land?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Why turn to fiction when we're seeing a perfect glimpse of it emerging right now in Trumputin Land?

He'd probably convince half his followers that it's a documentary, with actual footage. "The Man in the High Castle" in real life.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not certain how a series could be done like that. One of the rebel's issues was that they'd need the west. So any victory would require concession of western territories, which the South clearly was never going to win by enough to be able to just take what they wanted. Additionally, the Emancipation Proclamation still exists, which makes the whole doing trade with the slave state of the CSA or whatever they would have called themselves, problematic still, at a political level.

1861 was the US's Brexit... where even if achieved, would not have provided the relief they were actually seeking.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Additionally, the Emancipation Proclamation still exists, which makes the whole doing trade with the slave state of the CSA or whatever they would have called themselves, problematic still, at a political level.

Dude, in this world we deal with despots, if it's to our benefit, no matter how they treat their citizens.
We'd probably have an Emancipation Zone around the border...any escaped slave caught within 50 miles of the border gets turned back over (after a lengthy and petty legal process to review his/her slave status, conditions of capture, registration, and the owner's debt load), anyone that makes it 500 miles gets a Witness Emancipation Protection ID and a job in California as an associate producer on Ellen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Additionally, the Emancipation Proclamation still exists, which makes the whole doing trade with the slave state of the CSA or whatever they would have called themselves, problematic still, at a political level.

Dude, in this world we deal with despots, if it's to our benefit, no matter how they treat their citizens.
We'd probably have an Emancipation Zone around the border...any escaped slave caught within 50 miles of the border gets turned back over (after a lengthy and petty legal process to review his/her slave status, conditions of capture, registration, and the owner's debt load), anyone that makes it 500 miles gets a Witness Emancipation Protection ID and a job in California as an associate producer on Ellen.

The Emancipation Proclamation was about restricting European trade to the rebels. In order for that to disappear, the rebels need a massive victory and for the North to give up unconditionally. Seeing Zap Brannigan didn't exist yet and wasn't a Union General, that likely would never happen. So the South still has to deal with the trade embargo.

 

[lpetrich]

The Emancipation Proclamation? The Emancipation Proclamation | National Archives with Transcript of the Proclamation | National Archives

It was about decreeing the freedom of all slaves under the authority of the Confederacy at that time. The slaves in Union-controlled areas at the time would have to stay enslaved. Nothing about trade with European nations or anything like that.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Emancipation Proclamation? The Emancipation Proclamation | National Archives with Transcript of the Proclamation | National Archives

It was about decreeing the freedom of all slaves under the authority of the Confederacy at that time. The slaves in Union-controlled areas at the time would have to stay enslaved. Nothing about trade with European nations or anything like that.

Well, all the Union states and territories other than the 4 border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware had already abolished slavery 40 years prior. Slavery in those border states had massively declined and most blacks in those states were already free by 1861, with heavy restrictions on slavery and abolition legislation in the works. Yet, they had wealthy powerful people in them who were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Lincoln prudently realized that including those border states barely siding with the Union in his Proclamation might push them to ally with the Confederacy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Emancipation Proclamation? The Emancipation Proclamation | National Archives with Transcript of the Proclamation | National Archives

It was about decreeing the freedom of all slaves under the authority of the Confederacy at that time. The slaves in Union-controlled areas at the time would have to stay enslaved.

Slavery was outlawed in the North and only continued in the Border states of which the Union didn't want to alienate.

Nothing about trade with European nations or anything like that.

It was exclusively about European trade. Why make a proclamation that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever? The rebel held areas weren't obeying US law, so it the proclamation was meant as a message to Europe.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Emancipation Proclamation? The Emancipation Proclamation | National Archives with Transcript of the Proclamation | National Archives

It was about decreeing the freedom of all slaves under the authority of the Confederacy at that time. The slaves in Union-controlled areas at the time would have to stay enslaved.

Slavery was outlawed in the North and only continued in the Border states of which the Union didn't want to alienate.

Nothing about trade with European nations or anything like that.

It was exclusively about European trade. Why make a proclamation that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever? The rebel held areas weren't obeying US law, so it the proclamation was meant as a message to Europe.

Well, it did have some meaning as a message to all blacks in the South, both free and enslaved that the Union was their ally and that they should not aid the South in their war and if they could, they should go to the North or wherever the Union army was and join in their efforts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Slavery was outlawed in the North and only continued in the Border states of which the Union didn't want to alienate.
It was exclusively about European trade. Why make a proclamation that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever? The rebel held areas weren't obeying US law, so it the proclamation was meant as a message to Europe.

Well, it did have some meaning as a message to all blacks in the South, both free and enslaved that the Union was their ally and that they should not aid the South in their war and if they could, they should go to the North or wherever the Union army was and join in their efforts.

Yes, I'm sure they all got the message from their owners.

 

[lpetrich]

Then there is the question of what a Confederacy victory would consist of.

Conquering the Union? That would be very difficult, though conquering nearby parts of the Union might be feasible.

The Union giving up and recognizing the Confederacy's independence? That IMO is the most likely Confederate-victory scenario.

How much of a victory it is depends on what sort of peace agreement they have. Favorable to the Confederacy? Favorable to the Union? In between? Will one side have to pay some big indemnity? How will the western territories be divided up? Will the Union try to appease the Confederacy about escaped slaves?

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, I'm sure they all got the message from their owners.

The slaves had a well developed information transmission system that allowed them to remain informed of developments. The slavers never suspected that such a thing could exist. Some Union generals took advantage of it, and it was absolutely criminal that it wasn't exploited as much as it could have been.