History Headscratchers / CSATheConfederateStatesOfAmerica

* How Exactly does the CSA get involved in the Persian Gulf War, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror despite none of the conditions existing for those wars to exist? Or is this in-universe propaganda to show that they're 'winning' on those fronts despite it being a loosing war? I feel like the CSA is probably bluffing their territorial achievements to some extent as propaganda.

** The most likely options are really the powers that have the most vested interest in expanding their influence in the Far East: the UK, France, and Russia. Historically, the Kanagawa treaty and Harris treaty with the US in the 50s were rapidly followed by similar agreements with the UK (1854), Russia (1855), and France (1858). As noted, none of these five treaties would be changed by a PoD in the Civil War, and with the ports already forced open in the 1850s, the disintegration of one of the powers responsible would not reduce the drive within Japan to stand up to the remaining three one whit. The Netherlands did not have the military might to drive home a similar unequal treaty on their own in isolation, nor did they have had the same desire to rock the boat due to already having monopolistic access. Canada didn't exist as a united nation, much less an independent one, in the 1850s: the Quebec Resolutions were written in 1864, the Dominion of Canada was only founded from the union of the Provinces of Canada (split into Ontario and Quebec), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia in 1867, only reached the Pacific in 1871 with the accession of the United Colony of British Columbia, and finally, was only able to act with an independent foreign policy in the early 20th century.

** I think it is mentioned in the movie that the CSA are treated much like South Africa during the late days of apartheid, being mostly shut out of international cooporation and boycotted against.

** This is some Lost Cause propaganda right here, every state that seceded made it crystal clear in their secession documents that they were seceding to protect the institution of slavery, Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy, even said in his famous 1861 Cornerstone Speech "Our new Government is founded upon the exactly the opposite ideas; its foundation are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." In other words, it was indeed about slavery for the most part, not about "Lincoln's Northern industrial backers building their industries with money from the South" like you're claiming.

*** Because they're using them to make a point -- namely "Hey, in some ways the post-Civil War USA was NotSoDifferent from our fictional Confederate States of America and the North winning the Civil War didn't end racism."

*** No. Rome and Greece did not develop loads of advanced machinery. They didn't even invent the steam engine. By contrast, America did invent better and better technology, which is why slavery was already on its way to being fazed out in the northern Southern states by the time of the war.

** Also, there is a reason that InSpiteOfANail and RichardNixonTheUsedCarSalesman exists, and -- contrary to what the more hardcore alternate-history enthusiasts might argue -- [[TropesAreTools it's not just a 'flaw'.]] It's to give the audience an 'in', so to speak -- it's basically saying "Hey, here's something[=/=]someone you've heard of in this alternate history, see how things are different-yet-eerily-familiar to the world you recognise?" Referring to Elvis enables the creators to make a point about, say, how things like race and pop culture might intersect in a more instantaneous fashion that coming up with a completely new and original fictional pop musician would.

** Also, there is a reason that InSpiteOfANail and RichardNixonTheUsedCarSalesman exists, and -- contrary to what the more hardcore alternate-history enthusiasts might argue -- it's not just a 'flaw'. It's to give the audience an 'in', so to speak -- it's basically saying "Hey, here's something[=/=]someone you've heard of in this alternate history, see how things are different-yet-eerily-familiar to the world you recognise?" Referring to Elvis enables the creators to make a point about, say, how things like race and pop culture might intersect in a more instantaneous fashion that coming up with a completely new and original fictional pop musician would.

*** And don't forget that just like in RealLife, some presidents could have died in office.

*** And don't forget that just like in RealLife, some presidents could have die in office.

** Also, there is a reason that InSpiteOfANail and RichardNixonTheUsedCarSaleman exists, and -- contrary to what the more hardcore alternate-history enthusiasts might argue -- it's not just a 'flaw'. It's to give the audience an 'in', so to speak -- it's basically saying "Hey, here's something[=/=]someone you've heard of in this alternate history, see how things are different-yet-eerily-familiar to the world you recognise?" Referring to Elvis enables the creators to make a point about, say, how things like race and pop culture might intersect in a more instantaneous fashion that coming up with a completely new and original fictional pop musician would.

** Remember that this is not a time-travel film. There is not an alternative timeline: instead, the one we see in the film ''completely replaces'' our own one. And the butterfly effect can manifest in myriads of ways (in the TropeMaker of ButterflyOfDoom, Creator/RayBradbury's 'Literature/ASoundOfThnder'', the only tangible result of killing the said butterfly was a different alphabet and the changed outcome of the presidential election, not the existing people not having been born at all.

*** Just to be clear: despite what the above troper said, by now (2017) '''every country''' in the world has women's suffrage. The very few countries that don't allow each and every woman to vote do it on a non-gender specific basis (e.g., in Brunei there are no elections at all, for either males or females).