Posted under History & The South
William Lind’s most recent in the American Conservative (not on line), Alternative History, is a timely addition to a recent post here, the observation of revisionist popular histories on the War Between the States, hitting the book shelves.
To answer the post at Conservative Times: a cyclical market tendency offers only thin gruel, as far as future trends go. The critical work lies in creating a compelling counter narrative, woven through history.
Focus on the War Between the States, the Civil War, is timely with these anniversary sorts of years–150; people who still care to part with a few dollars on the topic have a friend in publishing. Sides have been chosen already, and no irony or whiff of resistance is sensed in the South when they sing the National Anthem prior to a sporting event. NASCAR chased out the Confederate flags with little troubles.
New supporters for Southern heritage need to be found and developed.
A few shorts years from now, the Centennial for the Great War will be recognized through-out the Western World. The battlefront cemeteries in Belgium and France have been kept in immaculate condition and will find a place on the modern medium of television and certainly the publishing cycle.
The nihilism, the insanity of the Great War defined both the post-war thoughtful Right, and Left, leading many to an “anti-war” position, be it on dysgenic, economic, spiritual, or sentimental lines.
During our age, after the latter half of the Second European 30 Years War, well, the Second World War, the thoughtful mind, Right and Left, in a simple negation, expressed an alternative history:
No Great War, No Hitler, No Stalin.
It seems reasonable to expand this statement. It’s hardly beyond the historical imagination, even now, to imagine that a fractured “United States”, with border disputes and a political culture of individual, regional states, would have possessed the power to intervene during the fateful year of 1917; to have had such an impact as to turn a war with the European powers.
When O Henry ponders, “If only Longstreet had…” rather than consider the narrow focus, consider the broader impact on the nation at large, and on the West.
No Appomattox. No Great War. No Hitler. No Stalin.
For when the publishers rush to meet popular trends, the moment will offer itself; be ready and out in front with a compelling alternative history.
RedPhillips on 01 Jun 2011 at 4:18 pm #
Hawthorne, I have actually had Lincoln/Union defenders argue that had the South won the US would not have become the powerful nation it became and would not have then been able to defeat Hitler, fight the Cold War, etc. Therefore, it was a good thing the Union won. So there are people who see this logic in reverse.
Of course this is an asinine argument. Even if you grant the premise, this assumes the people actually fighting the war in 186x had a crystal ball.
Also, it is an inconvenient fact for these folks that nationalistic Germans who largely settled in the North largely fought for the North and sympathized with Lincoln’s more centralized, nationalistic vision.
The more likely scenario is as you suggest. The South wins, no definitive US intervention, Europe stalemates in WWI, no Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler, no WWII.
C Bowen on 01 Jun 2011 at 10:30 pm #
Red;
I am not sure if an asinine argument quite covers it; rather its evidence for the requirement of a thorough and compelling alternative history to compliment a legitimate historical argument. It lies in the realm of art, and requires skill to present a case.
It’s just speculation, but I do believe the Great War, when it will be considered by millions for really the first time, is going to be a dominant cultural theme for those forthcoming years.
And lets set aside the “South wins” for something more complex; Virginia stalemates, or Lee tells his boys to go guerrilla like their grand dads until the hate and atrocity piles up to insure no political reconciliation (as happened to their…grand dads).
This sort of imagery I believe can advance a broader aesthetic view of the South’s position within Western Civilization; the result of their defeat culminating in the atrocity of the Great War.
RedPhillips on 02 Jun 2011 at 1:35 am #
CB, I’m not sure I follow how the South winning or otherwise not losing would have prevented WWI. I can see that a divided US would not have been able to decisively swing the balance.
C Bowen on 02 Jun 2011 at 11:37 pm #
Red;
Consider, no Federal Reserve, no Anglo-American alliance (no President in the pocket, no Teddy Roosevelt in the pocket), no ‘United’ States to finance the war in 1914–does England intervene or allow Germany to quickly settle with France and Russia?
No Great War.
Or don’t go that far, dial it back a bit. I am making more a point about imagination and expanding the audience.