Gurdur

Then you really should read The Difference Engine.
It is indeed a classic, and quite brilliant.
I won't argue with you there.....
... but here you really should whip yourself hard and long.
Dick's The Man In The High Castle is universely recognized as a classic, and one of the founding classics of alternate history, and often as the founding classic of alternate history.
A Freudian slip there ?

I always found Turtledove too lightweight myself, too overblown.

I always wanted to write an alternate history myself, BTW; while it would have been set in the 1970's/1980's, with a gradually semi-fascist USA and a fascist/Communist Russia, it would have been based on a very different turning point of history;
to wit:
1) that the King of Afghanistan in 1914/1918 is far less of a Englandophile than he actually was

2) that therefore Afghani raiders get given a free hand or at least the occluded official eye along the (Indian) NorthWest border

3) therefore more British and Indian Army troops being tied down keeping the peace along the NorthWest border

4) leading to even more (more than actually were, which was already a huge lot) British troops being diverted away from the (European) Western Front to East Africa to fight the German commander Lettow-Vorbeck there;
(BTW, Lettow-Vorbeck was the most long-term succesful German commander of all throughout WW 1, and he only surrendered after Germany officially surrendered)

5) leading to WW 1 just dragging on and on and on, evetually leading to a massive attrition and direct collapse of the German army

6) leading to success of the (otherwise failed) social democratic revolution in Germany, 1918-1921, and a strongly-based liberal social democratic republic there

7) as well as of course to an authoritarian Communist regime in Russia, ever more social unrest in the USA and even more repression in the USA than there was (are you aware of how many were killed in the USA 1900 - 1920 in social repression ?)
_____________

Anyway, to go back to answering your question; Turtledove is way too lightweight and too Romantic for me,
Cavalry in the West of a new American Civil War ?
Puh-leese, cavalry got mutilated in the original ACW, in the West as elsewhere;
the (original) ACW was an anomaly among wars in that it very much was determined by rifles more than anything else at all; but in common with WW 1 and until the invention of tanks, trenching dominated the ACW.
Cavalry found most use as dismounted infantry.

In 1914, say, in a new ACW, the problem would have been even more acute, with the introduction of the Gatling and other machine guns, and far better artillery (like the French-made '75's), not even looking at better rifles (such as the Prussian needle-fire rifle).

Any old how, those are a few of my thoughts.

peacenik

Well, most of the Southern states including Georgia didn't put up the confederate flag or make it a part of their own flag until the 1950s, and they did this not as a remembrance of Southern "heritage" but to protest the Civil Rights movement. As a Southerner from the great state of Tennessee, I am proud of many things about the South including our Southern hospitality, our cooking, and our football(Go Vols!!). However, a couple of things that I am deeply ashamed of are most definitely the institution of slavery, and its evil cousin, Jim Crow laws. Personally, I don't understand why so many Southerners proclaim the Confederate battle flag, which has traditionally stood as a symbol of oppression and opposition to basic liberties for African Americans, as such an important piece of heritage. In my opinion, a flag should be one thing that unites all people within the state or nation for which it stands. The confederate battle flag does the exact opposite of this, and for this reason it should NOT be used by states as a symbol of their government. The only place it should ever be displayed by any governmental entity is in a museum.

RED DAVE

SLAVERY AND RACISM

The South fought to defend slavery and racism. Anyone defending the South is defending slavery and racism. Which, in the case of conservatives, doesn't surprise me in the least.

RED DAVE

acronos

I meet most of your criteria. My name is Brian Davis. I am a direct descendent of Jefferson Davis. I grew up and continue to live in North Georgia. I voted for Bush and supported the war in Iraq. I am annoyed that they changed our flag, and I completely disagree with your premise.

However, I am an atheist and not "god fearing." I am not one to go around waving a confederate flag, because to be honest, I'm glad the south lost, and I am one of the least racist people you are likely to meet.

I would wave a Georgia flag because it IS, or was, my state flag. The confederacy is a legitimate part of my states history. To me the inclusion of the confederate flag in the Georgia flag is not a statement of racism; rather it is a statement of the victory of the civil rights movement. It is a shame that we are changing it for all the wrong reasons just as it was a shame we changed it for all the wrong reasons in the 50's.

I could quite legitimately support both the confederate flag and the US flag. I do not have to support all of what a symbol stands for to carry the symbol. I could believe it is right to free the slaves, and continue to support my family and fight on the side of the south. You are casting in black and white a topic that is consumed in gray.

Just as a note, there is a drawing of two brothers on my parent’s wall passed down for generations. One of those brothers fought on the side of the south, the other was a traitor to his family and fought on the side of the north. I am a descendant of the traitor on my mother’s side of the family. The flag issue is just as mixed up in a mess of cultures as my own blood. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, and I think most rednecks that you tried to confront with your argument would laugh in your face if they didn't beat you up. At least I personally don't find it very convincing.

RED DAVE

From acronos:

Huh? Victory of the civil rights movement? The rest of the world has a different opinion: the South was about SLAVERY AND RACISM.

RED DAVE

Tornado Watch

First of all, the conflict of 1861-65 was NOT a Civil War.

Learn what the term civil war means before you begin to call the conflict between the United States and Confederate States such a term. The CS government did not attempt to invade and conquer the USA. The Confederacy simply wanted to be left alone. It was a war of invasion by the United States military.

Quite a bit of ignorance in this thread.... slavery and racism existed in States that didn't secede, Red Dave. I'll leave it at that.

Concerning why the North invaded the South, it was simple. MONEY.

The South's cotton export was basically paying for Northern industry; the South was sick of being exploited and left the Union. The Confederacy was born.

Read the 10th Amendment. Read the Declaration of Independence. Hell, read Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. All showed the South had a right to secede.

Lincoln was an idiot... he preaches the ideal of government "for the people and by the people" in his Gettysburg Address of November 1863, but it was the Confederates who were fighting for the right to govern themselves.

someotherguy

Great IPU, we beseech you, please save us from the dreaded necromancy!!!

Won't somebody think of the children!!

Tornado Watch

Sorry, I was using the search function for a totally different topic and this appeared.

I had to get my .02 in.

Ignorance really pisses me off, especially when it concerns the history of MY homeland.