Talk:Bring the Jubilee

Expansion of article

Just added the headlines and worked the existing material into these. Will work more on themes later. Also not sure Hodge actually kills the Confederate officer or just stops the advance because the troops suspect an ambush ahead or something like that. Will re-read it for a university assignment anyway.

--85.164.246.9 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC) - Dammit, was certain I was logged in :) --Teeks 16:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

explanation is in order. if hodgins causes the death of the confederate officer who occupied little round top, the implication (as you have written it) is that the 20th maine holds the hill and the federals win the battle. the whole plot falls apart. please clarify. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Union holds the hill, the secessionists lose the battle and the war. What needs explanation? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed "kills" to "cause the death". The officer is killed in a squabble after one of the men tries to steal Hodge's boots.

Also note that the Confederate officer who occupied Little Round Top was the direct ancestor of the woman who invented the time machine. Presumably she was descended from a child he fathered after the Battle of Gettysburg. (I read this novel many years ago and I don't remember whether Ward Moore says this explicitly.) Since she was never born, the time machine was never invented, and that's why Hodge Backmaker can't return to his own time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.220 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

War of Southron Independence

The first sentence of the third paragraph of the first page in the paperback version published by [Del Rey] Ballantine Books, New York, 1997 (c. 1953, 1981) reads as follows: "Grandpa Hodgins, after whom I was named, perhaps a little grandiloquently, Hodgins McCormick Backmaker, had been a veteran of the War of Southron Independence." "Southron" for the more plebian "Southern" is a perfectly legitimate old Southern poeticism, often (though not always) associated with grandiose pretension. (I say that as a Southerner born and bred, albeit from a anti-Secessionist Tennessee family that gave two sons to the Union cause.) I hope I won't have to correct this again.--Orange Mike 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If the problem does persist, a [sic] would be in order. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

it is in order anyway, so that the astute reader doesn't have to come here and read this.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've relinked to Southron as "The War of Southron Independence" does not appear in the article Names of the American Civil War, and the term "Southron" is so unusual and interesting that it deserves a link. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Good. The problem with "[sic]" is that it says "this guy's a dummy". Pluperfectionist2 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Map Inaccuracies

According to the book, the CSA got California and "the southern tip of Nevada, for obvious reasons" (apparently Moore was unaware that New Mexico included that part of Nevada), very generous, since the Confederacy could have detached the west as a sattelite.

Also, Haiti's independent, which is an important point in the book.

Overall, I think that the book was pretty unrealistic. The Confederates would have been hard pressed to occupy Mexico and Central America, let alone conquer Brazil and Argentina, a dystopian moral fable rather than a real alternate history. But that's just my take, any rate, my real point is the problem with the map. --71.192.116.43 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the book was unrealistic: the North would not have been so utterly crushed and demorlaised, and the South would not have been so all-powerful, just from adifferent outcome of one battle. But that is the book which Moore did write. Anyway, re the map - there is missing the Spanish Empire, which is not much an empire really (only Cuba and Puerto Rico, essentially, since the war of 1898 did not happen in this hisoty) but the term "Spanish Empire" ocurs in the book many times and should be also in the map. Adam Keller 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the north being crushed and demoralized, in the Jubilee timeline, the overall southern victory in the war resulted in the north being required to pay huge war reparations; this meant that the northern paper currency (Greenbacks) was inflated away to nothing, and most gold and silver was drained out of the north, resulting in an economic depression that lasted for decades. These same war reparations presumably funded much of the Confederate conquest of Latin America. Before 1860, much of the large-scale industrialization in the north was based on government procurement contracts and/or northern processing of southern raw materials in ways that the north obtained more overall economic benefit from than the south did (e.g. New England textile mills); in the Jubilee-verse, all this went into sudden reverse at the end of the war. Many of the most enterprising and resourceful young northerners emigrated. By the 20th century, the north is an underdeveloped country squeezed between British Canada and the Confederacy, both of whom find it in their interests to keep it underdeveloped. It's a worst case scenario, but not completely unrealistic, given certain assumptions... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As with many South wins the Civil war book way too much importance is put on Gettysburg while the more important Vicksburg is ignored. The Union victory at Vicksburg gave the Union full control of the Mississippi River and split the Confederacy in two. MacKinlay Kantor at least acknowledged in 1960 the importance of Vicksburg by having Grant die in an accident causing the battle to go for the South and killing off Sherman as well. Never mind in terms of both material and men the Union had all the advantages so the only hope was to drag the war on without any major Union victory so Lincoln was voted out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If Lee's army had conquered Washington D.C. and Baltimore, and directly threatened Philadelphia, then Vicksburg might not have turned out to be very important. AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This forgets the whole reason Lee's Army was in Gettysburg in the first place was they were desperate for supplies -- especially shoes. Also the Union had 20,000 more men then Lee. Even if they had managed to win at Gettysburg Lee's army wouldn't have been in any condition to follow through much less conquer Washington D.C. or Baltimore. In fact as the Siege of Petersburg showed even with the advantages the Union had taking Richmond was pound one's head int he wall time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gen. Lee was in Gettysburg because he knew he didn't have the luxury of time or resources. In Confederate war planning, the successful invasion of southeastern Pennsylvania would cause disorder in Union forces, during which time the Army of Northern Virginia would pivot southeast toward Washington, D.C. Lincoln had been trying to seize Richmond, unsuccessfully, for years. Lee knew exactly what the situation in the West was, along with the equally poor conditions in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama. The CSA could never out produce or overwhelm the Union, and only a surprise invasion and conquest of the American capital would bring in European powers and an end to the war. ChasYoshi (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

---

The map seems to be completely missing. 138.192.146.205 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

deleting reference to McKinlay Kantor's IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE CIVIL WAR

The paragraph/sentence "MacKinlay Kantor's If the South had won the Civil War is credited with having inspired the premise for Moore's own version of alternate history Confederate States victory." is deleted for gross innaccuracy.

BRING THE JUBILEE is copyright 1953; IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE CIVIL WAR first appeared in LOOK in 1960 (and is copyright that year) as a Civil War Bicentennial special article. For reference, go to each at Amazon.com and read the COPYRIGHT PAGE. Sans some extremely alternate history, a 1960 book cannot "inspire" a 1953 book.

Also, please note the "credited with" attribution. By whom? How? a very sloppy contribution.JTGILLICK (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More map inaccuracies

I am unable to find any reference in the book to the South having conquered the entirety of South America. Where does this information supposedly come from? Also, the extent of the German Empire in Europe appears to have been conjured up, unreferenced, from the mapmaker's head. 31.185.153.231 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

...Haiti, the only American republic south of the Mason-Dixon line to preserve its independence...

from p.60 of the 1997 Del Rey edition 75.246.128.199 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

However, the book refers to the South African Republic (p. 10 in Del Rey) as a place ambitious young Northerners often emigrated to (as they did to the West and Australia), so apparently the Boer War never happened in this timeline and the map's inclusion of South Africa in the British Empire is in error. 75.246.128.199 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The map image seems to straightforwardly project the results of the Berlin Conference of 1884 into the Jubilee timeline. Probably much of the map of Africa would have to be left blank unless this or similar assumptions were made... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Differences in histories which are not necessitiated by Southern victory

Many of the differences from the actual timeline which are depicted in the book are in no way natural consequences of the Southern triumph. For example, the succession to the British throne includes a "William V". There are other, similar details. Somehow I think that this should be addressed, but it does not seem to flow logically into any part of the existing article. 75.246.45.165 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure there's too much to say, except that Moore subscribes to a Butterfly effect model of timeline divergence (as we already knew from Gettysburg). AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Haggerwells

There could be something on her in the article (she's a somewhat pivotal figure who's already mentioned twice in the plot summary, though not by name). However, I'm not sure that she's a "mad scientist" in any meaningful sense. In some ways, she's the Einstein of the Jubilee timeline... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Both parties back a one-child policy"

This wording might give an impression of much more active central government interventionism than seems to be the case in the novel. Rather, generations of economic depression have given rise to a culture of late marriage and few children. The Whig slogan "property, protection, permanent population" suggests that they're not in favor of a one-child policy... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of map

An attempt by a contributor to illustrate the alternate world of Bring the Jubilee in 1952

---

  Confederate States of America

  United States of America

  Republic of Haiti

  German Union

  British Empire

  Spanish Empire

  French Empire

I eventually removed this map from the article. Although interesting, it is too much Original research to be acceptable. There is too much contrast between the novel, which provides very few geographical precisions, and this map which is minutely precise. Although the Spanish Crown, the German Union and French Emperors are discussed in the novel, no precision, or very little (for instance that the Havana is Spanish, Chapter 15) is provided of their respective territories. For instance the assertion that «  the German Union spread its hold from the Baltic to the Balkans » (which was in the article and which I have removed) appears to be a pure invention of some contributor: nothing of the sort can be found in the novel.

Even when restricted to the Americas the map is highly disputable. It seems to rely in part on assertions that were in the article without being backed by the content of the novel (and that I have now removed). The main such assertion was that the Confederacy « eventually conquered the whole of Latin America ». But the novel only mention the invasion of Mexico, that «  the Confederacy expanded southward » (Ch. 5), and that Haiti was « the only American republic south of the Mason-Dixon Line » (Chapter 6): these statements in no way exclude possible territories of the Spanish Crown (or of the other powers) in South America. I also removed the bold assertion that «  the Confederacy purchased Alaska from Russia »: there is no mention to that effect in the novel (in fact, Alaska is not even cited in the book). Finally the part of the British Empire called « British America » in the novel is never accompanied by territory precisions whatsoever: there is no reason to believe it is as indicated on the map.--Sapphorain (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

About Propeller Island

@Sapphorain: okay, you can explain your reasoning for the inclusion of this reference here. I believe I already made my own stance clear in the summary, but I can expand on it if you want to. I also want to add that I in no way mean this as an attack on you or the work that you do, to the contrary – I actually quoted your decision to remove the map from the article as an exemplary act off-site. --Prospero One (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, let me recall that the matter here is not about my inclusion of this reference, but about your removal of it. Jules Verne is a famous writer, and the novel referred to can also, and is, labelled as science fiction. So the simple fact that in it the planned annexion of South America by the US is mentioned, is I think plainly sufficient to justify a small footnote (which, besides, has been here for well over 5 years).--Sapphorain (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I decided to see the exact circumstances of the addition myself, and apparently it was added by User:Andreas Kaganov in October 2011, with no reason given. He seems to have had a history of adding spurious connections between things – this and this are probably the most relevant to the matter at hand. Also something to keep in mind is that the comparison he added reflected the incorrect plot summary of BtJ, and since you already removed the incorrect information about Latin America being annexed in its entirety I don't see why there would need to be a reference to something that 1) does not occur but in one of the novels being compared and 2) even if it did, it would not be even done by the same country. I rest my case. --Prospero One (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The requirement that the circumstances surrounding such a similarity in two novels should be absolutely exact in order to deserve a small footnote is, I think, excessive. --Sapphorain (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(next related section moved from my talk page. --Sapphorain (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC))

What is it with the Jules Verne book?

I am quite baffled by this. Is it a thing that has been actually mentioned in a review or other reliable source somewhere that the two books share that detail? If yes, then it would probably be germaine to add a link to it/them. If not, then I am not sure if it warrants a mention to begin with. Wikipedia generally is not meant to be a place for "hey, I noticed such-and-such similarities with such-and-such things, pretty cool huh?" that users have made themselves, as far as I am aware. --85.76.103.250 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The mention of this book was added in the article more than 10 years ago. So I think it would be proper, if you think it should be removed, to reach a consensus on the talk page of the article. On the other hand I don't think it is very adequate to perform two very distinct contributions at once, and mention only one of them in the comment. --Sapphorain (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not actually answer my question, so let me reiterate: has the comparison been made somewhere else, or has it not? I failed to check when the mention was added exactly or by whom, which is on me, I guess. However, to make a comparison of my own: suppose I discovered that the previous owner of my home had hidden the dead body of his pet inside an inner wall, and I then discovered it, would it be required of me that I not remove it, since it has already been there for over ten years? Also, the reason I did not mention but one of the things I did was exactly because I believed no one would _care_ that I removed the mention of Verne, because it felt so out of place, at least to me. --85.76.103.250 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The comparison made, on the one hand of the insertion of a small footnote referring to a similar fictional situation as that of the novel envisioned by a famous writer, on the other hand of the hidden dead body of a pet inside an inner wall, is sufficiently aggressive and insulting to exclude any further discussion. --Sapphorain (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad comparisons seemed to be the trend in the topic at hand, so hardly anything new. But alright, if you think the comparison is not fitting, then fine. That still does not remove the fact that you still have not put forward any sort of reason why the comparison should be retained, aside from the "it has existed for a long time" non-argument. Based on this, I have decided to remove it, hopefully for the final time.

I should probably also mention that I find your conduct in dealing with this issue dubious to the extreme, and will contact site administration, or at least some impartial third party, if you continue to ignore the guidelines of what is and what is not acceptable in comparing topics on Wikipedia.

Best, --85.76.66.69 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (Apparently my IP address changed at some point.)

I concur with Orangemike that the inclusion of the Verne footnote is prohibited original research. To compare two things in Wikipedia one must find a reliable source that compares them, to do it ourselves is original research. Orangemike has removed it and I support that edit. Policies such as NOR are the recorded consensus of the community. This inclusion was added against that consensus, without an express local consensus here to IAR, and no passage of time will imply a consensus by silence to retain it. No new consensus is, therefore, needed to remove it. But there is one, nonetheless. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)