Status
Not open for further replies.
In what universe is three terms - twelve years! - is "so soon"?! I mean, losing three presidential elections in a row is a lot!
Just... explain to me how the Democrats losing the presidency after three terms is soon but the Liberals doing the same is an eternity.
OTL we had the GOP win 6 in a row (1860 to 1884) then another 4 in a row (1896 to 1912).

Democrats rattled off 5 in a row (1932 to 1952). That's political dominance. That's what I'm talking about when I say 12 years is so soon.

And that doesn't even look at runs where one party wins one election and the other wins a bunch bracketing that one win (like the GOP winning all but one election from 1968 to 1992 for example).

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. Democrats have already lost three times in a row ITTL (1892, 1896, and 1900) and since 1880 have lost 6 of 9 elections with another loss coming in 1916.
 
You know, you've said that the 70s and 80s in Quebec are going to be rough - will this be mainly economic or will there also be growing political problems (and potentially repression/oppression) going on? I somewhat suspect that the seeds of this have already been planted and we are going to see the fruit come ripe over the next few decades. The reason I ask is that this means we may actually see even greater French-Canadien emigration into New England than in OTL; the first wave of this already started in the late 19th/early 20th century and if this gets bigger (or if there is a second wave, say, in the 1940s-1960s and then a third wave in the 1980s) you are going to have some massive Francophone communities in New England. This kind of goes along with some of the ideas we've talked about relating to ethnic identity and Americanism (especially if you have entrenched, multi-generational, French-Canadien populations in parts of the US who are more than happy to send money and supplies across the border to help their co-ethnicists out in whatever struggles occure).

On a related note, the Labor Unions seems to be playing ball with the government currently during the war - and this is almsot certainly the right decision. But I suspect that once the war is over, they're goign to be looking to cash in on the credit they earned during the struggles. Couple this with the difficulties that always coem along with absorbing large portions of veterans back into the workforce, and I suspect we are going to see waves of massive strikes in the US during the late teens and into the 1920s. And I drink this only in relation to the above, because in OTL the French-Canadiens were strongly pro-Union.

The Liberals, me thinks, especially the old skool New England patrician sorts, are going to have a very very rough time once this war is over.
Re: Quebec, a bit of both, because they go hand in hand. IOTL, Montreal was Canada's commercial and financial center essentially up to the moment Rene Levesque showed up and then basically the entire business community decamped to Toronto in response. Rural Quebec was also super underdeveloped compared to other rural parts of Canada, so some of those emigration waves would absolutely happen. I think the Franco community in New England and Upstate New York would absolutely be very emotionally tied to what is going on back north of the border. You'd likely have a fourth emigration wave, too, after independence in 1991 when Quebec's economy has to absorb the shock of independence.

Irish vs. Franco competition for control of Church parishes throughout New England mirroring their fierce feud in Quebec would certainly be something, though!
Are they really? Are you reading a different story than me - one where Liberals don't skate from win to win to win with only brief setbacks?

I've no doubt that Democrats will win in 1920. But this isn't shaping up to be a 1932 OTL style thrashing that ends up completely scrambling the way politics works going forward and leaves one party in the wilderness for decades.

For one thing, it has been strongly hinted that a Liberal wins the governorship of Minnesota - a state that Liberals haven't won on the federal level since 1896 and part of the so-called "Western Wall."

But more than that, we also know Liberals win the Presidency in 1932, a mere 12 years later. How transformational will 1920 be if Liberals can dust themselves off so quickly and capture the White House so soon?
I understood Dan's comment to be referring more to New England specifically which, yes, at least in the lower part (not the VT/NH/ME triad) there's a tipping point on how long the Libs can put off the booming Irish/Franco/Southern European populations in urban industrial areas, especially once the textile industry starts to decline. IOTL depending on the state that was stretched out to the 1930s but we'll see it start to coalesce sooner here
Know it's a bit old but for some reason the website didn't send me notifications for this TL for 3 weeks and I thought nothing had been posted, currently just caught up and this is too good not to respond:
It's perfect because this is basically how Panama seceded from Colombia, according to the favorite documentary of lazy history teachers across this nation. We captured the Colombian generals who were sent to put down the revolt in the dumbest way possible, then bribed someone (can't remember if it was the captured generals or their deputy) to go back to Colombia and leave us alone, and then by the time Bogota realized what was going the US Navy had already shown up. There's a joke that our cannons did not shoot cannonballs at the troops, but rather money. The IT could totally use this strategy and then negotiate to give the US everything it wants (the oil) without sacrificing independence.

Eamon de Valera for resident annoying president pro tempore

In what universe is three terms - twelve years! - is "so soon"?! I mean, losing three presidential elections in a row is a lot!
Just... explain to me how the Democrats losing the presidency after three terms is soon but the Liberals doing the same is an eternity.
I'm still open to "randomly independent Panama without a canal," for what its worth
OTL we had the GOP win 6 in a row (1860 to 1884) then another 4 in a row (1896 to 1912).

Democrats rattled off 5 in a row (1932 to 1952). That's political dominance. That's what I'm talking about when I say 12 years is so soon.

And that doesn't even look at runs where one party wins one election and the other wins a bunch bracketing that one win (like the GOP winning all but one election from 1968 to 1992 for example).

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. Democrats have already lost three times in a row ITTL (1892, 1896, and 1900) and since 1880 have lost 6 of 9 elections with another loss coming in 1916.
It's kind of remarkable how dynastic American politics was IOTL. If you go back further pre-POD, you've also got the Jacksonian Democrats going 7 out of 9 from 1828 to 1860, with Whigs only breaking things up in 1840 and 1848 (and 1840 wound up not really mattering since Harrison croaked immediately and Tyler was just a "Whig" in the end). Here, that Jacksonian ascendancy extends even deeper - from 1828 to 1880, non-Dems only win four elections out of fourteen if my math is right and never consecutively. Of course, big part of that is the Whigs and Republicans both collapsing within a generation of their founding due to the slavery issue breaking the Whigs into feuding factions and then the War of Secession and abolition eliminating the Republican big tent raison d'etre
 
The American Socialists
"...the sharp divide amongst many Socialists over the "war aims question" had not abated, and for a brief moment in the summer and early autumn of 1914 it became a very live issue again. With the Confederates repelled from American territory back across the Potomac and the noose tightening around Nashville, the matter of what exactly the end of the war should look like arose within the hard left. The two bourgeois parties were modestly split on the issue, both arrayed opposite each other and internally - the most militant sought the annihilation of Confederate industry and its warmaking capabilities as well as the full and total abolition of slavery, while what passed for dovishness was a policy of ratcheting up the severity of peace demands for every month that the Confederacy refused a ceasefire, and it was generally thought that the White House was split into opposing camps favoring each approach, with Hughes more favorable to the modest option while most of his Cabinet was radicalizing themselves into a position favoring a scorched earth dismantling of the Southern enemy. Berger found himself somewhat closer to the latter; in a speech in Milwaukee during the Congressional summer recess before a regiment of Wisconsin National Guardsmen being readied to head to the front in Kentucky, he declared, "I have been challenged on the question of pacifism; I say that there is no chance for peace while Slave Power stands ready to regroup and reengage in war with us!"

Berger of course was an elected official who had to answer to an increasingly ferociously anti-Confederate public, especially as news of the atrocities carried out in Maryland spilled out across the Republic, and ideological purity came easier to men outside electoral politics, such as the increasingly irrelevant but still-potent Bill Haywood, whom Berger had by the time of the autumn offensives almost totally broken with and dismissed as a "theorist." The alliance between the revolutionary socialists and the reformists was increasingly tenuous, and men like Debs - a reformist in the Berger camps, but easily the most radical of that wing of the movement - could see which way the wind was blowing. Many Socialists began to draw their red line not as the perpetuation of the war now that the Confederacy had been driven out of American territory, as Haywood preferred, but on the matter of conscription, and though the time for that would come, the United States Army was still turning away volunteers at a sufficient number that they did not need to employ a draft just yet, even though the War Department had prepared a contingency for such a scenario months earlier.

This was the context in which the Confederate decision to crush the IWW on its own soil should be seen in, because that choice basically ended the last faction influential in the US that was pushing for immediate armistice. The order was given by the military and approved by Heritage House; in order to better effect the war effort, all labor unions were immediately outlawed and all labor organizing prohibited as an "act of sedition and sabotage against the war." A decade after the violent backlash to the nascent Confederate Socialist movement had snuffed out its ability to affect much change on a political level, the various Southern unions that made up the small but militant IWW affiliates beyond the Ohio now were denied any ability to organize economically, either. Over the course of September and October 1914, the crackdown on labor activities in the CSA saw about a thousand people arrested and roughly eighteen killed in various clashes; one can ask, and it has certainly been asked by Confederate historians for decades since, whether that was a worthwhile use of resources by the various Home Guards of the states that carried out the attacks.

Men like Haywood thus perhaps saw what they needed to see, that though this was a war between capitalist powers, there maybe was a difference between the US which, for its faults, was playing ball even with militant industrial unions like Debs' ARU [1], and the CS which had just crushed the working class and employed literal slaves. This is not to say, as was often claimed about Big Bill in later years by his enemies in the mainstream parties or fellow Socialists, that he was soft on the Confederacy, far from it, merely that he viewed the war through a different lens than others in its first year. But no longer - the IWW's death south of the Ohio ended his position of dovishness, and he quietly encouraged his WFM affiliates to support "an end to the Confederate menace by diplomatic or military means" and the "emancipation of the Negro race on the North American continent for all time." And with that, the political coalition that by the middle of next year would begin to view the war as a moral crusade to end chattel slavery, which included some very curious bedfellows across the American political spectrum, would be consolidating..."

- The American Socialists

[1] More on this later on, but the GAW is the genesis of sectoral bargaining and industrial unionism in the USA and the AFL and CIO will not be merging in the future over these differences
 
The Us is radicalazing and gearing to tear the Confederacy limp from limp!

Let's go!
I don’t believe they’ll tear the Confederacy limb from limb, that would be a huge expenditure of manpower and material. Instead they’ll take a moderate amount of territory and encourage some parts of the CSA to go their own way.

That being said there will be a huge amount of civilian deaths and destruction of Southern cities by the time the war is over. The destruction of chattel slavery is a worthwhile goal, but all those newly freed slaves need somewhere to go considering the CSA will be full of cities of destroyed rubble and destroyed farm lands.

I could reasonably foresee a huge exodus out of the CSA after the end of the war. I know someone brought up people from Northern Mexico moving to the CSA…but would they want to? Right now it seems that Mexico will be better off after the war, you might see some Confederates move there instead.

If any immigration restriction is placed on the Confederacy, they’ll have to find other places to go. I know I brought up the idea of them moving to friendly governments in the Americas. I can see Canada readily accepting White Southern Migrants to their country due to the overwhelming proportion of them being Protestant. Although I am not sure how welcoming the Canada in this TL will be to Black immigrants from the CSA.

I’m also wondering if Great Britain might want to direct some of that outflow to their Caribbean possessions. That way they could further bolster their grip on the various Caribbean islands, Guyana and Belize.
 
Hell at Sea: The Naval Campaigns of the Great American War
"...pressures both external and internal to be more aggressive. Sims' position had always been that using the Atlantic I Squadron to defend the key ports of Philadelphia, New York and New Haven from attack as well as escorting commercial shipping in and out of the central Atlantic was its best use; though there had been sporadic commerce raids by the Confederacy in the first year of the war, it had not been severe, a circumstance which both supported Sims' belief that his strategy was working and the notion amongst his critics in the War Cabinet and elsewhere that he was overly cautious and conservative. The successes of Mayo's squadrons in the Pacific (at least up to Iquique) weighed on this, too; the weight of American naval forces were, after all, in the Atlantic and pressing this considerable advantage against the Confederates and Mexicans was seen as a strategic imperative, even if an outright blockade would be extremely difficult to maintain with the Triple Powers of Europe making clear that they would not tolerate their shipping being interdicted.

Despite his misgivings, Sims finally relented and agreed to an offensive in late September of 1914 against the Hampton Roads. Strategically, such a move was beginning to make sense for the first time since the war began exactly a year prior. Confederate forces had been forced south of the Potomac and on September 28th were driven south of the Occoquan River in ferocious fighting, and the Port of Baltimore was once again in American hands. The twin ports of the Hampton Roads, Norfolk and Newport News, controlled access to the Chesapeake from the Atlantic and the James River; holding it would deny trans-oceanic shipping and supplies to the industrial crescent of Virginia that stretched from it to Lynchburg via Richmond and Petersburg, as well as create strategic pressure against the Confederate capital from the east as well as from the north. It was also the largest naval base and shipyard in the Confederacy - for that alone, it was one of the most important strategic targets in the war.

Though not as infamous of a debacle as the attempted Iquique Landings, the Battle of Hampton Roads nonetheless quickly went awry for the Navy. The Confederacy had developed a surprisingly robust network of spies in the United States, primarily Canadian and French sympathizers in New York and other major cities, and Canadian merchants in Philadelphia noticed that a surprisingly large squadron was being concentrated there on September 29th and duly warned their allies. Confederate Admiral Nathaniel McClure ordered all ships to evacuate Hampton Roads and be put to sea near Wilmington; they would return when advantageous.

The squadron that attacked Hampton Roads contained one dreadnought, two pre-dreadnought battleships, six cruisers and six destroyers, and four thousand Marines were attempted to be put ashore. The attack of October 3rd immediately went to hell. The Confederacy may have evacuated its fleet in being to avoid being caught in port as they had done to the US at Baltimore thirteen months prior, but they had left behind a large contingent of submarines and the shore batteries in their control (the Delmarva had been entirely taken a year earlier) had been reinforced and improved for exactly this type of event. The USS Wisconsin took two torpedoes below the waterline and began to sink, forcing the New Jersey to break off of its offensive tasks to rescue sailors from the listing vessel; as many as a hundred were unable to make it off, and the loss of a battleship was no small blow. The young and modern cruiser Hartford took a battery shell to its magazine and detonated in a massive fireball at the heart of the III Squadron, peppering the decks of her fellow ships with burning shrapnel, and the Maine saw one of its forward batteries blown clear off. On shore was not much better; the submarines made quick work of the landing boats that had to be physically rowed to shore, with as many as seven hundred Marines drowning in the Hampton Roads while an additional four hundred were captured either from the water or when they came up on shore.

Hampton Roads would have been a considerably larger failure were it not for the quick thinking of III Squadron's commanding officer, Admiral Reggie Belknap. The sinking of the Wisconsin and massacre of the first wave of Marines put out from their boats led him to conclude from the deck of the New Jersey within twenty minutes that the efforts were for naught and it was best to cut losses and regroup to fight another day. Three thousand Marines were held in reserve rather than put out into the firestorm and despite various levels of damage only two ships had been lost, a bad but not insurmountable result for an attack on the naval stronghold of the Confederacy which included the home of their Naval Academy and most important strategic yards. The III Squadron sailed up to Baltimore and anchored there for repairs and to guard the harbor against any potential counterattack.

On paper, the debacle seemed worse than it actually was. Unlike Iquique, where Mayo and Murdock allegedly left Marines and regiments of the AEF behind to die, Belknap had prevented further loss of life and tonnage. The re-routing of such a substantial force to Baltimore after it had been carved off of defensive positions across the East Coast ports also served its own strategic value; there was now an American fleet-in-being in the Chesapeake, foreclosing any attempted harassment on the Potomac or its environs by Confederate vessels of the US Army's supply lines into Virginia, and making the prospect of the Confederate First Fleet returning to Norfolk anytime soon at risk of exposure. This in turn placed the First Fleet in Wilmington moving forward, further away from American shipping across the Atlantic, and changing the calculation for commerce raiding at the Confederate Navy House. Belknap's reports also proved valuable in for the first time determining the doctrine and strength of the Confederate submarine force, since the chaos of Baltimore had left it difficult to determine what exactly the CSN was capable of in that space.

In the immediate aftermath, though, it was not seen that way. The twin losses as Iquique and now Hampton Roads led to a considerable amount of recriminations in Philadelphia about the top-down oceanic command structure, and CNO Knight signed a directive giving squadron admirals and even individual ship captains considerably more initiative in their motions and general orders. Sims' star in particular dimmed within the War Cabinet, as unlike his comrade Mayo he was not half a hemisphere away unable to answer for the muddled result; though he was not and would not be sacked as Atlantic Command Chief, his cachet within the War Cabinet would be severely limited, and despite his role in its planning, it was Belknap and William Rodgers who would earn the majority of the credit for the coup de main at Hilton Head the following spring. The year of centralized Naval planning was over, and Hampton Roads played a significant role in the development of the embittered but respected William Sims who would run an infamously reactionary and inflammatory failed campaign for President ten years later..."

- Hell at Sea: The Naval Campaigns of the Great American War

(Authors Note: it was obtrusive to try to get this in the narrative, but the CS being limited to land reinforcements in Hampton Roads is actually a big deal even if there’s grumbling in Philly about what could have been. Limiting the CSN’s ability to safety use the shipyards there is a victory in and of itself, and forcing another division or so to get deployed to defend it against future attacks is one less division you have to worry about in the emerging no-mans-land between the Occoquan and the Rappahannock
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe they’ll tear the Confederacy limb from limb, that would be a huge expenditure of manpower and material. Instead they’ll take a moderate amount of territory and encourage some parts of the CSA to go their own way.

That being said there will be a huge amount of civilian deaths and destruction of Southern cities by the time the war is over. The destruction of chattel slavery is a worthwhile goal, but all those newly freed slaves need somewhere to go considering the CSA will be full of cities of destroyed rubble and destroyed farm lands.

I could reasonably foresee a huge exodus out of the CSA after the end of the war. I know someone brought up people from Northern Mexico moving to the CSA…but would they want to? Right now it seems that Mexico will be better off after the war, you might see some Confederates move there instead.

If any immigration restriction is placed on the Confederacy, they’ll have to find other places to go. I know I brought up the idea of them moving to friendly governments in the Americas. I can see Canada readily accepting White Southern Migrants to their country due to the overwhelming proportion of them being Protestant. Although I am not sure how welcoming the Canada in this TL will be to Black immigrants from the CSA.

I’m also wondering if Great Britain might want to direct some of that outflow to their Caribbean possessions. That way they could further bolster their grip on the various Caribbean islands, Guyana and Belize.
Yeah, a Confederate diaspora both White and Black will be a thing. The Confederados in Brazil were after all a not-insignificant force IOTL, and you could see a spread to European African colonies, Australasia, and elsewhere beyond just the Americas. Hadn't considered Confederate emigres to Jamaica or Barbados, either.
 
Nice to see the confederate navy getting some spotlight and a win. Despite being underappreciated, they've yet to fail in their objectives.
Incidentally, the CS Navy has indeed performed quite well throughout the conflict so far - ironically enough it is the “formidable” Chilean navy that has been slapped around in the Pacific, probably in no small part that they’re who the USN holds the biggest grudge towards and wanted to annihilate first
 
Interesting that there are both hawks and (relative) doves in both major parties, at least during the first year. Other than Hughes who are some of the Liberal doves?
 
They built a new executive mansion (Heritage House) during the Lee Presidency (1898-04), which presumably the US Army will torch once it has the chance, or maybe use as an occupation headquarters.

Occupation headquarters, followed by an 'accidental' fire that completely destroys the building the day before the US occupation forces are supposed to leave.
 
Occupation headquarters, followed by an 'accidental' fire that completely destroys the building the day before the US occupation forces are supposed to leave.
That… very much captures the DGAF but yet passive aggressive energy of the US ITTL, haha
Interesting that there are both hawks and (relative) doves in both major parties, at least during the first year. Other than Hughes who are some of the Liberal doves?
There’s a few, with the caveat you added that dovishness is relative. I’d put LaFollette in that category, certainly, and probably the Illinois duo of Senator Yates and Speaker Mann, but it doesn’t necessarily cut across ideological lines (not all mods/progs are doves, not all conservatives are hawks, and that applies to Democrats, too)
 
That… very much captures the DGAF but yet passive aggressive energy of the US ITTL, haha

There’s a few, with the caveat you added that dovishness is relative. I’d put LaFollette in that category, certainly, and probably the Illinois duo of Senator Yates and Speaker Mann, but it doesn’t necessarily cut across ideological lines (not all mods/progs are doves, not all conservatives are hawks, and that applies to Democrats, too)
With even the socialists coming around, I would imagine that a "Dove" in this case is someone that after Richmond is conquered is willing to accept peace negotations from the CSA, as opposed to a "Hawk" who wants to occupy every CSA city larger than Macon, Georgia and *dictate* the peace terms afterwards.

The question is when does the USA decide that the destruction of Chattel slavery is a non-negotiable war aim and when does the CSA realize that they have.

Also, I'm not saying this *should* be a war aim, but I do truly wonder whether the number of rapes by USA soldiers would reach the number that the CSA did in DC/MD/VA even if they conquered every city larger than Amarillo. (Note, I'm not sure if the Texas panhandle cities would be larger or smaller than iOTL. I'm not sure that the answer as to where Railroads crossed the USA/CSA borders west of Arkansas was ever answered. (I would expect 2nd RoT beef to expand their market not *that* long after the war)

And what happens to the Wartime political leadership of the CSA....
 
Last edited:
So question: The War is obviously starting to go not-entirely the Confederacy's way, and they've failed to achieve their knockout blow.

Are there any members of their government who are starting to think "this was a bad idea" and "maybe we should explore peace talks?". Or are they thinking that the withdrawals will drain the US of blood and treasure, and allow them to at some point strike back against a fatally weakened US.

They can't be unaware of the relative economic disparity, so do they have a plan, beyond 'hope it all works out?'.
 
So question: The War is obviously starting to go not-entirely the Confederacy's way, and they've failed to achieve their knockout blow.
What makes you think that the war isn't going the Confederacy's way? The Confederacy just won a major naval victory. Not to mention the Battle of the Potomac was a costly affair for the United States' Army that will take weeks to recover. And that's not mentioning the Midland Campaign, where General Bell is giving the North black eyes and bloody noses for trying to attack him. If anything, the war is going great for the Confederacy.
 
That… very much captures the DGAF but yet passive aggressive energy of the US ITTL, haha

There’s a few, with the caveat you added that dovishness is relative. I’d put LaFollette in that category, certainly, and probably the Illinois duo of Senator Yates and Speaker Mann, but it doesn’t necessarily cut across ideological lines (not all mods/progs are doves, not all conservatives are hawks, and that applies to Democrats, too)

Interesting. Considering LaFollette's public moralism, I'd actually see him drifting into the Abolitionist Camp pretty quickly and decisively (oddly enough, despite their staunch political differences, in OTL and this ATL, I kinda epect that LaFollette and Lodge keep ending up as strange politiccal bedfellows surprisingly frequently. And yes, I am TOTALLY humming the Odd Couple theme while writing this :D )
 
What makes you think that the war isn't going the Confederacy's way? The Confederacy just won a major naval victory. Not to mention the Battle of the Potomac was a costly affair for the United States' Army that will take weeks to recover. And that's not mentioning the Midland Campaign, where General Bell is giving the North black eyes and bloody noses for trying to attack him. If anything, the war is going great for the Confederacy.
I love your gimmick hahaha. Like Baghdad Bob combined with the "All is well, please disperse!" guy.

If I'm the CSA I'd rather have you running things than the motley crew of idiots and sycophants steering the ship right now TBH.
 
I love your gimmick hahaha. Like Baghdad Bob combined with the "All is well, please disperse!" guy.

"All is well, please disperse!" Guy?!?!? His NAME is Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad! He is a hero who saved the life of the Queen and has killed over twenty drug dealers as well as a group of men, in togas, stabbing another man in the park! A hero!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top