TL 191: The Southern Occupation

[bguy]

They might do this, and end up with the Canadian National Party becoming a major spoiler in American politics.

There's some risk of that to be sure, but the Canadians will probably be far less disruptive if they have at least some skin in the game as compared to being frozen out of the political system entirely (which leaves them with no option but rebellion.) And the U.S. does have some experience with setting up new states out of their conquered territories in a manner that concentrates political power in the hands of the pro-U.S. residents. (The Democrats were able to essentially make Kentucky and Houston safe Democrat states for a whole generation after the FGW, and there's no reason the U.S. couldn't follow a comparable practice in Canada.)

Canadian statehood will also make continued U.S. rule in the north much more palatable to the American people. Pushing "Equality" in the South while oppressing the Canadians is bound to cause some serious cognitive dissonance for the American public. Giving the Canadians statehood solves that problem since the Canadians are now (at least theoretically) equal with Americans.

And Canadian statehood will also be a big boast to the U.S. in any Cold War with Germany and/or Japan since once Canadian statehood is granted, the U.S. can freely criticize the German and Japanese colonial empires without looking like hypocrites.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Though doubtless not to the various Neo-Stalwart cells looking to make life Hell for the North and anyone who makes themselves even the slightest bit friendly to the United States - heck, I wouldn't put it past The Snake to have arranged for the establishment of a Die Hard network that would continue to bleed the US dry even after an overwhelming defeat (in fact I would be surprised if Clarence Potter weren't entirely aware of this and, were this the case, I would be ASTONISHED if he did not trade on this knowledge to save his skin after Philadelphia).

I haven't settled on a name for this Southern Fried Werewolf, but I like "Moccasin" with its ophidian connotations and relation to footwear (they're not only going to poison Billy's victory, they're going to boot the Greenbacks out!) or "Blue Moon" (derived from "Blue Moon of Kentucky" but also a subtle nod to Werwolf - I actually rather like this as a codename for the Operation intended to bring about the Plebiscites in Houston, Kentucky & Sequoyah between the Wars) and possibly even "Sidewinder" (although the latter may have a little too blatant a "Die Hard Terrorist!" ring to it).

Clarence Potter is going to play a huge role in the reconstruction of the South, either be dealing with die-hard ex-Confederates who might oppose the occupation in the South, or using his knowledge to help take down neo-Freedomites or Stalwarts who might make things hard on the South. I'm not sure, the Snake seemed to be pretty sure of himself during the war, but he might've had a plan in place just in case the South fell. There won't be a General Lee telling Southern troops to lay down their arms and go on living, there will be bloodshed on both sides for decades to come. The Snake could have named the operation "Swamp Fox" after Francis Marion, a South Carolinian who fought the British and is considered the father of guerilla warfare.

There's some risk of that to be sure, but the Canadians will probably be far less disruptive if they have at least some skin in the game as compared to being frozen out of the political system entirely (which leaves them with no option but rebellion.) And the U.S. does have some experience with setting up new states out of their conquered territories in a manner that concentrates political power in the hands of the pro-U.S. residents. (The Democrats were able to essentially make Kentucky and Houston safe Democrat states for a whole generation after the FGW, and there's no reason the U.S. couldn't follow a comparable practice in Canada.)

Canadian statehood will also make continued U.S. rule in the north much more palatable to the American people. Pushing "Equality" in the South while oppressing the Canadians is bound to cause some serious cognitive dissonance for the American public. Giving the Canadians statehood solves that problem since the Canadians are now (at least theoretically) equal with Americans.

And Canadian statehood will also be a big boast to the U.S. in any Cold War with Germany and/or Japan since once Canadian statehood is granted, the U.S. can freely criticize the German and Japanese colonial empires without looking like hypocrites.

That's very true, but the Canadians will still probably see it as a foreign oppressor instead of a natural institution. The US does have experience with that, but the issue would be finding Canadians who would be supportive of the US; all Canadians suffered under the occupation, and while there would be some who would profit from it, most Canadians would try and resist a cultivated pro-American elite.

I agree, pushing "Equality" in the South while maintaining the Occupation in Canada is a major cognitive dissonance. But I'm not sure statehood will come that quick. Houston and Kentucky were quickly absorbed, Canada was placed under occupation and had that maintained for a generation under the strictest of terms. The legal system in place held no justice for Canadians, whereas (from what we know) the legal system afforded rights to Houstonians and Kentuckians. Even if Canadians become American citizens, and the provinces become states, they're very likely not going to be equal to Americans. They'll still be seen as Canadians, as people who fought the Americans three times, rebelled twice, helped the CSA last longer in a war where the Confederacy killed millions of blacks. There's going to be an immense social stigma against them

 

[rvbomally]

Wouldn't a Southern regional party risk itself to being labelled as racist? Considering what they've done, a backlash may occur for Southern nationalism on the issue of if it's racist or not. The public perception is key, especially by the 21st century.

That's very true, and the Southern regional party would have be incredibly careful not to be seen as racist/discriminatory, especially in light of the Destruction. If the Southern regional party eschewed violence, racism and discrimination against non-Whites and vehemently opposed neo-Freedomites, they might be able to endear themselves to the Powell House as representatives of the New South.

De-Freedomization would make this a legal necessity.

Though doubtless not to the various Neo-Stalwart cells looking to make life Hell for the North and anyone who makes themselves even the slightest bit friendly to the United States - heck, I wouldn't put it past The Snake to have arranged for the establishment of a Die Hard network that would continue to bleed the US dry even after an overwhelming defeat (in fact I would be surprised if Clarence Potter weren't entirely aware of this and, were this the case, I would be ASTONISHED if he did not trade on this knowledge to save his skin after Philadelphia).

I haven't settled on a name for this Southern Fried Werewolf, but I like "Moccasin" with its ophidian connotations and relation to footwear (they're not only going to poison Billy's victory, they're going to boot the Greenbacks out!) or "Blue Moon" (derived from "Blue Moon of Kentucky" but also a subtle nod to Werwolf - I actually rather like this as a codename for the Operation intended to bring about the Plebiscites in Houston, Kentucky & Sequoyah between the Wars) and possibly even "Sidewinder" (although the latter may have a little too blatant a "Die Hard Terrorist!" ring to it).

To use terminology from the OTL Civil War: Copperheads? Another possibility is the Ku Klux Klan, if you want to go for implausible parallelism.

There's some risk of that to be sure, but the Canadians will probably be far less disruptive if they have at least some skin in the game as compared to being frozen out of the political system entirely (which leaves them with no option but rebellion.) And the U.S. does have some experience with setting up new states out of their conquered territories in a manner that concentrates political power in the hands of the pro-U.S. residents. (The Democrats were able to essentially make Kentucky and Houston safe Democrat states for a whole generation after the FGW, and there's no reason the U.S. couldn't follow a comparable practice in Canada.)

Canadian statehood will also make continued U.S. rule in the north much more palatable to the American people. Pushing "Equality" in the South while oppressing the Canadians is bound to cause some serious cognitive dissonance for the American public. Giving the Canadians statehood solves that problem since the Canadians are now (at least theoretically) equal with Americans.

And Canadian statehood will also be a big boast to the U.S. in any Cold War with Germany and/or Japan since once Canadian statehood is granted, the U.S. can freely criticize the German and Japanese colonial empires without looking like hypocrites.

I think Canadian states would develop a unique political divide of independence vs. union, with the mainstream American parties supporting union, and the CNP supporting independence and getting traction only in the Canadian states. No word yet on whether the President of the United States would eventually be compared to a damp rag or a low-grade bank clerk.

I agree, pushing "Equality" in the South while maintaining the Occupation in Canada is a major cognitive dissonance. But I'm not sure statehood will come that quick. Houston and Kentucky were quickly absorbed, Canada was placed under occupation and had that maintained for a generation under the strictest of terms. The legal system in place held no justice for Canadians, whereas (from what we know) the legal system afforded rights to Houstonians and Kentuckians. Even if Canadians become American citizens, and the provinces become states, they're very likely not going to be equal to Americans. They'll still be seen as Canadians, as people who fought the Americans three times, rebelled twice, helped the CSA last longer in a war where the Confederacy killed millions of blacks. There's going to be an immense social stigma against them

This is a major issue that tends to be overlooked in discussions about the future of the TL-191 United States. The American people itself would serve as a major obstacle to reintegration. While the Americans would start off with a very anti-independence mindset, that mindset would eventually divide between those urging quicker reintegration, and those that want to continue the military occupation because the Canadians and Confederates are "insufficiently integrated." A pro-independence movement may come in later, but it may be a day late and a dollar short.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

De-Freedomization would make this a legal necessity.

I agree. Plus the 2.5 parties in the Union, in their rush to establish beach-heads in the South, will make sure that their members toe the line very careful. Any whiff of racism or discrimination will be severely punished.

I think Canadian states would develop a unique political divide of independence vs. union, with the mainstream American parties supporting union, and the CNP supporting independence and getting traction only in the Canadian states. No word yet on whether the President of the United States would eventually be compared to a damp rag or a low-grade bank clerk.

This is a major issue that tends to be overlooked in discussions about the future of the TL-191 United States. The American people itself would serve as a major obstacle to reintegration. While the Americans would start off with a very anti-independence mindset, that mindset would eventually divide between those urging quicker reintegration, and those that want to continue the military occupation because the Canadians and Confederates are "insufficiently integrated." A pro-independence movement may come in later, but it may be a day late and a dollar short.

I definitely agree the American parties will support the Union. They may find some local Canadian collaboration, but they'll still be seen as American parties, not Canadian ones. And when the Canadian National Party comes around, after decades of social stigma and the legacy of a decades-long occupation (at least a half-century), coupled with unofficial discrimination by Americans and American settlers against Canadians, they'll be seen (and rightfully so) as a Canadian party. They'll be looking out for the Canadian farmer, the Canadian worker, the Canadian businessman. They'll rail against the American parties as instruments of the occupation, and they'll find fertile ground among Canadians.

I think the unofficial stigma against Canadians will continue, and that as the generation born during the Occupation comes of age, they'll see that they're being discriminated against because they're born Canadians. That their parents fought against the United States in a rebellion twenty years ago, that their grandparents fought against the Americans forty years ago. That because of their parents, the CSA was able to last longer and kill more blacks. It will breed resentment and distrust, and I think that these Canadians born under the occupation will join, or at least support, the CNP because at least the CNP wants to protect them.

 

[m0585]

Perhaps if Britain and the U.S. enter some sort of détente, then the latter would be more willing to let Canada go it's own way.

 

[rvbomally]

Perhaps if Britain and the U.S. enter some sort of détente, then the latter would be more willing to let Canada go it's own way.

That depends entirely on the state of German-American relations, which in turn is determined almost entirely by author fiat.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Perhaps if Britain and the U.S. enter some sort of détente, then the latter would be more willing to let Canada go it's own way.

Detente would be hard, especially if it was the British Prime Minister who more-or-less sparks the rise of Canadian neo-nationalism as a viable political force (I had Enoch Powell become PM in 1967 and do a de Gaulle moment in Toronto on Canada Day 1967). But like rvbomally said, it depends on the state of German-American relations and that's dependent on what the author wants to do

 

[m0585]

Detente would be hard, especially if it was the British Prime Minister who more-or-less sparks the rise of Canadian neo-nationalism as a viable political force (I had Enoch Powell become PM in 1967 and do a de Gaulle moment in Toronto on Canada Day 1967). But like rvbomally said, it depends on the state of German-American relations and that's dependent on what the author wants to do

I always presumed that the U.S. would forge closer ties with the British, if for no other reason than to help contain Japan. I know the Japanese were attacking (or preparing to attack) British colonies at the end of the series. Also, the U.S. can't wage a effective campaign against the Japanese with having to now occupy the South. Maybe the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I always presumed that the U.S. would forge closer ties with the British, if for no other reason than to help contain Japan. I know the Japanese were attacking (or preparing to attack) British colonies at the end of the series. Also, the U.S. can't wage a effective campaign against the Japanese with having to now occupy the South. Maybe the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I always saw the Americans keeping the British at arms-length (they've fought at least half a dozen wars against each other, and the British are practically America's eternal enemy). The British and Germans having rapprochement makes more sense, as the Germans dominate Europe and Britain would most likely receive German investment to help rebuild. The conflict with the Japanese provides some basis for detente between the British and the Americans, but it's going to be a long, long road to reconciliation.

 

[m0585]

I always saw the Americans keeping the British at arms-length (they've fought at least half a dozen wars against each other, and the British are practically America's eternal enemy). The British and Germans having rapprochement makes more sense, as the Germans dominate Europe and Britain would most likely receive German investment to help rebuild. The conflict with the Japanese provides some basis for detente between the British and the Americans, but it's going to be a long, long road to reconciliation.

Maybe the U.S. uses the British as a counter weight against Japan, and the Germans use the British as a counter weight against Russia.

 

[Faeelin]

I always saw the Americans keeping the British at arms-length (they've fought at least half a dozen wars against each other, and the British are practically America's eternal enemy). The British and Germans having rapprochement makes more sense, as the Germans dominate Europe and Britain would most likely receive German investment to help rebuild. The conflict with the Japanese provides some basis for detente between the British and the Americans, but it's going to be a long, long road to reconciliation.

The British nuked German cities. The Kaiserreich of this world doesn't seem compassionate.

 

[pattontank12]

Also pretty sure Russia's is entering a stage of fueding war lords and mass civil war.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Maybe the U.S. uses the British as a counter weight against Japan, and the Germans use the British as a counter weight against Russia.

Certainly possible. The Americans would be more able to resupply British and ANZAC troops and ships agains the Japanese than Britain on its own.

The British nuked German cities. The Kaiserreich of this world doesn't seem compassionate.

I think after the Germans fix their own cities (it was just Hamburg right?), they'll try and reconstruct Britain if only to bring it closer to the Kaiserreich. There are still blood ties between the British royal family and the German imperial family, and that does count for something.

Also pretty sure Russia's is entering a stage of warring world's and mass civil war.

Russia is going to be a big ol' mess for a long while.

 

[m0585]

Certainly possible. The Americans would be more able to resupply British and ANZAC troops and ships agains the Japanese than Britain on its own.

Indeed. Britain might be willing to cozy up to the U.S. and Germans to get funding to rebuild their three cities that were nuked. Quid pro quo all around.

 

[Tiro]

I suspect that the Anzac nations are more likely to benefit from American support; quite bluntly the British Empire is unlikely to retain it's foreign possessions for very long even if (as I would like to think) the Japanese do less well at Hong Kong & Singapore than they did in Our Own Timeline - quite frankly the Australians and New Zealanders are likely to be more usefully positioned in the Pacific than Great Britain over the Long Term and it would be far easier to sell an Alliance with "Emancipated" Commonwealth Nations to Congress than it would be to arrange a Marshal-type Plan that Great Britain might benefit from.

For one thing Australia and New Zealand require less investment to rebuild (having taken less of a pounding than GB during the War), which will count for a great deal - quite bluntly with most of the East Coast and the Midwest having been bombed or fought over, the American People are not going to be happy when they hear Congress making noises about helping rebuild anything further away than Toledo (especially given that Ireland, with whom the United States is far more likely to have struck up a "Special Relationship" also needs help and actually fought on the Right Side during the late unpleasantness).

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I suspect that the Anzac nations are more likely to benefit from American support; quite bluntly the British Empire is unlikely to retain it's foreign possessions for very long even if (as I would like to think) the Japanese do less well at Hong Kong & Singapore than they did in Our Own Timeline - quite frankly the Australians and New Zealanders are likely to be more usefully positioned in the Pacific than Great Britain over the Long Term and it would be far easier to sell an Alliance with "Emancipated" Commonwealth Nations to Congress than it would be to arrange a Marshal-type Plan that Great Britain might benefit from.

For one thing Australia and New Zealand require less investment to rebuild (having taken less of a pounding than GB during the War), which will count for a great deal - quite bluntly with most of the East Coast and the Midwest having been bombed or fought over, the American People are not going to be happy when they hear Congress making noises about helping rebuild anything further away than Toledo (especially given that Ireland, with whom the United States is far more likely to have struck up a "Special Relationship" also needs help and actually fought on the Right Side during the late unpleasantness).

Agreed. In the minds of Americans, the United States comes first. Then Ireland, as they have a "Special Relationship" with the Emerald Isle, then after that would probably be the ANZAC nations, and then Occupied Canada and the ex-Confederacy. ANZAC might have actually taken less of a beating in OTL, so they should be economically strong in the post-war world, and won't require that much in terms of cash.

But I agree, Britain's colonial empire is done for. By the late 1950s, I'd expect end of empire to come around since the British can't sustain them economically anymore. They might be able to hold them until the 1960s with German and Austro-Hungarian economic aid (which helps with British reconstruction) but I can't see Britain's empire lasting any longer than that. At some point, the sun will set on the empire.

 

[United Republic]

I disagree with the notion of a USSR-esque breakup of the United States. The U.S. was not merely as autocratic or economically backwards as the USSR and the more militaristic American culture will probably ensure the stiff pin-down of the C.S.A. and Canada. IIRC the U.S. Military of ATL did not follow the rules of war and committed reprisal killings (10 civilians for 1 dead U.S. soldier killed or something like that), so I have a feeling that the ex-Confederates and Canadians would lose hope in becoming independent again in lieu of their people being murdered for the actions of others.

I could see the Canadians seeing themselves as Americans around the 50s, while the Confederates would become Americanized around the late 60s or 70s.

 

[rvbomally]

I disagree with the notion of a USSR-esque breakup of the United States. The U.S. was not merely as autocratic or economically backwards as the USSR and the more militaristic American culture will probably ensure the stiff pin-down of the C.S.A. and Canada. IIRC the U.S. Military of ATL did not follow the rules of war and committed reprisal killings (10 civilians for 1 dead U.S. soldier killed or something like that), so I have a feeling that the ex-Confederates and Canadians would lose hope in becoming independent again in lieu of their people being murdered for the actions of others.

I could see the Canadians seeing themselves as Americans around the 50s, while the Confederates would become Americanized around the late 60s or 70s.

I don't quite understand this line of reasoning. The TL-191 USA will succeed because it was not as autocratic as the USSR and because it will act like an autocratic state by enacting reprisal killings? That sort of dysfunctional policy would only make the Americans look like hypocritical, dysfunctional conquerors, who have one set of rules for them and another for everyone else. Reprisal killings and such would only lead to independence movements becoming non-violent, and if the Americans break those up with violence, they look like the bad guys.

The TL-191 USA is stuck in a paradox, which I think makes integration ultimately implausible. They have to justify the ruthlessness of their occupation by painting the opposition as irredeemably evil, but if they do so, they make integrating them very difficult for the American voter to accept. The best they can hope for is that the American people will buy the idea that the new generation of Canadians and Confederates want to be Americans, but an existing independence movement will quickly put the kibosh on that. The radical ones may even start up the violence again, knowing that a crackdown would reopen old wounds and make integration even more difficult. Further, even if the next generations want to be part of the United States proper, there will still be a large population that remember the SGW, the post-war hardship, the resistance, and the reprisal killings. Who are they going to vote for? And why should American voters want the people their grandfathers were killing to have a voice in American politics?

As for the economy, I'm not sure if the TL-191 USA is actually more economically viable than the OTL USSR at the end of the SGW and WWII, respectively. Needless to say, a decades-long occupation would be expensive.

 

[Faeelin]

As for the economy, I'm not sure if the TL-191 USA is actually more economically viable than the OTL USSR at the end of the SGW and WWII, respectively. Needless to say, a decades-long occupation would be expensive.

Why not? It's not a planned economy run by Joseph Stalin.

 

[Faeelin]

I disagree with the notion of a USSR-esque breakup of the United States. The U.S. was not merely as autocratic or economically backwards as the USSR and the more militaristic American culture will probably ensure the stiff pin-down of the C.S.A. and Canada. IIRC the U.S. Military of ATL did not follow the rules of war and committed reprisal killings (10 civilians for 1 dead U.S. soldier killed or something like that), so I have a feeling that the ex-Confederates and Canadians would lose hope in becoming independent again in lieu of their people being murdered for the actions of others.

I wonder if anyone else in this thread has read Does Conquest Pay?