TL-191 WI/AHC: Featherston not elected President

[Techdread]

An idea that's crossed my mind of late is that despite the obvious WWII-analogue that TL-191 became, would there be any way to prevent Jake Featherston from being elected President of the Confederate States? One obvious solution would be his assassination/murder prior to his and the Freedom Party's rise. But are there other solutions that could work with him still around?

Also, what would be the effects on a non-Featherston presidency? Would it be a Radical Liberal administration under Cordell Hull instead, or could the Whigs win the Grey House again? Or, if Featherston has been removed from the scenario, would it be another Freedomite or perhaps Willy Knight of the Redemption League that takes the presidency?

 

[Techdread]

Any ideas from anyone?

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

I think that whoever becomes President, there'd be another North American war. OK, the Confederacy might not go down in history as genocidal d**ks, but I think that they'd still be occupied and forced back into the Union. After all, the biggest difference between TL-191 and OTL is that in TL-191, conquest and imperialism are not discredited - they're the norm You defeat your enemy by crushing them and making sure they never rise again, and occupying their territory...

 

[bguy]

An idea that's crossed my mind of late is that despite the obvious WWII-analogue that TL-191 became, would there be any way to prevent Jake Featherston from being elected President of the Confederate States? One obvious solution would be his assassination/murder prior to his and the Freedom Party's rise. But are there other solutions that could work with him still around?

Maybe have Wily Knight decide the Freedom Party is too toxic to work with after the assassination of President Hampton. If the Redemption League breaks off on its own that could split the far-right vote enough to keep Featherston out of office. (Especially if the Tin Hats follow the Redemption League out the door.)

Also, what would be the effects on a non-Featherston presidency? Would it be a Radical Liberal administration under Cordell Hull instead, or could the Whigs win the Grey House again? Or, if Featherston has been removed from the scenario, would it be another Freedomite or perhaps Willy Knight of the Redemption League that takes the presidency?

I think the most likely result of a four way contested election in 1933 would be nobody getting an Electoral College majority, and the election being decided in the Confederate House. That probably favors the Whigs. The Radical Liberals will be much more willing to align with them than the Freedom Party or Redemption League, and the Whigs can also probably work a deal with Knight to get his support. (Offering him a Cabinet post and agreeing to a military build-up and a veteran's bonus bill would probably be enough.)

If the Whigs do win through a backroom deal, Featherston will of course be apoplectic. Having been (in his mind at least) cheated out of the presidency, he is very likely to resort to outright armed rebellion. If that happens it will be bloody, but the Confederate government probably ultimately wins. (I doubt the Freedom Party has the muscle to take on both the Confederate Army and Redemption League, and the US will probably aid the Confederate government in crushing the rebellion.) President Longstreet probably doesn't accomplish much else in his term after crushing the Freedomite Rebellion, and we probably see the Radical Liberals under Huey Long win the presidency in 1939.

 

[Techdread]

I think that whoever becomes President, there'd be another North American war. OK, the Confederacy might not go down in history as genocidal d**ks, but I think that they'd still be occupied and forced back into the Union. After all, the biggest difference between TL-191 and OTL is that in TL-191, conquest and imperialism are not discredited - they're the norm You defeat your enemy by crushing them and making sure they never rise again, and occupying their territory...

I'm not certain we'd see another war, at least not in N. America. Europe seems more certain of it, but both the Whigs and the Radical Liberals (The only parties likely to come into office other then the Freedom Party) seemed pretty content with the status quo, albeit unhappily. IIRC, the Rad Libs even advocated drawing closer to the US during the interwar period.

Maybe have Wily Knight decide the Freedom Party is too toxic to work with after the assassination of President Hampton. If the Redemption League breaks off on its own that could split the far-right vote enough to keep Featherston out of office. (Especially if the Tin Hats follow the Redemption League out the door.)

I think that probably would be the best way to prevent the rise of Featherston stops the problem before it gathers much steam that way too.

I think the most likely result of a four way contested election in 1933 would be nobody getting an Electoral College majority, and the election being decided in the Confederate House. That probably favors the Whigs. The Radical Liberals will be much more willing to align with them than the Freedom Party or Redemption League, and the Whigs can also probably work a deal with Knight to get his support. (Offering him a Cabinet post and agreeing to a military build-up and a veteran's bonus bill would probably be enough.)

If the Whigs do win through a backroom deal, Featherston will of course be apoplectic. Having been (in his mind at least) cheated out of the presidency, he is very likely to resort to outright armed rebellion. If that happens it will be bloody, but the Confederate government probably ultimately wins. (I doubt the Freedom Party has the muscle to take on both the Confederate Army and Redemption League, and the US will probably aid the Confederate government in crushing the rebellion.) President Longstreet probably doesn't accomplish much else in his term after crushing the Freedomite Rebellion, and we probably see the Radical Liberals under Huey Long win the presidency in 1939.

I could probably see Knight being promised Secretary of War by Longstreet, but he'd probably be kept on a tight leash to prevent too much sabre-rattling, especially after a Confederate Civil War, or Richmond Putsch as it might be more akin to.

Long would probably be able to offer stability and greater economic future in 1939 compared with Hugo Black (the likely Whig candidate). Would a Long presidency look like? Something like his tenure as Governor of Louisiana, or more nightmarish given how he might be able channel people's anger towards the US as Featherston was able to?

 

[bguy]

I could probably see Knight being promised Secretary of War by Longstreet, but he'd probably be kept on a tight leash to prevent too much sabre-rattling, especially after a Confederate Civil War, or Richmond Putsch as it might be more akin to.

Agreed. Knight doesn't seem to have the temperament to be Secretary of State or the right experience for Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General, and any other Cabinet post would probably be too junior to satisfy him, so Secretary of War is probably the best bet. And yeah, I would expect Longstreet to make sure that it is really General Stuart running the War Department.

Long would probably be able to offer stability and greater economic future in 1939 compared with Hugo Black (the likely Whig candidate).

Black is possible I suppose, though he might be too much of a populist for the Bourbons that dominate the Whig Party.

Would a Long presidency look like? Something like his tenure as Governor of Louisiana, or more nightmarish given how he might be able channel people's anger towards the US as Featherston was able to?

I doubt Long would pick a fight with the US. From what we saw of TL-191 Huey Long in The Victorious Opposition, he was plenty ambitious but seemed to lack a certain amount of imagination. (It never even occurred to him that Featherston might amend the constitution to run for reelection, and he didn't take seriously the possibility that Featherston would kill him and invade Louisiana.) It takes a rather ... healthy imagination to envision the Confederate States being able to attack the United States and win, so I doubt it would ever even occur to Long to start a war with the United States.

President Long will probably push through a number of populist measures (a large scale public works program, increased education spending, farm price supports, and some kind of mortgage relief all seem likely, and he might even try and enact something like Social Security.) He'll have to push through a major tax increase on the wealthy to pay for these programs. He's bound to come into conflict with the Confederate Supreme Court like Featherston did, though I would imagine Long will just pack the court to get around it rather than outright abolish it. And his administration will certainly prove to be rather authoritarian with it intimidating political opponents, censoring hostile media, and removing all non-supporters from the government payroll. No genocide or involvement in the Second Great War though (which is probably just a European conflict here.)

 

[Techdread]

Agreed. Knight doesn't seem to have the temperament to be Secretary of State or the right experience for Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General, and any other Cabinet post would probably be too junior to satisfy him, so Secretary of War is probably the best bet. And yeah, I would expect Longstreet to make sure that it is really General Stuart running the War Department.

I'd agree with that, makes the most sense for that to be the case until Longstreet reaches the point that he doesn't need Knight's support any longer.

Black is possible I suppose, though he might be too much of a populist for the Bourbons that dominate the Whig Party.

The only reason that I suggested him was that he would be Longstreet's VP - I wouldn't really know quite who else to suggest really. Any ideas on who the Whig candidates might be in this ATL 1939? And Long's VP, for that matter?

I doubt Long would pick a fight with the US. From what we saw of TL-191 Huey Long in The Victorious Opposition, he was plenty ambitious but seemed to lack a certain amount of imagination. (It never even occurred to him that Featherston might amend the constitution to run for reelection, and he didn't take seriously the possibility that Featherston would kill him and invade Louisiana.) It takes a rather ... healthy imagination to envision the Confederate States being able to attack the United States and win, so I doubt it would ever even occur to Long to start a war with the United States.

President Long will probably push through a number of populist measures (a large scale public works program, increased education spending, farm price supports, and some kind of mortgage relief all seem likely, and he might even try and enact something like Social Security.) He'll have to push through a major tax increase on the wealthy to pay for these programs. He's bound to come into conflict with the Confederate Supreme Court like Featherston did, though I would imagine Long will just pack the court to get around it rather than outright abolish it. And his administration will certainly prove to be rather authoritarian with it intimidating political opponents, censoring hostile media, and removing all non-supporters from the government payroll. No genocide or involvement in the Second Great War though (which is probably just a European conflict here.)

I would agree with that - Long strikes me as a man who'd deal with the situation domestically long before even considering doing anything further afield. I can see him trying to pressure the US for a relaxation on reparations or the return of some territory, but nothing to the same extent as Featherston sought.

 

[bguy]

The only reason that I suggested him was that he would be Longstreet's VP - I wouldn't really know quite who else to suggest really. Any ideas on who the Whig candidates might be in this ATL 1939? And Long's VP, for that matter?

True, and Black certainly could be the candidate. (The very fact that he made it on to the Whig ticket at all suggests the party might have been moving in a more populist direction). Still, assuming the Confederate economy is still languishing by 1939 (which seems likely as the Whigs didn't seem to really have any ideas on how to combat the Depression), President Longstreet will probably be deeply unpopular by then which will badly hurt the chances of anyone associated with his administration.

As an alternative to Black for the Whig candidate in '39, how about Harry Byrd of Virginia? Or we could see someone like Richard Russell or the inexplicably Confederate Herbert Walker. (Both men went Freedom Party in the original storyline, but with the Freedomites much weaker in this timeline they probably stay Whigs.)

As for Long's veep, how about either Olin Johnston of South Carolina or Claude Pepper of Florida. Both men were dedicated liberals, and they provide regional balance to Long. Johnston and Pepper were both pretty young in 1939, but Long might actually see that as a plus, letting him contrast the youth and dynamism of the Radical Libs to the tired old men running the Whigs.

I would agree with that - Long strikes me as a man who'd deal with the situation domestically long before even considering doing anything further afield. I can see him trying to pressure the US for a relaxation on reparations or the return of some territory, but nothing to the same extent as Featherston sought.

Exactly, especially since after France, Britain, and Russia are defeated (the lack of Featherston probably does nothing to prevent the war in Europe from happening, though the US may not get involved without Featherston attacking it), it becomes pretty much impossible for the Confederates to have any hope of defeating the US in a straight fight, since they would be fighting without any significant allies.

 

[Techdread]

True, and Black certainly could be the candidate. (The very fact that he made it on to the Whig ticket at all suggests the party might have been moving in a more populist direction). Still, assuming the Confederate economy is still languishing by 1939 (which seems likely as the Whigs didn't seem to really have any ideas on how to combat the Depression), President Longstreet will probably be deeply unpopular by then which will badly hurt the chances of anyone associated with his administration.

As an alternative to Black for the Whig candidate in '39, how about Harry Byrd of Virginia? Or we could see someone like Richard Russell or the inexplicably Confederate Herbert Walker. (Both men went Freedom Party in the original storyline, but with the Freedomites much weaker in this timeline they probably stay Whigs.)

As for Long's veep, how about either Olin Johnston of South Carolina or Claude Pepper of Florida. Both men were dedicated liberals, and they provide regional balance to Long. Johnston and Pepper were both pretty young in 1939, but Long might actually see that as a plus, letting him contrast the youth and dynamism of the Radical Libs to the tired old men running the Whigs.

I was actually thinking that Harry Byrd would fit the bill quite nicely there; he'd have the right policies needed, pandering slightly to the right-wing vote, whilst having the aristocracy of a Whig. I could see Russell joining him on the ticket with some foreign policy to try and balance it out.

Pepper probably fits the bill nicely with Long; I could see him winning the election quite handily with that contrast of youth & vigour against tiresome, old Whigs.

Exactly, especially since after France, Britain, and Russia are defeated (the lack of Featherston probably does nothing to prevent the war in Europe from happening, though the US may not get involved without Featherston attacking it), it becomes pretty much impossible for the Confederates to have any hope of defeating the US in a straight fight, since they would be fighting without any significant allies.

You might see the US declaring war on the European Entente, as didn't US-German relations warm again during the interwar years under the Sinclair administration? It would probably only be a largely naval battle in such a case, with a renewed Canadian uprising joining in then too.

What would be the impact on US politics in this Featherston-less world? Smith only won 1940 on a small margin, but the CSA wouldn't be such a large threat by then so would it stay with Smith or swing over to the Democrats? I'm not sure whether Taft would necessarily be nominated by the Democrats even; his main point during the campaign was against the Richmond Agreement which would be butterflied away ITTL.

 

[bguy]

I was actually thinking that Harry Byrd would fit the bill quite nicely there; he'd have the right policies needed, pandering slightly to the right-wing vote, whilst having the aristocracy of a Whig. I could see Russell joining him on the ticket with some foreign policy to try and balance it out.

Pepper probably fits the bill nicely with Long; I could see him winning the election quite handily with that contrast of youth & vigour against tiresome, old Whigs.

So Byrd-Russell vs Long-Pepper. Assuming Wily Knight didn't do something stupid like try to coup President Longstreet then he's probably in the mix also, but I doubt Knight on his own can win enough states to really challenge Long.

You might see the US declaring war on the European Entente, as didn't US-German relations warm again during the interwar years under the Sinclair administration? It would probably only be a largely naval battle in such a case, with a renewed Canadian uprising joining in then too.

From what I recall, US-German relations were pretty frosty during the Sinclair Administration. Here's what a character in The Victorious Opposition said:

"There was that stretch in the twenties when it looked like we might square off against Kaiser Bill, and the alliance pretty much lapsed. But then the old snakes stuck their heads up again, so we never duked it out with Germany."

And of course Smith didn't declare war on Britain, France, Russia or the Confederacy when they all declared war on Germany, which makes me think he wasn't intending to get involved. That said Smith was an Irish-American, so even if he wasn't willing to intervene to help Germany, he might join the war if the British attack Ireland. So the real question is would Churchill risk war with a United States that wasn't distracted fighting the Confederates?

What would be the impact on US politics in this Featherston-less world? Smith only won 1940 on a small margin, but the CSA wouldn't be such a large threat by then so would it stay with Smith or swing over to the Democrats? I'm not sure whether Taft would necessarily be nominated by the Democrats even; his main point during the campaign was against the Richmond Agreement which would be butterflied away ITTL.

You could also be right about Taft not even getting the Democrat nomination that year since domestic issues will probably dominate the campaign. Who would the Democrats run in place of Taft? 1940 seems a little too early for Thomas Dewey to be a credible candidate, and I suspect Charles McNary is probably still a Republican in TL-191. Maybe one of TR's sons or Arthur Vandenberg. Regardless of who the Democrat candidate is, with the Richmond Agreement off the table, Smith seems like a heavy favorite that year. The Socialists probably do much better in the Congressional elections also, so Smith might actually be able to get old age pensions and unemployment insurance enacted in his second term.

 

[Techdread]

So Byrd-Russell vs Long-Pepper. Assuming Willy Knight didn't do something stupid like try to coup President Longstreet then he's probably in the mix also, but I doubt Knight on his own can win enough states to really challenge Long.

I think that Knight probably wouldn't be brave enough to try that; he was only willing to try that trick on Featherston after he'd changed the constitution to remain in office for more than one term.

In some hindsight, I think Byrd would probably have more luck in the election (still fruitlessly though) with John Nance Garner as his VP - he'd bring Texas into contention, which might have a chance of swinging over Knight if he'd been regarded as capable in office. Also, I think Johnston might prove the better VP for Long too - a bit more geographical balance and could probably serve as a capable set of hands with legislation in the Confederate Senate.

From what I recall, US-German relations were pretty frosty during the Sinclair Administration. Here's what a character in The Victorious Opposition said:

"There was that stretch in the twenties when it looked like we might square off against Kaiser Bill, and the alliance pretty much lapsed. But then the old snakes stuck their heads up again, so we never duked it out with Germany."

And of course Smith didn't declare war on Britain, France, Russia or the Confederacy when they all declared war on Germany, which makes me think he wasn't intending to get involved. That said Smith was an Irish-American, so even if he wasn't willing to intervene to help Germany, he might join the war if the British attack Ireland. So the real question is would Churchill risk war with a United States that wasn't distracted fighting the Confederates?

I doubt that Churchill would be so bold; he'd have nothing to gain in open war with the United States. Funding and arming the Canadian Resistance though might be something he'd be more content with; it would depend on whether he felt the war in Europe was continuing.

You could also be right about Taft not even getting the Democrat nomination that year since domestic issues will probably dominate the campaign. Who would the Democrats run in place of Taft? 1940 seems a little too early for Thomas Dewey to be a credible candidate, and I suspect Charles McNary is probably still a Republican in TL-191. Maybe one of TR's sons or Arthur Vandenberg. Regardless of who the Democrat candidate is, with the Richmond Agreement off the table, Smith seems like a heavy favorite that year. The Socialists probably do much better in the Congressional elections also, so Smith might actually be able to get old age pensions and unemployment insurance enacted in his second term.

I think that Vandenberg might take the Democratic nomination, or it'd be a toss-up between him and Taft - Vandenberg might be able to take it as a compromise candidate. But you're right that Smith would probably win it as it'd be a largely domestic issue-led campaign. With that in mind though, what would be Long's foreign policy? It's never clear in the books exactly what the Radical Liberals were looking for other than better relations with the US, and Long doesn't strike me as the kind of person to be the weaker partner in any relationship.

 

[bguy]

In some hindsight, I think Byrd would probably have more luck in the election (still fruitlessly though) with John Nance Garner as his VP - he'd bring Texas into contention, which might have a chance of swinging over Knight if he'd been regarded as capable in office. Also, I think Johnston might prove the better VP for Long too - a bit more geographical balance and could probably serve as a capable set of hands with legislation in the Confederate Senate.

Garner's a definite possibility, though he would be 71 in 1939.

Anyway lets play with the Electoral numbers a little bit to see how the election likely shapes out. (Using the electoral college numbers Arkhangelsk used in this post.)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5466618&postcount=7


Long is certain to win Louisiana, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Cuba, so that is a definite 40 electoral votes for him.

I think he also is very likely to win Tennessee and Arkansas. Tennessee will like his rural development program, and Arkansas actually went Rad Lib in 1927 (despite the incumbant Whig President being from there), so the Rad Libs must be pretty strong in that state. That's another 21 electoral votes for a likely 61.

Byrd should have Virginia locked down. (12 electoral votes.) He's also likely to take South Carolina (8 more electoral votes) even if Johnston is on the Rad Lib ticket. (I can't recall if South Carolina was still having its legislature chose its electoral college members in TL-191? If so then South Carolina is almost certain to vote Whig, since the state legsilature is so heavily gerry-mandered to favor the wealthy planters, but even if the state has gone over to popular vote electing the electoral college members, it is still so conservative a state that its unlikely a Rad Lib candidate can win there.) Mississippi will probably also vote Whig, as the Rad Libs are probably seen as too friendly to blacks there, so that's another 10 electoral votes for a total of 30 safe votes for the Whigs.

That leaves North Carolina (12 EVs), Georgia (14 EVs), Florida (6 EVs), Alabama (12 EVs), and Texas (20 EVs). Long wins if he wins either Texas or any 2 of the other states. Texas is possible for him, but if Wily Knight is running and especially if Garner is on the Whig ticket, it is probably more likely to go Redemption League or Whig. Florida probably votes for Long. (OTL it was willing to elect Claude Pepper as a Senator around this time, so voting for someone like Long should be easy for it.) That means Long needs just one of North Carolina, Georgia, or Alabama. Georgia and Alabama may be difficult for him to win. Both states got hit hard during the Red Rebellion, so like Mississippi they probably aren't too friendly to the party that is perceived as friendly to blacks. (And if Russell is on the Whig ticket that should put Georgia out of reach.) So winning North Carolina is the key to the election. In the original storyline it turned on the Whigs in the 1933 election, so if the Confederate economy is still in very bad shape, it probably does the same here, voting for Long and thus giving him the presidency.

With that in mind though, what would be Long's foreign policy? It's never clear in the books exactly what the Radical Liberals were looking for other than better relations with the US, and Long doesn't strike me as the kind of person to be the weaker partner in any relationship.

He'll probably try to diplomatically badger the US into relinquishing the conquered Confederate territory. (Expect a lot of rhetorical blasts about the importance of self-determination being launched at the US.)

I doubt Long has the Confederates join in the Second Great War, but maybe he pulls a Franco and sends a volunteer division or two of militants over to fight on the side of the Entente. (It would be a useful way for him to get rid of Wily Knight and the more aggressive members of the Redemption League.)

 

[Techdread]

Garner's a definite possibility, though he would be 71 in 1939.

That's not a bad point actually. I was thinking Garner would work to bring in more of the Western CS to try and balance Byrd's eastern credentials. You think that Russell would fit better? Or someone else?

Anyway lets play with the Electoral numbers a little bit to see how the election likely shapes out. (Using the electoral college numbers Arkhangelsk used in this post.)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5466618&postcount=7


Long is certain to win Louisiana, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Cuba, so that is a definite 40 electoral votes for him.

I think he also is very likely to win Tennessee and Arkansas. Tennessee will like his rural development program, and Arkansas actually went Rad Lib in 1927 (despite the incumbant Whig President being from there), so the Rad Libs must be pretty strong in that state. That's another 21 electoral votes for a likely 61.

Byrd should have Virginia locked down. (12 electoral votes.) He's also likely to take South Carolina (8 more electoral votes) even if Johnston is on the Rad Lib ticket. (I can't recall if South Carolina was still having its legislature chose its electoral college members in TL-191? If so then South Carolina is almost certain to vote Whig, since the state legsilature is so heavily gerry-mandered to favor the wealthy planters, but even if the state has gone over to popular vote electing the electoral college members, it is still so conservative a state that its unlikely a Rad Lib candidate can win there.) Mississippi will probably also vote Whig, as the Rad Libs are probably seen as too friendly to blacks there, so that's another 10 electoral votes for a total of 30 safe votes for the Whigs.

That leaves North Carolina (12 EVs), Georgia (14 EVs), Florida (6 EVs), Alabama (12 EVs), and Texas (20 EVs). Long wins if he wins either Texas or any 2 of the other states. Texas is possible for him, but if Wily Knight is running and especially if Garner is on the Whig ticket, it is probably more likely to go Redemption League or Whig. Florida probably votes for Long. (OTL it was willing to elect Claude Pepper as a Senator around this time, so voting for someone like Long should be easy for it.) That means Long needs just one of North Carolina, Georgia, or Alabama. Georgia and Alabama may be difficult for him to win. Both states got hit hard during the Red Rebellion, so like Mississippi they probably aren't too friendly to the party that is perceived as friendly to blacks. (And if Russell is on the Whig ticket that should put Georgia out of reach.) So winning North Carolina is the key to the election. In the original storyline it turned on the Whigs in the 1933 election, so if the Confederate economy is still in very bad shape, it probably does the same here, voting for Long and thus giving him the presidency.

That seems like pretty good electoral math there for this ATL 1939. Any thoughts about the ATL 1933 to put us there? We know there'd be no majority from our discussion so far, which would probably place it somewhere akin to the 1921 or 1927 in terms of the split. Do you have a preference or better likelihood between Johnston or Pepper as Long's VP, by the way?

He'll probably try to diplomatically badger the US into relinquishing the conquered Confederate territory. (Expect a lot of rhetorical blasts about the importance of self-determination being launched at the US.)

I doubt Long has the Confederates join in the Second Great War, but maybe he pulls a Franco and sends a volunteer division or two of militants over to fight on the side of the Entente. (It would be a useful way for him to get rid of Wily Knight and the more aggressive members of the Redemption League.)

I think that'd fit Long quite nicely there - if nothing else, he was good at his speeches and getting some movement with them. Whether he'd have any actual success with reclaiming territory is another matter though.

That certainly works quite nicely for everyone; would it be genuine volunteers or something more like forced volunteering to remove those problems, do you think?

 

[Michael B]

He'll probably try to diplomatically badger the US into relinquishing the conquered Confederate territory. (Expect a lot of rhetorical blasts about the importance of self-determination being launched at the US.)

Unless of course Freedm Party terrorists screw up the deal.

I doubt Long has the Confederates join in the Second Great War, but maybe he pulls a Franco and sends a volunteer division or two of militants over to fight on the side of the Entente. (It would be a useful way for him to get rid of Wily Knight and the more aggressive members of the Redemption League.)

A good way to train up Freedom Party partisans to make trouble later.

If they did send troops what would the USA do? Whilst it is unlikely that Smith would also send troops to Germany, they would put some sort of screws on the CSA for having done so on the principle that the action would gain the CSA a marker to collect on should the Entente win the war. History has taught the USA that the CSA is a North American stalking horse for the British and the French. They lost two wars because of European intervention. They are not going to allow a third if they can stop it.

Because of this, if territory had not been returned I would expect any negotiations to end. I would also expect some form of sanctions to be applied.

 

[bguy]

That's not a bad point actually. I was thinking Garner would work to bring in more of the Western CS to try and balance Byrd's eastern credentials. You think that Russell would fit better? Or someone else?

Garner's not a bad pick. Putting Texas in play for the Whigs is a pretty big deal, and OTL Garner was still game to run for president in 1940, so he was probably still pretty spry despite being in his 70s. A Garner pick will definitely fuel the "tired old men" line of attack on the Whigs though.

That seems like pretty good electoral math there for this ATL 1939. Any thoughts about the ATL 1933 to put us there? We know there'd be no majority from our discussion so far, which would probably place it somewhere akin to the 1921 or 1927 in terms of the split.

Alrighty, here's how I see 1933 shaking out.

In the canon timeline, Featherston apparently ran away with the election in Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. Those are all eastern states where the Redemption League probably doesn't have much strength on the ground, so even with Knight's defection, Featherston should still carry all of them for 46 electoral votes.

Likewise in the canon time, the Whigs apparently carried Arkansas. If the Whigs won the state against a unified Freedom Party-Redemption League, they should easily win it when those two groups are fighting each other, so Arkansas's 9 electoral votes go to Longstreet.

Now in the canon timeline, when the initial returns from the eastern states come in, we don't get any results from Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. That suggests the vote in all of those states was pretty close, so how do they shake out in a timeline where the Freedom Party is weaker.

Virginia (12 EVs), I would give to Longstreet. Despite it being Featherston's home state the Freedom Party always seemed to underperform there in the novels. (They didn't carry it in either the 1921 or 1927 presidential elections, and came close but ultimately failed to win the Governorship there in 1931.) It's also Longstreet's home state, and even Freedom Party characters describe him as being a pretty good speaker, so it's hard to believe he'll lose his home state.

South Carolina (8 EVs), I would give to Featherston. Unlike Virginia, the Freedom Party apparently did win the Governorship in this state in 1931 in the novels, which suggests they are pretty strong there. A Clarence Potter scene also suggests that the Freedom Party is much better organized in the state than the Whigs are. It's probably a really close race, but I think Featherston squeaks out the win.

Georgia (14 EVs), Longstreet. Georgia's a tricky one because there is very little about its politics in the novels. Still, it seems significant that with all the many election descriptions we get in the novels, we never get one describing the Freedom Party winning or even being competitive in a statewide race there. That makes me think the Freedomites are weak in Georgia for some reason. Maybe the Whig state party there is unusually capable or maybe there is some Georgia specific revanchist party that keeps cutting into the Freedom Party's vote, but whatever the reason the Whigs seem likely to win this one.

Florida (6 EVs), Featherston. He carried the state in the 1921 election and in the canon timeline it seems that the Freedom Party won the Governorship there in 1931. That suggests the Freedomites are pretty strong in this state.

As for the rest of the Confederacy...

Given how well Long apparently has Louisiana locked down, its 10 EVs should go for Hull.

Texas went Featherston in both 1921 and 1927 but the novels suggest that the Redemption League is much stronger than the Freedom Party there, so it's most likely Wily Knight that picks up its 20 electoral votes this time. (If Featherston makes a major push on the state, he might be able to deny it to Knight, but in that case it probably just goes to the Whigs or Rad Libs.)

And that just leaves the Spanish speaking states. In the novels, the Freedom Party made pretty serious in roads in them. However, that was with a much stronger Freedom Party. Here, thanks to the defection of the Redemption League, the Freedom Party is probably going to find it much more difficult to fund raise in Texas (which is probably the richest Confederate state.) Likewise, the Freedomites will have a major new expense as they have to build up party infrastructure in Texas rather than just utilize the Redemption League's assets. With the Freedomites having less resources and more expenses they are going to have to make some budget cuts, and campaigning in the Spanish speaking states seems like a likely target for those cuts. If the Freedom Party doesn't make a significant investment in these states they all probably stay safely Radical Liberal, so I would give these 30 electoral votes to Hull.

So that produces a result of:

Featherston 60 EVs
Longstreet 35 EVs
Hull 40 EVs
Knight 20 EVs

which would send the election to the House of Representatives. (And even if we move either 1) Virginia or 2) Georgia or 3) Sonora and Chihuahua to Featherston he still comes up short of a EV majority.)

Do you have a preference or better likelihood between Johnston or Pepper as Long's VP, by the way?

No real preference. I think they are both reasonable choices though Pepper is probably more likely to have held statewide elective office by 1939 as it's hard to imagine a Rad Lib getting elected Governor or Senator in South Carolina unless they are also a fiery Thomas Watson/Ben Tillman style racial demagogue which I don't think Johnston was. (Not that Long's veep necessarily has to have held statewide elective office before. Johnston could be a respected Rad Lib congressmen and still be a credible veep candidate.)

I think that'd fit Long quite nicely there - if nothing else, he was good at his speeches and getting some movement with them. Whether he'd have any actual success with reclaiming territory is another matter though.

True. Deep down Smith probably wouldn't mind giving up Kentucky and Houston (they both vote Democrat after all and are probably a massive drain on US resources), but without a nasty, endless insurgency in both states it is unlikely he could politically survive agreeing to a plebiscite. (And like Michael B said, there is no way the US is agreeing to a plebiscite if the Confederates send "volunteers" to fight in Europe.)

That certainly works quite nicely for everyone; would it be genuine volunteers or something more like forced volunteering to remove those problems, do you think?

Probably both. Wily Knight for instance would probably genuinely like the idea of commanding a division in battle and jump at the chance, but there would also likely be plenty of Long's political opponents who would be given the option of either going to fight in Europe or suddenly finding themselves being investigated by Long's Justice Department.

Unless of course Freedm Party terrorists screw up the deal.

True, though most of the Freedom Party diehards were probably killed or jailed following Featherston's rebellion. I also suspect Long would come down very hard on any fillibustering.

A good way to train up Freedom Party partisans to make trouble later.

If they did send troops what would the USA do? Whilst it is unlikely that Smith would also send troops to Germany, they would put some sort of screws on the CSA for having done so on the principle that the action would gain the CSA a marker to collect on should the Entente win the war. History has taught the USA that the CSA is a North American stalking horse for the British and the French. They lost two wars because of European intervention. They are not going to allow a third if they can stop it.

Because of this, if territory had not been returned I would expect any negotiations to end. I would also expect some form of sanctions to be applied.

Sanctions would be a logical response, but in the canon timeline Smith pretty much did nothing in response to far more provocative Confederate behavior than this, so how likely is he to do anything here? (And OTL did Franco ever face any real punishment from the West for the Blue Division?)

 

[Techdread]

Garner's not a bad pick. Putting Texas in play for the Whigs is a pretty big deal, and OTL Garner was still game to run for president in 1940, so he was probably still pretty spry despite being in his 70s. A Garner pick will definitely fuel the "tired old men" line of attack on the Whigs though.

I thought it might work better, especially with the Garner profile over on the Filling the Gaps thread - seemed a good fit and would help to bring Texas into play for the Whigs against the Redemption League after they'd secured it in 1933. Also, Russell and Byrd might be a little too similar in terms of their support and I thought it might help to balance it out ideologically, if only a little.

Alrighty, here's how I see 1933 shaking out.

In the canon timeline, Featherston apparently ran away with the election in Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. Those are all eastern states where the Redemption League probably doesn't have much strength on the ground, so even with Knight's defection, Featherston should still carry all of them for 46 electoral votes.

Likewise in the canon time, the Whigs apparently carried Arkansas. If the Whigs won the state against a unified Freedom Party-Redemption League, they should easily win it when those two groups are fighting each other, so Arkansas's 9 electoral votes go to Longstreet.

Now in the canon timeline, when the initial returns from the eastern states come in, we don't get any results from Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. That suggests the vote in all of those states was pretty close, so how do they shake out in a timeline where the Freedom Party is weaker.

Virginia (12 EVs), I would give to Longstreet. Despite it being Featherston's home state the Freedom Party always seemed to underperform there in the novels. (They didn't carry it in either the 1921 or 1927 presidential elections, and came close but ultimately failed to win the Governorship there in 1931.) It's also Longstreet's home state, and even Freedom Party characters describe him as being a pretty good speaker, so it's hard to believe he'll lose his home state.

South Carolina (8 EVs), I would give to Featherston. Unlike Virginia, the Freedom Party apparently did win the Governorship in this state in 1931 in the novels, which suggests they are pretty strong there. A Clarence Potter scene also suggests that the Freedom Party is much better organized in the state than the Whigs are. It's probably a really close race, but I think Featherston squeaks out the win.

Georgia (14 EVs), Longstreet. Georgia's a tricky one because there is very little about its politics in the novels. Still, it seems significant that with all the many election descriptions we get in the novels, we never get one describing the Freedom Party winning or even being competitive in a statewide race there. That makes me think the Freedomites are weak in Georgia for some reason. Maybe the Whig state party there is unusually capable or maybe there is some Georgia specific revanchist party that keeps cutting into the Freedom Party's vote, but whatever the reason the Whigs seem likely to win this one.

Florida (6 EVs), Featherston. He carried the state in the 1921 election and in the canon timeline it seems that the Freedom Party won the Governorship there in 1931. That suggests the Freedomites are pretty strong in this state.

As for the rest of the Confederacy...

Given how well Long apparently has Louisiana locked down, its 10 EVs should go for Hull.

Texas went Featherston in both 1921 and 1927 but the novels suggest that the Redemption League is much stronger than the Freedom Party there, so it's most likely Wily Knight that picks up its 20 electoral votes this time. (If Featherston makes a major push on the state, he might be able to deny it to Knight, but in that case it probably just goes to the Whigs or Rad Libs.)

And that just leaves the Spanish speaking states. In the novels, the Freedom Party made pretty serious in roads in them. However, that was with a much stronger Freedom Party. Here, thanks to the defection of the Redemption League, the Freedom Party is probably going to find it much more difficult to fund raise in Texas (which is probably the richest Confederate state.) Likewise, the Freedomites will have a major new expense as they have to build up party infrastructure in Texas rather than just utilize the Redemption League's assets. With the Freedomites having less resources and more expenses they are going to have to make some budget cuts, and campaigning in the Spanish speaking states seems like a likely target for those cuts. If the Freedom Party doesn't make a significant investment in these states they all probably stay safely Radical Liberal, so I would give these 30 electoral votes to Hull.

So that produces a result of:

Featherston 60 EVs
Longstreet 35 EVs
Hull 40 EVs
Knight 20 EVs

which would send the election to the House of Representatives. (And even if we move either 1) Virginia or 2) Georgia or 3) Sonora and Chihuahua to Featherston he still comes up short of a EV majority.)

So we have a 1933 election looking like this:

And a 1939 election looking like this now:

No real preference. I think they are both reasonable choices though Pepper is probably more likely to have held statewide elective office by 1939 as it's hard to imagine a Rad Lib getting elected Governor or Senator in South Carolina unless they are also a fiery Thomas Watson/Ben Tillman style racial demagogue which I don't think Johnston was. (Not that Long's veep necessarily has to have held statewide elective office before. Johnston could be a respected Rad Lib congressmen and still be a credible veep candidate.)

I was just thinking whether Long would be willing to allow a VP candidate who might eventually become a threat in his own right to Long - obviously as he wouldn't be seeking re-election pertaining to the Confederate Constitution, but enough to harm any plans he might have. Johnston seemed to be the more pliable of the two, in that capacity.

True. Deep down Smith probably wouldn't mind giving up Kentucky and Houston (they both vote Democrat after all and are probably a massive drain on US resources), but without a nasty, endless insurgency in both states it is unlikely he could politically survive agreeing to a plebiscite. (And like Michael B said, there is no way the US is agreeing to a plebiscite if the Confederates send "volunteers" to fight in Europe.)

Of course - the risk of the canon Richmond Agreement nearly cost Smith the 1940 election, but if such requests were only delivered post-1940; after all, Long wouldn't be in office until then anyway and I would imagine his main focus would revitalising the nation's economy, industry and infrastructure over any foreign affairs to begin with. Assuming that a Second Great War begins on schedule for 1941, Long could have secured a promise by then from a re-elected Smith administration on a plebiscite, regained the territory and then later send his 'volunteers' overseas in the hopes of them not returning.

Probably both. Wily Knight for instance would probably genuinely like the idea of commanding a division in battle and jump at the chance, but there would also likely be plenty of Long's political opponents who would be given the option of either going to fight in Europe or suddenly finding themselves being investigated by Long's Justice Department.

Or Long could incarcerate them in his concentration camps, as he saw he was willing to do in canon whilst still Governor of Louisiana - that was the inspiration for the camps Featherston would go on to use for the Population Reduction, after all. Most people would probably choose the idea of fighting for a cause they might partially believe in rather than being stuck in the likes of Camp Dependable.

Unless of course Freedom Party terrorists screw up the deal.

True, though most of the Freedom Party diehards were probably killed or jailed following Featherston's rebellion. I also suspect Long would come down very hard on any filibustering.

I'd have thought the Freedom Party would have been wiped out ITTL's Richmond Putsch, if not in the immediate aftermath of it. Any lingering traces would probably be absorbed into the Redemption League and quietly at that given the bad blood between the two of them.

A good way to train up Freedom Party partisans to make trouble later.

If they did send troops what would the USA do? Whilst it is unlikely that Smith would also send troops to Germany, they would put some sort of screws on the CSA for having done so on the principle that the action would gain the CSA a marker to collect on should the Entente win the war. History has taught the USA that the CSA is a North American stalking horse for the British and the French. They lost two wars because of European intervention. They are not going to allow a third if they can stop it.

Because of this, if territory had not been returned I would expect any negotiations to end. I would also expect some form of sanctions to be applied.

Sanctions would be a logical response, but in the canon timeline Smith pretty much did nothing in response to far more provocative Confederate behavior than this, so how likely is he to do anything here? (And OTL did Franco ever face any real punishment from the West for the Blue Division?)

Smith was largely a dove on foreign policy, from what I can recall prior to the Second Great War - he was willing to appease Featherston to a large degree, but that was also when Featherston was in a strong position of strength over the United States.

Of course, OTL Huey Long was a staunch isolationist - he might be unwilling to allow any volunteers to fight in Europe if it risked igniting a war with the United States. And he would most likely wish to keep his rivals and enemies under his own lock & key, rather than let them travel abroad, potentially gaining some favour with foreign governments risking a foreign-backed takeover on their return.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I wonder what his racial policy would be. Then again, one wonders what the racial policy of the real Huey Long would have been.

Edit: okay, so he seems to be largely opportunistic and moderate and his supposed racial liberalism is overblown because he was largely for the (inequal) status quo, to the point of not being an opponent of lynching. But his brother on the other hand- this is an absolutely fascinating read.

Earl Long is highly underrated, it seems.

 

[Techdread]

I wonder what his racial policy would be. Then again, one wonders what the racial policy of the real Huey Long would have been.

Edit: okay, so he seems to be largely opportunistic and moderate and his supposed racial liberalism is overblown because he was largely for the (inequal) status quo, to the point of not being an opponent of lynching. But his brother on the other hand- this is an absolutely fascinating read.

Earl Long is highly underrated, it seems.

I've always seen him as an opportunist more than anything, especially in terms of his ideology as he seems to lack adherence to any particular one. Long was a man who would move whichever way the wind was blowing; I know that he had a large amount of support from the black community in Louisiana as his programs benefitted them as much as any other poor community.

Edit: Just looking over the TL-191 election maps that Turquoise Blue did, the electoral counts are different than the maps that we've been using. I know that neither are official canon, but is there a fan consensus about which is generally more acceptable?

With TB's electoral maps, we'd still have a no majority in 1933 with the results:

Featherston 82 EVs
Longstreet 47 EVs
Hull 47 EVs
Knight 33 EVs

But, 1939 would be a close margin win for Byrd:

Byrd 112 EVs
Long 109 EVs

 

[bguy]

So we have a 1933 election looking like this:

And a 1939 election looking like this now:

Good job on the maps. Looking at the 1933 one, it is rather scary seeing the Freedom Party with such a big, continuous block of territory. It makes it seem even more likely that the result of Featherston losing the election in the House of Representatives will be civil war.

Per the novels, the Freedom Party won three governorships in the 1929 elections. The novels don't say which states, but it seems most likely they would have been Texas, Mississippi, and Tennessee. (The novels show Mississippi and Tennessee electing Governors in 1921 and Texas doing so in 1925, so assuming their Governors are on 4 year terms, they would all be holding Governor elections in 1929, and those three states seem to be the three strongest Freedom Party states.) Likewise in 1931, the novels seem to have the Freedom Party win the Governorships of South Carolina, Florida, and Chihuahua. Now we can assume ITTL that the Governor of Texas is a Redemption League man, and the Freedom Party probably didn't win the Chihuahua Governorship, but that would still give the Freedomites four states where they control the Governorship (and thus presumably the state militias). If those four Governors are willing to support Featherston when he launches the Richmond putsch, he'll have a not insignificant army behind him.

I was just thinking whether Long would be willing to allow a VP candidate who might eventually become a threat in his own right to Long - obviously as he wouldn't be seeking re-election pertaining to the Confederate Constitution, but enough to harm any plans he might have. Johnston seemed to be the more pliable of the two, in that capacity.

A good point. Long will probably want his brother to follow him, so he won't want anyone too influential or capable in the veep slot.

Of course - the risk of the canon Richmond Agreement nearly cost Smith the 1940 election, but if such requests were only delivered post-1940; after all, Long wouldn't be in office until then anyway and I would imagine his main focus would revitalising the nation's economy, industry and infrastructure over any foreign affairs to begin with. Assuming that a Second Great War begins on schedule for 1941, Long could have secured a promise by then from a re-elected Smith administration on a plebiscite, regained the territory and then later send his 'volunteers' overseas in the hopes of them not returning.

Smith and the Socialists will still take a major political hit though if he agrees to a plebiscite. He got away with it in the original novels because enough of the voters didn't think Kentucky was worth fighting a war to keep, but here without a credible threat of war even Socialist voters will probably be furious at surrendering the territory. (And Smith might even have some aspirations for seeking a third term. TR already kind of broke the two term tradition by trying for a third term, and Smith seems like the kind of person who once he was in office never wanted to give it up.)

Of course, OTL Huey Long was a staunch isolationist - he might be unwilling to allow any volunteers to fight in Europe if it risked igniting a war with the United States. And he would most likely wish to keep his rivals and enemies under his own lock & key, rather than let them travel abroad, potentially gaining some favour with foreign governments risking a foreign-backed takeover on their return.

It could go either way, but I think Long is more likely to allow the volunteers. It basically accomplishes three things for him:

1) Clears out a bunch of troublemakers (who will hopefully get killed off in Europe);
2) Wins him some brownie points with the Entente nations (in case they win); and
3) Helps placate the Confederate voters that will expect the CSA to help the Entente nations. (The CSA was allied to Britain and France for a long time, so there is likely a lot of residual affection there. Those voters will be angry if the CSA looks like it is abandoning its allies.)

And if the US does react angrily to the move than it accomplishes a fourth thing:

4) Lets Long look like he is standing up to the US (which will be very popular with Confederate voters) without actually risking war with the US. (Long is probably sharp enough to get that Smith will never take the US to war over Confederate volunteers going to fight Germany.)

And even if the US does slap sanctions on the CS, the Confederate economy should get a big enough boast from selling war material to Britain and France that it can easily weather the sanctions.

With TB's electoral maps, we'd still have a no majority in 1933 with the results:

Featherston 82 EVs
Longstreet 47 EVs
Hull 47 EVs
Knight 33 EVs

But, 1939 would be a close margin win for Byrd:

Byrd 112 EVs
Long 109 EVs

I wonder if I was a little too generous to the Whigs in 1939. Even using Arkhangelsk's numbers, the Whigs came remarkably close to winning despite having presided over 10 years of economic misery and running a not particularly charismatic ticket.

Maybe we should also give Alabama to Long. OTL the state did elect Oscar Underwood and Hugo Black to statewide office, so it was clearly possible for (comparatively) progressive figures to win there. So long as Long makes clear promises about upholding white supremacy at the start of the campaign, and maybe brags a lot during the campaign about how many Marxist blacks his administration killed off during his Governorship, he can probably carry the state, and that would give Long the election even if we use TB's electoral numbers.

 

[Michael B]

4) Lets Long look like he is standing up to the US (which will be very popular with Confederate voters) without actually risking war with the US. (Long is probably sharp enough to get that Smith will never take the US to war over Confederate volunteers going to fight Germany.)

And even if the US does slap sanctions on the CS, the Confederate economy should get a big enough boast from selling war material to Britain and France that it can easily weather the sanctions.

On the selling war materials to Britain and France, it would be reasonable to assume that the Entente have naval superiority so whilst CSA ships would be at risk from U Boats, their potential trading partners won't be fully blockaded. In contrast US ships sailing to Germany would have to dodge an Entente blockade, that is unless Britian and France do not stop neutral ships in case they drag the USA into the war. Whilst such an action might also bring in the CSA, it would more advantageous to keep the USA out.

Of course German merchant ships would then be reflagged, but bombing and mining ports would increase insurance rates to a point where some companies would think that it was not worth it. This would favour another neutral country, Ireland as US ships could sail to and safely unload cargo there for transshipment by faster blockade runners (built courtesy of US shipyards).

In fact by both sides staying out of the war, they could really mint it. It would leave though the Germans well ahead in nuclear and aircraft technology come the end of the war.