Assuming no Soviet Union, whether the Whites win or Kerensky's republic, with no extreme bad example of socialism/communism to point at, how does that change the timing and amount of socialist programmes absorbed into Western Democracies because small communist parties are occasionally part of a coalition government or propping up a minority one?
Is Europe more socialist than OTL, or the same? Less?
Scandinavia?
Would Mao still have happened?
What about the USA? What about a USA where there is a CSA but no Sumter spark to cause a civil war? (USA-north has a much different cultural outlook than USA-aggregate including Dixie.) Could it reasonably have public health and be more like Canada OTL?
The Union saw the CSA as an existential threat because its independence would support the notion that any state that didn't like federal policy (or feared future federal policy) could just leave. Even if the Confederates secure the surrender of Ft. Sumter while Buchanan is in office (the only way I see it happening with a POD after secession), the north will not tolerate the existence of an independent CSA. There might be more prolonged attempts to coax the Confederacy not to leave, but they'd still fail because the differences were irreconcilable. With that being said if ASB result in a peaceful, successful secession, that would depend on which states in the upper south secede. Maryland and Delaware would probably abolish it if not in the 1860s than during 1870s. Kentucky was the last of the border states in OTL to ratify the 13th amendment, but that still leaves the question of the states which seceded after Ft. Sumter. I can't see them being willing to abolish it for a long time, perhaps the turn of the 20th century, assuming pressure from the other states to abolish it doesn't lead them to join the Confederacy. Even if slavery ceased to be the economic backbone, the southern elites would still want slaves as domestic servants and as sex slaves.In an ATL where the South secedes but the conflict at Fort Sumter doesn't happen so there's nothing to start the Civil War:
- How long before slave states like Maryland that stayed in the Union get rid of slavery?
- How many Black people filter up from the Confederacy to live in the USA? Where do they settle to get work?
To get the South to secede without the Civil War I think you'd need a POD during the Articles of Confederation era at the latest. In that case, then, yes, I guess the northern states would have a similar culture to Canada. Heck, the Canadian accents and accents from the northern USA sound very similar and pretty different from the Dixie accents. With that being said if it's public healthcare you're asking about, that should be doable even with a POD in the 20th century. Employer sponsored health insurance began in 1929 when teachers in Dallas, Texas signed a contract to get 21 days of care for an annual fee. It didn't really takeoff though until 1943, based on an interpretation of a 1942 law capping wages for the purposes of stabilizing prices in wartime industries. The easiest way to get a USA with public healthcare would probably be as a New Deal program. Less likely but still plausibly you could try getting it passed during World War II, (presumably with some war readiness spin to it), or if you avert the Vietnam War, as part of LBJ's Great Society.What about the USA? What about a USA where there is a CSA but no Sumter spark to cause a civil war? (USA-north has a much different cultural outlook than USA-aggregate including Dixie.) Could it reasonably have public health and be more like Canada OTL?
The Union saw the CSA as an existential threat because its independence would support the notion that any state that didn't like federal policy (or feared future federal policy) could just leave.
Seward was more open to negotiation on slavery to keep the states in the Union. He was not more willing to let them secede. It was not just Lincoln, who saw the CSA as an existential threat; it was a matter of public opinion in the north. French and British consuls weren't going to change that. Seward was willing to go to war against any nation recognizing the Confederacy.No, that was Lincoln who saw it like that. Seward did not. If Lincoln had gotten is Illinois senator seat then Seward would likely have been the Republican nominee and likely have become president. He was far more given to negotiations than Lincoln was. Without war, nations like France and Great Britain are more likely to send consuls. Remember, he initially saw that Emancipation Proclamation as something that would do more harm than good to the USA on the international stage, and he thought very highly (perhaps too highly) of himself as a master of foreign relations and negotiations. Seward, always trying to negotiate things behind Lincoln's back as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, would keep doing that as President, and after a couple of years the recognition by great Britain would be almost inevitable given that OTL there were many powerful people like Russell, Gladstone and even Palmerston to some extent interested in doing so.
Once that happens, the USA going to war against the CSA becomes orders of magnitude more difficult, diplomatically speaking.
The Rock of Chickamauga (don't know if I got the name right) is doing this right now.Has there ever been a timeline where the CSA wins the Civil War, but falls apart due to internal struggles without the war giving them a common enemy?
Can a Confederate Government in Exile have any effects after 1865? Where would they be likely to end up?
It is a good question, I personally think that if they were able to continue it, perhaps in later times of Ming Dynasty they could immigrate people to colonies outside of China, thus reduce the damage of various peasent uprisings.What if Zheng He's expeditions were never discontinued by the Ming Dynasty?
CAny you give us a link bro it seems a good readDoes alternatehistory.com has any AH stories that are not written in the forms of history records but in the form of actual story?(AH of real world history, I know Fandom AH got plenty of actual stories) I've been on this website for a long time and I noticed that most alternate history stories here seems focus on the "history" part, so much so that most "stories" here don't feel like a story, rather like history record of what actually happened. It's intriguing, but also a bit of strange to me. On Chinese website, most "alternatehistory" stories are first and foremost stories, I'm sure that I have never read of any Chinese alternatehistory "stories" in the style of history record. Most Chinese stories are like, say for example, one of my favorite story is about a guy self insert into the last emperor of Ming Dynasty and try his best to prevent the fall of Ming Dynasty. There are a lot of part of the story focus on his effort to try to capitalize China at the time and reform the army and give more rights to peasents, but there are also many part of the stories focus on his relationship with the empress and his other consorts, one of the driving forces of him to fight so hard is that he does not want his children die like they did in the history, most Chinese alternatehistory stories that I read of, regardless of their qualities, are like this, but as far as I see there seems not a single stories here is actual story instead of history record.
The name of it is 挽明, literal meaning is "Save Ming Dynasty", or something like that. If you are able to read pure Chinese then I promise you it will be worth your while, though unfortunately the author has declared that he will not continue the story, for reasons unknown to me. Nevertheless, the story was long enough by the point he stopped.CAny you give us a link bro it seems a good read
You could probably achieve this just by having Burchard not make a reference to "Romanism" at a campaign rally, energizing the Catholic vote against him a week before the election.'James G. Blaine Beats Grover Cleveland In 1884'.