No doubt, but @KingSweden24 has pretty much hinted that 1915 us a gravy onslaught year in favour if the union as men and materiel dominate over their confederate counterpart
Cinco de Mayo
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
- Status
Thankfully for the US he’ll be fired before too long for, uh… obvious reasons
Sort of a late 1863/early 1864 counterpart, I would say
Guy never should have gotten the job in the first place. Everyone and their brother knew that tensions were high - hence why both parties realized the need to expand the armed forces under Hearst in the first place. A war breaking out isn't exactly a surprise.
I just don't get it. Hughes explicitly ran on replacing what the Liberals (probably rightly TBH) viewed as a Hearst Cabinet full of under qualified party hacks. I understand that you've gotta appease the bosses - even if it is the height of hypocrisy when you campaign against the exact same thing, politicians being hypocrites is nothing new.
And this Herrick fella seems like a nice guy and successful in his civilian life. So why not give him Commerce or Treasury or something more in line with his skill set? Why give him the War Department and then, after it has been shown he's way over his head, why wait to fire him months after 9/9 instead of right away? It is a complete misstep by a guy who really should have known better in Hughes.
There was a discussion sometime ago about them reaching Gettysburg for "a-historicaL irony". I think it was more tongue in cheek than serious.
I inferred in my post, I think, about Fredericksburg in a WW1 situation. With the Union holding Maryes Heights and the north of the Rappahanock and just blasting away at the confederate lines, but its like a similar Somme-Verdun situation
Cueing the GAW's equivalent of Gallipoli/Normandy, come 1916, I can definitely see the Union utilizing its naval superiority in order to bypass the Confederate defensive line in northeast Virginia, posthumously restoring McClellan's reputation as a military strategist by reviving his Urbanna plan of 1861-62. Of all the Chesapeake tributaries, the lower Rappahannock and Middle Peninsula is probably the safest area in which to operate, considering the fortification of the Peninsula/Hampton Roads. Urbanna itself is only some 50 miles from Richmond. Nonetheless, there are several drawbacks to such an operation. Namely, the lack of infrastructure, timbered wetlands, and the river system, although the U.S. can also seize Saluda before meeting serious resistance along Dragon Run. The Confederate frontline in the East then conducts its final contraction in order to more feasibly reinforce that Peninsula, probably anchoring its left at Orange C.H. on the south bank of the Rapidan and its right at Port Royal on the Rappahannock, with its center occupying the Wilderness of Spotsylvania. The Southern Government and Army then probably prepares further defense-in-depth for the security of the capital, constructing back-to-back fortification along the Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and Chickahominy Rivers.
In short, the Confederacy did not err terribly in selecting its permanent capital.
Another question with respect to territorial changes- Could the U.S. take parts of Baja California from Mexico? As well, if Kentucky is sufficiently destroyed- could we see mass black resettlement there? Would be interesting to see a new state carved out and annexed into the Union. Maybe the state of Franklin or something to that effect.
'The Storms That Drove Old Dixie Down'
The 1916 Gulf, Charleston, Texas, and Pensacola hurricanes will definitely be the Confederate equivalent to the 1913 Great Lakes storm, if even more disastrous. Disruption and damage incurred to the Southern heartland's industry, agriculture, shipping, port facilities, housing, telegraph lines, and railroads may be decisive, even suspending communications with Mexico. There is also the Chattahoochee flood, imperiling Confederate Army communications with Atlanta, but the U.S. Army will also have to contend with that of the Tennessee and their own base at Chattanooga. Overall, it would result in the probable lull of any operations in northwest Georgia, similar to June 1864 IOTL. It be like the descent of the Four Horsemen, especially amidst the backdrop of total war and the ongoing struggles for Richmond and Atlanta.
Farewell to western North Carolina. You'd have the entire congregation of Richmond chanting 'Idumea'.
The 1916 Gulf, Charleston, Texas, and Pensacola hurricanes will definitely be the Confederate equivalent to the 1913 Great Lakes storm, if even more disastrous. Disruption and damage incurred to the Southern heartland's industry, agriculture, shipping, port facilities, housing, telegraph lines, and railroads may be decisive, even suspending communications with Mexico. There is also the Chattahoochee flood, imperiling Confederate Army communications with Atlanta, but the U.S. Army will also have to contend with that of the Tennessee and their own base at Chattanooga. Overall, it would result in the probable lull of any operations in northwest Georgia, similar to June 1864 IOTL. It be like the descent of the Four Horsemen, especially amidst the backdrop of total war and the ongoing struggles for Richmond and Atlanta.
Farewell to western North Carolina. You'd have the entire congregation of Richmond chanting 'Idumea'.
I think it's a mistake to assume these storms will happen along the same lines as OTL. The POD was over fifty years prior. Butterflies are enormous. In fact, the example of minuscule changes impacting extreme weather (i.e: a butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane) is precisely where we get the term "butterfly effect" to begin with.
We've had other OTL weather events happen on schedule in this ATL - and though I'm usually pretty strict with my butterfly effect, I'd also say that weather patterns and what influence events could have one them make my head spin; I'd say including them on schedule makes as much sense, if not more, than just having a major storm show up because the narritive needs it (or doesn't).
I doubt the US is going to be picking up any Mexican Territory in this war; its been suggested before that Mexico leaves the war with a white peace or, at least, something so close to it that it doesn't matter. My personal feelings is that Mexico, by the time it becomes evident that the war is lost, holds a bargining chip or two (be it either parts of SoCal or the canal itself) that they are able to get very good terms indeed. Coupled with the fact that Mexico's army behaves very professionally, especially in comparison to to the Confederates, there doesn't seem to be too much desire on the part of the US to overly punish the Empire for it's involvement in the war.
As for Kentucky; I'm not sure that the US would really want any territories which are majority freemen. They're going to be dealing with a refugee crisis, as former slaves are fleeing into the US to escape the Southrons - and we can only imagine the types of headaches this is going to cause - and willingly adding more Freedmen as a result seems like something that the government would be less than keen on. Remember that, though this US is less overtly racist than the ATL US during the same period, it is hardly a utopia either. Liberals (and Dems!) can, and have, spoken about the need for abolition - but there is a big gap between that, offering sanctuary to the former slaves who request it, and willingly annexing a state comprised primarily of ex-slave refugees. Though the lessened racial tensions in the *US stem from the failed Civil War and an effort by Americans to differentiate themselves from their Southron cousins, it also is because the African-American population is significantly smaller in the Union and, as a result, they are not seen as a threat (the fact that most of those who are there are loyal Liberals doesn't hurt matters either). I suspect that once we see a major immigration of Freedmen into the US, there's sadly going to be an upswing in racial animosity towards the newcomers; and adding parts of Kentucky or Tennessee in this type of scenerio would make that worse.
Forgive me, but I am not sure I completely follow what you’re saying here. Probabilistically speaking, weather events occurring identically as OTL is extraordinarily unlikely, so realism inevitably suffers by retaining them.
Thanks for all this- this certainly makes sense. I am just surprised the U.S. public wouldn't demand some substantial concessions on the part of Mexico, especially after the enormous destruction inflicted by the war.
Yes, but it's also nearly impossible to judge how a specific event and it's knock on effects would impact the weather. The result being, that any alt-weather event would simply be the result of authorial fiat or deus ex machina; which is also less than pleasing from the point of view of a writer or reading. And we're already in a timeline where Huey Long is still born 31 years after the POD; and if births aren't effeccted, it seems safe to say that this is a world where major weather events occure as well.
And, I have to say - I never thought I'd run into someone with a stronger stance on butterfly effect than me! (And I don't mean that as a diss or jab at all! I'm one of those "No one born 9 months after the POD" sorts; though when we get into complicated systems like the weather, its a bit too above my head )
Well, part of it is also that, prior to the war, the US doesn't have a long land border with Mexico; and though it will gain one once it absorbs the Arizona Territory, I think there's a bit of a sense of not wanting to bite off more than they can chew. I also think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the northern territories of Mexico, especially Baja, are more developed than in OTL; meaning that annexing those lands means also bringing many hostile Mexicans into the country. It all ends up being too much hassle, especially when the Union also has the occupation of the Confederacy and imposing Abolition to deal with (and, likely, the growing threat from Brazil - and taking land would be a sure fire way of driving Mexico into the Brazillian camp; rather than possibly gaining them as an ally or at least keeping them neutral after the war)
When it comes to Weather I think its hard to butterfly. Yes its 50 years, but the knockon effects are hard to judge in their entirety.
Frankly these specific storms may not happen, It could just be one hurricane for 1916., it could now be seven hurricanes....or hell, it could be butterflied to be a year before, or a year after 1916.
Weather is very hard to judge. although @DanMcCollum says it better below
Didnt we have a discussion about President Robert Redford 1989-1997?
I swear that was this thread....
Getting back to this a bit late but my loose rule on weather butterflies is just going with existing events as much as possible. Obviously, volcanic/seismic activity you wouldn't butterfly in the way you would a storm.
- Status