TL-191: Filling the Gaps
- Thread starter Craigo
- Start date
I doubt they are ever returning to power. The Liberals won more seats than them in 1945.
I'm surprised Blaine got that many votes (popular and electoral) as he lost the Second Mexican War and destroyed the Republicans as a national party.
I never figured that Jake Featherston looked like Crispin Glover.
Whatever happened to Donald Partridge? He is confirmed to have been arrested after ending the war (and the existence of his own country); the Turtledove Wiki, the text or any other sources never mention whether Partridge was executed like the other Freedom Party leaders, if he just got locked up for a while or if he was turned loose.
I never figured that Jake Featherston looked like Crispin Glover.
Whatever happened to Donald Partridge? He is confirmed to have been arrested after ending the war (and the existence of his own country); the Turtledove Wiki, the text or any other sources never mention whether Partridge was executed like the other Freedom Party leaders, if he just got locked up for a while or if he was turned loose.
It's been a while, so here are some more leader lists.
List of Heads of State of the Kingdom of Spain (1874-1939)
Afonso XII (House of Bourbon) (1874-1887)
Afonso XIII (House of Bourbon) (1887-1939)
List of Heads of State of the Spanish State (1939-1972)
José Antonio Primo de Rivera (FE-JONS) (1936-1947) *
Emilio Mola (FE-JONS) (1947-1970) †
Ximeno Domínguez (Military) (1970-1972)
List of Monarchs of the Kingdom of Portugal
Luis I (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) (1861-1889)
Carlos I (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) (1889-1920)
Manuel II (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) (1920-1946)
Duarte II (House of Braganza) (1946-1982)
Duarte III (House of Braganza) (1982- )
List of Prime Ministers of Portugal
António Teixeira de Sousa (Regenerator) (1910-1912)
José Luciano de Castro (Progressist) (1912-1914)
José Maria de Alpoim (Progressist) (1914-1916)
Bernardino Machado (Regenerator) (1916-1918)
Sidónio Pais (National Party) (1918-1920)
Bernardino Machado (Regenerator) (1920-1922)
Duarte Leite Pereira da Silva (Liberal) (1922-1924)
Francisco Gomes Teixeira (Regenerator) (1924-1926)
Sidónio Pais (National Party) (1926) † †
Henrique Mitchell de Paiva Cabral Couceiro (Independent) (1926-1933)**
José Hipólito Raposo (Integralismo Lusitano) (1933-1946)**
José Norton de Matos (None) (1946-1947)
† = Died in Office.
† † = Assassinated.
* = Deposed
** = Removed from Office
List of Heads of State of the Kingdom of Spain (1874-1939)
Afonso XII (House of Bourbon) (1874-1887)
Afonso XIII (House of Bourbon) (1887-1939)
List of Heads of State of the Spanish State (1939-1972)
José Antonio Primo de Rivera (FE-JONS) (1936-1947) *
Emilio Mola (FE-JONS) (1947-1970) †
Ximeno Domínguez (Military) (1970-1972)
List of Monarchs of the Kingdom of Portugal
Luis I (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) (1861-1889)
Carlos I (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) (1889-1920)
Manuel II (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) (1920-1946)
Duarte II (House of Braganza) (1946-1982)
Duarte III (House of Braganza) (1982- )
List of Prime Ministers of Portugal
António Teixeira de Sousa (Regenerator) (1910-1912)
José Luciano de Castro (Progressist) (1912-1914)
José Maria de Alpoim (Progressist) (1914-1916)
Bernardino Machado (Regenerator) (1916-1918)
Sidónio Pais (National Party) (1918-1920)
Bernardino Machado (Regenerator) (1920-1922)
Duarte Leite Pereira da Silva (Liberal) (1922-1924)
Francisco Gomes Teixeira (Regenerator) (1924-1926)
Sidónio Pais (National Party) (1926) † †
Henrique Mitchell de Paiva Cabral Couceiro (Independent) (1926-1933)**
José Hipólito Raposo (Integralismo Lusitano) (1933-1946)**
José Norton de Matos (None) (1946-1947)
† = Died in Office.
† † = Assassinated.
* = Deposed
** = Removed from Office
Last edited:
There is a possibility and likelihood that krampus will be far known and likely be a part of the American Christmas traditions
Rest in peace those TL-191 Yankee kids
Rest in peace those TL-191 Yankee kids
I respectfully disagree with the Portuguese monarchy surviving. From your head-cannon post on the Photos thread, Carlos I surviving ITTL and Prince Royal Luís Filipe dying wouldn't have discredited the Republican movement IMO. Reading about the Regicide and the lead-up to it, the event only delayed the abolition of the monarchy, and normalized the political violence that characterized the legal anarchy of the First Republic. Demands for change were still widespread after popular anger from the British ultimatum against them in Africa, and other calls for reform.
Why does Primo de Rivera get overthrown according to your head-cannon? Oh, and I think Mola might've still died in a plane crash, for parallelism purposes, but that's just me.
P.S. I like how you tie it into to 'After the End' right there.
--
Going back to Portugal, also like how in your 'Photos' post, the Monarchy becomes semi-actionist authoritarian, then switches back to democracy after GW2, and then transition to the Federation in 'After the End'. In my head cannon, to disagree with David, Portugal still becomes a dictatorship, gets overthrown sometime after GW2 inn a similar fashion to the Carnation Revolution, and the independence of their African colonies still happens.
Dunno, depends on what the USA Tribunals think how guilty he was of much of the Freedom Party Actions, till they realized he was a glorified clerk...so just a short prison sentence?
He probably have a lighter sentence compared to the other Freedom members of CSA who probably has surrendered after the war, so I see him having a couple of years until he release but with heavily surveillance over his life
Pangur
Donor
If I have this right he was Vice President of CSA so I can't see him getting of with anything less than life , I'm thinking Hess
I think he will still be heavily monitored for the rest of life even after his short sentence
A few general thoughts I've been having about TL-191 US Politics, mainly posted to provoke further discussion
I'd like to put forwards the case that the Butler faction of the Republicans, rather than just entering the Democrats to influence their policy after the Second Mexican War, rather almost completely took over the Democratic Party, resulting in just about the most successful program of entryism in TL-191's history. There are a few reasons I believe this to be the case; Every canonical Democratic President and Presidential candidate after the Second Mexican War that we know of was an otl Republican, and just about the only otl Dem with any significance within the party is Truman. Most other otl Democrats are Socialists.
To understand why this is we have to get into the function of the Republican Party after the Civil War in otl. In the 72 years between 1860 and 1932, the Democrats won exactly four Presidential elections. That makes for 16 of 72 years under Democratic Presidents, not including Andrew Johnson. The Republicans truly became a natural governing party, and as such became the party of all of the post-civil war "in" groups, most importantly the northern bourgeois industrialists and businessmen. The Democrats meanwhile became a broad tent of everyone left out of the post-civil war order, namely, southern whites, anti-corruption crusaders, and immigrants. The Confederate victory in the War of Secession doesn't really change the balance of power in this regard; the north will still industrialise, and the otl supporters of the Republicans will still want a government that conforms to their interest, in a sense abiding by the Hamiltonian lineage of the Republicans, rather than the primary Jeffersonian or Jacksonian agrarian-populist lineage of the Democrats.
As the Republicans flounder therefore, these industrialists who constitute the US' ruling class have to find a new vessel for their preferred form of government; continued government by the Democrats in their current form is not desirable, so they can either form a new Hamiltonian party, or try to appropriate the Democrats. Butler dictates their course through his decision to cross the floor, and the "party switch" of sorts comes about by the turn of the century, with the (canonical) Presidency of Thomas Reed, otl Czar of the late-third party system Republicans, and with the (non-canonical) defection of William Jennings Bryan to be the Republican Party's Presidential Candidate, bringing with him the agrarian populism of the Democratic tradition. The Democrats therefore take the Hamiltonian lineage, and become the preferred party of the industrialists, therefore being a tarriff party, unlike otl. The Republicans, meanwhile, become more agrarian, populist, Jeffersonian, and similar to the free trader Democrats of otl. One area where the parties have not necessarily switched is the issue of parliamentary (congressional) or presidential government. The Democrats will still probably favour a strong executive, while the Republicans are more congressionally minded. The Whigs in the CSA also derive from the Hamiltonian tradition more than the Jeffersonian one[1].
The Socialists, meanwhile, like the Labour Party in the UK, is largely distinct from the previous Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian (Whig and Tory[2]) traditions that previously found themselves in each of the major parties in their country. Through Lincoln there is some link to the Hamiltonian side (Lincoln was originally a Whig after all), but the fact is the Socialists are very much a new development in this regard. They likely conform to their international comrades' preference for parliamentary, rather than executive rule however. Like the Labour Party of the '20s and '30s, issues of free trade and protectionism will likely complicate relations between farmers and industrial workers in the party.
The Socialists probably transform US politics even further through their being a mass party. Party dues were (and still are!) foreign to the Democrats and Republicans of otl, but the Socialists will probably force at least the Democrats to change in that regard. What results is a party system much more familiar to foreign observers; unlike otl, where until recently the major parties have been coalitions of often disparate regional and ethnic interests, the Democrat-Socialist duopoly is ideologically charged, with smaller but more committed party membership.
The high point of Republican electoral fortunes after the Second Mexican War prior to 1944 I see as likely being 1892, with a more western focused candidate (John Sherman?), while the pre-Great War Socialist high I would expect to be a Robert La Follette run in 1908. The Republicans in my mind first fail to win any states in 1900, then in 1908, then in 1916, and then from every election between and including 1924 and 1932.
From 1920, its pretty clear that a new party system distinct from the Democratic dominance of 1884-1920 has emerged. I see Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, Illinois, and New York as the largest swing states of that election. By 1928, the Socialists are probably better positioned in New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, though the latter two are still more competitive, while competition moves more towards the plains as the Socialists cannibalise the Republican vote. By 1936, lower New England may well be the nation's swingy-est region, a breakthrough that I think is best positioned to continue to shift that formerly solid blue region red. Smith's Catholicism meanwhile probably hurts in the plains Blackford called home. My version of the 1940 election sees a a few trends continue/start up; Smith does worse than Sinclair or Blackford in '28, yet he still wins a New England state in Rhode Island, reflecting strengthening Socialist fortunes in the region. Meanwhile Taft does better in the lower-north, which I expect to be a defining factor in the post 1944 elections. The Mormon vote likely goes hard for Smith, giving him states like Wyoming, Nevada, and Idaho, which he previously lost in '36. It is these gains which are most preserved by La Follette in defeat in 1944. More broadly the shift from fifth (1920-1944) to sixth (1944-whenever a Socialist landslide changes the game again) party systems probably see the Socialists do better on the West Coast, in New England[3], and in the rockies, while continued anger at the Richmond agreement proves most potent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Indiana, Illinois, and New Jersey.
[1] They're sceptical of Democracy, are founded by Longstreet, an otl Republican, and have to be developmentalists and centralists for the Confederate economy to be able to fight a Great War
[2] Though not necessarily respectively
[3] Muskie I see as likely to bring Maine into the Socialists' column, as he did for the Democrats in otl
@Zoidberg12 @Tiro @bguy Thoughts?
I'd like to put forwards the case that the Butler faction of the Republicans, rather than just entering the Democrats to influence their policy after the Second Mexican War, rather almost completely took over the Democratic Party, resulting in just about the most successful program of entryism in TL-191's history. There are a few reasons I believe this to be the case; Every canonical Democratic President and Presidential candidate after the Second Mexican War that we know of was an otl Republican, and just about the only otl Dem with any significance within the party is Truman. Most other otl Democrats are Socialists.
To understand why this is we have to get into the function of the Republican Party after the Civil War in otl. In the 72 years between 1860 and 1932, the Democrats won exactly four Presidential elections. That makes for 16 of 72 years under Democratic Presidents, not including Andrew Johnson. The Republicans truly became a natural governing party, and as such became the party of all of the post-civil war "in" groups, most importantly the northern bourgeois industrialists and businessmen. The Democrats meanwhile became a broad tent of everyone left out of the post-civil war order, namely, southern whites, anti-corruption crusaders, and immigrants. The Confederate victory in the War of Secession doesn't really change the balance of power in this regard; the north will still industrialise, and the otl supporters of the Republicans will still want a government that conforms to their interest, in a sense abiding by the Hamiltonian lineage of the Republicans, rather than the primary Jeffersonian or Jacksonian agrarian-populist lineage of the Democrats.
As the Republicans flounder therefore, these industrialists who constitute the US' ruling class have to find a new vessel for their preferred form of government; continued government by the Democrats in their current form is not desirable, so they can either form a new Hamiltonian party, or try to appropriate the Democrats. Butler dictates their course through his decision to cross the floor, and the "party switch" of sorts comes about by the turn of the century, with the (canonical) Presidency of Thomas Reed, otl Czar of the late-third party system Republicans, and with the (non-canonical) defection of William Jennings Bryan to be the Republican Party's Presidential Candidate, bringing with him the agrarian populism of the Democratic tradition. The Democrats therefore take the Hamiltonian lineage, and become the preferred party of the industrialists, therefore being a tarriff party, unlike otl. The Republicans, meanwhile, become more agrarian, populist, Jeffersonian, and similar to the free trader Democrats of otl. One area where the parties have not necessarily switched is the issue of parliamentary (congressional) or presidential government. The Democrats will still probably favour a strong executive, while the Republicans are more congressionally minded. The Whigs in the CSA also derive from the Hamiltonian tradition more than the Jeffersonian one[1].
The Socialists, meanwhile, like the Labour Party in the UK, is largely distinct from the previous Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian (Whig and Tory[2]) traditions that previously found themselves in each of the major parties in their country. Through Lincoln there is some link to the Hamiltonian side (Lincoln was originally a Whig after all), but the fact is the Socialists are very much a new development in this regard. They likely conform to their international comrades' preference for parliamentary, rather than executive rule however. Like the Labour Party of the '20s and '30s, issues of free trade and protectionism will likely complicate relations between farmers and industrial workers in the party.
The Socialists probably transform US politics even further through their being a mass party. Party dues were (and still are!) foreign to the Democrats and Republicans of otl, but the Socialists will probably force at least the Democrats to change in that regard. What results is a party system much more familiar to foreign observers; unlike otl, where until recently the major parties have been coalitions of often disparate regional and ethnic interests, the Democrat-Socialist duopoly is ideologically charged, with smaller but more committed party membership.
The high point of Republican electoral fortunes after the Second Mexican War prior to 1944 I see as likely being 1892, with a more western focused candidate (John Sherman?), while the pre-Great War Socialist high I would expect to be a Robert La Follette run in 1908. The Republicans in my mind first fail to win any states in 1900, then in 1908, then in 1916, and then from every election between and including 1924 and 1932.
From 1920, its pretty clear that a new party system distinct from the Democratic dominance of 1884-1920 has emerged. I see Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, Illinois, and New York as the largest swing states of that election. By 1928, the Socialists are probably better positioned in New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, though the latter two are still more competitive, while competition moves more towards the plains as the Socialists cannibalise the Republican vote. By 1936, lower New England may well be the nation's swingy-est region, a breakthrough that I think is best positioned to continue to shift that formerly solid blue region red. Smith's Catholicism meanwhile probably hurts in the plains Blackford called home. My version of the 1940 election sees a a few trends continue/start up; Smith does worse than Sinclair or Blackford in '28, yet he still wins a New England state in Rhode Island, reflecting strengthening Socialist fortunes in the region. Meanwhile Taft does better in the lower-north, which I expect to be a defining factor in the post 1944 elections. The Mormon vote likely goes hard for Smith, giving him states like Wyoming, Nevada, and Idaho, which he previously lost in '36. It is these gains which are most preserved by La Follette in defeat in 1944. More broadly the shift from fifth (1920-1944) to sixth (1944-whenever a Socialist landslide changes the game again) party systems probably see the Socialists do better on the West Coast, in New England[3], and in the rockies, while continued anger at the Richmond agreement proves most potent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Indiana, Illinois, and New Jersey.
[1] They're sceptical of Democracy, are founded by Longstreet, an otl Republican, and have to be developmentalists and centralists for the Confederate economy to be able to fight a Great War
[2] Though not necessarily respectively
[3] Muskie I see as likely to bring Maine into the Socialists' column, as he did for the Democrats in otl
@Zoidberg12 @Tiro @bguy Thoughts?
Another thing I was wondering was about historiography regarding the Democratic-Republicans. The Democrats have traditionally regarded themselves as a direct continuation of Jefferson's Republicans. Considering how dominant the Democrats become, and how sidelined the Republicans are, would that type of historiography become mainstream, leading to Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe being considered Democrats, or would the transformation of the Democrats in the late 19th century lead to them trying to distance themselves from those Jeffersonian roots?
bguy
Donor
Your analysis looks solid. The only point I would really question is Pennsylvania as a swing state. At least IOTL Pennsylvania was a very conservative state at that time. It voted for the Republican presidential candidate by more than 65% in every election in the '20s and even voted for Hoover in 1932 (and not by a small margin either as Hoover carried the state by 5 points.) Thus I would expect Pennsylvania to be a solid Democratic state in TL-191.
What's your take on Indiana in TL-191? It's always seemed strange to me that Turtledove had it as a Socialist stronghold since it's not nearly as urbanized as the other mid-west states.
Likewise what do you think about Wisconsin in TL-191? Turtledove depicts it as a Socialist state, but at least IOTL while it was the state of Robert La Follette, it was also the state of Joe McCarthy, so there's clearly a potentially strong right wing element in the state as well. (It also has a large German-American population which you would think would support the US alliance with Germany and be upset with the Socialists for letting that alliance weaken in the '20s.)
Would Smith have lost those states in 1936? At least IOTL the western states at that time tended to be economically progressive, and they were the most pacifistic part of the country, so that's the part of the country that should be the most hostile to the Democrats.
IIRC, the state was solidly Republican mainly due to the GOP machine in Philadelphia, which is reflected somewhat when Flora says that Philadelphia is a reactionary city compared to New York. In otl Republican support fell significantly after 1932, to the point where it became pretty representative of the national average. The state is mentioned to be swingy in 1928, when Blackford wins it, and at the start of election night 1944 Flora thinks it’s a state La Follette ought to win. I imagine the division between Democrat-leaning Philadelphia and Socialist Pittsburgh plays a key role in the state’s politics, and for the Socialists to win again after 1944 they may need to break into Philly a bit.
I honestly think Turtledove had it that way solely because it’s Debs’ home state. His influence has to be part of the explaination, perhaps the stronger Republican vote also plays a role? This is honestly one that kinda stumps me, but in the Hoi4 mod I have it evenly divided between the Republicans and Socialists by 1936.
I imagine the labor movement in general is stronger to a significant degree, which is part of why I think the upper-Midwest is more Socialist than it was Democratic in otl. Republican vote splitting on the right could also help, until it doesn’t when Stassen wins it in 1944. La Follette was probably one of the first Socialist governors, so he probably built a lot of support. It’s also important to note that McCarthy wasn’t considered particularly conservative until after he entered office; he had the support of the communist-aligned unions, who hated La Follette the younger. He did get re-elected after that, but I suspect that his building of a national profile for himself had a lot to do with that.
As for the German factor, foreign policy is of lower importance in the ‘20s, the Socialists never openly denounce Germany, and the connection to the “home country” will weaken at some point, if obviously later than otl. The Socialists iirc did well in otl among Germans, so I don’t see a huge reason why that would change.
Montana was a pacifist stronghold in otl, but in TL-191 it’s apparently a Remembrance stronghold, so I’m not sure otl pacifism really holds over well, especially with all of the otl isolationist Republicans like Taft who become belligerent Democrats. I mainly have Smith lose there because he’s more of an eastern socialist, even if he’s a moderate, and the Catholic issue does play a small role. I have him win Dakota and Colorado, since the consensus is they’re pretty steadfastly red, and I imagine he came close in Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming, but lost them by a few points or so. Bill Borah’s presence on the ticket will probably help Hoover most there as well. Those are the numbers I’m using for the Hoi4 mod at least.
Last edited:
bguy
Donor
It's weird though because if the Democrats control Philadelphia and the Socialists control Pittsburgh then that should give the Democrats a major advantage statewide since Philadelphia circa 1920 has about 3 times as many people as Pittsburgh. I would just dismiss it as Coolidge having run a particularly poor campaign in 1928, but the fact that the Democrats nominated him again in 1932 suggests they weren't too disappointed by his 1928 performance.
Well Montana at least was actually invaded in the Second Mexican War, so it makes sense that its people would be more militaristic than IOTL.
Fair enough.
To balance it out the Democratic advantage in Philly would probably be smaller than the Socialist one in Pittsburgh, with the Socialists doing well enough in rural Pennsylvania to make the state competitive. The divide is actually explicitly mentioned on election night 1928.
Another state that’s weird to me is New Jersey. It was lean R in otl but in 1944 Flora says it’s strongly Socialist. It’s Sinclair’s home state, so maybe that does a bit to explain it, but it’s closer in 1928 than 1944. I find it weird in general.
That’s part of it, and Montana is probably the most extreme example because of it, but it still goes to show that pacifism doesn’t really map cleanly over timelines.
There’s also the fact that Coolidge won Idaho and Nevada in 1928. It’s an election we’re meant to think is pretty close, and Blackford is the sort of Socialist who should do well in the west, so the region is still probably at least lean-D.
The reasons Smith does poorly in the west are also the same reasons he wins lower New England. Catholic Moderate Easterners are the sort of Socialists who do well in Massachusetts.
Last edited: