Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Geordie]

This is why a Buchanan analogue AH would not work, as he happened to end up considered divisive and indecisive at precisely the wrong time. He's now generally considered the worse president OTL. Unfairly as it obviously would be, his shortcomings as president would have been twisted in all sorts of ways in the late 19th Century around his sexuality. Probably for the best that serious speculation was held off for a century or so.

The thing is, I reckon that the nastiness would be pretty bad with a divisive character for a long time after the 19th century was over. As a hypothetical, opinions on Carter and Dubya (to pick two at random) are somewhat divided. Not to Buchanan levels, but both have a fair bit of hate. If either or both of these were homosexual, bisexual or anything else, their failings could be blamed on this "deviancy", and equally all of similar orientation would be seen as having the same failings*. Ladd coming out posthumously heavily implies that TTL isn't ready for such a president in the late 19th/early 20th century. I'm doubting whether OTL would be ready for such things 100 years later**.

*Probably only by a vocal minority, but they sure would be vocal.
**Not just the US. I can't imagine that the thought of an openly gay or bisexual British Prime Minister would play any better...

 

[Glen]

The reaction regarding Ladd's revelation may well be tempered by how his time in office was viewed politically. If he was a divisive figure when president, his opponents will have another stick with which to beat his memory. If he was more conciliatory, especially enough for his political enemies to be able to respect him, the reaction may be more nuanced.

Ladd was a very affable figure who had friends on both sides of the aisles. He basically continued the successes of the Poe Administration, but not much more. He was defeated more because of Federalist fatigue than any dislike for him. He was seen to run a gracious campaign and was a non-controversial ex-president.

Obviously, what people in the capitol may think about this could well differ to how the people they represent feel.

That is a real possibility.

I agree that Ladd "outing himself" as being a "bisexual" will probably prevent any duall-ist straight/gay theories from forming.

It may, it may indeed.

It is a bit depressing that your world in 1917 will probably cope better with this news than our world would for a very long time afterwards,

Such is life. One of the premises of this timeline is that the shift in outcome of the American Revolutionary War has led to a better climate for supporting and maintaining classical liberalism, which helps to account for the more advanced and sustained developments socially in this timeline (along with a few helpful butterflies or loose causal reasons). First, by having the slave-holding South remain under the British Empire it frees the rest of the United States to follow their inclination to end the soul destroying practice of Slavery, allowing them to truly become the beacon of liberty America was meant to be without the hypocracy of slavery. At the same time, by having Quebec within the United States, it even furthers the connections between America and France and helps to moderate some of the more nasty events of the French Revolution while encouraging the growth of liberalism even further in the US. Lastly, with the British Empire's might behind ending Slavery in decades earlier both in the North American South, as well as in their strong trading partners in South America, it is ended earlier, and in a manner that is more salubrious to improving race relations over time. An added bonus to that is the amount of Latin territories added in the early 19th Century to the Southern sphere, giving another model of race relations for the rest of the South than that of OTL. Now, having Empress Elizabeth rather than Queen Victoria reign in the 19th century also adds quite a bit of liberal kick to the timeline, but it could be argued that the differences in the attitude of these sovereigns is in part due to the more liberal environs overall found in this world.

but as ever, the writing is very good...

Thank you, thank you kindly.

 

[Glen]

This is why a Buchanan analogue AH would not work, as he happened to end up considered divisive and indecisive at precisely the wrong time. He's now generally considered the worse president OTL. Unfairly as it obviously would be, his shortcomings as president would have been twisted in all sorts of ways in the late 19th Century around his sexuality. Probably for the best that serious speculation was held off for a century or so.

Yeah, Buchanan would have set back gay rights! Ladd is not a divisive figure and is remembered with relative warmth even if he didn't have a lot of impact.

 

[W.W.A.F.T.]

In the US, yes. However, there is some precedent as their close trade partner in Europe, the French Empire, decriminalized homosexuality since the 1790s.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten all about that.

Yes, the 1950s were rather like that. TTL early 20th century though is not the same as the 1950s.

natually they're different, I was just looking for a comparison, that whole post was written in a bit of a rush.

Oh dear God, you just went Brokeback Mountain on the DSA!

Sorry, sorry, that's just something I heard about growing up. in fact, it's the subject of many jokes about wyoming.

Yes, you may have noticed that I avoided in the update itself using any specific terms

I did actually, that's what prompted me to think about names in the beginning.

Such is life. One of the premises of this timeline is that the shift in outcome of the American Revolutionary War has led to a better climate for supporting and maintaining classical liberalism, which helps to account for the more advanced and sustained developments socially in this timeline (along with a few helpful butterflies or loose causal reasons). First, by having the slave-holding South remain under the British Empire it frees the rest of the United States to follow their inclination to end the soul destroying practice of Slavery, allowing them to truly become the beacon of liberty America was meant to be without the hypocracy of slavery. At the same time, by having Quebec within the United States, it even furthers the connections between America and France and helps to moderate some of the more nasty events of the French Revolution while encouraging the growth of liberalism even further in the US. Lastly, with the British Empire's might behind ending Slavery in decades earlier both in the North American South, as well as in their strong trading partners in South America, it is ended earlier, and in a manner that is more salubrious to improving race relations over time. An added bonus to that is the amount of Latin territories added in the early 19th Century to the Southern sphere, giving another model of race relations for the rest of the South than that of OTL. Now, having Empress Elizabeth rather than Queen Victoria reign in the 19th century also adds quite a bit of liberal kick to the timeline, but it could be argued that the differences in the attitude of these sovereigns is in part due to the more liberal environs overall found in this world.

reading this, while thinking about native americans and this Ladd business, makes me realize; I dont think this USA has ever had to go through any periods of awkward self reflection, but may have to in the future. that's quite a thing to consider.

 

[Glen]

The thing is, I reckon that the nastiness would be pretty bad with a divisive character for a long time after the 19th century was over. As a hypothetical, opinions on Carter and Dubya (to pick two at random) are somewhat divided. Not to Buchanan levels, but both have a fair bit of hate. If either or both of these were homosexual, bisexual or anything else, their failings could be blamed on this "deviancy", and equally all of similar orientation would be seen as having the same failings*.

A fair point.

Ladd coming out posthumously heavily implies that TTL isn't ready for such a president in the late 19th/early 20th century.

That is correct.

I'm doubting whether OTL would be ready for such things 100 years later**.

Interesting question, isn't it? I'm not certain - I suspect a Democrat who was bi but at the time of running was married in a more conventional hetero situation might be able to pull it off. Someone who was gay or lesbian would probably be a hard sell (though really, it should be their experience, abilities, and positions that determine whether they can serve as president).

*Probably only by a vocal minority, but they sure would be vocal.

Yep.

**Not just the US. I can't imagine that the thought of an openly gay or bisexual British Prime Minister would play any better...

In fact it would not. Even in France where it is decriminalized since the French Revolution would be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Glen]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten all about that.

No reason you would recall it - it is actually an OTL parallel event that I did not address in the timeline either way previously.

natually they're different, I was just looking for a comparison, that whole post was written in a bit of a rush.

Fair enough.

Sorry, sorry, that's just something I heard about growing up. in fact, it's the subject of many jokes about wyoming.

No need to apologize, none at all! I couldn't resist making the Brokeback connection, though. But in all seriousness, the things you heard about cowboy same-sex activities from your childhood in Wyoming is very intriguing in terms of how they might have similarities in TTL's USA and DSA.

I did actually, that's what prompted me to think about names in the beginning.

Ah, very good. I am glad you caught it and that it got you to thinking.

reading this, while thinking about native americans and this Ladd business, makes me realize; I dont think this USA has ever had to go through any periods of awkward self reflection, but may have to in the future. that's quite a thing to consider.

The question is, has OTL USA ever really done so?

 

[W.W.A.F.T.]

No reason you would recall it - it is actually an OTL parallel event that I did not address in the timeline either way previously.

I was referring to the OTL event, your statement just cinfirmed that it had been paralleled.

No need to apologize, none at all! I couldn't resist making the Brokeback connection, though. But in all seriousness, the things you heard about cowboy same-sex activities from your childhood in Wyoming is very intriguing in terms of how they might have similarities in TTL's USA and DSA.

Wyoman! them's fightin' words, I was born in Utah ! I mentioned the jokes because the equality state is the butt of an awful lot of jokes here .

The question is, has OTL USA ever really done so?

myself, I'd say such has happened twice, maybe more often. the times I refer to are the slavery debate, and what I was going to list as more than one event, but for simplicity's sake collapsed into "since 1898". times when the nation had to do some soul searching and decide what it was really all about. that doesn't seem to have happened yet in TTL's USA.

 

[Glen]

I was referring to the OTL event, your statement just cinfirmed that it had been paralleled.

Yep - it was after the POD so technically is a parallel event, but there hadn't been enough change to France yet to really change that part of history so it went down in pretty similar fashion.

Wyoman! them's fightin' words, I was born in Utah ! I mentioned the jokes because the equality state is the butt of an awful lot of jokes here .

My apologies! The way you wrote that made me think you grew up in that state. I consider myself corrected.

myself, I'd say such has happened twice, maybe more often. the times I refer to are the slavery debate, and what I was going to list as more than one event, but for simplicity's sake collapsed into "since 1898". times when the nation had to do some soul searching and decide what it was really all about. that doesn't seem to have happened yet in TTL's USA.

Yeah, not really. This USA is very forward looking and self-assured. The DSA had some of that with the loss of the ARW and then the aftermath of the Southern Civil War (AKA Slaver Uprising) and formation of the Dominion.

 

[Glen]

While Steven Ladd had been a well-liked president who rode in on the reputation of the mighty Poe Administration, by the time of the 1900 election the American people were suffering from Federalist fatigue, as the wags in the papers termed it. Therefore, when a dynamic new voice emerged on the scene in the form of the Democratic Governor of Missouri, Henry Bramlett. Bramlett was the first presidential candidate to bring up the issue of preserving the great wilderness of the American West as an issue, and this resonated with several voters as the growth of cities in the East had begun to raise concerns about the loss of the environment. In his first term, he directed Congress to allow for the purchase of several large, pristine areas of the American West to be set aside as nature reserves, but other than this novel activity, his other well known stance was "This far and no more!" referring to the growth of the government. He vetoed more Congressional legislation than any other president before him on the grounds that the Federalists had gone as far as America needed to recover, and now it was up to the American people to build on that base. As the economy saw a significant upswing compared to the slow growth of previous years (omitting the rapid growth from international trade during the Global War), he appeared to be vindicated in this and was re-elected to office in 1904. He was the first president to be born West of the Missisippi River.

President Bramlett at the end of his second term

 

[Geordie]

President Bramlett at the end of his second term.

So, the first "western" president is a environmentalist, small government, laissez faire capitalist? As with most systems, the Federalists eventually fall to the curse of the incumbent, and so the cycle begins again. Are the nature reserves going to be "National Parks", or will they gain a different handle? OTL's name seems fairly sensible...

 

[Glen]

So, the first "western" president is a environmentalist, small government, laissez faire capitalist? As with most systems, the Federalists eventually fall to the curse of the incumbent, and so the cycle begins again. Are the nature reserves going to be "National Parks", or will they gain a different handle? OTL's name seems fairly sensible...

Basically, yes. However, he is smart enough to know that rolling back the policies of Poe would not be politically feasible, so instead he is saying "Enough" as a way of preventing further growth of government, with the only exception being the development of the National Preserves (I think we will use that name), which is a pet project of his, and some rising sense of conservation and stewardship of the environment is starting giving the growth of urbanism (much as it did OTL).

 

[FleetMac]

I haven't lately commented on the past few updates, mainly since they're outside of my bailiwick, but I commend you on their quality (including a homosexual president ...man, this TL really IS more progressive over such things!).

And thus far, Bramlett seems to be talking horse sense to me ("this far, no further" seems reasonable enough IMHO). As an aside, does this mean that the Democratic and Federalist parties have pretty much stayed true to their principles since the revolution, or has there been shift in American politics since then?

 

[Glen]

I haven't lately commented on the past few updates, mainly since they're outside of my bailiwick, but I commend you on their quality

Thank you, sir!

(including a homosexual president ...man, this TL really IS more progressive over such things!).

Yes, though to be fair, actually a bisexual president who was in the closet til his death.

And thus far, Bramlett seems to be talking horse sense to me ("this far, no further" seems reasonable enough IMHO).

Yes, this USA does like it's politicians to be reasonable - strange, isn't it?

As an aside, does this mean that the Democratic and Federalist parties have pretty much stayed true to their principles since the revolution, or has there been shift in American politics since then?

I would say there has been an elaboration, and some shift of the dividing lines, but relative to each other they have remained the same. Basically, at this point in time, Democrats are more for decentralization, small government, less regulation and taxation, more free trade, more support for agrarianism and the little guy. Federalists are for infrastructure development, stronger central governance, proper regulation and fiscally responsible funding, fostering of industrial development and reciprocal trade.

 

[FleetMac]

I would say there has been an elaboration, and some shift of the dividing lines, but relative to each other they have remained the same. Basically, at this point in time, Democrats are more for decentralization, small government, less regulation and taxation, more free trade, more support for agrarianism and the little guy. Federalists are for infrastructure development, stronger central governance, proper regulation and fiscally responsible funding, fostering of industrial development and reciprocal trade.

Fair enough, that's about what I figured. Do certain states/regions tend to lean toward one party or another (Federalist strongholds in New England, Democrat "safe states" in the Plains, etc.), or is it fairly evenly distributed?

 

[Geordie]

Basically, yes. However, he is smart enough to know that rolling back the policies of Poe would not be politically feasible, so instead he is saying "Enough" as a way of preventing further growth of government, with the only exception being the development of the National Preserves (I think we will use that name), which is a pet project of his, and some rising sense of conservation and stewardship of the environment is starting giving the growth of urbanism (much as it did OTL).

I do wonder whether those who follow him may attempt to roll back the government, now that Bramlett has provided inspiration by attempting to halt the tide...

Yes, this USA does like it's politicians to be reasonable - strange, isn't it?

Very strange.

 

[Glen]

Conventional wisdom was that in the 1908 elections the Democrats would have swung back to a candidate from East of the Mississippi such as Virginia or even the Midwest like Illinois. However, it was the charismatic Governor of California Grant Baxter, a close political ally of President Bramlett, who captured the nomination. Baxter had an electrifying speaking style and was the first presidential candidate to use recorded speeches in the kinee as a campaign tool. While the kinetigraph and linked phonograph recordings were still in their early days, with problems with synchronization, the sheer novelty combined with Baxter's ability as an orator won over many of the common folk who attended the afternoon kinee, especially among women who would often take their children to the kinee in the summers. While the newspaper pundits had predicted a return of the Federalists to the presidency, it was Democrat Grant Baxter who won in the 1908 election.

President Baxter

 

[Glen]

Fair enough, that's about what I figured. Do certain states/regions tend to lean toward one party or another (Federalist strongholds in New England, Democrat "safe states" in the Plains, etc.), or is it fairly evenly distributed?

There is definitely a regional element, which started out as North and East being more in the Federalist camp, and South and West being more in the Democratic camp. This is not of course absolute, and by the 20th century it is starting to be more of a straight East/West divide. There is also an Urban/Rural divide, with Urbanites tending to the Federalists and Rural areas to the Democrats.

 

[Glen]

I do wonder whether those who follow him may attempt to roll back the government, now that Bramlett has provided inspiration by attempting to halt the tide...

A very good question - time will tell...

Very strange.

I know, isn't it?

 

[iddt3]

While Steven Ladd had been a well-liked president who rode in on the reputation of the mighty Poe Administration, by the time of the 1900 election the American people were suffering from Federalist fatigue, as the wags in the papers termed it. Therefore, when a dynamic new voice emerged on the scene in the form of the Democratic Governor of Missouri, Henry Bramlett. Bramlett was the first presidential candidate to bring up the issue of preserving the great wilderness of the American West as an issue, and this resonated with several voters as the growth of cities in the East had begun to raise concerns about the loss of the environment. In his first term, he directed Congress to allow for the purchase of several large, pristine areas of the American West to be set aside as nature reserves, but other than this novel activity, his other well known stance was "This far and no more!" referring to the growth of the government. He vetoed more Congressional legislation than any other president before him on the grounds that the Federalists had gone as far as America needed to recover, and now it was up to the American people to build on that base. As the economy saw a significant upswing compared to the slow growth of previous years (omitting the rapid growth from international trade during the Global War), he appeared to be vindicated in this and was re-elected to office in 1904. He was the first president to be born West of the Missisippi River.

President Bramlett at the end of his second term

Am I the only one who caught the "West Wing: 1900" thing Glen did there?

 

[Glen]

While Malthusian Clubs had been gaining adherents and political clout throughout the first decade of the 20th century, it was the 1918 French Kinetograph masterpiece, Les Masses Misérables, in English, The Miserable Masses, that would turn Mathusianism into a world-wide debate. Set sometime in the future, the film deals with the consequences of unchecked growth and dwindling resources. With resources stretched, everyone lives in cramped quarters, the filming style often invoking intense feelings of agoraphobia and claustrophobia. There are shortages of everything, to the point that starving gangs will capture and kill the unwary to engage in cannibalism (some sections of the plot reference the more grim quatrains of Michel de Nostradamus). The uncaring government in the kinee is a futuristic parody of a Korsgaardist regime, placing more value on tradition and promotion of growth and expansion than caring about the miseries of the populace. The protagonists of the piece rebel against the restrictive government, pledging to bring no more children into this overburdened world (the heroine, after being raped by a security officer near the begining of the film, undergoes a dangerous abortion and sterilization to highlight her commitment). The protagonists lead a rebellion to try and end the profligate practices of the oppressive government, but they are betrayed and surrounded by security forces, and agree to kill themselves and the security forces in a massive explosion to "Relieve some little bit the burden on the world and the masses." There is a ghostly soliloquy by the deceased heroine at the end of the piece, as she ascends into the heavens, wishing something could have been done earlier, before it all got so out of control. The kinee innovated in areas of trick kinetography, lighting and set design, phonographic synchronization (and this in three languages, French, English, and German, that the dialogue was rerecorded in for international distribution by the makers, with secondary, lower quality translations being rapidly made in other nations) and direction, and would have an impact on kinetographs for decades to come, whether one agreed with the message or not. The kinee's themes and polemic point of view were far more controversial, and there were many groups that put on demonstrations before theatres that showed the kinee, both in favor and against its addressing of Malthusian apocalyptic themes. However, the controversy and the word of mouth on the quality of the work brought droves to the theatres, and it was the first kinee in history to be shown all day and all night in theatres.