Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

It's really astonishing that the idea that giving workers a decent wage and some say in how the company operates will make them more productive took so long to be so apparent.

It's still kind of an issue today actually.
It's what happens when the owners begin believing their own words on being cornerstones of the economy and it just becomes a different form of fedualism. They really think it's all thanks to them. The individualist mentality is fresh fertilizer for think you're such hot stuff.
 
It's what happens when the owners begin believing their own words on being cornerstones of the economy and it just becomes a different form of fedualism. They really think it's all thanks to them. The individualist mentality is fresh fertilizer for think you're such hot stuff.
Ayn Rand's toxic drivel spread far too far.
 
It will be interesting once/if the Gilded Age happens here as the North dives into extreme capitalism but the South maintains a more restrained and people-focused approach. Could help blunt how bad it got OTL if there’s an example of how things can be better (wishful thinking at least).

It's not that crazy.

The Deep South, while having a reputation for being ultraconservative, has also been a region of economic populism as well.

Remember, it was a key part of the New Deal coalition. The reason why Southerners turned to the GOP wasn't just because of racism, but because the South was getting rich enough, that many Southerners didn't worry about economic issues anymore.

If you look at an electoral map, many rural white counties remained staunchly Democratic well into the 2010s, while it was the Southern suburbs that went for the Republicans.
 
Yeah, the big American socialist (Labor Republicans? Social Republicans?) talking points are definitely going to be anti-wage slavery (it already was otl, but it might have some added oumph here) , and anti-capitalist reconstruction.

This different reconstruction would also affect the different types of groups that flock to them regionally. The factory workers of the rust belt & northeast are obvious, but in the Rockies and Appalachian areas it was typically miners who were the core of socialist groups, and if these plantations turned comunes stick around they could be the core of the southern groups
 
It will be interesting once/if the Gilded Age happens here as the North dives into extreme capitalism but the South maintains a more restrained and people-focused approach. Could help blunt how bad it got OTL if there’s an example of how things can be better (wishful thinking at least).

The South has a history of economic populism. Thomas E. Watson and the Populist Party was somewhat strong in rural areas. William Jennings Bryan not to mention swept the South in three elections while Wilson was economically progressive. Politicians like Watson could become more popular ITTL if the Republicans go full corporatists with him or some other populist like WJB or a more moderate Eugene V. Debs (he was a populist silver Democrat before becoming a socialist) to forge an alliance between farmers, poor blacks, and poor industrial workers to unseat the Republicans. With the US looking to be more racially tolerant the Populists could focus on economics that benefit all people and just not talk about social issues if they do a farmers-south-north coalition. As Bookmark said it’s plausible as we saw it work with the New Deal Coalition. To add onto his point West Virginia was incredibly left wing economically before the 2000s. It had a history of labor struggles and being staunchly pro-Union. Appalachia in general was pro-union and had a decent sized socialist movement due to the mining community there.
 
The South has a history of economic populism. Thomas E. Watson and the Populist Party was somewhat strong in rural areas. William Jennings Bryan not to mention swept the South in three elections while Wilson was economically progressive. Politicians like Watson could become more popular ITTL if the Republicans go full corporatists with him or some other populist like WJB or a more moderate Eugene V. Debs (he was a populist silver Democrat before becoming a socialist) to forge an alliance between farmers, poor blacks, and poor industrial workers to unseat the Republicans. With the US looking to be more racially tolerant the Populists could focus on economics that benefit all people and just not talk about social issues if they do a farmers-south-north coalition. As Bookmark said it’s plausible as we saw it work with the New Deal Coalition. To add onto his point West Virginia was incredibly left wing economically before the 2000s. It had a history of labor struggles and being staunchly pro-Union. Appalachia in general was pro-union and had a decent sized socialist movement due to the mining community there.

Also, let's not forget about Huey Long. The man was a seriously flawed, but he pushed a lot of reforms in Louisiana, avoided any pernicious discussions on race and religion, and his family have continued to serve Louisiana politics well into the present.

Edwin Edwards can be described as lovably corrupt: he did steal from the till, but he was still popular among black and white Louisianans because he did fight for their welfare.

George Wallace, despite his nasty reputation on race, was also very popular in Alabama for pushing things like economic development and textbooks, and had little evidence for any financial corruption..

Before he was known for philandering, John Edwards supported policies like housing vouchers and universal healthcare.

Texas Governor Ann Richards pushed for prison reform and more money for education.

The South has a long history of politicians who weren't just racists or reactionaries, but genuinely talented administrators who fought for their constituents.

If the South can forge an identity than can unify blacks and whites, than it is possible to see greater economic populism that doesn't get spoiled by racist dogwhistles.
 
To add onto his point West Virginia was incredibly left wing economically before the 2000s. It had a history of labor struggles and being staunchly pro-Union. Appalachia in general was pro-union and had a decent sized socialist movement due to the mining community there.
Dukakis won WV IOTL, enough said 🤪
 
Dukakis won WV IOTL, enough said 🤪

Not just West Virginia.

Look at the county map of 1988 for a moment:

1622251545263.png


In this era, many parts of the rural South and Midwest, especially states like Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Lousiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Iowa were still heavily Democratic, and Dukakis was a far, far weaker candidate than Obama or Biden. He wasn't even some folksy Southerner.

To be fair, he had Lloyd Bentsen on the ticket. But Lloyd Bentsen, a Democrat, was also super popular. He won Texas by a 19 point margin, the last time a Democrat won a Texas senate race.

It's clear that if the Democrats had chosen a stronger candidate, they could won in 1988 easily.

And yes, a lot of these counties are now Trump territory, but Trump won because he spoke to these people and promised to get them their jobs back.

If the Democrats do one day nominate another hardcore populist in the future, they could possibly regain middle America.
 
Also, let's not forget about Huey Long. The man was a seriously flawed, but he pushed a lot of reforms in Louisiana, avoided any pernicious discussions on race and religion, and his family have continued to serve Louisiana politics well into the present.

Edwin Edwards can be described as lovably corrupt: he did steal from the till, but he was still popular among black and white Louisianans because he did fight for their welfare.

George Wallace, despite his nasty reputation on race, was also very popular in Alabama for pushing things like economic development and textbooks, and had little evidence for any financial corruption..

Before he was known for philandering, John Edwards supported policies like housing vouchers and universal healthcare.

Texas Governor Ann Richards pushed for prison reform and more money for education.

The South has a long history of politicians who weren't just racists or reactionaries, but genuinely talented administrators who fought for their constituents.

If the South can forge an identity than can unify blacks and whites, than it is possible to see greater economic populism that doesn't get spoiled by racist dogwhistles.

I love this post as it shows why the Democratic Party did well in the South and is essentially a list of very flawed but interesting politicians. Economic populism does work and the South along with the typically conservative plain states have a rich history of social democratic deals (unfortunately that came with a lot of horrid racists like Wallace, Tillman, and WJB who were economically populist but horrid people when it came to race, especially Tillman who advocated for literal genocide).

To add this already great list (which I hope you don’t mind):

Kathleen Sebelius ran on funding education and healthcare in Kansas (one of the states that was quite anti-new deal IOTL). Kansas which has gone Republican in every election since 1968 was ran by arguably an economic populist for supporting funding healthcare and education and in a conservative state where that shouldn’t theoretically be popular.

Cliff Finch is underrated IMO as he built a coalition of working class whites and blacks to win in 1975 on a populist campaign. He saved the Mississippi savings and loans industry and was through and through a man of the people.

Lyndon B. Johnson was one of the most progressive presidents when it came to economics. His Great Society was a noble cause that was unfortunately hampered by him increasing intervention in Vietnam. A staunch New Dealer he advocated for universal healthcare.

William Anderson I came across due to No Southern Strategy by Gonzo and Nofix was a representative from Tennessee who despite being from a rural district was against the Vietnam War and a pro-peace advocate.

Henry Howell is an amazing guy from Virginia. A fiery populist who railed against big business and segregationists he did quite well and nearly became governor in 1973. He was one of the most progressive politicians from the South and a great person to look up IMO.
 
And yes, a lot of these counties are now Trump territory, but Trump won because he spoke to these people and promised to get them their jobs back.

If the Democrats do one day nominate another hardcore populist in the future, they could possibly regain middle America.

I know you have the best intentions with the post (as up until the last part it’s really good) but please don’t bring current politics into the thread. Better to not poke the bear.
 
I love this post as it shows why the Democratic Party did well in the South and is essentially a list of very flawed but interesting politicians. Economic populism does work and the South along with the typically conservative plain states have a rich history of social democratic deals (unfortunately that came with a lot of horrid racists like Wallace, Tillman, and WJB who were economically populist but horrid people when it came to race, especially Tillman who advocated for literal genocide).

To add this already great list (which I hope you don’t mind):

Kathleen Sebelius ran on funding education and healthcare in Kansas (one of the states that was quite anti-new deal IOTL). Kansas which has gone Republican in every election since 1968 was ran by arguably an economic populist for supporting funding healthcare and education and in a conservative state where that shouldn’t theoretically be popular.

Cliff Finch is underrated IMO as he built a coalition of working class whites and blacks to win in 1975 on a populist campaign. He saved the Mississippi savings and loans industry and was through and through a man of the people.

Lyndon B. Johnson was one of the most progressive presidents when it came to economics. His Great Society was a noble cause that was unfortunately hampered by him increasing intervention in Vietnam. A staunch New Dealer he advocated for universal healthcare.

William Anderson I came across due to No Southern Strategy by Gonzo and Nofix was a representative from Tennessee who despite being from a rural district was against the Vietnam War and a pro-peace advocate.

Henry Howell is an amazing guy from Virginia. A fiery populist who railed against big business and segregationists he did quite well and nearly became governor in 1973. He was one of the most progressive politicians from the South and a great person to look up IMO.

Not at all. Some of those people seem interesting to read about.

J. William Fulbright, who staunchly spoke out in favor of internationalism and against militarism, and promoted Fulbright scholarships in order to push for international unity. He strongly believed in the rule of law and human rights...except for black people, weirdly enough.

Ken Hechler, who despite being from West Virginia, marched with Dr. Martin Luther King.

Wright Patman, who spoke out against corporatism and monopolies, and served Texas from the late 1920s all the way to the 1970s.

So yeah, that South has produced some really talented, albeit flawed, people who wanted to genuinely serve their constituents. And it still could.

I know you have the best intentions with the post (as up until the last part it’s really good) but please don’t bring current politics into the thread. Better to not poke the bear.

Sorry. But main point was how the Democrats still had political capital in the South until relatively recently.
 
Really like how the optimism of this TL is handled. Would've been so easy to just have Lincoln hand out land because it was the right thing to do. Here they stumble into it because other things don't work, which makes the TL feel so much more real.
 
It will be interesting once/if the Gilded Age happens here as the North dives into extreme capitalism but the South maintains a more restrained and people-focused approach. Could help blunt how bad it got OTL if there’s an example of how things can be better (wishful thinking at least).
The hellhole outside the South would be the Midwest states, especially Ohio and Pennsylvania, and New York - not much different from IOTL - where industries were rapidly growing.

In New England, OTOH, things would be more tempered like IOTL, because its economy was already quite mature, and state-level regulations, governance and quality of life there were generally ahead of/better than national average.
 
You know I really wanna hear what Marx is thinking of this. Given it's the state that's pushing forward the revolution and not the proletariat.
 
The hellhole outside the South would be the Midwest states, especially Ohio and Pennsylvania, and New York - not much different from IOTL - where industries were rapidly growing.
My great-uncle, born in 1927, said that he remembered growing up that a group of poor Irish, etc. working for a local company in Northeast Ohio was referred to by his dad as slaves. I asked, he said there were no black people it was just Irish and other immigrant families. I'm sure they were actually given wages, part of that was his remembering things 75 years later that he took more literally as a child anyway, but they were probably pretty paltry.

During a big strike in Massillon in 1937, in fact, his dad would host meetings of the union workers at his house and my great-uncle would run down to the Junction Tavern and get sandwiches for them. Yes, there were definitely problems in what was the steel belt back then, but also plenty of people who cared about workers. And about civil rights - my grandparents High School was integrated and Marion Motley, the future Football Hall of Famer, was a classmate and friend of my grandpa's. Not a really close friend but someone who they at least got along well.

I would think child labor would be stopped earlier also. I'm getting this image of Annie in this universe taking place 30 years earlier with Theodore Roosevelt as the president. Sweatshops like that would probably be illegal by 1900.
 
Last edited:
I don't think education is a political or civil right and it might be anachronistic to view it as such but I might be wrong.
As we define education now-the right to taxpayer funded K-12 schooling-no it is not at this time. Education being the freedom to be taught how to read and the right to pursue education using your own resources or those provided charitably certainly was an issue since it was illegal to teach slaves to read.
 
You know I really wanna hear what Marx is thinking of this. Given it's the state that's pushing forward the revolution and not the proletariat.
He'll probably think this is just part of the "natural process" of a rural, slaveowning society being replaced by a more modern one, an American version of the French Revolution. Marx did admire Lincoln though, didn't he?
 
He'll probably think this is just part of the "natural process" of a rural, slaveowning society being replaced by a more modern one, an American version of the French Revolution. Marx did admire Lincoln though, didn't he?

Yeah. Marx would probably claim that this is a conflict between Southern feudalism and Northern capitalism.
 
Top