Which many inside the US opposed, and with no repercussions for them, since the US Constitution remained in place in non-occupied areas. Which is hardly something that would be true in any sort of police state.
I should re-reading abou this part for reply about this.
Which only occurred after the CSA went full Nazi, and waged a war of genocidal annihilation that didn't end until the United States had overrun virtually the entire country. Before that Roosevelt was perfectly content just beating the CSA and regaining some strategic territory.
The ideology of Remembrance dates back to 1880 with the Second Mexican War and its main point was hatred for the Confederate States and their revanchist and re-annexationist anxieties. To pretend that the United States never wanted to re-annex CSA until World War II is false. The only reason they didn't do it after the Great War was just because Turtledowe needed CSAs to continue to exist in WWII for someone to play Nazis.
Literally everyone had conscription. The US was notable for not having it OTL. Unless you also are going to call the OTL French Third Republic a hyper-nationalist police state. Which would be equally ridiculous.
"Others are doing it too" is not a valid argument. Especially since the French Third Republic was not dedicated to adopting authoritarian and militaristic policies like those implemented by the United States.
Those Confederate allies had waged war on the United States in the 1880s, and had threatened war twenty years earlier. Allying with their enemy wasn't some kind of insanely aggressive move. It was outright self-defense since both Britain and France had shown that given half a chance they would wage war on the United States for no reason. The fact that the British government was actually so stupid that they joined the CSA in the Second Mexican War, and in the process drove the Americans straight into the arms of the Germans (and since Turtledove had literally everything play out the same also meant they were driving the Americans to ally with the RUSSIANS, ie Britain's primary foreign threat) should have seen everyone involved fired for complete and utter incompetence.
If you talk about the Second Mexican War of 1880, that war was started BY THE UNITED STATES, because President Blaine was horribly offended that CSA had access to the Pacific. The only reason the Confederates won was because Blaine declared war but forgot to prepare the army to fight it. (Which, in a minimally realistic story, would have led to Blaine's immediate removal of power from him, but not here.) And the only reason the Confederates did not impose worse conditions was because Germany jumped to the rescue of the United States.
In fact, the reason why France and Great Britain intervened was not "for no reason", but rather that CSA asked them for help because the US was making saber rattling that they would wage war on them unless they gave up buying Chihuahua and Sonora. This help was not free either, but they demanded that CSA freeze their slaves. (Let's forget for now how unrealistic this is, let's just stick with the fact that Britain demanded concessions in exchange for their help, rather than jumping for free.) Likewise, in principle the idea was that, when faced with that Triple Alliance, the United States would desist from the war. But they did not.
But you're making it sound like CSA declared war for no reason and Britain and France intervened because ... because they hated America? And yes, I share that the entire diplomatic team should have been fired for morons.
