I'm still surprised that Washington is the US capitol
I honestly doubt it will be for much longer. Even once the war is done, there's going to need to be so much Reconstruction work that it won't really pay. Why? Rebuild the city and move the capitol back to the doorstep of a hostile nation which has proven it will go for it like a hound dog on a scent trail if there's ever another war.
 
I honestly doubt it will be for much longer. Even once the war is done, there's going to need to be so much Reconstruction work that it won't really pay. Why? Rebuild the city and move the capitol back to the doorstep of a hostile nation which has proven it will go for it like a hound dog on a scent trail if there's ever another war.
There will be that to consider, but a few points. One), by the time this war is done, the US is going to see to it that the CSA is utterly neutered militarily in any fashion that could in any way threaten it or its interests ever again which I would include DC in, and Two), I at least see a strong impulse to restore the capitol to Washington precisely to stick it to the Confederates and rub it in their faces. Pulling it away to somewhere more secure in the country feels like it could be interpreted as fear or respect of the CSA. It may not be *the* most overriding concern post war but I feel like there will be a large part of the population that will feel that *any* admission of weakness to the Confederates is an insult.
 
There will be that to consider, but a few points. One), by the time this war is done, the US is going to see to it that the CSA is utterly neutered militarily in any fashion that could in any way threaten it or its interests ever again which I would include DC in, and Two), I at least see a strong impulse to restore the capitol to Washington precisely to stick it to the Confederates and rub it in their faces. Pulling it away to somewhere more secure in the country feels like it could be interpreted as fear or respect of the CSA. It may not be *the* most overriding concern post war but I feel like there will be a large part of the population that will feel that *any* admission of weakness to the Confederates is an insult.
I agree. Moving the capital—or making D.C. a ceremonial capital while keeping the important functions in Philadelphia or Chicago as in TL-191—would have been the smart move at some point in the fifty years between 1863 and 1913. Afterwards it won't really be necessary.
 
There will be that to consider, but a few points. One), by the time this war is done, the US is going to see to it that the CSA is utterly neutered militarily in any fashion that could in any way threaten it or its interests ever again which I would include DC in, and Two), I at least see a strong impulse to restore the capitol to Washington precisely to stick it to the Confederates and rub it in their faces. Pulling it away to somewhere more secure in the country feels like it could be interpreted as fear or respect of the CSA. It may not be *the* most overriding concern post war but I feel like there will be a large part of the population that will feel that *any* admission of weakness to the Confederates is an insult.
I disagree. _WE_ know that the Confederates are neutered and will be unable to launch another attack (or won't); people in universe will have absolutely no guarantee of that at all. Infact the opposite will seem a very real possibility.

Indeed, the war will have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that DC is incredibly vulnerable to attack. Remember, this will be the SECOND war in 100 years that saw the enemy capture and sack the capitol. Add to it the fact thst the only reason DC is where it is is because of a compromise with the hated Southrons and slavery, and the monumental costs that will be needed to restore the city not just to a livable state but one befitting a Grest Power's seat of government (and the added defenses thst will be needed to make sure thet its safe - and history has proven all the forts in the world dont make thet a sure bet) ... it's just not worth it.

Of sure, DC will remain a ceremonial city with a ton of monuments and the like. But as an actual functioning capitol? Its really not worth it anymore. What if the Confederates try again? Or someone else? What if next time the President and Congress csnt escape in time? They got lucky twice. Why would they want to push it?

Keeping DC as the capitol in the wake of the war just makes absolutely no sense, save stubborn national pride. And I'm not even sure that that will be worth all thst much in the final analysis.

To be fare, I suspect Richmond gets battered just as badly if not worse and we will see the Confederste government relocate to Montgommery or Birmingham when the war is over. Uaving two national capitol of hostile nations thet close is just... really, really stupid! :)
 
I disagree. _WE_ know that the Confederates are neutered and will be unable to launch another attack (or won't); people in universe will have absolutely no guarantee of that at all. Infact the opposite will seem a very real possibility.

Indeed, the war will have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that DC is incredibly vulnerable to attack. Remember, this will be the SECOND war in 100 years that saw the enemy capture and sack the capitol. Add to it the fact thst the only reason DC is where it is is because of a compromise with the hated Southrons and slavery, and the monumental costs that will be needed to restore the city not just to a livable state but one befitting a Grest Power's seat of government (and the added defenses thst will be needed to make sure thet its safe - and history has proven all the forts in the world dont make thet a sure bet) ... it's just not worth it.

Of sure, DC will remain a ceremonial city with a ton of monuments and the like. But as an actual functioning capitol? Its really not worth it anymore. What if the Confederates try again? Or someone else? What if next time the President and Congress csnt escape in time? They got lucky twice. Why would they want to push it?

Keeping DC as the capitol in the wake of the war just makes absolutely no sense, save stubborn national pride. And I'm not even sure that that will be worth all thst much in the final analysis.

To be fare, I suspect Richmond gets battered just as badly if not worse and we will see the Confederste government relocate to Montgommery or Birmingham when the war is over. Uaving two national capitol of hostile nations thet close is just... really, really stupid! :)
That can partially be avoided by annexing part of VA. Say, everything north of the Rappahannock.
 
Pershing had a pretty interesting background; he taught Black children in rural Missouri before going to West Point and served as a commander of a Buffalo Soldier company, and was a pretty bright and astute man. That said, his WW1 tactical capabilities were certainly lacking and that'll be the case here in the GAW once it gets closer
I've been rereadingbthe timeline and gave gone back a bit and frankly I'm really interested to see Pershing, but also wonder who it is that will come out as the commander in chief of the US Army I this ATL. Especially because @KingSweden24 chooses different people for different roles
 
Was giving serious thought as the cat was trying to wake me up this morning...

We are going to see quite a few changes in borders in North America and while I'm not sure that Mexico loses any land, the CSA will definitely lose Texas and Oklahoma and most probably northern Virginia. However, I think there is an additional possibility.

iOTL, Civil War, at the end of the war, the former slaves had some belief that the US Federal government would make their lives better *while remaining where they are*. They have no such belief iTTL. IMO, there are a few possibilities.
1) The US government does the equivalent of 40 acres and a mule leading to a large percentage of the Confederate slaves ending up in the plains. However, the question is why they should do that for people who aren't even US Citizens.
2) The equivalent to the OTL great Migration where a large number of Confederate Slaves end up in the US Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh and especially iTTL Cincinnati.
3) Which actually seems most likely iTTL, though I'm sure the author has decided. As the US Military advances (especially) on the Central Front, Freed Slaves would move to *behind* the US lines, yet outside the USA. This would tend to move them north into Kentucky. By the end of the War, Kentucky itself could *easily* be majority former Slave (though it might have started as one with fewer slaves percentagewise than other). The United States could forcibly create a country that would *never* (at least three generations?) ally with the CSA that they could simply supply weapons to. (note, while theoretically this could be equal to the state boundaries of Kentucky, it might be slightly different.

This would lead to a United States whose boundaries with the CSA would essentially be annexed land in what was Virginia (which could be turned into a defensive zone as opposed to being "normal"), the southern edge of West Virginia, the Black state of Kentucky and the Ozarks. While this doesn't solve the issues of shipping on the Mississippi, it does eliminate all of the GAW lines of invasion.

The best equivalents that I can give are the situation in KR with a victorious Germany creating new Russian hating countries (Poland, etc) out of Eastern Europe *or* if WWI Germany had had Nazi Germany's policies on Jews, they had all ended up in the Ruhr, and France supported them being a separate country.

Regardless *what* happens during the war, there are likely to be *tens of thousands* of former slaves with personal weaponry equivalent to what Confederate whites have. The confederates would have two choices, allow for them to end up in a US Supported separate country carved from the land of the confederacy or deal with *well* armed black revolts for decades. (Imagine South Africa's situation in the 1950s if all of the land south of Congo was unified and had a per capita income greater than that of South Africa).

This is making what the French did to the Germans after WWI look kind...
 
1) The US government does the equivalent of 40 acres and a mule leading to a large percentage of the Confederate slaves ending up in the plains. However, the question is why they should do that for people who aren't even US Citizens.

3) Which actually seems most likely iTTL, though I'm sure the author has decided. As the US Military advances (especially) on the Central Front, Freed Slaves would move to *behind* the US lines, yet outside the USA. This would tend to move them north into Kentucky. By the end of the War, Kentucky itself could *easily* be majority former Slave (though it might have started as one with fewer slaves percentagewise than other). The United States could forcibly create a country that would *never* (at least three generations?) ally with the CSA that they could simply supply weapons to. (note, while theoretically this could be equal to the state boundaries of Kentucky, it might be slightly different.

The best equivalents that I can give are the situation in KR with a victorious Germany creating new Russian hating countries (Poland, etc) out of Eastern Europe *or* if WWI Germany had had Nazi Germany's policies on Jews, they had all ended up in the Ruhr, and France supported them being a separate country.
I like the points you made, but I'd not dismiss Nr. 1 out of hand. Because there is one other difference resulting from the US not seeking to re-conquer the South unlike the Civil War, but there being still a CSA left afterwards: Gouvernments find it a lot easier to be generous, if neither they nor people who can vote in their country pay the bill. They don't have to worry about what pissing of the Southerners will do to their future electoral prospects, even if they make them give every former slave 80 acres and two mules. In other words breaking up the plantations and awarding the land to Freedmen in the Peace Treaty in order to create a well armed pro-US Yeomanry would make sense.

Your option 3, which I also find plausible is basically the concentrated version of this. Have the Freemen converge in Kentucky and another border state or two, where they then declare independence as CP-victory-style buffer states.
 
I like the points you made, but I'd not dismiss Nr. 1 out of hand. Because there is one other difference resulting from the US not seeking to re-conquer the South unlike the Civil War, but there being still a CSA left afterwards: Gouvernments find it a lot easier to be generous, if neither they nor people who can vote in their country pay the bill. They don't have to worry about what pissing of the Southerners will do to their future electoral prospects, even if they make them give every former slave 80 acres and two mules. In other words breaking up the plantations and awarding the land to Freedmen in the Peace Treaty in order to create a well armed pro-US Yeomanry would make sense.
There's one big problem with this...what happens when the US Army leaves? What prevents the plantation owners (or whomever) from reconsolidating and going back to square one? That's exactly what happened OTL when Reconstruction ended - why wouldn't it happen here when the CSA is an entirely different country on top of it?
 
I like the points you made, but I'd not dismiss Nr. 1 out of hand. Because there is one other difference resulting from the US not seeking to re-conquer the South unlike the Civil War, but there being still a CSA left afterwards: Gouvernments find it a lot easier to be generous, if neither they nor people who can vote in their country pay the bill. They don't have to worry about what pissing of the Southerners will do to their future electoral prospects, even if they make them give every former slave 80 acres and two mules. In other words breaking up the plantations and awarding the land to Freedmen in the Peace Treaty in order to create a well armed pro-US Yeomanry would make sense.

Your option 3, which I also find plausible is basically the concentrated version of this. Have the Freemen converge in Kentucky and another border state or two, where they then declare independence as CP-victory-style buffer states.

There's one big problem with this...what happens when the US Army leaves? What prevents the plantation owners (or whomever) from reconsolidating and going back to square one? That's exactly what happened OTL when Reconstruction ended - why wouldn't it happen here when the CSA is an entirely different country on top of it?

Pretty much what Curtain Jerker has said. We do know that there is going to be an occupation of sorts after the war; but I suspect it's not going to last that long. The United States is going to be having its own problems when the war is done, and I just don't suspect that they are going to have the stomach for a longhaul occupation. And to pull off what you're suggesting, and make it stick, they'd need to probably stick around for at least a decade to funnel money and time into fundamentally restructuring Confederate society.

Instead, I think we see a short occupation; just enough to enforce that slavery really has been abolished, and to make sure that the Confederacy doesn't get any stupid ideas like "Lets ban travel on the Mississippi again." There will likely be plans for MORE, but I think the US pretty quickly has to turn it's attention back to its own people - it's been pretty heavily suggested that the early 1920s are rough in the US and it's going to be a Democratic administration which pretty much has to fix the problems caused by the Liberal's botching the demobilization and other things.

On a side note, I wonder if good ol Hoover will make an appearance overseeing famine relief and abolition in the Confederacy. It seems like a place that he would poke his head up in the ATL. Hell, maybe villages of freedmen take on the name Hoovervilles here; that would be a nice bit of irony. And really, Hoover deserves better than the load of crap that got dropped on him in OTL :)
 
There's one big problem with this...what happens when the US Army leaves? What prevents the plantation owners (or whomever) from reconsolidating and going back to square one? That's exactly what happened OTL when Reconstruction ended - why wouldn't it happen here when the CSA is an entirely different country on top of it?
Civil war just like in russia, probably with the usa supporting one side and brazil or another power supporting the other side.
 
On a side note, I wonder if good ol Hoover will make an appearance overseeing famine relief and abolition in the Confederacy. It seems like a place that he would poke his head up in the ATL. Hell, maybe villages of freedmen take on the name Hoovervilles here; that would be a nice bit of irony. And really, Hoover deserves better than the load of crap that got dropped on him in OTL :)
Hoover died in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. He was one of the Americans who couldn't get out of the country in time.
 
Damn, missed that. It's a shame - he really would have been perfect for overseeing abolition.
Citizens of the CdM timeline don't know what their missing with Hoover (as long as he's not President of course). He seems like the Jimmy Carter of his era: a good man who was in over his head once he got to the Oval Office.

The Liberal Party will miss his expertise in the late teens/early 20s. This is the same party who saw a banker and decided to have him run the War Department solely to appease the bosses back in Ohio. And here I thought the grand tradition of having your overmatched buddies in the Cabinet was only a Democratic thing ITTL - glad to see the Liberals can screw the pooch just as badly with Cabinet appointments.
 
glad to see the Liberals can screw the pooch just as badly with Cabinet appointments.
1663948510128.png
 
There's one big problem with this...what happens when the US Army leaves? What prevents the plantation owners (or whomever) from reconsolidating and going back to square one? That's exactly what happened OTL when Reconstruction ended - why wouldn't it happen here when the CSA is an entirely different country on top of it?
Yes. The basic question is whether (picking stereotypes) a 24 year old former slave with a 21 year old wife and a two children will be willing to stay in the CSA *even* with the peace treaty requiring abolitionism. Frankly it doesn't even matter if the majority of the population over 18 in Kentucky is Former Slaves and they have arms, being in the same *nation* as their former owners would be a problem.
 
Top