I think they will rebuild DC. Assuming they annex NoVa, much of the invasion issues would go away.

Also leaving a bunch of rubble symbolizing a major military defeat is not something they would do.
 
Masterfully written.
Hope this gets included into the canon tl.
Appreciate it. The tragic nature of the Confederacy is what renders it so compelling, even some 160 years succeeding its 'disappearance', to use Davis' term.

No nation in human history assumed more Homeric proportions, IMO. It would be quite a literary feat for @KingSweden24 if the fire-eating Napoleons of 1913 are succeeded by the compassionate corporatists of 1916.
 
Appreciate it. The tragic nature of the Confederacy is what renders it so compelling, even some 160 years succeeding its 'disappearance', to use Davis' term.

No nation in human history assumed more Homeric proportions, IMO. It would be quite a literary feat for @KingSweden24 if the fire-eating Napoleons of 1913 are succeeded by the compassionate corporatists of 1916.
What do you mean by "tragic nature of the Confederacy?"
 
Honestly, the way that this is written, it feels like US popular support for the war at the beginning of the war is *much* closer to OTL WWII levels than any other OTL US War. Even before the attacks, it appears that it had 90%+ support and after the attacks, closer to 99%.

The comparison that seems to be made is that the United States, even if it doesn't have the plans now, will attempt to do to the CSA what a Victorious German/AH attempted to do to Russia in the treaties of Brest-Litovsk. Slice off pieces, make them independent states or (in smaller portions annex) and walk away from the wreckage. I still think we are going to end up with a black controlled independent Kentucky(-ish). A confederacy that only borders the US in Southern Arkansas and Missouri is far less of a threat (pre-nukes).
 
What do you mean by "tragic nature of the Confederacy?"
You essentially have men who dream beyond their means, resorting to peculiar arrogance and Anglo-Saxon racial theories to mask statistical inferiority. The Confederate ideal to establish a paternalistic empire based-upon conservative and agricultural principle in the Western Hemisphere is just that -- an ideal. They are struggling against the tide represented by their materially-dominant Northern neighbor as the march into the twentieth-century continues. They certainly felt the pressure by the rapidly-growing Northern majority during the 1850s, resulting in the secessionist orgasm of 1860-61 and the all-consuming revolution to organize an independent Southern nation. That nationalism and hatred of the 'Black Republicans' was so stimulating as to warrant the mobilization of the slave population as the curtains began to close, in addition to the authoritarian evolution of the Davis Administration.

The Confederate position in the Great American War can be aptly summarized in Shakespeare.

"It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood."
 
Honestly, the way that this is written, it feels like US popular support for the war at the beginning of the war is *much* closer to OTL WWII levels than any other OTL US War. Even before the attacks, it appears that it had 90%+ support and after the attacks, closer to 99%.

The comparison that seems to be made is that the United States, even if it doesn't have the plans now, will attempt to do to the CSA what a Victorious German/AH attempted to do to Russia in the treaties of Brest-Litovsk. Slice off pieces, make them independent states or (in smaller portions annex) and walk away from the wreckage. I still think we are going to end up with a black controlled independent Kentucky(-ish). A confederacy that only borders the US in Southern Arkansas and Missouri is far less of a threat (pre-nukes).
I'll admit I'm warming up the idea of slicing off a free Kentucky as a buffer (and a meat shield to absorb freedmen the US doesn't want), maybe with a "Rappahannock Republic" to do the same, too, though still undecided, lol

But yeah, this is much more of a post-Pearl Harbor attitude than a "ugh are we really joining the Entente?" attitude. The CSA poked the bear for a decade until public opinion was at its most sour, then decided to really fuck around and find out.
You essentially have men who dream beyond their means, resorting to peculiar arrogance and Anglo-Saxon racial theories to mask statistical inferiority. The Confederate ideal to establish a paternalistic empire based-upon conservative and agricultural principle in the Western Hemisphere is just that -- an ideal. They are struggling against the tide represented by their materially-dominant Northern neighbor as the march into the twentieth-century continues. They certainly felt the pressure by the rapidly-growing Northern majority during the 1850s, resulting in the secessionist orgasm of 1860-61 and the all-consuming revolution to organize an independent Southern nation. That nationalism and hatred of the 'Black Republicans' was so stimulating as to warrant the mobilization of the slave population as the curtains began to close, in addition to the authoritarian evolution of the Davis Administration.

The Confederate position in the Great American War can be aptly summarized in Shakespeare.

"It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood."
So I take it you mean "tragic" in the literary sense, rather than "its tragic they did not succeed?"
 
I'll admit I'm warming up the idea of slicing off a free Kentucky as a buffer (and a meat shield to absorb freedmen the US doesn't want), maybe with a "Rappahannock Republic" to do the same, too, though still undecided, lol
There's a few issues with an independent Rappahannock Republic IMO. Who would live there? Would all the (surviving) white members of the area just flee south to VA proper? Or would they be "encouraged" to flee south by the US Army a la Greece and Turkey in the 1920s or the USSR in East Prussia in 1945? If it is an independent puppet state what's to prevent people from moving either north or south for better opportunity or to find a place that's more ideologically aligned with their beliefs?

It might be better to just add them to WV or split it up and add part to MD and part to WV. Or even make them their own US territory and eventually state down the line- call it "North Virginia."
 
There's a few issues with an independent Rappahannock Republic IMO. Who would live there? Would all the (surviving) white members of the area just flee south to VA proper? Or would they be "encouraged" to flee south by the US Army a la Greece and Turkey in the 1920s or the USSR in East Prussia in 1945? If it is an independent puppet state what's to prevent people from moving either north or south for better opportunity or to find a place that's more ideologically aligned with their beliefs?

It might be better to just add them to WV or split it up and add part to MD and part to WV. Or even make them their own US territory and eventually state down the line- call it "North Virginia."
The bigger issue for me with it, and why I'm still skeptical of going that route, is that if, lets say, Washington DC was no longer the capital, than having a buffer at the Rappahannock loses its value entirely, since you've got the Potomac, Patapsco and Susquehanna as defensive lines before you get the meat of the Eastern Seaboard anyways
 
The bigger issue for me with it, and why I'm still skeptical of going that route, is that if, lets say, Washington DC was no longer the capital, than having a buffer at the Rappahannock loses its value entirely, since you've got the Potomac, Patapsco and Susquehanna as defensive lines before you get the meat of the Eastern Seaboard anyways
I think the issue is that an independent NoVA is a bit truncated. Just annexing it should be fine, and even if DC isn't the capital anymore, you can always make it the capital of the new state of Virginia, providing a fun contrast to the Virginia on the Confederate side.
 
But yeah, this is much more of a post-Pearl Harbor attitude than a "ugh are we really joining the Entente?" attitude. The CSA poked the bear for a decade until public opinion was at its most sour, then decided to really fuck around and find out.
Well the attacks are quite literally much closer to home than the Hawaii Islands and not even in the same ballpark as "The Kaisers torpedoes killed Americans who were stupid enough to sail into an active war zone".
 
A few issues with the Rappahannock Republic.
1) As is mentioned if the border moves to Philly, no need, but I think it will stay in DC.
2) The majority city on the Rappahannock is Fredericksburg, which is on the south side of the river.
3) Not sure what happens to the Virginia Eastern Shore, probably becomes part of the US rather than part of the RR.
4) The name, I'm pretty sure that the Virginia drainage into the Potomac is greater than that into the Rappahannock. (even iOTL and with the extra 2/3 counties from OTL WV definitely.
5) Most of the branches upstream from the Rappahannock are on the south side, particularly the Rapidan. Is that included in what the US takes?

Not saying it won't happen. But *probably* a different situation than Kentucky, which is likely to be "liberated" *far* earlier...
 
There's a few issues with an independent Rappahannock Republic IMO. Who would live there? Would all the (surviving) white members of the area just flee south to VA proper? Or would they be "encouraged" to flee south by the US Army a la Greece and Turkey in the 1920s or the USSR in East Prussia in 1945? If it is an independent puppet state what's to prevent people from moving either north or south for better opportunity or to find a place that's more ideologically aligned with their beliefs?
Could the USA annex Kentucky (or whatever it could be called) into the Union (rather than create an independent buffer ethnic-state with all the problems that would entail) by offering various policy incentives for settlement there (maybe even "Heartland Visa" style incentives for immigrants)?
 
Well the attacks are quite literally much closer to home than the Hawaii Islands and not even in the same ballpark as "The Kaisers torpedoes killed Americans who were stupid enough to sail into an active war zone".
And arguably the CSA "poked the bear" *much* more severely over the previous 2 years than Japan did the United States over the two years prior to 12/7/1941.
 
Well the attacks are quite literally much closer to home than the Hawaii Islands and not even in the same ballpark as "The Kaisers torpedoes killed Americans who were stupid enough to sail into an active war zone".
That, too. And it’s a country thr US had a very ugly war with fifty years ago, where a treaty was basically imposed on them by Europe, then the CSA decides to abrogate a treaty the US was never happy with anyways but working hard to perpetuate as a workable status quo with some tweaks; then they BOMB BALTIMORE in a sneak attack and literally go for “1812 Part Two Electric Boogaloo” on DC

The bloodlust will be overwhelming.
A few issues with the Rappahannock Republic.
1) As is mentioned if the border moves to Philly, no need, but I think it will stay in DC.
2) The majority city on the Rappahannock is Fredericksburg, which is on the south side of the river.
3) Not sure what happens to the Virginia Eastern Shore, probably becomes part of the US rather than part of the RR.
4) The name, I'm pretty sure that the Virginia drainage into the Potomac is greater than that into the Rappahannock. (even iOTL and with the extra 2/3 counties from OTL WV definitely.
5) Most of the branches upstream from the Rappahannock are on the south side, particularly the Rapidan. Is that included in what the US takes?

Not saying it won't happen. But *probably* a different situation than Kentucky, which is likely to be "liberated" *far* earlier...
All good points. Maybe a DMZ like the Saarland/Rhineland post war?

Could the USA annex Kentucky (or whatever it could be called) into the Union (rather than create an independent buffer ethnic-state with all the problems that would entail) by offering various policy incentives for settlement there (maybe even "Heartland Visa" style incentives for immigrants)?
The US is more racially enlightened than the CSA (to put it mildly) but it still doesn’t want to absorb millions of Black residents at a time when racial prejudice was still high and mass immigration was starting to become more and more of a live concern for the WASP middle class. A Kentucky vassal buffer state/meat shield is a very different animal (though perhaps hard to make economically viable in the long term)
 
Could the USA annex Kentucky (or whatever it could be called) into the Union (rather than create an independent buffer ethnic-state with all the problems that would entail) by offering various policy incentives for settlement there (maybe even "Heartland Visa" style incentives for immigrants)?

Well, I think the US is going to be very hesitant to take any territory which already has a large population of hostile Confederates within it - it may nibble off a bit here or there where it's strategically intelligent, but trying to swallow any large bites of territory is likely out of the question. Remember that those same ex-Confederates will have voting rights and be able to elect Congressmen who's loyalty to the US government would be dubious at best. And if one tries to solve this problem by denying them voting rights (and, by extension citizenship) that just creates a whole heap of other troubles.

One could see efforts to encourage internal migration to Kentucky to swamp it with loyal Americans; but said settlers would be moving into a land where they would be instantly hated by their neighbors as invaders, which is a less than stellar draw to would be migrants. Furthermore, even with the destruction that is likely going to occur in the territory, it would likely take decades before you the new-comers outnumbers the native Kentucks. So, at a certain point, the US has to wonder if the anneation of Kentucky is even worth it; and I doubt they would think it would be. Should they try to create an independent buffer state (which I'm not sure they would even want to do that much), they would get most of the benefits of annexing the state without any of the costs that such a move would entail.
 
Could the USA annex Kentucky (or whatever it could be called) into the Union (rather than create an independent buffer ethnic-state with all the problems that would entail) by offering various policy incentives for settlement there (maybe even "Heartland Visa" style incentives for immigrants)?
Sure they could. But the question is would the union *want* it to be an equal to the other states in the Union including the ability of the CSA blacks that move there during the war to the remainder of the country.

Another question related to Kentucky but otherwise different. iOTL there was no reason to have a canal passing the falls of the Ohio (at Louisville) on both sides of the river. What about iTTL?
 
Also if the USA annexes KY they are on the hook for the massive amounts of damages that need to be rebuilt and paid for. The war is a week old and Louisville and Covington are already under heavy bombardment. There's a decent chance that most if not all of the state's major population centers will be smoldering craters by the time this war is over. If the US annexes the state they, not the CSA, has to pay to fix all that.
 
That, too. And it’s a country thr US had a very ugly war with fifty years ago, where a treaty was basically imposed on them by Europe, then the CSA decides to abrogate a treaty the US was never happy with anyways but working hard to perpetuate as a workable status quo with some tweaks; then they BOMB BALTIMORE in a sneak attack and literally go for “1812 Part Two Electric Boogaloo” on DC

The bloodlust will be overwhelming.

All good points. Maybe a DMZ like the Saarland/Rhineland post war?


The US is more racially enlightened than the CSA (to put it mildly) but it still doesn’t want to absorb millions of Black residents at a time when racial prejudice was still high and mass immigration was starting to become more and more of a live concern for the WASP middle class. A Kentucky vassal buffer state/meat shield is a very different animal (though perhaps hard to make economically viable in the long term)
Yup. This war has the ugliest pieces of the War of 1812, OTL Civil War *and* OTL WWII. Whatever issues bombing Fort Sumter had, they were attacking members of the Military *and* to some degree this is even true for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This would be as if the Japanese had started WWII by attacking San Francisco and Hong Kong. (yes Hong Kong was attacked on day 1 of the war, but about 2.5 hours after the Pearl Harbor attack, so definitely not normal peacetime).

Part of the reason that the Saarland/Rhineland were DMZs is that as far as I know, other than under Napoleon, that area (which was part of the HRE) was *never* French, so the idea of population transfer and settlement by the French was never an option, as opposed that area of Virginia which has been part of the United States for longer than it was part of the Confederacy. (Note, this applies to everywhere in the CSA which was part of the United States in 1789, so VA, NC, SC, GA, KY, TN, AL, MS more or less (minus the AL/MS gulf coasts)) (it also includes the areas which were gotten in the Louisiana Purchase, so LA, AR & "OK" as well), but not the lands gotten in Adams-Onis in 1819, (FL+ AL/MS gulf coasts) or Texas/Arizona. (But I think the author has more or less said that the US is getting Arizona)

I agree that economics would be an issue. The confederacy could go for *decades* before being willing to trade with a Kentucky Vassal State controlled by Blacks. (while trading with RoTexas and "Oklahoma" would be much earlier) But I'm not sure it hits Kentucky *that* badly. If they are always inside any US trade zone, they'll do fine.
 
Last edited:
Also if the USA annexes KY they are on the hook for the massive amounts of damages that need to be rebuilt and paid for. The war is a week old and Louisville and Covington are already under heavy bombardment. There's a decent chance that most if not all of the state's major population centers will be smoldering craters by the time this war is over. If the US annexes the state they, not the CSA, has to pay to fix all that.
True. But it isn't like they would be paying to rebuild *most* of the Confederacy. My back of the Napkin estimate is that grabbing Kentucky *might* double the reconstruction costs for the Union. (figure that only DC and Baltimore will need to be majorly rebuilt. All of the major cities combined in Kentucky *might* be the same population as Baltimore.


OTOH, my guess is it won't be until the Long administration (20 years!) until some of the cities remaining in the Confederacy will be rebuilt back to pre-war standing.
 
In terms of bloodlust, the Sack of Washington probably turns it up to 11. I'm not honestly sure iOTL what the single military event in the history of the US that led to the most American women being raped. My *guesses* are either the Fall of the Philippines *or* some battle with Native Americans (and no, I don't know if that would be by US Army soldiers on Native American Women or by a group of Native American men on White women, my guess is the first). I'm not sure any of these are anywhere near the Sack of Washington.
 
Top