Cinco de Mayo
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
- Status
Re: the whole matter of breaking apart pieces of the CSA.
What if, the US itself is at loggerheads at what the post war settlement is to be like, but one group that is adamant that *most* Confederate (i.e. beyond Arizona and the full Delmarva peninsula and parts of northern Virginia) is absolutely not worth trying to reabsorb into the Union.
But at the same time the case is strongly being made that to break the Confederacy into smaller pieces is good overall (easier to bully around smaller nations than one giant CSA).
Maybe attaching specific personalities at the State department or in the Senate around these viewpoints? And in the middle of that maybe you get some Native American who becomes a hero in the war making prominent public statements about native rights and that gets thrown into the mix with Oklahoma, and then prominent members of the Black community want their say with Freedmen refugees (maybe Kentucky as a whole is held as a weird not fully defined DMZ and then post war it's decided that it's best to send Freedmen there) , and by the end of it all you get some compromise that *seems* like it's a far stretch but one that comes together when you get competing viewpoints that Hughes or someone pushes into hashing out something workable.
idk, just trying to think of a way to get this speculation to work.
What if, the US itself is at loggerheads at what the post war settlement is to be like, but one group that is adamant that *most* Confederate (i.e. beyond Arizona and the full Delmarva peninsula and parts of northern Virginia) is absolutely not worth trying to reabsorb into the Union.
But at the same time the case is strongly being made that to break the Confederacy into smaller pieces is good overall (easier to bully around smaller nations than one giant CSA).
Maybe attaching specific personalities at the State department or in the Senate around these viewpoints? And in the middle of that maybe you get some Native American who becomes a hero in the war making prominent public statements about native rights and that gets thrown into the mix with Oklahoma, and then prominent members of the Black community want their say with Freedmen refugees (maybe Kentucky as a whole is held as a weird not fully defined DMZ and then post war it's decided that it's best to send Freedmen there) , and by the end of it all you get some compromise that *seems* like it's a far stretch but one that comes together when you get competing viewpoints that Hughes or someone pushes into hashing out something workable.
idk, just trying to think of a way to get this speculation to work.
Yeah there'll definitely be a variety of opinions inside the USA as to various/appropriate options in the settlement, and I hope to capture that debate well. Lot of different ways things could go
Seems wierd, theres not enough of them to really want to suppress and just enough of them that the Liberals would probably want to pocket them.
DC didn't get electoral votes OTL until 1961. They still don't get Senators, and only one non-voting delegate in the House.
See, and that's the thing - I think that that is exactly how it would go. Long would take such as a challenge and would move in to retake it as soon as is feasible - and I don't see this 1930s US being willing to spill the blood of spend the treasure to save it. Now I do think that Kentucky would put up a better fight than Danzig - but there would be too much of a population that was loyal to the Confederacy remaining in the state and the annexation would almost certainly be a done deal - even if the Confederates had to spill more blood for it than they would like. And, of course, this act of restoring National Honour would pretty much give Long carte blanche to do whateve he wants to do as President (Which wouldn't inherently be a BAD thing, mind you. His base of support is amongst the poor and working class, and lifting them up would bbe a good thing. It's just that a Long living in a Confederacy which had been independent for over 70 years, isn't exactly going to do much for the poor black Kentucks in the state. Even if his OTL counterpart would have.) And so the entire experience of an isndependent Kentucky becomes a tragic affair more than anything else.
Yeah this is what I was getting at - as a contrast to other cities in actual states
Well, you know what Long used to say about how his political philosophy worked:
“I drive by and toss each cracker a quarter and each n***er a dime.”
And that was STILL more than most Southern Dems and Dixiecrats would have given them. I'm not going to lie, I have a a much more benevolent view of Long than is common on these boards, all the while recognizing his monumental and self-evident weaknesses. I see him more as a Shakepsearean tragedy than anything else. But I DO believe he still cared about the African-American population of his state and nation, even if he political realities meant that he couldn't express it as much - there was absolutely no political gain in establishing schools and free books for black communities in Lousiana for instance, but he did it anyway. And I suspect that this alt-Long will still work to better the Freedmen community; though he would not do so if it meant a threat to his power or support (because, well, he's still Long).
Last edited:
No wonder the Louisiana elite feared him and had him killed. He was too radical to be left alive.
One of the stories I always loved about Long was, one day he was walking with a friend passed a bookstore (I think In DC, but I could be wrong) and saw a copy of a The Count of Monte Cristo. He ran inside and bought it for his friend. When said friend asked why that book, of all the options, Long said "Because the man in that book knew how to hate. And if you're gonna get anywhere in life, you need to know how to hate."
When asked why he didn't run a strong candidate against the major of New Orleans, who was a major political opponent to Longism, he also laughed and said that it was good sense to have an enemy that one could heap scorn upon and paint with the brush of being their enemy. It gave the opposition someone to rally behind and also someone for his supporters to rally against. And, all the while, he politically neutered the Mayor enough that he couldn't be a MAJOR threat.
Long didn't just oppose the upper class. He absolutely despised them. Utterly. He wasn't willing to kill to do what he had to do (though I'd like to think that this was a moral stance, he was also notoriously a physical coward who grew sick at the threat of violence) but he DID despise them. And he saw anyone who was opposed to the Elites - a group that he believed had kept himself and others like him, down - as his natural allies. And though Long certainly understood the political realities of the South and his State, he still did what he could to help the African American population when he could. The most prominent examples of this was when he extended the free school-book legislation he had passed to include black schools. There was no reason to really do this - certainly there was no political gain from it, but he actually fought tooth and nail to bring it about. And I suspect the reason is that he, much like Lyndon Johnson years later, felt some affinity and sypathy for the black population of the South. He couldn't, and most certainly wouldn't, take a political risk to udnermine segregation - that would have been, to his mind, foolish and stupid - but he would do what he could when he could.
That quote is incredible. I love that book with all my cold black heart. Best part is Dantes bankrupting the bank of France and possibly plunging Europe into a depression to get back at one guy. Now THAT'S revenge!
I, as a good Catholic boy, cannot condone such extreme behaviors
But I bring it up to show that Long is, by his very nature, not a typical demogogue who makes peace with the elites as soon as he gains power. He was well aware of that condemnation of himself and actively worried about it, openly wondering if it fit him or not - not exactly the phislophical quandry of a "out for himself" type. Longism in the Confederacy is not going to be Tillmanism 2.0, though it will likely build off of the earlier movement's network and examples. But it IS going to be revolutionary at it's heart - Long was more than willing to accept those Elites who came around to his side, but there was never any question that they were second fiddle in the movement and organization. He grew up in a family and parish that had strong Unionist leanings during the Civil War and strong Populist-Socialist leanings during his childhood. His first major political demonstration was, as a child, arguing in a debate for the Socialist Party platform ... and winning. Given power, and the chance, he's going to do everything in his power to remake the Confederacy into a government that cares for the needs of those 'poor crackers' and he's liable to help out the freedmen as much as he politically can (which isn't to say that Long wasn't racis or bigotted. He, naturally, was. But he still did care and was willing to do something). Basically, the Confederacy during and after Long is going to be a very different place than what existed before - he'll restore order, bring the ruling elite to heel, and build a base of support which is predominantly based on poor white farmers and laborers while helping black freedmen where and when its politicaly feasible (not convenient. He went ut of his way in OTL. But FEASIBLE). This is going to be the Confederacy of the Kingfish of the LODGE; and, assuming no successful assasination attempts, it's going to be a very fascinating place!
Yes, Huey Long being president for life will be a net positive for the CSA and usher in a golden age of peace and prosperity for the common man. His political ideology of mixing Nationalism and Socialism shall be thing that finally set things right.I, as a good Catholic boy, cannot condone such extreme behaviors
But I bring it up to show that Long is, by his very nature, not a typical demogogue who makes peace with the elites as soon as he gains power. He was well aware of that condemnation of himself and actively worried about it, openly wondering if it fit him or not - not exactly the phislophical quandry of a "out for himself" type. Longism in the Confederacy is not going to be Tillmanism 2.0, though it will likely build off of the earlier movement's network and examples. But it IS going to be revolutionary at it's heart - Long was more than willing to accept those Elites who came around to his side, but there was never any question that they were second fiddle in the movement and organization. He grew up in a family and parish that had strong Unionist leanings during the Civil War and strong Populist-Socialist leanings during his childhood. His first major political demonstration was, as a child, arguing in a debate for the Socialist Party platform ... and winning. Given power, and the chance, he's going to do everything in his power to remake the Confederacy into a government that cares for the needs of those 'poor crackers' and he's liable to help out the freedmen as much as he politically can (which isn't to say that Long wasn't racis or bigotted. He, naturally, was. But he still did care and was willing to do something). Basically, the Confederacy during and after Long is going to be a very different place than what existed before - he'll restore order, bring the ruling elite to heel, and build a base of support which is predominantly based on poor white farmers and laborers while helping black freedmen where and when its politicaly feasible (not convenient. He went ut of his way in OTL. But FEASIBLE). This is going to be the Confederacy of the Kingfish of the LODGE; and, assuming no successful assasination attempts, it's going to be a very fascinating place!
Share our Wealth did not advocate for Public Ownership of means of Production.
Long is no way a Socialist.
A few points here. The movement of Negros that the US is going to have to deal with will be in the *millions*, not *thousands*. Last population numbers that have been tossed around are 24M population of the Confederacy, 1/3 slave (and a few more free negros, I think). Just about *any* option will be better than staying in a post-war confederate state where the only change is that Slavery is no longer allowed (and functionally the United States would have a hard time doing that in a peace treaty and there is the honest question of whether without international pressure being anti-slavery (reinstituting slavery being a no-go for British or French loans to put the CSA back together)
iOTL, there was some hope given by reconstruction, iTTL there is none. There will be negro emigration (even if illegal) to every country that the former CSA national "borders", including the US, Mexico, Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico, Haiti and probably some of the other Islands. This is not *forced* resettlement, or even resettlement driven by famine, this is people taking the advantage and getting *out*. The only somewhat similar situation iOTL that I can think of is the Jews getting out of the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union came apart and *that* will be focused compared to what will happen at the end of this war.
====However====
Honestly, without creation of a Kentucky Republic by the peace treaty, you may end up with one later whether the USA wants one or not. With the greater movement on the Central Front, (and Kentucky being the easiest place to "return" former slaves to if they must be returned from the USA), the *serious damage* to the confederacy and the high number of weapons that will be produced, a racially based rebellion in Kentucky starting the *day* of the peace treaty is highly likely. This rebellion will be well armed and this KR may end up better armed than *all* of what the Confederacy can put together on the day that the war ends.
So there are basically three scenarios Post War
1) The United States is willing to accept any CSA ex-slave and gets a massive population influx
2) The United States slices off a piece of the CSA and is willing to have ex-slaves go there instead of the US
3) The United States deals with wars between the CSA and well-armed ex-slave revolts in areas near the US border such as Kentucky, Northern Virginia or any other concentration of ex-slaves (Not sure if the Black belt would still be as obvious once slave use in factory starts). (And these revolts might actually succeed!)
This scenario does lead to somewhat different relations post war of the Kentucky Republic and the USA (think UK/Israel in the 1950s) with the KR having viewed the USA government as having abandoned them , but my guess is that the hatred of the CSA (at least until Long(?)) will patch over things.
iOTL, there was some hope given by reconstruction, iTTL there is none. There will be negro emigration (even if illegal) to every country that the former CSA national "borders", including the US, Mexico, Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico, Haiti and probably some of the other Islands. This is not *forced* resettlement, or even resettlement driven by famine, this is people taking the advantage and getting *out*. The only somewhat similar situation iOTL that I can think of is the Jews getting out of the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union came apart and *that* will be focused compared to what will happen at the end of this war.
====However====
Honestly, without creation of a Kentucky Republic by the peace treaty, you may end up with one later whether the USA wants one or not. With the greater movement on the Central Front, (and Kentucky being the easiest place to "return" former slaves to if they must be returned from the USA), the *serious damage* to the confederacy and the high number of weapons that will be produced, a racially based rebellion in Kentucky starting the *day* of the peace treaty is highly likely. This rebellion will be well armed and this KR may end up better armed than *all* of what the Confederacy can put together on the day that the war ends.
So there are basically three scenarios Post War
1) The United States is willing to accept any CSA ex-slave and gets a massive population influx
2) The United States slices off a piece of the CSA and is willing to have ex-slaves go there instead of the US
3) The United States deals with wars between the CSA and well-armed ex-slave revolts in areas near the US border such as Kentucky, Northern Virginia or any other concentration of ex-slaves (Not sure if the Black belt would still be as obvious once slave use in factory starts). (And these revolts might actually succeed!)
This scenario does lead to somewhat different relations post war of the Kentucky Republic and the USA (think UK/Israel in the 1950s) with the KR having viewed the USA government as having abandoned them , but my guess is that the hatred of the CSA (at least until Long(?)) will patch over things.
Last edited:
I've always regarded Long as a bastardized Henry W. Allen. Nevertheless, is it safe to assume by the 1930s Confederate politics will essentially be dominated by the 'Big Three', namely Harry Byrd, James Byrnes, and Long himself? The conservative Virginian, the moderate South Carolinian, and the radical Louisianan, all to share that glorious Richmond arena.
KingSweden, out of curiosity where will Integralism establish itself in the world? It seems obvious that France will go in that direction, but it is uncertain as to whether other states will do so. Since Integralism is an ideology based in Catholicism, one would surmise that Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. would be susceptible to it.
I would guess that Chile could maybe go Integralist if there is enough chaos after the Great American War. Portugal could as well, considering they aren't exactly the most stable of nations and a more authoritarian political system could be used by the monarch to entrench their power. Maybe Italy could fall to it as well. I don't see Spain doing so based on prior updates content and titles (one title was 150 years of democracy in Spain), Brazil could fall to it should they sustain immense casualties in the war and achieve a pittance of territorial compensation or nothing at all, sort of like Italy's OTL mutilated victory in WW1.
I would guess that Chile could maybe go Integralist if there is enough chaos after the Great American War. Portugal could as well, considering they aren't exactly the most stable of nations and a more authoritarian political system could be used by the monarch to entrench their power. Maybe Italy could fall to it as well. I don't see Spain doing so based on prior updates content and titles (one title was 150 years of democracy in Spain), Brazil could fall to it should they sustain immense casualties in the war and achieve a pittance of territorial compensation or nothing at all, sort of like Italy's OTL mutilated victory in WW1.
True.
Yeah, I'm excited to (eventually...) get to the Longist CSA and its impacts.I, as a good Catholic boy, cannot condone such extreme behaviors
But I bring it up to show that Long is, by his very nature, not a typical demogogue who makes peace with the elites as soon as he gains power. He was well aware of that condemnation of himself and actively worried about it, openly wondering if it fit him or not - not exactly the phislophical quandry of a "out for himself" type. Longism in the Confederacy is not going to be Tillmanism 2.0, though it will likely build off of the earlier movement's network and examples. But it IS going to be revolutionary at it's heart - Long was more than willing to accept those Elites who came around to his side, but there was never any question that they were second fiddle in the movement and organization. He grew up in a family and parish that had strong Unionist leanings during the Civil War and strong Populist-Socialist leanings during his childhood. His first major political demonstration was, as a child, arguing in a debate for the Socialist Party platform ... and winning. Given power, and the chance, he's going to do everything in his power to remake the Confederacy into a government that cares for the needs of those 'poor crackers' and he's liable to help out the freedmen as much as he politically can (which isn't to say that Long wasn't racis or bigotted. He, naturally, was. But he still did care and was willing to do something). Basically, the Confederacy during and after Long is going to be a very different place than what existed before - he'll restore order, bring the ruling elite to heel, and build a base of support which is predominantly based on poor white farmers and laborers while helping black freedmen where and when its politicaly feasible (not convenient. He went ut of his way in OTL. But FEASIBLE). This is going to be the Confederacy of the Kingfish of the LODGE; and, assuming no successful assasination attempts, it's going to be a very fascinating place!
And he wasn't really a fascist, either. The closest thing I can compare Long to is Juan Peron (incidentally, the man whose political impact Long will most closely mirror) or a more conservative Lazaro Cardenas. Not comparisons I make by accident.
Byrd v. Long will be the premier political dispute of the 1930s/40s, that's for sure. Not sure when and where exactly Byrnes would make his mark, he was enough of an opportunist that I could see him just being a conservative Longist in the end.
You'll have a variety of degrees of integralism, I would say. The Catholic Church ITTL, as you've probably noticed, has not exactly reconciled itself entirely to popular democracy but has a fairly flexible faction from the Leo XIII years and after that is mostly just anti-socialist and anti-anticlericalist, and other than that aren't opposed to democracy, per se.
But you'll have some varying degrees. To your point on Spain - there'll definitely be a soft-integralist component to the Spanish right, albeit one reconciled to Spain's democratic institutions (this is where having the relatively liberal, German-born Leopold in charge for thirty-five years was hugely helpful and Spain's dominant National Liberal Party balancing its commitments to reform with not antagonizing northern Spain's powerful Catholic lobby). Austria IOTL had a strongly Catholic conservative tradition after WW1 that was only really replaced by the Vaterland Front due to the threat of Nazism and Anschluss. Brazil is, you know, Brazil, where Vargas and others were actual real life integralists. It's hard to describe Duplessis-era Quebec as anything other than integralist-adjacent IOTL so just imagine the politics in a world where sectarian identity in Canada is much more polarized.
So there won't be one single brand of integralism worldwide, just like there wasn't one single vein of fascism or communism.
Terrific post.
IOTL you had something like 1.6 million Blacks move South to North between 1910-1930, and then about 5 million from 1940-1970. Imagine concentrating, say, three to four million from 1915-1925ish, and having them be largely illiterate former slaves. That's a massive demographic transformation completely unlike anything ever experienced in North America. I can't even begin to fathom the impacts of that; probably mass riots in Northern cities, racial violence far and above anything in OTL's Red Summer of 1919, maybe a return to de jure segregation. And in the South, especially after the economic and demographic disaster of the war itself on the white male population, you now have something like an eighth of the population and the economically vital poor underclass just decamping for greener pastures and those left behind fighting to the knife to preserve their postwar position. That's why my attempts at doing math on how Confederate postwar demographics will work out have been frustrating for me; I've mapped out a lot of countries' population sizes in 2020 (and every US state - might post some of those for fun in the Cincoverse thread!) but the CSA remains an enigma to me since this is basically a Russia in WW1/RCW/Holodomor/WW2 level disaster. Trying to wrap my head around the math and numbers is daunting.
That's one reason why I'm intrigued by the idea of a Free Commonwealth of Kentucky - Yankee policymakers will probably not want all those refugees and need somewhere to send them, especially since the pre-WW1 immigration wave hasn't ended yet (since, you know, no WW1 in Europe) and the demographic situation in the US will be dramatically different in 1918 compared to 1913, transformationally so. That has knock-on effects. So if you can absorb two million in the US and another 2-2.5 million in Kentucky... that takes a lot of pressures off US leadership.
- Status