Status
Not open for further replies.

Rivercat893

Banned
"...1886 thus serves as a fulcrum year in the history of American laborism; it was definitively the start of accelerating labor militancy, for which the General Strike (which was certainly not a strike across all industries, but did touch the major ones organized by the Knights of Labor) serves as a prism through which to view it. The Knights called for the strike to begin on May 1, 1886 - May Day - to force an eight hour workday. With their membership of 800,000 working men of all races and ethnicities in the United States and Canada, the General Strike ground many industries, primarily the railroad and steel industries, to a halt. Various Knights seized plants and shops by violence; human chains were formed around buildings as one "line of battle," while men with clubs, chains and rifles waited patiently for the inevitable strikebreakers to arrive. The tone varied state by state; in the West, for instance, the Strike became yet another excuse to target Chinese nonunion laborers, whom were inevitably the preferred scabs; in Philadelphia and Baltimore, many black men refused to cross the picket lines and instead joined up with their fellow working men, linking arms and singing gospel hymns. Lithuanian workers hired to restart a factory in Chicago peacefully turned around and went home rather than try to cross the line; Irish policemen in New York announced they would organize a policing guild and threatened to join the strike as well, plunging the city into chaos and triggering mass riots and recriminations within Tammany Hall.

The coordination, size and strength of the strike shocked the industrialist oligarchy as well as the ruling classes. National guards were called up in nearly every state to "put down the sedition;" to a generation of politicians who had watched the South plunge the country into an ugly war of secession just two decades earlier when they were young men, they viewed the Knights of Labor as a similarly dangerous organization that sought to break the Union's social contract in the way the Confederacy had broken its Constitution and democratic form of government. Violence spiked; the Knights, who by trying to organize "one big union" in a proto-syndicalist movement, suffered from individual chapters cracking under pressure and under the butts of rifles. Massive riots sparked in Haymarket Square in Chicago, Five Points in New York, and along the Philadelphia Docks as a rogue group of Knights tried to prevent non-affiliated dockworkers at the Philadelphia Navy Yard from going to work. The Philadelphia Dockyard Riot was the worst of them; to protect their shipyard workers, who began fighting the Knights, the USS Nantucket, an old ironclad sitting in dock, opened fire with its guns at the rioters, killing seventeen. The Navy's response deepened the resolve of the strikers and heightened the labor movement's antipathy towards the Navy long-term; it also finally induced politicians to nudge industrialists to start dealing with the Knights more aggressively or more directly.

The militancy of the Knights would have multiple knock-on effects, even as employer after employer conceded an eight-hour day and other craft unions who despised the "mobbish" Knights began to push for such privileges of their own. It heightened the hostility between labor and Liberal; organized labor's success at penetrating American political structures ran into a firm wall where New England began. It also triggered a major debate within labor itself; between worker cooperatives and "one big union," as the Knights pushed it and as many politicians slowly became amenable to, or smaller "local" unions that would organize and deal directly with ownership, especially in the crafts; these more moderate unions would that same December form the American Federation of Labor in response to this question..."


- Brothers in Arms: Trade Unionism in the United States
The trade unions in America and Dixie might foreshadow the rise of communism. Also, given that the CSA is less powerful and industrialized than its counterparts up north, the levels of immigration are going to be quite low, but that doesn't mean that some groups come into the country more than others, Since New Orleans is more or less a Southern version of New York, it's going to experience an influx of non-Anglos especially Italians and Greeks which it had a lot of them in OTL.
 
Last edited:
The Nassaus
"...at Kuyper's insistence, many of the Reformed drew into their own spheres; though nobody knew it then, this was the start of Pillarization, and by the early 1910s Calvinists, Catholics, liberals and socialists would have not only their own political parties but newspapers, social institutions, schools and even labor unions. The Catholics and socialists - via the organizational ethos of both lay societies in the Church and laborism as the backbone of the worker's movement - were most successful and forming their "pillars," and with little encouragement or discouragement from the establish, Dutch society peacefully and quickly self-segregated with little intercommunal mixing, intermarriage or association..."

- The Nassaus
 
The trade unions in America and Dixie might foreshadow the rise of communism. Also, given that the CSA is less powerful and industrialized than its counterparts up north, the levels of immigration are going to be quite low, but that doesn't mean that some groups come into the country more than others, Since New Orleans is more or less a Southern version of New York, it's going to experience an influx of non-Anglos.

Thanks for reading! Yeah, New Orleans is definitely one of the few parts of the CSA - besides maybe Charleston or Savannah - that will draw a lot of immigration from overseas.
 

Rivercat893

Banned
Thanks for reading! Yeah, New Orleans is definitely one of the few parts of the CSA - besides maybe Charleston or Savannah - that will draw a lot of immigration from overseas.
Don't forget Birmingham and Atlanta. They're heavily industrialized cities that could really a lot of immigrant labor.
 
"...1886 thus serves as a fulcrum year in the history of American laborism; it was definitively the start of accelerating labor militancy, for which the General Strike (which was certainly not a strike across all industries, but did touch the major ones organized by the Knights of Labor) serves as a prism through which to view it. The Knights called for the strike to begin on May 1, 1886 - May Day - to force an eight hour workday. With their membership of 800,000 working men of all races and ethnicities in the United States and Canada, the General Strike ground many industries, primarily the railroad and steel industries, to a halt. Various Knights seized plants and shops by violence; human chains were formed around buildings as one "line of battle," while men with clubs, chains and rifles waited patiently for the inevitable strikebreakers to arrive. The tone varied state by state; in the West, for instance, the Strike became yet another excuse to target Chinese nonunion laborers, whom were inevitably the preferred scabs; in Philadelphia and Baltimore, many black men refused to cross the picket lines and instead joined up with their fellow working men, linking arms and singing gospel hymns. Lithuanian workers hired to restart a factory in Chicago peacefully turned around and went home rather than try to cross the line; Irish policemen in New York announced they would organize a policing guild and threatened to join the strike as well, plunging the city into chaos and triggering mass riots and recriminations within Tammany Hall.

The coordination, size and strength of the strike shocked the industrialist oligarchy as well as the ruling classes. National guards were called up in nearly every state to "put down the sedition;" to a generation of politicians who had watched the South plunge the country into an ugly war of secession just two decades earlier when they were young men, they viewed the Knights of Labor as a similarly dangerous organization that sought to break the Union's social contract in the way the Confederacy had broken its Constitution and democratic form of government. Violence spiked; the Knights, who by trying to organize "one big union" in a proto-syndicalist movement, suffered from individual chapters cracking under pressure and under the butts of rifles. Massive riots sparked in Haymarket Square in Chicago, Five Points in New York, and along the Philadelphia Docks as a rogue group of Knights tried to prevent non-affiliated dockworkers at the Philadelphia Navy Yard from going to work. The Philadelphia Dockyard Riot was the worst of them; to protect their shipyard workers, who began fighting the Knights, the USS Nantucket, an old ironclad sitting in dock, opened fire with its guns at the rioters, killing seventeen. The Navy's response deepened the resolve of the strikers and heightened the labor movement's antipathy towards the Navy long-term; it also finally induced politicians to nudge industrialists to start dealing with the Knights more aggressively or more directly.

The militancy of the Knights would have multiple knock-on effects, even as employer after employer conceded an eight-hour day and other craft unions who despised the "mobbish" Knights began to push for such privileges of their own. It heightened the hostility between labor and Liberal; organized labor's success at penetrating American political structures ran into a firm wall where New England began. It also triggered a major debate within labor itself; between worker cooperatives and "one big union," as the Knights pushed it and as many politicians slowly became amenable to, or smaller "local" unions that would organize and deal directly with ownership, especially in the crafts; these more moderate unions would that same December form the American Federation of Labor in response to this question..."


- Brothers in Arms: Trade Unionism in the United States
It sounds you’re setting up the Knights as an early version of the IWW (aka the Wobblies). Which major party will become the most friendly with labor?
 
It sounds you’re setting up the Knights as an early version of the IWW (aka the Wobblies). Which major party will become the most friendly with labor?

That's more or less the trajectory we're on - the Knights will survive as a major force longer than OTL but eventually the IWW will rise to replace them as the radical AFL alternative (and be more influential as well).

Much like IOTL, it'll be the Democrats - but as an even more explicitly social democratic labor party than even FDR's New Deal era was. Not having the Solid South as a conservative force within the party will change things dramatically. The Liberals will essentially be the liberal-conservative right wing party. We're already starting to see a bit of that now with the present conditions... Democrats in TTL 1880s are making the migration of being the "common man's party" in a Jacksonian sense, which a lot of their old guard (Hendricks, Bayard, Pendleton, even Custer and Rosecrans to a point) are still beholden to, and are about to enter their transition to being a "common man's party" in the sense of what the circumstances of the late Gilded Age and beyond will need (there was some motion towards this with the hard money/soft money dispute presaging a bigger split down the line away from the strict constructionist/small government school of thinking, though it won't be until Custer's foreshadowed election that this really will accelerate)
 

Rivercat893

Banned
That's more or less the trajectory we're on - the Knights will survive as a major force longer than OTL but eventually the IWW will rise to replace them as the radical AFL alternative (and be more influential as well).

Much like IOTL, it'll be the Democrats - but as an even more explicitly social democratic labor party than even FDR's New Deal era was. Not having the Solid South as a conservative force within the party will change things dramatically. The Liberals will essentially be the liberal-conservative right wing party. We're already starting to see a bit of that now with the present conditions... Democrats in TTL 1880s are making the migration of being the "common man's party" in a Jacksonian sense, which a lot of their old guard (Hendricks, Bayard, Pendleton, even Custer and Rosecrans to a point) are still beholden to, and are about to enter their transition to being a "common man's party" in the sense of what the circumstances of the late Gilded Age and beyond will need (there was some motion towards this with the hard money/soft money dispute presaging a bigger split down the line away from the strict constructionist/small government school of thinking, though it won't be until Custer's foreshadowed election that this really will accelerate)
I remember when I heard that there was Black migration to the North in one of the chapters. My guess is that they will form their own ethnic conclaves akin to Little Italy and Chinatown.
 
I remember when I heard that there was Black migration to the North in one of the chapters. My guess is that they will form their own ethnic conclaves akin to Little Italy and Chinatown.

Oh definitely, one could argue that predominantly Black neighborhoods in OTL are effectively the same kind of enclave even though they aren't immigrants from overseas (and the reasons, both from choice and the choice being made for them, as to why ethnic enclaves form remain the same)
 

Rivercat893

Banned
Oh definitely, one could argue that predominantly Black neighborhoods in OTL are effectively the same kind of enclave even though they aren't immigrants from overseas (and the reasons, both from choice and the choice being made for them, as to why ethnic enclaves form remain the same)
Even after slavery ends in the CSA, sharecropping would not exist, or at least not in its OTL form since there is no Reconstruction and the peculiar institution ends through economic factors like the Panic of 1873. There would also exist an alternate equivalent of the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes in the South as well as the North.
 
It seems like the Liberals will have a reputation for being the "natural party of governance," much like the OTL Canadian Liberals, albeit one that is rather elitist in execution. I imagine that the party's key blocks will be upper- and middle-class WASPs, most aspirational types, and many Blacks, American Indians, and Chinese (though that policy is more due to Democratic attitudes on race than anything else). On the other hand, the Democrats will become more populist and "rough around the edges," being simultaneously social democratic and also embedded with some deeply racist thinking. Catholics, lower-class and settler WASPs, lower class Blacks, and labor advocates would find their home in this party. I am interested in seeing how the US Democrats distance themselves from the PRI - I mean, the CSA Democrats, especially if anything akin to Heart of Darkness gets published that reintroduces Americans to the idea that something is rotten in the state south of the border.
 
That's more or less the trajectory we're on - the Knights will survive as a major force longer than OTL but eventually the IWW will rise to replace them as the radical AFL alternative (and be more influential as well).

Much like IOTL, it'll be the Democrats - but as an even more explicitly social democratic labor party than even FDR's New Deal era was. Not having the Solid South as a conservative force within the party will change things dramatically. The Liberals will essentially be the liberal-conservative right wing party. We're already starting to see a bit of that now with the present conditions... Democrats in TTL 1880s are making the migration of being the "common man's party" in a Jacksonian sense, which a lot of their old guard (Hendricks, Bayard, Pendleton, even Custer and Rosecrans to a point) are still beholden to, and are about to enter their transition to being a "common man's party" in the sense of what the circumstances of the late Gilded Age and beyond will need (there was some motion towards this with the hard money/soft money dispute presaging a bigger split down the line away from the strict constructionist/small government school of thinking, though it won't be until Custer's foreshadowed election that this really will accelerate)
So it seems like you’re setting up the Dems as a complicated left-wing economics, socially conservative, like OTL, but less emphasis towards conservatism. Nice. Will the CSA have anything like this or is it just gonna continue its downward spiral toward a tobacco/ham republic?
 
Even after slavery ends in the CSA, sharecropping would not exist, or at least not in its OTL form since there is no Reconstruction and the peculiar institution ends through economic factors like the Panic of 1873. There would also exist an alternate equivalent of the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes in the South as well as the North.

Slavery definitely still exists at this point; share cropping is also not unique to the US, it’s just the form of land tenancy that sprung up IOTL South
It seems like the Liberals will have a reputation for being the "natural party of governance," much like the OTL Canadian Liberals, albeit one that is rather elitist in execution. I imagine that the party's key blocks will be upper- and middle-class WASPs, most aspirational types, and many Blacks, American Indians, and Chinese (though that policy is more due to Democratic attitudes on race than anything else). On the other hand, the Democrats will become more populist and "rough around the edges," being simultaneously social democratic and also embedded with some deeply racist thinking. Catholics, lower-class and settler WASPs, lower class Blacks, and labor advocates would find their home in this party. I am interested in seeing how the US Democrats distance themselves from the PRI - I mean, the CSA Democrats, especially if anything akin to Heart of Darkness gets published that reintroduces Americans to the idea that something is rotten in the state south of the border.
Spot on! There’ll definitely be quite a bit of factionalism in both of these parties too since they cut more across ethnic/confessional/class lines than ideological/cultural ingroup signaling lines.
I’d imagine that within a few decades, the fact that there are “Democrats” on both sides of the Ohio is just an anachronism of the name - the Copperheads are all dying off, the party will soon turn away from Jacksonian ideology with what’s coming down the pike in the 1890s and the Dixie PRI doesn’t have much ideologically in common with them anymore anyways, since it’s mostly just a vehicle for the oligarchy to hold power. Say what you will about the Yankee Dems, but they’re more about ethnic patronage machines and keeping silver miners happy than they are about the planets snuffing out dissent
 
So it seems like you’re setting up the Dems as a complicated left-wing economics, socially conservative, like OTL, but less emphasis towards conservatism. Nice. Will the CSA have anything like this or is it just gonna continue its downward spiral toward a tobacco/ham republic?
That’s more or less my plan. With paternalistic conservatism having much more of an association with Catholicism/a union of aristocracy and labor against the bourgeoisie (it’s gonna get... complicated for monarchists and lefties going after the same bloc of voters) than it ever did OTL, the marriage of left wing economics to social conservativism - particularly doctrinaire Catholic thought - will be much more the norm in this world.

As for the CSA, don’t want to tip my hand too much... let’s just say that after the current oligarch Dems take their project to its inevitable corrupt banana republic conclusion, an ambitious young Governor from the Bayou comes along and has some ideas in mind for how to fix things in ;)
 

Rivercat893

Banned
That’s more or less my plan. With paternalistic conservatism having much more of an association with Catholicism/a union of aristocracy and labor against the bourgeoisie (it’s gonna get... complicated for monarchists and lefties going after the same bloc of voters) than it ever did OTL, the marriage of left wing economics to social conservativism - particularly doctrinaire Catholic thought - will be much more the norm in this world.

As for the CSA, don’t want to tip my hand too much... let’s just say that after the current oligarch Dems take their project to its inevitable corrupt banana republic conclusion, an ambitious young Governor from the Bayou comes along and has some ideas in mind for how to fix things in ;)
Definitely Huey P. Long.
 
That’s more or less my plan. With paternalistic conservatism having much more of an association with Catholicism/a union of aristocracy and labor against the bourgeoisie (it’s gonna get... complicated for monarchists and lefties going after the same bloc of voters) than it ever did OTL, the marriage of left wing economics to social conservativism - particularly doctrinaire Catholic thought - will be much more the norm in this world.

As for the CSA, don’t want to tip my hand too much... let’s just say that after the current oligarch Dems take their project to its inevitable corrupt banana republic conclusion, an ambitious young Governor from the Bayou comes along and has some ideas in mind for how to fix things in ;)
 
The Matriach: Empress Margarita Clementina and the Emergence of a Modern Mexico
"...it was perhaps not lost on anybody that Carlota's return trip was leisurely and circuitous, dragging her son and his future bride [1] through almost every court in Europe on their way back to Mexico, and that their ship from Cadiz went not to Havana before Veracruz, but instead to New York, where Carlota spent three weeks at a luxurious hotel in the bustling, growing city, then on to Washington where she was a guest of honor of President Blaine and Secretary of State John Hay, then finally to Richmond, where she spent Christmas as the personal guest of outgoing President James Longstreet, and where the Mexican ambassador to the Confederacy finally escorted her to New Orleans so that she could return to Mexico City. Margarita would note in her diary that it seemed that her future mother in law did everything she could to delay her return to Mexico, and that the closer they came, the more irritable and anxious the Empress became.

Margarita arrived in a Mexico recovering from a short but brutal civil war, one which opponents of the regime had accused the Empress and Prince Imperial of hiding from in Europe on her "grand tour" to find Luis Maximiliano a bride. Given generous quarters at the Chapultepec to have as her own until she came of age and was to marry, Margarita nevertheless found that Carlota's promise to her father to "treat her as my own daughter" was meant literally - the Empress was as obsessive and controlling of her movements and socializing as she was her other children. Margarita was simultaneously smothered by the strict rules placed upon her by Carlota and also treated dismissively by her; that she was a minor cadet Habsburg seen as being beneath her son was a sore point for Carlota for decades to come. The Prince Imperial, for his part, was friendly but rarely called upon her to bond unless prodded by his parents (Emperor Maximilian was much warmer and welcoming, and made sure to find her a coterie of ladies in waiting to keep her company in those early years of engagement), generally spending more time hunting with his friends or soliciting prostitutes. When they were together, Margarita shone; Luis Maximiliano enjoyed her company, and it was in those teenaged years that he began to "love her imperfectly," as the saying went, caring for her but only superficially, as his lifetime of affairs demonstrated.

Despite her loneliness and the cloying pressures of the Court, Margarita made the best of her new home. Her tutoring in Spanish and Mexican history accelerated beyond what little she had received in Hungary before leaving; that she had a Hungarian immigrant for a tutor, Petofi Geza, helped enormously. She socialized in German, finding a small group of friends of the daughters of elite men in Mexico City who had come at Maximilian's invitation years before. She invested enormously in understanding the war that had nearly felled Maximilian's regime [2] and found herself fascinated by the political developments of the Feliciato, the back half of Prime Minister Felix Zuloaga's reformist era where Mexico migrated from enlightened despotism under Maximilian's liberal-conservative vision to a semi-constitutional monarchy, oscillating between centralism and personalist regionalism as the government avoided igniting the sparks of caudillo control that had triggered the revolt a few years earlier. As for the Mexican people, she was yet a ghost - a name they had heard of, a figure accessible to the elite and bourgeois, not someone they yet had any emotional connection to - though Margarita was already laying the groundwork for the figure she was to become in their hearts..."


- The Matriach: Empress Margarita Clementina and the Emergence of a Modern Mexico

[1] For those who've forgotten, this is Luis Maximiliano's future bride (and someone who will be very important in TTL!Mexican history): Archduchess Margarethe Klementine of Austria - Wikipedia
[2] Nearly may be a bit overzealous by this book
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top