Cinco de Mayo

[username5243]

“WI: Bloc Sud wins” posts get immediately rocketed into the ASB forum

On the North American front, sure. But for Latin America?

I could maybe see something like this:

The Brazilians/Chileans are doing rather well against Argentina, and Chile is able to stop Peru from avenging the loss of the War of the Pacific, even as the CS finds its Triple H war plan falling flat on its face. One or more of the US-aligned South American powers is forced far enough back they decide to surrender. Even as the US pushes every further south, the Bloc Sud is quite clearly winning the rest of the war. So the CS gives up just as well as Argentina or Peru does. With no one really being able to move against the US, but the US being unable to stop Bloc Sud dominance from Mexico southward, both sides are forced to give up. The Bloc Sud basically tells the CS a status quo is the best they're getting. Or maybe the Mexicans and Brazilians would be willing to throw the CS under the bus in exchange for the US recognizing their victories further south.

Just musing, of course it'll depend on how things go. We've heard about the CS's war plans, I hope we hear about the war plans of the South American powers in the next few years.

 

[KingSweden24]

On the North American front, sure. But for Latin America?

I could maybe see something like this:

The Brazilians/Chileans are doing rather well against Argentina, and Chile is able to stop Peru from avenging the loss of the War of the Pacific, even as the CS finds its Triple H war plan falling flat on its face. One or more of the US-aligned South American powers is forced far enough back they decide to surrender. Even as the US pushes every further south, the Bloc Sud is quite clearly winning the rest of the war. So the CS gives up just as well as Argentina or Peru does. With no one really being able to move against the US, but the US being unable to stop Bloc Sud dominance from Mexico southward, both sides are forced to give up. The Bloc Sud basically tells the CS a status quo is the best they're getting. Or maybe the Mexicans and Brazilians would be willing to throw the CS under the bus in exchange for the US recognizing their victories further south.

Just musing, of course it'll depend on how things go. We've heard about the CS's war plans, I hope we hear about the war plans of the South American powers in the next few years.

I like you’re thought process. I’ll keep mum about my South American plans for now but I will say I’m impressed how you’ve deduced the willingness of the rest of Bloc Sud to hurl the CS under the bus

 

[Couperin]

I like you’re thought process. I’ll keep mum about my South American plans for now but I will say I’m impressed how you’ve deduced the willingness of the rest of Bloc Sud to hurl the CS under the bus

I wonder about how much sectarian sympathies play into Bloc Sud distancing itself from the CSA. Two Catholic monarchies and an oligarchic Latin American republic are not likely to get along too swimmingly with a bunch of fiercely Protestant Confederates. Alt-Huey Long could even play a role in repairing relations with those countries, considering his native Louisianan status, which would obviously mean that he's had experience bridging ecumenical divides.

 

[KingSweden24]

I wonder about how much sectarian sympathies play into Bloc Sud distancing itself from the CSA. Two Catholic monarchies and an oligarchic Latin American republic are not likely to get along too swimmingly with a bunch of fiercely Protestant Confederates. Alt-Huey Long could even play a role in repairing relations with those countries, considering his native Louisianan status, which would obviously mean that he's had experience bridging ecumenical divides.

This is certainly subtextual, absolutely. Also, the Confederates have been raging assholes so they’re the easiest, pragmatically speaking, to cut loose in a worst case scenario

 

[Reisen Storm]

Two Catholic monarchies and an oligarchic Latin American republic are not likely to get along too swimmingly with a bunch of fiercely Protestant Confederates

You forgot massively racist as well, I doubt the confederate Political elite views the rest of Bloc Sud fondly, save maybe for the White political elite of Brazil and even then, that's a maybe.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

True, though the circumstances there were fairly unique - there was a major underlying realignment in the GOP’s favor in the South going on at that time and the economy was coming back out of the dot com bust (Bush was lucky that his term started largely at the nadir of that). This alt-1918 would be/will be more similar to OTL’s demob elections that went against the recently-triumphant governments

So let's take a peek at 1918 then.

Going in we had a slim Democratic House (218-215) and bigger Democratic Senate (54-42). Afterwards we had GOP control of both houses (240-192 and 49-47). So what caused that? Demobilization? The war itself was still ongoing. Over a million Americans were still fighting in the Meuse-Argonne campaign for example. There were probably two million American servicemen in France in late 1918.

So I don't particularily buy "demobilization" as an excuse for 1918. The 1946 US and 1945 UK elections - sure. But we're talking about 1918.

So what caused the 1918 elections. First of all, while a GOP victory, we're hardly talking a wave. The non-Presidential party wining 25 seats in the house and 6 in the senate. In 1914, the GOP won 62 seats. In 1910, Democrats won 55 seats. In 1906, Democrats won 32 seats. 25 seats is well within the margins there. [1]

We have three reasons why the GOP won seats in 1918.

1 - The normal election cycle of early 20th Century midterms as shown above, especially in the House
2 - Wilson's own popularity. He raised taxes to pay for the war and yet still had to borrow a ton - leading to a wonderful combo of high taxes and inflation.
3. Wilson fragmenting the Democratic Party. His own abrasive personality and and pissed off German-Americans (formerly a huge Democratic constituency) depressed turnout in traditional Democratic strongholds such as the Midwest and major cities.

So what's different here ITTL. Much of this is pure speculation but I'm drawing off what the OP has previously mentioned. Let's look at each of my three above points and talk about them
1 - Midterm Cycles: Midterms in this TL more or less follow the same "Party that's not in power gets seats." Looking from 1886-1906 you have the following elections where the out-of-power party gains seats in the House: 1886, 1890, 1894, 1898, 1902, 1906. Wait a second...that's every single midterm! So it is safe to say that the general midterm rules apply here as well. That would bode well for the Democrats right? Well...
2 - Presidential Popularity: Instead of the prissy and staid Wilson, loathed by a major constituency and hated by tons of power brokers in his own party, we have Charlemagne Hughes running the show, victor of the Great American War. This timeline's sources so far have treated Hughes as wise, charismatic, and lucky. Who's to say that won't hold - especially when combined with what the OP has called the "Liberal Quadradecennium," an essentially unprecedented era of one-party dominance not seen since before the Civil War.
3 - Party Fragmentation: I can't answer any questions about how/if any political parties fragment or what happens on the ground as that stuff hasn't been posted yet 🤷‍♂️

The question thus is the following: Is Charlemagne Hughes, shown up to here so far in the TL as stacking wins on top of wins on top of wins, combined with the OP's previous statements of 1880-1920 being a Liberal era/wank, enough to offset what has been as predictable as the tides - losing parties win the next midterm (at least in the House)[2]

[1] If you average out the opposing party seat gains in the 1906, 1910, 1914, and 1918 midterm elections, you get 43.5 seats won by the non-Presidential party in those four elections.
[2] I purposely didn't look at the Senate as ITTL and OTL there wasn't direct election of Senators until the early 20th Century.

 

[WanderingProfessor]

This is certainly subtextual, absolutely. Also, the Confederates have been raging assholes so they’re the easiest, pragmatically speaking, to cut loose in a worst case scenario

I wonder about how much sectarian sympathies play into Bloc Sud distancing itself from the CSA. Two Catholic monarchies and an oligarchic Latin American republic are not likely to get along too swimmingly with a bunch of fiercely Protestant Confederates. Alt-Huey Long could even play a role in repairing relations with those countries, considering his native Louisianan status, which would obviously mean that he's had experience bridging ecumenical divides.

Then again, the Confederacy has Louisiana a state with a large Catholic population. I don't think they would have much issue with a Catholic country but they'll stick to their own interpretation of Protestantism.

 

[KingSweden24]

So let's take a peek at 1918 then.

Going in we had a slim Democratic House (218-215) and bigger Democratic Senate (54-42). Afterwards we had GOP control of both houses (240-192 and 49-47). So what caused that? Demobilization? The war itself was still ongoing. Over a million Americans were still fighting in the Meuse-Argonne campaign for example. There were probably two million American servicemen in France in late 1918.

So I don't particularily buy "demobilization" as an excuse for 1918. The 1946 US and 1945 UK elections - sure. But we're talking about 1918.

So what caused the 1918 elections. First of all, while a GOP victory, we're hardly talking a wave. The non-Presidential party wining 25 seats in the house and 6 in the senate. In 1914, the GOP won 62 seats. In 1910, Democrats won 55 seats. In 1906, Democrats won 32 seats. 25 seats is well within the margins there. [1]

We have three reasons why the GOP won seats in 1918.

1 - The normal election cycle of early 20th Century midterms as shown above, especially in the House
2 - Wilson's own popularity. He raised taxes to pay for the war and yet still had to borrow a ton - leading to a wonderful combo of high taxes and inflation.
3. Wilson fragmenting the Democratic Party. His own abrasive personality and and pissed off German-Americans (formerly a huge Democratic constituency) depressed turnout in traditional Democratic strongholds such as the Midwest and major cities.

So what's different here ITTL. Much of this is pure speculation but I'm drawing off what the OP has previously mentioned. Let's look at each of my three above points and talk about them
1 - Midterm Cycles: Midterms in this TL more or less follow the same "Party that's not in power gets seats." Looking from 1886-1906 you have the following elections where the out-of-power party gains seats in the House: 1886, 1890, 1894, 1898, 1902, 1906. Wait a second...that's every single midterm! So it is safe to say that the general midterm rules apply here as well. That would bode well for the Democrats right? Well...
2 - Presidential Popularity: Instead of the prissy and staid Wilson, loathed by a major constituency and hated by tons of power brokers in his own party, we have Charlemagne Hughes running the show, victor of the Great American War. This timeline's sources so far have treated Hughes as wise, charismatic, and lucky. Who's to say that won't hold - especially when combined with what the OP has called the "Liberal Quadradecennium," an essentially unprecedented era of one-party dominance not seen since before the Civil War.
3 - Party Fragmentation: I can't answer any questions about how/if any political parties fragment or what happens on the ground as that stuff hasn't been posted yet 🤷‍♂️

The question thus is the following: Is Charlemagne Hughes, shown up to here so far in the TL as stacking wins on top of wins on top of wins, combined with the OP's previous statements of 1880-1920 being a Liberal era/wank, enough to offset what has been as predictable as the tides - losing parties win the next midterm (at least in the House)[2]

[1] If you average out the opposing party seat gains in the 1906, 1910, 1914, and 1918 midterm elections, you get 43.5 seats won by the non-Presidential party in those four elections.
[2] I purposely didn't look at the Senate as ITTL and OTL there wasn't direct election of Senators until the early 20th Century.

One advantage OTL’s GOP had congressionally they don’t have here, though, is that they dominated (to an extent - this was varied) the West instead of being the minor party west of the Mississippi. The Liberals don’t have the same “we’re not the South” regional sectionalist advantage besides New England. That gives them much, much thinner margins now that Democrats have their shit together and the Populists aren’t splitting their votes out West

EDIT: I guess I’d never realized how small the GOP wave in 1918 actually was when you break the numbers down. Maybe Wilson got more of a mid-war bump than you’d think?

 

[NigerianPrince05]

And yet those same scumbag Liberals are getting rewarded by two terms of Charles Hughes yanking the country rightward.

At least the right wing is Hughes and not some far-right nutjob.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

One advantage OTL’s GOP had congressionally they don’t have here, though, is that they dominated (to an extent - this was varied) the West instead of being the minor party west of the Mississippi. The Liberals don’t have the same “we’re not the South” regional sectionalist advantage besides New England. That gives them much, much thinner margins now that Democrats have their shit together and the Populists aren’t splitting their votes out West

EDIT: I guess I’d never realized how small the GOP wave in 1918 actually was when you break the numbers down. Maybe Wilson got more of a mid-war bump than you’d think?

Must have been. I don't have the time nor the resources to dig into primary sources of the era to try and figure out why though.

At least the right wing is Hughes and not some far-right nutjob.

Yeah, I'm anti-Hughes but most of it is A - I'm tired of Liberal rule (this timeline has basically been Liberal winning roughshod since 1880 with only the disaster of the Custer presidency and what is shaping up to be a flawed Hearst interregnum between the twin titans of Blaine and Hay) and B - I'm leery that we get 1933-1937 Hughes, where he was doing everything he could to stop the New Deal and only caved when FDR explicity threatened his power with the half-assed court packing scheme.

But even if we get late-period Hughes he's still better than Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

 

[KingSweden24]

Must have been. I don't have the time nor the resources to dig into primary sources of the era to try and figure out why though.

Yeah, I'm anti-Hughes but most of it is A - I'm tired of Liberal rule (this timeline has basically been Liberal winning roughshod since 1880 with only the disaster of the Custer presidency and what is shaping up to be a flawed Hearst interregnum between the twin titans of Blaine and Hay) and B - I'm leery that we get 1933-1937 Hughes, where he was doing everything he could to stop the New Deal and only caved when FDR explicity threatened his power with the half-assed court packing scheme.

But even if we get late-period Hughes he's still better than Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

Granted it’s hard to do worse than the Harding thru Hoover run

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

A slight devation @KingSweden24 but what is the confederate supreme court like compared to its United States counterparts...

 

[theflyingmongoose]

Wow, @KingSweden24 your ability to make the south worse and worse will never cease to amaze me.

 

[naraht]

“WI: Bloc Sud wins” posts get immediately rocketed into the ASB forum

True, though the circumstances there were fairly unique - there was a major underlying realignment in the GOP’s favor in the South going on at that time and the economy was coming back out of the dot com bust (Bush was lucky that his term started largely at the nadir of that). This alt-1918 would be/will be more similar to OTL’s demob elections that went against the recently-triumphant governments

Ooh. Can we have "Guns of the Sud"?

(which of course leads to the question of how South Africa is doing)

 

[moopli]

They lived in a permanent state of siege to their own contradictions and they needed an enemy to blame.

I gotta say, I love this phrase. It exemplifies one of the things I love in this TL - the utter degeneration of the confederate state, as a takedown of the idea of the sustainability of the system. Can't wait to see them march headlong to their destruction!

I wonder if, in a best case scenario, enough disaffected poor whites could make common cause with slave revolts to see popular revolution in the Confederacy, after enough years of their leaders failing to win the grinding war against the great northern enemy. Is this implausible? Is there a path to black liberation at all? The GAW will no doubt have massive social shocks and aftershocks so I guess I'll have to wait and see.

 

[WanderingProfessor]

As for Abraham Lincoln's reputation among Afro-Confederates and Americans, some could see as this liberator out to free them from slavery whereas others conclude that he's no better than the Southerners. Plus given the second-class citizen status of blacks in the South, some would see the Great American War as an opportunity to start rebellions against the Confederate government.

 

[DanMcCollum]

As for Abraham Lincoln's reputation among Afro-Confederates and Americans, some could see as this liberator out to free them from slavery whereas others conclude that he's no better than the Southerners. Plus given the second-class citizen status of blacks in the South, some would see the Great American War as an opportunity to start rebellions against the Confederate government.

Slave rebellions are notoriously hard to pull off for a whole number of reasons, obviously. If you want a widespread rebellion, it's going to need American support to really get off the ground (supplying weapons, helping spread word, etc). The fact of the matter that the US seems as if it's going to be cause completely flatfooted by the coming war, though, bespeaks of the fact that they probably have very little of a spy presence south of the Ohio, at least in the years leading up to the conflict. I'd suspect that once war has been declared, there will be efforts to build a network South of the border, though such things will take time.

I also wonder at the US' willingness to arm slaves - no matter how much they may hate slavery, the optics would still be of AfricanAmericans killing 'white folk' and that would sadly play very badly in some sections of the American population. Depending, of course, on how racial attitudes have evolved in the North (and I guess I don't know how they have developed since the end of the Rebellion).

Now, without American support, I think you could still conceivably see slave rebellions on the home front, but they are likely to be less organized and equipt. Their success is going to depend on how much of the State Militias are sent to the front - as we know, the Confederate State Militias were organized largely to keep order just in case of a 'civil disturbance' (which, lets face it, in the Confederacy means either Slave Revolt or Labor Dispute)

 

[WanderingProfessor]

Slave rebellions are notoriously hard to pull off for a whole number of reasons, obviously. If you want a widespread rebellion, it's going to need American support to really get off the ground (supplying weapons, helping spread word, etc). The fact of the matter that the US seems as if it's going to be cause completely flatfooted by the coming war, though, bespeaks of the fact that they probably have very little of a spy presence south of the Ohio, at least in the years leading up to the conflict. I'd suspect that once war has been declared, there will be efforts to build a network South of the border, though such things will take time.

I also wonder at the US' willingness to arm slaves - no matter how much they may hate slavery, the optics would still be of AfricanAmericans killing 'white folk' and that would sadly play very badly in some sections of the American population. Depending, of course, on how racial attitudes have evolved in the North (and I guess I don't know how they have developed since the end of the Rebellion).

Now, without American support, I think you could still conceivably see slave rebellions on the home front, but they are likely to be less organized and equipt. Their success is going to depend on how much of the State Militias are sent to the front - as we know, the Confederate State Militias were organized largely to keep order just in case of a 'civil disturbance' (which, lets face it, in the Confederacy means either Slave Revolt or Labor Dispute).

The difference is that most blacks in the Confederacy have been manumitted but they don't have many rights and they cannot even join the Confederate military. So whether or not America arms the black rebels, there will be rebellions that have the Confederates in trouble. It's kinda like the socialist rebellions of Turtledove's work but without communism.

 

[DanMcCollum]

The difference is that most blacks in the Confederacy have been manumitted but they don't have many rights and they cannot even join the Confederate military. So whether or not America arms the black rebels, there will be rebellions that have the Confederates in trouble. It's kinda like the socialist rebellions of Turtledove's work but without communism.

Have most been freed by this point? I know slavery is withering on the vine, but I wasn't aware that maummitions had progressed that far yet.

 

[WanderingProfessor]

Have most been freed by this point? I know slavery is withering on the vine, but I wasn't aware that maummitions had progressed that far yet.

One of the chapters does mention that more slaveowners in the early 1900s are voluntarily manumitting their slaves and some blacks chose to immigrate to America, Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean, whereas others would remain sharecroppers with little to no rights.