Status
Not open for further replies.
"...conditions in Baltimore forced the train to stop in Gwynns Falls and everybody piled off onto the tight platform as an automobile to circumvent the city was procured. Though the Maryland National Guard would hold at the Monocacy for the entirety of the first two days of fighting, nobody could have known that at the time, and the fear that a Confederate advance force could threaten to attack the B&P line and cut fleeing persons entirely off from escape routes north. Hughes and Root stood side-by-side in the commotion, looking about at the panicked civilians around them, and Hughes would later record in his diary, "I was left stunned by the humanity before me; the fear, the confusion, the shock. This small train station near Baltimore was close enough to the exchange of fire in the Harbor that we could hear the report of gunfire, a battle so close to the city that we could not continue on to Pennsylvania Station. It was the most humbling hour of my life." It was noted by Hughes, Root and countless historians for decades thereafter that the moment was perhaps the nadir of the American Presidency, having fled the capital under bombardment and now waiting to escape to safety while genuinely worried about the risk of capture. Had events in the weeks that followed transpired differently, Hughes' Presidency may well have been remembered as a hapless, humiliating episode. But it was on that platform at Gwynns Falls that the long process to win the war, and salvage his own reputation, began with a short, impromptu address oft overshadowed by that given some weeks later before Independence Hall but perhaps no less important.

A bystander pointed and exclaimed that the President was on the platform. The crowd turned and backed away, somewhat surprised and in awe. Rural Maryland was not exactly Liberal territory, but there was cachet for a man of his stature standing there yet. Hughes, nobody's idea at that time of a stirring orator at the level of his former rival Hearst, looked out over the nervous eyes of his fellow Americans and raised his hat above his head. "Yes, it is indeed I," he called out. "Yesterday, I was the President. Tomorrow, I suspect I will be as well. But today, here, I am just a man standing here with my fellow Americans, stunned and confused and in shock. Today, I am just another man, standing here with his crumpled hat. We can all hear the rolling thunder of cannon fire here in Baltimore, and I suspect most of you heard it this morning in Washington as well. I shall not insult you with empty reassurances; rather, I ask only for your prayers." [1]

The Gwynns Falls Address, also known as "the Crumpled Hat Speech," was short and off the cuff but it did its job. The words were jotted down by a reporter on the platform and reprinted late in the week across the country. It spoke to Hughes' strengths, of moderation and modesty, and captured the shocked mood of Americans very well. The car, as it were, did show up before long, and Hughes and Root were in it and driving the long way on perilous country roads around Baltimore to a depot north of the city where they could take a train to Philadelphia; the harrowing journey out of Washington was, by nightfall, at its end, and Hughes noted in his diary simply, "This is only the beginning. God help us all."..."

- American Charlemagne: The Trials and Triumphs of Charles Evans Hughes

[1] I hate writing speeches
It is very tough but you did well! In a circumstance like this the actual content of the speech doesn't really matter as much as the delivery and the overall gist of things. Sometimes less is more. A rah-rah, Dubya-with-the-megaphone moment wouldn't have fit who Hughes is and would probably have been off-putting to the people on the platform. Not to mention having an incredibly friendly media report it at the time and a book that is essentially a hagiography write about it decades later will make anything Hughes says or does look good.
Def a backwater without the Canal!
Fun fact: Not only is the balboa pegged 1:1 to the USD but they actually take USD as legal tender here. It is fun place, would recommend visiting if you are looking for something a bit different - and can tolerate 80s and humidity day in and day out.
 
With Long coming to the presidency, presumably Louisiana is still part of the Confederacy, but not sure we've ever specifically been told about Arkansas. :)

And an independent Kentucky given to the (insert racial obscenities here for people originally from Africa) might be more of a middle finger to the Confederacy than having the land rejoin the USA.
Wouldn't state building be easy if it was directly part of the United States with the benefit of transfers from Washington? As well the U.S. would have easier time building military installations there if it is directly incorporated (with the ability to easily strike directly into the Confederacy), wouldn't have to worry about the problems of a failed state on its border, and would have direct access to KY's substantial coal reserves.

For similar reasons I think they would want Oklahoma in the Union- though that would come with issues of its own.
 
Can't wait for the endless what ifs about Hughes getting captured and the ensuring chaos that would ensue.
Would probably have ended the war right there, or at least dramatically increased US likelihood of negotiating. Of course the Confederate Army was nowhere near Gwynns Falls on the 9th, so it'd be a hard what if to make happen
I’m buzzed in Hawaii, which ITTL will probably
end up an independent country,
That it will, and more under the UK umbrella at that
With Long coming to the presidency, presumably Louisiana is still part of the Confederacy, but not sure we've ever specifically been told about Arkansas. :)

And an independent Kentucky given to the (insert racial obscenities here for people originally from Africa) might be more of a middle finger to the Confederacy than having the land rejoin the USA.
Are we asking this with a certain saxophone-playing Governor in mind, or...?
I still think Kentucky returned to the USA seems likely. Even if its nit a greay idea, the USA will be coming off the most costly war in its history and against a foe like the CSA, brothers turned enemies and all that. There will be a demand for prizes worth the cost, and while I do hope for Texas and Indian Territory getting independence, I think the Americans will want a big prize of their own; with northern Virginia and Confederate Arizona just not cutting it.

"What do we have to show for this horrid war?"

"Amongst other things, the whole blasted state of Kentucky by God!"

Will they come to regret it at times, yes. But as the lead up to this war shows poor decisions can and will br made in the course of human events. Also, it would be grand middle finger to the CSA on river rights with the USA having the whole Ohio River lock stock and barrel under their control. Even sharing it with an indepndent Kentucky would not have the same zing as wrapping your arm around all those chips yourself and pulling them to your side of the poker table.
Maybe. My pondering is really between leaving KY in the CSA and this new idea of a buffer state/Black homeland, though tbh
It is very tough but you did well! In a circumstance like this the actual content of the speech doesn't really matter as much as the delivery and the overall gist of things. Sometimes less is more. A rah-rah, Dubya-with-the-megaphone moment wouldn't have fit who Hughes is and would probably have been off-putting to the people on the platform. Not to mention having an incredibly friendly media report it at the time and a book that is essentially a hagiography write about it decades later will make anything Hughes says or does look good.

Fun fact: Not only is the balboa pegged 1:1 to the USD but they actually take USD as legal tender here. It is fun place, would recommend visiting if you are looking for something a bit different - and can tolerate 80s and humidity day in and day out.
Yeah a Dubya-style rah rah doesn't fit the mood or Hughes' subdued (and kinda boring tbh, Hearst was more fun to write) personality at all. Something more somber, similar to Zelensky's first days under fire, seemed more appropriate
Wouldn't state building be easy if it was directly part of the United States with the benefit of transfers from Washington? As well the U.S. would have easier time building military installations there if it is directly incorporated (with the ability to easily strike directly into the Confederacy), wouldn't have to worry about the problems of a failed state on its border, and would have direct access to KY's substantial coal reserves.

For similar reasons I think they would want Oklahoma in the Union- though that would come with issues of its own.
Some of these questions boil down less to realism and more to fiat based on what I think would be interesting/ironic/darkly hilarious to write. A Native-run petrostate that imports guest workers like Gulf monarchies, but in Oklahoma, is too bizarre an idea not to explore, even if realistically the US would probably just annex the whole territory and tell the Natives "too bad so bad you picked the wrong horse"
 
The Matriarch: Empress Margarita Clementina and the Emergence of a Modern Mexico
"...solemn choice. It is a small wrinkle of history that had the United States held up better on that fateful day of September 9th, Mexico may well have not entered the war, and the Argentine-Brazilian conflict may have been settled otherwise. But the rapid collapse of American defenses in the state of Maryland suggested that the great Yankee hegemon was perhaps rather a paper tiger, and if properly supported with supplies and manpower, the efforts of the Bloc Sud to defang it could bear fruit.

Nonetheless, the legend of the "reluctant Mexican" was born out of the deep divisions in the Mexican government over how, exactly, to respond. The Emperor made plain that he would stand back from the "momentous" decision; he had made a civilian constitution a decade earlier, and he would abide by it. This immediately sidelined possibly the most important voice in the room, particularly for the faction of skeptics who may have carried the day had he spoken up. Unlike the sister republics at war, a declaration of war in Mexico required not a full vote of the Assembly but rather just a vote of the Cabinet, and the Emperor's countersignature. Swaying enough men in the Cabinet, then, became the task of the hawks led by Creel, Molina and, increasingly, Prime Minister Leon de la Barra. The skeptics had no single figure to coalesce around; Lascurain, the ostensibly dovish Foreign Minister, had negotiated the agreement with the Confederacy that the Creel-Molina faction now argued compelled Mexico to act, and he was of course a timid figure in his own right. A war beside the Confederacy was sold as potentially healing the deep rifts in Mexican society exposed by the shocking civil conflicts of the spring; though the militant strike wave had subsided over the course of the summer, there was fear that another autumn of labor militancy might be ahead and that concentrating all that energy northwards could help cool passions in Mexico itself. There was some reason to believe that - one of the few things men like Enrique Creel and Abraham Gonzalez agreed upon was that the United States was the source of much of what ailed Mexico economically, and focusing on that point of agreement was a uniting factor.

The most important voices for the skeptics thus came from outside the government, once again the tandem of Crown Prince Louis Maximilian and General Bernardo Reyes. Margarita herself was firmly opposed to the war, crying long into the night when she heard of the sacking of Washington, but this did not influence her husband; the Crown Prince was not an objector out of compassion but rather out of cold, pragmatic logic. Still, the Emperor instructed members of the royal family not to speak publicly on their thoughts on the war (this of course also muzzled arch-hawks like the Iturbide brothers and Margarita's eldest son, Francisco Jose), and the heir was forced to use Reyes as his mouthpiece as the Cabinet vote on September 13th came closer and closer. The general, having already received orders to mobilize the troops two days earlier out of "caution," came before the Cabinet the morning of their vote and presciently remarked, "In two years time, mark my words, we will be wondering why exactly we followed the Confederacy into the abyss, and we will be negotiating our exit from this senseless war with a decision on whether we buy peace from the yanqui via treasure or land."

Whether Reyes swayed any votes is unclear; the motion to declare war on the United States passed by two votes, one of them Lascurain. At first, the news excited the Mexican street; men who had been striking or rioting were now enlisting to train to fight, and the harshly critical press (soon to be under severe wartime censorship) came to a fairly uniform opinion that the war presented an opportunity for Mexico to drive the United States from its economy forever, using the Confederate war effort as a vehicle. The declaration of war was followed by an even more popular measure - the seizure of American assets, including ranchland such as that belonging to former US President William Hearst, in Mexico and their use to finance the war. Reyes, despite his reluctance, mobilized the standing army and prepared it for a journey north to Los Pasos and Nogales in order to provide cover to the Confederacy on its vast, open Western flank, and prepared to march the 1st Reserve to Centro, from where it would lunge for the real prize and Mexico's other strategic goal in the war - Nicaragua..."

- The Matriarch: Empress Margarita Clementina and the Emergence of a Modern Mexico
 
"...solemn choice. It is a small wrinkle of history that had the United States held up better on that fateful day of September 9th, Mexico may well have not entered the war, and the Argentine-Brazilian conflict may have been settled otherwise. But the rapid collapse of American defenses in the state of Maryland suggested that the great Yankee hegemon was perhaps rather a paper tiger, and if properly supported with supplies and manpower, the efforts of the Bloc Sud to defang it could bear fruit.
it would be the funniest thing in the world if that happened. Everyone is assuming that CSA would lose just for the USA to role-play russia in ww1. It won't happen but it would be fun. Now if the USA gives the impression that it is weak, other powers will try to poke the nation to see if they can get something from the country.
does japan have any territorial disputes with us, islands or something like that? Because that would be one of the nations that would take advantage of the USA attention being somewhere else.
 
Path of Darkness: Europe's Illiberal Hour
"...new development. Despite their remarkably dissimilar personalities, Poincare found Maurice Paleologue an outstanding fit for the role of Foreign Minister. They were of an age, born about a year apart and having both grown up during the post-Unification Wars economic boom, come of age in the Decade d'Or of the 1880s, and having been forged ideologically and intellectually in a Quai d'Orsay that was practicing reasserting itself globally during the time of Courbet and Faure, making them the perfect civil servants for implementing the Boulangist project as the century turned. Poincare trusted Paleologue even though they were not personally close, and to a man who was often deeply unsure of who was his friend in the cutthroat political culture of late-Empire Paris, that was all that mattered.

The new Foreign Minister's appointment in October of 1913 drew surprised reactions around Europe. Paleologue was a colorful figure; as a career civil servant rather than a political in the austere and conservative Empire, his peculiarities had never drawn scrutiny until now. He was a novelist by hobby, alternating between light (and oft sultry) romances and heavier fare; he was of Romanian extraction, his father an exiled revolutionary from an illegitimate line of boyars that claimed direct descent from the Paleologos imperial family of Byzantium. Well educated and personable, he impressed his counterparts, even if they found him somewhat fanciful and eccentric.

It was this that made Paleologue, despite his complete confidence from Poincare, such a dangerous man in the office he found himself in. His novelist's mind let his imagination run adrift, often over-interpreting events as they arose; this was a problem in the reports he gave back to Poincare, but particularly was an issue in dealing with ambassadors or ministers from other states. As his power over the Quai d'Orsay increased and the French government increasingly began to resemble a new Le Trois between Poincare, Paleologue and Castelnau, his flights of fancy and exaggerations became the stuff crises are made of..."

- Path of Darkness: Europe's Illiberal Hour
 
Maybe. My pondering is really between leaving KY in the CSA and this new idea of a buffer state/Black homeland, though tbh

Personally, I agree with you strongly here. I think by far the most likely outcome is the US just leaving Ketucky with the Confederacy; far far less problems that way (for reasons that others have explained far better than I myself could - including cost, integrating Confederate citizens, racial issues and all the like. Add to this the fact that the US want's to neuter the Confederacy after the war, but to do so in such a way that doesn't lead to another coflict 20 years down the line; something that taking their most industrialized state would almost be assured to do.

But having said that; having a Republic of Kentucy as a protectorate of the United States and a place for those Freeden lucky enough to reach to have a a real shot at their lives ... is a really really cool idea and something that would be fun to explore. So I'm torn. Luckily, however, it's not my timeline and not my decision ;)

In an ironic turn of events; if the US government's policy was more Wilsonian (although not HEADED by Wilson), such a Republic would be FAR more likely.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I agree with you strongly here. I think by far the most likely outcome is the US just leaving Ketucky with the Confederacy; far far less problems that way (for reasons that others have explained far better than I myself could - including cost, integrating Confederate citizens, racial issues and all the like. Add to this the fact that the US want's to neuter the Confederacy after the war, but to do so in such a way that doesn't lead to another coflict 20 years down the line; something that taking their most industrialized state would almost be assured to do.

But having said that; having a Republic of Kentucy as a protectorate of the United States and a place for those Freeden lucky enough to reach to have a a real shot at their lives ... is a really really cool idea and something that would be fun to explore. So I'm torn. Luckily, however, it's not my timeline and not my decision ;)

In an ironic turn of events; if the US government's policy was more Wilsonian 9although not HEADED by Wilson), such a Republic would be FAR more likely.
Good thoughts. Not that anyone asked me and I'm not going to grind my teeth into dust in frustration either way but if I'm the US I'd split off TX into its own state, take OK as a protectorate/territory, and leave KY a shattered husk of a state for the CSA to worry about. Plus all the other things the treaty will entail of course.
 
Good thoughts. Not that anyone asked me and I'm not going to grind my teeth into dust in frustration either way but if I'm the US I'd split off TX into its own state, take OK as a protectorate/territory, and leave KY a shattered husk of a state for the CSA to worry about. Plus all the other things the treaty will entail of course.

Those are my thoughts as well, to a T(for Texas ...). And knowing the independence which Texas has shown so far; I'm not even sure that the Second Texan Republic will be created to 'punish' the Confederacy. It's entirely possibly that it's a natural, and internal, development from the Confederate war effort getting botched and growing popular disgust for Richmond (though the presence of American troops pushing into the northern part of the land probably does help matters more than a little).

Without Texas, the Confederate hold on Arizona is non-existant, and their continued hold on the Indian Territory is also called into question. Really, there's every chance that American territorial gains in this war, save for Northern Virginia, come about entirely as a result of SOMEONE needing to hold that territory, and the Confederacy suddenly being unable to do so (and even there, the US seems to be showing a penchant for recognizing the political independence of said regions, while likely economically dominating them. Though, on this latter note, I would laugh at the irony if Texas ends up moving into the Mexican economic sphere over time. That would be hilarious :D )
 
Personally, I agree with you strongly here. I think by far the most likely outcome is the US just leaving Ketucky with the Confederacy; far far less problems that way (for reasons that others have explained far better than I myself could - including cost, integrating Confederate citizens, racial issues and all the like. Add to this the fact that the US want's to neuter the Confederacy after the war, but to do so in such a way that doesn't lead to another coflict 20 years down the line; something that taking their most industrialized state would almost be assured to do.

But having said that; having a Republic of Kentucy as a protectorate of the United States and a place for those Freeden lucky enough to reach to have a a real shot at their lives ... is a really really cool idea and something that would be fun to explore. So I'm torn. Luckily, however, it's not my timeline and not my decision ;)

In an ironic turn of events; if the US government's policy was more Wilsonian (although not HEADED by Wilson), such a Republic would be FAR more likely.
You see my conundrum!
Good thoughts. Not that anyone asked me and I'm not going to grind my teeth into dust in frustration either way but if I'm the US I'd split off TX into its own state, take OK as a protectorate/territory, and leave KY a shattered husk of a state for the CSA to worry about. Plus all the other things the treaty will entail of course.
The direction I’m leaning right now tbh
Those are my thoughts as well, to a T(for Texas ...). And knowing the independence which Texas has shown so far; I'm not even sure that the Second Texan Republic will be created to 'punish' the Confederacy. It's entirely possibly that it's a natural, and internal, development from the Confederate war effort getting botched and growing popular disgust for Richmond (though the presence of American troops pushing into the northern part of the land probably does help matters more than a little).

Without Texas, the Confederate hold on Arizona is non-existant, and their continued hold on the Indian Territory is also called into question. Really, there's every chance that American territorial gains in this war, save for Northern Virginia, come about entirely as a result of SOMEONE needing to hold that territory, and the Confederacy suddenly being unable to do so (and even there, the US seems to be showing a penchant for recognizing the political independence of said regions, while likely economically dominating them. Though, on this latter note, I would laugh at the irony if Texas ends up moving into the Mexican economic sphere over time. That would be hilarious :D )
Yeah, think of the rising issues the CSA will face with Texas as a sort of post-Tsardom, Brest-Litovsk sort of thing; obviously the US has an interest in peeling this all off, but the indigenous desire for independence was there as scaffolding already

Texas would probably have three-way factionalism in terms of who it should/shouldn’t align with geopolitically, and then Europeans would probably have a thing or two to say about it/offer, too
 
Those are my thoughts as well, to a T(for Texas ...). And knowing the independence which Texas has shown so far; I'm not even sure that the Second Texan Republic will be created to 'punish' the Confederacy. It's entirely possibly that it's a natural, and internal, development from the Confederate war effort getting botched and growing popular disgust for Richmond (though the presence of American troops pushing into the northern part of the land probably does help matters more than a little).

Without Texas, the Confederate hold on Arizona is non-existant, and their continued hold on the Indian Territory is also called into question. Really, there's every chance that American territorial gains in this war, save for Northern Virginia, come about entirely as a result of SOMEONE needing to hold that territory, and the Confederacy suddenly being unable to do so (and even there, the US seems to be showing a penchant for recognizing the political independence of said regions, while likely economically dominating them. Though, on this latter note, I would laugh at the irony if Texas ends up moving into the Mexican economic sphere over time. That would be hilarious :D )
Forget political sphere, I want it voting to join Mexico at some point in the 1940s. :)
 
Are we asking this with a certain saxophone-playing Governor in mind, or...?
Nope, just the only state that borders the US that hasn't had significant discussion (well, I guess there is the Missouri/Tennessee border, but the USA isn't going to take Tennessee without Kentucky...
 
Nope, just the only state that borders the US that hasn't had significant discussion (well, I guess there is the Missouri/Tennessee border, but the USA isn't going to take Tennessee without Kentucky...
Incidentally there’s gonna be some combat action in Arkansas here pretty soon, just gotta get to it
 
Yeah, think of the rising issues the CSA will face with Texas as a sort of post-Tsardom, Brest-Litovsk sort of thing; obviously the US has an interest in peeling this all off, but the indigenous desire for independence was there as scaffolding already

Texas would probably have three-way factionalism in terms of who it should/shouldn’t align with geopolitically, and then Europeans would probably have a thing or two to say about it/offer, too
I've seen the occasional timeline where Texas never joins the US in the first place - something I've always found a bit implausible personally but many great timelines have implausible PODs. I'm writing a timeline where one of the butterflies is Texas stays in Mexico once the latter declares independence so that's not new either.

I can't say I've seen a timeline where Texas joins the USA, stays for a bit in either the USA or CSA, then leaves/is forced to leave. Now that's something that is worth exploring IMO.
 
I've seen the occasional timeline where Texas never joins the US in the first place - something I've always found a bit implausible personally but many great timelines have implausible PODs. I'm writing a timeline where one of the butterflies is Texas stays in Mexico once the latter declares independence so that's not new either.

I can't say I've seen a timeline where Texas joins the USA, stays for a bit in either the USA or CSA, then leaves/is forced to leave. Now that's something that is worth exploring IMO.
Neither have I, which is why I’ve basically spoiled an Indy 2nd Republic of Texas ITTL, haha
 
I think Paleologue formed an important part of the pro-war faction along with Delcasse during the July Crisis, though I don’t think he would appear here because he is a staunch radical republican
 
The most important voices for the skeptics thus came from outside the government, once again the tandem of Crown Prince Louis Maximilian and General Bernardo Reyes. Margarita herself was firmly opposed to the war, crying long into the night when she heard of the sacking of Washington, but this did not influence her husband; the Crown Prince was not an objector out of compassion but rather out of cold, pragmatic logic.
Shame these three couldn't hold the insanity back, might have spared and saved innocent Mexican lives. But history shall vindicate them.
 
Shame these three couldn't hold the insanity back, might have spared and saved innocent Mexican lives. But history shall vindicate them.

Hell, might have saved the life of the Crown Prince's eldest son - because last we saw him, he had decided to celebrate being only a few days away from retirment by taking a shotcut home through the dark woods, telling everyone that he'll "be right back," and promising to marry his high school sweetheart when he does so ;)

(basically, he's the walking dead, he just doesn't realize it yet)
 
I've seen the occasional timeline where Texas never joins the US in the first place - something I've always found a bit implausible personally but many great timelines have implausible PODs. I'm writing a timeline where one of the butterflies is Texas stays in Mexico once the latter declares independence so that's not new either.

I can't say I've seen a timeline where Texas joins the USA, stays for a bit in either the USA or CSA, then leaves/is forced to leave. Now that's something that is worth exploring IMO.
I'm trying to calculate in my mind (presuming an "independent" Oklahoma) which country that Texas has the longest border with between Mexico, the US (OTL TX/NM border), Oklahoma or the CSA(OTL TX/(AR/LA)). I *guess* Mexico.
 
I think Paleologue formed an important part of the pro-war faction along with Delcasse during the July Crisis, though I don’t think he would appear here because he is a staunch radical republican
Yeah, Poincare and Paleologue were opportunistically secular in a way Delcasse most certainly was not, so having him in such a Catholic monarchist government almost certainly doesn’t happen here
I'm trying to calculate in my mind (presuming an "independent" Oklahoma) which country that Texas has the longest border with between Mexico, the US (OTL TX/NM border), Oklahoma or the CSA(OTL TX/(AR/LA)). I *guess* Mexico.
Id presume Mexico too, but it’d be close
Hell, might have saved the life of the Crown Prince's eldest son - because last we saw him, he had decided to celebrate being only a few days away from retirment by taking a shotcut home through the dark woods, telling everyone that he'll "be right back," and promising to marry his high school sweetheart when he does so ;)

(basically, he's the walking dead, he just doesn't realize it yet)
Haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top