Cinco de Mayo

[Mayukh]

Cadorna

I wonder of he would lead any troops in CEW.

 

[naraht]

I wonder of he would lead any troops in CEW.

Well, the Author wants the Austrians to be on the losing side, so I'm guessing he was in Messina for Christmas 1908.

 

[Mayukh]

Well, the Author wants the Austrians to be on the losing side, so I'm guessing he was in Messina for Christmas 1908.

The Austria had still lost in WW1.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

For bonus points, can we have a remaining Confederate Navy ship attempt to sink the Mexican Peace Delegation?

Why?

 

[DanMcCollum]

Yeah, that would be a good way to make sure that the Mexicans stay in the war ... but switch sides and join the Union (which would probably go a long way to make sure that they don't lose any territory, yeah - but has something like that actually ever occured in modern history?)

 

[Capibara]

Yeah, that would be a good way to make sure that the Mexicans stay in the war ... but switch sides and join the Union (which would probably go a long way to make sure that they don't lose any territory, yeah - but has something like that actually ever occured in modern history?)

The Confederacy might as well surrender the moment that happens. Already fighting a defensive war against the US in the east to suddenly find themselves with an angry and professional army crossing the Rio Grande... That things would go south very quickly is a major understatement.

 

[fernerdave]

The 1927 flood could be quite different ittl depending on who the Confederates found to design all the riparian improvements or lack there of from otl. Its been a long time since ive read "Rising Tide" by John M Barry, but it was a pretty good history of the flood.

 

[Devoid]

The discussions on the 1927 Mississippi floods remind of another event involving Mississippi river water going where it's inconvenient; specifically, the fact we're just a few decades from the river naturally diverting from its current course onto the Atchafalaya River, and how the Confederates will deal with that pressing issue, since Mississippi River shipping is such a critical part of the nation's economy (I mean, the GAW basically started because the the Union and Confederacy couldn't agree on solving riverine trade disputes) and losing New Orleans as a riverine port would obviously be very bad.
My point, long story short, is: do the Confederates realize the river is diverting and stop in time? And in the, IMO, likely event that they do, will the alt-Old River Control System be well-maintained enough to do its job? An interesting potential story beat in the early 70's Confederacy could be seeing how the then-Confederate government of whichever machine replaces the Long machine deals with the 1973 floods that nearly caused the system to fail IOTL, and whether or not they succeed at keeping the river in its course ITTL. It breaking would be an event similar in catastrophe to Chernobyl (only without nuclear fallout) in terms of how bad it could really go, because that would be a lot of infrastructure that has been destroyed or rendered useless. Honestly, since we already know the 1927 floods are gonna be a pivotal moment in bringing Long's rise to power, maybe a failure of the Long machine to build the alt-Old River Control System bringing the Long machine down or the 1973 floods bringing the Long machine's successor down and allowing a neo-Long machine (second extra-constitutional term for Russell Long, anyone?) to rise from the ashes would both be very poetic possibilities. Even if they manage to keep the river on its current course there's lots of ways it could go bad for the Confederate government.

 

[Nalph Nado]

This update does bode well for the Indian Territory. I'd feared that the US would annex it outright and put an end to Native autonomy. But with some of the tribes being pro-US, we'll probably get a better outcome. At minimum, the Indian Territory will become an autonomous territory of the United States instead of the Confederacy. We might even get an independent Indian Territory within the US sphere of influence (including oil concessions). The impending secession of Texas will help, giving them a neighbor other than the Union or Confederacy. In fact, I could see Texas and an independent Indian Territory becoming very friendly...

I’m gonna disagree with you on this one: favoring one ethnicity over another has parallels in OTL Rwanda; ask the Tutsis how well that went. Plus their stuck with the oil curse, in which initially generates wealth, always concentrates it at the very top; unless a sovereign wealth fund is established post-war (highly unlikely), it’s gonna leave an economy completely dependent on the ups and downs of the value of oil that day, no matter how hard your workers work. Creek and Seminole chieftains will look and act like Arabian sheiks.

 

[Whanztastic]

The CSA Constitution only allowed the federal government to appropriate money to aid in the “removing of obstructions in river navigation” so I think there’s a good argument that anything similar to OTL Flood Control Act of 1928 would not be feasible.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I’m gonna disagree with you on this one: favoring one ethnicity over another has parallels in OTL Rwanda; ask the Tutsis how well that went. Plus their stuck with the oil curse, in which initially generates wealth, always concentrates it at the very top; unless a sovereign wealth fund is established post-war (highly unlikely), it’s gonna leave an economy completely dependent on the ups and downs of the value of oil that day, no matter how hard your workers work. Creek and Seminole chieftains will look and act like Arabian sheiks.

Honestly, it would be interesting to see if the Indian Territory does follow the OTL example of Alaska and creates an Oil Fund which is distributed annually to citizens of the nation.

 

[DanMcCollum]

The CSA Constitution only allowed the federal government to appropriate money to aid in the “removing of obstructions in river navigation” so I think there’s a good argument that anything similar to OTL Flood Control Act of 1928 would not be feasible.

It would kind of fall back onto the Supreme COurt to decide if a Flood Control Act would fall within the spirit of the Constitution's mandate of removing obstructions I suppose. Though this does lead to an interesting question over whether or not the Confederate CConstitution has been amended at all in the last 50+ years of its existence.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

It would kind of fall back onto the Supreme COurt to decide if a Flood Control Act would fall within the spirit of the Constitution's mandate of removing obstructions I suppose. Though this does lead to an interesting question over whether or not the Confederate CConstitution has been amended at all in the last 50+ years of its existence.

It has, under Longstreet. I'm on mobile or else I'd link but there were two amendments: one abolishing the restriction against non-military internal improvements, and the other a tariff (or maybe tax?) to pay for things.

 

[Whanztastic]

It has, under Longstreet. I'm on mobile or else I'd link but there were two amendments: one abolishing the restriction against non-military internal improvements, and the other a tariff (or maybe tax?) to pay for things.

Aha, found it. You’re right:

"...six states convened the Constitutional Convention of 1883 in Nashville, Tennessee, and Longstreet was at last handed his long-sought victory on his two amendments, and just in time for his triumphant second midterm. The 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Confederate Constitution passed the convention after considerable debate but with healthy margins, and attempts to introduce other amendments were sidelined. The 1st Amendment repealed the provision disallowing nonmilitary internal improvements receive subsidy from the "national legislature," and the 2nd Amendment repealed the provision forbidding protective tariffs, allowing those to be levied along with the extant general tariff at the time set at 15%. Longstreet held a grand parade in Richmond to celebrate the "Nashville Convention" and its successful resolution. Much ignored in friendly press was the agitation by industrial workers in Nashville and nearby towns during the convention, as was generally the case during the early years of the Grand Consensus and its positive, forward-looking nationalism.

Longstreet's supporters triumphed in the midterms that fall, dismissing most opponents of the Democratic machine and helping install a new, younger generation of Senators in the Class 2 elections. By the beginning of the 12th Confederate Congress in 1884, state legislatures had impeached and removed effectively every leftover appointment from the Forrest-Harris years, and used the threat of impeachment as a tool to force every appointment of "the Party" from then on. New constitutions that benefitted the dominant party were passed en masse in the "tide of constitutionalism" that sprung out of the Nashville Convention, extending deep into the 1890s as newer, more modern-minded - and politically restrictive and authoritarian - governing documents were put into place. Gubernatorial terms were generally extended to not be unlimited two-year terms but rather non-renewable at four or five years, similar to the single six-year term of the President, and most state legislatures placed term limits or mandatory retirement ages on judicial officials within their borders as well. The spirit of the time was one of entrenchment of the Democratic elite and updating the adhoc political arrangements sprung out of the War of Secession. This, even more than the decline in paramilitary violence and economic boom times of the 1880s, was the defining feature of the Grand Consensus.

Perhaps the most prominent driver in this movement, from the Democratic Party's "Conservative" faction, was Wade Hampton III, a Senator for South Carolina who had implemented similar reforms in his home state during his gubernatorial term and now with an army of like-minded men from the planter elite who had served in the war and now were ascendant in the Senate drove their home-state parties to do the same in a coordinated approach. Though the three Presidents with whom he would serve concurrently with his Senate terms of 1880-1898 are more well-known in textbooks, after Hampton's taking of the role of Senate President Pro Tempore in 1884, "Old Snowbeard" became the effective "Cardinal of the Confederate Congress," as his less-charming nickname was, or even more ominously, "the Shadow President." The Machine, built out over several years, was now operating at what would eventually come to be seen as its peak capacity, achieving its zenith and apotheosis as the Longstreet Presidency entered its final two years..."

- The Grand Consensus: The Longstreet Machine, Reconciliation and the Dawn of the 20th Century in Dixie

 

[DanMcCollum]

Aha, found it. You’re right:

Okay, and it looks like the first amendment would cover the flood work as it most certainly would be considered nonmilitary internal improvement (hell, an argument could also be made that it's a MILITARY improvement as well - the same way Ike sold the US Highway system); so I suspect that is good. Now, of course, the question is whether the destabilied Confederacy is going to have the will OR the means to actually do it - but they have a legal pathway at the very least.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Okay, and it looks like the first amendment would cover the flood work as it most certainly would be considered nonmilitary internal improvement (hell, an argument could also be made that it's a MILITARY improvement as well - the same way Ike sold the US Highway system); so I suspect that is good. Now, of course, the question is whether the destabilied Confederacy is going to have the will OR the means to actually do it - but they have a legal pathway at the very least.

The legal mechanism is certainly there to do it but there's (likely) either no political will or no resources to do it. We're dealing with what will most likely be a burned out husk of a country. The author has used the analogy before of imagining the devestation wrought on huge chunks of the South during the OTL Civil War...and then the federal government being like "cool, you guys pay for this cleanup, good luck!"

Wouldn't shock me if by 1927 there is still wartime damage that hasn't been repaired in parts of the Confederacy, especially northern Virginia and Kentucky/Tennessee. They're most likely not going to have the capital for a massive infastructure project in the 1920s.

 

[naraht]

The legal mechanism is certainly there to do it but there's (likely) either no political will or no resources to do it. We're dealing with what will most likely be a burned out husk of a country. The author has used the analogy before of imagining the devestation wrought on huge chunks of the South during the OTL Civil War...and then the federal government being like "cool, you guys pay for this cleanup, good luck!"

Wouldn't shock me if by 1927 there is still wartime damage that hasn't been repaired in parts of the Confederacy, especially northern Virginia and Kentucky/Tennessee. They're most likely not going to have the capital for a massive infastructure project in the 1920s.

I'm trying to think of *any* similar situation of broken and then walking away iOTL. WWI in Poland? The Germans "broke it", but I'm not sure if the reparations went to them. After WWII, all of the losers were reinforced with either Western or Soviet funds for the Cold War except Yugoslavia (I think) and Albania. Neither case seems to apply to an almost continent wide country. I've seen Paraguay used as a comparison here, but IMO, that's almost an order of magnitude difference.

And I don't think even the most extravagant ideas of taking lands from the Confederacy here are the equivalent of taking the Ruhr.

 

[Meshakhad]

I’m gonna disagree with you on this one: favoring one ethnicity over another has parallels in OTL Rwanda; ask the Tutsis how well that went. Plus their stuck with the oil curse, in which initially generates wealth, always concentrates it at the very top; unless a sovereign wealth fund is established post-war (highly unlikely), it’s gonna leave an economy completely dependent on the ups and downs of the value of oil that day, no matter how hard your workers work. Creek and Seminole chieftains will look and act like Arabian sheiks.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. I think you're entirely right that a) the postwar situation inside an independent or autonomous Indian Territory would be messy and b) we might get a Native American petrostate. But I was talking about how the current situation is trending towards the US not annexing the Indian Territory outright.

 

[KingSweden24]

It is an interesting question of at what point during the war (not even sure we have reached it yet) that the US would have accepted a status quo antebellum peace. If a significant change of government in Mexico had occurred while the Confederacy was still on the Susquehana and the new Mexican Government wanted out, I'm *quite* sure the US would have *quickly* agreed.

Watch this space

Spanish Communidad, with the Spanish monarch as King of Spain, Grand Duke of Cuba and Duke of Puerto Rico

Personally I vote for this one. Bear in mind, that Britain under the Westminster system was very centralized. It was basically direct rule or Dominion status as the only options, with no precedent for anything in between for the CANZAC existing. Here the situation is different, with the Carribean entities having had the equivalent of Statehood for decades now. Unless something bad happens in Spain, that has them rushing for the exits, I see no reason why they would want a change in status any more than Hawaii does.

I should make clear that this is definitely the direction I'm leaning towards, in large part because it helps me avoid the great Catalonian can of worms if Havana gets to peace out with full home rule but Barcelona doesn't. (And, also, the idea of American and Canadian snowbirds flocking to Spain* as much as British ones do is kind of hilarious to me)

I agree, the French/Dutch OTL have managed to hold on to their colonies by this sort of thing. Of course Cuba is much larger than Guadeloupe or French Guiana, but I think as long as the current Spanish government structure (which is one of the most democratic on the whole continent right now, IIRC) stays in place, the system can last quite some time. Maybe it becomes an issue later along with Catalan regionalism and so on. (of course with nothing like the Franco dictatorship that may be less of a problem...)

And speaking of the French possessions, would the implied trajectory of France here (post-CEW instability followed by a long-lasting rightist military regime) maybe make the French Caribbean/Pacific holdings (that are still French OTL) become independent in the moderd day?

Some (New Caledonia adjacent to German East Indies comes to mind) probably get snapped up, others might go full independence, sure. (Saint-Martin might just join Sint Maarten even with Dutch neutrality, who knows)

I think its Germany and Italy versus Austria and France - my gut tells me that Spain would probably stay neutral; but I could be wrong on that one.

Correct. The Triangle (France, Austria as the main members) vs. the Central Powers (Germany, Italy). There'll be two other combatants on France's side but they're pretty minor - and I think I've telegraphed who, at that.

Note, went back and found the treaty ending the war between Chile and Bolivia/Peru in 1879.

I had forgotten that Britain was largely responsible for the different border between Chile and Argentina.

Also,
Only Bolivia complained at what came to be known as the British Betrayal, and the country was left landlocked, diplomatically isolated and economically ruined for generations by losing her outlet to the sea and resource-rich littoral.

Apparently the 36 years between 1879 and 1915 (Presuming Chile exits the war at that point) counts as generations.


It does lead to another question. Why should Bolivia be satisfied with *just* what it had prior to the other war. I could easily see Bolivia wanting even more of Chile, say the entire Antofagasta Region.

All previous updates subject to retcon or your money back!

And yeah Bolivia would probably just want that whole hog. Then again, Peru having a much smaller irredenta maybe makes them the cool head in the room to calm Bolivian passions on the matter?

I wonder of he would lead any troops in CEW.

I've tried to butterfly his career as much as possible. Pushing the CEW to the late 1910s rather than the mid-1910s makes that actually fairly straighforward

The Confederacy might as well surrender the moment that happens. Already fighting a defensive war against the US in the east to suddenly find themselves with an angry and professional army crossing the Rio Grande... That things would go south very quickly is a major understatement.

Texas is immediately indefensible territory for the CSA, for starters, and depending on how much of the Mexican Navy is intact (since they concentrated so much of their fleet, understandably, in the Gulf) that could create massive issues for Richmond.

Thankfully for them, they're not that stupid.

The 1927 flood could be quite different ittl depending on who the Confederates found to design all the riparian improvements or lack there of from otl. Its been a long time since ive read "Rising Tide" by John M Barry, but it was a pretty good history of the flood.

Might need to check that out

The discussions on the 1927 Mississippi floods remind of another event involving Mississippi river water going where it's inconvenient; specifically, the fact we're just a few decades from the river naturally diverting from its current course onto the Atchafalaya River, and how the Confederates will deal with that pressing issue, since Mississippi River shipping is such a critical part of the nation's economy (I mean, the GAW basically started because the the Union and Confederacy couldn't agree on solving riverine trade disputes) and losing New Orleans as a riverine port would obviously be very bad.
My point, long story short, is: do the Confederates realize the river is diverting and stop in time? And in the, IMO, likely event that they do, will the alt-Old River Control System be well-maintained enough to do its job? An interesting potential story beat in the early 70's Confederacy could be seeing how the then-Confederate government of whichever machine replaces the Long machine deals with the 1973 floods that nearly caused the system to fail IOTL, and whether or not they succeed at keeping the river in its course ITTL. It breaking would be an event similar in catastrophe to Chernobyl (only without nuclear fallout) in terms of how bad it could really go, because that would be a lot of infrastructure that has been destroyed or rendered useless. Honestly, since we already know the 1927 floods are gonna be a pivotal moment in bringing Long's rise to power, maybe a failure of the Long machine to build the alt-Old River Control System bringing the Long machine down or the 1973 floods bringing the Long machine's successor down and allowing a neo-Long machine (second extra-constitutional term for Russell Long, anyone?) to rise from the ashes would both be very poetic possibilities. Even if they manage to keep the river on its current course there's lots of ways it could go bad for the Confederate government.

I'm sure they'd try to respond to the diversion into the Atchafalaya River before it happened, considering how important the port is to their economy, but it could be something to play with way in the future. Especially since I'd never actually heard of those 1973 floods but I quite like that as a major debacle (1993 was pretty bad too, from what I understand). But think bigger than just Russell Long coming back - a devastating, Chernobyl-destruction bad flood would be timed perfectly not for the re-rise of Long but for the rise of an entirely new brand of Swamp Lizard - Edwin W. Edwards

I’m gonna disagree with you on this one: favoring one ethnicity over another has parallels in OTL Rwanda; ask the Tutsis how well that went. Plus their stuck with the oil curse, in which initially generates wealth, always concentrates it at the very top; unless a sovereign wealth fund is established post-war (highly unlikely), it’s gonna leave an economy completely dependent on the ups and downs of the value of oil that day, no matter how hard your workers work. Creek and Seminole chieftains will look and act like Arabian sheiks.

Creeks-as-Sheikhs is the entire reason I want to keep the IT independent haha otherwise I'd just have the US snap that and it's sweet sweet oil up and the whole "do they take Baja though" convo wouldn't even be happening to indulge my OCD. (Grabbing a centrally-located, oil-rich enemy protectorate that's fairly sparsely populated especially when you already hold indigenous people in contempt for a century seems more realistic, but OKC-as-Nursultan appeals to my dark sense of humor)

Honestly, it would be interesting to see if the Indian Territory does follow the OTL example of Alaska and creates an Oil Fund which is distributed annually to citizens of the nation.

Only to Natives, is what I'm thinking, which leaves you with something of a Dubai/Qatar problem for everybody else who works there

The legal mechanism is certainly there to do it but there's (likely) either no political will or no resources to do it. We're dealing with what will most likely be a burned out husk of a country. The author has used the analogy before of imagining the devestation wrought on huge chunks of the South during the OTL Civil War...and then the federal government being like "cool, you guys pay for this cleanup, good luck!"

Wouldn't shock me if by 1927 there is still wartime damage that hasn't been repaired in parts of the Confederacy, especially northern Virginia and Kentucky/Tennessee. They're most likely not going to have the capital for a massive infastructure project in the 1920s.

Not in the 1920s, certainly, no. By the time the 40s/50s roll around, it may well be a different story, which is probably the earliest you'd see a flood control system start to be developed. Not sure what that would do to the 1973 floods, though.

I'm trying to think of *any* similar situation of broken and then walking away iOTL. WWI in Poland? The Germans "broke it", but I'm not sure if the reparations went to them. After WWII, all of the losers were reinforced with either Western or Soviet funds for the Cold War except Yugoslavia (I think) and Albania. Neither case seems to apply to an almost continent wide country. I've seen Paraguay used as a comparison here, but IMO, that's almost an order of magnitude difference.

And I don't think even the most extravagant ideas of taking lands from the Confederacy here are the equivalent of taking the Ruhr.

One difference is that the US is not part of some grand alliance of an Entente/WAllies deciding how and why the world shall be constituted and divvied up postwar; Argentina and Peru are helpful in its ambitions in South America but they're not exactly the UK, France or USSR if we're talking about the second round. The CSA is still a resource-rich country and British money would surely find its way to reconstruction efforts, its just that the economy would probably be even more based around the exploitation of resources than anything more sophisticated and their economy would be owned by London even more than prewar.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. I think you're entirely right that a) the postwar situation inside an independent or autonomous Indian Territory would be messy and b) we might get a Native American petrostate. But I was talking about how the current situation is trending towards the US not annexing the Indian Territory outright.

The biggest question that comes to mind out of this discussion, for me at least, is to what extent the Five (soon to be six, if we're counting the Osage sitting on top of the Tulasah oilfield) "Civilized" Tribes want to share their wealth with smaller deportees to the IT such as the Shawnee, Kickapoo, Sac and Fox, etc. The smaller tribes could be in for a very rough time depending on the mood of the bigger ones.

 

[Devoid]

Correct. The Triangle (France, Austria as the main members) vs. the Central Powers (Germany, Italy). There'll be two other combatants on France's side but they're pretty minor - and I think I've telegraphed who, at that.

We know one of them is Denmark (who is the third member of the Triangle). The fourth I'm not sure on but I wanna say Belgium because Brussels has been almost parasitic in its veneration of Paris, which is gonna be interesting because Britain's not going to like that but since it looks like Brussels may be stupid enough to pull the trigger themselves instead of getting sympathetically (and, more importantly, treaty-activatingly) invaded, plus the fact Britain and France dislike like each other more than they did IOTL and Britain being busy putting the looming twin fires of Ireland and India out, London will likely not really give a fuck.

I'm sure they'd try to respond to the diversion into the Atchafalaya River before it happened, considering how important the port is to their economy, but it could be something to play with way in the future. Especially since I'd never actually heard of those 1973 floods but I quite like that as a major debacle (1993 was pretty bad too, from what I understand). But think bigger than just Russell Long coming back - a devastating, Chernobyl-destruction bad flood would be timed perfectly not for the re-rise of Long but for the rise of an entirely new brand of Swamp Lizard - Edwin W. Edwards

The rise and fall of Confederate machine politics ITTL is way more than interesting than it has any right to. Anyway the proverbial dead girl or live boy shall exist in TL too, I hope?

The biggest question that comes to mind out of this discussion, for me at least, is to what extent the Five (soon to be six, if we're counting the Osage sitting on top of the Tulasah oilfield) "Civilized" Tribes want to share their wealth with smaller deportees to the IT such as the Shawnee, Kickapoo, Sac and Fox, etc. The smaller tribes could be in for a very rough time depending on the mood of the bigger ones.

IT politics should also be really interesting! An actual proper Amerindian state, even if Bolivia comes kinda not really close (in the sense that it's majority Indigenous but still organized around a basis of Spanish/European political systems, rather than being originally organized by the Amerindians themselves) is super fascinating.