Confederate Victory Pet Peeve

[benjamin]

Second only the the massive lie that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist (spoiler: He was not!); my biggest pet peeve in any TL or story where the Confederacy gains its independence is the assertion that the Democratic Party will come to dominate the Union post-war. Why!?

I wrote this in a different thread and it pretty much sums up my view of that malarkey...

"The idea that the Democrats would become the dominant political party in the North following a lost Civil War is bizarre to me. It was the Democrats of the South that championed secession. In the North the Democrats were divided and falling apart. Pretty much every single free state support the Republican Platform, and except for Irish dominated urban areas the Dems had lost any chance at electing anyone to the Presidency. Even if the Civil War was lost the Republicans still far better represented the ideas, society and culture of the Northern States. Even in our timeline the Dems barely had any sway in the North until after Nixon's "Southern Strategy" that came about nearly 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

More than likely, since Confederate victory would require foreign intervention, the Republicans would rebound by rightly saying that the Democrats had betrayed the Union by forcing through a treaty that split the nation. Any Democratic victories in 1864 would be extremely short lived and likely by mid-term 1866 northern Democrats would flee to yet a new party to distance themselves from the perceived pro-slavery/pro-South slant of Democrats.

The Republican would probably remain the the moderate pro-business party while a strongly anti-slavery Liberty Party would arise to wave the bloody shirt. In the Confederacy the Democrats would form the status quo and after a while be opposed by a staunch expansionist pro-slavery party.

Any "Democrats Rule teh North!" view of a post Confederate victory Union ignores all the historical changes that had brought about the rise of the Republican Party in the first place."

Benjamin

 

[Johnrankins]

Second only the the massive lie that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist (spoiler: He was not!); my biggest pet peeve in any TL or story where the Confederacy gains its independence is the assertion that the Democratic Party will come to dominate the Union post-war. Why!?

I wrote this in a different thread and it pretty much sums up my view of that malarkey...

"The idea that the Democrats would become the dominant political party in the North following a lost Civil War is bizarre to me. It was the Democrats of the South that championed secession. In the North the Democrats were divided and falling apart. Pretty much every single free state support the Republican Platform, and except for Irish dominated urban areas the Dems had lost any chance at electing anyone to the Presidency. Even if the Civil War was lost the Republicans still far better represented the ideas, society and culture of the Northern States. Even in our timeline the Dems barely had any sway in the North until after Nixon's "Southern Strategy" that came about nearly 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

More than likely, since Confederate victory would require foreign intervention, the Republicans would rebound by rightly saying that the Democrats had betrayed the Union by forcing through a treaty that split the nation. Any Democratic victories in 1864 would be extremely short lived and likely by mid-term 1866 northern Democrats would flee to yet a new party to distance themselves from the perceived pro-slavery/pro-South slant of Democrats.

The Republican would probably remain the the moderate pro-business party while a strongly anti-slavery Liberty Party would arise to wave the bloody shirt. In the Confederacy the Democrats would form the status quo and after a while be opposed by a staunch expansionist pro-slavery party.

Any "Democrats Rule teh North!" view of a post Confederate victory Union ignores all the historical changes that had brought about the rise of the Republican Party in the first place."

Benjamin

Agreed, the Democratic Party was in trouble in the North and would be even in a CSA victory. It would largely be blamed for the loss.

 

[AdmiralBlake]

Agreed, but personally I don't think either the Democratic or Republican parties would last that long after secession, without the solid south the Dems wouldn't know what to stand for, and without the victory of the civil war the GOP wouldn't become the dominant political party for the second half of the century.

 

[benjamin]

Agreed, but personally I don't think either the Democratic or Republican parties would last that long after secession, without the solid south the Dems wouldn't know what to stand for, and without the victory of the civil war the GOP wouldn't become the dominant political party for the second half of the century.

Why not? It would be able to blame the loss on the Dems and the Brits while still having a platform that pretty much supported everything the vast majority of Northern voters wanted. This went went double after the Morrill And Homestead Acts along with the implementation of higher tariffs.

I'm not really arguing I just don't see why the Republicans would decline. Maybe they would keep the name change of the Union Partyh but that might be a little too angsty given a Confederate victory.

Benjamin

 

[AdmiralBlake]

Why not? It would be able to blame the loss on the Dems and the Brits while still having a platform that pretty much supported everything the vast majority of Northern voters wanted. This went went double after the Morrill And Homestead Acts along with the implementation of higher tariffs.

I'm not really arguing I just don't see why the Republicans would decline. Maybe they would keep the name change of the Union Partyh but that might be a little too angsty given a Confederate victory.

Benjamin

Hard to blame the loss on the Dems, seeing as secession occurred under a republican president.

The GOP didn't decline OTL partly because they were seen as the party of the union, the party of WASPs, whereas the Dems were the party of the south and immigrants

Take the south out of the equation and it makes the political coalitions of the Third (or Fourth as it would probably become) party system a heck of a lot more interesting.

 

[benjamin]

Hard to blame the loss on the Dems, seeing as secession occurred under a republican president.

The GOP didn't decline OTL partly because they were seen as the party of the union, the party of WASPs, whereas the Dems were the party of the south and immigrants

Take the south out of the equation and it makes the political coalitions of the Third (or Fourth as it would probably become) party system a heck of a lot more interesting.

It was Southern Dems who seceded. Lincoln was one of the most moderate Republican candidates; even a much more anti-slavery candidate like Seward would have won the North in 1860. By the time of the ACW the North had sickened of repeated Southern threats of Secession. Northerners knew full well who was to blame for secession and it certainly wasn't the Republican Party.

Benjamin

 

[AdmiralBlake]

It was Southern Dems who seceded. Lincoln was one of the most moderate Republican candidates; even a much more anti-slavery candidate like Seward would have won the North in 1860. By the time of the ACW the North had sickened of repeated Southern threats of Secession. Northerners knew full well who was to blame for secession and it certainly wasn't the Republican Party.

The public don't always blame the right people, and the first organisation people blame when something goes wrong is the government of the day.

As ive said before im not arguing that the GOP would be obliterated or anything like that, just that their stance as the pro-business, protectionist, WASP party of the north could very well not come about, its likely that another party would emerge. That something like the OTL Liberal Republican party could emerge and become a viable political alternative.

 

[benjamin]

The public don't always blame the right people, and the first organisation people blame when something goes wrong is the government of the day.

As ive said before im not arguing that the GOP would be obliterated or anything like that, just that their stance as the pro-business, protectionist, WASP party of the north could very well not come about, its likely that another party would emerge. That something like the OTL Liberal Republican party could emerge and become a viable political alternative.

I see your point but still lean towards the Republicans being one of the top two parties of the North. If doing new a TL I'd be willing to hear suggestions or rock-paper-scissors the issue.

Benjamin

 

[bugwar]

Finger Pointing

Northerners knew full well who was to blame for secession and it certainly wasn't the Republican Party.

OK, then which administration (and his party) in Yankeeland:

a. LOST the war,
b. Lost a third of the country,
c. Lost over 100k Union deaths,
d. And signed a peace treaty with the folks who did all that?

 

[benjamin]

OK, then which administration (and his party) in Yankeeland:

a. LOST the war,
b. Lost a third of the country,
c. Lost over 100k Union deaths,
d. And signed a peace treaty with the folks who did all that?

Given that this is not a DBWI, I will say that there is no way Lincoln or the Republicans would have signed a peace treaty that allowed Southern independence. It would take a Democratic administration or a coup by someone like McClellan to bring this about. No European power has the power projection ability at this point to ram something done the Union's throat like that. And posting a political cartoon from a Democratic dominated newspaper does nothing to change this fact.

Benjamin

 

[bugwar]

The Party that Loses Wars

Given that this is not a DBWI, I will say that there is no way Lincoln or the Republicans would have signed a peace treaty that allowed Southern independence.

Your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

It would take a Democratic administration or a coup by someone like McClellan to bring this about.

Democrats winning both the White House and Congress?
Looks like with the United States losing its first war, a nice chunk of the country, and all them Billy Yanks in their graves might cause another sea change in Yankee politics.
Ya think the party that ruled the country during such a mess would still come up smelling like roses?

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

I could see Democrats performing initially better than the Republicans based off war wariness and punishing the Republicans for it, but that's likely to fade after a while. Without a southern base of support it's likely Democrats will go back to being the opposition as the Republicans likely appeal towards more of the attitudes of the majority of the North at the time then the Democrats.

But a de facto one-party state like in Tl-191 is very unlikely (though in that case the Republicans lost two wars and then were split up).

 

[Indicus]

I could see Democrats performing initially better than the Republicans based off war wariness and punishing the Republicans for it, but that's likely to fade after a while. Without a southern base of support it's likely Democrats will go back to being the opposition as the Republicans likely appeal towards more of the attitudes of the majority of the North at the time then the Democrats.

But a de facto one-party state like in Tl-191 is very unlikely (though in that case the Republicans lost two wars and then were split up).

This. For two years the Democrats would gain control of the Presidency and Congress, but in 1866, the Republicans would blame the Democrats for signing the peace treaty and by calling them traitors and in 1868 a radical Republican would be elected - I think that Fremont would be elected to the presidency.

 

[benjamin]

This. For two years the Democrats would gain control of the Presidency and Congress, but in 1866, the Republicans would blame the Democrats for signing the peace treaty and by calling them traitors and in 1868 a radical Republican would be elected - I think that Fremont would be elected to the presidency.

I could buy this depending how and when the ACW ended. I don't buy Fremont as president though.

The Republicans would return by stressing their pro-industrialization stance and cheap western lands. Like America did during the Cold War by stressing its Christianness, either the Republicans or more likely a new Party (call it the Liberty Party) would run by being the anti-Confederacy. This means earlier racial equality, direct repudiation of any return of fugitive slaves, and anything that highlighted how the North differed from the South.

Benjamin

 

[Indicus]

I don't buy Fremont as president though.

Then who do you think would be elected president in 1868?

 

[benjamin]

Then who do you think would be elected president in 1868?

Good question. Depends on if a pro-Liberty party had formed and how harsh the Treaty that ended the War was perceived to be. Did the shorter Civil War produce any war heroes, especially someone who stood against the Brits? How about a War hero with a pro-War Deoncrate turned Republican as his running mate?

Benjamin

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

I could buy this depending how and when the ACW ended. I don't buy Fremont as president though.

The Republicans would return by stressing their pro-industrialization stance and cheap western lands. Like America did during the Cold War by stressing its Christianness, either the Republicans or more likely a new Party (call it the Liberty Party) would run by being the anti-Confederacy. This means earlier racial equality, direct repudiation of any return of fugitive slaves, and anything that highlighted how the North differed from the South.

Benjamin

I could see Republicans still championing anti-Confederate and rhetoric and Democrats joining in with moderate Republicans in an opposition party (similar to the temporary Liberal Republicans in 1872).

Then who do you think would be elected president in 1868?

It's possible that it could be a general from the war. If Grant is too tied to the Union loss than maybe some other generals from the war.

 

[benjamin]

I could see Republicans still championing anti-Confederate and rhetoric and Democrats joining in with moderate Republicans in an opposition party (similar to the temporary Liberal Republicans in 1872).

Depends on if the Radicals Republicans can paint the Dems as traitors and thus take over the Republican Party or if the Radicals are forced out to form their own Party. Could go either way; I'm not wedded to either outcome.

It's possible that it could be a general from the war. If Grant is too tied to the Union loss than maybe some other generals from the war.

The war is, politically, won or lost in the East. Most likely Grant comes out still looking pretty good. He was a great General who knew how to fight. Move him to the Canadian border while Thomas holds the west and he could make the Brits bleed as the moved towards Albany. Grant in 1868 is as good as bet as anyone else I can think of without more research.

Benjamin

 

[Johnrankins]

I could buy this depending how and when the ACW ended. I don't buy Fremont as president though.

The Republicans would return by stressing their pro-industrialization stance and cheap western lands. Like America did during the Cold War by stressing its Christianness, either the Republicans or more likely a new Party (call it the Liberty Party) would run by being the anti-Confederacy. This means earlier racial equality, direct repudiation of any return of fugitive slaves, and anything that highlighted how the North differed from the South.

Benjamin

This very much. Cold War logic would tend to pull the Republican Party towards stressing the differences between the USA and the CSA. Polices helping to do that would soon follow.

 

[Lost Freeway]

I think the reason the Republican Party gets screwed in victorious CSA TLs is because many of these TLs are written by people with Lost Cause sympathies, and the authors want to stick it to the GOP for not letting the South go in peace IOTL.