CSA Today: The day before yesterday

Strategos' Risk

Matthew White, of History of 20th Century Atlas fame, wrote this CSA Today satirical graph to show how modern politics could be altered in a very ASB timeline.

I really like this timeline even though it was created mostly as a joke. So I decided to first analyze Matthew White's methodology in more detail by comparing it with OTL results, and then use the details to help create elections extending as far back as 1896.

And yeah, I understand that this is basically nothing more than playing with figures, since even besides butterflies that would cause everyone not to be born, even the stats themselves are going to be completely different in an actual AH (candidates winning their home states, issues being different, completely different number of electoral votes). To that I say bollocks, and create this.

Note- The Whigs are the "feeble opposition party for the past hundred years" prior to about 1970. The American Party was created in that year when the conservative wing of the Democratic Party and the Whigs united. For all intents and purposes, anyone (A) or (W) represents people who in OTL were either southron Republicans, Dixiecrats or some other conservative southron Democrat.

From what I gather, his methodology for the Dems is pretty straightforward- just choose the northern candidates for each election, subtract the Southern electoral votes, and that's it. For the GOP it's more tricky because the Confederates have an election every six years with no reelections. So from what I can see, he takes a lot of the candidates from the two surrounding elections, as I've noted below. As far as the electoral votes go, he takes them from the preceding election of the OTL election (in 1970 he uses 1968 Southern results, 1982 he uses 1980, '94 he uses '92).

I filled in a couple of candidates below (just Byrd and Dole) for ones Matthew White didn't state. The justifications are in parentheses.

I wrote in the few VPs who he mentions. Didn't bother trying to figure them out myself. Someone else can always feel free to try.


The Union

1896- William McKinley (R) beat William Jennings Byran (D) 271-64

1900- William McKinley (R) beat William Jennings Byran (D) 292-42

1904- Theodore Roosevelt (R) beat Alton Brooks Parker (D) 336-20

1908- William Howard (R) beat William Jennings Bryan (D) 321-42

1912- John Beauchamp Clark (D) beat Teddy Roosevelt (P) beat William Howard Taft (R) 309-88-8

1916- Charles Evans Hughes (R) beat John Beauchamp Clark (D) 254-151 (Reverse from OTL, because Wilson's in the south!)

1920- Warren G. Harding (R) beat James M. Cox (D) 392-21

1924- Calvin Coolidge (R) beat John W. Davis (D) 382-18

1928- Herbert Hoover (D) beat Al Smith (R) 378-23

1932- Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) beat Herbert Hoover (R) 348-59

1936- Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) beat Alf Landon (R) 399-8

1940- Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) beat Wendell Wilkie (R) 325-82

1944- Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) beat Thomas E. Dewey (R) 305-99

1948- Harry S. Truman (D) beat Thomas E. Dewey (R) 215 -189

1952- Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) beat Adlai Stevenson (D) 385-18

1956- Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) beat Adlai Stevenson (D) 390-13

1960- Kennedy (D) beat Nixon (R) 222-186

---------- [M. White's timeline starts here]

1964- Kennedy/Humphrey (D) beat Goldwater (R) 405-5

1968- Richard Nixon (R) beat Hubert Humphrey (D) 244-166

1972- Richard Nixon (R) beat George McGovern (D) 390-17

1976- Gerald Ford (R) beat Jerry Brown (D) 228-179 (In OTL Carter beat Ford, but the Dems are screwed here without the South. But Brown wasn't even the Northern candidate nominated with the highest number of votes- Morris Udall of Arizona was)

1980- Ronald Reagan (R) beat Edward Kennedy (D) 370-37

1984- Reagan (R) beat Walter Mondale (D) 387-13 (Matthew mentions that Hart and Mondale fought each other for the honor to lose to Reagan. Mondale won in OTL, so I use that.)

1988- George Bush (R) beat Michael Dukakis (D) 496-111

1992- Paul Tsongas (D) beat George Bush (R) 370-168 (Odd- Jerry Brown of CA won second place at the nomination at the DNC, not Tsongas.)

1996- Tsongas/Gephardt (D) beat Bob Dole (R) 328-13 (I'm guessing Dole is the most likely candidate. I also added in the electoral votes.)

(1997-2000) Gephardt (D) [Tsongas died shortly before his first term ended.]

~~~~ FleetlordAtvar's timeline starts here

2000- Bill Bradley (D) beat George Bush (R) 267-124

2004- John Kerry (D) beat George Bush (R) 252-133

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Confederacy

1898- Thomas Edward Watson (D) beat ? (W) 112-0 (Let's just say the Populist branch of the Dems won.)

1904- ? (D) beat ? (W) 120-0

1910- ? (D) beat ? (W) 120-0

1916- Woodrow Wilson (D) beat ? (W) 126-0 (I have no idea who to put for the Whigs. Wilson didn't get incapacitated or die in this timeline becuase a) he runs the country starting at a different time and b) he runs a much less smaller country. He was also the senator of, let's say, Virginia.)

1922- Oscar W. Underwood (D) beat Carter Glass (W) 106-12 (Underwood did the best of any Southern presidential candidate in the '24 DNC. Surprisingly, he was anti-Klan. Glass got the next highest vote for a southerner. Wikipedia's article says that he was a fiscal conservative and imposed anti-African American vote measures.)

1928- Cordell Hull (D) beat Joseph T. Robinson (W) 64-62 (Robinson was Al Smith's VP in the '28 race. He was a big supporter of the New Deal, even going as far as the support court-packing. And Hull is well, Hull. So I'm not sure which one should be the Whig.)

1934- Huey Long (D) beat John Nance Garner (W) 124-0 (Long was assassinated in '35, so he actually runs in this timeline! I guess six years of him helps to get the South out of the economic funk a bit. Garner is a Whig in this timeline because of his rather conservative economic policies)

1940- John H. Bankhead II (D) beat John Nance Garner (W) 124-0 (Bankhead was a pro-farmer, anti-civil rights senator who won third place at the '44 DNC for FDR's VP. Apparently there were no Southern Republicans during the FDR years.)

1946- Strom Thurmond (D) beat Richard B. Russell (W) 127-0 (Strom ran in '48, so he should be noteworthy enough. It's the battle of the racists! Ironically, Strom ran on a third party ticket in OTL.)

1952- Estes Kefauver (D) beat Richard B. Russell (W) 71-57 (Kefauver, who was edged out by Adlai Stevenson, was one of the more liberal senators of the South, only one besides LBJ and Gore Sr. to not sign the Southern Manifesto. This is where the party politics kind of gets screwy. Adlai lost in OTL, but he still wins overwhelmingly in the South. I guess in the CSA Today AH it would mean that they really love the Dems for winning the independence. Russell was the third in line. He was the anti-civil rights segregationist.)

1958- Ross Barnett (W) beat Ernest Vandiver (D) 67-61 (Barnett was the more segregationist of the two. Vandiver seems to have been more moderate. Guess the voters got tired of ol' Estes. And finally, the Democrats.)

---------- [M. White's timeline starts here]

1964- Lyndon B. Johnson (D) beat Harry F. Byrd (W) 81-47 (Segregationist who never ran for president, yet bizarrely won 15 electoral votes in the OTL 1956 election. Let's just say he was born in the South instead of W. VA in this timeline. Martinsburg is already like 10 miles west of the Virginia border anyways.)

1970- George Wallace (A) beat Terry Sanford (D) 103-25 (Both Wallace and Sanford were Democratic candidates in 1972. Wallace had more nomination votes. The 25 electoral votes come from the only 25 Humphrey received from Texas in 1968.)

1976- Jimmy Carter (D) beat John Connally (A) 118-12 (Connally didn't even run until 1980. Then again, there were no Dixiecrats or southern Republicans running in '76)

1982- Howard Baker (A) beat ? (D) 118-12 (Howard Baker ran in 1980 when he was Senate majoirty leader, but he wasn't close to getting the nomination at all. Jesse Helms was second place for the VP. Not sure who from the 1980 or '84 election to use as the loser Democrat- maybe Lane Kirkland)

1988- Pat Robertson (A) beat Jesse Jackson (D) 130-0

1994- Gingrich/Helms (A) beat Clinton/Gore (D) 108-39 (Weird- neither Gingrich nor Helms were involved in the race for '92. I guess Matt used this because of their prominent positions in OTL '94 Congress.)

(1999-2000) Jesse Helms (A) [Gingrich was impeached for womanizing.]

~~~~ FleetlordAtvar's timeline starts here

2000- Lamar Alexander (A) beat Gore (D) 147-0

2006- Fred Thompson (A) beats John Edwards (D) 147-0 [I may change it if Huckabee or someone else wins.]
 

M79

A few immediate concerns:

1) Kentucky (outside of Louisville) is more Confederate than Union even until the end of the war. If there is an independent Confederacy, they will seek to join it.

2) I doubt the Union will keep Oklahoma/Indian Territory after the tribes all proclaim loyalty to the Confederacy.

3) Confederate forces will try to acquire new territory down the road, including Cuba, Dominica, parts of Mexico, and other areas of the Caribbean

4) Chunks of West Virginia, Missouri, Illinois, Arizona, and New Mexico are likely to use the threat of secession to gain political objectives, are these allowed or suppressed?
 

Mark E.

Would the Confederacy still be separate today?

There are many scenarios over a Confederate victory. But what about the real possibility the US and CS would re-unite during the 1930's? In the economic crisis, the North with its industry and South with its petroleum might find real need to reunify.

But a Southern victory scenario could have very serious demographic effects. Think about this. As the North relinquishes its ties with the South, the underground railroad that took the slaves to freedom would end at the Ohio River. Soon, the South would outlaw the practice of letting northern businessmen purchase slaves for the purpose of taking them to freedom. Where would the ex-slaves be settled? Probably in the then-sparsely populated northern midwest, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas. The wave of German immigration of the 1870's would then settle in the South to fill the depleted labor supply. By 1880, the southern states would pretty much be forced to outlaw slavery, through trade sanctions or other economic pressures.

The CSA and USA would then see a much more racially integrated population than in OTL. Furthermore, with a large number of blacks in the rigorous northern climates and Germans in the less demanding southern environment, the most cruel aspects of racism and Aryian supremacy that characterized the second quarter of the twentieth century may not have emerged.
 

Douglas

M79 said:
A few immediate concerns:

1) Kentucky (outside of Louisville) is more Confederate than Union even until the end of the war. If there is an independent Confederacy, they will seek to join it.
Click to expand...

This isn't correct, Kentucky was about evenly divided.
 

M79

fenkmaster said:
This isn't correct, Kentucky was about evenly divided.
Click to expand...

My family has lived there since at least the late 1700s. Trust me, except for Louisville and a few isolated areas, the state was pretty firmly in the Confederate camp by about 3:2 (they sent more troops to the Rebellion than Tennessee did, if memory serves). Most support was in the central and eastern parts of the state.
 

Ghost 88

M79 said:
My family has lived there since at least the late 1700s. Trust me, except for Louisville and a few isolated areas, the state was pretty firmly in the Confederate camp by about 3:2 (they sent more troops to the Rebellion than Tennessee did, if memory serves). Most support was in the central and eastern parts of the state.
Click to expand...
Ky sent 30,00 troops to the CSA. However the sent 64,000 to the US. Trigg County since 1800 born in Christian County in the shadow of Jeff Davis Monument so I to have KY history.
 

Superdude

Banned
M79 said:
My family has lived there since at least the late 1700s. Trust me, except for Louisville and a few isolated areas, the state was pretty firmly in the Confederate camp by about 3:2 (they sent more troops to the Rebellion than Tennessee did, if memory serves). Most support was in the central and eastern parts of the state.
Click to expand...

Because clearly anecdotal evidence from your family is authoritative and not tainted by a geat deal of bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top