Lee didn't surrender in 1865

Civil War AH: North Still wins

In 1990, the South is similar to the West Bank or Northern Ireland; Washington, D.C. is comparable to Jerusalem in OTL. A guerrilla army, the Southern Liberation Army, fights for independence. Imperial Germany, under the leadership of Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm III has been the most powerful country in the world since 1917, controlling all former Spanish holdings, virtually all of Africa, Vietnam, and several Chinese cities. German gunrunners from Cuba keep the SLA in Mobile and New Orleans supplied with weapons. Ted Kennedy is president. Norman Schwarzkopf serves as Internal Security Secretary. Bill Clinton is the military governor of Arkansas and Mississippi. Johnny Van Zant is a cell commander in the SLA.
United States Presidents since 1865
1865-1868 Andrew Johnson (D)
1868-1876 William T. Sherman (R)
1876-1884 Edwin M. Stanton (R)
1884-1892 Grover Cleveland (R)
1892-1905 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
1905-1912 John Pershing (R)
1912-1924 Henry Cabot Lodge (R)
1924-1932 Calvin Coolidge (R)
1932-1940 George Dern (R)
1940-1948 James Forrestal (R)
1948-1956 Douglas MacArthur (R)
1956-1964 Joseph Kennedy, Jr. (R)
1964-1972 John F. Kennedy (R)
1972-1978 Robert F. Kennedy (R)
1978-1984 Michael Dukakis (R)
1984-present Edward M. Kennedy (R)

Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Kennedy are the second and third presidents, respectively, to be killed by SLA assassins. (John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was not technically a member of the SLA, but modern historians consider him to be a forerunner thereof.)

American Wars 1865-1990
Name Years Opponent(s)
Sioux Insurgency 1881-1883 Sioux, Cheyenne
Caribbean War 1896-1898 Spain Vancouver War 1908-1912 Canada, Great Britain
Rio Grande War 1971-1980 Mexico

Notes on international affairs since 1865

The Sioux insurgency, fought primarily in the Dakota and Montana territories, was unsuccessful in its attempts to quash the power of the Native Americans. It did, however, make a hero of General George Custer. His fame was short-lived, however, as it was discovered he was a Democrat. He might have been president were he a Republican, but the propaganda machine was able to brand him a traitor.

The Caribbean War was fought on the islands of Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Puerto Rico, as well as southern Florida. Congress issued a declaration of war after Spanish-made rifles were found in SLA encampments. The US military encountered many difficulties in the staging of the war, as all invasions had to be launched from the South. US troops intending to fight the Spanish in the Caribbean ended up battling guerrilla fighters of the Southern Liberation Army. The United States was unable to expand their territory into any of the Spanish possessions, but the war did serve to severely weaken the Spanish military and civil authority in the American colonies, allowing for an easy takeover by Imperial Germany in 1905.

Also in 1907, the newly-powerful Empire of Japan acquired the Philippines from the crumbling Spanish Empire and Hawaii.

It was after the Caribbean War that President Theodore Roosevelt realized how great a threat to national security the SLA presented. He proposed a massive reorganization of the Federal government, forming the Department of Internal Security, headed by former Colorado congressman Henry Teller, charged with “rooting out and destroying all internal threats to the sovereignty of the United States federal government.” It was also at this time the citizenship of every individual not in service of the federal government residing in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas was permanently and irreversibly revoked.

After the official end of the Civil War, Britain believed that the United States no longer showed the potential to be a viable threat, and would be easily subdued. It was correct. The British Prime Minister David Lloyd George called for a renegotiation of the treaty that settled the border dispute over the Oregon territory, knowing that a war would precipitate. The British Empire defeated US troops in both the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast, reclaiming both the Oregon territory and the northern portion of Maine, whose boundary had been negotiated in 1848. President John Pershing, who distinguished himself during his military career fighting both the Spanish and the Southern Libs, was blamed for the failure of the US to even hold their territory against the British. He did not seek the Republican nomination in 1912, but the Republican nominee, Henry Cabot Lodge was still able to win a sweeping victory, as the American public could not forget that the Democrats were the “Party of the Southerners”.

The costs of the Vancouver War to Britain were more than anticipated. The great empire was sufficiently weakened in 1914 that Imperial Germany was able to defeat it along with France and Russia within three years of the Great War’s start. France was the primary target of Germany’s wrath, though. It was stripped of virtually all of its colonies, which were then placed under German control. The one exception was the Empire of Mexico, which was given full autonomy. The English were forced to hand over only South Africa and their possessions in the Caribbean to the Empire of Germany. England was forced to give independence to Ireland, Canada, India, and Australia, with the requirement that they could form no alliances, even those defensive in nature. This made it fairly easy for Japan to take over Australia in 1925.

In, 1922, Germany financed the construction of a canal through Nicaragua, when a revolutionary group attempted to seize power (and thereby the canal), German troops subdued them, and Nicaragua was declared a protectorate of the German Empire. When the insurgents fled across the border to Costa Rica, the government in San Jose refused to give them up. The German Empire declared war on Costa Rica and annexed it to Nicaragua.

During the 1920’s and 1930’s, several leftist revolutionary groups broke out in Russia. The leftists were supported by the Germans to ensure that Russia would not pose a viable threat in the near future.

In 1965, a separatist group seized power in the Canadian province of Quebec. Many feared that a civil war would ensue, but the Canadian government in Toronto, seeing the troubles that attempting to quash such a movement had caused their neighbors to the South, decided to allow their French-speaking citizens to leave the country peacefully, keeping them as an ally and a trading partner.

After being hammered into poverty by the continuing guerrilla struggle in the South and the Great Plains, the United States turned to the only reliant source of new lands that they had ever found: Mexico. Hoping to expand the United States borders even further, supplying them with a fresh source of troops and resources, as well as a new staging point for the fighting in Texas, President John F. Kennedy authorized General Edward Lansdale to cross the Rio Grande in 1971. The Americans won victories in Matamoras, Monterrey, and Tampico. Norman Schwarzkopf, a US army major at the time, became a hero in the Battle of Monterrey. The German Empire unofficially supported the Mexicans, supplying them with weapons, and also leading an embargo against the US. The Mexicans, through guerrilla warfare, caused public opinion of the war in Mexico to go so low, that the Americans were forced to withdraw in 1980. In the end the war accomplished nothing but the deaths of US soldiers and the depletion of it resources. The war also prompted an insurgency among Mexican nationalists in California and other US possessions taken from Mexico in 1948; these groups became the targets of Internal Security.
 
Last edited:
csa945 said:
In 1990, the South is similar to the West Bank or Northern Ireland; Washington, D.C. is comparable to Jerusalem in OTL. A guerrilla army, the Southern Liberation Army, fights for independence. Imperial Germany, under the leadership of Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm III has been the most powerful country in the world since 1917, controlling all former Spanish holdings, virtually all of Africa, Vietnam, and several Chinese cities. German gunrunners from Cuba keep the SLA in Mobile and New Orleans supplied with weapons. Ted Kennedy is president. Norman Schwarzkopf serves as Internal Security Secretary. Bill Clinton is the military governor of Arkansas and Mississippi. Johnny Van Zant is a cell commander in the SLA.
United States Presidents since 1865
1865-1868 Andrew Johnson (D)
1868-1876 William T. Sherman (R)
1876-1884 Edwin M. Stanton (R)
1884-1892 Grover Cleveland (R)
1892-1905 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
1905-1912 John Pershing (R)
1912-1924 Henry Cabot Lodge (R)
1924-1932 Calvin Coolidge (R)
1932-1940 George Dern (R)
1940-1948 James Forrestal (R)
1948-1956 Douglas MacArthur (R)
1956-1964 Joseph Kennedy, Jr. (R)
1964-1972 John F. Kennedy (R)
1972-1978 Robert F. Kennedy (R)
1978-1984 Michael Dukakis (R)
1984-present Edward M. Kennedy (R)

Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Kennedy are the second and third presidents, respectively, to be killed by SLA assassins. (John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was not technically a member of the SLA, but modern historians consider him to be a forerunner thereof.)

American Wars 1865-1990
Name Years Opponent(s)
Sioux Insurgency 1881-1883 Sioux, Cheyenne
Caribbean War 1896-1898 Spain Vancouver War 1908-1912 Canada, Great Britain
Rio Grande War 1971-1980 Mexico

Notes on international affairs since 1865

The Sioux insurgency, fought primarily in the Dakota and Montana territories, was unsuccessful in its attempts to quash the power of the Native Americans. It did, however, make a hero of General George Custer. His fame was short-lived, however, as it was discovered he was a Democrat. He might have been president were he a Republican, but the propaganda machine was able to brand him a traitor.

The Caribbean War was fought on the islands of Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Puerto Rico, as well as southern Florida. Congress issued a declaration of war after Spanish-made rifles were found in SLA encampments. The US military encountered many difficulties in the staging of the war, as all invasions had to be launched from the South. US troops intending to fight the Spanish in the Caribbean ended up battling guerrilla fighters of the Southern Liberation Army. The United States was unable to expand their territory into any of the Spanish possessions, but the war did serve to severely weaken the Spanish military and civil authority in the American colonies, allowing for an easy takeover by Imperial Germany in 1905.

Also in 1907, the newly-powerful Empire of Japan acquired the Philippines from the crumbling Spanish Empire and Hawaii.

It was after the Caribbean War that President Theodore Roosevelt realized how great a threat to national security the SLA presented. He proposed a massive reorganization of the Federal government, forming the Department of Internal Security, headed by former Colorado congressman Henry Teller, charged with “rooting out and destroying all internal threats to the sovereignty of the United States federal government.” It was also at this time the citizenship of every individual not in service of the federal government residing in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas was permanently and irreversibly revoked.

After the official end of the Civil War, Britain believed that the United States no longer showed the potential to be a viable threat, and would be easily subdued. It was correct. The British Prime Minister David Lloyd George called for a renegotiation of the treaty that settled the border dispute over the Oregon territory, knowing that a war would precipitate. The British Empire defeated US troops in both the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast, reclaiming both the Oregon territory and the northern portion of Maine, whose boundary had been negotiated in 1848. President John Pershing, who distinguished himself during his military career fighting both the Spanish and the Southern Libs, was blamed for the failure of the US to even hold their territory against the British. He did not seek the Republican nomination in 1912, but the Republican nominee, Henry Cabot Lodge was still able to win a sweeping victory, as the American public could not forget that the Democrats were the “Party of the Southerners”.

The costs of the Vancouver War to Britain were more than anticipated. The great empire was sufficiently weakened in 1914 that Imperial Germany was able to defeat it along with France and Russia within three years of the Great War’s start. France was the primary target of Germany’s wrath, though. It was stripped of virtually all of its colonies, which were then placed under German control. The one exception was the Empire of Mexico, which was given full autonomy. The English were forced to hand over only South Africa and their possessions in the Caribbean to the Empire of Germany. England was forced to give independence to Ireland, Canada, India, and Australia, with the requirement that they could form no alliances, even those defensive in nature. This made it fairly easy for Japan to take over Australia in 1925.

In, 1922, Germany financed the construction of a canal through Nicaragua, when a revolutionary group attempted to seize power (and thereby the canal), German troops subdued them, and Nicaragua was declared a protectorate of the German Empire. When the insurgents fled across the border to Costa Rica, the government in San Jose refused to give them up. The German Empire declared war on Costa Rica and annexed it to Nicaragua.

During the 1920’s and 1930’s, several leftist revolutionary groups broke out in Russia. The leftists were supported by the Germans to ensure that Russia would not pose a viable threat in the near future.

In 1965, a separatist group seized power in the Canadian province of Quebec. Many feared that a civil war would ensue, but the Canadian government in Toronto, seeing the troubles that attempting to quash such a movement had caused their neighbors to the South, decided to allow their French-speaking citizens to leave the country peacefully, keeping them as an ally and a trading partner.

After being hammered into poverty by the continuing guerrilla struggle in the South and the Great Plains, the United States turned to the only reliant source of new lands that they had ever found: Mexico. Hoping to expand the United States borders even further, supplying them with a fresh source of troops and resources, as well as a new staging point for the fighting in Texas, President John F. Kennedy authorized General Edward Lansdale to cross the Rio Grande in 1971. The Americans won victories in Matamoras, Monterrey, and Tampico. Norman Schwarzkopf, a US army major at the time, became a hero in the Battle of Monterrey. The German Empire unofficially supported the Mexicans, supplying them with weapons, and also leading an embargo against the US. The Mexicans, through guerrilla warfare, caused public opinion of the war in Mexico to go so low, that the Americans were forced to withdraw in 1980. In the end the war accomplished nothing but the deaths of US soldiers and the depletion of it resources. The war also prompted an insurgency among Mexican nationalists in California and other US possessions taken from Mexico in 1948; these groups became the targets of Internal Security.

A few problems here. 1) even geurillia wars rarely last over 100 years. People sooner or later get sick and tire of war and give up. Also there are ways to make it very difficult to wage a geurillia war. The best way is simply rounding up people of the area and sending them to another area every time someone in your army is killed. For example for every Union soldier killed in Alabama ship 10 people at random to Nevada or New Mexico. Sell the property to loyal subjects from up north. Geurillia wars depend on popular support and if the locals think the only thing you will accomplish is to have them shipped out to some God-forsaken area they won't support you.

2) The Soux would have virtually no chance against any US forces simply because of sheer numbers if nothing else. The problem they have is that there are a lot of whites for every Native American by 1883.

3) The US would be a natural ally of Germany in this TL as it has two common enemies with tehm in Spain and GB . It is quite likely that Germany will conquer Spain in this TL.

4) It is unlikely that the Brits would wage an expensive war in North America when it doesn't have to. Even a weakened US is able to make Canada a very expensive endevor for Britian. The US is across the border while England is 5000 miles away overseas. The logistics is vastly better for the US and the area is more vital to it.
 

Kadyet

Banned
All that happens is that the Klan Act gets passed earlier and the Southern states are readmitted later than they were OTL.
 
Brilliantlight said:
Every Union soldier killed in Alabama ship 10 people at random to Nevada or New Mexico. Sell the property to loyal subjects from up north.

2) The Soux would have virtually no chance against any US forces simply because of sheer numbers if nothing else. The problem they have is that there are a lot of whites for every Native American by 1883.

3) The US would be a natural ally of Germany in this TL as it has two common enemies with tehm in Spain and GB . It is quite likely that Germany will conquer Spain in this TL.

4) It is unlikely that the Brits would wage an expensive war in North America when it doesn't have to. Even a weakened US is able to make Canada a very expensive endevor for Britian. The US is across the border while England is 5000 miles away overseas. The logistics is vastly better for the US and the area is more vital to it.

1) The idea of the extended guerrilla war is based upon the inference made in the history text, April 1865: the Month that Saved America (meaning saved the 'spirit' of America; the North didn't crack down -- at least not for too long; the South layed down their arms). Rob E Lee: "If I had made it to the Blue Ridge Mtns, I could have held out for another 20 years)." I do include in the novel based upon this "colonists." Open season on cars w/ Ohio and Pennsylvania license plates, so its hard to get "loyal" subjects to move there -- they all get killed. (and sending Southerners to NM or NV wouldn't help much; they'd just ally w/ Mexican nationalists or Mormons and make trouble for the US in transcontinental trade/travel). Never heard of that happening anywhere in the modern world anyway. If it works, why didn't we do it in South Vietnam, just round up villages and send them to Wisconsin. And if someone kidnaps your brother, sister, mother, father, etc. will it make you be submissive toward them or would it make you want to hurt them more? Forced resettling worked wonders for the Assyrians, but I haven't heard of its employment in the modern era.

In my view, there are 4 possible TL's for ACW:
North wins, short-term emnity.(OTL)
North wins, long term emnity. (TTL)
South wins, short-term emnity. (See MacKinlay Kantor or Guns of the South)
South wins, long-term emnity. (See Harry Turtledove's How Few Remain-based series)

Furthermore, while it hasn't lasted 100 years (yet ;) ), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for close to 60 now and it doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. I know some people think that Abbas wil help bring an end to the violence, but it's unlikely. If he does try to make peace w/ the Israelis and not get 100% of what the Palestinians want, he'll share the fate of Anwar Sadat or Itsak Rabin (I know I spelled something wrong there). And if Sharon gives in to very much, the same thing will happen to him. No peace because any truly peaceful leader will be killed by his own people.

In ireland, too, the conflict has been going on for ages. IRA: est. 1905. IRA apologozes for killing people, 2002. 2002-1905=97. Not quite 100, but what's three years?

In any case, there was too much stuff that kept happening and both sides blame the other for starting it (or just demand vengeance for what happened last, like the Hatfields and the Coys). This is essentially a national blood-feud. In the course of the novel, Bill Clinton is assassinated, and Internal Security starts cracking down, shooting civilians for sport and whatnot, so the Southerners become enraged, and the SLA targets a high profile US official for assassination, prompting a crack-down, prompting an assassination, etc. etc. etc.

2) Really just a side note; not terribly important, but w/ the US still sending troops down South, they wouldn't have quite so overwhelming numbers against the Souix as they did in OTL (and in any case, they do beat the Sioux in the conventional sense; the Sioux and Cheyenne are sort of inspired by the SLA; they can fight a guerrilla war after losing a conventional one; so can we.)

3) True, the Germans were the enemies of Spain and the UK, but they want to keep world hegemony, not necessarily make friends. They are more like the US during the 19th century than during the cold war -- only on a global scale. There is no rival power to hold the Germans in check. They don't need to make alliances w/ insignificant countries to put the other strong country in economic isolation, just keep all of the other countries from allying against them, to keep them occupied elsewhere. Thus, they back insurrectionists around the world that oppose anyone who -- if unified -- might be able to oppose them (just as 19th century imperial powers sent advisors to uncolonized states to halt each other's advances), Leftists in Russia, Irish against the Brits (I'm not sure about the mid-east, if the Ottoman Empire is still around or not -- if they are they're fighting German-supported Zionists -- kind of ironic I suppose).

In short, the Germans prefer a unipolar world in which they have free reign to do as they please (after all, the US might want to try to persuade them to give up their monarchy were the US stronger), rather than a bipolar world w/ a strong US (potential cold war). Also, by the point at which the Germans really start interfering w/ the US, the Brits aren't enough of a threat for them to be a common enemy to bind the US and Germany together and as far as Spain goes . . . :rolleyes: .

As far as conquering Spain, the Germans just ripped off their Caribbean holdings, not conquered them outright. The reason that Kaiser Bill II dismissed Bismarck is because he wanted an empire -- a big one, while Bismarck was insistent upon continental hegemony (OTL). Spanish colonies were weak, unstable, and ripe for the picking. (1901, by Robert Conroy, has the Germans declaring war on the US over the former Spanish possessions). Also one of the reasons in OTL, that McKinley wanted to take all of Spain's colonies (except for the African ones) is because he was afraid an autocratic power (Japan or Germany) would grab them if we didn't -- well, not so much Japan in the Caribbean, but you knw what I mean.

4) Also, not too big of a point. I just wanted to have the US engaed in a variety of wars (as you might gather, they are kind of meant to reflect our Israel in this TL). I still think that w/o the US, the Germans would have won WWI (the end of WWI was a race to see who could get to the western front faster -- US troops from America or German troops from the Eastern front). W/o US troops it was just a matter of time before the Germans overwhelmed the Entente, and the US would not have been willing to commit troops to a European conflict when they're still having trouble at home.
 
Last edited:
Kadyet said:
All that happens is that the Klan Act gets passed earlier and the Southern states are readmitted later than they were OTL.

Unlikely; this is not a TL where Lee (the de facto leader of the South) told the Southerners to start playing nice w/ the Yankees. He told them to fight them; to kill all that come so that one day they would come no more.

The reason that most Southerners did go along w/ the North w/o too much long-term emnity in OTL is becase Lee told them to -- "As you have been good soldiers, be good citizens."

Also, (forgot to mention this) Grant was humiliated after he was unable to put Lee's guerrilla fighters down. Sherman was given command of the Army of the Potomac, and did in VA what he did in Georgia, leveling towns, killing civilians, so on and so forth. This galvanized the South against forgiving the North and just getting along w/ them. Made them fight even harder.
 
csa945 said:
1) The idea of the extended guerrilla war is based upon the inference made in the history text, April 1865: the Month that Saved America (meaning saved the 'spirit' of America; the North didn't crack down -- at least not for too long; the South layed down their arms). Rob E Lee: "If I had made it to the Blue Ridge Mtns, I could have held out for another 20 years)." I do include in the novel based upon this "colonists." Open season on cars w/ Ohio and Pennsylvania license plates, so its hard to get "loyal" subjects to move there -- they all get killed. (and sending Southerners to NM or NV wouldn't help much; they'd just ally w/ Mexican nationalists or Mormons and make trouble for the US in transcontinental trade/travel). Never heard of that happening anywhere in the modern world anyway. If it works, why didn't we do it in South Vietnam, just round up villages and send them to Wisconsin. And if someone kidnaps your brother, sister, mother, father, etc. will it make you be submissive toward them or would it make you want to hurt them more? Forced resettling worked wonders for the Assyrians, but I haven't heard of its employment in the modern era.

In my view, there are 4 possible TL's for ACW:
North wins, short-term emnity.(OTL)
North wins, long term emnity. (TTL)
South wins, short-term emnity. (See MacKinlay Kantor or Guns of the South)
South wins, long-term emnity. (See Harry Turtledove's How Few Remain-based series)

Furthermore, while it hasn't lasted 100 years (yet ;) ), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for close to 60 now and it doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. I know some people think that Abbas wil help bring an end to the violence, but it's unlikely. If he does try to make peace w/ the Israelis and not get 100% of what the Palestinians want, he'll share the fate of Anwar Sadat or Itsak Rabin (I know I spelled something wrong there). And if Sharon gives in to very much, the same thing will happen to him. No peace because any truly peaceful leader will be killed by his own people.

In ireland, too, the conflict has been going on for ages. IRA: est. 1905. IRA apologozes for killing people, 2002. 2002-1905=97. Not quite 100, but what's three years?

In any case, there was too much stuff that kept happening and both sides blame the other for starting it (or just demand vengeance for what happened last, like the Hatfields and the Coys). This is essentially a national blood-feud. In the course of the novel, Bill Clinton is assassinated, and Internal Security starts cracking down, shooting civilians for sport and whatnot, so the Southerners become enraged, and the SLA targets a high profile US official for assassination, prompting a crack-down, prompting an assassination, etc. etc. etc.

2) Really just a side note; not terribly important, but w/ the US still sending troops down South, they wouldn't have quite so overwhelming numbers against the Souix as they did in OTL (and in any case, they do beat the Sioux in the conventional sense; the Sioux and Cheyenne are sort of inspired by the SLA; they can fight a guerrilla war after losing a conventional one; so can we.)

3) True, the Germans were the enemies of Spain and the UK, but they want to keep world hegemony, not necessarily make friends. They are more like the US during the 19th century than during the cold war -- only on a global scale. There is no rival power to hold the Germans in check. They don't need to make alliances w/ insignificant countries to put the other strong country in economic isolation, just keep all of the other countries from allying against them, to keep them occupied elsewhere. Thus, they back insurrectionists around the world that oppose anyone who -- if unified -- might be able to oppose them (just as 19th century imperial powers sent advisors to uncolonized states to halt each other's advances), Leftists in Russia, Irish against the Brits (I'm not sure about the mid-east, if the Ottoman Empire is still around or not -- if they are they're fighting German-supported Zionists -- kind of ironic I suppose).

In short, the Germans prefer a unipolar world in which they have free reign to do as they please (after all, the US might want to try to persuade them to give up their monarchy were the US stronger), rather than a bipolar world w/ a strong US (potential cold war). Also, by the point at which the Germans really start interfering w/ the US, the Brits aren't enough of a threat for them to be a common enemy to bind the US and Germany together and as far as Spain goes . . . :rolleyes: .

As far as conquering Spain, the Germans just ripped off their Caribbean holdings, not conquered them outright. The reason that Kaiser Bill II dismissed Bismarck is because he wanted an empire -- a big one, while Bismarck was insistent upon continental hegemony (OTL). Spanish colonies were weak, unstable, and ripe for the picking. (1901, by Robert Conroy, has the Germans declaring war on the US over the former Spanish possessions). Also one of the reasons in OTL, that McKinley wanted to take all of Spain's colonies (except for the African ones) is because he was afraid an autocratic power (Japan or Germany) would grab them if we didn't -- well, not so much Japan in the Caribbean, but you knw what I mean.

4) Also, not too big of a point. I just wanted to have the US engaed in a variety of wars (as you might gather, they are kind of meant to reflect our Israel in this TL). I still think that w/o the US, the Germans would have won WWI (the end of WWI was a race to see who could get to the western front faster -- US troops from America or German troops from the Eastern front). W/o US troops it was just a matter of time before the Germans overwhelmed the Entente, and the US would not have been willing to commit troops to a European conflict when they're still having trouble at home.

1) I said most not all and the English didn't kick the Catholics into Southern Ireland or the Jews kick the Palistinians into Jordan or Syria. It is hard to band together when you are kicked into 100s of small towns over tens of thousands of square miles. This also assumes the US doesn't buy Alaska from the Russians. If it does there is an even better place to kick them. See how many Southerners like the climate of northern Alaska. :D Also you wouldn't keep them together you would take say the first hundred or even less to town Athe second group to town B etc. Before you hit E or F the locals will almost certainly consider violent futile and only resulting in them in getting shipped to some God forsaken place. You might get them aligned together with the Mexicans but they would almost certainly be too broken up to band together not talking about banding with someone who speaks a different language. The Mormans were pretty strongly anti-slavery and pro-Union. They changed their religion to get in for God's sake.

2) The Souix are in even worse shape then the South. The US army simply would kill every Souix down to the last man, woman or child. It wouldn't do that in the South.

3) The Germans aren't stupid nor are all their neighbors. It is diplomacy 101 to ally against a strong aggressive nation. The US got away with it in the 19th century largely because the surrounding countries were all weak and it didn't attack areas that were a threat to the great powers. Also all the great powers were thousands of miles away. None of this applys to Germany and you would have England, France and Spain ally together with probably Italy and anyone else they can think of. If the Germans are that aggresive they will land up with an empire that lasts less then a decade or so. Germany didn't last too long in both world wars just for that reason.

4) Your point has to do with England, how? Sure the Germans might have overrun France but it wouldn't have lasted long. As soon as the Russians got back on their feet Lenin would have ordered the Red Army to invade the territory it just lost by treaty.
 
Brilliantlight said:
1The Mormans[sic] were pretty strongly anti-slavery and pro-Union.

Absolutely 100% incorrect.

Utah was a pro-slavery territory. Not surprising considering what the Book of Mormon teaches about the origins of non-white races. They did not want to be in the Union at all; they wanted to have an independent country: Deseret. The COJCOLDS banned polygamy (officially) to become a state, because otherwise they would just be a territory controlled by the US w/o any rights. When the Mormons 1st went to Utah, it was part of Mexico, not the US. And in every ATL I have ever seen dealing w/ the ACW, Utah is either in rebellion, or independent. In OTL, they did revolt against the US after the Mexican War.
 
Last edited:
Brilliantlight said:
4) Your point has to do with England, how? Sure the Germans might have overrun France but it wouldn't have lasted long. As soon as the Russians got back on their feet Lenin would have ordered the Red Army to invade the territory it just lost by treaty.

You brought up England in your 4th point, talking about how they wouldn't have fought an extended war in North America. In my original post, I gave that as a reason the the UK was weaker (though not weak) in WWI, but I don't think the Entente would have won w/o the US no matter how strong they were.

As for Russia, maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the Marxists didn't win. There were just leftist uprisings against the czar, supported by the Germans, to keep them busy.

And in any case, even if the US hadn't entered WWI in OTL, the Red Army was too busy fighting the White Army. Russia didn't "get back on it's feet" until . . . well, they still aren't.
 
Brilliantlight said:
1) I said most not all and the English didn't kick the Catholics into Southern Ireland

Give examples in the Modern (since 1700) era. The English didn't send the Irish to India, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaya, Kenya, or Australia (aside from the criminals they sent there) either. The English had a lot more options with what to do with the Irish than the US has for what to do w/ Southerners. And it's kind of hard to round people up and ship them away, when they're all armed and will shoot at you for attempting to do so. Rounding up Southerners and shipping them to New Mexico would require just as many, if not more, troops than just putting down the insurrection as I have it laid out would. It's not like the Cherokees (who, for the most part, were not fighting the US) and the trail of tears.
 
Last edited:
Brilliantlight said:
This also assumes the US doesn't buy Alaska from the Russians.

Correct assumption. It was controversial enough to buy a "Polar Bear Garden," did they call it, in OTL. If the US was still pinned down in a guerrilla war, they definitely would not be wasting money on a giant iceberg, that , as far as they can see has no value.
 
csa945 said:
You brought up England in your 4th point, talking about how they wouldn't have fought an extended war in North America. In my original post, I gave that as a reason the the UK was weaker (though not weak) in WWI, but I don't think the Entente would have won w/o the US no matter how strong they were.

As for Russia, maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the Marxists didn't win. There were just leftist uprisings against the czar, supported by the Germans, to keep them busy.

And in any case, even if the US hadn't entered WWI in OTL, the Red Army was too busy fighting the White Army. Russia didn't "get back on it's feet" until . . . well, they still aren't.

You still have the Brits picking a fight they don't have to for no real reason. This is very unlikely. If the Reds did not win eventually the Whites would and do the same thing. Despite Hitler's fantasies Germany simply does not have the manpower to occupy all Europe for decades at a time.
 
csa945 said:
Give examples in the Modern (since 1700) era. The English didn't send the Irish to India, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaya, Kenya, or Australia (aside from the criminals they sent there) either. The English had a lot more options with what to do with the Irish than the US has for what to do w/ Southerners. And it's kind of hard to round people up and ship them away, when they're all armed and will shoot at you for attempting to do so. Rounding up Southerners and shipping them to New Mexico would require just as many, if not more, troops than just putting down the insurrection as I have it laid out would. It's not like the Cherokees (who, for the most part, were not fighting the US) and the trail of tears.

Actually far, far less as you simply shoot anything that moves. You come to the town with an entire company or more and shoot anyone who resists. Push comes to shove you shell the entire town first and then capture or kill anyone who is still around and ship them out west. In this situation you are not concerned about who is the enemy as anyone outside the army is the enemy and given the choice to surrender or die.
 
csa945 said:
Unlikely; this is not a TL where Lee (the de facto leader of the South) told the Southerners to start playing nice w/ the Yankees. He told them to fight them; to kill all that come so that one day they would come no more.

The reason that most Southerners did go along w/ the North w/o too much long-term emnity in OTL is becase Lee told them to -- "As you have been good soldiers, be good citizens."

Also, (forgot to mention this) Grant was humiliated after he was unable to put Lee's guerrilla fighters down. Sherman was given command of the Army of the Potomac, and did in VA what he did in Georgia, leveling towns, killing civilians, so on and so forth. This galvanized the South against forgiving the North and just getting along w/ them. Made them fight even harder.

I was not aware of mass guerilla and partisan activity in areas that the US occupied prior to Lee's surrender that led to tens of thousands of American deaths.

What? It didn't happen? Oh, you must be thinking of some sort of TL where the southern cause wasn't dead in he eyes of everyone by 1865.

And, of course, there are the blacks, who, with proper encouragement (Weapons) might do nicely to policey the south against the bastards who kill a good old yankee boy and want to reenslave him.
 
csa945 said:
Absolutely 100% incorrect.

Utah was a pro-slavery territory. Not surprising considering what the Book of Mormon teaches about the origins of non-white races. They did not want to be in the Union at all; they wanted to have an independent country: Deseret. The COJCOLDS banned polygamy (officially) to become a state, because otherwise they would just be a territory controlled by the US w/o any rights. When the Mormons 1st went to Utah, it was part of Mexico, not the US. And in every ATL I have ever seen dealing w/ the ACW, Utah is either in rebellion, or independent. In OTL, they did revolt against the US after the Mexican War.

You seem to be correct here, most northern churches were anti-slavery but the Mormans were not.
 
Faeelin said:
I was not aware of mass guerilla and partisan activity in areas that the US occupied prior to Lee's surrender that led to tens of thousands of American deaths.

Try Tennessee. Nathan Bedford Forrest was leading essentially a guerrilla war for at least half the war. I don't know about 10's of 1000's of deaths, but I don't believe I mentioned that anywhere.
 
Brilliantlight said:
You still have the Brits picking a fight they don't have to for no real reason. This is very unlikely. If the Reds did not win eventually the Whites would and do the same thing. Despite Hitler's fantasies Germany simply does not have the manpower to occupy all Europe for decades at a time.

This is not WWII, Hitler's just a sergeant (or corporal -- I don't remember). And Germany isn't trying to occupy all of Europe, just defeat it. And there is no Red/White Russian Civil War. It's the Czar fighting the communists.

Germany isn't trying to occupy all of Europe, just do to France what France did to Germany in OTL.

And I say again, most evidence that I have encountered implies strongly that the Germans would have won WWI if the US had not intervened. The reason that most of the other countries do not band together against them, is because, as they are doing in the US, the Germans are supporting any violent rebellious group that they can to keep potential enemies occupied.

And if it is true that Diplomacy 101 means everyone bands together against the strongest, why was WWI everybody vs. Germany(pretty much) instead of everybody vs. England. The UK kept the balance of power during the 19th century by making alliances w/ countries of similar strength. The Germans do it by encouraging rebellions to keep potential rivals busy.
 
csa945 said:
Try Tennessee. Nathan Bedford Forrest was leading essentially a guerrilla war for at least half the war. I don't know about 10's of 1000's of deaths, but I don't believe I mentioned that anywhere.

To keep the US from being a global power, that's what you're gonna need.

Now please resopnd to my comment about black and loyal unionists encouraging reprisals.
 
csa945 said:
And if it is true that Diplomacy 101 means everyone bands together against the strongest, why was WWI everybody vs. Germany(pretty much) instead of everybody vs. England. The UK kept the balance of power during the 19th century by making alliances w/ countries of similar strength. The Germans do it by encouraging rebellions to keep potential rivals busy.

Germany's occupation of Alsace-Lorraine? Its attemps to build a fleet to destroy Britain's?
 
Top