Let The Eagle Scream Version 2: Star-Spangled-Boogaloo


The way Murica1776 seems to be writing them seems to make the Blacks agree with White Southerners on social issues, especially in these last few, with similar opinions on Prohibition and Latin Dancing, so take that as you may...
Well it would be more of the fact that the Republican Party created the Emancipation Proclamation, initiated Reconstruction and fought terrorist groups in the Redemption War.
Well it would be more of the fact that the Republican Party created the Emancipation Proclamation, initiated Reconstruction and fought terrorist groups in the Redemption War.
The fact that the Republicans were the party of Lincoln didn't stop the Democrats IOTL, I don't see why it would be too much different ITTL, especially with this level of racial reconciliation...
"137 bullets in him"

ah yes, a common suicide
If you don't pop off at least 100, it barely counts as a suicide attempt, much less the real deal.

Am I missing something or was there no WWI Canadian theater this time ‘round?
Nope, Yankee Doodle was stuck down in Mexico

As for the racial situation, some clarity. Right now, African-Americans form the backbone of the conservative wing of the GOP. Racial tension is still too present, and the memory of Reconstruction too fresh, for them to be Dems. However, the community is evolving differently politically. IOTL, African-Americans have wedded themselves to liberal politics because liberals championed voting rights, protection, inclusion, etc. Liberals have been crucial allies, even if they don't always know what the hell they're doing. ITTL, it's very different. Since there is no Jim Crow per se (self-segregation is still a big thing) and because African-Americans have their voting rights and a seat at the table much earlier, there's much less impetus to marry themselves to liberal interests. Furthermore, in many ways the African-American community has deep conservative ideological underpinnings. Protestant Christianity is a cornerstone of the culture. Traditional patriarchal ideas aren't uncommon. Thanks to TTL's divergences, that can also be wedded to a more strident sort of patriotism. Hmmmm, Protestantism, Patriarchal ideas, and Patriotism. If only I could think of another segment of the population that might embrace those same values with equal fervor...
Baseball? I wonder when the NFL is going to come in (IOTL, founded as the NPFA in 1920.) Likewise, the NHL started in 1917.
The Golden Twenties Part IV: A Vast and Glorious Empire
The Golden Twenties Part IV: A Vast and Glorious Empire

Sailors unwind at a speakeasy in Havana (1923)

America in the 1920's ruled over a vast domain. The distance from American Hong Kong to American Bermuda was approximately 10,318 miles. Remarkably, America controlled or dominated just about every region one would go through on this journey. The Philippines were American, and everything East of it, such as Hawaii and Guam, was essentially under American hegemony or wouldn't be difficult to put under American hegemony. North America, indeed the whole Western hemisphere, was an American playground. Across this gargantuan empire, Americans were reshaping the local economies and cultures with a vigor that quietly unnerved their European and Japanese counterparts. Ever since 1776, the Americans had seemed to overspread the Earth, or at least the parts they wanted to. What was the limit to their ambitions? While the world pondered those questions, the Americans continued the work of integrating the empire.

The Territories were America's pride and joy, proof of their nation's supremacy. However, if the sentiment they inspired was uniform, the manner in which they were run was very different, varying by region. This was in large part due to the fact that different territories were run by people from different parts of the Union. The Mexican regions were mostly run by people from the Western states, the Philippines and Hong Kong a mixture favoring Yankees, and the Caribbean territories by Southerners. Much of this was geographic: Mexico was closer to the West, the Caribbean to the South, while the Philippines were so far away that it didn't really matter and the sheer concentration of people in the North gave them an edge. However, in the case of the Mexican and Caribbean territories, there was also a great deal of cultural commonality that made governance easier. Much of the West had indeed been won from the Mexicans, and some of the "local flavor" had rubbed off on them, which made it easier for them to govern Mexico. The Caribbean, like the South, had been constructed as a bunch of conservative societies with plantation agriculture and racial hierarchies. These similarities made them uniquely suited for governance and settlement by people from these particular regions. This led to interesting developments in all of America's territories.

In the Caribbean and Panama, the South aggressively stamped itself on the region's identity. Even as early as 1870, Protestant missionaries from the South aggressively proselytized to the Catholics in Santo Domingo. The movement of tens of thousands of settlers from the South to Santo Domingo, and later Cuba, Panama, and Puerto Rico, helped to further stamp a Protestant religious identity on the region. In Santo Domingo, Panama, Cuba, and Puerto Rico, the African community latched onto Protestantism fairly quickly as a way to boost their social standing after centuries of racism. This worked for colonial authorities, who would put converted Africans into positions of power over Mestizos (but not Whites) to goad them into converting. Some Mestizos converted so they wouldn't have to listen to Africans, while others became resentful. Other Mestizos would be converted via marriage. Among the White elite, decades of intermarriage with Anglo-Saxon mainlanders produced a Saxon-Hispanic elite that was also plugged into mainland power structures. To help this process along, just about all native elites who married into the American population converted to one of the mainline Protestant denominations. After decades of rule, this made a significant difference in the religious demographics of the once overwhelmingly Catholic territories. Santo Domingo was 58% Protestant by 1930, and represented the largest numerical conversion. Puerto Rico was 67% Protestant, but had a much smaller population. Cuba was 35% Protestant by 1930. Panama was the least Protestant, only being 19% Protestant.

Aside from religion, White and Black southerners alike aggressively enforced English-language education. This did cause resentment among various parts of the population, but the possibility of better pay and proper voting rights (while everyone could technically vote, all the ballots were in English) swayed many. Although Spanish continued to coexist with English in the region, English had clearly taken the lead by the mid 20's. Some agitators in Cuba and Panama staged protests and riots in favor of Spanish, and in response the local authorities would rachet up the propaganda. More specifically they argued (not unpersuasively) that while both Spanish and English had been thrust on the region by colonizers, "One colonizer brought only slavery and despotism, while the other has brought liberty and the promise of citizenship." In short, the Spanish had been real bastards, so why not embrace the heritage of a country that treated you well? Given that the Spanish had been quite brutal (especially in Cuba) this worked better than one might think. For those not taken in by propaganda, the use of English became a status symbol, which encouraged many more to learn the language. Slight majorities of all people in the Caribbean territories defined as Spanish speaking could "fluently and expertly speak English" by 1930. The English territories in the Caribbean had a very different experience from the Spanish ones, given their English language and Protestant religion, and would actually receive statehood soon, while the Spanish territories would have to wait.

This cultural exchange between South and Caribbean wasn't just one way. The Territories gave much to the southern states. For one, they gave their food and drink. Cuban rum was popular across the nation, as previously mentioned, but it especially took off in the South. Caribbean barbecued and jerked meats became southern staples, thanks to both migration from the Territories, and from American cookbook writers discovering the recipes on vacations to the region. Although English by far predominated, it wasn't uncommon to hear people from New Orleans or Miami (the two biggest centers of Hispanic settlement) to pepper in a couple choice words of Spanish here and there. However, it wasn't just food and drink that the Spanish Caribbean exported: their political culture and attitudes around gender spread as well. Politically, many Southern settlers in the Caribbean, and later Southerners on the mainland, embraced a version of caudillo style rule. A caudillo was, as defined by University of Kingston lecturer William Timberland, "A particular kind of ruler. He was a military man, and a respected one at that. He had a powerful sense of masculinity. He had clients who depended on him. Above all else, he was an autocrat, or at least expressed autocratic urges." This idea was very useful for Washington's appointed Governor-Generals, as it reinforced their broad powers. When Roosevelt allowed Territorial citizens to pick their own Governor-Generals from 1920 on (having previously only been allowed to vote for local officials) caudillismo actually became further engrained. In the 1920 Elections, a slate of men were elected in Santo Domingo, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Panama. They all shared remarkable commonalities. They were all White men originally from the South who had married elite women who had since converted, and they all had distinguished military backgrounds, "big personalities," and a tendency towards semi-autocratic rule. They were also all Democrats. While still restrained by the rule of law, checks and balances, and American political mores, each of these "Anglo-Saxon Caudillos" had broad powers in excess of most state governors. They had no term limits, more control over local security forces than any Governor had, controlled local governments more closely, and had broad powers over censorship (which was used to shut up dissent on occasion).

This proved attractive to mainland Southern elites, who were already more authoritarian than most other American elites. While the model couldn't be fully exported (part of the reason Governor-Generals had such wide discretion was to maintain control of the Territories) in 1924, caudillo inspired Democratic candidates won governorships in Louisiana, Florida, and Texas. Each of these governors centralized authority, removed term limits, and expanded state police powers. They also typically had to make political concessions to the Black GOP caucus in their state to alleviate fears that they were going to institute full-on white supremacy. This was never going to happen, as centralizing power wouldn't have done a lot of good for these men if they were (metaphorically) castrated or (literally) ousted by Washington. Still, concessions were made that helped to shore up the African-American community. Caudillo style governors would gain further traction in Alabama and Mississippi, but no other Southern states embraced them in the 20's. In fact, outside of these Gulf States, such governors would typically only be elected by particularly frightened or angry Southerners during crises, and when that moment passed, so too would the pseudo-strongman. Deeply intertwined with caudillismo was machismo. Machismo is a particular idea of manhood found in Latin America that values swaggering, domineering, braggadocios men who are willing to fight for their honor. This lined up very well with Southern ideas about being a man, and soon the words macho and cojones were frequently being tossed around by Southerners to talk about men. The introduction of machismo to the mainland also meant that the long dead art of the duel was illegally brought back to solve matters of honor. Politically, machismo helped unite the mainland with the Caribbean more strongly and also influenced the kinds of candidates that would run for office ("We don't want some Yankee egghead, we want a macho man with big ol' cojones"). The most aggressive strains of machismo were kept to the lower classes for the most part, such vulgar displays being considered uncouth by the middle class and wealthy, but more of that influence made it up the social hierarchy than most would admit. Regardless, the influence of the Caribbean was here to stay.

Out West in the Mexican Territories, the Westerners ran their territories in a much looser fashion. This was partly because the Territories were flooded with settlers and immigrants, meaning that long-term resistance to assimilation was futile. During the 1920's, some 300,000 immigrants, predominantly Chinese, Filipino, and Korean, settled alongside another 180,000 Americans, predominantly from Arizona, New Mexico, and California. For a region that had a pre-annexation population of 1.4 million, this was nothing short of a flood. In fact, it did inspire violent resistance in the Territories of Lincoln and Durango, which sparked federal intervention in the region no fewer than 4 times. However, for the most part, the Mexicans did not engage in any sustained campaign of resistance because most were much more content to make a fortune off the new arrivals as opposed to trying to kill them. High levels of intermarriage between White settlers and native Mestizos and Whites, as well as between White settlers and Asian immigrants, and between the Asian immigrants and the native population, further made violent resistance untenable. Intermixing became so common that ethnographers began studying the region, the news began reporting on things like "The Rise of a New Breed: Chinese-Mexicans aka Chexicans," and in the South, White and Black alike began calling people from the Mexican Territories "Muttsicans" (it was not a compliment). Aside from the odd riot and independence movement in the aforementioned territories, American rule in these parts was much less aggressive than in the Caribbean. Protestant missionaries weren't as active, although they did still show up in force. Anglicization wasn't pushed by the government at all aside from printing all ballots in English, as they figured that the waves of settlement would take care of that for them (they were pretty spot on). In fact, cultural fusion between Americans, Asian immigrants, and Mexicans became much more common than heavy handed assimilation.

Linguistically, although the trend was towards Anglicization, a great deal of so-called "Spanglish" became common among all. In the world of cuisine, there was a unique blending of American, Asian, and Mexican influences. Japanese sushi chefs began using Baja style fish in so-called "Lincoln Rolls," named after the Lincoln Territory in which they were created. Tacos and burritos with Korean bulgogi and Chinese char siu took the region by storm. Fried chicken fajitas were invented in New Canaan, and became the Territory's official dish in 1935. The region also adopted American Western clothing, especially in Durango and New Canaan, where it was not uncommon to see an Asian cowboy competing in a rodeo. Religiously, Confucian, Shinto, and Buddhist temples rose up alongside Protestant churches and the already extant Catholic churches. However, there was discrimination against Buddhists, whose belief in rebirth and semi-nihilist tenets (from a certain viewpoint) were seen as utterly alien to the American experience. Shintoists were also viewed with some suspicion due to their more animistic beliefs. Confucianism, by contrast, emphasized things like altruism, obedience to parents, and loyalty to one's country, which made it "As American a creed as any Oriental creed could hope to be," as New Canaan governor Moses Adams put it. There were concerns that Confucianist emphasis on obedience and loyalty could undermine democracy, but the activity of many Confucian citizens in the process helped alleviate those concerns. Many Asian immigrants would convert to Christianity, but Confucianism, Shintoism, and Buddhism would remain a part of the region's religious character to a greater degree than the main West Coast states, the other major concentration of Asians in America. Speaking of Asia...

Farther West (or East depending on where you are) lay the American territories of the Philippines and Hong Kong. These territories were not dominated by Americans from a particular region per se, but Yankees tended to be a plurality or slight majority of the settler population, giving them an edge. The Philippines and Hong Kong were run in very different ways. In the Philippines, the Americans fully pushed their vision of a civilizing mission. English-language schools and Protestant churches were established across the territory, and were complemented by extensive infrastructure and sanitation projects. Filipinos were incentivized by the prospect of statehood, and the Roosevelt Administration allowing each territory to begin picking its Governor-General (they still had no say in federal elections) was a concrete enough step to make Filipinos believe. However, not all Filipinos were willing to go along with this. In the north of the Territory, Muslim Filipinos continued to resist American rule by peaceful and violent means, with several terrorist movements arising in the region. The American government responded about as kindly as one would expect. While Catholic regions were governed fairly loosely, Muslim regions became semi-police states, with heavy military presence. Territorial authorities also undertook an aggressive campaign of eugenic sterilization against the Muslims because as one memo put it "It will be difficult for future Mohammedeans to resist if they are fewer and fewer of them." While never even on the scale of the Croixist campaigns of later years, to say nothing of the Britannianists, the American eugenics campaign against Muslim Filipinos was the most genocidal action the government had undertaken since the more brutal of the American-Indian Wars. To top it off, a de facto religious class system was established, with Protestants on top, Catholics in the middle, and Muslims on the bottom. Catholic Filipinos were more than happy to assist the American government in "keeping the jihadists in their place."

On the other hand, Hong Kong was ruled in an extremely laissez-faire fashion. Although there were some attempts at pushing Protestantism and English, these efforts were miniscule in comparison to those made elsewhere. Part of this was because years of British rule had already made English the lingua franca of the city, and the authorities were content to let other languages been spoken and used so long as most could understand at least some English. Aside from this, it was far more profitable for the American government and settlers to make money off of the vice and trade that the city was famous for rather than try and make it more "respectable." Hong Kong was instead the "Babylon of the Orient," a place where almost anything was for sale (the authorities did try and crack down on human trafficking). Casinos, brothels, bars, and opium dens operated openly, officials collecting bribes for themselves and Washington (the federal tax take was always higher than it should have been) in return for toleration. Not coincidentally, Hong Kong became an extremely popular tourist destination. Aside from that, the trade and financial activity the city produced meant it actually rivaled cities like New York, Havana, and Los Angeles (the largest shipping and manufacturing center on the West Coast) in terms of sheer economic activity. More than anywhere else, Hong Kong was a huge melting pot of traders, settlers, missionaries, prostitutes, smugglers, and sailors from across the empire and the globe. The city had a character all its own.

As the decade came to a close, American policymakers began plotting to fully integrate the Territories. Some could be made into states sooner than others, but that was the plan for every territory. That would turn American rule from something possibly ephemeral into a permanent fact. Many natives were actually enthusiastic about the idea. After all, independence didn't seem to be a viable alternative. In the Caribbean, people knew that they would either be American, or would be dominated by Americans, so why not pick the winning team. In Mexico, many found American rule preferable to the blood-soaked hellscape that the Mexican Civil War had been. In Asia, most agreed that either America would rule them or someone else would, and at least the Yankees let them vote. More than integration though, American planners were also looking at opportunities for expansion. Part of this was defensive; they wanted as much distance between themselves and other Great Powers as possible. However, much of it was also a product of confident expansionism. Everywhere you turned, America was getting stronger, and as the "most benevolent of the Powers" it was their right and responsibility to extend their power to the ends of the Earth.

George Columbus Barnhardt, NC-born General turned "Anglo-Saxon Caudillo" of Cuba. Governor-General of Cuba (1920-1940)

Manila, Philippines Territory (1925)

The Jefferson Club (formerly the Hong Kong Club) in the Hong Kong Territory (1929)

A native-born member of the Cuban-American elite on her American husband's plantation in the Territory (1927)

A factory in New Canaan (1925)

Chinatown, Culiacan, Lincoln Territory (1928)
Last edited:
The earlier chapter's mention of bootleggers becoming celebrities in the south has given me a thought. If/when hip-hop becomes a thing, TTL's equivalent of that particular brand of 2003-2008 gangsta rap is going to come from the south.
Last edited:
The Golden Twenties Part V: Banana Wars, Rivalries, and Friendships New
We're getting ready to get chapters on Brazil, Liberia, and some other places.

The Golden Twenties Part V: Banana Wars, Rivalries, and Friendships

American Marines pose with the captured flag of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas (1925)

The 1920's saw an energetic American foreign policy that aggressively expanded Washington's influence and defended American interests. Critics of this policy say it was nothing more than the expression of mercenary self-interest on the part of the Americans. Washington maintained that they were merely protecting their basic national interest and forming mutually beneficial agreements with other states. In reality, the truth is a mixture of both, although whether it was more purely benign or evil is largely subjective. Regardless, America seemed to rampage across the Earth, offering friendship to those who were useful and war to those who were threatening.

In Mexico, Haiti, and Central America, the US maintained a strict, some might say stifling, level of hegemony. Mexico was in an era of relative peace, and was busy investing in itself with the help of Wall Street. Friendly politicians remained in power, and there were no major moves to overthrow the American client regime. While there was a sizable portion of the public that was agitated by American control, they remained silent. Part of this was because the country was busy prospering, and had no desire to sacrifice needed economic growth for a nationalist crusade. Another, unspoken aspect, was fear: many believed there was a very real prospect that if Washington felt the need to wage a Third Mexican-American War, they would just destroy Mexican sovereignty for good. This wasn't as unreasonable as some might think. Mainland Americans alone outnumbered Mexicans roughly 7:1, and they had proven themselves willing and able to do what was necessary to hold territory. In fact, Washington had actually drawn up the Top Secret Polk Plan, named for James K. Polk (POTUS during the First Mexican War) that was a blueprint to do precisely that. To further discourage unrest, the Americans had also stationed 7,500 troops in Mexico City, the largest permanent foreign deployment of American troops during this time. This had the additional benefit of keeping Mexican Presidents compliant, as they could be easily overthrown if they made a misstep. Moderating this was an unspoken belief that the United States should never be too aggressive in their demands upon client states. This was partly moral and partly practical; the Americans didn't desire to be overbearing conquerors, and they also didn't want to risk provoking an extreme reaction.

In Central America, things were a bit more violent. The United States invaded and occupied Nicaragua in 1923, Guatemala in 1925, and Costa Rica in 1926. Some jingos advocated the annexation of these territories, but majority political opinion correctly held that this would turn into a massive quagmire. Instead friendly caudillos, including a dual Guatemalan-American citizen in Guatemala's case, were installed and backed up with massive arms shipments. The Central Americans were less content with this state of affairs than Mexico, although investment in infrastructure did help a little. Aside from the government, massive corporations like the American Fruit Company would hire mercenaries or bribe the local governments to suppress angry workers. Some Americans had qualms about this, but the economic benefits were just too good for most to pass up, provided they were even fully aware of what was going on.

Beyond North America, the United States spent time forging actual alliances in South America. While Americans historically disliked any kind of foreign alliances, exceptions were made for three reasons. Their names were Brazil, Germany, and Spain. Germany, despite being friendly to America, was operating under the idea of Weltpolitik, and part of that idea entailed gaining a foothold of some kind in South America. Spain was desperately trying to use its soft power to regain some kind of power over its former Empire. Brazil was itself a would be burgeoning power, embracing a unique take on Croixism mixed with native authoritarian ideologies. The Brazilians aggressively expand their influence in South America, buying French and British Guiana after WWI and installing puppet dictators in Paraguay and Uruguay during the 20's. Fearing attempts by Brazil, Spain, and Germany to dominate the continent, Washington created the Pan-American Accords with Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile in 1924. The Accords established a mutual defense pact, gave all parties a right to use each other's military facilities, allowed for the holding of joint military exercises, lowered tariffs between members, and created a mechanism for dispute resolution. In practice, the US held the preponderance of power, but it was far more equal than the relationship between America and the Mexicans/Central Americans. The Accords were controversial in the United States. Firstly, they definitely violated the old tradition of "no foreign entanglements." Now, America was pledged to defend countries thousands of miles from her borders. Making issues worse, Venezuela and Chile were military dictatorships at the time of signing. Venezuela was under the de facto control of General Juan Vincente Gomez, who ran the country both inside and outside the Presidency. Chile was dominated by a junta that had come to power in 1923. Only Argentina was a democracy, and even they had issues with dictatorial rule in the past. Why was America aligning itself with a bunch of nationalistic military caudillos? To alleviate this issue, the Americans "convinced" the Chileans to hold an election in 1925 that was promptly won by Carlos Ibanez del Campo, himself a military man. American observers ruled the election free and fair (which it mostly was, Carlos was a popular figure) and the American public was satisfied for the time being. Venezuela would remain a dictatorship until Gomez died in 1935.

In Europe, America remained as aloof as ever. Ireland was probably the closest to America, and while there wasn't a formal alliance, the Americans did send over the odd shipment of guns. The Germans repeatedly campaigned for a formal alliance, and were shot down every time. While America and Americans liked Germany well enough, they didn't want to become embroiled in Berlin's rivalries, conquests, and wild schemes. This was proven when the Americans declared neutrality in the Scramble for the Near East. The Tripartite Empire was also friendly with America, but had no desire for a true alliance. The Americans were naturally suspicious of Stalinist Soviet Russia, but not as much as the Germans now were. However, there was real vitriol between America and the Spanish, British, and French. The Spaniards still weren't over the loss of 1898, and tried to meddle in Latin America as annoyingly as possible. While this irritated Washington, it also bemused them. With the exception of a brief period in Colombia between 1925-26, Spain never won real influence in the region. The French had been swept up in a wave of post-war anti-Americanism driven by their own fear of American expansion, while the Americans still weren't fully over the Alabama Claims. However, the worst hatred was reserved for Britain. The Brits viewed America as an imminent threat to the Empire, and the constant tensions between the Canadians only made things worse. The British were also especially disgusted by the more tolerant racial attitudes of the Americans. For their part, the Americans despised the Canadians, disliked Britain's belief that they were entitled to be the leading power, and still held a grudge over the Alabama Claims. There were several war scares between the two during the Twenties, although nothing ever came of this.

In Asia, the Americans were forced to deal with a rising Japan. Tensions were high. Japan had dreams of creating a massive empire in East Asia, with the Yamato Race as the supreme ruler of the continent. This naturally conflicted with America's desire to integrate the Philippines and Hong Kong into the nation proper. While relations were cordial throughout the 1920's, the two empires were constantly sizing one another up. The Americans heavily fortified Hong Kong as a result, an action which would pay off later. Aside from the rivalry with Japan, America enthusiastically engaged with China. The Republican regime of Sun Yat-Sen was absolutely adored by the American public, albeit in a somewhat condescending and imperialist way. Some Americans dreamed of teaching the Republican Chinese English and converting them to the Lord, then forming a "East-West Axis" where the twin republics could spread freedom across the globe. Others admired the Chinese attempt at a republic and also viewed a free China as a profitable one. Missionaries and traders flooded China. The American missionaries were viewed much more warmly than the others, as the Chinese hadn't forgotten the high level of restraint the Americans had shown during the Boxer Rebellion and how American diplomats fought against some of the more punitive measures favored by the Europeans and Japanese. American missionaries built hundreds of schools and hospitals in China, and helped educate many thousands of Chinese. There was also a large influx of American investment, which helped build a Chinese industrial base. Railroads, telegraphs, telephones, power plants, and modern farm equipment were all established thanks to American investment. Although China was still far from a modern power, American investment easily pushed it decades ahead.

Carlos Ibanez del Campo, President of Chile (1925-1948)

Presbyterian missionaries in China

A Liberian army under African-American command (1927)
With Protestant missionaries heavily going into heavily Catholic areas and converting, has there been any attempt by the Catholic Church to counter it, either internally through reform or other ways? How are Catholics in the States viewing this and how are they treated thus far. Could one eventually be seen as American and yet still be Catholic, much less a follower of other faiths (or none at all)?
With Protestant missionaries heavily going into heavily Catholic areas and converting, has there been any attempt by the Catholic Church to counter it, either internally through reform or other ways? How are Catholics in the States viewing this and how are they treated thus far. Could one eventually be seen as American and yet still be Catholic, much less a follower of other faiths (or none at all)?
I mean, there have always been Catholics in America. Maryland was meant to be the "Catholic Experiment" after all. Being Catholic isn't inherently seen as unamerican, its just that foreign-born Catholics are viewed as possible agents of the Papistry. Even in the 1900s, it is better to be a Catholic Christian than to not be a Christian at all.

Also, I would imagine there would be backlash from the CC over all the converting, but evidently they haven't been able to do much to counter it.