Political parties in the usa post failed civil war.

I am currently writing a timeline on an alt Civil War where the CSA wins there Independence(at a great cost). I have plans for the CSA, but right now my idea of where the Union ends up is very much up in the air.

Is it possible that Socialism might become powerful force in the Union, thus allowing for a revolution because of a worse Panic of 1893. If so, I think I have a nice basis for a timeline.
 
I am currently writing a timeline on an alt Civil War where the CSA wins there Independence(at a great cost). I have plans for the CSA, but right now my idea of where the Union ends up is very much up in the air.

Is it possible that Socialism might become powerful force in the Union, thus allowing for a revolution because of a worse Panic of 1893. If so, I think I have a nice basis for a timeline.

An interesting question. In an ATL where the CSA wins, you are going to have a United States where both of the main political parties have largely lost their legitimacy. The Republicans are going to be a spent force, since they will be blamed for startign the war and then losing it. The Democrats, however, may be in no better shape. If we are looking at a TL where Lincoln loses the campaign of 1864, then the Democrats might get the blame for signing the peace treaty. Even if the CSA wins the war prior to 1864, the Democrats may still get tarred with the brush of being 'copperheads' and never having really supported the central government.

So we might end up with an "Era of Bad Feelings." A completely fractured political spectrum, where the United States suddenly finds itself dealing with a number of smaller parties, for the time being. The Democrats, I think, have a better chance of sticking around than the Republicans, in such a case, as they have a long history, as a fairly secure base of support in the urban political machines, but are going to be significantly weakened.
I could see a renewed American Party emerging; isolationist, wanting to decrease immigration. It may be in favor of lowering tarrifs as well, especially if it gets much of its support from New England (New England's textile manufacturies are going to be hurt by any high tariffs put between the CSA and USA in this case.)
Any other ideas?
 
There will probably be a Progressive analog. The progressives were brought about in equal measure by the increasing urbanization of america, disgust over the behavior of trusts and disgust over the corruption of political machines.

I cannot see a union defeat, remedying these problems. If anything the progressive movement will likely be stronger without the reactionary, rural, nativist south.
 
There will probably be a Progressive analog. The progressives were brought about in equal measure by the increasing urbanization of america, disgust over the behavior of trusts and disgust over the corruption of political machines.

I cannot see a union defeat, remedying these problems. If anything the progressive movement will likely be stronger without the reactionary, rural, nativist south.

Its important to note that the Progressive movement was not entirely urban; it had very strong rural components to it as well. In fact, one of the regions where it was strongest, the Upper Midwest, was not one of the most urban parts of the country.
An interesting thought, though. If the Democrats manage to become the dominant party, because the Republicans shatter, then they are likely going to be a party of big business in the ATL. In that situation, we might see the opposition finally crystalize around the People's Party in the 1880s.
Since the Populists will not be able to rely upon the votes of the rural South as they hoped to in OTL, it might force them to make some alliances with the labor movement, even more so than they did in OTL. We could end up with a Farm-Labor alliance in the 1880s under the auspice of a People's Party which fills the niche that the Progressives would in our own hsitory.
 
If anyone is wondering what the POD is, it is basically a lone gunman successfully kills Abraham Lincoln in 1862 (I haven't decide exactly when yet). Hannibal Hamlin succeeds him. Because Hannibal is somewhat less competent than Lincoln, the war is goes poorer than it did OTL for the Union side. There is also one more problem going on, Hamlin wants slavery out immediately. That is where the political fun starts.
 

Glen

Moderator
I think that the death of the Republican Party may be premature in CSA wins timeline. The Republicans became very strongly organized during Lincoln's first election and continued to do so during the war. While they will definitely lose control of the presidency and perhaps one or more house of congress, I doubt very much they will just disappear, no more than the Democrats did when a major block of them TOOK A SECTION OF THE NATION AWAY during the ACW. I think Democrats will be the party of rapproachment with the South, whereas Republicans will be anti-Confederacy in its stance - and I suspect there will be plenty of veterans who will share that view. The Republicans will be the party of Rememberance, whereas the Democrats will be the party of Outreach. I imagine the Democrats will have as part of their party platform continuing to seek a peaceful reunification of the nation at first, whereas the Republicans will call for the 'redemption by any means necessary' of the South - short of a first strike, that is. The Republicans will be very strong on military preparedness, whereas the Democrats will want to get back to a more traditional sized and structured army. The Republicans will likely be the party of the West, whereas the Democrats are strongest in the East (the new sectionalism?). Yes, I know these sound somewhat like OTL Dems and Reps, but that's the way I see that part. There will certainly be differences as well.
 
I think that the death of the Republican Party may be premature in CSA wins timeline. The Republicans became very strongly organized during Lincoln's first election and continued to do so during the war. While they will definitely lose control of the presidency and perhaps one or more house of congress, I doubt very much they will just disappear, no more than the Democrats did when a major block of them TOOK A SECTION OF THE NATION AWAY during the ACW. I think Democrats will be the party of rapproachment with the South, whereas Republicans will be anti-Confederacy in its stance - and I suspect there will be plenty of veterans who will share that view. The Republicans will be the party of Rememberance, whereas the Democrats will be the party of Outreach. I imagine the Democrats will have as part of their party platform continuing to seek a peaceful reunification of the nation at first, whereas the Republicans will call for the 'redemption by any means necessary' of the South - short of a first strike, that is. The Republicans will be very strong on military preparedness, whereas the Democrats will want to get back to a more traditional sized and structured army. The Republicans will likely be the party of the West, whereas the Democrats are strongest in the East (the new sectionalism?). Yes, I know these sound somewhat like OTL Dems and Reps, but that's the way I see that part. There will certainly be differences as well.

Meh, too OTL, but you did raise some good points. There could be an isolationist, anti-CSA party, anti-immigration party based off of a renewed American Party. As for new sectionalism, sounds OTL, but again makes sense, as there would be some sort of sectionalism following a defeat.

Could this third party also find a reason to expand its voter base by
A: Being very pro-worker aka socialist
B: Creating the myth that the US is surrounded by enemies, and therefore must have a large army and navy to combat the CSA, Britian, France, etc.
 
Hrm. Why didn't this happen in OTL?

Well, you did, to an extent. Its been a while since I did much reading on the Populists, but a lot of it seems to come down to the Free Silver campaign. Silver was great for farmers, as the inflation effectively made their debts worth less money. However, as a wage earner, silver would have been terrible, as the inflation would have made your wages worth less.
If you could stop free Silver from becoming the dominant issue of the People's Party, which it wasn't during the first few years, you'd stand a better chance of being able to bring labor onboard.
Another problem is that, especially in the larger urban centers, most labor was foreign born. Many of the labor unionists were Slavic, Italian, Jewish and so forth. This caused some problems for the farmers of the great plains which were largely of WASP decent.
Even in the rural areas which had a great deal of ethnic communities, many of the non-anglo farmers were not particularly political, and wanted to just keep to themselves. You see this in North Dakota where the Populist party failed, and the later wave of Progressivism was focused mainly on the anglo population from the towns. It wasn't until the 1910s that you saw much of the German-Russian population become politically active and, once they did, the state becomes dominated by the Non-Partisan League (a forerunner to Minnesota's Farm-Labor Party of the 1920s and 1930s, actually)
So, in order to get a successful Populist movement, you need to make the People's Party really try to reach out to the ethnic communities of the cities, in order to draw in labor. In a TL where the South won't be voting in US elections, this might be a bit easier, as the People's Party really hoped to unite the small southern farmers in order to make the party competetive on the national scale. Without that base of support, an alliance with labor might be a bit more viable.
Also, if the Republican Party is weak, then the entire Upper Midwest, which in OTL was a Republican bulwark, is up for grabs. Considering the reformist tendencies of that region, I think it fairly likely they would wall into that camp in the ATL, at least by 1890 or so.
 
Its important to note that the Progressive movement was not entirely urban; it had very strong rural components to it as well. In fact, one of the regions where it was strongest, the Upper Midwest, was not one of the most urban parts of the country.

True. However I'm loathe to portary the progressives as being predominately rural as they were in many ways an alliance between the emerging city and the country.

The populists were all too quick to embrace nativism and reject the new immigrants flocking to the democratic party or to decide that they were wealthy after a couple seasons of high grain prices. The progessives were better at forming coalitions and crossing party lines.

I'd go on, but you have already done an excellent job of making that point.
 
Top