Sequel de Mayo


1679705618648.png

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Table of Contents

Previous Thread:
Cinco de Mayo (2022 Turtledove Winner - Colonialism and Revolutions)

Prologue
Part X - The Eye of the Hurricane (May 1915-1916)
Part XI - Coming Soon!
 
Last edited:
No "brazilian empire" in the tags...
I think the monarchy is going to fall
France's monarchy is going to fall yet Second French Empire is in the tags. I doubt we should be using them to predict what'll happen (said one of the people who most aggresively tries to extract the small delicious little morsels of foreshadowing this TL offers).
 
Mostly commenting so I can see the little person logo next to the thread to better keep track of it on the main page. Looking forward to where the next adventure takes us!

My guesses for who runs in 1916 (assuming Hughes does not):
L - Lots of governors lost in 1914, so the bench is a bit thin at the moment. I'm gonna go with Hiram Johnson of CA as the frontrunner, with Herbert Hadley a possibility. LaFollette might run but he'll get little traction with the party bosses at the convention. Johnson is electorally bulletproof in CA - a state that's starting to matter more with each census. - so he's my pick to get the nomination. If the bosses want an out and out conservative after what they called "Hearst with whiskers" they could tab Boies Penrose of PA.

D - It was mentioned here that George McClellan Jr quit the Senate to focus on running for President. So he's more or less in, which would be hilarious given how his dad ran in 1864 OTL. Other Ds I can see running are Ohio's Newton Baker and possibly Washington's George Turner.
 
Last edited:
Mostly commenting so I can see the little person logo next to the thread to better keep track of it on the main page. Looking forward to where the next adventure takes us!

My guesses for who runs in 1916 (assuming Hughes does not):
L - Lots of possible governors lost in 1914, so the bench is a bit thin at the moment. I'm gonna go with Hiram Johnson of CA as the frontrunner, with Herbert Hadley a possibility. LaFollette might run but he'll get little traction with the party bosses at the convention. Johnson is electorally bulletproof in CA - a state that's starting to matter more with each census. - so he's my pick to get the nomination. If the bosses want an out and out conservative after what they called "Hearst with whiskers" they could tab Boies Penrose of PA.

D - It was mentioned here that George McClellan Jr quit the Senate to focus on running for President. So he's more or less in, which would be hilarious given how his dad ran in 1864 OTL. Other Ds I can see running are Ohio's Newton Baker and possibly Washington's George Turner.

Poor George McClellan Jr, always the brides-maid and never the bride in alternative history :) I actually agree with you that Hiram Johnson would be a good choice here; though he strikes me as a wee bit too competent for the mess that is going to follow (though, it's not like a President controls every aspect of his or her administration). For a conservative republican, maybe someone like Federick H. Gillet or Elihu Root. Root as a frmer Secretary of State and all might be a good turn. Though, once again, he's ... compitent.
 
I wonder whether the Confederacy would hold out to after Election Day in hope that the other party from the one in the White House *prior* to election day would get inaugrated...

Would the party in the White House affect the shape of the war ending treaty? (one party *wanting* Kentucky, or the Virginia part of the DelMarVa or...)

Could we end up with what we came closest to iOTL for the Spanish American War, a Treaty *rejected* by the Senate?

Note, I *fully* expect at least Two Confederate cities will have the same level of destruction as Baltimore and Washington by the end of the War. It appears that Nashville and Atlanta have been chosen for that duty. (Though, why not more?)
 
Last edited:
One thing I wanna know is how the fuck did the Confederacy rack up 900,000 dead from combat? How many war crimes is the USA going to commit to get to that number?
 
Close enough to my final numbers. As one can see, that casualty rate for the Confederacy is basically 37% of white Confederate men.
The near-catastrophic loss of so many younger white men is going to have an...interesting effect on race relations in the Confederacy, I imagine - as the Black minority grows even larger and manumission is enforced by American guns, I wonder if this leads to a serious issue of a Black underclass that is prone to strikes and revolts at maltreatment. Now that I think about it, this is just like OTL Brazil.
 
So even with winning (original post over on closed thread), the US ends up with almost 50% more casualties (Dead & Wounded) than the CSA? But with the CSA (excluding slaves) having about 1/3 of the USA population, the casualty *rate* is about double in the CSA as in the USA?
 
The near-catastrophic loss of so many younger white men is going to have an...interesting effect on race relations in the Confederacy, I imagine - as the Black minority grows even larger and manumission is enforced by American guns, I wonder if this leads to a serious issue of a Black underclass that is prone to strikes and revolts at maltreatment. Now that I think about it, this is just like OTL Brazil.
I admittingly been thinking of a way for the CSA to ''help'' with that issue and think they might try and go a mix of divide and rule and attempts at ''whitening'' the population.

By that I think it's fair to say the CSA thanks to all the the slavery has a considerable amount of Mulattos, things like taking the whitest children away and racing them as white, trying to arrange certain deals the ''breeds'' ect. The black population is to big to ignore so I think trying to create a new racial hiarchky with different sub groups invested in it is a likely way for it to keep going.

Remember some of the CSA slaves are '''new'' like parents or grandparents are taken from the Congo in comparison to some who have been property for centuries, can imagine the later adjusting less well to the new chaos.

Though admittingly I think the CSA going to have a lot of revolts as the population of Whites should be given the CSA was industrializing be moving into urban areas leaving the slaves a concerningly big group in the rural areas. In other words the agricultural areas of the CSA are at serious risk of being dominated by their ex slaves. I can't imagine any CSA nationalist accept the lifeline of their nation being controlled by a group hostile to them so solving this will be a long and bloody struggle.
 
One thing I wanna know is how the fuck did the Confederacy rack up 900,000 dead from combat? How many war crimes is the USA going to commit to get to that number?
I'm not convinced you need war crimes for that. As there are more "Volksstrum" units, their casualty rates go up because they are simply less effective.
 
I admittingly been thinking of a way for the CSA to ''help'' with that issue and think they might try and go a mix of divide and rule and attempts at ''whitening'' the population.

By that I think it's fair to say the CSA thanks to all the the slavery has a considerable amount of Mulattos, things like taking the whitest children away and racing them as white, trying to arrange certain deals the ''breeds'' ect. The black population is to big to ignore so I think trying to create a new racial hiarchky with different sub groups invested in it is a likely way for it to keep going.

Remember some of the CSA slaves are '''new'' like parents or grandparents are taken from the Congo in comparison to some who have been property for centuries, can imagine the later adjusting less well to the new chaos.

Though admittingly I think the CSA going to have a lot of revolts as the population of Whites should be given the CSA was industrializing be moving into urban areas leaving the slaves a concerningly big group in the rural areas. In other words the agricultural areas of the CSA are at serious risk of being dominated by their ex slaves. I can't imagine any CSA nationalist accept the lifeline of their nation being controlled by a group hostile to them so solving this will be a long and bloody struggle.
The Confederacy has no choice but to grant greater rights to Black people - which is going to include - gasp! - the allowance of interracial marriage. Additionally, one may note that the war is going to disproportionately hurt poorer whites, which may make the poor population more integrated racially, while the rich aristocrats remain segregated from the rest of the populace. The author appears to be going for a "CSA as Latin American country" analogue, and seeing a CSA with a rich Charleston or New Orleans surrounded by favelas of poor Black and white workers seems increasingly likely to me, though the racial resentment is going to be sadly more extent.
 
I'm curious as to what the CSA's HDI will be in modern times. I don't see it being in the 0.6 or 0.7 range but definitely in the low to mid 0.8s, and not higher.
 
The Confederacy has no choice but to grant greater rights to Black people - which is going to include - gasp! - the allowance of interracial marriage. Additionally, one may note that the war is going to disproportionately hurt poorer whites, which may make the poor population more integrated racially, while the rich aristocrats remain segregated from the rest of the populace. The author appears to be going for a "CSA as Latin American country" analogue, and seeing a CSA with a rich Charleston or New Orleans surrounded by favelas of poor Black and white workers seems increasingly likely to me, though the racial resentment is going to be sadly more extent.
Good point Couperin, and I suppose in a way it does mimic how the South ended up except even worse with plenty of really poor whites also share cropping. You know except even worse and more racist.
 
I'm curious as to what the CSA's HDI will be in modern times. I don't see it being in the 0.6 or 0.7 range but definitely in the low to mid 0.8s, and not higher.
Remember, pre-FDR, the South was near-completely unelectrified, filled with malaria until the CDC came along (this is why it's headquartered in Atlanta), and while not completely unindustrialized, was several orders of magnitude worse-off than the North. Add to that the devastation of war with the only investment from the US being the strings-attached, debt-trap diplomacy kind, and the burgeoning industrial areas either being destroyed or spun off the country itself, while future oil sites are now in an independent Texas, and I could see the country being like more similar to OTL Brazil or even South Africa HDI.
 
Top