Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)

[Darth_Kiryan]

It was also the fact that he was personally invested in being able to place his hand on the Bible on March 4th as a peacetime President, and to be able to say in his inaugural address that he was the Secretary of State who had won that same peace; while this was in part a symbolic hope to allow Hughes to leave office with the war formally over, there was also a fair dash of personal pride and ambition as well as Root being genuinely worried that Lodge would take over from him only to detonate the peace process.

Ha! 😆

Root wants to be the man, instead of Hughes, but knows that Lodge could easily screw it up for him...

 

[Curtain Jerker]

While Hughes was ambivalent, he acquiesced, and agreed to push the negotiations into the new year after British representatives asked to involve themselves as observers and potential mediators, which Democrats fumed at but Root readily agreed to, damaging his capital with men like Turner who had otherwise liked him before his term even began.

Root's Blaine/Hay era Anglophilia still going strong even after all these decades. Props to him tho - anytime you can piss off important senators for no tangible gain before you even get sworn in you have to take advantage of that!

Root hasn't even put his hand on the Washington Bible and he's already showing why it is probably a bad idea to elect a bureaucrat with zero electoral experience President.

 

[galileo-034]

I don't remember if I asked of it before, but what happened to Charles Bonaparte ITTL?
Progressive Republican from Maryland, founder of the FBI, and a Bonaparte. Not sure how this resonate ITTL when his cousins are sitting on the throne of France, but I find it too interesting not to have him around.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I don't remember if I asked of it before, but what happened to Charles Bonaparte ITTL?
Progressive Republican from Maryland, founder of the FBI, and a Bonaparte. Not sure how this resonate ITTL when his cousins are sitting on the throne of France, but I find it too interesting not to have him around.

the American Bonaparte's aren't exactly....proper Bonaparte Royalty as Napoleon I excluded them from any succession rights, IIRC. Nappy III did allow them to use the Bonaparte name, but not included them in any form of Royalty or the family itself, as I understand it.

 

[galileo-034]

the American Bonaparte's aren't exactly....proper Bonaparte Royalty as Napoleon I excluded them from any succession rights, IIRC. Nappy III did allow them to use the Bonaparte name, but not included them in any form of Royalty or the family itself, as I understand it.

Technically, Jérôme had married without his brother's consent, and was forced to divorce his American wife.
Then Napoléon III did aknowledge them mostly to piss off his cousin, Prince Napoléon, whom he distrusted, for which reason he had in one of the early succession laws he enacted early (before his son's birth in 1856), provided for the possibility to adopt an heir from any other branch of the family...
That said, the true black sheeps of the family were the Lucien branch (see Prince Pierre-Napoléon and his murder of journalist Victoir Noir in 1870).

IOTL, Charles Joseph didn't have children and the American branch died off with him, but I wonder if that might change ITTL. Besides, he was still a few years younger than Elihu Root. If he had a son, the timing of his OTL marriage would have him in his mid thirties, perhaps a veteran of the war, and with daddy's influence, he might get some junior position in the oncoming administration, and rise to prominence under the perhaps Pershing administration in the 1930s (oops, too soon ?).
At the very least, I'm curious to see what they could do at state level in Maryland, with Charles's progressive credentials, the circumstances of the Confederate invasion, and his relationship to President Hughes (the Bonaparte-Pattersons would probably count among that Democratic state's most prominent Liberal figures, especially with his advocacy of civil rights for African-Americans, so I'd likely see daddy and junior crossing paths with Hughes during the invasion and at Philadelphia).

 

[naraht]

Is Mexico in third?

IOTL Argentina was, with a GDP per capita well over twice that of Mexico and a population well over half as large in 1914, so the overall figure was close to 1.5x as large.

Mexico is less of a basketcase ITTL but I doubt enough less. And Argentina is also doing better ITTL…

IMO, it is. As far as I can tell, Mexico has avoided 80% of the issues that it had between 1867 and 1913 iOTL. (The TL is designed to be a Mexico wank). What has happened that has been that much better for Argentina?

It seems like everyone in the New World got wanked (or is equal) between 1863 and 1913 other than the rump United States and arguably Panama. The only other possible entries seem to be Colombia and Venezuela which the US might have objected more strongly to European influence. Whether or not that screwed them, not sure.

 

[KingSweden24]

Is Mexico in third?

IOTL Argentina was, with a GDP per capita well over twice that of Mexico and a population well over half as large in 1914, so the overall figure was close to 1.5x as large.

Mexico is less of a basketcase ITTL but I doubt enough less. And Argentina is also doing better ITTL…

This isn't directed at you in particular, but I'm curious if there are good sources for GDP per capita at this time in history? I'd say the spread between Arg and Mexico is probably a good deal narrower here (maybe 1.5x for Arg rather than more than 2x) but it'd be good for me to have baselines to work off of. Same goes for Europe, if anybody knows

Ha! 😆

Root wants to be the man, instead of Hughes, but knows that Lodge could easily screw it up for him...

Bingo

Root's Blaine/Hay era Anglophilia still going strong even after all these decades. Props to him tho - anytime you can piss off important senators for no tangible gain before you even get sworn in you have to take advantage of that!

Root hasn't even put his hand on the Washington Bible and he's already showing why it is probably a bad idea to elect a bureaucrat with zero electoral experience President.

Yes yes but have you considered that this bureaucrat went to Harvard (Root in fact didn't go to any Ivy League, as it was not the same imprimatur back then that it is now, but you get the idea).

An argument could actually be made that Lodge would be a better/more effective President than Root, having worked his way up the MA Liberal Party and successfully fended off all comers for a quarter-century as king of that hill, even though a Lodge Presidency would still be very bad.

I don't remember if I asked of it before, but what happened to Charles Bonaparte ITTL?
Progressive Republican from Maryland, founder of the FBI, and a Bonaparte. Not sure how this resonate ITTL when his cousins are sitting on the throne of France, but I find it too interesting not to have him around.

Honestly never gave this much thought

IMO, it is. As far as I can tell, Mexico has avoided 80% of the issues that it had between 1867 and 1913 iOTL. (The TL is designed to be a Mexico wank). What has happened that has been that much better for Argentina?

It seems like everyone in the New World got wanked (or is equal) between 1863 and 1913 other than the rump United States and arguably Panama. The only other possible entries seem to be Colombia and Venezuela which the US might have objected more strongly to European influence. Whether or not that screwed them, not sure.

TBF to @Aged_Urbanist Argentina did have its Revolution of the Park in 1890 and has had stable, developmentalist politics ever since, so it'd probably be slightly ahead of OTL though the spread with it and Mexico are way narrower

 

[username5243]

IMO, it is. As far as I can tell, Mexico has avoided 80% of the issues that it had between 1867 and 1913 iOTL. (The TL is designed to be a Mexico wank). What has happened that has been that much better for Argentina?

It seems like everyone in the New World got wanked (or is equal) between 1863 and 1913 other than the rump United States and arguably Panama. The only other possible entries seem to be Colombia and Venezuela which the US might have objected more strongly to European influence. Whether or not that screwed them, not sure.

I'd also argue that (Orange Order-run) Canada has gotten something of a screw compared to OTL. Non-UK immigration at least is probably quite a bit down, though I don't know if we've gotten specific information there.

 

[KingSweden24]

I'd also argue that (Orange Order-run) Canada has gotten something of a screw compared to OTL. Non-UK immigration at least is probably quite a bit down, though I don't know if we've gotten specific information there.

Non-British, especially Ukrainian, immigration is a fair bit lower to Canada, but British and Irish immigration remains higher (especially sans WW1) so while Canada nets out a bit smaller in total population it’s less of a screw in Ontario than it is in, say, the much less populous Prairies (American immigration to the Prairies continues as IoTL too though)

 

[Nalph Nado]

Non-British, especially Ukrainian, immigration is a fair bit lower to Canada, but British and Irish immigration remains higher (especially sans WW1) so while Canada nets out a bit smaller in total population it’s less of a screw in Ontario than it is in, say, the much less populous Prairies (American immigration to the Prairies continues as IoTL too though)

Do the Ukrainians just stay in their homeland or do they go elsewhere? I can’t remember how that chapter was resolved

 

[KingSweden24]

Do the Ukrainians just stay in their homeland or do they go elsewhere? I can’t remember how that chapter was resolved

Higher levels decamping to the United States, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, etc. Still plenty in Canada, just not the "all Ukrainians go to Manitoba" vibe of OTL

 

[Aged_Urbanist]

This isn't directed at you in particular, but I'm curious if there are good sources for GDP per capita at this time in history?

This is the very beginning of the period for which there are sources, as opposed to reverse-engineered guesswork, at least for the Atlantic Basin.

I’ll see if I can find some of the stuff I’ve read but the numbers I recall are around $2,100 for Mexico, $5,300 for Argentina, and $6,000 per capita for the US. I want to say that was in 2015 USD.

Positing that Mexico was governed moderately well under a government that was both willing and able to better follow Euro-American best practices in the 1880-1910 era, maybe you hit a cumulative 20-30% higher GDP per capita and 10-20% higher population.

Set against that, Argentina has seen 30 years of the sort of durable, middle-class developmentalist politics which were so revolutionary to the US in this era. This is the era in which the US really spun up that flywheel/virtuous cycle of broad-based demand feeding productivity feeding wages feeding demand that Argentina didn’t quite manage IOTL before commodity price falls collapsed the whole thing. So it’s not unreasonable to say it’s also 10-20% richer and 5-10% more populous, and more sustainably so due to both a more developed and well-distributed market at home and greater integration with the US as something other than a foodstuffs supplier.

 

[Gman]

Mexico's population is actually closer to 35-40% higher, as the total fatalities from the GAW were around 200-250k, which is significantly less than OTL's Mexican Revolution which has been avoided, and the TTL population was 20 mil in 1910 vs OTL's 15 ,mil at the same time due to a more stable Mexico leading to higher immigration.

 

[Aged_Urbanist]

Mexico's population is actually closer to 35-40% higher, as the total fatalities from the GAW were around 200-250k, which is significantly less than OTL's Mexican Revolution which has been avoided, and the TTL population was 20 mil in 1910 vs OTL's 15 ,mil at the same time due to a more stable Mexico leading to higher immigration.

Is this your guess or was there a mention in here?

In any case I was using the pre-civil war figures for OTL to be conservative.

 

[fernerdave]

Part XI: From These Ashes, Nothing Grows

"...that grand, majestic bird;
that the same Vesuvian ash which buried grand Pompei,
Now where Naples' olives grow.
That from death comes birth,
From destruction rejuvenation.

But such laws of nature end along the Mississippi;
Across the sea to our fallowed shores the phoenix does not fly.
For sink your hands into the cooling soot of what once was Dixie, and see!
From these ashes, nothing grows."​

Reminded me of this song

 

[DUKAKIS/GLENN 88]

Hi, just curious, what is Nicolas Murray Butler up to? He seems like the perfect guy to be a Liberal leader.

 

[TheLoneAmigo]

This is the very beginning of the period for which there are sources, as opposed to reverse-engineered guesswork, at least for the Atlantic Basin.

I’ll see if I can find some of the stuff I’ve read but the numbers I recall are around $2,100 for Mexico, $5,300 for Argentina, and $6,000 per capita for the US. I want to say that was in 2015 USD.

Positing that Mexico was governed moderately well under a government that was both willing and able to better follow Euro-American best practices in the 1880-1910 era, maybe you hit a cumulative 20-30% higher GDP per capita and 10-20% higher population.

Set against that, Argentina has seen 30 years of the sort of durable, middle-class developmentalist politics which were so revolutionary to the US in this era. This is the era in which the US really spun up that flywheel/virtuous cycle of broad-based demand feeding productivity feeding wages feeding demand that Argentina didn’t quite manage IOTL before commodity price falls collapsed the whole thing. So it’s not unreasonable to say it’s also 10-20% richer and 5-10% more populous, and more sustainably so due to both a more developed and well-distributed market at home and greater integration with the US as something other than a foodstuffs supplier.

Good analysis. It strikes me that the TL is set to be even better for (most of) Latin America through the remainder of the 20th century - the conditions have been very much been set in place for US/European style economic development, with a prosperous 20th century, but the wheels need some time to spin up to speed.

 

[Aged_Urbanist]

Good analysis. It strikes me that the TL is set to be even better for (most of) Latin America through the remainder of the 20th century - the conditions have been very much been set in place for US/European style economic development, with a prosperous 20th century, but the wheels need some time to spin up to speed.

Yea, we know that lower-tier Latin levels of development are akin to the richer bits of OTL Eastern Europe, which means that Brazil is going to screw up no worse than OTL Spain and most of the rest will do better still, Chile excepted.

Even IOTL much of Western Europe struggles with this flywheel, though. Germany’s policies have long amounted to picking the pockets of its workers to line those of Mittelstand owners under the guise of “export competitiveness.” The savings rate powered by her vaunted “thrift” is actually a pile of Treasuries in a small handful of bank accounts, paid for with decades of negative public investment net of depreciation and a lower median household net worth than Greece, FFS.

If the Americas ITTL pioneer global trade the way it’s supposed to be conducted, perhaps by the present day there aren’t any more neo-mercantilist powers.

 

[KingSweden24]

This is the very beginning of the period for which there are sources, as opposed to reverse-engineered guesswork, at least for the Atlantic Basin.

I’ll see if I can find some of the stuff I’ve read but the numbers I recall are around $2,100 for Mexico, $5,300 for Argentina, and $6,000 per capita for the US. I want to say that was in 2015 USD.

Positing that Mexico was governed moderately well under a government that was both willing and able to better follow Euro-American best practices in the 1880-1910 era, maybe you hit a cumulative 20-30% higher GDP per capita and 10-20% higher population.

Set against that, Argentina has seen 30 years of the sort of durable, middle-class developmentalist politics which were so revolutionary to the US in this era. This is the era in which the US really spun up that flywheel/virtuous cycle of broad-based demand feeding productivity feeding wages feeding demand that Argentina didn’t quite manage IOTL before commodity price falls collapsed the whole thing. So it’s not unreasonable to say it’s also 10-20% richer and 5-10% more populous, and more sustainably so due to both a more developed and well-distributed market at home and greater integration with the US as something other than a foodstuffs supplier.

I think a fair argument can be made that Argentina was one of the big three non-US economies prewar, but Mexico is certainly one of them now after the war and the CSA’s collapse

Mexico's population is actually closer to 35-40% higher, as the total fatalities from the GAW were around 200-250k, which is significantly less than OTL's Mexican Revolution which has been avoided, and the TTL population was 20 mil in 1910 vs OTL's 15 ,mil at the same time due to a more stable Mexico leading to higher immigration.

Is this your guess or was there a mention in here?

In any case I was using the pre-civil war figures for OTL to be conservative.

A bit of both; I have census figures (in the first thread) globally for every 10 year increment and @Gman has worked out some demographics over time, too.

Hi, just curious, what is Nicolas Murray Butler up to? He seems like the perfect guy to be a Liberal leader.

He’s like the ur-Liberal ideal at this time, absolutely, though I doubt we’d see him on a national ticket (the 1912 circumstances were very specific). But he’s probably a huge voice within the party and likely part of Root’s inner circle, intellectually

Good analysis. It strikes me that the TL is set to be even better for (most of) Latin America through the remainder of the 20th century - the conditions have been very much been set in place for US/European style economic development, with a prosperous 20th century, but the wheels need some time to spin up to speed.

That’s a major theme of the timeline, in fact!

Yea, we know that lower-tier Latin levels of development are akin to the richer bits of OTL Eastern Europe, which means that Brazil is going to screw up no worse than OTL Spain and most of the rest will do better still, Chile excepted.

Even IOTL much of Western Europe struggles with this flywheel, though. Germany’s policies have long amounted to picking the pockets of its workers to line those of Mittelstand owners under the guise of “export competitiveness.” The savings rate powered by her vaunted “thrift” is actually a pile of Treasuries in a small handful of bank accounts, paid for with decades of negative public investment net of depreciation and a lower median household net worth than Greece, FFS.

If the Americas ITTL pioneer global trade the way it’s supposed to be conducted, perhaps by the present day there aren’t any more neo-mercantilist powers.

Oh there’ll still be mercantilist-ish economics aplenty to go around; Germany didnt become what you describe from nowhere

(And damn does that description sound a lot like Japan…)

 

[naraht]

Good analysis. It strikes me that the TL is set to be even better for (most of) Latin America through the remainder of the 20th century - the conditions have been very much been set in place for US/European style economic development, with a prosperous 20th century, but the wheels need some time to spin up to speed.

Yes, and no. The Author has indicated that Brazil goes through some significant bumps post-war. Unlike Mexico which because of the coup has a government that not particularly blamed for the war, Brazil's current government *is* and is headed for some other type of governmental setup in the 1920s (integralist?). My guess is that at least the Transition slows them down somewhat.
In terms of Latin America, Bolivia definitely views itself as being in better shape, as does Argentina and Paraguay. Chile is definitely taken down a peg, Uruguay is functionally no longer an independent state. Peru also gains from winning the war. Between Colombia and Venezuela, I'm not sure being aligned with the loser (Colombia/France) or winner (Venezuela/Germany) is better. In Central America, Guatemala and Honduras are in worse shape, Nicaragua is better, Panama isn't even independent and I have no idea on El Salvador or Costa Rica.

Which reminds me, what's with the forgotten corner of South America, are Guianas (Guyana, Surinam and French Guiana) about the same as OTL?

And then there is the least realistic part of this TL, Greenland is still the same as OTL...