Good updates.
Waiting for more...![]()
Oh! Now this is a glorious POD. And very in-depth so far.
An early Grant Presidency. So,. is it 1866-1870 terms, or is it December 1865-December 1869?
EDIT: oh wait, sorry, found it:
Ok, the former it is then.
Thanks for your support! Yes, his first and perhaps only term is from 1866-1870.
BTW, where's footnote 15 in Chapter 2?
Oh shoot. I must have deleted it while editing 14. I'll add it in a sec.
EDIT: Done.
Hi, this is a nice promising little Reconstruction TL you got here. I do, however, have a few small comments and questions (and criticisms) for you:
1. Why, exactly, would conservatism, as a whole, at least, be called "liberalism" here(unless there's some deeper context not spelled out here)? It just doesn't make any real sense, to be truthful; I mean, sure, there are a few people IOTL who do actually call conservatism "liberal"(usually wacko Ron Paul "Libertarian" types), but even in our reality they are rather on the fringes, and for good reason(including, for one, that social conservatives, overall, have *never* been inclined towards "liberalism" even in the most classical sense). I would honestly suggest, for at least the sake of lack of confusion, if not plausibility as well, that you just leave the basic terms as they are OTL.
The Liberal Republicans were a moderate, if not conservative, party based upon opposition to Reconstruction. Liberalism was used in this era to mean moderatism, but the undeniably conservative Democrats were supporters of the Liberal Party. Therein lies the meaning of "liberalism" described.
In addition, Northerners opposed to radical Reconstruction used the label.
2. Where did you find the term "colour-phobic"? No critique here, but I am genuinely curious, as I've never heard this term before, and I've done a fair bit of reading on the Civil War + Reconstruction myself.
It was used in the Reconstruction era (with American spelling, of course) against Democrats. For instance, look at this article from OTL reconstruction
The Atlantic Monthly said:It must, indeed, be owned that our author has apparently reverted to an amount of colorphobia which must cheer the hearts of the Hibernian portion of his co-religionists.
On another note, it's interesting how the writer is accusing someone of being racist while calling all Catholics evil.
3. I did have a chuckle at the "one cannot wet a river" footnote. Someone might want to sig that.![]()
It's a good analogy. Lincoln's death shocked the North so much it could not be shocked any further by any more deaths.
0
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's certainly a conservative "Liberal Party".
[quote="CaliBoy1990, post: 11811044"]Yes, but I'm talking in a *specific American context*, however, [U]and not just in terms of economics, but *everything*, [B]social/civic aspects included[/B][/U]. Using liberalism for a rightist *economic* context is alright, sure, but one does runs into serious issues when trying to extend the term to include *social* conservatism as well, which, again, hasn't ever embraced "liberal" anything, in that particular regard.
(and, from what I recall, the Liberal Party in Australia wasn't supposed to be so much of a particularly *socially* conservative party, rather more of an economically right-wing "Free Trade" type party.)[/QUOTE]
Economic conservatives will attract general conservatives, as the Australian Liberal Party has shown. Without wanting to spoil anything, I will say a similar process is at play.
[quote="Danderns, post: 11811118"]*Liberalism doesn't have to mean modern American conservatism exactly.[/QUOTE]
[quote="CaliBoy1990, post: 11811179"]Perhaps, but I guess it would help if fjihr could clarify things a bit, if he so chooses, at least.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what *liberalism should mean. I'll think of it when it comes time to reveal it.
Last edited: