They'd be the party to likely support that perhaps. Probably why so many party members were targeted by Freedomites in their rise to power... though they went after Whigs just as hard too.
TL-191: Filling the Gaps
- Thread starter Craigo
- Start date
They'd be the party to likely support that perhaps. Probably why so many party members were targeted by Freedomites in their rise to power... though they went after Whigs just as hard too.
So basically it seems like a "coalition" party that combines political groups that would otherwise be too small to oppose the other major parties of the Confederacy. However, although they may share the same political opponents, their differences often lead to infighting.
It likely does't help that the Whigs have almost certainly spent more energy hobbling the Rad Libs than they have tackling the Stalwarts (if only because rivalry with the Radical Liberals has force of habit behind it); my suspicion is that the Radical Liberals did so badly between the Wars because they were catching it from BOTH sides, albeit in somewhat different ways (The Whigs simply stacking the deck in their own favour, the Stalwarts handing out more beatings than a boxer with a bad temper).
Its a pity that the RadLibs did not win an election, which I think is a problem with the one-party state Confederacy in TL191.
Would have loved to have seen them win in 1915/1916, have them send out Peace Feelers, be rejected, then bring in black soldiers/recruits - only to result in the Red Rebellion, obviously - therefore they lose the war in 1917, be blamed for everything that follows, thus the whigs win in 1922.
I mean if the RadLibs were elected because they were a coalition of different parties, then fall apart because of said coalition ity could have added an interesting dynamic to Featherston's rise if he could have co-oped some of those parties to his side.
Would have loved to have seen them win in 1915/1916, have them send out Peace Feelers, be rejected, then bring in black soldiers/recruits - only to result in the Red Rebellion, obviously - therefore they lose the war in 1917, be blamed for everything that follows, thus the whigs win in 1922.
I mean if the RadLibs were elected because they were a coalition of different parties, then fall apart because of said coalition ity could have added an interesting dynamic to Featherston's rise if he could have co-oped some of those parties to his side.
Strictly speaking they DID win elections (hence their presence in Congress & the States), even though they never put a President into the Grey House - though that is rather nitpicking, even if I do say so myself.
Strictly speaking they DID win elections (hence their presence in Congress & the States), even though they never put a President into the Grey House - though that is rather nitpicking, even if I do say so myself.
I'm surprise the RadLibs never got an break in the 1920s following the Great War. For me, the Whigs would have been discredited for the South's defeat by the Union, and maybe even blame for the Red Rebellion. The Freedom Party would still need time to glow. So it seem to be the RadLibs would finally win an election given the chaotic state the Confederacy would be in till the rise of Featherston.
That's a fair point - my guess would be that the Hampton/Mitchel ticket managed to squeak home in 1921 because the opposition was so deeply divided that they simply couldn't put together enough of a majority to unseat their Lords and Masters (this being the Confederate States of America, it's not even impossible that EVERY STATE produced a presidential candidate); it's also far from unlikely that the Whigs spent every possible moment between 1917 and 1921 making it incredibly difficult for any other party to be elected (by means more foul than fair).
bguy
Donor
It's been theorized in this thread that the reason Doroteo Arango got the Rad Lib presidential nomination in 1915 was because he was the most prominent Rad Lib politician that was in favor of aggressively prosecuting the war. And certainly IOTL some of the most prominent Southern populists (men like Thomas Watson and James Vardaman), were strongly opposed to US involvement in WW1. If those same men (who would presumably be among the leaders of the Rad Libs in TL-191) were similarly opposed to Confederate involvement in the First Great War then that could have done a lot of damage to the Rad Lib brand. (IOTL Watson and Vardaman opposed conscription and the Espionage and Sedition Acts. If they and other prominent Rad Libs opposed similar war measures in TL-191 that could easily get the party branded at best as being weak and at worst as being treasonous.)
Ainsworth Layne's personal decency in campaigning for racial reconciliation also probably really hurt the Rad Libs in 1921 since it meant Featherston could use appeals to race hatred to win over poor white voters who might otherwise have been receptive to Rad Lib economic policies.
I wanted to put this on Alterwright's Rivals thread, but since it only covers the early 20th Century, I decided that it should be more accurately belong in the "Filling the Gaps" thread.
Basically, if you were ever curious about a plausible growing influence of the Confederacy in the Caribbean and/or Central America, this is something worth watching.
Basically, if you were ever curious about a plausible growing influence of the Confederacy in the Caribbean and/or Central America, this is something worth watching.
Oh yeah! You can put it up there on the thread, its very relevant to the Caribbean honestly and to possible Confederate ambitions in the area.
Either way the Golden Circle is an interesting look into what the South had in mind for Latin America and Tl-191 certainly allows them to accomplish this to some degree.
^^^ --- The above messages here are just some notes about the Battle of Pittsburgh and a commentary on the kind of terrain and the kind of urban environment the battle would offer.
Great video. If you guys are interested one of my favorite books of all time is the Cause of All Nations. Its an international history of the Civil War. Goes heavily into Confederate ambitions in the Caribbean and South America. I cannot recommend this book enough, I felt incredibly proud to be an American after this book. It also made me really hate Napoleon III. f*** that guy.
https://www.amazon.com/Cause-All-Nations-International-American/dp/0465096972
The CSA plans for the Caribbean were heavily intertwined with French ambitions. I imagine that during the 1860s France was the south's biggest benefactor and most important allie. Each supporting each others ambitions in the region. Craigo has a CSA fleet supporting the French blockades against Mexico later in the 1860s. Britain only becomes more important after heavy British financial investments in the CSA cause financiers to lobby the British Foreign Office to protect their investments. Also the threats of Fenian raids into Canada make alling with the CSA more relevant.
After 1871 and the collapse of the Second Empire, I imagine there is a real potential rapprochement between the new Third Republic and the USA. Most revolutionaries and republicans supported the USA over the CSA.The OTL Statue of Liberty's is suppose to symbol the US'S victory over tyranny and reactionary forces in the Civil War. In TL-191 this reproachment never materializes because Doughface Isolationists in the white house and congress blow it and the US public is still very anti-french.
"^^^ --- On the Northside you have one of several hills overlooking the Downtown area and the Allegheny River. This was the area in which pockets of Confederate resistance were still capable of fighting even after the official surrender. Along with Troy Hill and other locations, this would be good defensive ground with views of the city looking south. They would make good observation points for artillery strikes into the city, leaving any defending units in the downtown area highly exposed.
The Northside and Southside of Pittsburgh have mostly residential areas, likely to house and accommodate the working class population working in the steel mills here. Two or three story brick houses or wooden residential houses, combined with tenement buildings and and flats, would make up the urban area that the Yankees and Confederates would fight in. Hilly terrain would make up another feature of the fighting with defenders having a distinctive advantage if holed up in buildings. The attackers would literally be fighting an up-hill battle. Tanks would be extremely vulnerable here, exposed to close quarters fighting and hilly terrain. They would likely be used as direct fire support to soften up fortified positions, with ample amounts of infantry support.
I can see mortars and artillery also playing a very key role in the fighting here due to the nature of the terrain. Artillery in the Battle of Stalingrad also played a key role, but here in Pittsburgh the nature of the terrain and the unique layout of the rivers means that artillery support for the Yankees has to be handled very differently --- they don't have the benefit of putting all their artillery on one side of a river, like the Soviets did at Stalingrad. Confederate forces from the east would be attacking in a pincer from the North and South likely on either sides of the Ohio River (with this river dividing their forces potentially), with the primary goal of reaching "The Point" (where all three rivers meet) and the Downtown area. We may be seeing artillery employed in direct fire, point blank action depending on how the Yankees and Confederates use and deploy their guns, but for sure mortars in the battle would come in handy.
And of course grenades, SMGs, Featherston Fizzes, and sniper rifles would be used here as well. In fact the the role of the sniper here may be something a little different and deployed in a different way. The tall buildings in the Downtown area can also be used for artillery spotting and sniping, but would also be prime targets for snipers and artillery as well. Sniping and counter-sniping would take on a different form here since the terrain is different.
Anyway that's what I got to share here."
Interesting points. I was an artillery officer in the Army and I concur with your points about the difference in position artillery between Pittsburgh and Stalingrad. Mortars were going to incredibly relevant because of the urban environment. A lot of this fighting would be to close to call in artillery. Mortars would be way more responsive to an enemy that is usually less than a hundred meters from you.
I wrote an article three years ago on Third Army, the army that fought against the CSA's army of the Ohio in and around Pittsburgh. If you are interested:
Part I:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tl-191-filling-the-gaps.148857/page-110
Part II:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tl-191-filling-the-gaps.148857/page-111
The Northside and Southside of Pittsburgh have mostly residential areas, likely to house and accommodate the working class population working in the steel mills here. Two or three story brick houses or wooden residential houses, combined with tenement buildings and and flats, would make up the urban area that the Yankees and Confederates would fight in. Hilly terrain would make up another feature of the fighting with defenders having a distinctive advantage if holed up in buildings. The attackers would literally be fighting an up-hill battle. Tanks would be extremely vulnerable here, exposed to close quarters fighting and hilly terrain. They would likely be used as direct fire support to soften up fortified positions, with ample amounts of infantry support.
I can see mortars and artillery also playing a very key role in the fighting here due to the nature of the terrain. Artillery in the Battle of Stalingrad also played a key role, but here in Pittsburgh the nature of the terrain and the unique layout of the rivers means that artillery support for the Yankees has to be handled very differently --- they don't have the benefit of putting all their artillery on one side of a river, like the Soviets did at Stalingrad. Confederate forces from the east would be attacking in a pincer from the North and South likely on either sides of the Ohio River (with this river dividing their forces potentially), with the primary goal of reaching "The Point" (where all three rivers meet) and the Downtown area. We may be seeing artillery employed in direct fire, point blank action depending on how the Yankees and Confederates use and deploy their guns, but for sure mortars in the battle would come in handy.
And of course grenades, SMGs, Featherston Fizzes, and sniper rifles would be used here as well. In fact the the role of the sniper here may be something a little different and deployed in a different way. The tall buildings in the Downtown area can also be used for artillery spotting and sniping, but would also be prime targets for snipers and artillery as well. Sniping and counter-sniping would take on a different form here since the terrain is different.
Anyway that's what I got to share here."
Interesting points. I was an artillery officer in the Army and I concur with your points about the difference in position artillery between Pittsburgh and Stalingrad. Mortars were going to incredibly relevant because of the urban environment. A lot of this fighting would be to close to call in artillery. Mortars would be way more responsive to an enemy that is usually less than a hundred meters from you.
I wrote an article three years ago on Third Army, the army that fought against the CSA's army of the Ohio in and around Pittsburgh. If you are interested:
Part I:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tl-191-filling-the-gaps.148857/page-110
Part II:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/tl-191-filling-the-gaps.148857/page-111
Thank you. Yeah, figured that things would be very different when it came to fighting in Pittsburgh. The shape of the terrain and the close quarters nature of it all would mean that, despite an urban environment like Stalingrad, Pittsburgh would be a totally different beast. I'm no expert on this stuff though, so I attempted to reason, based on other examples, how the fighting in Pittsburgh would go. Perhaps I placed too much emphasis on the heavier guns of the artillery here than I did the mortars which, like you said, would be more responsive as close in-direct fire support for the infantry. Tanks, I think, would still have their use here as well, but would need to cooperate closely with infantry. Perhaps air support would play a major factor here as well of course.
Since you have experience with artillery, how do think they would be used in a battle like Pittsburgh then? I've read examples about guns being used as direct fire support on hardened targets, like what armies did in Aachen, Berlin, and Manila. Do you feel like thy would be employed in a similar fashion, or would they leave that to other things?
Thank you for the links! any information like that is helpful.
Just reread these, and I was wondering if you ever elaborated/expanded on this rivalry
We
I don’t think I wrote anything past GW2. I think I was paralleling Morrel with Eisenhower or Bradley.
I don’t think I wrote anything past GW2. I think I was paralleling Morrel with Eisenhower or Bradley.
Last edited:
CS Army would use artillery to flatten big targets. I had a tractor factory and a rail yard as an placed the US tried to hold. CS Army tried to flatten those places but US soldiers still used the wreckage as obstacle. Once the CS army tries to root out the survivors they cannot use artillery. also to take out towers snipers could use.
Also each side would generally fire into parts of the city each other held to disrupt build ups for attacks.
Yes, and given the hilly terrain of Pittsburgh much of the high ground would make excellent observation points to view troop build-up points across multiple parts of the city and on the rivers. This would assist the artillery in bombarding areas. I noted that some of Pittsburgh's hills that provided very scenic views in peace time, such as Mt. Washington and the Duquesne Heights on the south-side, would be hotly contested during the war. The north-side too would have high ground potentially well suited for observation and spotting for artillery.
And yes, once an attack actually starts on a position the heavier artillery guns wouldn't be used, for fear of hitting their own men at such close range. As you said for attacks like this the mortar may be of critical use in providing close in-direct fire support. The heavier guns would soften up the targets before an assault.
Interesting thing to note about Pittsburgh is that, unlike Stalingrad, the city is very vertical in nature. Downtown has skyscrapers as high as 44-stories. Artillery would likely be used on them to, as you said, take out sniping positions and observation points. They would be tough nuts to crack with artillery alone I believe.