TL-191: Filling the Gaps

Not to my knowledge; as far as I'm aware, he's long since moved on.

Just out of personal interest, does anyone have any ideas for who the Republican and Socialist Party candidates in the TL ~ 191 Presidential Elections from 1865 onwards?
I think someone did a list a while ago. I don't think the Socialists tried running anyone until 1884 after Lincoln brouhht in the left wing of the Republicans and convinced them to actually stand for office and accept seats if they won. I imagine would have been their candidate in 84 for sake of the ballot.. and then it would have gone from there.
 
I have a question on my mind recently about native American boarding school and how TL191 US will did the same thing or not?

Would they still exist but a larger push to integration because of Remembrance ideology and nationalism is bigger in America or won't fund boarding schools because US think the native tribes are traitors and wouldn't be even bothered to integrate them in America society?
 
I have a question on my mind recently about native American boarding school and how TL191 US will did the same thing or not?

Would they still exist but a larger push to integration because of Remembrance ideology and nationalism is bigger in America or won't fund boarding schools because US think the native tribes are traitors and wouldn't be even bothered to integrate them in America society?
From what I remember in the books, the Union armies just crushed all the plains tribes and tribes in the southwest with numbers and firearms
 
I never understood why General MacArthur was never relieved in GWII. Even more stunning, he was given command of the U.S. army group that captured Richmond. I suppose he had decent support (either in the U.S. Congress or War Department), but the man was a walking disaster for his subordinates.
 

bguy

Donor
I never understood why General MacArthur was never relieved in GWII. Even more stunning, he was given command of the U.S. army group that captured Richmond. I suppose he had decent support (either in the U.S. Congress or War Department), but the man was a walking disaster for his subordinates.

MacArthur was the general that held down Houston against a major armed rebellion for six years. That probably made him a national hero and thus likely made him politically untouchable. President LaFollette would have feared that if he sacked MacArthur, "the Hero of Houston", then MacArthur would instantly become a candidate for president in 1944 and go around claiming that the Socialists only relieved him as a shabby attempt to make him the scapegoat for their own incompetence and that his advance on Richmond only failed due to the Socialists underfunding the military in the 30s and then deliberately sabotaging his campaign (when the War Department vetoed his planned amphibious attack.) Those kind of attacks would carry a lot of weight given MacArthur's prior celebrated service (and the fact that the Socialist credibility on defense matters is pretty much zero after the Richmond Agreement), so LaFollette probably figured it was much safer just to keep MacArthur in a token command position while quietly starving his front of reinforcements so MacArthur can't launch any more failed attacks. (Which is why we don't see any major US offensives on the Virginia Front again until 1944 when the Confederates are starting to collapse.)
 
MacArthur was the general that held down Houston against a major armed rebellion for six years. That probably made him a national hero and thus likely made him politically untouchable. President LaFollette would have feared that if he sacked MacArthur, "the Hero of Houston", then MacArthur would instantly become a candidate for president in 1944 and go around claiming that the Socialists only relieved him as a shabby attempt to make him the scapegoat for their own incompetence and that his advance on Richmond only failed due to the Socialists underfunding the military in the 30s and then deliberately sabotaging his campaign (when the War Department vetoed his planned amphibious attack.) Those kind of attacks would carry a lot of weight given MacArthur's prior celebrated service (and the fact that the Socialist credibility on defense matters is pretty much zero after the Richmond Agreement), so LaFollette probably figured it was much safer just to keep MacArthur in a token command position while quietly starving his front of reinforcements so MacArthur can't launch any more failed attacks. (Which is why we don't see any major US offensives on the Virginia Front again until 1944 when the Confederates are starting to collapse.)
With everything going to Morrell in the west. Is that why Dowling was sent to Virginia after his service in Texas? Because it was more of a sideshow compared to the offenses in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia?
 
MacArthur was the general that held down Houston against a major armed rebellion for six years. That probably made him a national hero and thus likely made him politically untouchable. President LaFollette would have feared that if he sacked MacArthur, "the Hero of Houston", then MacArthur would instantly become a candidate for president in 1944 and go around claiming that the Socialists only relieved him as a shabby attempt to make him the scapegoat for their own incompetence and that his advance on Richmond only failed due to the Socialists underfunding the military in the 30s and then deliberately sabotaging his campaign (when the War Department vetoed his planned amphibious attack.) Those kind of attacks would carry a lot of weight given MacArthur's prior celebrated service (and the fact that the Socialist credibility on defense matters is pretty much zero after the Richmond Agreement), so LaFollette probably figured it was much safer just to keep MacArthur in a token command position while quietly starving his front of reinforcements so MacArthur can't launch any more failed attacks. (Which is why we don't see any major US offensives on the Virginia Front again until 1944 when the Confederates are starting to collapse.)
It's true MacArthur kept a lid on Houston (though I would argue Morrell had a huge hand in that), but his bad planning for the Virginia Campaign in 1942 would certainly wipe away his performance in the former. He was hauled before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War so his support in Congress was probably limited to hardline Democrats.

LaFollette keeping Mac in command due to potential political challenges is an interesting theory though. I recall an exchange from IATD between Dowling and Abell where the former questions the latter about Mac getting an army group command. Abell responded with something aking to "he's the man on the spot", indicating that the decision may have been out of the War Department's hands.
 
The only reason Richmond fell, was because Featherston sent everything he could, including the kitchen sink down to Georgia.
 

bguy

Donor
It's true MacArthur kept a lid on Houston (though I would argue Morrell had a huge hand in that),

Agreed, but as the commanding general MacArthur probably still got most of the credit with the press and public. (And especially since Morrell isn't the type to seek favorable press attention on his own, so no one would really be pushing back against MacArthur's narrative.)

but his bad planning for the Virginia Campaign in 1942 would certainly wipe away his performance in the former.

I'm sure the botched Virginia Campaign took some of the shine off MacArthur's star but IOTL there's a lot of precedent for politically connected generals being extremely difficult to get rid of even after they make serious mistakes (think FDR not sacking MacArthur after the loss of the Philippines, or Lincoln not being willing to sack McClellan until after the '62 midterms and not sacking Ben Butler after the Bermuda Hundreds Campaign), and I think the same forces would be at play in TL-191.
 
You know it's kind of funny that Custer and Roosevelt hated each other guts. Yet in the OTL, Roosevelt actually considered Custer one of his heroes.

Roosevelt was pretty young when Custer died in OTL so he might just change his opinions. That is not that strange. And do we know much about Custer's life and speciality career between Southern Secession and First Great War? Perhaps he commits things which make impression to Roosevelt.
 
Roosevelt was pretty young when Custer died in OTL so he might just change his opinions. That is not that strange. And do we know much about Custer's life and speciality career between Southern Secession and First Great War? Perhaps he commits things which make impression to Roosevelt.
What soured his impression of Custer was an argument during the Second Mexican War. They fought about it at Custer's headquarters at the end of the First Great War.
 
Top