TL-191: Filling the Gaps

If I might offer my own take on things, I would guess that The Lee Family may well have suffered extinction in the Male Line as it's scions strove to live up to the legend of their Immortal Progenitor on the fields of no fewer than three Wars between the North and the South; especially during the Great War, it is far from impossible that entire 'Dynasties' of the Famous Families in the Confederacy were wiped out.

Being expected to live up to 'First in Peace, First in War' can prove a lethal burden of expectation when machine guns are pruning the family trees of a Nation, especially for Junior Officers - for example more Noble family lines of the were extinguished during the Great War than at any other time in the History of the British Peerage since the Wars of the Roses, not least because their heirs were expected to submit themselves to the probability of death as a subaltern.

Which might also explain why we hear nothing of the heirs of Jefferson Davis, for instance.
 
While I'm fairly confident some of you fellows will already be familiar with this website, I just wanted to point it out to those who have yet to make use of it's invaluable services (I am quite astonished by how gratifying it is to be able to put not only a date but a day of the week to an event - and how entertaining it is to be able to learn that, for example, Jake Featherston is a Taurus born in the Chinese Year of the Dog).

http://www.onedayhistory.com


Please allow me to recommend it to you and also, please permit me to explain just WHY I've brought this topic up - in a nutshell I've been working out some more Birthdays!:D
 
I'm posting these here for your inspection Ladies and Gentleman (just in case I've flubbed the timing AGAIN):-

GABRIEL SEMMES: born Thursday 24th March 1864, died Thursday 29/9/1938.

CHESTER 'Chet' Martin: born Friday 11th November 1892 (amusingly I picked the Feast of Saint Martin of Tours without knowing that it was November 11th).

RITA MARTIN: born Friday 22nd December 1893 (she married her first husband in the rush to the altars that took place in '14; they weren't together for very long).

AMOS MIZELL: born Saturday 11th March 1876, died Saturday 4th July 1936.

WILLIAM 'Willie' KNIGHT: born Saturday 20th July 1889, killed on Thursday the 31st of July 1941.

HOSEA BLACKFORD: born Thursday 1st January 1863 (I choose to believe that the maddening confusion about the precise year of his birth stems from his being born on the Frontier, a long way from any calendars - I chose the date because in a better world it would have been the date of the Emancipation Proclamation).

Died Monday 26th April 1937.

Mr ben Ari, I would appreciate it if you would please check my dating 'Anno Mundi' (I'm not very confident in my grasp of the Hebrew Calendar, which is something of a problem in the following two instances).

FLORA BLACKFORD nee HAMBURGER: born 18th Adar 5645 Anno Mundi (Thursday 5th March 1885 to we Gentiles).

For those interested this means that Miss Hamburger was about thirty-one years old when she met Mister Blackford (he being about fifty-three years old); Accusations of cradle-robbing therefore seem a little inappropriate but a certain stricken Admiration seems entirely reasonable!

SAUL GOLDMAN: born Saturday 1st May 1897 (29th Nisan 5657 Anno Mundi).

C. BURTON MITCHEL III: born Wednesday 29th December 1875, died Sunday July 4th 1937 (as a note his last words "Lord have mercy on Dixie" were an indication of his lack of respect for the professionalism of his assassins - as in "Why haven't you killed me yet?").

SAMUEL LONGSTREET: born Wednesday 27th April 1892.

AINSWORTH LAYNE: born Wednesday 10th August 1881.
 
Thank you very kindly Mr Ben Ari!:)

(Don't worry Mr President Mahan, I'm working on something more substantial than mere dating as per your suggestions).:D
 
CONFEDERATE INAUGURATION DAY

Out of curiosity, is there any consensus on when the President of the Confederate States is inaugurated in the course of Timeline-191?

The Confederate Constitution seems to imply that there must be a clear candidate for President of the Confederacy before March 4th of the year following an Election but does this mean that Inauguration Day MUST be March 4th or does this date represent a deadline before which any Inauguration must take place?

Mr Jefferson Davis was inaugurated on February 18 1861 (before the Confederate Constitution was adopted on March 11th of that Year) but his time as President of the Confederate States is apparently held to date OFFICIALLY from February 22nd 1862 (AFTER the Constitution was adopted) so is it possible that Confederate Presidents would make a habit of holding their inauguration in February rather than March in honour of President Davis?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic? (I personally incline to a February, as it helps further separate CS from US, but I would appreciate advice on this issue).
 
April 1?(cue april fools day north in the border), make sense, give what remains of march to end the management and give a sense to start the term with a set date, plus that allow election being done during january-febuary.
 
Out of curiosity, is there any consensus on when the President of the Confederate States is inaugurated in the course of Timeline-191?

The Confederate Constitution seems to imply that there must be a clear candidate for President of the Confederacy before March 4th of the year following an Election but does this mean that Inauguration Day MUST be March 4th or does this date represent a deadline before which any Inauguration must take place?

Mr Jefferson Davis was inaugurated on February 18 1861 (before the Confederate Constitution was adopted on March 11th of that Year) but his time as President of the Confederate States is apparently held to date OFFICIALLY from February 22nd 1862 (AFTER the Constitution was adopted) so is it possible that Confederate Presidents would make a habit of holding their inauguration in February rather than March in honour of President Davis?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic? (I personally incline to a February, as it helps further separate CS from US, but I would appreciate advice on this issue).

The Snake took the oath of office on March 4...
 
As I understand it, holding a Presidential Inauguration on April 1st would be impossible by virtue of being unconstitutional; the Confederate Constitution contains a section explicitly stating that if no Presidential Candidate has been chosen by March 4th in the year following the Election then the sitting Vice President becomes President (as he would in the event of any other emergency in which the Chief Executive was unable to play his part).

http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm

^Here's a link to a copy of the CS constitution; the relevant section is repeated below for clarity.^

And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the 4th day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability of the President.

In other words "You have to pick a President by March 4th or the Constitution will pick one for you and save you the trouble" and so as far as I can see a President HAS to be Elected before March 4th (arguably he may well have to be inaugurated before that Date to boot).
 
I had an idea. We know that Superman exists in TL 191 in the United States as a comic, and the Confederates reacted with Hyperman. What would a TL 191 version of the X-Men look like? Take, for example, Magneto. In the comics and films, he is portrayed as a Holocaust survivor - in TL 191, he would a survivor of the Population Reduction. Maybe, and this is just me, in TL-191 films of X-Men, he would be portrayed by Morgan Freeman as an older version of the character, and controversially by British-born Idris Elba as a younger version.
 
The Snake took the oath of office on March 4...

Is there any mention of whether or not this is the exception to a General Rule? (I ask because I don't think the CS Constitution explicitly says that March 4th is Inauguration Day, only that if you don't have a generally-agreeable President picked out by the 4th, then you'll get stuck with the Vice President … ).

I ask because one cannot help but get the feeling that if Politicians WILL seize the opportunity to bring forward their Official Entry into the local equivalent of the Oval Office by just somewhere between a week and a fortnight then they will (and I tend to think that if a victorious CS Presidential candidate had to chose between February 18th and February 22nd for their inauguration then they would likely plump for the 18th, so that they might become the Most Powerful Man in the CSA all the sooner).

Admittedly this might be my native suspicious-mindedness winning out over my Faith in my fellow man!:D
 
Would it offend anyone were I to type up and then post an article describing an Incident along the lines of the Houston Riot of 1917?

This would be a single incident serving as a representative example of certain tensions simmering between Remembrance Militarism and those seeking to cut the legs out from under any would-be American Hindenburg & Ludendorff (with US soldiers receiving provocation from local authorities seeking to assert their dignity after the late unpleasantness, just before those greenbacks proceed to go on the War-path in retaliation … and therefore find themselves in the dock, before finding themselves under sentence of Death after what amounts to a Mutiny against Civilian Authority over the Military).

There may also be allusions to minor mutinies amongst US Army troops during the Great War in such an article (on a par with the Etaples Mutiny which broke out amongst British Army troops in the later years of our First World War), hushed up on the understanding that WINNERS DON'T MUTINY (even when their regiments are being ground up like meat for a sausage to push their front a few strides closer to Victory - and have been thrown a long step back for their Troubles), as a way of pointing out how painful the winning of the Great War would be even for the United States.
 
Would it offend anyone were I to type up and then post an article describing an Incident along the lines of the Houston Riot of 1917?

This would be a single incident serving as a representative example of certain tensions simmering between Remembrance Militarism and those seeking to cut the legs out from under any would-be American Hindenburg & Ludendorff (with US soldiers receiving provocation from local authorities seeking to assert their dignity after the late unpleasantness, just before those greenbacks proceed to go on the War-path in retaliation … and therefore find themselves in the dock, before finding themselves under sentence of Death after what amounts to a Mutiny against Civilian Authority over the Military).

There may also be allusions to minor mutinies amongst US Army troops during the Great War in such an article (on a par with the Etaples Mutiny which broke out amongst British Army troops in the later years of our First World War), hushed up on the understanding that WINNERS DON'T MUTINY (even when their regiments are being ground up like meat for a sausage to push their front a few strides closer to Victory - and have been thrown a long step back for their Troubles), as a way of pointing out how painful the winning of the Great War would be even for the United States.

I would find that very interesting. I would argue that not all of the commanders were as callous with their men's lives as Custer, Tasker Bliss Or Scott. I think commanders like Pershing, Ligget, Wood, Wadsworth and Du Pont were of the Leonard Wood school of using combined artillery and infantry tactics to win the war. Otherwise there would probably been a lot more dead. What was the casualties again like 1.5 million dead 3 million wounded for the U.S. And 1 million dead for the CSA?
 
Put it in and I'll make it apart of the next Lodge bio. I've been working on why the U.S. would stop fighting in 1917. A few small mutinies would help explain things.
 

bguy

Donor
Put it in and I'll make it apart of the next Lodge bio. I've been working on why the U.S. would stop fighting in 1917. A few small mutinies would help explain things.

I thought your article on US Decision Making in Ending the War laid out the case pretty well for why the US accepted the armistice. (In particular I liked the part about the Germans threatening to unilaterally make peace with the Entente regardless of what the US wants, since that shows the first cracks in the US-German alliance were already starting to appear even before the Socialists came to power.) Are you no longer satisfied with that entry?
 
I am satisfied with it. I am writing the surrounding domestic events that are influencing the decision making process. Flesh it out a little. Things that would effect Lodge and his colleagues to make it more interesting. Pulling it all together has been a little hard. I made the last entry so long that factoring all the same things I did last time is taxing.

I have a cool section I just finished on A Senate investigation/ trip to Europe. It hints at the coming US/German split. Suffice to say Germany and the United States are all of a sudden shocked at how potentially powerful each other are. Both are like Great Britain with much more resources and more selfsufficient. Both wanted their day in the sun for so long that they didn't think what the world would be like when there were only two major players left. Neither the U.S. or Germany wants to be the junior partner.
 
Last edited:
While I intend to stick with my 'Promise nothing and you can never fail to deliver' philosophy the kindness of my fellow posters makes this very difficult! (almost as difficult as getting over this wretched cold/flu/Pestilence within a weekend promises to be).:D


I would find that very interesting. I would argue that not all of the commanders were as callous with their men's lives as Custer, Tasker Bliss Or Scott.

I agree (and will do my best to convey this should I ever write a sequel to my CAPTAINS OF THE CONFEDERACY IN THE GREAT WAR series focussing on the North); I would tend to imagine that these mutinies were based more on sheer War-Weariness rather than Disaffection (Americans aren't Prussians, no matter how many ideas they may borrow from the Deutsches Heer and the Second Reich, but they aren't quitters either) or on localised grievances.

I should note here that I wasn't actually planning to focus an article on any Mutiny during the Great War (although I DO have a specific idea for one which I will share later as a representative example), but rather on THE SHARPSBURG RIOT - one of a series of far more serious disturbances that followed the Armistice (once the honeymoon period of Victory in the Great War was over) and which can in many ways be held up as a microcosm of the tensions between Military and Civilian Authorities, as well as between Democrats and Socialists during the demobilisation (not to mention between the formerly-occupied counties of Maryland and Veterans who didn't appreciate the relative absence of sabotage, as opposed to espionage in the Old Line State).

In a nutshell a Veteran enjoying a furlough while he awaited discharge had been rubbing some ardent Democrats the wrong way and got run in so quick & dirty he very nearly broke through the cell wall, being jailed by the local authorities after a citizens arrest by members of the Soldiers Circle (He had admittedly been entirely drunk and disorderly, but far worse than that he had been converted to Socialism in the most outspoken manner).

An NCO from his garrison showed up to take custody of this particular troublemaker but failed to observe the proper niceties (having gotten a little bit TOO used to the Authority invested in him by the United States Army to have much time for mere civilian coppers), which the Police did not fail to observe upon - and at this point things get complicated; some say it was the Policemen who offered provocation and some say it was the Army (inferring that this part of Maryland was more a Conquered province than liberated territory), but whatever the truth in this case the Army came off worse.

Returning to their garrison the injuries inflicted upon the two of them, provost and jailbird, provoked their fellow greenbacks into a wild rage - they'd won the Great War and THIS was how the civvies treated them?!? - and more violence followed in consequence; a number of soldiers proceeded to take Justice into their own hands and armed themselves to boot, parted company with military discipline and proceeded to march into town to win themselves a little payback for this insult.

The residents of Sharpsburg were not prepared to surrender their own to any number of Greenbacks, no matter if they carried rifles or pistols or ****ing grenades, and the tensions that had been brewing between the locals and the troopers stationed near them broke out into a hailstorm of gunfire.

By the end of the night several soldiers were injured or dead and over a dozen townies had suffered likewise - to say that Higher Authorities (both Civilian and Military) were less than pleased with the whole business is putting it incredibly mildly. Unfortunately it was at this point that tensions simmering between the Military and the Presidency proceeded to complicate things still further - as a disagreement over just who ought to be punished and just which Authorities should be settling things created a great deal of trouble for those trying to settle the whole business as Justly as possible.

The General Staff remembered President Roosevelt and Mr Lodge's exercise of authority over the head of General Adams with some lingering resentment; civilian authorities (although not necessarily the President) alternated between fears that the General Staff might take a little too much inspiration from Generals Ludendorff & Hindenburg and fear that the Socialists would swoop in to … well, let's just say that in the wake of the Red Rebellion and the Russian Revolution even some US politicians were prone to regard the Party of the Proletariat with something worse than suspicion.

Jitters of guilty consciences not alleviated by Socialist threats to trigger a General Strike if The Democrats so much as contemplated a return to the Bad Old Days of Rationing & Remembrance for all - much less sought to maintain the wartime status quo where striking labour was concerned.

Thankfully things were worked out in a reasonably satisfactory compromise, but there were a few moments where things MIGHT have taken a nasty turn had things been handled less adroitly (and in the course of an even less fortunate Timeline-191 the DID, exploding into the US REVOLUTION through the personal and political failings of President McKenna and others).



Put it in and I'll make it apart of the next Lodge bio. I've been working on why the U.S. would stop fighting in 1917. A few small mutinies would help explain things.

The Mutiny I have in mind - more of a sketch than a scenario - takes place on the Niagara Front; the conditions are quite literally atrocious, but the US Army has been willing to endure them for the sake of Victory and Revenge, at least this has been the case for the entirety of the American advance to date. Still, R&R is much appreciated and interruption of time spent away from the battlefront is not very tolerable.

The problem is that the Anglo-Canadian forces have launched a counter-attack AND THEY'RE WINNING; the boys return to the Front for the course of the Emergency, but even alongside all the other hands on deck can only halt the Enemy advance rather than reverse it (with the ensuing loss of many gains painfully accumulated).

To say that they are not in any mood to tolerate the slightest infringement upon their downtime when they are able to resume it is an understatement; attempts by the provosts to knock them into line trigger a full-blown (albeit localised) Mutiny, although in truth it's more of a sit-down Strike than a coup - quite bluntly the boys aren't going anywhere until they've had their fair share of fun (I suspect the whole business draws to a close rather than being broken up by The Authorities, but it's still a nasty scare for the Military-Industrial Complex).
 
French Jewry

Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

To the survivors of French Jewry, these words are the ultimate irony. These words do not mean anything for Jews in France. They reflect only for Frenchmen and women. The liberation that was started by Napoléon was seen as nothing more but brief light in the wake of anti-semitism. The spirit of the Dreyfus Affair was resurrected under Charles Maurras and his damnable Action Française.

The Jewish contribution to France was ignored, in arts, politics, literature, culture... and then came Maurras. Action Française. The camps. The pogroms started and enthusiastically carried out by the French and their collaborators. Even mainstream French politicians, not previously touched by anti-semitism, denounced the Jews.

In 1939, there was just over 300,000 Jews in France, many of the recent influx were from Russian and Polish Jews fleeing pogroms; and just over one hundred thousand living in France's colonial territories, notably Algeria. By 1944, the end of the war, there was less than 150,000 Jews left in France. By 1964, there would be over 25,000. And try as they might, the French government was unable to stem the tide of Jews fleeing the country.

Charles Maurras, the leader of Action Française, was relegated to the position of Devil incarnate on the European continent. The camps established the belief that the Jews, no matter what, could not be integrated into French society; that they were and always would be others. For Maurras, he targeted the notable four others: Jews, Protestants, Freemasons, and "métèques".

While the monarchy was restored in 1931 under Charles d'Orleans [1], the death of democracy became final. Jacques Doriot, Leon Daudet, Philippe Henriot, and Louis Darquier become household names, sparking terror with the French secret police knocking on the doors of Jews in the middle of the night.

The camps established in the Algerian desert, which the French government refused to comment on until the defeat in 1944, had but one purpose: to disappear the "métèques" to stop them from "contaminating" France. Parallels between France and Confederate States are made repeatedly during the war, particularly in the United States and Germany.

When the Germans dropped the first superbomb onto Paris, the shockwaves resonated across Europe. The destruction of most of the French political and military leadership, as well as the king Charles XI, saw the remaining remnants seize control. General Philippe Petain, one of the few successful French generals in the war, organized the three-week process of surrendering to the Central Powers. On July 15, 1944 (one day after the surrender of the Confederate States), the French surrendered.

The monarchy was abolished. Maurras and his fellows were arrested by German soldiers, and executed for their crimes. And in Lyons, the provisional French Fourth Republic was sworn in under President Édouard Daladier and Prime Minister Jean-Baptiste Schuman [2].

At the end of the war, just under 150,000 French Jews survived. And between 1944 and 1964: over seventy percent fled for either the United Kingdom, Palestine, or Quebec. Algerian Jews also fled largely for Palestine, seeking stability - and the Ottoman Empire's new programs which required skilled workers worked in pulling 60% of Algerian Jews; the rest fled for Quebec (and settled in Ville de Quebec or Trois Rivieres).

For the French Jews who remained, the disgust they had for the words of the Revolution became etched into their bones. The provisional French government in Lyons apologised for the rampant persecution, disappearing, and murder of French Jews, and paid restitution. But the Jews of France did not forget. And it took years for even the glimmer of forgiveness to appear.

[1] Taken from Craigo's Part 1 on Charles XI
[2] OTL Robert Schuman
 
Top