While I do agree with rvbomally that it's up to the author to decide that, I do personally feel that the US would try and hang onto both of them for as long as possible.
TL 191: The Southern Occupation
- Thread starter m0585
- Start date
While I do agree with rvbomally that it's up to the author to decide that, I do personally feel that the US would try and hang onto both of them for as long as possible.
Could the US try restricting the CSA from having any influence in Congress, but at the same time, grant each CSA state much more autonomy, and keep the Union together that way?
They'd definitely de-Freedomize each state, as well as remove anyone who was associated with the Destruction or anyone who was in the CSA's government. Beyond that, they'd probably keep them under military occupation like in Canada until they're admitted into the Union. I don't think the US government would want the Southern states to have too much power, especially with more autonomy. They might try and make it clear that the Southern states have to follow Federal laws to a "T", and any whiff of racism against blacks will be severely punished
you have to wonder just how many blacks there would be around to discriminate against... the ones who weren't mass-killed seem unlikely to stay there, when the north is right over there and now they have open access to get to it...
Also take into account the possibility of mass deportation/relocation of Mormans, Canadians and Confederates to places like the Sandwich Islands and the the likelihood of large immigration to the US from places like Mexico, east Asia and Eastern Europe.
It wouldn't surprise me if the US resorted to conscripted to help rebuild.
It wouldn't surprise me if the US resorted to conscripted to help rebuild.
After they get de-Freedomized, and admit to their atrocities, perhaps the US government gives greater autonomy to the Southern States, especially as times goes on and the US realizes that maintaining a heavy hand in the South is too costly. They'll end up being something like OTL US territories, but perhaps with more freedom to make their own local laws. That could be the alternative to having them in Congress, which I believe Northerners will cringe at.
Considering what the CSA has done (three wars, genocide, nearly splitting the US in two), I don't think the US will realize maintaining a heavy hand is too costly until it's too late. The military will rule the South until around the late 1950s/early 1960s until the ex-Confederacy is integrated. While keeping them as territories is a unique way to avoid Southern representation in Congress, eventually there will be an Americanized minority of Southerners, Northern expats and whatever remains of the Southern black population down there who will want representation (just as I'd imagine there'd be in Canada as well, and on the Big Island in Hawaii for the Mormons).
Nevermind the fact Remembrance hardliners can quickly crush any "Let them be independent" talk on the domestic front with the simple accusation that such talk is defeatist and those who propagate such talk do not care about the sacrifices of American soldiers in the face of Confederate/Canadian insurgency. I recall someone mentioning that TTL-USA wasn't as autocratic as Stalin's Soviet Union; however, I would argue that the USA would inevitably go down that road in a way that makes the post-9/11 USA look like a libertarian paradise. Given the fact these countries all border each other, it's not unlikely to envision Confederate and Canadian Nationalists resorting to terror tactics when peaceful protest fails, the consequences of which see the USA enacting far more brutal reprisals to a point where it's possible even being suspected of Anti-American activities sees all of one's constitutional rights (what's left of them that is...) stripped away and the suspect is treated no differently than an insurgent.
Depends on how willing the Southerners are to do so, whether they can find any credible leadership to accomplish the goals, and how guilty the South feels about the genocide.
The reason Nazi Germany was effectively crushed and an insurgency never happened was because the Allies went after all the higher Nazi leadership and killed them while using the holocaust to publicly discredit the Nazis. By the end To the Death, the Americans appear to be doing the exact same thing - getting anyone and everyone who poses a threat. Also, the Southern military had been effectively crushed, the population was war-weary beyond the capacity to fight. A Southern insurgency is bound to be minor and unlikely to pose a major threat to the U.S. Since the Canadian Rebellions introduced urban warfare and carbomb tactics earlier in TTL, the U.S. has experience in suppressing insurgents, especially with martial law imposed in the former Confederacy, they can arrest anyone they want.
The U.S. has the resources to hold both the South and Canada if they want. The U.S. is rich in oil, steel, coal, and wheat. I don't think that it will pose a problem for them.
The reason Nazi Germany was effectively crushed and an insurgency never happened was because the Allies went after all the higher Nazi leadership and killed them while using the holocaust to publicly discredit the Nazis. By the end To the Death, the Americans appear to be doing the exact same thing - getting anyone and everyone who poses a threat. Also, the Southern military had been effectively crushed, the population was war-weary beyond the capacity to fight. A Southern insurgency is bound to be minor and unlikely to pose a major threat to the U.S. Since the Canadian Rebellions introduced urban warfare and carbomb tactics earlier in TTL, the U.S. has experience in suppressing insurgents, especially with martial law imposed in the former Confederacy, they can arrest anyone they want.
The U.S. has the resources to hold both the South and Canada if they want. The U.S. is rich in oil, steel, coal, and wheat. I don't think that it will pose a problem for them.
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record at this point, but I don't think it would be that easy. Acting like a conquering power would only breed more resentment. Reprisals for violence will only lead to a non-violent movement. If the Americans react to this by arresting anyone they want and continuing martial law, they will only breed more resentment, look like hypocrites to the rest of the world, and make average Americans disgusted with their own military. Despite the more militarized nature of the United States ITTL, it is still based on the ideals of liberty. If it turns its back on those, then there will be major political backlash at home. The key here is the rise of a non-violent resistance, which creates a lose-lose scenario for the Americans. If they crush it violently, they look like tyrants. If they allow it to go on, then more of the South and Canada join in, and make greater demands.
The United States may have the material wealth to hold down the South and Canada, but the costs would still be tremendous. American voters will start to question just why their government insists on holding down people that hate them with an army millions strong.
The U.S. didn't care about any of that when they did it in Canada, and the world didn't seem to care that much.
And I'm not saying the Americans are going to start atresting anybody and everybody off the street. I mean, they can do it and will to get people associated with the Freedom Party or who are shelling out anti-union propaganda. The Southern people won't mind as long as the Union only goes after them and leaves their everyday lives more or less alone, as was the case in the TTL occupation of Germany. We have to consider that the Freedom Party were probably already drawing the ire of the southern people even before the revelation of the holocaust, much like it's TTL analogue. A lot of the Germans had grown bitter and disillusioned with the Nazis as they were perceived as needlessly continuing a pointless war and destroying the German state. It is most likely the same here. It was quite clear that the Soutn was losing and badly, and that Freedom Party was incapable of winning.
With a discredited Freedom Party, which was being purged, there is no possibility of an insurgency. The remnants Freedom Party were the only people who could reasonably challenge American power, and the population would most likely not trust them and see any point.
This doesn't even cover the fact that insurgents would need to get a lot of military supplies from a big source and be able to move them around in mass without drawing the attention of a most-likely counter-insurgency trained, professional U.S. Army, which would be practically impossible. The U.S. controls every major land route and waterway to move them around, and they would most likely secured or destroyed every major arms depot and stash. Military police rule the districts and local police would most certainly be run by sympathizers. And even if they could do it, no country would be willing or able to assist them or supply them.
Again, not saying an insurgency or rebellion is impossible, but chances are heavy against them succeeding. Most insurgencies and rebellions fail more often than succeed because established power always has the upper hand. More often than not, rebel victories come down to the establishment making a critical mistake. The Iraqi insurgency only happened at all because the US failed to secure many arms depots and money caches, disbanded the Iraqi Army and police without pay, failed to keep the infrastructure running. Even taking advantages of these errors, the Iraqi insurgency was defeated. I just can't visualize the efficient, experienced, and professional US Army of TTL making such rookie errors.
You're missing the point though, because the Confederacy itself has spent 83 years as an independent nation it's developed a cultural identity distinctly different from their Northern cousins, that identity is utterly incompatible with the North's standards. It isn't the same as when the United States annexed the Republic of Texas or even OTL crushing the Confederacy, which had no legitimacy in our time. The Confederacy here has legitimacy as a nation. Consider as well what happened when John Pope and Custer were occupying Mormon Utah in the first book. The Mormons didn't forget nor did they forgive the USA for the actions of Custer and Pope and the Utah territory was Union territory. Not only did they rebel against the USA in the Second Mexican-American War, they also rebelled in both Great Wars. The Confederacy is foreign land at this point, Confederate nationalism is going to be a lot stronger than Mormon nationalism.
Except they did. There are parts in the books when the US threatened to shoot civilians for killing a US civilian, and IIRC they carried it out. Morrell wiped out whole towns in the South on his march. Hell, Morrell threatened to blow the head off a woman for calling black guerillas n******. The Freedom Party managed to sway most of the Southern people, and the resistance to them was either negligible during the war or people trying to save their own skin after the Americans occupied the South. Until late 1942, the CSA seemed to be unstoppable, and from what I remember, a lot of Southerners thought they'd win the war.
I disagree. After eighty years of being an independent nation, developing a unique cultural identity, the South is going to see the Americans as foreign occupiers. They still called Americans damnyankees, and they saw themselves as Southerners or Confederates. Even if the Freedom Party is purged, there's going to be resentment from Southerners that the Americans are here occupying the South and destroying Southern nationalism.
I do agree, it's going to be hard for materiel to get into the occupied South. But it's not impossible. Imperial Japan managed to funnel arms and supplies into Occupied Canada for years before it was revealed in 1931. Germany, if we go with the idea of a German-American cold war, will have a plethora of people to choose from: they can choose either Southerners, Canadians, Mormons, Native Americans - all of whom can disrupt the American supply lines or even the political system. And if it's a German-American/Japanese cold war, the Japanese will support Canadians like they did until 1931, and probably also support the Mormons in Hawaii. The Southerners will probably get aid from Canadian rebels, since both of them see the Americans as an occupying force in their homeland.
EDIT: Damn, ninja'd by wilji1090
Mexico will also be a vector for running guns. The Mexican government would be, at best, a reluctant ally of the United States post-war, and the chaos of the country after the Mexican Civil War means that there are likely enough apolitical criminals who are willing to run guns on behalf of a foreign superpower if they get paid.
Yes, they supported the Mexican republicans. I don't know if there was a second civil war after the end of the Second Great War, or what happened with Mexico after the war in general. AFAIK, the Mexican imperial government surrendered to the Americans shortly after the Confederates did.
In DBE's After the End, I think he had the US government topple the Mexican government and install a republic. If Mexico ends up as a Spain analogue, then it'll probably be safe from a second civil war
Disagree, i heavily disagree, for a notepad list of reasons that become more and more detailed as i go own but i will try to condense them,
First and for most, Can not afford it? in what way exactly, in the terms of maintaning a heavy military presence that it had already successfully did since its militarization? the so called cost of occupation of the former confederacy, and again how in the world can the CSA even hope to pull off any so called rearmament in the face of the Yankee jackboot right on their throats? remember the CSA is the THE enemy, responsible for a list of transgressions and the recent genocide, the so called occupation while out right avoiding a complete purge of any and all suspected former confederates is rounding up dozens to hundreds of people and executing them on mass when a car bomb goes off or a soldier is gunned down.
The CSA is in the position, where it is nothing more but a foreign hostile province, useful for number of reasons, resource extraction being the most prominent of them, expect to see a Soviet Union advanced into Germany during the OTL, where Resources such as precious metals, such as Gold and Silver, currency, Industry, arms and armament, construction materials, basically everything that has any sort of value taken and shipped north, and expect to see it continue if any sort of costs start to rise during the occupation
Among other things such as housing bloc, finance, public squares, schools, and the more or destroyed what reason do the US has to repair them? the attitude being the Southerners blew/shot it up so it can stay like that, why should American resources be used to repair a confederate town, city when the reconstruction to the damage in the heartland and the states is most likely still ongoing?
I can not stress that enough, and again with Canada, while not being so heavy handed (yet) you can expect such things as state sponsored migration northward, among with a cultural genocide targeted at Canadian youth to kill any sort of another Canadian nationalist movement, not to mention the fact of the cost of dead by the first world war, subsequent reprisals, the first and second rebellion would have a devastating effect on the remaining canadian population, which was 7. something million by the start of the first world war i do believe.
But the concept of it being willing let go is absurd, their is no cost that can make it unbearable for it to be let go, and remember the fate of the mormons, rebelled twice (Twice) and they were all subsequently rounded up and shipped to an island in the pacific, the same thing could happen to the canadians if they become to much of an annoyance or be rounded up into isolated pockets in town and cities or somewhere in the vast empty space in Canada and become virtually prisoners.