To Live and Die in Dixie - A Communist Confederacy TL

[EnglishCanuck]

Now rather than just jumping in and enthusiastically commenting, my thoughts on the excerpt:

First off, I'm greatly amused by 'Malcolm Little' in this story so far. I quite like his dialogue and skillset on display, and his background his great. Protesting about the tank comes off just right. Bill Donovan as a man from the OSS is also a great hoot, and I do like that he's basically leaning hard on the carrot and stick bit from the get go. That he's totally up front is great, but I'd hope we're going to see a good old bit of spycraft montage training or something before they shove Little across the border.

On the broader note, with a black man walking into what I assume is a non segregated Officer's Mess in TTL's 1940s, I'd assume race relations have come a long way from OTL which is interesting and I hope that get's expanded on since it's a nice little set piece if that's the case.

Lee looking for a Cannae is a clever true to life moment IMO, and it comes across well within his personality for the backstory. I'm hoping that gets expounded on more as well.

Very much looking to see where this goes.

 

[Shevek23]

Big "CSA wins the war" cliche I will be inverting here

another "CSA wins the war" cliches

Perhaps I should say I have tended to avoid rather than seek out CSA wins TLs generally, something I seem to be changing recently, and so to me all the tired old tropes are not as worn out. I like to think I am judging by the basic logic of the situation and some of these "cliches" seem to be just common sense. Why put your capital close to the enemy border?

I honestly had no idea that downplaying the Virginian ARW Patriots was a thing in many stories; I threw that in because it seems kind of logical.

To me what is the kind of thing that I think is a cliche that sets me off is the stuff I think Lost Causers have emphasized not just in wish fulfillment ATLs but asserted as "fact" in actual contemporary politics, much of which is part and parcel of the whole revisionism of US history that apologists for Jim Crow fed into US culture pretty effectively in the early 20th century as Jim Crow approached its nadir. Certainly it is a fact that the demographics of settlement of North and South in the USA was pretty polarized as the intro essay by the ATL historian says, but it is question of how much emphasis to put on this set of facts--versus other aspects of US and pre ARW Colonial experience that have tended to make Americans more one nation than several. As I believe I recall reading WEB Dubois for instance pointing out, however heterogenous New England might be from the "Cavalier" coastal south, pioneers from all sectors of the USA tended to get merged by the funneling geography of New England lacking a direct westward extension and the constricted logistics of crossing the Appalachians, so that Ohio tended to juxtapose Southern and Northern pioneers; the mixing process induced quite a lot of Southern norms into Midwestern and far western settlers. As a west coast person by identification and partial ancestry (if not many years of my Air Force brat childhood, which were mostly spent in former CSA states including my birthplace and where I spent half my childhood years) I found histories of the part of the greater Bay Area I lived in for a long time before finally moving to Nevada, Sonoma County northwest of San Francisco, illuminating in its remarking on how prevalent people from Missouri were among its Anglo settlers generally. In fact in this very county, which had a small population until pretty late in the 20th century, there was a stark north/south divide--the largely Missourian and distinctly rednecky plain dominated by the deceptively named Santa Rosa (there was no Mexican town of that name nor much of a town in the location; the place was created as a deliberate campaign to move the county seat from the authentically Mexican mission town of Sonoma, where the Bear Flag revolt actually took place, with a lot of latino Californio involvement; Santa Rosa was historically about as Mexican as say Independence, Missouri) was secessionist sympathetic; just over a gentle ridge is the town and region of Petaluma, fronting on San Pablo Bay (northwest branch of SF Bay) via a river, and dominated by trade in dairy goods to San Francisco, and quite staunchly Unionist, producing a formal uniformed unit of their own for the regular Union army. So, all this Roundhead/Cavalier talk obscures the mix and match scrambling of both distinct tribes of US identity into the bulk of the national demographics as of 1860 and still more since. Even today California has a lot more places rather reminiscent of Dixie than one might think. I mentioned the thing about Oregon having Democrats outnumber Republicans by quite a lot; it is also perhaps not so widely known that Oregon prohibited the settlement of African Americans there until shockingly recently by old state law. New England definitely shows up as a distinct cultural region to be sure in a lot of approaches. But fundamentally I think any analysis of the Civil War split that starts from the premise "northerners and southerners are just different people" is misguided and misleading; it was the fact of slavery itself that made the important differences, not some kind of natural divide that just happened to coincide. So to me, that kind of thing is the tired cliche.

immigrants fall into something of a grey area.

Actually I'd think a legally mandated and customary universal national service would tend more to streamline than confuse immigration policy. Someone (male) wants to become a US citizen? Fine...first give them time as a legal immigrant to pick up some basic English and cultural orientation stuff, then show up in the next recruitment, and serve out their service term like everyone else. Immigrant men thus inducted would tend to be somewhat older than the US born cohorts fresh out of school, but actually that could be a good thing. Some might already have military service experience, which would tend to compensate for their general disability as foreigners by perhaps recommending them for fast promotion to corporal or even sergeant. Or even in some cases, officers. Obviously this cannot be a one size fits all solution, some immigrant men will be quite elderly or disabled. But by and large it should help fuse them into US identity from two directions--an intensified crash course in the norms of US society for the immigrant conscripts, a bond of respect extended to them by the native born as fellow service members. No ambiguity should exist about the validity of their naturalization after service! The criterion for men is pretty simple; you did the service, you are a citizen and voter and have standing equal to anyone.

Not everyone who immigrates to the USA wants to commit to stay forever of course. So immigration as noted would have two stages; a person wants to come into the USA and reside here--OTL prior to the early 20th century there just weren't many restrictions except ad hoc ones such as Chinese Exclusion, which didn't even apply to Asians coming in via the East Coast I believe, it was a Western states thing. (Really nasty there). Even if the ATL USA is more formal about it, a lax "legal residency" process seems likely. Such persons are subject to deportation of course. But taking the oath to serve the Union? That is the essential criterion of citizenship, so it would be a choice for immigrant men--in lax times welcoming free immigration, they can procratinate service by simply not pursuing legal citizenship, but those who want full citizenship for its own sake, or those who prefer to stay in a time or place where immigrants are less welcome or tolerated, must show up at the induction center, and their choice to do so is their declaration of allegiance. They have to serve the time to get the full status, but they are known to be pursuing it in presumptive good faith by joining up.

Feminism obviously might suffer in such a setup, but it might not too. It is a question of whether US society will recognize a "separate but equal" role for women, and I can think of several ways the more activist Unionism might promote either formal roles to give young women a comparable service rite of passage, or perhaps tie it up with birth, which gendered societies often recognize as a woman's equivalent to being in battle. Certainly the notion of birthright citizenship will tend to anchor the mothers of children born here; how can we have a child who is a citizen if their mother cannot be one?

I suspect that between the ties and affinities between US feminism and abolitionism, and the influence of the frontier being no weaker in the ATL USA than OTL, by some hook or crook women will in fact be able to get their status as equal citizens recognized without much delay relative to OTL.

If you want to say "no they won't," I suppose if your ATL involves a more sweeping and proactive downgrading of the status of states in the US Constitutional system, perhaps that can throw up barriers that did not exist OTL. OTL if a state legislature decided to let women vote at all, they could automatically vote in all elections, local, state--and Federal. There would be no effective way for Congress to stop them actually. I believe technically Congress could lean heavily on the "judge of its own election returns" clauses, but it would be a stretch to try to mandate some blanket prohibition of women voting. And if Congress restricts itself to demanding only that women not vote for Federal offices, that suddenly would create a need for two-tiered elections in some way; states would have to print up "pink" ballots for women only to vote in state offices, that aren't counted toward House and Presidential votes. Or Uncle Sam would have to take over the Federal election process as a separate thing from state elections, requiring male voters to cast two separate ballots in different polling places, the Federal one of which women would not be allowed to vote in at all I guess. Or take the extreme step of centralizing all US elections for all offices including state ones in a federal ballot, which still would have to be segregated between men and women somehow, unless Congress could forbid states to allow women to vote at all.

Well, maybe in your ATL Congress is more aggressive about stuff like this, with SCOTUS backing a highly centralized interpretation of the standing Constitution or with amendments to make it so.

But I don't see why actually; OTL the USA did not aggressively purge state rights in the Gilded Age, and centralization has largely been a matter of technocratic drift, not ideological zeal. But OTL the Union had forcibly reincorporated states that were quite hostile, in their ruling factions anyway, to the parties dominating the Federal system; we would have more need for centralizing power at the Federal level, not less, then an ATL USA shorn of its secessionist members. The remnant majority would be loyal overwhelmingly, so if anything trusting powers to the states would seem safer than OTL.

So--even if resistance to women's suffrage as a nationally imposed minimum standard as we have OTL by amendment is successful and some states are free to continue to shut women out of voting, nothing stops other states where the dynamic or persuasion goes another way from enrolling them as full citizens too. And between the Federal power of these states and a general drive toward equality by women and men sympathetic to them in more restrictive states, I expect the trend to be gradual suffrage extension, perhaps hitting a wall with some holdout states refusing to be moved. But OTL, in a Union including all the Southern states, which I believe were among the staunchest opponents of women's suffrage, the Amendment went through by 1920 anyway. Here none of the list of obstructionist US states will be southern, those being left out completely until after the Reckoning War--and then, I presume that much as under Reconstruction OTL, frogmarching even reluctant electorates to conform to Union defined norms of democratic republicanism seem likely to include an insistence that Southern ladies can vote too. An Amendment might not be necessary, if the few outliers left are shamed and berated enough to succumb to the pressure.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

To me what is the kind of thing that I think is a cliche that sets me off is the stuff I think Lost Causers have emphasized not just in wish fulfillment ATLs but asserted as "fact" in actual contemporary politics, much of which is part and parcel of the whole revisionism of US history that apologists for Jim Crow fed into US culture pretty effectively in the early 20th century as Jim Crow approached its nadir. Certainly it is a fact that the demographics of settlement of North and South in the USA was pretty polarized as the intro essay by the ATL historian says, but it is question of how much emphasis to put on this set of facts--versus other aspects of US and pre ARW Colonial experience that have tended to make Americans more one nation than several. As I believe I recall reading WEB Dubois for instance pointing out, however heterogenous New England might be from the "Cavalier" coastal south, pioneers from all sectors of the USA tended to get merged by the funneling geography of New England lacking a direct westward extension and the constricted logistics of crossing the Appalachians, so that Ohio tended to juxtapose Southern and Northern pioneers; the mixing process induced quite a lot of Southern norms into Midwestern and far western settlers. As a west coast person by identification and partial ancestry (if not many years of my Air Force brat childhood, which were mostly spent in former CSA states including my birthplace and where I spent half my childhood years) I found histories of the part of the greater Bay Area I lived in for a long time before finally moving to Nevada, Sonoma County northwest of San Francisco, illuminating in its remarking on how prevalent people from Missouri were among its Anglo settlers generally. In fact in this very county, which had a small population until pretty late in the 20th century, there was a stark north/south divide--the largely Missourian and distinctly rednecky plain dominated by the deceptively named Santa Rosa (there was no Mexican town of that name nor much of a town in the location; the place was created as a deliberate campaign to move the county seat from the authentically Mexican mission town of Sonoma, where the Bear Flag revolt actually took place, with a lot of latino Californio involvement; Santa Rosa was historically about as Mexican as say Independence, Missouri) was secessionist sympathetic; just over a gentle ridge is the town and region of Petaluma, fronting on San Pablo Bay (northwest branch of SF Bay) via a river, and dominated by trade in dairy goods to San Francisco, and quite staunchly Unionist, producing a formal uniformed unit of their own for the regular Union army. So, all this Roundhead/Cavalier talk obscures the mix and match scrambling of both distinct tribes of US identity into the bulk of the national demographics as of 1860 and still more since. Even today California has a lot more places rather reminiscent of Dixie than one might think. I mentioned the thing about Oregon having Democrats outnumber Republicans by quite a lot; it is also perhaps not so widely known that Oregon prohibited the settlement of African Americans there until shockingly recently by old state law. New England definitely shows up as a distinct cultural region to be sure in a lot of approaches. But fundamentally I think any analysis of the Civil War split that starts from the premise "northerners and southerners are just different people" is misguided and misleading; it was the fact of slavery itself that made the important differences, not some kind of natural divide that just happened to coincide. So to me, that kind of thing is the tired cliche.

I actually read an interesting Jstor article on secessionist sympathies in California. Prior to 1862, there were loads of old Lecompton Democrats who supported turning southern California into a slave state, groups of old order Democrats and Latinos also said that if the war brought on secession of the South, that California and the Pacific states/territories also ought to secede and become an independent republic to avoid being caught up in any further quarrels and to help further their own goals. The grievances basically stemmed from Washington being too far away, that they felt their tax dollars were not being put to good use, and that they could get better deals from other nations. Absent the transcontinentla railroad, I could see some agitating for independence again in a Southern Victory scenario. The Civil War basically smothered this sentiment in its cradle. Though, interesting to note that Southern Democrats took 28% of the vote in 1860, but mostly in the southern part of the state.

Now, I should clarify I don't find the Pacific states seceding as a particularly likely outcome. They were too few in number population wise, had lots of empty space it would have been hard for them to police, and would basically have been a small mercantile state for some time. Generally I'd imagine once the railroad begins cruising towards the Pacific, its a done deal that California and her sisters are staying in the Union.

Actually I'd think a legally mandated and customary universal national service would tend more to streamline than confuse immigration policy. Someone (male) wants to become a US citizen? Fine...first give them time as a legal immigrant to pick up some basic English and cultural orientation stuff, then show up in the next recruitment, and serve out their service term like everyone else. Immigrant men thus inducted would tend to be somewhat older than the US born cohorts fresh out of school, but actually that could be a good thing. Some might already have military service experience, which would tend to compensate for their general disability as foreigners by perhaps recommending them for fast promotion to corporal or even sergeant. Or even in some cases, officers. Obviously this cannot be a one size fits all solution, some immigrant men will be quite elderly or disabled. But by and large it should help fuse them into US identity from two directions--an intensified crash course in the norms of US society for the immigrant conscripts, a bond of respect extended to them by the native born as fellow service members. No ambiguity should exist about the validity of their naturalization after service! The criterion for men is pretty simple; you did the service, you are a citizen and voter and have standing equal to anyone.

Not everyone who immigrates to the USA wants to commit to stay forever of course. So immigration as noted would have two stages; a person wants to come into the USA and reside here--OTL prior to the early 20th century there just weren't many restrictions except ad hoc ones such as Chinese Exclusion, which didn't even apply to Asians coming in via the East Coast I believe, it was a Western states thing. (Really nasty there). Even if the ATL USA is more formal about it, a lax "legal residency" process seems likely. Such persons are subject to deportation of course. But taking the oath to serve the Union? That is the essential criterion of citizenship, so it would be a choice for immigrant men--in lax times welcoming free immigration, they can procratinate service by simply not pursuing legal citizenship, but those who want full citizenship for its own sake, or those who prefer to stay in a time or place where immigrants are less welcome or tolerated, must show up at the induction center, and their choice to do so is their declaration of allegiance. They have to serve the time to get the full status, but they are known to be pursuing it in presumptive good faith by joining up.

A genuinely interesting take. I'd often wondered if the mandatory service ideal, or the militarism, might discourage some immigrants who were looking to escape those policies in their own countries. Would that maybe push them towards places like Mexico and Canada, inflating their populations? But this is some interesting food for thought.

 

[thekingsguard]

Now rather than just jumping in and enthusiastically commenting, my thoughts on the excerpt:

First off, I'm greatly amused by 'Malcolm Little' in this story so far. I quite like his dialogue and skillset on display, and his background his great. Protesting about the tank comes off just right. Bill Donovan as a man from the OSS is also a great hoot, and I do like that he's basically leaning hard on the carrot and stick bit from the get go. That he's totally up front is great, but I'd hope we're going to see a good old bit of spycraft montage training or something before they shove Little across the border.

On the broader note, with a black man walking into what I assume is a non segregated Officer's Mess in TTL's 1940s, I'd assume race relations have come a long way from OTL which is interesting and I hope that get's expanded on since it's a nice little set piece if that's the case.

Lee looking for a Cannae is a clever true to life moment IMO, and it comes across well within his personality for the backstory. I'm hoping that gets expounded on more as well.

Very much looking to see where this goes.

Happy to hear that dialog works for you - and yes, racial relations in the USA are literally generations ahead of OTL, if you're an idealist, because of the loss of the far more racist South and the continued existence of a hostile republic founded upon chattel slavery made abolition and equality easier to obtain, if you're a cynic, because, without the Great Migration, 90% of the US black population is stuck in the South, so the North, even after reabsorbing bits of the former Confederacy as part of the Reckoning War, still doesn't have a large African-American population compared to OTL - remember over 90% of Black Americans in OTL lived in the South as late as the 1910s.

Whatever the reason, race relations are debatably even better than OTL by TTL 1940s - while I still haven't found a way to mention it in the novel, President Quinton Roosevelt's Vice President is W.E.B. Du Bois, an unpopular choice not because of his race, but because of his age and some not entirely unfounded fears that Du Bois, now almost 80, has begun to lose his wits.

Perhaps I should say I have tended to avoid rather than seek out CSA wins TLs generally, something I seem to be changing recently, and so to me all the tired old tropes are not as worn out. I like to think I am judging by the basic logic of the situation and some of these "cliches" seem to be just common sense. Why put your capital close to the enemy border?

I honestly had no idea that downplaying the Virginian ARW Patriots was a thing in many stories; I threw that in because it seems kind of logical.

Well first, thanks for making an exception to my TL, and for the continued large amount of feedback!

As for the capital thing, the same reason that France didn't move the capital from Paris after the Franco-Prussian War - a combination of national pride and the fact that building up the defenses of the existing capital is likely just as easy as actually selecting and establishing a new one. One of those things all the AH works that have the US moving the capital from Washington ignore is that, at this point in time, Washington was the most heavily fortified and well-defended city on the continent, perhaps the Earth by the end of the war. It's why a lot of these scenarios that have Lee taking DC are implausible - even in OTL, there is a reason why Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia marched far around DC, because any attempt to take the city would have gotten his army mauled.

Again, literally marching hundreds of miles away in an attempt to maybe take Harrisburg or Philadelphia in Pennsylvania was deemed a safer strategy by Lee than assaulting Washington.

That said, expect TTL's Rappahannock River to resemble something close to the Maginot Line by the outbreak of the Reckoning War.

As for the founder's thing, I can't see ANY version of America abandoning the Father of Our County (TM) or the author of the Declaration of Independence. Radically reinterpret them maybe, but abandon them? Never. In ITTL's case, retaining George Washington is somewhat easier given that Mount Vernon will fall on the US side of the border, enhancing the US claim to his legacy.

Now, I do see certain elements played up - for example, Jefferson being forced by the South Carolinian and Georgian delegations to strike condemnations of slavery from the Declaration of Independence, and I do think that Ben Franklin, the Adams Brothers and Alexander Hamilton will be much bigger parts of our national mythology much earlier on than OTL.

One major shift I do see happening is playing down the impact of French support for the Revolution, and playing up the aid sent by Prussia, Russia and some other parts of Europe. Let's just say "The Call of Von Steuben" will be a much bigger rallying cry than that of Lafayette for now.

To me what is the kind of thing that I think is a cliche that sets me off is the stuff I think Lost Causers have emphasized not just in wish-fulfillment ATLs but asserted as "fact" in actual contemporary politics, much of which is part and parcel of the whole revisionism of US history that apologists for Jim Crow fed into US culture pretty effectively in the early 20th century as Jim Crow approached its nadir. Certainly it is a fact that the demographics of settlement of North and South in the USA was pretty polarized as the intro essay by the ATL historian says, but it is question of how much emphasis to put on this set of facts--versus other aspects of US and pre ARW Colonial experience that have tended to make Americans more one nation than several. As I believe I recall reading WEB Dubois for instance pointing out, however heterogeneous New England might be from the "Cavalier" coastal south, pioneers from all sectors of the USA tended to get merged by the funneling geography of New England lacking a direct westward extension and the constricted logistics of crossing the Appalachians, so that Ohio tended to juxtapose Southern and Northern pioneers; the mixing process-induced quite a lot of Southern norms into Midwestern and far western settlers. As a west coast person by identification and partial ancestry (if not many years of my Air Force brat childhood, which were mostly spent in former CSA states including my birthplace and where I spent half my childhood years) I found histories of the part of the greater Bay Area I lived in for a long time before finally moving to Nevada, Sonoma County northwest of San Francisco, illuminating in its remarking on how prevalent people from Missouri were among its Anglo settlers generally. In fact in this very county, which had a small population until pretty late in the 20th century, there was a stark north/south divide--the largely Missourian and distinctly rednecky plain dominated by the deceptively named Santa Rosa (there was no Mexican town of that name nor much of a town in the location; the place was created as a deliberate campaign to move the county seat from the authentically Mexican mission town of Sonoma, where the Bear Flag revolt actually took place, with a lot of latino Californio involvement; Santa Rosa was historically about as Mexican as say Independence, Missouri) was secessionist sympathetic; just over a gentle ridge is the town and region of Petaluma, fronting on San Pablo Bay (northwest branch of SF Bay) via a river, and dominated by trade in dairy goods to San Francisco, and quite staunchly Unionist, producing a formal uniformed unit of their own for the regular Union army. So, all this Roundhead/Cavalier talk obscures the mix and match scrambling of both distinct tribes of US identity into the bulk of the national demographics as of 1860 and still more since. Even today California has a lot more places rather reminiscent of Dixie than one might think. I mentioned the thing about Oregon having Democrats outnumber Republicans by quite a lot; it is also perhaps not so widely known that Oregon prohibited the settlement of African Americans there until shockingly recently by old state law. New England definitely shows up as a distinct cultural region to be sure in a lot of approaches. But fundamentally I think any analysis of the Civil War split that starts from the premise "northerners and southerners are just different people" is misguided and misleading; it was the fact of slavery itself that made the important differences, not some kind of natural divide that just happened to coincide. So to me, that kind of thing is the tired cliche.

Something to keep in mind is that part of those two excerpts from ITTL history books - and several others at this point - is that we're seeing things from the perspective of those who have lived in a world where there was a very ugly split between North and South, several conflicts, a messy forced integration of parts with a HEAVY focus of eliminating any HINT of the Dixie identity, and the full expectation that there is going to be a massively bloody war with the Communist remnant of the Confederacy that is, in its own right, alien in many ways compared to the OTL South.

Playing up that difference - and especially of the inherent wrongness of the Southern cause and identity - is a major part of American policy and identity since the Civil War here.

Actually I'd think a legally mandated and customary universal national service would tend more to streamline than confuse immigration policy. Someone (male) wants to become a US citizen? Fine...first give them time as a legal immigrant to pick up some basic English and cultural orientation stuff, then show up in the next recruitment, and serve out their service term like everyone else. Immigrant men thus inducted would tend to be somewhat older than the US born cohorts fresh out of school, but actually that could be a good thing. Some might already have military service experience, which would tend to compensate for their general disability as foreigners by perhaps recommending them for fast promotion to corporal or even sergeant. Or even in some cases, officers. Obviously this cannot be a one size fits all solution, some immigrant men will be quite elderly or disabled. But by and large it should help fuse them into US identity from two directions--an intensified crash course in the norms of US society for the immigrant conscripts, a bond of respect extended to them by the native born as fellow service members. No ambiguity should exist about the validity of their naturalization after service! The criterion for men is pretty simple; you did the service, you are a citizen and voter and have standing equal to anyone.

Not everyone who immigrates to the USA wants to commit to stay forever of course. So immigration as noted would have two stages; a person wants to come into the USA and reside here--OTL prior to the early 20th century there just weren't many restrictions except ad hoc ones such as Chinese Exclusion, which didn't even apply to Asians coming in via the East Coast I believe, it was a Western states thing. (Really nasty there). Even if the ATL USA is more formal about it, a lax "legal residency" process seems likely. Such persons are subject to deportation of course. But taking the oath to serve the Union? That is the essential criterion of citizenship, so it would be a choice for immigrant men--in lax times welcoming free immigration, they can procratinate service by simply not pursuing legal citizenship, but those who want full citizenship for its own sake, or those who prefer to stay in a time or place where immigrants are less welcome or tolerated, must show up at the induction center, and their choice to do so is their declaration of allegiance. They have to serve the time to get the full status, but they are known to be pursuing it in presumptive good faith by joining up.

As a US Military veteran myself, I know full well that there are certainly enough immigrants willing to toss on combat boots for US Citizenship - I just wondered if first, that drive from immigrants would be present a century earlier, and if it would be politically viable, but if it is, I'm more than happy to change that little detail.

Hell, given that much of ITTL's military duties will be a combination of public works and garrison duty, I don't imagine the idea of serving in the military to earn citizenship would be that daunting... again, this is something to chew on here.

Feminism obviously might suffer in such a setup, but it might not too. It is a question of whether US society will recognize a "separate but equal" role for women, and I can think of several ways the more activist Unionism might promote either formal roles to give young women a comparable service rite of passage, or perhaps tie it up with birth, which gendered societies often recognize as a woman's equivalent to being in battle. Certainly the notion of birthright citizenship will tend to anchor the mothers of children born here; how can we have a child who is a citizen if their mother cannot be one?

I suspect that between the ties and affinities between US feminism and abolitionism, and the influence of the frontier being no weaker in the ATL USA than OTL, by some hook or crook women will in fact be able to get their status as equal citizens recognized without much delay relative to OTL.

If you want to say "no they won't," I suppose if your ATL involves a more sweeping and proactive downgrading of the status of states in the US Constitutional system, perhaps that can throw up barriers that did not exist OTL. OTL if a state legislature decided to let women vote at all, they could automatically vote in all elections, local, state--and Federal. There would be no effective way for Congress to stop them actually. I believe technically Congress could lean heavily on the "judge of its own election returns" clauses, but it would be a stretch to try to mandate some blanket prohibition of women voting. And if Congress restricts itself to demanding only that women not vote for Federal offices, that suddenly would create a need for two-tiered elections in some way; states would have to print up "pink" ballots for women only to vote in state offices, that aren't counted toward House and Presidential votes. Or Uncle Sam would have to take over the Federal election process as a separate thing from state elections, requiring male voters to cast two separate ballots in different polling places, the Federal one of which women would not be allowed to vote in at all I guess. Or take the extreme step of centralizing all US elections for all offices including state ones in a federal ballot, which still would have to be segregated between men and women somehow, unless Congress could forbid states to allow women to vote at all.

Well, maybe in your ATL Congress is more aggressive about stuff like this, with SCOTUS backing a highly centralized interpretation of the standing Constitution or with amendments to make it so.

But I don't see why actually; OTL the USA did not aggressively purge state rights in the Gilded Age, and centralization has largely been a matter of technocratic drift, not ideological zeal. But OTL the Union had forcibly reincorporated states that were quite hostile, in their ruling factions anyway, to the parties dominating the Federal system; we would have more need for centralizing power at the Federal level, not less, then an ATL USA shorn of its secessionist members. The remnant majority would be loyal overwhelmingly, so if anything trusting powers to the states would seem safer than OTL.

So--even if resistance to women's suffrage as a nationally imposed minimum standard as we have OTL by amendment is successful and some states are free to continue to shut women out of voting, nothing stops other states where the dynamic or persuasion goes another way from enrolling them as full citizens too. And between the Federal power of these states and a general drive toward equality by women and men sympathetic to them in more restrictive states, I expect the trend to be gradual suffrage extension, perhaps hitting a wall with some holdout states refusing to be moved. But OTL, in a Union including all the Southern states, which I believe were among the staunchest opponents of women's suffrage, the Amendment went through by 1920 anyway. Here none of the list of obstructionist US states will be southern, those being left out completely until after the Reckoning War--and then, I presume that much as under Reconstruction OTL, frogmarching even reluctant electorates to conform to Union defined norms of democratic republicanism seem likely to include an insistence that Southern ladies can vote too. An Amendment might not be necessary, if the few outliers left are shamed and berated enough to succumb to the pressure.

Admittedly, my reasons for delaying woman's sufferage here is multifaceted.

First, I wanted a major way to show that things in the United States ITTL aren't perfect - better in some ways, worse in others, not perfect, but certainly different - especially since the mandatory military service thing might see me blasted for "author wish-fufillment" (see Heinlein, Robert).

Second, with citizenship increasingly tied to military service - to the point, one is eventually bound to the other - unfortunately, women kind of get the shaft. There is a reason why women's rights lagged in countries with similar policies. Though that feeds into my next point...

One of the political movements in this USA at the time of the novel is kind of a merger of second-wave feminism/early libertarianism, one divided by two schools of thought, either separating citizenship from military service - which is seen as dangerous and radical - or opening up military service to women as well as men - something that, with a likely war with the CSSA on the horizon, is being mulled over. Don't have a name for it yet, but couldn't resist the possibility of an alternate school of political thought that makes strange bedfellows of the likes of Ayn Rand and Gloria Steinem.

I actually read an interesting Jstor article on secessionist sympathies in California. Prior to 1862, there were loads of old Lecompton Democrats who supported turning southern California into a slave state, groups of old order Democrats and Latinos also said that if the war brought on secession of the South, that California and the Pacific states/territories also ought to secede and become an independent republic to avoid being caught up in any further quarrels and to help further their own goals. The grievances basically stemmed from Washington being too far away, that they felt their tax dollars were not being put to good use, and that they could get better deals from other nations. Absent the transcontinentla railroad, I could see some agitating for independence again in a Southern Victory scenario. The Civil War basically smothered this sentiment in its cradle. Though, interesting to note that Southern Democrats took 28% of the vote in 1860, but mostly in the southern part of the state.

Now, I should clarify I don't find the Pacific states seceding as a particularly likely outcome. They were too few in number population wise, had lots of empty space it would have been hard for them to police, and would basically have been a small mercantile state for some time. Generally I'd imagine once the railroad begins cruising towards the Pacific, its a done deal that California and her sisters are staying in the Union.

A genuinely interesting take. I'd often wondered if the mandatory service ideal, or the militarism, might discourage some immigrants who were looking to escape those policies in their own countries. Would that maybe push them towards places like Mexico and Canada, inflating their populations? But this is some interesting food for thought.

I will say outright that none of the Western states will be going under Confederate control.

As for Canada? Well... maybe you noticed that the setting of the first scene of the novel is a US Military base in the Athabasca Territory.

 

[Odinson]

So, a big reason that the hammer and sickle caught on in socialist and communist parties across the world is because the Soviets used it as their symbol. What symbol did the CSSA adopt to represent communism?

 

[Southern pride]

So, a big reason that the hammer and sickle caught on in socialist and communist parties across the world is because the Soviets used it as their symbol. What symbol did the CSSA adopt to represent communism?

Maybe a stalk of grain because agriculture?

 

[Odinson]

Maybe a stalk of grain because agriculture?

I was thinking maybe cotton stalks and a a hoe perhaps?

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

Maybe a stalk of grain because agriculture?

I was thinking maybe cotton stalks and a a hoe perhaps?

Something like the Japanese Communist Party emblem or the proposed Irish Star-and-Plough flag could work. Problem is, it seems to me that the agrarian ideal is a little too tied-in with the ideology of the planter aristocracy. The communist confederates (ComCons?) would object to it on principle, the boll weevil killing King Cotton would make this seem a reasonable proposition indeed, and the core of communist support in the early days is probably going to come out the blue-collar neighborhoods of "New South" industrial cities (Atlanta? Richmond?). I expect an extreme fetishization of industrialization (tempered by the Party's wisdom, naturally) as just the thing that will destroy the unfairness of the Old South and ensure it can defend against the North once again.

So basically, a red banner with a gold combine harvester front and center:

 

[Odinson]

Something like the Japanese Communist Party emblem or the proposed Irish Star-and-Plough flag could work. Problem is, it seems to me that the agrarian ideal is a little too tied-in with the ideology of the planter aristocracy. The communist confederates (ComCons?) would object to it on principle, the boll weevil killing King Cotton would make this seem a reasonable proposition indeed, and the core of communist support in the early days is probably going to come out the blue-collar neighborhoods of "New South" industrial cities (Atlanta? Richmond?). I expect an extreme fetishization of industrialization (tempered by the Party's wisdom, naturally) as just the thing that will destroy the unfairness of the Old South and ensure it can defend against the North once again.

So basically, a red banner with a gold combine harvester front and center:
View attachment 478911

Beats just reusing the hammer and sickle.

 

[Worffan101]

This is pretty interesting, though personally I'd expect to see more ideological divergence from OTL. Like, a nazbol/Strasserist Confederacy basically fueled by the rage of poor whites who spent two straight major wars being fed into a machine-gun meat grinder, and anarchism and anarcho-socialism being major political forces in the USA.

(I also looked at the map on your personal website, and I think the Franco-Spanish commie union is kinda implausible, but that's just me--I do like the idea of a Russo-German alliance against France and Austria, much more creative than the usual "it's literally WW1 but with the US on Germany's side and the überwanked CSA on Britain's" scenario, but I question the utility of a German alliance to Russia in the late 19th/early 20th)

Anyway, it's off to a pretty good start, I'm reading and eager for more!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Maybe a stalk of grain because agriculture?

I was thinking maybe cotton stalks and a a hoe perhaps?

Personally I'd say something with broken chains and the St. Andrews Cross straightened (as a deliberate FU to the Confederate symbolism) could be likely. Hoes and pickaxes maybe?

It really depends on the flavor of the communism you get. The red flag of course is the one going to be springing up at the first barricades/mutinies though.

 

[thekingsguard]

Happy to see some more input!

As for the next update, mostly finished, but work at the paper I'm at has been hectic the past couple of weeks, had a few cover stories. I took lead on the Apollo 11 landing anniversary that got me to interview some of the surviving crew and scientists including Buzz Aldrin and Christopher Kraft (I was the last reporter he spoke with before he died) even uncovered that Norfolk would have been NASA HQ had Nixon won in 60, before JFK won and LBJ pushed for Houston. YAY! Also took lead on the recent Jamestown anniversary that included a Presidential visit and brief interview with POTUS. Less yay. So I've been distracted, and want to apologize.

Next update is going up likely over the weekend, and will cover the battle that changed history from OTL.

Now on to questions and comments!

So, a big reason that the hammer and sickle caught on in socialist and communist parties across the world is because the Soviets used it as their symbol. What symbol did the CSSA adopt to represent communism?

Maybe a stalk of grain because agriculture?

Something like the Japanese Communist Party emblem or the proposed Irish Star-and-Plough flag could work. Problem is, it seems to me that the agrarian ideal is a little too tied-in with the ideology of the planter aristocracy. The communist confederates (ComCons?) would object to it on principle, the boll weevil killing King Cotton would make this seem a reasonable proposition indeed, and the core of communist support in the early days is probably going to come out the blue-collar neighborhoods of "New South" industrial cities (Atlanta? Richmond?). I expect an extreme fetishization of industrialization (tempered by the Party's wisdom, naturally) as just the thing that will destroy the unfairness of the Old South and ensure it can defend against the North once again.

So basically, a red banner with a gold combine harvester front and center:
View attachment 478911

Oddly, I have given this matter some thought - given my communist Redneck revolutionaries are a mixture of black slaves and white miners and war veterans (ie, literally the OTL origins of the word "rednecks") rather than the hammer and sickle, my go-to idea has been the cotton scyth and the pickaxe. As seen on my (admittedly early prototype) of the CSSA flag:

Trying to tread a line between originality and still having it close enough to OTL Communist and Confederate symbolism to be recognizable to casual readers. I realize a lot of OTL symbolism was drawn from the Russians/Soviets being the first so they set the trends, but again, I want something that would stand out on a book cover eventually.

How, and the resemblance to the ANV's Battle Flag is there for a reason... we're still a few updates away, but man, I am looking forward to showing some of the OTHER reasons that Robert E. Lee is considered "the Hannibal of the South".

This is pretty interesting, though personally, I'd expect to see more ideological divergence from OTL. Like, a nazbol/Strasserist Confederacy basically fueled by the rage of poor whites who spent two straight major wars being fed into a machine-gun meat grinder, and anarchism and anarcho-socialism being major political forces in the USA.

More than just two wars mind you - the eventual Spanish-Confederate War/Confedero-Spanish War/Cuban War (not sure which order would be the one to use) and the Reckoning War, but long term occupation duties in the South because of domestic unrest, and being more or less forced to help a certain Hapsburg keep his throne in Mexico. Plus, slave rebellions, and various border disputes with the USA - let's just say that the Hatfields and McCoys little feud takes on some marc bigger stakes when there's an international border between them.

Oh, and we can't forget the other, and a perhaps larger base for the revolution - the black slaves. One of the reasons I chose Albert Parsons to be my Lenin figure after all, was his racial views, both OTL willingness to reach out to the black community, and his multiracial wife Lucy, who helped found Industrial Workers of the World in OTL.

I completely agree though that TTL's communism will take on some different flavors, though given I'm still reading up on this, I'm not sure what the label can/should be eventually. It will certainly take on a much bigger social justice bend, and there will be a greater emphasis on destroying the old national/racial identities and creating new ones. Whether this is the CSSA encouraging intermarriage between blacks and whites, the European Syndicate pushing Esperanto, or the Trans-Andean Socialist Republic using the Incans as a unifying culture. Maybe some feedback and input here will help me work through this.

As for the USA, I actually think after an initial red scare, there's not much reason for leftist unrest in the Marxist sense - partly because of a lot of the OTL leftist organizers like Debbs and the like have left to help organize the newly-minted CSSA south of the border - some sent during the war, some immigrated post-Revolution, some willingly some "asked" nicely, but just as critically because in addition to the standing military and required military service, which has made America somewhat more egalitarian, the USA will have a pretty solid Bismarkian social safety net.

If there is any leftist unrest in the USA akin to OTL, I expect it would be the 60s style counterculture, a mix of what we'd call in OTL peaceniks, libertarians, and feminists.

I also looked at the map on your personal website, and I think the Franco-Spanish commie union is kinda implausible, but that's just me.

As much of a stretch as say, the European Syndicate might be, part of the reason I want something like that is that, frankly, even with some crash course industrialization and militarization, a Communist dictatorship consisting of the Deep South is not an existential threat to the United States, and in a one-on-one war, the price may come steep, but the USA would win. Just like the CSA, the CSSA cannot survive without allies, so I had to make some so there is a balance of power and a threat of another costly international war. The CSSA may be the first communist nation, and ideologically, it enjoys a place of prominence, but unlike the USSR or PRC, it will NEVER be more than a regional threat, and never could be. Not with a massive militarized USA across the border.

Short of some kind of secret superweapon or something to upset the playing field, but now I'm getting ahead of myself, aren't I?

Plus, it lets me play around with some fun ideas on the map, with one of my personal favorite tropes, long term nations-in-exile, and the implications that brings. Such as the Kingdom of the Antilles, resulting from the Spanish monarchy and upper crust fleeing to Cuba/Puerto Rico, and within a generation, having gone native, and a new king makes the transition official.

Or the existing feud between the French government-in-exile based out of Dakar, still claiming to be both French and a Republic, despite ethnically being majority African, and the state mostly being run by the military with an election not having been held in decades, and the Republic of Quebec, which may have initially been spun off with the USA and UK hoping it would be a reliable puppet, but with the fall of France, and waves of francophone exiles, Quebec and Montreal have become the cultural heart of the French-speaking world, and has begun to show a remarkable independent streak.

Essentially, wanted to avoid the trope of "Nothing ever happens in Latin America/Africa" in so many works, and since I really can't think of how they'd come up in my novel, I got to go a little wild.

I do like the idea of a Russo-German alliance against France and Austria, much more creative than the usual "it's literally WW1 but with the US on Germany's side and the überwanked CSA on Britain's" scenario, but I question the utility of a German alliance to Russia in the late 19th/early 20th

Anyway, it's off to a pretty good start, I'm reading and eager for more!

Another big trope from other works I am trying to subvert - that longterm, a nation consisting of just the South, much less just the Deep South, could ever be an existential threat akin to Nazi Germany for a WW2 analog. Even Turtledove had to literally force the idiot ball down the USA's throat to make it remotely possible.

Glad you like the idea of very different sides for TTL's Reckoning War compared to TTL's World War I. I always hated that trope of just tossing the USA and CSA onto the OTL Alliance system too, and subverting tropes like that was one of my goals here. Especially since the butterflies of an independent CSA are pretty massive almost at once.

For starters, one of the big causes of the OTL break between Napoleon III's France and Austria was the utter fiasco that was the Second Mexican Empire, whose main legacy was getting one of the Hapsburgs killed. With the American Civil War going against the USA, suddenly the USA isn't in a position at the moment to shout "Monroe Doctrine", so they have a chance to secure Maximilian's throne - if it takes a whole mess of Southern bodies to make that happen, so be it! You put France and Austria-Hungary on much warmer terms, and well... Europe's dynamics play out ENTIRELY differently.

We still see Germany and Italy form, under some slightly changed circumstances - for one, Napoleon III keeps his throne, and with Franco-Austrian relations better than ever, both are now sandwiched between two hostile countries. Enter Russia, and we see a slightly altered version of the League of Three Emperors/Triple Alliance play out between Germany, Italy and Russia. Two newly formed nations, and a third, though ancient, is seeking rapid change and rapid industrialization - and a MAJOR change to the post-Napoleonic Wars balance of power in Europe. Still chewing over a formal name for the alliance, but the slang term in-universe are "the Eagles", especially after a certain bald eagle becomes the fourth member of the alliance.

Thus, why TTL's WWI/Great War analog is called the Reckoning War - the divide between the great powers is pretty cleanly split between established powers like Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the Confederacy, that want to maintain the existing post-Napoleonic world order, and rising powers like the United States, Germany, Russia and Italy, that want to make a new one. Toss in some other combatants getting roped in on both sides, be it Japan, Spain, Brazil and others across the world, and you've got a global, more expansive first world war.

Now, you do touch on something that I am wondering myself - post-war, how stable would this alliance be longterm after they've achieved most of their respective war gains, and have a chance to eye-up each other. By the setting of the novel in the late 40s, there's an almost certainty that there's another war on the horizon, one that will perhaps even dwarf the Reckoning War in scope, only question is if it will be against the Marxist powers, or if there will be a bloody divorce between the former Eagles.

 

[Odinson]

So, will any of the more famous confederate heroes legacy be repurposed as early revolutionaries or vanguards of the people or something to that effect? Statues of Cleburne all over the place or a fond remembrance in history books in the cssa?
And, even if he is remembered as the Hannibal of the South, will lie still have a favorable view in history as a general like Hannibal of Carthage possesses?

Also just remember: no matter what president you interviewed, whether you like him or not, he's still a president and it's pretty cool you got to meet one in person. Makes an interesting story to tell your grand kids.

 

[Worffan101]

As for the next update, mostly finished, but work at the paper I'm at has been hectic the past couple of weeks, had a few cover stories. I took lead on the Apollo 11 landing anniversary that got me to interview some of the surviving crew and scientists including Buzz Aldrin and Christopher Kraft (I was the last reporter he spoke with before he died) even uncovered that Norfolk would have been NASA HQ had Nixon won in 60, before JFK won and LBJ pushed for Houston. YAY! Also took lead on the recent Jamestown anniversary that included a Presidential visit and brief interview with POTUS. Less yay. So I've been distracted, and want to apologize.

Congratulations! Talking to Buzz Aldrin sounds awesome!

I like the explanation for the map, but I would suggest having the franco-iberian union be weak internally. Maybe the Iberians are more ruralist and anarchist and the French more in favor of industry and nationalized central control?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Thus, why TTL's WWI/Great War analog is called the Reckoning War - the divide between the great powers is pretty cleanly split between established powers like Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the Confederacy, that want to maintain the existing post-Napoleonic world order, and rising powers like the United States, Germany, Russia and Italy, that want to make a new one. Toss in some other combatants getting roped in on both sides, be it Japan, Spain, Brazil and others across the world, and you've got a global, more expansive first world war.

Now, you do touch on something that I am wondering myself - post-war, how stable would this alliance be longterm after they've achieved most of their respective war gains, and have a chance to eye-up each other. By the setting of the novel in the late 40s, there's an almost certainty that there's another war on the horizon, one that will perhaps even dwarf the Reckoning War in scope, only question is if it will be against the Marxist powers, or if there will be a bloody divorce between the former Eagles.

Seems like a very solid set up for a war/alliance. Overthrowing the post-Vienna balance for Prussia (and the post Paris 1856 balance for Russia) would be very good reasons for the two to come together, a colder Austria and France would naturally push Russia into the German camp I think.

For post-war relations; I imagine that the German Empire will probably be straining somewhat under the weight of its new conquests while also having a bit of a problem at home. OTL for all the Bismarckian social-safety net the leftist politicians were chomping at the bit to institute some honest to god social and political reform before the war. If you had the quasi-military dictatorship we had OTL then you can bet they will be straining against the established classes, while labor agitation would be cropping up across Germany and Russia if things are remotely similar. That will likely be causing friction.

Russia and Germany both had some historic issues with how Central/Eastern Europe ought to be split up, which in the post war world as Slavic nationalism still has fire in its belly will mean that any Slavic groups under German (or German allied) control will probably be looking to St. Petersburg for guidance, which might particularly annoy Berlin. Russia is also probably going to have various disputes with the Japanese over Manchuria and Sakahlin, and the tsar might find himself wondering why he is letting an 'upstart Asian power' push him around when the riches of the Pacific are ripe for the taking.

Britain will be an interesting wild card, bowed yet unbroken by the last war - with presumably a large navy to boot - she could upend any one alliance system and has her global empire to exploit/lean on for resources and manpower. She would probably be itching for some payback for at least one of the former Eagle powers. Russia might be my guess if they're trying to make nice with the Germans who would have their boots on the necks of the Low Countries and post war France before it goes all Paris Commune.

 

[thekingsguard]

So, will any of the more famous confederate heroes legacy be repurposed as early revolutionaries or vanguards of the people or something to that effect? Statues of Cleburne all over the place or a fond remembrance in history books in the cssa?
And, even if he is remembered as the Hannibal of the South, will lie still have a favorable view in history as a general like Hannibal of Carthage possesses?

Also just remember: no matter what president you interviewed, whether you like him or not, he's still a president and it's pretty cool you got to meet one in person. Makes an interesting story to tell your grand kids.

If anything, a lot of the OTL icons of the Lost Causers will either never rise to prominence post-war, or be tainted because, as opposed to fighting a few battles and wistfully wondering what might have been, they actually have to, you know, try governing the Confederacy. Which is no easy task given the literal structure of the Confederate government makes it a difficult task by design.

On the other hand, there are a few figures from OTL that will pop up in different places or have different reputations - these range form some of the often ignored or overshadowed members of the US Labor movement from the South, most notably Albert Parsons, but research has turned up a few other figures. Given how the eventual borders between the USA, CSSA, and the New Orleans City-State are up in the air at the moment, I'm really hoping I can work in a Communist Huey Long in some capacity.

I'm also working in a lot of occasional cameos or altered fate, and showcasing bits of Southern culture that survive in some form or another - for example, Coca Cola still exists, still contains cocaine, and is state-owned by the CSSA, exported abroad and as much a part of any Southern diet as vodka was part of the Soviets - keeping people hooked on coke and sugar does wonder for loyalty. Another example is stock car racing arose in OTL from smuggling moonshine, ITTL, they come about as contraband and people smugglers, and I even have a Lee Petty cameo planned for the novel. I know some authors shy away from using OTL figures, but it makes me grin.

As far as POTUS is concerned, it's my third time interviewing Trump, and before that, I'd interviewed Obama once. You meet a lot of public figures reporting - by the time he'd left office, I'd interviewed former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe so many times he knew my name. Putting aside politics, because this is not the thread for it, and professionally, I'm not allowed to have any, the issue with the current POTUS is that he's an awful interviewer - tends to ramble on and go off-topic, it's a bit like herding cats.

Congratulations! Talking to Buzz Aldrin sounds awesome!

I like the explanation for the map, but I would suggest having the franco-iberian union be weak internally. Maybe the Iberians are more ruralist and anarchist and the French more in favor of industry and nationalized central control?

Easily in my top 5 people I've ever gotten to interview. Number one is Stan Lee if anyone is curious.

The European Syndicate is probably helped by the fact that, save the world map, and MAYBE a couple of mentions, as of yet, they're a blank slate as they never show up in the novel or short stories. All I have for them is massive social engineering in an attempt to merge the various national and regional identities into one whole, such as using Esperanto as the language. I imagine rather than being decentralized, such a state would have to be VERY authoritarian to both stay together and fend off the neighbors.

Seems like a very solid set up for a war/alliance. Overthrowing the post-Vienna balance for Prussia (and the post Paris 1856 balance for Russia) would be very good reasons for the two to come together, a colder Austria and France would naturally push Russia into the German camp I think.

For post-war relations; I imagine that the German Empire will probably be straining somewhat under the weight of its new conquests while also having a bit of a problem at home. OTL for all the Bismarckian social-safety net the leftist politicians were chomping at the bit to institute some honest to god social and political reform before the war. If you had the quasi-military dictatorship we had OTL then you can bet they will be straining against the established classes, while labor agitation would be cropping up across Germany and Russia if things are remotely similar. That will likely be causing friction.

Russia and Germany both had some historic issues with how Central/Eastern Europe ought to be split up, which in the post war world as Slavic nationalism still has fire in its belly will mean that any Slavic groups under German (or German allied) control will probably be looking to St. Petersburg for guidance, which might particularly annoy Berlin. Russia is also probably going to have various disputes with the Japanese over Manchuria and Sakahlin, and the tsar might find himself wondering why he is letting an 'upstart Asian power' push him around when the riches of the Pacific are ripe for the taking.

Not to mention that they compliment each other - Germany has the industry and investment capital but needs the bodies, Russia has the people, but needs the industry and investment. I expect a lot of Germans, Americans and the rare Italian see some very lucrative returns on investments in Russia here, and the three European powers at least each they want chunks from Austria-Hungary that shockingly don't overlap with the others. As for the rest of the Balkans, I expect we see lots of countries suddenly gain Russian/German monarchs with a German/Russian consort.

40 years down the road? Who can tell?

As far as Japan, while I am leaving the details of which side they join vague for now, settling the Manchurian question, among other border concerns, are Japan's price for entering the Reckoning War.

Britain will be an interesting wild card, bowed yet unbroken by the last war - with presumably a large navy to boot - she could upend any one alliance system and has her global empire to exploit/lean on for resources and manpower. She would probably be itching for some payback for at least one of the former Eagle powers. Russia might be my guess if they're trying to make nice with the Germans who would have their boots on the necks of the Low Countries and post-war France before it goes all Paris Commune.

You are right about Britain though - the Reckoning War proves certain voices in the British government correct, specifically the ones who have spent the last 50 years kicking and screaming about how siding with Bonapartes and slavers, while needlessly antagonizing the USA, Germany and Russia will have dire consequences. Frankly, that wing of the British government is probably the only thing that kept war from breaking out sooner, as we'll see.

They will come out of the war, pretty well for being on the losing side of things, hell, outside the Western Hemisphere, they actually gain territory, largely thanks to joining the victors in dismembering the French Empire, and some bits of Africa are exchanged with Germany so they get their Mittelafrika and Britain gets Cape to Cairo.

No, where Britain pays the price is making amends with the United States, and it's relatively steep. Even then, Britain plays its hand as best as they can - the diplomat they send seeking "peace with honor" is a nobleman whose mother, an American socialite, long a source of scandal given tensions, not only makes him ideal to offer a new leaf while getting as best a deal as possible for the Empire.

Canada gets carved to bits, as expected, but not as completely as it could have been - Britain gets 99-year leases on both Vancouver Island and Newfoundland, after which both get a vote on whether to join the USA or remain British. In a stroke of brilliance at the time, they have Quebec (and Labrador) spun off as an independent Republic, with the Yanks and the Brits spending years courting it before waves of French immigrants/refugees give it an independent streak. The USA is to offer US Citizenship to residents of Canada or pay for transit elsewhere in the British Empire.

The US Marines took the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos, so those go to the USA, and British Honduras gets ceded to the Greater Republic of Central America, but even that's somewhat balanced out by gaining literally all of France's various Carribean holdings, save French Guinea, which goes to the USA. They lose the Lucayans, but gain total control of the Lesser Antilles.

The Americans ask for two additions be made before they accept: that the British Government formally apologize for supporting the Confederacy, and that they pay to replace the Statue of Columbia in New York harbor that was shelled in a raid by the British. Both are quickly agreed to, with a friendly joke that the "British made Columbia shall outshine the former German one".

It's a real "Cats in the Cradle" moment for both sides - the USA avenges wrongs done to it in the past, doubles the size of the country and achieves one of their main war aims, while the British finally make amends for Palmerston's Folly, while lead diplomat Winston Churchill returns to Britain a hero, hailing "peace in our time" all the way to being Britain's next Prime Minister.

As for plans of revenge, it's probably eying that widening split between the Quadruple Alliance with some attention... but is also deeply concerned about the rising power of the various Communist powers, especially given one is right across the Channel. Frankly it's a coin toss of Britain will try to split the Eagles apart, or see if a Lion can join their ranks.

 

[drewmcgunn]

Subscribed. I'm not sure I can come close to offering the quality of feedback you provided in my timeline, but I'll definitely follow your effort.

 

[Odinson]

So France and Spain have combined to form a union in this timeline, right? As some have pointed out, it's a bit implausible. But could they both be communist and simply form an alliance instead?

Not that I terribly mind improbability in stories all the time mind you. (Heck, my main timeline has president JEB Stuart)

 

[Ironshark]

I just read the first chapter and well there’s not much I can add ... it’s a great story and I am hyped as hell to see lees “cannne” Hannibal is the first figure who got me into history when I was like nine (it was the elephants ) so interesting to see how lee compares to him especially given you state he become hated by the south I assume lee here will be a more sympathetic portrayal which most timelines do (not that there’s anything wrong with that)
I am glad to hear Lincoln will get a better legacy

I do have one question

How will my man grant be remembered here?

 

[Mike Louis]

@thekingsguard I don’t see why women’s suffrage should be pushed back later than OTL. Since the US would be more militarized in this TL, it would better for gender relations in the long term to let women do their three year military service like the men. The Confederacy in this TL will be itching for round two with the object of seizing the border states. The second Federal Confederate war breaks out around the same time as the women suffrage movement in the US gains some serious traction. Due to some early military setbacks, Federal manpower suffers as fewer military age men are either willing to enlist or there are significant resistance to conscription in major cities. A desperate president then holds a meeting with leading suffragettes in which he willing to submit a constitutional amendment to Congress allowing for female suffrage in exchange for the suffragettes backing the president’s plan to enlist women into the army. Slowly but surely with the help for the new “Amazon” or all-female units, the Federals roll back the Confederate high tide. The sight of women fighting and dying for the Federal cause will not only cause the public to back female suffrage but also to shame some reluctant and unwilling men to enlist. The Confederacy will undoubtedly at first mock the Federals for having to resort to using women, but their attitude will soon change when the Amazon units prove their worth in battle. That realization could also cause the Confederates to have to divert military resources to crackdown on a disaffected home front (the Confederate cavalier image will be taking a beating here) which in turn will start the countdown to a communist revolution.