The Progressives did usher in the Imperial period (Teddy Roosevelt being most prominent) but with the CSA existing, I doubt you would see much power projection when a more imminent threat exists.American Imperialism kicks into overdrive?
The Progressives did usher in the Imperial period (Teddy Roosevelt being most prominent) but with the CSA existing, I doubt you would see much power projection when a more imminent threat exists.American Imperialism kicks into overdrive?
American Imperialism kicks into overdrive?
I would not be surprised. Of course, how it all works out is dependent on many factors, several of which have already been mentioned in this thread, but I think another big factor would be how they view their relationships with the US. So take Canada, for example - there were a considerable amount of French-Canadians who served for the Union during the Civil War, and fought bravely at that (among them, one of the progenitors for an anthem at a celebration of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste which would eventually become the Canadian national anthem IOTL), so despite any anti-French and anti-Catholic prejudices (particularly the latter as was common in the 19th century throughout the Anglosphere) the French-Canadians may be perceived as being more loyal to the US and hence probably receive more lenient treatment than what would be the evolving "norm".
However, the geographic 'axis' of Imperialism would be different. We can, probably, scratch the Caribbean and Latin American as the CSA would be (both literally and figuratively) in the way of such ideas. Even if the USA has the larger navy and more extensive international commerce, something like the Panama Canal is probably not happening if the CSA is around. However, perhaps the orientation simply is aimed more to the Pacific? More intervention in China, taking Hawaii sooner, perhaps more investment in Alaska?
the future course of events is going to depend on several things. First, the UK/France juggernaut brokered the peace... but does the CSA have an actual alliance with them? If so, then the US is unlikely to provoke them for quite a while after the ACW. If not, then the temptation for a rematch gets really strong. Second, with this POD, is there still likely to be a WW1 at around the same time? If yes, then the CSA's status as an ally or not is kinda important to the US... if not allied, then the US might be tempted to reconquer them. If yes, then the US is going to have to be careful about Canada if it wants to enter the war. Third, is there anything that will keep the US's hostility to the UK/France alliance going? it's roughly 50 years between the ACW and WW1... that's a long time, generations long. The US might just decide to not bother about any of it, no alliances overseas, not reconquest of the CSA, just sell supplies to the highest bidder.
Depends on how you define "left". At that time, the biggest issues were the gold standard, the protective tariff, and urban spoils system politics. Party loyalty was far less ideological than identity based. Into the Teddy Roosevelt era, the Republicans were still talking about being the "Union" party.
As for general politics, I think it would quite revanchist. I would see it akin to France after the Franco-Prussian War. Loss in a war in which territory is lost is not easily forgiven or forgotten. As a result, I think a stronger strain of American Nationalism, rather than traditional patriotism, takes root, much earlier than it did on OTL (it would be the Progressives who would usher in American Nationalism, and that took a while).
True; OTOH, I would not be surprised if to deny the CSA any potential for expansion (not that it would anyway - financial issues) the US were to have some foothold in the Latin America+Caribbean region. If the whole point of the CSA's continued existence is that it's an imminent threat to the security and safety of the US, then one area where the CSA would be vulnerable would be coastal areas (all the more so since the Confederate States' Constitution had some crazy ideas as to how traffic in both coastal and internal waterways would be taxed and regulated as a means to bring revenue to Richmond), so that would be one area for the US to keep watch so that when the next war comes there would be areas at the ready for "taking back" the CSA (and in this area the US-CS relationship would be somewhat different from the France-Alsace relationship, because Alsace was completely inland). LatAm+Caribbean+Pacific in this case would seem likely routes for the geographic "axis" of imperialism - but not much farther than that.
severe? I'd think the US market would always be the far bigger one., I think the UK would be more interested in using it as a market for their cheap goods, which would be a severe blow to the American economy.
That's a possibility. The question then comes up, what happens when/if France goes on to that fateful war with Prussia. If it goes as in OTL, then the alliance might end when the government changes. Or, when/if WW1 rolls around, is France going to be able to do anything about what goes on in the Americas?Napoleon III had various New World adventures in mind, and he would be the logical ruler to try and ally with them. If he kept his interest in Mexico, maybe tried to annex Santo Domingo in the 1870s, that would see close Confederate/French cooperation for strategic reasons.
And if the US actually allies itself with Prussia? This is far from unlikely in my book, particularly if France is also hostile. Bismark might not like the US but I doubt he would turn down an alliance, the man wasn't stupid. The US would still be a Great Power and very wealthy. Preferential tariffs at the expense of France and GB would be tempting.
There were and are a lot of German-Americans so such an alliance might help politically in both countries. If the US government feels an alliance with Prussia necessary or even just positive and pushes it in the press Germany gets a lot of favorable press in the US. This strengthens any pro-US feelings in the Reichstag because of the fact that countries like a favorable press. Austria-Hungry might get the same treatment, in fact, its problems with its various nationalities might gain it sympathy in the US seeing the various small states in the Empire the same as they do the Southern States of the CSA. Having the US allied with Prussia and AH is not good news for GB. It isn't certain by any means but it isn't wildly unlikely either.
Don't get this. Leaders of the CSA and USA are used to working together and are sometimes personal friends. Longstreet was a Groomsman at Grant's wedding. After the main issue is settled, they won't want to fight. Neither will a Northern population that has lost sons in a loosing cause to tell other people how to live will want to repeat the experience.
Also, whether forming the CSA is treason/illegal is not settled law. In fact there is no law against seccession and the 10th amendment seems to favor it. It's very likely a defeated USA will make it illegal henceforth. But those who fought in round one could easily convince themselves they were wrong to force the CSA to stay.
Yes, there could be further issues to raise tensions. But the default position of very unfriendly relations seems to be US present day people projecting our very anti CSA views back in time rather than a reflection of any 1860s reality.
severe? I'd think the US market would always be the far bigger one.
That's a possibility. The question then comes up, what happens when/if France goes on to that fateful war with Prussia. If it goes as in OTL, then the alliance might end when the government changes. Or, when/if WW1 rolls around, is France going to be able to do anything about what goes on in the Americas?
Horatio Seymour turned down the 1864 nomination IOTL, I'm wondering if Thomas A. Hendricks or George B. McClellan could get it ITTL.
Ooh, I'm guessing you're suggesting 1868 will look like something like this:It would, but British goods undercutting US competition in North America would be a nasty piece of economic fallout in the 1860s-1870s.
Really depends on post 1865 events I think. If France is more successful in Mexico and the Luxembourg Crisis goes as OTL does Napoleon feel the need to threaten France in 1870? If he dies in 1873 as Emperor and his son succeeds him on the throne does this mean he needs a war of prestige, or does the Empress think that? Does Bismarck still make his mark or does he get killed by an assassin or errant shell at Sadowa?
There's a lot of unanswered questions for how things could go. I'd hazard a guess that if the Second Empire survives till the 1900s they'd still be mucking about in the Caribbean which might draw the ire of Britain, so France might look to Russia as a counter weight, Britain might seek a Prussian alliance. The US might ally itself with those powers. It's hard to say really, the alliance systems could completely change before an alt-WWI opened up.
McClellan was always the shoe in for the nomination in the Democratic Party in 1864 since he was a darling to the anti-administration cause (and despite his protestations he wasn't shy about hanging around with people who were pushing him to be president either) but Hendricks would be an interesting choice for 1868. I think the 1868 election could go a crazy four ways if McClellan's lack of political acumen splits the party along two lines, as the Republicans would most likely be split in two as well.
The 1870s is probably a time of major political realignment in the US.
yeah, that's kind of a problem with a POD like this... you can spin out a dozen scenarios of how things might go. France successful. France still fails. WW1. No WW1. More clashes between the CSA and USA. No more clashes between the USA and CSA. Some are more likely than others, but a lot of things could happen.Really depends on post 1865 events I think.
Ooh, I'm guessing you're suggesting 1868 will look like something like this:
- McClellanite Democrats
- Remaining Democrats
- Moderate Republicans
- Radical Republicans
It could be interesting if McClellan splits his party by supporting the end of slavery in the US, as he did support gradual emancipation IOTL.
yeah, that's kind of a problem with a POD like this... you can spin out a dozen scenarios of how things might go. France successful. France still fails. WW1. No WW1. More clashes between the CSA and USA. No more clashes between the USA and CSA. Some are more likely than others, but a lot of things could happen.
The Gilded Age ended in OTL and without the South and its reactionary ideas the Progressive Era will last much longer.
The Gilded Age ended in OTL and without the South and its reactionary ideas the Progressive Era will last much longer.
I expect a New Deal type Social Democratic situation would eventually manifest in Union politics.