One, it was the 1800s. Everyone was a racist. Two, he was a Democrat, which means he was even racist for the time period. Three, he helped orchestrate and personally oversaw a portion of the American Indian genocide. Four, he's Custer. He wasn't a man known for his laconic demeanor and magnanimity. He was known for being a loudmouthed, hypermasculine hothead. Custer in politics would be all about some racism.

Actually, Custer was reprimanded by, I believe, Grant for his outspoken opposition of the reservation system, if I remember correctly. In my readings of him, I've always figured him for the type of guy who sees himself mainly as a military man who shall, gallantly, due the bidding of the nation. Vain glorious, bombastic, a certainly a racist (who wasn't at that time), but I don't see him as a died-in-the-wool whitecap.
 
Two points for Ravenclaw. But you know, lol. Although this satement was attributed to him: "If I were an Indian...I would greatly prefer to cast my lot among those of my people who adhere to the free open plains, rather than submit to the confined limits of a reservation," he was also the architect of the Washita Massacre. I'm going to say that killing over 100 sleeping people without warning or a chance to surrender (including 40 women and children), tells you all you need to know about Custer's attitude towards American Indians. He never behaved that way towards Confederates--because he considered them human beings.
 
You often find really odd contradictory racial stances amongst the prominent Indian fighters. Crook and Miles oversaw some horrible atrocities, but both spent much of their later lives fighting for better treatment, compensation, and recognition of mistreatment towards natives. Many had vastly different attitudes towards different tribes...I think Howard was one such...thinking that one tribe were noble and another no better than dogs, etc.

I think anyone who participated at length in the Indian Wars would be considered a racist by modern standards, but that doesn't mean that attitudes were homogenized, or even that individual attitudes remained constant. My sense of Custer is that he had fairly conventional attitudes towards the natives for the time, ie ideally they would civilize peacefully and get out of our way, but failing that they had to be dealt with decisively, for the sake of proper civilization and/or military careers.
 
You often find really odd contradictory racial stances amongst the prominent Indian fighters. Crook and Miles oversaw some horrible atrocities, but both spent much of their later lives fighting for better treatment, compensation, and recognition of mistreatment towards natives.

Yeah. The rising fires of Hell will change your perspectives on some things.

Many had vastly different attitudes towards different tribes...I think Howard was one such...thinking that one tribe were noble and another no better than dogs, etc.

And I'm sure Ben Tillman had met a few likable Uncles and Mammys in his time. Hell, George Wallace used to brag about the light skinned black women he had sex with when he was a trustee at Tuskeegee. Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. These facts are interesting, but they don't really change the fact that all three men were horrible bigots who routinely advocated violence against black people.

Same thing applies to all of these "Indian Fighters." All of the women and children they order killed in cold blood pretty much outweighs everything else. It's not just that "they were racist by modern standards," it's that they were the willing means of a genocide on par with any we've seen in the 20th century.

My sense of Custer is that he had fairly conventional attitudes towards the natives for the time, ie ideally they would civilize peacefully and get out of our way, but failing that they had to be dealt with decisively, for the sake of proper civilization and/or military careers.

I know you probably don't mean it to, but that sounds soooo bad, dude.

Imagine: "My sense of Skorzeny is that he had fairly conventional attitudes towards Slavs for the time, ie, ideally they would civilize peacefully and get out of the way, but failing that they had to be 'dealt with' decisively. For the sake of proper civilization--or career advancement."
 
Yeah. The rising fires of Hell will change your perspectives on some things.



And I'm sure Ben Tillman had met a few likable Uncles and Mammys in his time. Hell, George Wallace used to brag about the light skinned black women he had sex with when he was a trustee at Tuskeegee. Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. These facts are interesting, but they don't really change the fact that all three men were horrible bigots who routinely advocated violence against black people.

Same thing applies to all of these "Indian Fighters." All of the women and children they order killed in cold blood pretty much outweighs everything else. It's not just that "they were racist by modern standards," it's that they were the willing means of a genocide on par with any we've seen in the 20th century.



I know you probably don't mean it to, but that sounds soooo bad, dude.

Imagine: "My sense of Skorzeny is that he had fairly conventional attitudes towards Slavs for the time, ie, ideally they would civilize peacefully and get out of the way, but failing that they had to be 'dealt with' decisively. For the sake of proper civilization--or career advancement."

Ah, I see. In case of misunderstanding, I was in no way defending or mitigating their views/actions...mostly just trying to show their bigotry as various as opposed to uniform...and the last bit which seems to have bothered you the most was done in intentional undertone in order to convey how horrible I think it was, ie using assumptions of monochromatic civilization and mentioning their thinking of genocide as a career opportunity.

Would it help you to know that I'm part native and that my Intro law topic was the endemic and systematic breaching of peace treaties by the U.S. Govt. w/regards to native peoples?
 
Ah, I see. In case of misunderstanding, I was in no way defending or mitigating their views/actions...mostly just trying to show their bigotry as various as opposed to uniform...and the last bit which seems to have bothered you the most was done in intentional undertone in order to convey how horrible I think it was, ie using assumptions of monochromatic civilization and mentioning their thinking of genocide as a career opportunity.

Would it help you to know that I'm part native and that my Intro law topic was the endemic and systematic breaching of peace treaties by the U.S. Govt. w/regards to native peoples?

Actually, in this political atmosphere, yes it would. :) Sorry if that was aggressive.

I just notice a lot of people (not you, apparently) seem to think that because racist people don't treat the objects of their bigotry with complete uniformity, they're somehow not racists. It's the old "some of my best friends are black. I don't have a racist bone in my body. But--and I know this might sound bad--but lemme tell you what...." line of thinking.
 
Yes. They wanted a bimetallic standard, where both gold and silver backed the currency, with a very favorable exchange rate for silver. And that's the idea--the currency is inflated, which devalues debts and creates easy access to credit, because your money will decrease in value if you hold onto it in inflationary times. Easy access to credit and the devaluation of debt make it easier for people to own things. Widespread distribution of ownership means prosperity for all (so the theory goes).

Would Custer support this kind of thing? If he wants to be president, yeah he would. Custer's not a respectable kind of guy, and he's not going to win trying to pretend to be respectable. It's out of character anyway. His strategy would have to be Jacksonian--populist in the Trump sense, and not in the Populist Party sense--combining nationalism, racism, and hostility to finance. What's more, such a strategy would probably have been successful. The Greenbackers got 300,000 votes in 1880 on a platform of hostility to finance and racial liberalism(!). Meanwhile, Hancock lost by less than 2,000 votes. Greenbackers skewed Democrat, so those are 300,000 votes that a small-p populist can really go after. An out and out charismatic racist with a similar economic message to the Greenbackers would have really been a force to be reckoned with IOTL. IN this timeline? I don't know. There's not enough detail to say, but if those economic conditions are similar to OTL, a charismatic racist-nationalist with a pro-debtor economic policy would be a force to be reckoned with.

I think I understand now. ITTL with the U.S facing perceived military threats from the North and South, I imagine a war hero or two would be very attractive.

What would the long term effects of a bimetallic standard be? I don't imagine wide spread inflation being a very good thing come 1900, much less 1929.
 
I think I understand now. ITTL with the U.S facing perceived military threats from the North and South, I imagine a war hero or two would be very attractive.

What would the long term effects of a bimetallic standard be? I don't imagine wide spread inflation being a very good thing come 1900, much less 1929.

With your mention of 1929, you seem to be implying that the Great Depression would have happened, even in the same year. There's no reason to assume that would be the case, as far as I can tell.

In any case, don't confuse inflation with hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is never good, moderate inflation is good for everyone except very wealthy bondholders. Moderate inflation kind of does what the theories say--it devalues debts, frees up access to credit, widens distribution of ownership, and drives up wages--but also increases volatility. One of the reasons the US economy has been relatively anemic since the 1980s is because the US Fed has prioritized the interests of bondholders over the interests of full employment. We've had very little inflation, and debt loads and the distribution of ownership have mutated accordingly. In any event, the long term effects of a bimetallic standard are likely to in fact be good. It's a little more complicated than this, but we were on a hybrid silver/gold standard in the US from 1934-1968, which were years of historic prosperity.
 
The only unrealistic thing I see in the ATL you're proposing is that Custer would be intelligent once he got into the Presidency. He was never known for patience, tact, or wisdom. I wouldn't expect him to suddenly become something close to an ideal President.
 
The only unrealistic thing I see in the ATL you're proposing is that Custer would be intelligent once he got into the Presidency. He was never known for patience, tact, or wisdom. I wouldn't expect him to suddenly become something close to an ideal President.
Depends on what you mean by ideal president. People forget Custer's actions at Gettysburg, or his bravery is completely ignored, along with his Gettysburg accomplishments. I've even heard him to be referenced as a coward. Its all a matter of perspective. Not to mention, I'll probably give him a governorship and a couple terms as VP. He'll learn fast, if 12 years if fast.
 
With your mention of 1929, you seem to be implying that the Great Depression would have happened, even in the same year. There's no reason to assume that would be the case, as far as I can tell.

In any case, don't confuse inflation with hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is never good, moderate inflation is good for everyone except very wealthy bondholders. Moderate inflation kind of does what the theories say--it devalues debts, frees up access to credit, widens distribution of ownership, and drives up wages--but also increases volatility. One of the reasons the US economy has been relatively anemic since the 1980s is because the US Fed has prioritized the interests of bondholders over the interests of full employment. We've had very little inflation, and debt loads and the distribution of ownership have mutated accordingly. In any event, the long term effects of a bimetallic standard are likely to in fact be good. It's a little more complicated than this, but we were on a hybrid silver/gold standard in the US from 1934-1968, which were years of historic prosperity.

I meant by saying 1929, a general stock crash not the specific year though I don't see why it wouldn't happen in the same year though of course that would only be for it to be easier to write. I think I can get away with writing it as I don't think it would make that much of difference with the obvious exception of the economy. However, wouldn't this system coupled with anti monopoly policies hamper U.S' industrial growth? Since the big industrialists wouldn't have as much free reign, I think the standard of living would probably be higher right?

I'm sorry if I'm plodding on about this, but European History is my forte, and I'm too proud to actually ask my APUSH teacher about this stuff.
 
I meant by saying 1929, a general stock crash not the specific year though I don't see why it wouldn't happen in the same year though of course that would only be for it to be easier to write. I think I can get away with writing it as I don't think it would make that much of difference with the obvious exception of the economy.

The economy is everything. "It wouldn't make that much of a difference with the obvious exception of everything."

However, wouldn't this system coupled with anti monopoly policies hamper U.S' industrial growth?

How does fewer monopolies and a higher standard of living translate into worse economic growth? People having more money is generally good for the economy.


But there's no Depression that year because none of the conditions for it to happen would have occurred. There's 65 years of history that never occurred. This is all waaay more involved than you're thinking it is. Start slow, with your POD, and work your way forward. I'm still confused about the PoD anyway. For whatever reason, you're saying that a group of Irish Catholic Democrats invading Canada--and how do you define success--reflects negatively on the Republican party. How's that again?
 
The economy is everything. "It wouldn't make that much of a difference with the obvious exception of everything."



How does fewer monopolies and a higher standard of living translate into worse economic growth? People having more money is generally good for the economy.


But there's no Depression that year because none of the conditions for it to happen would have occurred. There's 65 years of history that never occurred. This is all waaay more involved than you're thinking it is. Start slow, with your POD, and work your way forward. I'm still confused about the PoD anyway. For whatever reason, you're saying that a group of Irish Catholic Democrats invading Canada--and how do you define success--reflects negatively on the Republican party. How's that again?

Industrial growth. That is to say that there are less factories, or very large factories since alot of those companies were monopolized for a while and managed alot of growth during that period. Obviously the economy would be better if the standard of living is better. I'm thinking in terms of pure industrialization, or industrial capacity for production, especially heavy industry. Stuff like U.S Steel etc. those kind of big companies.

About the great depression, my understanding of free market economics is that economies go up and down, and sometimes they go down hard. Obviously it would not be the same recession, but I'm wondering whether this bimetallic currency would lend itself more to recession than our OTL currency? or would it mitigate the effects of recession like '08, or '29?

The most relevant POD is a surviving Mexican Empire, the Fenian Invasion of Ireland is essentially more embarrassing for the U.S and perceived as a big diplomatic blunder by Johnson and the Republicans. The Fenians are not going to conquer Canada, nor really dent the British Army, the main difference from OTL is that the U.S isn't prepared and the Fenians manage to get across the border. Allowing the northern and southern borders of the U.S to become hostile states is not something that usually makes one a popular president. It reflects negatively because they allowed it to happen, and violate the neutrality act aswell as destroy the already fragile relations with the U.K. The Fenians also have alot of support so it only empowers the Democrats more among Irish Americans (as if they really needed it) and people who don't really like the Irish but perceive Johnson and the Republicans as weak. I'm not saying it'll destroy the Republican party. Just that, a Hancock/Custer ticket will win in 1876, or 1880.
 
Depends on what you mean by ideal president. People forget Custer's actions at Gettysburg, or his bravery is completely ignored, along with his Gettysburg accomplishments. I've even heard him to be referenced as a coward. Its all a matter of perspective. Not to mention, I'll probably give him a governorship and a couple terms as VP. He'll learn fast, if 12 years if fast.

I'll happily read your narrative, don't get me wrong. And I'm quite aware of his heroism at Gettysburg. However, being brave doesn't make him smart. He was an attack-oriented officer who believed in the directness of a cavalry charge. He was good at fighting in the same way as Joe Wheeler. That doesn't make him presidential, though it might make him president. Good luck in your writing!
 
I'll happily read your narrative, don't get me wrong. And I'm quite aware of his heroism at Gettysburg. However, being brave doesn't make him smart. He was an attack-oriented officer who believed in the directness of a cavalry charge. He was good at fighting in the same way as Joe Wheeler. That doesn't make him presidential, though it might make him president. Good luck in your writing!
Thank you very much. I'll probably change some things around for him to make his luck really stick.

However I'm just worried about the future of the different parties. For example if the Democrats win these elections, northern dems with anti monopoly policies that is, how will T.R and H.C Lodge act come their time? I don't imagine either to become democrats. I guess, they'll be more radical to differentiate themselves from the democrats on the issues on which their wing agrees with.
 
That could be an option too. I kind of wanted to have Reed become President, if only because I think McKinley cheated him of it, though that may be by TR bias showing. Messing with everything might get, for me at least confusing. From 1870-1912 I don't really get the differences between the democrat's and republican's policy even close to as much as I do for other periods, or the recent party platforms. I think I'll have him be Hancock's VP. Would a more interventionist (under Custer) democratic party really change the interventionist wing of the Republican party? Namely guys like H.C Lodge and T. Roosevelt?
He's not plausible as Hancock's VP. It's all well and good to have a general at the top of the ticket with no political experience, but two?

As for the parties in the 1900-1912 era, te differences were muddled somewhat, but they were there. The Democratic trend towards interventionism and GOP opposition to it were already starting to develop. Even in the 1960's and 1970's historically, you'd have prominent party figures having real differences with party orthodoxy on (a) given issue(s) or policy question(s).
 
Thank you very much. I'll probably change some things around for him to make his luck really stick.

However I'm just worried about the future of the different parties. For example if the Democrats win these elections, northern dems with anti monopoly policies that is, how will T.R and H.C Lodge act come their time? I don't imagine either to become democrats. I guess, they'll be more radical to differentiate themselves from the democrats on the issues on which their wing agrees with.

Well, if you have a chain of events that puts Custer in the Presidency, he's liable to make the same kind of mistakes Grant made in that role. So by the 1890s the pendulum would swing back anyway to Mckinley and the Republicans. Business interests pretty much reigned supreme pre-1890. In the 1890s, the Sherman Anti-trust Law didn't have teeth. TR applied it after 1900 in conjunction with newer progressive legislation. Getting TR & the Repubs back on their 1890s track shouldn't really be an issue, though a successful WJ Bryan Presidential run in 1896 opens fascinating possibilities. Imagine if Bryan was in office during the lead up to the Spanish-American War? The war likely would have happened anyway, but I'm not so sure we would have kept the Phillipines (?).

The hard part is how Custer overcomes the bias against a soldier-President immediately after Grant's epic scandals, and then how he does well enough to win a 2nd term, and then is regarded 12 years later as a political force that helps Bryan win in '96. Its complex and I'm not familiar enough with domestic politics 1866-1897 to know what the least intrusive butterflies are, or even if its actually plausible. That being said it sounds like a fun vein of history to explore. Have at it!
 
Yeah, I don't think I'll have Bryan win, I think after Custer the democrats might run out of steam. I could have Hancock in 1876, then run with Custer as VP only in 1880. Custer becomes president in 1884. Done. Then, the only question is as to the future of the U.S political spectrum. I think I can maintain things similar to OTL. Maybe by 1912, T.R and Lodge might together form a new Progressive Party, with Custerite democrats and Progressive Republicans. There will be Hawks like T.R and Custer, and of course people like F.D.R aswell. That could be really interesting.
 
<<Then, the only question is as to the future of the U.S political spectrum. I think I can maintain things similar to OTL. >>

But why would you want to?
 
Top