WI the USA gets Canada and the Upper South, Britain gets the Deep South and Cuba ?

Eurofed

Banned
For an 1812 analogue, the U.S. might have an easier time in the South than in Canada because there are masses of potentially rebellious slaves.

If BSA turns into a small scale Draka, they might implode the way the Domination does in TLs where they get invaded.

Santo Domingo here we come! Maybe TTL's John Brown can be an American general.

The idea seems nifty on paper, except for the fact that in the ACW the slaves most definitely failed to stage any major rebellions to support the emancipating armies of the Union.They had the means (pretty much all the CSA manpower was deployed at the front after 1862, the domestic front was left to Southern women to manage), but they skirted from rebellion, despite what abolitionists like John Brown hoped and expected.
 
Last edited:
The idea seems nifty on paper, except for the fact that in the ACW the slaves most definitely failed to stage any major rebellions to support the emancipating armies of the Union.They had the means (pretty much all the CSA manpower was deployed at the front after 1862, the domestic front was left to Southern women to manage), but they skirted from rebellion, despite what abolitionists like John Brown hoped and expected.

A fair point.

However, the Union forces did get vast numbers of black recruits, many slaves did run away or otherwise "self-liberate," etc.

(Plus there's an interesting little anecdote involving blacks from occupied St. Simons fending off Confederate raiders--one Confederate said if one wanted to go to hell before one's time, one should go to St. Simons and be hunted by N-words.)

A U.S. advance into British Southern America might get bigger and bigger as it moves south and accumulates more runaway slaves (as soldiers and camp followers) rather than attriting due to enemy attack.

The armies could be so swollen by runaway slaves that the British might decide it would be better to make a good peace rather than try to fight such a horde.

Also, if enough slaves run away, places like South Carolina could shut down entirely.

Furthermore, if the slave-white ratio gets really lopsided and the whites get really nasty in order to maintain their power, the slaves might revolt rather than simply run away or try to "renegotiate" their positions--they'd be angrier.

(Compare Santo Domingo to the antebellum South, frex.)
 

Eurofed

Banned
A fair point.

However, the Union forces did get vast numbers of black recruits, many slaves did run away or otherwise "self-liberate," etc.

(Plus there's an interesting little anecdote involving blacks from occupied St. Simons fending off Confederate raiders--one Confederate said if one wanted to go to hell before one's time, one should go to St. Simons and be hunted by N-words.)

A U.S. advance into British Southern America might get bigger and bigger as it moves south and accumulates more runaway slaves (as soldiers and camp followers) rather than attriting due to enemy attack.

The armies could be so swollen by runaway slaves that the British might decide it would be better to make a good peace rather than try to fight such a horde.

Also, if enough slaves run away, places like South Carolina could shut down entirely.

Furthermore, if the slave-white ratio gets really lopsided and the whites get really nasty in order to maintain their power, the slaves might revolt rather than simply run away or try to "renegotiate" their positions--they'd be angrier.

(Compare Santo Domingo to the antebellum South, frex.)

Well, to some degree this might happen, although in all likelihood not at the degree necessary to cause collapse of Southern society and US conquest of BSA. Britain would make peace well before that. This butterfly might however be used to justify the USA getting a particularly favorable peace (e.g. the USA getting all of Louisiana, New Orleans, and the right bank of the Mississippi).

I'm still doubtful that it would a be a major effect, for various reasons:

-It likely requires the slave-ratio in the BSA slave-white ratio to become so lopsided as in French Hispaniola, and I doubt that even with the slaves sold by the USA to the BSA when the former abolishes slavery, the BSA would reach that level of imbalance in the early 1800s.

-It requires a level of ideological committment to abolitionism on the USA's part which I dunno if it would be there: sure, it would have recently abolished slavery, in a relatively painless way, but just for this reason, I dunno if they would be that much committed to "export emancipation" as they were in 1863-65. After all, the USA disposed of its own slaves by selling them to the BSA.

-Dunno if runaway slaves would be that good recruits for the US forces. Enthusiastic, certainly, but trained and disciplined ?

All in all, it is to be expected that US armies invading the BSA would attact a sizable amount of runaway slaves as camp followers, and it may or may not destabilize, or threaten to, BSA society enough to be a significant factor in pushing Britain to make an unfavourable peace. But I doubt it would be substantial enough to collapse slavery in, or allow US conquest of, the BSA.

If the US armies accumulate significant number of these runaway slaves, what would be their future after the peace ? In all likelihood, neither the USA nor the BSA would be willing to welcome them. So I expect they would be trasferred either Hispaniola or to Liberia.
 
On Reunification...

So you are totally against the concept of revolutionary reunification? There would seem to me to be a large voice for Reunifiers in B.S.A. considering the amount of slavery still in TTL's U.S.A.

Unhappy with Britain and being guaranteed entry into the U.S. as "pretty much slave states" (until slavery can be phased out...) the revolutionaries in the Slaver War could push for Reunification rather than independence - as ITTL there is really nothing stopping them from the former (a lot of potential public opinion in favor of it, in fact) and very little motivation or even the immediate leadership required for the latter.

The BSA isn't a political region in a greater country, remember, it is a colony and lacks organized national leadership. Even if they managed to form a government and rebel, independence would basically make them an almost identical country to their northern cousin (with slavery still being gradually phased out in the Upper South) and Reunification has too many advantages for both parties involved.

So basically you have an Anglicized Dixie, complete with a Britdixie Caribbean, merging back into a more Federalist, slightly larger, and ever so slightly more Catholic U.S./Canada. That pretty well wanks both North and South while also adding Brit influence. Everyone in North America (sans Blacks and Natives for a little while) gets wanked in a combination of almost every way they usually are when done realistically - but far more originally.

The other thing this does: Rather than creating a North wins and South is absorbed scenario (which is played out) it almost creates a North wins and is absorbed into a slowly reforming, soon to be slave free, Europeanized South. Epic, eh?
 

Eurofed

Banned
So you are totally against the concept of revolutionary reunification?

Of course not. I'm just rather skeptical that this USA would be strong enough to conquer the BSA during a *War of 1812. If the USA and the British Empire were to go at war in 1850s-1860s, well, another matter entirely.

There would seem to me to be a large voice for Reunifiers in B.S.A. considering the amount of slavery still in TTL's U.S.A.

Slavery is going to be phased out pretty quickly in TTL's USA. Quite likely during the 1790s, in all likelihood within the 1800s.

Unhappy with Britain and being guaranteed entry into the U.S. as "pretty much slave states" (until slavery can be phased out...) the revolutionaries in the Slaver War could push for Reunification rather than independence - as ITTL there is really nothing stopping them from the former (a lot of potential public opinion in favor of it, in fact) and very little motivation or even the immediate leadership required for the latter.

The big problem is that once the formerly Loyalist BSA decides to rebel against Britain, it is going to do so to protect slavery, same as OTL's CSA. By that time (the 1830s, most likely), slavery is long gone in the USA. Now, it is quite possible that America gets more interested in removing British colonial presence than slavery from the continent, and so allies with the slaver revolutionaries. But slavery is going to be a stumbling block to a USA-*CSA reunification, in all likelihood the latter would become an independent satellite of the former. Unification would only become feasible once the *CSA decides to undergo emancipation on its own.

The most feasible scenario for a successful unification is if Britain defeats the Slaver Rebellion in the 1830s and abolishes slavery, then the USA and UK go to war some decades later, and the USA win (not too difficult since the 1850s-1860s, if the Yankee prepare adequately).
 
-Dunno if runaway slaves would be that good recruits for the US forces. Enthusiastic, certainly, but trained and disciplined ?

Nobody (except prior-service people) is trained and disciplined when they join the army. That's what military training is for.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/
http://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-black-soldiers.html

Although Fort Wagner never fell, it's not like the black soldiers there were poor soldiers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fort_Wagner

The "hunted by n-words" episode showed that the freed slaves of the coastal islands inspired respect if not fear ("go to hell before your time") from the local Confederates, who I would imagine would not be inclined to respect ex-slaves easily.
 
About the willingness of the U.S. to "export emancipation," remember in OTL that was not the initial goal of the U.S. troops either in the Civil War, at least initially.

(I guess you know that due to the 1863-5 comment.)

The U.S. could go to war for the Missisippi and as they advance, the slave economy crumbles around them and the American leadership realizes the opportunities there. Freed slaves can free soldiers for combat duties, while with training, they could become soldiers themselves. Furthermore, liberating slaves en masse will cause the collapse of the enemy economy.

(None of this requires an ideological commitment to abolitionism.)

The impending disintegration of the slaveocracy could prompt Britain to make an advantageous (for the U.S.) peace that preserves the BSA and the slaveocracy in a more limited area.
 
True.

That said, while the pressure for expansion will certainly be there, I'm not sure it leads to a formal, political rift. It may just be something like informal voortrekking into the trans-mississippi that ends up extending the BSA willy-nilly. The time period of this expansion is probably too early for Mounty-style efforts by the government to keep settlement orderly and within legal boundaries. Alternatively, just as in the American instance, abolitionists may choose to fight the initial battles against slavery on the question of whether it should be allowed to be extended. That would mean that these trans-mississippi areas may not be incorporable into the BSA. They would probably end up forming analogues to OTL Boer Republics--sketchy states with minimal administrative apparatus, unstable, belligerent, and home to ideologues (in this case, slaver ideologues). If they end up antagonizing the US, Britain may not even intervene to save them just to get rid of the headache (assuming that Britain is not too hostile to the US).

The problem with plantation economies, particularly with cotton and tobacco, is they are particularly hard on the soil. Land needs to be acquired in order to maintain production as the nutrients in the soil burned out. There also needed to be more land coming into cultivation inorder to preserve the value of slaves. In the case of the Virginia (much of its soil exhausted by tobacco) it was perfectly profitable to primarily "breed" slaves and sell them to the deep south.

Another major reason has to do with the planter aristocracy itself. By having too many children estates risked being broken up and subdivided into irreverence. Western land provided the 2nd and third sons of the planter class (as well as the ambitious southern middle class) with a chance to strike their own fortune and become planters as well.

Considering this, expansionism looks tempting towards certain elements of southern society especially with the virgin plains of Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma lying open and uncolonized before them.
 
Last edited:
The Brits got their pride and power be diminished by the American Revolution, and the precedent is going to be very clear in the minds of would-be *Confederates.

So will the *1812 invasion of their homes by the *USA. Much clearer even, I daresay.
 
Sorry, don't buy it.

The BSA is not just a mega-planter lobby. It's also a very populous place full of Englishmen who can and will take up arms if they are pushed too far. The successful *ARW will be the elephant in the room. And while Britain is strong, and full of evangelical fervor, lots of people aren't going to want to provoke a war, even some of the evangelicals. The northern US was part of the same evangelical culture as Britain at this time, but northern US politicians were much slower to move on abolition issues because they had more than just a Jamaica to contend with. There were other reasons for that too, but the fact is that this Britain is not going to consider the populous, prosperous, Anglo-dominated BSA as just another colony that it can order around. Outright abolition will not be on the table in the 1830s. The fighting will be more of a progress--oceanic slave trade, expansion of slavery into new territories, legal status of slaves that went with their BSA master to other UK territories that don't have institutionalized slavery, slave trade across colonial boundaries within the BSA, slave codes to ensure good treatment, treament of freed slaves, stuff like that. And because it will be gradual, BSA opinion will have time to start hardening, as in OTL, but with the additional grievance of lack of real representation. Which is why I persist in thinking that all the dumbest of British statesmen will be looking for some kind of home-rule, dominion-status solution. Probably not a full-on Canada (more or less de jure independence) but maybe something like full internal autonomy. Even the evangelicals might accept this if they think its better than being legally responsible for what happens inside Britain. Look at OTL US. When Civil War broke out, the reaction of some US abolitionists was good, let 'em go, we don't want to be part of their evil.

Eurofed asked me to comment on the question of when British were likely to pursue emancipation in the 1830s vs. the 1850s vs. other in this premise.

The addition of Cuba to British holdings in 1763 will have no significant impact on the question, as the population that Britain gains will be Spanish Speaking Catholics that won't have much impact in London - and the people who migrate there will be similar to those who migrate to the South.

The keeping of the Deep South will have some economic ramifications, and if anything will be more of a liberal influence on Britain early on (they're still a more independent lot), but with the Reform Movement, Britain will outstrip the South which will be corrupted by the twin influences of Cotton and Sugar.

But you'd have to derail the Reform Movement to forestall the elimination of slavery anything more than a few years. Once a Reform Act passes, more abolitionists will come into Parliament and the public pressure of the English (who are the ones who count as far as Parliament is concerned, not a bunch of colonials, no matter how much money they are throwing around) is going to vote for the ending of slavery, which in turn is going to incense enough of the plantation owners in the South to trigger an uprising.

I think you can vary the political factors to slow things, but in general, I think you're still going to see an end to slavery from the British in the 1830s or even earlier, but not later than 1840 IMO. Remember, the Southerners in the USA have not just economic power but political representation - here they do not.
 
One final entry in my spamming of this thread this morning:

although I am arguing some points that I think are ill-founded, I enjoy this thread very much and really like a lot of the things you've done with it, Eurofed.

Its extremely plausible and pretty interesting to see the implications of what is initially a minor change (different governors).

Some of the effects we haven't talked about are on the US political order. US abolition in TTL is going to be a matter of individual states acting on their own, and without a civil war you won't get the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment equivalents, so this US probably remains genuinely federalist for much later, especially considering la difference quebecois.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Some of the effects we haven't talked about are on the US political order. US abolition in TTL is going to be a matter of individual states acting on their own, and without a civil war you won't get the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment equivalents, so this US probably remains genuinely federalist for much later, especially considering la difference quebecois.

Well, without a large population of freedmen we shall never see a 15th Amendment (nor a 24th Amendment without racial segregation), although a 19th Amendment and 26th Amendment in all likelihood are still going to happen. The 13th Amendment might become unnecessary, although it might still be easily passed as a symbolic act to celebrate and enshrine emancipation in the Constitution after it is done at the state level and put it beyond a change of heart from any state. As it concerns the 14th Amendment, it shall never exist in the OTL version (no 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clausles).

As it concerns the all-important 1st clausle, it is not going to exist in the OTL form. However, it is quite likely that at some point (most likely during the *Progressive Age) the American people shall deem proper to ensure that the BoR shall apply to the states, although without the Citizenship clausle. Alternatively, or in addition, with the Federalists a more powerful force, it is quite likely that the proposed additional Amendment by Madison to the BoR gets approved ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") Likewise, for the same reason, it is quite possible that judicial rewiew is explicitly sanctioned in the Constitution.

I seize the opportunity to pimp the ATL revision of the US Constitution which I developed (with the indispensable help of Aranfan and others) for USAO, since many of its ideas would be relevant ITTL, as the PoD and some of the butterflies are similar.

More in general, the 11th Amendment might or might not exist, while the 12th, clausles 3 and 4 of the 20th Amendment, and the 25th may happen more or less as OTL or quite possibly could easily be merged together if the Founding Fathers get any more insightful and dynamic about the flaws of the Presidential election and succession system than OTL. The 16th and 17th are still in all likelihood going to happen, and with a more industrialized USA, the *Progressives ar likely going to be more successful and influential than OTL, which may lead to some of their program getting enshrined in the Constitution. Conversely, Prohibitionism is quite likely butterflied away, removing the 18th and 21th. The 1st and 2nd part of the 20th are still totally going to happen. The 22th and the enfranchisement of DC are widely subject to butterflies, while with a more industrial USA, the ERA is in all likelihood going to be approved.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Nobody (except prior-service people) is trained and disciplined when they join the army. That's what military training is for.

No doubt, no doubt, and as a matter of fact, it is quite possible that ITTL freedmen troops play a more significant role during the ARW than IOTL, creating a precedent. I was just making the point that to turn escaped slaves into decent troops takes a significant amount of training, it does not happen as soon as they camp with USA troops.

Although Fort Wagner never fell, it's not like the black soldiers there were poor soldiers:

The "hunted by n-words" episode showed that the freed slaves of the coastal islands inspired respect if not fear ("go to hell before your time") from the local Confederates, who I would imagine would not be inclined to respect ex-slaves easily.

Never meant to imply black soldiers would be poor ones, quite the contrary (my tip of the hat at the heroes of Ft. Wagner :cool:). I was ust making the point that the slave lifestyle does not give any opportunity to pick military training, so it would take some time and effort to train runaway slaves as soldiers.

About the willingness of the U.S. to "export emancipation," remember in OTL that was not the initial goal of the U.S. troops either in the Civil War, at least initially.

(I guess you know that due to the 1863-5 comment.)

The U.S. could go to war for the Missisippi and as they advance, the slave economy crumbles around them and the American leadership realizes the opportunities there. Freed slaves can free soldiers for combat duties, while with training, they could become soldiers themselves. Furthermore, liberating slaves en masse will cause the collapse of the enemy economy.

(None of this requires an ideological commitment to abolitionism.)

The impending disintegration of the slaveocracy could prompt Britain to make an advantageous (for the U.S.) peace that preserves the BSA and the slaveocracy in a more limited area.

Fair point. In the case that the USA manage to exploit this tactic to ensure a decisive victory, what would their war gains be ? So far, we more or less concluded that any decent US performance would net America northern Louisiana, Rupert's Land, Columbia-Oregon, and good shipping rights to the Mississippi. If they get a decisive victory, what else they would gain ? Totally free shipping rights ? Codominium over southern Lousiana, New Orleans, and the right bank of the Mississippi ? Sole US ownership of the same ? Cession to the US of Northern Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi ?
 

Eurofed

Banned
True.

That said, while the pressure for expansion will certainly be there, I'm not sure it leads to a formal, political rift. It may just be something like informal voortrekking into the trans-mississippi that ends up extending the BSA willy-nilly. The time period of this expansion is probably too early for Mounty-style efforts by the government to keep settlement orderly and within legal boundaries. Alternatively, just as in the American instance, abolitionists may choose to fight the initial battles against slavery on the question of whether it should be allowed to be extended. That would mean that these trans-mississippi areas may not be incorporable into the BSA. They would probably end up forming analogues to OTL Boer Republics--sketchy states with minimal administrative apparatus, unstable, belligerent, and home to ideologues (in this case, slaver ideologues). If they end up antagonizing the US, Britain may not even intervene to save them just to get rid of the headache (assuming that Britain is not too hostile to the US).

True. The most likely butterfly I see happening about Trans-Mississippi expansion is that Texas becomes a mixed settlement area with both pro-BSA slavers and pro-USA freesoilers as significant forces. The two communities would make an alliance of convenience to kick the Mexicans out, but as soon as Texas becomes independent, they would come to a vicious struggle to enforce their preferences about slavery and annexation to either state, much like OTL Kansas and Nebraska. Either faction may end up victorious, either, both, or none of the USA and UK may sponsor or even directly intervene to support its own sympathizers, and it may or may not be a casus belli.

OTOH, California (except possibly the LA/San Diego area if the USA and UK come to a sensible compromise about the Mexican Cession) is almost usrely going to become a US turf.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The BSA is not just a mega-planter lobby. It's also a very populous place full of Englishmen who can and will take up arms if they are pushed too far. The successful *ARW will be the elephant in the room. And while Britain is strong, and full of evangelical fervor, lots of people aren't going to want to provoke a war, even some of the evangelicals.

By the time the Reform Movement won out, it was not just the evangelical lobby to push for emancipation, the liberal middle classes which the Great Reform enfranchised were becoming more and more hostile to slavery.

The northern US was part of the same evangelical culture as Britain at this time, but northern US politicians were much slower to move on abolition issues because they had more than just a Jamaica to contend with.

The main difference between the OTL USA and TTL British Empire is that the slaveholding states were directly represented in the federal government and held enough votes to block abolition. The BSA is a colony and has no representaiton in the British Parliament, so slaver interests can only influence things indirectly, by lobbying. This is much less effective.

There were other reasons for that too, but the fact is that this Britain is not going to consider the populous, prosperous, Anglo-dominated BSA as just another colony that it can order around.

Well, they did so with the 13 colonies, and despite the precedent of the ARW, subsequent Canadian rebellions of 1837 still caught Britain entirely by surprise (not to mention the Sepoy Mutiny), so I can see Britain underestimating the rebelliousness of the BSA slavers.

Outright abolition will not be on the table in the 1830s. The fighting will be more of a progress--oceanic slave trade, expansion of slavery into new territories, legal status of slaves that went with their BSA master to other UK territories that don't have institutionalized slavery, slave trade across colonial boundaries within the BSA, slave codes to ensure good treatment, treament of freed slaves, stuff like that.

Possibly, although the influence of the connon and sugar lobbies can only go so far, without a strong voting block in Westminster. Oceanic slave trade is going to be abolished more or less on schedule, since even IOTL the South did not make much of a fuss about it. Moreover, ITTL they are going to get all the extra slaves sold by the USA when it abolishes slavery. As much as I understand UK colonial legal system, unless the Uk Parliament starts making piecemeal rules for various areas (and they are only likely to do so for mainland Britain, very few slaves are going to travel there), the legal status of slaves that travel to different areas of the British Empire is not going to change. The BE was not a federal system like the USA, where the legal status of slavery changed in different states and territories.

And because it will be gradual, BSA opinion will have time to start hardening, as in OTL, but with the additional grievance of lack of real representation.

Or even if it isn't gradual, as the BSAers see abolition getting closer and closer to victory in the British political arena.

Which is why I persist in thinking that all the dumbest of British statesmen will be looking for some kind of home-rule, dominion-status solution. Probably not a full-on Canada (more or less de jure independence) but maybe something like full internal autonomy. Even the evangelicals might accept this if they think its better than being legally responsible for what happens inside Britain.

Or the British abolitionists may see through the ruse and fight to stalemate autonomy to a slaver BSA. Not to mention that at this point, Britain has not yet conceived and created real autonomy for its colonies, so it is far from a trivial development.
 
By the time the Reform Movement won out, it was not just the evangelical lobby to push for emancipation, the liberal middle classes which the Great Reform enfranchised were becoming more and more hostile to slavery.



The main difference between the OTL USA and TTL British Empire is that the slaveholding states were directly represented in the federal government and held enough votes to block abolition. The BSA is a colony and has no representaiton in the British Parliament, so slaver interests can only influence things indirectly, by lobbying. This is much less effective.



Well, they did so with the 13 colonies, and despite the precedent of the ARW, subsequent Canadian rebellions of 1837 still caught Britain entirely by surprise (not to mention the Sepoy Mutiny), so I can see Britain underestimating the rebelliousness of the BSA slavers.

Liberal middle classes may shrink from shedding rivers of blood, and realpolitik politicians may shrink from playing chicken with a rich and massively populated mega-colony. The Canada example isn't persuasive, since it was much less populated, much less important to Britain's economy, and since the grievances were less fundamental than this BSA's will be. The same liberalizing forces that in OTL led to parliamentary Reform and, ultimately, to abolishing the slave trade will probably lead to pressure to give the BSA some kind of legal rights and representations, since they are so much more significant and British than any OTL colony at that time period.

Differing legal arrangments in differing colonies were very possible. Most colonies had at least somewhat separate legal codes and often their own assemblies that had some legislative powers.

I don't think that home rule for the BSA will be a 'ruse.' It will be a way of avoiding bloodshed and war while disassociating the British mainland for responsibility for the BSA's institution of slavery. Evangelicals and liberals weren't as eager for war against Western whites as you seem to think.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Liberal middle classes may shrink from shedding rivers of blood, and realpolitik politicians may shrink from playing chicken with a rich and massively populated mega-colony. The Canada example isn't persuasive, since it was much less populated, much less important to Britain's economy, and since the grievances were less fundamental than this BSA's will be.

True, but in both cases, miscalculations may happen. On both sides of the fence, few truly realized how bloody and destructive the ACW would turn, and many underestimated the other side's willingness to fight or go all the way to rebellion. I may also mention that, although it was not a White settlement colony, the Sepoy Munity caught Britain utterly by surprise just like the Canadian rebellions, and India was much more populated and important to British economy than the BSA would be.

The same liberalizing forces that in OTL led to parliamentary Reform and, ultimately, to abolishing the slave trade will probably lead to pressure to give the BSA some kind of legal rights and representations, since they are so much more significant and British than any OTL colony at that time period.

Quite unlikely. The British liberals that pushed for the 1830s-1860s reforms would otherwise sympathize for colonial autonomy would not give slavers the time of day. If what you advocate happens at all, it shall be at the hands of moderate conservatives.
 
Top