TL-191 FILLING IN THE FUTURE

Since a number of talented persons on the FILLING THE GAPS thread quite recently suggested a 'Franchise' thread that would allow them to post their speculation on events following the cut-off point following the conclusion of those events depicted in the SOUTHERN VICTORY series (chronologically sometime in 1945), I have therefore taken the liberty of furnishing such a Thread.

ENJOY!:D
 
My dear fellow please feel free to do so by all means.:D

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4096745&postcount=245

^However I would like to request that any contributors posting on this thread observe and honour the posting guidelines found at the other end of this link - with the small addition that posts on this thread not contradict anything previously posted by another contributor (either on this thread or on the original FILLING THE GAPS).^

Thank you kindly for your interest!:)
 
Alright, here's something I typed up for the ideology of the Republican Party. I don't buy David's idea of them being a centrist broad-tent party, and I would like this TL to be different and to make them more than just centrists. This is inspired by the Nordic agrarian parties, BTW.

Republican Party

  • Agrarianism: A very important part of the party. The Socialists and Democrats may get farmers' votes, even have agrarian side-ideologies (farmer-laborism and libertarian conservatism?) but it is the Republican Party that is the only explicitly agrarian party, celebrating the farming way of life. Probably take inspiration from Jeffersonian democracy heavily in their view of an ideal America being one of virtue, equal rights, measured government and an agrarian society.
  • Liberalism: However, agrarianism can only take you so far. The suburban voters want something else. This is where liberalism, the more traditional Republican ideology, steps in. With the Socialists relying heavily on the trade unions and the working class, and the Democrats big business and the wealthy, which party will side with the petite bourgeoisie, the small businessmen and women? Why, it's the GOP! In urban and suburban areas, they run on anti-corruption, measured government, civil liberties, funding for small businesses and of course, government reform. Remember it's not "small" government, but "measured" government. Market libertarianism is probably dead in ATL and moderate liberalism takes its place as an anti-statist ideology.
  • Populism: Not the left-wing populism of the Socialists or the right-wing populism of some Democrats, but an anti-establishment populism. Due to being out of power for so long, the American people do not see them as part of the establishment any longer. And that benefits them in a way, as they can attack the whole structure of Philadelphia (they're big on government reform) without being seen as hypocrites.
 
Due to being out of power for so long, the American people do not see them as part of the establishment any longer. And that benefits them in a way, as they can attack the whole structure of Philadelphia (they're big on government reform) without being seen as hypocrites.

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship for the Republican Party and the ex-confederate states (yikes!). Hopefully President Halberg can stop any such nonsense though.
 
I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship for the Republican Party and the ex-confederate states (yikes!). Hopefully President Halberg can stop any such nonsense though.
Nah, they're also strongly for civil liberties (note the liberalism), so it won't happen like you think.

Now, if the CSA's occupation becomes too much and becomes authoritarian, yes, they would definitely speak out against it.
 

bguy

Donor
I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship for the Republican Party and the ex-confederate states (yikes!). Hopefully President Halberg can stop any such nonsense though.

Would someone like Halberg ever be able to get elected President? The kind of people who belong to third parties tend to be rather ... uncompromising... in their political beliefs, which in turn makes it difficult for them to get very far in the US political system (which is structured in a way to pretty much force compromise to accomplish anything.) Thus even in a US that is much more open to Socialism, I am skeptical Halberg would have the right temperament to ever get elected President. (Though he could certainly be a powerful Congressman or Senator.)
 
I am joking a little with Halberg (although he does make a good alternative Scandinavian-American Socialist from Minnesota if Humphrey is occupied:p) but with the Republicans, I think it's not so much that the party really wants the south (although of course it does given how long it's been in the wilderness), but look at it from the South's point of view politically. Who do they vote for as part of the U.S.?

A) Democrats (the party that is firmly committed to occupation of the south and using harsh measures)

B) Socialists (the same "type of people" that nearly ruined the Confederacy in 1915 and whose sympathies lie with the black population)

C) Some new regional third party that can't accomplish anything and will honestly simply be banned in TL-191 U.S.

or

D) The Republicans, who last harmed the south in the 1880s and are literally desperate to attract voters any way they can to get out of the wilderness. (And were also led by WJB for a decade so it's not like they're so socially liberal that they couldn't moderate/pander)

I would bet that a Southern Strategy is not that unlikely ITTL .
 
The "Northern (Canadian) strategy" is more likely, TBH. And why do you think the Republicans would be desperate for votes? They've surged in 1944, probably won lots of seats off Stassen's coat-tails, and seems to be bigger than before. Why would they want to betray all that for the South?
 
Why would they want to betray all that for the South?
Even Canada+3rd Place still equals 3rd Place in TL-191 U.S. politics. Honestly though, if you look at it from the view of the south finally grappling with it's demons (dedixification)(?) and being forced to change it's social view because of the overwhelming force of the north, then the Republicans move is really one that, rather than betraying their ideals, will actually reach the original goal of reconciling America.

(In other words, rather than being George Wallace-esque I'm picturing the new Republicans as filling a role kinda like the Reconstruction South- that is, they end up faciliting bringing both Canada and the south back into the U.S. in a positive way)
 
That's a very good point. However, I can see the Socialists and Democrats chipping away at the "Solid South" over time.

After all, as a new generation of Southerners grow up in the USA, what reason would they have to vote Republican?

Especially as they would be eager to prove themselves "American". The GOP would be the party of the old post-war South to them.
 
Indeed; the south being the new base of the Socialist Party would be interesting. I think it all depends on what new issues the parties face though, since the existence of the Confederacy was such a big part of the political dialogue (cold war w/ Germany and Japan?)
 
I'd expect the Republican Party to be very prone to destruction after the loss of the "Solid South". It has possibilities of losing votes to the two other parties if they launch heavy campaigns against the Republicans. Centre-left voters will vote Socialist while centre-right voters will begin to vote Democratic. It has the possibility of dying like what is happening to the Canadian Liberal Party, or what happened to the British Liberal Party.

I'd expect the South to be a Democratic stronghold a generation or two after the SGW.

Also, could Irwing Morrel become TTL's version of Eisenhower? I know he was an analogue of Sherman and Rommel, but he could still theoretically ride his popularity to the Whitehouse, or to whatever the Presidential Mansion is called.
 
Anyway, my suggestions...

Thomas E. Dewey (Democratic) 1945-1953
Everett Dirksen (Democratic) 1953-1961
Darlington Hoopes (Socialist) 1961-19??

And here's my suggestions on tickets and whatnot.

1944: Thomas E. Dewey/Harry S. Truman (Democratic) def. Charles W. La Follette/Jim Curley (Socialist) & Harold Stassen/Walter Huxman (Republican)
1948: Thomas E. Dewey/Harry S. Truman (Democratic) def. George A. Nelson/Tucker P. Smith (Socialist) & Harold Stassen/Gerald Nye (Republican)
1952: Everett Dirksen/John W. Bricker (Democratic) def. Glen H. Taylor/W. Averell Harriman (Socialist) & ?/? (Republican)
1956: Everett Dirksen/John W. Bricker (Democratic) def. Walter Reuther/? (Socialist) & ?/? (Republican)
1960: Darlington Hoopes/Sheridan Downey (Socialist) def. John W. Bricker/Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Democratic) & ?/? (Republican)
 
Last edited:
I'd expect the Republican Party to be very prone to destruction after the loss of the "Solid South". It has possibilities of losing votes to the two other parties if they launch heavy campaigns against the Republicans. Centre-left voters will vote Socialist while centre-right voters will begin to vote Democratic. It has the possibility of dying like what is happening to the Canadian Liberal Party, or what happened to the British Liberal Party.
Well, there exists a niche that Socialists and Democrats cannot fill. Agrarianism and small business. Socs and Dems are associated with Big Unions and Big Business respectively. Both of which farmers and small businesspeople distrust. I expect them to stick around for a looong time.
 
Here's the maps...

1944
AyOngKU.png

Governor Thomas E. Dewey/Senator Harry S. Truman (Democratic): 249 EV
President Charles W. La Follette/Representative Jim Curley (Socialist): 77 EV
Governor Harold Stassen/Governor Walter A. Huxman (Republican): 44 EV

1948

35lclSd.png

President Thomas E. Dewey/VP Harry S. Truman (Democratic): 264 EV
Senator George A. Nelson/Representative Tucker P. Smith (Socialist): 89 EV
Former Governor Harold Stassen/Senator Gerald Nye (Republican): 44 EV

1952

jas1TyN.png

Senator Everett Dirksen/Senator John W. Bricker (Democratic): 291 EV
Senator Glen H. Taylor/Governor W. Averell Harriman (Socialist): 92 EV
?/? (Republican): 25 EV

1956

tf0qkEB.png

President Everett Dirksen/VP John W. Bricker (Democratic): 266 EV
Senator Walter Reuther/? (Socialist): 120 EV
?/? (Republican): 30 EV

1960

QtXyWNK.png

Governor Darlington Hoopes/Senator Sheridan Downey (Socialist): 287 EV
VP John W. Bricker/Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Democratic): 124 EV
?/? (Republican): 27 EV
 
Last edited:
Anyone else think it's possible a main Canadian independence party similar to the Bloc Québécois or Scottish National Party could arise?

I believe that a Canadian independence party could be a thing, but the problem is it gaining traction. The Canadians lost the 1st Great War, created a headache for the Americans post-GW, and then rose up in rebellion after some prodding by the British and Confederates. I'm assuming that the most recent rebellion gets ground down, or the US decides to threaten the Canadian rebels with nuclear weapons and grants some sort of concession to the Canadians in exchange for surrendering.

So, the Canadians have, within 20 years, fought the US in two major conflicts, losing outright the first time and possibly worse the second time around. Many Canadians might just see the writing on the wall and accept annexation. In other words, I see this party as a mostly fringe group, maybe gaining some support in the latter 20th century, but not enough to be considered relevant.
 
Anyone else think it's possible a main Canadian independence party similar to the Bloc Québécois or Scottish National Party could arise?

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a party like that. The Canadian national identity is very much opposed to being part of the US (speaking as a Canadian). Canada fought off the invasions of Arnold in '76, the American invasion in 1812; and painted both of them as defense of the homeland. And in TL 191 they'll have fought off American invasions three times (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Second Mexican War), and have instigated two rebellions against American occupation (the 1924-25 and 1941-43 rebellion). But if a Canadian National Party did emerge, there will be probably two branches - one that goes with just the independence of English Canada, and one that wants English Canada and Quebec. It'll be a tiny party in the beginning, and will want to avoid the scrutiny of Philadelphia.

I believe that a Canadian independence party could be a thing, but the problem is it gaining traction. The Canadians lost the 1st Great War, created a headache for the Americans post-GW, and then rose up in rebellion after some prodding by the British and Confederates. I'm assuming that the most recent rebellion gets ground down, or the US decides to threaten the Canadian rebels with nuclear weapons and grants some sort of concession to the Canadians in exchange for surrendering.

So, the Canadians have, within 20 years, fought the US in two major conflicts, losing outright the first time and possibly worse the second time around. Many Canadians might just see the writing on the wall and accept annexation. In other words, I see this party as a mostly fringe group, maybe gaining some support in the latter 20th century, but not enough to be considered relevant.

I don't know why but I can see it happening in the 1960s. There will be massive acceptance of the Occupation, especially right after the SGW and being both browbeaten into submission and the Canadian resistance fighters being treated as POWs. And I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the books that Canadian and American cities are virtually identical now and you can't tell where the border used to be. And with a lot of American settlers there, the Canadians are being doubly swamped - their country isn't just being occupied, it's being colonized. I don't see the Canadian identity disappearing though; the fact that there are American settlers will probably cause a surge in protecting the Canadian identity.
 
Top