On that note, I would argue that the US ITTL is more in the radical-liberal tradition that was present in the "Latin World", a liberalism that was more "revolutionary" than the form of liberalism present in Britain that we think of as the predecessor of modern liberal thought, than a predecessor to socialism when it comes to its ideology, now you've mentioned it.
And this is even more true ITTL with how they've literally couped their own government in what is very much an example of how ideological "purity" (in this case, the ideologies of slavocracy and "state's rights") overriding pragmatic concerns and acceptance of grim realities has led to many a defeat or disaster. I imagine there would be many who would be comparing the Southern slavocrats to the ruling elites of Paraguay with that in mind due to the sheer devastation both regions would be going through by the end of the war.
Speaking of which, Separated at Birth's Fascism (which is a very different ideology from the real-world ideology of Fascism) is basically a good description of what you are describing, now you've mentioned it. And such a paternalist nationalist state could provide a catalyst for civil service reform and general development of state capacity as part of such a paternalistic drive, with that in mind.
I think that, especially to communists and socialists, the American Civil War might look like the last Liberal revolution - understanding it as the revolutionary liberalism of the French Revolution, with its equality for all, strengthening of the national State, destruction of an old feudal order, and ultimate advancement of capitalism and the bourgeois class.
The South is certainly much closer to Paraguay now that it's basically decided to commit suicide.
Lincoln was interested in reforming the civil service after the war, and he was personally unimpeachable. We could see some reform in Reconstruction policy that tries to keep offices for Republicans instead of up to the will of governments and local elections that eventually can swing to the opposition. But conversely, patronage was very popular among both Black Republicans and Party bosses.
I'm not sure they'd need to. I mean, they might want to support more equitable approaches to capitalism in general, at least on some issues, but free labor capitalism was on the rise worldwide at this point anyway. They might become an active supporter of campaigns for worker rights and stuff in the right circumstances, but that's probably it, so it's not really something they can export like the USSR did communism.
Yes, exactly, that's my point. There's no coherent ideology this US could export.
More likely, anyway, the U.S. becomes inconsistent, with pro-labor developments at home matched by anti-labor developments in foreign branches. It's worth remembering how the 1950s saw the apex of U.S. worker success while at the same time the U.S. was supporting violent suppression of labor in, for instance, Central America. Conversely, I could quite easily see the U.S. fighting labor at home and supporting it abroad. Even with something like democracy and republicanism even more deeply absorbed as American values, the U.S. has been an inconsistent supporter at best abroad, so labor certainly will not see consistent American support.
Yes, I can see something like that. Curiously, the most stalwart Republicans were also some of the most opposed to labor's cause. Grant, for example, called on the national government to harshly deal with strikers, and criticized those who were against using the Army to protect Black rights but completely supported using it to protect business interests. For Republicans in this vein the national State had to make its power felt against both reaction and revolution. I suspect this would become the most prominent position within the Republican mainstream.
The major problem with the 'USA-as-USSR' analogue is that, currently, it has no real reason to be that way for the foreseeable future. What would it be exporting? Democracy? Republicanism? The major stumbling block is, again, that the United States is still very, very racist even if it becomes just a little bit less so. It may hate Europe for its kings and aristocrats, especially now, but they're tolerable because they're white. The rest of the country might not be as bad as the slavers are in this regard but they produced their fair share of pseuds who concocted all sorts of nonsense about WASPs on their own without any help. It isn't going to take the types who would cook these ideas up to view the current situation in the CSA as simply being filled with the wrong kinds of white people either.
As ironic as reverse filibusters would be - i.e., the idea that the American government has rogue actors that go abroad to free places rather than annex them to itself (though I could see a random person in-universe being a kind of 19th century 'gentleman adventurer' sort who fits this description as a one off sort of thing) - it won't dare risk upsetting the various empires by trying to run interference in their colonies directly like this; it would directly invite more meddling in the Americas like what's currently happening in Mexico and the country isn't in the position at this point in time to tell them all to go pound sand. Plus, it likes and needs the trade that they provide. Many parts of the country were totally willing to reap the benefits of slavery - just as they are with stealing native land - so long as it remained profitable and I can't imagine that changing here.
We'll probably see the US focusing on internal issues for a couple of decades anyway. The only places where it could intervene would be Cuba and Brazil.
yeah I’m having trouble thinking of some ideology that can be exported and as much as I’m drooling at my country doing what should have been done to the slavers the voice in the back of my head is telling me “I’d hold off until we see how the labor movement is handled” .
Hats off to ya Red, I’m simultaneously thrilled and very nervous about where your world ends up
Thanks! We'll see
It's worth noting that to the people of this day and age, this would not have seemed at all remarkable that a liberalism unleashed at the governmental level would be intensely radical and highly revolutionary in practice; indeed that would be the expectation of many. We know now that 1848 marked a clear endpoint of revolutionary radical liberalism as a revolutionary force in Europe, but we're not that far removed from that; to many people this would be nothing but liberalism returning to form, for better or worse.
Yeah. Especially the presence of Liberal 48ers means this Second American Revolution may be seen as a successful form of what was attempted in Europe in 1848.
Wikiboxs for the TTL Civil War battles?
I did plan to make a series of wikiboxes, and, hopefully, maps in a post about Battles and Leaders after we finish the main story. So that lays in the future. I would love it if someone else tried their hand at making them, however!