Wow! This is a good thread! One question though: will America, being more egalitarian in this timeline actively be critical of European imperialism in other parts of the globe?
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
Yeah I thought that would be important that in order for her to really understand the horrors of Slavery she would need to hear from the black people themselves and the horrors of the juanta from a poor confederate like her grandfather. As a result of your earlier advice I'll go back and take out the open marriage aspect.
On that note, commerce raider crews being treated as pirates might provide a precedent for treating the crews of commerce raiders and submarines with how their main targets are merchant ships as war criminals later on.
Unfortunately, I doubt it. It’s important to remember that anti-imperialism in America was boosted by a large bloc of southern white supremacists which will be severely limited ITTL thanks to a more equitable America. This was often not in spite of their racism, but because of it, as they did not want to integrate non-whites into America. Furthermore, a number of the most racially progressive people in America, such as Ulysses S. Grant and Frederick Douglass, were vociferous imperialists.
If I recall, he was fairly interested in Catholicism due to his business in post war in Louisiana and ended up converting in 1877. He was by all reports very devout.
A stray thought. This version of the war has been more demographically disastrous than the OTL one. But there's a whole new group joining the workforce and gaining the education that was denied it in our world (recently freed slaves) and a larger apparatus to rebuild the devastated region (the bureaus). Meaning that rather than the region remaining largely undeveloped post-war, it's likely to finally get essential reforms and economic growth. The South is likely to remain mostly agricultural, but it's likely to become far more developed and economically dynamic. This will make the growth of the Midwest interesting as the rebuilt south may actually compete with it.
With that in mind, it's possible that this United States will match the post war growth of OTL or possibly even surpass it due to these factors.
I know most of this is already a given, but the magnitude is intriguing.
With that in mind, it's possible that this United States will match the post war growth of OTL or possibly even surpass it due to these factors.
I know most of this is already a given, but the magnitude is intriguing.
Last edited:
Does that mean that America might actually be slightly more imperialistic ITTL? I could see Cuba getting the Puerto Rico treatment, for instance.
Yeah to that last point, worth remembering that liberalism - unquestionably the victorious and dominant ideology in America for the forseeable future - was not just pro-imperialism but positively beside itself with imperialism.
Honestly, that's quite likely. Santo Domingo, many Caribbean islands, Cuba, the Pacific, and even Canada may be targets of American expansion. If America is sufficiently outwardly focused, they could even leverage the situation in the CFS to secure an American Congo. Now, this will obviously come with a lot of backlash from the people who don't want to be colonized, but genuine American anti-imperialism (like that espoused by many Populists regardless of racial beliefs) will likely take a while longer to foment.
Last edited:
Alas as others have stated, the US is at the very least going to have the same imperialistic energy as OTL, if not more so.
How successful that is in individual cases is always up to chance, (really the same goes for treatment of the Natives; the overall impetus is for the US to overrun them, but that doesn't mean each individual atrocity has to happen as badly as it did OTL).
The only upshot to this scenario that I could possibly see is that the US devotes more of its energy to opposing the European colonial empires for their "bad imperialism" and not actually helping their colonial subjects develop.
How successful that is in individual cases is always up to chance, (really the same goes for treatment of the Natives; the overall impetus is for the US to overrun them, but that doesn't mean each individual atrocity has to happen as badly as it did OTL).
The only upshot to this scenario that I could possibly see is that the US devotes more of its energy to opposing the European colonial empires for their "bad imperialism" and not actually helping their colonial subjects develop.
usertron2020
Donor
Um, not Cuba. And especially not Canada! 
The former would mean war with Spain at a time when the US Navy was most certainly NOT ready to take on a blue-water navy. 1865 =/= 1898. The latter would mean making war against the premier naval power of the world.🇬🇧
Even if after a very expensive naval buildup the USN could do an earlier version of the Spanish-American War, the United States would ultimately find itself forced to divest itself of Cuba just as it did the Philippines. Too many Spanish-speakers to be absorbed into the American political landscape, even if the entry of all those "non-White" Roman Catholics would be seen as OK for Americans ITTL.
And even in some Bizarro-Earth ATL where the USA manages to conquer Canada without the British Empire coming down firmly on the United States' head (particularly meaning the world-wide destruction of the US merchant marine), the US would have to eventually grant Quebec its independence, and for much the same reasons (minus the racial aspect). That's not even taking into account the destabilizing factor of a nascent Canadian insurgency.
The former would mean war with Spain at a time when the US Navy was most certainly NOT ready to take on a blue-water navy. 1865 =/= 1898. The latter would mean making war against the premier naval power of the world.🇬🇧Even if after a very expensive naval buildup the USN could do an earlier version of the Spanish-American War, the United States would ultimately find itself forced to divest itself of Cuba just as it did the Philippines. Too many Spanish-speakers to be absorbed into the American political landscape, even if the entry of all those "non-White" Roman Catholics would be seen as OK for Americans ITTL.
And even in some Bizarro-Earth ATL where the USA manages to conquer Canada without the British Empire coming down firmly on the United States' head (particularly meaning the world-wide destruction of the US merchant marine), the US would have to eventually grant Quebec its independence, and for much the same reasons (minus the racial aspect). That's not even taking into account the destabilizing factor of a nascent Canadian insurgency.
Um, not Cuba. And especially not Canada!
Even if after a very expensive naval buildup the USN could do an earlier version of the Spanish-American War, the United States would ultimately find itself forced to divest itself of Cuba just as it did the Philippines. Too many Spanish-speakers to be absorbed into the American political landscape, even if the entry of all those "non-White" Roman Catholics would be seen as OK for Americans ITTL.
And even in some Bizarro-Earth ATL where the USA manages to conquer Canada without the British Empire coming down firmly on the United States' head (particularly meaning the world-wide destruction of the US merchant marine), the US would have to eventually grant Quebec its independence, and for much the same reasons (minus the racial aspect). That's not even taking into account the destabilizing factor of a nascent Canadian insurgency.
I’m not very knowledgeable in Cuban history, but slavery was only outlawed there in 1886. If the Spanish-American War happens around the same time like IOTL, isn’t the majority of the population still an underclass of ex-slaves? If this is the case I’m not sure the Cubans (besides the plantation owners) would care as long as the US treats them better then the Spanish.
Also keep in mind the Philippines was a sizable distance away from the US mainland and had a population of over 6.2 million in 1896, while Cuba had a population of 1.7 Million and is relatively just off the coast of the US. It would be far easier to control Cuba, and the only reason we didn’t annex it was because of racism. If the US continues to have a strong military post-reconstruction I’d say they are more than capable of keeping Cuba. Also, even if the Cubans want freedom, the US isn’t going to care because of imperialism as hypocritical as that is. The concept of Cuban independence would probably die after a few generations have passed under the US’s egalitarian rule.
Last edited:
I wasn’t quite saying America was guaranteed to take them, I said they’d likely be targets of a more imperialistic America. While some of these would be very much foolhardy, Americans have never been particularly realistic about their chances in anything. I’ve seen proponents of Canadian annexation by force up to the 1890s, as improbable as those prospects are.Um, not Cuba. And especially not Canada!
Even if after a very expensive naval buildup the USN could do an earlier version of the Spanish-American War, the United States would ultimately find itself forced to divest itself of Cuba just as it did the Philippines. Too many Spanish-speakers to be absorbed into the American political landscape, even if the entry of all those "non-White" Roman Catholics would be seen as OK for Americans ITTL.
And even in some Bizarro-Earth ATL where the USA manages to conquer Canada without the British Empire coming down firmly on the United States' head (particularly meaning the world-wide destruction of the US merchant marine), the US would have to eventually grant Quebec its independence, and for much the same reasons (minus the racial aspect). That's not even taking into account the destabilizing factor of a nascent Canadian insurgency.
Given that the OP has pretty firmly said that they're not going to do some sort of 'kinder, gentler Imperialism' idea, I suspect we're not going to see a US that successfully makes the populace of invaded/imperialized territories love them.
In terms of Spain. There is a fine line between making Spain have a worse 19th century and a Vlad Tepes award...Um, not Cuba. And especially not Canada!
Even if after a very expensive naval buildup the USN could do an earlier version of the Spanish-American War, the United States would ultimately find itself forced to divest itself of Cuba just as it did the Philippines. Too many Spanish-speakers to be absorbed into the American political landscape, even if the entry of all those "non-White" Roman Catholics would be seen as OK for Americans ITTL.
And even in some Bizarro-Earth ATL where the USA manages to conquer Canada without the British Empire coming down firmly on the United States' head (particularly meaning the world-wide destruction of the US merchant marine), the US would have to eventually grant Quebec its independence, and for much the same reasons (minus the racial aspect). That's not even taking into account the destabilizing factor of a nascent Canadian insurgency.
Years
ago I read a book online that Vlad Tepes’d Spain. It was called Looking Forward:The World in 1999 or some such and it was written in 1900. Spain was depopulated in 1930-something via aerial poisons and such because they lost some war or other.
I have to concur with this one. Without the rural labor control in place and better education, there would be more incentive for mechanization of agriculture and I could see manufacturing making an earlier growth. During OTL Reconstruction, lumber industries in the Old South, cotton textiles in the Carolinas and an iron and steel complex in Alabama were formed, along with investment in mining. A key issue for industrializing the South would be the National Bank Act, which imposed limits that unintentionally made credit scarce in the South. Thus, most of the industrialization process might be Northern led until a new generation of more educated and wealthier Southerners (white & black) actually step up. Certainly, it cannot be as bad as zero per capita growth in the Deep South as in 1880-1900 or having just half the national average income by the end of Reconstruction.
Have to agree with this one as well. I should also note that the author has mentioned a preference to a more domestic focus. But yes, even if the US is more militarized than OTL, it will be the army that gets buffed, not the Navy. After 1865, the U.S. Navy was downsized and its new head, Vice Admiral David D. Porter, was surprisingly anti-technology, going back to sail-power over steam-power despite his lengthy service with Grant aboard steam-propelled ironclads. Technology in the U.S. Navy stagnated as U.S. Navy officers apparently despised the naval engineers, with the Virginius affair finally prodding the U.S. Navy and Congress to get some (or at least try to make) modern ships.The former would mean war with Spain at a time when the US Navy was most certainly NOT ready to take on a blue-water navy. 1865 =/= 1898.
Also guys I think red has said he doesn't like American Imperialism, granted I think it is worth discussing in regards to the time and what changes would actually be made, but I don't think we should be gratuitous about it
Hello,
I am interested in seeing if the black population will concentrate the most in the South due to the revised version of Reconstruction or if numbers will travel to other parts of the US due to factors such as economic opportunities. I would think that the blacks will be far less limited in such choices, especially...
www.history.com
www.usmint.gov
In OTL, American multi-millionaires started their fortunes in things from timber and coal to steel manufacturing and oil prospecting. So, could we see black millionaires and their potential dynasties similar to the Astors and the Rockefellers. Also, to see if a gilded age does occur ITTL...
www.archives.gov
That and other measures were repealed in the early 1870s
I am interested in seeing if the black population will concentrate the most in the South due to the revised version of Reconstruction or if numbers will travel to other parts of the US due to factors such as economic opportunities. I would think that the blacks will be far less limited in such choices, especially...
The Last Great Gold Rush | HISTORY
In the late 1890s, some 100,000 would-be prospectors journeyed to the remote Yukon region of Canada as part of one of the largest gold rushes in history.
www.history.com
The History of the Carson City Mint | U.S. Mint
The Carson City Mint was established by Congress on March 3, 1863, to serve the coinage needs of the Comstock Lode, the largest silver strike in the Nation's history.
www.usmint.gov
Income Tax Records of the Civil War Years
Winter 1986, Vol. 18, No. 4 | Genealogy Notes By Cynthia G. Fox Ask any adult American the significance of April 15th and the response will almost always be, "income tax." April 15th is a magic date, the last date that can appear on the outside of the envelope we mail to some remote tax center...
www.archives.gov
It’s not about being kinder or gentler. It’s just the fact that a more egalitarian US rule would most likely be better than the Spanish. Unlike the Spanish, they’d have at least SOME sympathies for Cubans. Now granted it’s still imperialism which is objectively awful, and Cubans would be seen as lesser than “real” Americans. It’s just that it’s slightly less awful than being under Spanish, French, or British rule.
Also, even though Red rightly hates imperialism, realistically there is no way in hell the US would give up an annexed Cuba. The cash crops and it’s prime location as the headquarters for Atlantic naval fleets would just be to valuable. Most likely Cuba would end up in the same position as OTL’s Puerto Rico.