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?
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.Yes, I really liked how you built the picture of her growing up in a very different South! Not completely devoid of racism, but one where seeing Black people working with dignity and bad memories of the Junta and the planters all shape the new generation into a more accepting outlook.
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.I didn't specify it, but I imagined that the US, with less tolerance towards the Junta, would declare all those who were still helping the Junta to be pirates and threaten to hang them as such. With the Confederacy already executing or starving Union soldiers left and right, earlier qualms would go right out of the window. I imagine the crew of some raiders arriving at Britain for a nasty surprise: "What do you mean Lee is dead? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BRECKINRIDGE WAS EXECUTED?"
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.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?
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.Some funny idea. How about James Longstreet convert to Islam when he is on the Ottoman Empire and establish the first mosque in the south, promote integration by being Imam to multicultural congregation. Also can't Sumner be Grant running mate in 1868 ITTL? or how about Sumner run and become president ITTL?
Does that mean that America might actually be slightly more imperialistic ITTL? I could see Cuba getting the Puerto Rico treatment, for instance.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.
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.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.
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.Does that mean that America might actually be slightly more imperialistic ITTL? I could see Cuba getting the Puerto Rico treatment, for instance.
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.
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! 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.
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.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.
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! 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.
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.In terms of Spain. There is a fine line between making Spain have a worse 19th century and a Vlad Tepes award...
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.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.
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.
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.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.