Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

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?"
I personally believe that only the captains of those ships would face the hangman's noose.
 
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.
Looking Forward: A Dream of the United States of the Americas in 1999

Spain attacked Morocco using airships and the United States leading the equivalent(?) of the LoN completely depopulated Spain for it.
And basically the problem of Racism in the south was basically solved by shipping all of the Negros to land reserved for them in Venezuela (after the USA had brought the *entire* western hemisphere into itself)
 
Looking Forward: A Dream of the United States of the Americas in 1999

Spain attacked Morocco using airships and the United States leading the equivalent(?) of the LoN completely depopulated Spain for it.
And basically the problem of Racism in the south was basically solved by shipping all of the Negros to land reserved for them in Venezuela (after the USA had brought the *entire* western hemisphere into itself)
THANK YOU. Holy cow would B_Munro have fun with that setting.
 
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?
Probably, but in that "we actually uplift our colored people into civilization, see our Blacks!" way. In other words, the US probably would criticize European imperialism not based on imperialism itself being fundamentally wrong (which it is) but in how Europeans are doing it wrong, whereas the enlightened and better Americans are in fact bringing civilization instead of merely claiming to do so.

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.
Thank you! Maybe I'll do in a future a series of profiles of alt-media within TTL, and I'll be sure to include yours! Hell, have we got enough material and interest here for a dedicated thread of media within this universe?

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.
One interesting consequence for international law is that, by making a distinction between Breckinridge and the Junta, the Union might have unwittingly created a distinction between a "legitimate" rebellion and an illegitimate one, where the only possible difference is whether it adheres to the still ill-defined laws of war.

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, if anything I could see greater enthusiasm for American imperialism, and Black equality to be reframed as a successful example of the White man's Burden: "see! we freed and taught them and now they are model citizens! Wouldn't it be great if we did that to Cuba or the Philippines?"

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.
Be assured, I'm planning a whole host of economic reforms. The South will receive the first "stimulus" package in history ITTL as the Federal government will be pushed both by a stronger activist state and the even more disastrous situation to build schools, railroads, industry, hospitals, and maintaining a large and expanded bureaucracy. This alongside true land reform and egalitarian laws will make the South flourish in due time.

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.
...The Congo?

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.
I'd prefer a model of indirect control like the one applied in OTL in Cuba, where the US gets commercial dominance and ports but otherwise doesn't directly manage the internal affairs of those countries. Mostly because I hate, hate American imperialism and just refuse to portray it being successful here, but also because IOTL the debates over Dominican annexation actually helped revitalize American racism as Americans, even supposed progressives, shuddered at the idea of including Catholic mestizos in their country.

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.
Exactly. I feel that even if, on some level, this US would be better than other Empires, to portray it as successfully improving its subjects' lives and to say those subjects come to love the oh-so-good Americans would have bad implications and run against the central idealism I've built the TL around.

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.
I've been analyzing my options there. One idea I've had is for a much stronger Freedman's Bank, perhaps also some sort of Southern Unionist Bank, backed by Federal money and with the purpose of extending credit to those who stood with the Union during the war. Greater political stability, a more active National State, and land redistribution all should also result in opportunities for earlier mechanization.

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
The thread also has a bad tendency to be derailed by that topic, which has come up several times already.

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...
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...
That and other measures were repealed in the early 1870s
Well, as @DanMcCollum pointed out, many Southern Black people did not migrate initially because they couldn't afford to. This more established Black community probably will be able to send its sons earlier to such ventures and to the West. Eventually, yeah, we'll also see Black millionaires and robber barons. Some sort of Gilded Age is probably unavoidable, but diversity win! The oligarch oppressing the workers and calling in militias to massacre them is Black!

Taxes will be a headache. Modern taxation is a borderline arcane art. Historical taxation? God...

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.
I'm sorry, I refuse. I'll find the way, but I refuse to portray American imperialism being good for any people, especially Latin American people. It's contrary to the spirit of my story, it's contrary to the true nature of imperialism, it's contrary to my own values. When US imperialism has killed and disappeared thousands of my Latin American brothers, I just can't stand to write it as something good.

I personally believe that only the captains of those ships would face the hangman's noose.
In practice, yes. That's why I said "threatened." To offer them (and guerrilla bands) to survive if they surrender at once but threaten them with execution if they don't, would create effective pressure on the leaders to give up the struggle, even if this offer is not extended to them. They would risk mutiny if they don't agree.
 
Probably, but in that "we actually uplift our colored people into civilization, see our Blacks!" way. In other words, the US probably would criticize European imperialism not based on imperialism itself being fundamentally wrong (which it is) but in how Europeans are doing it wrong, whereas the enlightened and better Americans are in fact bringing civilization instead of merely claiming to do so.
Eh, the US actually did have a fairly good anti imperialist tradition, which definitely colored how we percived the Brits and French. Granted, we had a strong imperialist tradition, and even the anti imperialists generally had little problem with Monroe Doctrine stuff, but the official “We now have planted a flag and own this country” stuff would be in for condemnation.
 
I'd prefer a model of indirect control like the one applied in OTL in Cuba, where the US gets commercial dominance and ports but otherwise doesn't directly manage the internal affairs of those countries. Mostly because I hate, hate American imperialism and just refuse to portray it being successful here, but also because IOTL the debates over Dominican annexation actually helped revitalize American racism as Americans, even supposed progressives, shuddered at the idea of including Catholic mestizos in their country.
I can definitely see this being the case. Maybe you could go farther with this, like American buissness’s completely dominate the local economy and Cubans are used as cheap labor during the Gilded Age. Well…cheaper labor. Maybe the US could station military bases there as a subtle reminder that “We’re the ones who really rule you. Don’t get any ideas.”

I'm sorry, I refuse. I'll find the way, but I refuse to portray American imperialism being good for any people, especially Latin American people. It's contrary to the spirit of my story, it's contrary to the true nature of imperialism, it's contrary to my own values. When US imperialism has killed and disappeared thousands of my Latin American brothers, I just can't stand to write it as something good.
Ah, I think you‘ve misunderstood. I’m not saying it will be good. It’s still imperialism which is completely abhorrent. I’m just saying that the US will be slightly less terrible than Spain. It will not be good for Cubans, but Spanish rule would be slightly worse which definitely isn’t saying much. Imperialism is god awful in all forms.
 
Last edited:
The thread also has a bad tendency to be derailed by that topic, which has come up several times already.
just trying to remind people of your preference, granted I do love me some expansionist USA timelines. However I know it is not every enjoys what I like and try to respect people's preferences in their timelines and stories
 
Last edited:
Ah, I think you‘ve misunderstood. I’m not saying it will be good. It’s still imperialism which is completely abhorrent. I’m just saying that the US will be slightly less terrible than Spain. It will not be good for Cubans, but Spanish rule would be slightly worse which definitely isn’t saying much. Imperialism is god awful in all forms.

Mate, I don't think you mean anything by this, but your statement is true- but also meaningless and sort of offensive.

Look at it this way- if you insisted on explaining to a Māori poster that you're not saying British colonisation was good, it was awful, but it was certainly better than if Aotearoa had been French- or if you felt like explaining to a Korean poster that Japanese imperialism was terrible, certainly, but hey, it could have been Russian... do you think you'd be a little tone deaf?

Perhaps there are more productive uses of your time than to keep noting to a Latin American that there were other powers who brutally exploited the region and some of them could have been worse.
 
Mate, I don't think you mean anything by this, but your statement is true- but also meaningless and sort of offensive.

Look at it this way- if you insisted on explaining to a Māori poster that you're not saying British colonisation was good, it was awful, but it was certainly better than if Aotearoa had been French- or if you felt like explaining to a Korean poster that Japanese imperialism was terrible, certainly, but hey, it could have been Russian... do you think you'd be a little tone deaf?

Perhaps there are more productive uses of your time than to keep noting to a Latin American that there were other powers who brutally exploited the region and some of them could have been worse.
I don’t think I’m wording my replies correctly. Me saying “the US would be slightly less terrible masters than Spain” is like saying “my mom physically and emotionally abused me, while my dad ““only”” physically abused me.” Like, yeah your dad may not have emotionally abused you, but it’s still child abuse which doesn’t make it any better. You think i'm saying “Aw shucks aren’t Cubans lucky they where ruled by the US and not Spain.” when I’m really saying that while slightly less awful, that doesn’t make it better in any way, shape, or form.

In this hypothetical US-controlled Cuba, sure you might not see a few of the policies that where enacted by European colonial powers, but that doesn’t matter at all. It’s still imperialism. It’s still putting innocent people under the boot heel of oppression. It’s still either directly or indirectly killing thousands of Latin Americans. It’s still robbing them of their right to self-determination. The belief of Cuban independence would be crushed until, after a few generations, it would explode in popularity and the US will get it’s just deserts.

Hopefully, outside of far-right nut jobs, the average American and historian would not even see the difference. The crimes of US imperialism would be painted with the same brush as the horrors of European Colonialism, both equally abhorrent.

We are on the same side here, and to say that it’s meaningless is wrong. US policies and viewpoints of Imperialism being slightly different gives both a subtle comparison to Europe, and a representation of “Hey we have true equal rights unlike most backwards nations. Oh Cuba? Nah they don’t count. They might be people but they aren’t people.” It shows that while the US might be on the path to a future of true egalitarianism they still made terrible mistakes to put it lightly.

With that I’m shutting this convo down. I still want to see whatever replies y’all have, but I won’t be responding. Not because I’m mad or anything. In fact, I thoroughly enjoy this kind of conversation. I just want to avoid derailing this thread any further.

And Red, this story was incredible and once it’s published I will be buying a physical copy. I cant wait to see what else you have in store.
 
Last edited:
One interesting consequence for international law is that, by making a distinction between Breckinridge and the Junta, the Union might have unwittingly created a distinction between a "legitimate" rebellion and an illegitimate one, where the only possible difference is whether it adheres to the still ill-defined laws of war.
Speaking of which, that could have some interesting implications on international laws and how they apply to civil wars and other intra-state conflicts as, technically, the Geneva Conventions only apply to inter-state conflicts.
 
A Georgist President... and not just anyone, but the Henry George. Very intriguing, very intriguing...
With the way things are going, there seems to be a pretty good setup for this to happen. One, with Tammany Hall crushed and the upcoming period of Republican dominance, if George where to run for mayor of New York, he'd only be challenging one major party machine and uniting the scattered opposition will be much easier especially since there won't be a Democratic machine competing for the Catholic and immigrant vote. Two, with said Republican dominance, it will be go time for tarriffs and protectionism with no Cleveland interlude so the Georgist position on free trade becomes a plus when protectionsim takes part of the heat for an economic downturn. Three, since uniting a scattered opposition is what will be needed to finally topple the Republicans from power in D.C., a famous author that got over a hundred thousand people to show up to their funeral in OTL sounds like just the guy to do it. Plus the South's economic redevelopment could serve as an example of the trends outlined in Progress and Poverty, which adds to George's credibility

On the imperialism issue, longterm what's needed is another country in the Americas reaching the point where they are somewhat of a peer to the United States which lets smaller countries have the chance to play the two great powers off each other. The most likely way to get better behavior is being forced by practical reasons.
 
On the imperialism issue, longterm what's needed is another country in the Americas reaching the point where they are somewhat of a peer to the United States which lets smaller countries have the chance to play the two great powers off each other. The most likely way to get better behavior is being forced by practical reasons.
Argentina or Brazil doing better than OTL when, especially as Argentina had a lot of potential and some of the best geography in the world if you want to forge a great power.
 
Last edited:
I've been analyzing my options there. One idea I've had is for a much stronger Freedman's Bank, perhaps also some sort of Southern Unionist Bank, backed by Federal money and with the purpose of extending credit to those who stood with the Union during the war. Greater political stability, a more active National State, and land redistribution all should also result in opportunities for earlier mechanization.
My thoughts on the proposals: the Freedman's Bank was a savings bank IOTL. The savings bank was a new philanthropic banking model that was beginning to pop up in the Northeast. The key difference was that these banks were not allowed to invest in anything except safe government securities unlike commercial banks - it was basically one giant glorified piggy bank. This banking model was meant to teach "working men" the lessons of "thrift, industry and care for the future". On one hand, had the Freedman's Bank remained a savings bank, it would have avoided the Panic of 1873. On the other hand, because it could not lend to the black community & anyone outside the government, it really did not grow the wealth of the black community and the New South in general. Moreover, the Freedman's Bank needed to open multiple branches to actually serve the black community in the South and given the general poverty of a people that just left slavery, a lot of these branches were loss making as the deposits gathered were insufficient to cover admin costs.

The downfall of the Freedman's Bank lied in its lack of oversight by anyone. When the bank managers came to ask Congress to amend its charter to effectively become a commercial bank, people like John W. Alvord and Charles Sumner gave it their backing, still believing that it was done in the interest of the black community. Ironically, Simon Cameron, the corrupt Secretary of War Stanton replaced during the ACW, was the only voice of dissent, condemning speculating with the savings of the black community. Takes one to know one I guess. Immediately, the savings were used for reckless speculation and none of the trustees noticed it because they were too ignorant or did not care.

The best solution is probably to alter the bank's charter. First and foremost, the charter should have required direct investment in the bank from the directors and penal clauses to align their incentives with the depositors. This was already standard in the national banks. Second, the bank's charter should have subjected it to the authority of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) rather than Congress. The OCC were actually responsible for supervising national banks. Third, if it were to become a commercial bank, the bank charter should be more explicit about the allocation of the deposit funds, giving the directors less discretionary power and perhaps more directed to the South itself. Fourth, have actual competent staff in the bank. Supposedly, the staff there were not picked for their accounting skills and were paid less than a school teacher.

As for the idea of a Southern Unionist bank, the organization ought to be similar to the Freedman's Bureau since it will have to branch across states, which IIRC was not possible at the time outside of the Freedman's Bank. I'll have to do some more research as to how it could affect credit scarcity within the South but I could see it being made a commercial bank from the get go and contributing to early industrial projects in the South.
 
On the imperialism issue, longterm what's needed is another country in the Americas reaching the point where they are somewhat of a peer to the United States which lets smaller countries have the chance to play the two great powers off each other. The most likely way to get better behavior is being forced by practical reasons.

Argentina or Brazil doing better than OTL when, especially as Argentina had a lot of potential and some of the best geography in the world if you want to forge a great power.
The issue of them being a peer of the US is that even with the casualties of the civil war TTL they're still way behind it on population. Brazil is the second largest population in the Americas right now and it's still 20 million short of the US. Argentina is only at around 1.5 million people currently. There's also the fact that the economic and religious factors that made the US the preferred immigration destination will still be in play. If you really want the US to have a peer power in South America you're really gonna need someone coming to power that starts some pan-Latin Americanism movement that takes off more than wildfire.
 
You know OTL, Woodrow Wilson’s first memory was Jefferson Davis riding on horseback through Virginia. I have to wonder if TTL Wilson (if he even exists) might have a more… traumatizing memory of Breckinridge’s execution?
 
You know OTL, Woodrow Wilson’s first memory was Jefferson Davis riding on horseback through Virginia. I have to wonder if TTL Wilson (if he even exists) might have a more… traumatizing memory of Breckinridge’s execution
That is a good question but at the end of the day it might not matter.
 
Looking Forward: A Dream of the United States of the Americas in 1999

Spain attacked Morocco using airships and the United States leading the equivalent(?) of the LoN completely depopulated Spain for it.
And basically the problem of Racism in the south was basically solved by shipping all of the Negros to land reserved for them in Venezuela (after the USA had brought the *entire* western hemisphere into itself)
lol at how Texas is carefully partitioned but all of Brazil is just wadded together into one state; there's actually lots of barmy invasion-and-vengeance fantasies popping up at this time (NYC gets shelled by the dastardly Spaniard, NYC gets shelled by Perfidious Albion, NYC gets shelled by moustache-twirling Krauts, cheering Europeans hoist the flag over the seats of evil on Earth (Moscow, Rome, and Vienna)): one fantasy reaches 185 states
 
Top