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 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 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
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...
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
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.