Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)

[Aged_Urbanist]

We've gotten the general feeling that Long will put Humpty Dumpty *somewhat* back together again. The best comparison that I can make is that Long's Presidency will be the equivalent of OTL's Chiang Kai Shek and his Northern Expedition, ending the warlord era and at least getting some level of national Unity.

Yes, I know in that Analogy, the United States is playing the part of Japan and Texas/Oklahoma are *sort of* playing the role Manchuria. (Is Mexico playing the part of Korea or the USSR?) and I feel like we'll have lots of equivalents to the Marco Polo bridge incident.

Doubt it.

Long can only put things back together on American sufferance. That means that he’ll be required to demonstrate at every turn that he understands the United States is henceforth the undisputed master of the continent and his vague gluing of the CSA either aids or at least doesn’t hinder American supremacy.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Doubt it.

Long can only put things back together on American sufferance. That means that he’ll be required to demonstrate at every turn that he understands the United States is henceforth the undisputed master of the continent and his vague gluing of the CSA either aids or at least doesn’t hinder American supremacy.

Remember that, no matter how much the US wants to punish the Confederacy, they are also not going to want the CSA becoming a failed state on their borders (the refugee problems that would create would be a nightmare. And that's not even getting into ambitious warlords/'freedom fighters' leading raids across the US border to punish the Yanks, the economic toll or any other nightmare scenario)

Long will be able to put things back together, because they NEED to come back together. And the US will likely turn a blind eye to some posturing by ol Huey (and perhaps even a well timed refusal or three to toe the line) because he's providing them what they really want: security and stability on the Southside of the Ohio.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Remember that, no matter how much the US wants to punish the Confederacy, they are also not going to want the CSA becoming a failed state on their borders (the refugee problems that would create would be a nightmare. And that's not even getting into ambitious warlords/'freedom fighters' leading raids across the US border to punish the Yanks, the economic toll or any other nightmare scenario)

Long will be able to put things back together, because they NEED to come back together. And the US will likely turn a blind eye to some posturing by ol Huey (and perhaps even a well timed refusal or three to toe the line) because he's providing them what they really want: security and stability on the Southside of the Ohio.

Easy way for Huey to get a bit of legitimacy from the average Confederate is to negotiate a (slightly) better deal from the Americans. Something small and not really important (maybe the max army size is now 30,000 instead of 25,000? Maybe there can now be a small token tariff on "finished and industrial goods" sold in the CSA?) that Huey can trumpet as a success to his constituents.

The Americans get a country that's somewhat more stable (can't sell stuff if no one south of the Ohio/Rappahannock has money to buy anything) and the CSA gets somewhat better treaty terms. Win-win!

 

[fernerdave]

Let’s say no, since sans a South still in the US they may simply elide something like that as a concern

I don't know, I'd think that the lure of cheap labor might be too great. Though I do like the idea of a 13th without it.

 

[Mayukh]

The American Army won't leave each CSA state until that state passes a law to abolish slavery.
The American Army won't leave the CSA as a whole until the CSA amends their constitution to "protect the rights and privileges of all persons born free."

What if Confedrates think"Its better to be eternally occupied by the Yankees than to abolish slavery. The damnyankees will have to retreat one day or the other due to our superior guerilla tactics." Then what?

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

What if Confedrates think"Its better to be eternally occupied by the Yankees than to abolish slavery. The damnyankees will have to retreat one day or the other due to our superior guerilla tactics." Then what?

Is this the point that you start TL-191ing with "killing civilian every time a confederate guerilla kills a US soldier?" thing?

 

[ChrisTheCat]

What if Confedrates think"Its better to be eternally occupied by the Yankees than to abolish slavery. The damnyankees will have to retreat one day or the other due to our superior guerilla tactics." Then what?

I suppose then it's an issue of will. Who would last longer: US voters and politicians wanting the end of slavery, or Confederate civilians being brutalised under military occupation after having already suffered for years?

 

[JustInThePhilippines]

Long can only put things back together on American sufferance. That means that he’ll be required to demonstrate at every turn that he understands the United States is henceforth the undisputed master of the continent and his vague gluing of the CSA either aids or at least doesn’t hinder American supremacy.

Yes and No. Long is not going to plot a war of vengeance on the US for the GAW but, I don't think he's just roll around and suck it. He's a populist and a population that just experienced the most apocalyptic war so far and it's brutal aftermath probably wants a guy to stand up for them instead of being a leash to the yankee like the conservative redeemers before him, probably going to do some provocative things to please the masses but stop short of war

Also, the US President at the first years of the Long Administration is JOHN PERSING for crying out loud. The guy who burned their cities and towns to the ground. The CS-US relations in the 30s is going to be US- Soviet 1960s OTL levels of cold. Because of Pershing and Long's Nationalistic Policy.

 

[JustInThePhilippines]

I suppose then it's an issue of will. Who would last longer: US voters and politicians wanting the end of slavery, or Confederate civilians being brutalised under military occupation after having already suffered for years?

I don't think terror attacks and news of soldiers getting killed by paramilitaries is good for the Americans

 

[1962strat]

I was thinking that between the Nicaragua Canal and the territorial changes in the Cone, USA and allies now control both crossings between the Pacific and Atlantic, which means that Britain's 3 Capes policy is effectively dead in another failure of British foreign policy. Wonder what is the reaction back in London...

 

[KingSweden24]

A shower thought... I believe that the total land that the United States is occupying after this war is greater than that the total land area that the Entente had to occupy after World War I *and* the total land area that the Allies had to Occupy after World War II. (and yes, I know that double counts areas of Germany and Austria.)

That’s probably accurate

Of course, no problem at all to put that together. Thanks for the threadmark - that's how you know I've officially made it here haha

I wonder who is better off by most economic indicators ITTL in 2023 - Chile or the CSA. Both countries got devastated in the GAW, both lost highly productive lands, both are paying ruinous reparations, both have their economies gutted to benefit the USA, both are in for a rough time post-war until things settle down.

If I had to guess I'd say Chile and I don't think it is particularly close. Chile is miles behind OTL but at least it looks like they have somewhat stable political leadership and some sense of national cohesion once the Socialist Republic gets up and running. The CSA's political leadership is, at best, a collection of corrupt men who use the organs of state to further themselves and their cronies at the expense of the common people. American Presidents haven't all been great but even the worst of them (Hendricks, Hill, Root) would be upper echelon Presidents of the CSA given the warlords and caudillos coming down the pipeline.

To be honest I haven’t quite gotten my arms around Chile’s HDI/GDP by present day (the copper and gold fields remain largely within TTL post-Lima borders even if the nitrates/lithium don’t), but Chile has a number of postwar advantages CSA does not - for one, they’re much further from the United States, and the generation of Naval officers who were itching for revenge for 1885 will be retiring soon-ish - Chile chose basically the worst possible 5 year window to have that war.

Doubt it.

Long can only put things back together on American sufferance. That means that he’ll be required to demonstrate at every turn that he understands the United States is henceforth the undisputed master of the continent and his vague gluing of the CSA either aids or at least doesn’t hinder American supremacy.

To an extent, sure.

Remember that, no matter how much the US wants to punish the Confederacy, they are also not going to want the CSA becoming a failed state on their borders (the refugee problems that would create would be a nightmare. And that's not even getting into ambitious warlords/'freedom fighters' leading raids across the US border to punish the Yanks, the economic toll or any other nightmare scenario)

Long will be able to put things back together, because they NEED to come back together. And the US will likely turn a blind eye to some posturing by ol Huey (and perhaps even a well timed refusal or three to toe the line) because he's providing them what they really want: security and stability on the Southside of the Ohio.

That being said, Long would get pretty irritating pretty fast every time he starts making noises that potentially reverberate outside the CS borders

I don't know, I'd think that the lure of cheap labor might be too great. Though I do like the idea of a 13th without it.

As do I. It’s not like prison labor couldn’t be a thing otherwise; just make a law exempting prisoners from minimum wage or whatever.

What if Confedrates think"Its better to be eternally occupied by the Yankees than to abolish slavery. The damnyankees will have to retreat one day or the other due to our superior guerilla tactics." Then what?

Then things get very, very ugly.

Or, slavery is “abolished.” See: OTL sharecropping.

Is this the point that you start TL-191ing with "killing civilian every time a confederate guerilla kills a US soldier?" thing?

Company R did so in Maryland; the US might not institutionalize such practices but turn a blind eye

I suppose then it's an issue of will. Who would last longer: US voters and politicians wanting the end of slavery, or Confederate civilians being brutalised under military occupation after having already suffered for years?

I know what I think would happen, and it wouldn’t be pretty

Yes and No. Long is not going to plot a war of vengeance on the US for the GAW but, I don't think he's just roll around and suck it. He's a populist and a population that just experienced the most apocalyptic war so far and it's brutal aftermath probably wants a guy to stand up for them instead of being a leash to the yankee like the conservative redeemers before him, probably going to do some provocative things to please the masses but stop short of war

Also, the US President at the first years of the Long Administration is JOHN PERSING for crying out loud. The guy who burned their cities and towns to the ground. The CS-US relations in the 30s is going to be US- Soviet 1960s OTL levels of cold. Because of Pershing and Long's Nationalistic Policy.

Long would probably try to wait out Pershing specifically if he can, tbh, before doing anything super provocative

I don't think terror attacks and news of soldiers getting killed by paramilitaries is good for the Americans

Agreed

I was thinking that between the Nicaragua Canal and the territorial changes in the Cone, USA and allies now control both crossings between the Pacific and Atlantic, which means that Britain's 3 Capes policy is effectively dead in another failure of British foreign policy. Wonder what is the reaction back in London...

Good question!

I’d say that by 1917 the Three Capes Policy is probably long dead and buried as an explicit strategic concept. Nicaragua already basically made it obsolete and the British had a decade or more to prepare for that. Their acquiescence to the Canal, to me, is essentially an abandonment of the 3 Capes even if just de facto.

Britain has good relations with Argentina anyways (they were an honorary Commonwealth member in practice in the early 20th after all) so Cape Horn is not in enemy/rival hands, which is really what 3 Capes was about (read: French, Russian or German possession)

 

[naraht]

That’s probably accurate

To be honest I haven’t quite gotten my arms around Chile’s HDI/GDP by present day (the copper and gold fields remain largely within TTL post-Lima borders even if the nitrates/lithium don’t), but Chile has a number of postwar advantages CSA does not - for one, they’re much further from the United States, and the generation of Naval officers who were itching for revenge for 1885 will be retiring soon-ish - Chile chose basically the worst possible 5 year window to have that war.

To an extent, sure.

That being said, Long would get pretty irritating pretty fast every time he starts making noises that potentially reverberate outside the CS borders

As do I. It’s not like prison labor couldn’t be a thing otherwise; just make a law exempting prisoners from minimum wage or whatever.

Then things get very, very ugly.

Or, slavery is “abolished.” See: OTL sharecropping.

Company R did so in Maryland; the US might not institutionalize such practices but turn a blind eye

I know what I think would happen, and it wouldn’t be pretty

Long would probably try to wait out Pershing specifically if he can, tbh, before doing anything super provocative


Agreed

Good question!

I’d say that by 1917 the Three Capes Policy is probably long dead and buried as an explicit strategic concept. Nicaragua already basically made it obsolete and the British had a decade or more to prepare for that. Their acquiescence to the Canal, to me, is essentially an abandonment of the 3 Capes even if just de facto.

Britain has good relations with Argentina anyways (they were an honorary Commonwealth member in practice in the early 20th after all) so Cape Horn is not in enemy/rival hands, which is really what 3 Capes was about (read: French, Russian or German possession)

Responses on a few points here. I'm not quite sure where the Author has Chile going in terms of OTL. Socialism. Are we talking (in order from least to most) Sweden, Yugoslavia, 1990s China, 1970s China or North Korea. To put it another way, will a family be able to own a Grocery (and the store it is in), buy fish from fishermen, fruit from Farmers (on their own land) and sell to their neighbors.

Will the US have the political will to deploy troops if something in the treaty (like Confederate military Planes) isn't followed? (of course assuming they can *find* them

How long will Long live, I think we've had other people live longer than they did iOTL if they were assassinated. (Live Long and Prosper???)


I regards to the UK. and the Cape, I don't think UK relations with Chile here will matter. From the Author's other comments including the Political move Right in Brazil. I expect that of the countries physically closer to Chile than Colombia, that they will get along best with Ecuador, Paraguay and Argentina in some order. (I think the Chileans view the Peruvians and Bolivians as subhuman). So as long as the UK doesn't go all in with Friendship with Brazil (which I don't think they will), the Argentines will be friendly. Also, the Argentines were beat down enough even though they were on the winning side, I can't see them making waves over the Malvinas Islands for at *least* a decade.

The ban on Airplanes and Tanks in the Confederate Military basically keeps the Confederate Military at a tech level that the Black Controlled areas will be to match for *quite* some time. Not sure that was intended by the USA, though.

 

[HonestAbe1809]

I’m thinking that over the course of the chaos in the Confederacy the FCK would slowly transform from an ill-defined quasi-government to an actual nation. Especially if the chaos south of the Kentucky border were to effectively prevent the Kentucky “state-government-in-exile” from returning. Between America’s apathy and the Confederacy naturally turning inward Kentucky would have to fend for themselves. They have the resources needed to help set up an economy of their own. Not to say that the Confederacy would like it. They’d probably keep the Kentucky government-in-exile going right up until the last “legitimate” governor keels over.

Was the Canadian government made as Orange as possible to justify a landslide at the inevitable Quebec independence referendum? Especially if Les Troubles are as harrowing as they sound.

 

[naraht]

I’m thinking that over the course of the chaos in the Confederacy the FCK would slowly transform from an ill-defined quasi-government to an actual nation. Especially if the chaos south of the Kentucky border were to effectively prevent the Kentucky “state-government-in-exile” from returning. Between America’s apathy and the Confederacy naturally turning inward Kentucky would have to fend for themselves. They have the resources needed to help set up an economy of their own. Not to say that the Confederacy would like it. They’d probably keep the Kentucky government-in-exile going right up until the last “legitimate” governor keels over.

Was the Canadian government made as Orange as possible to justify a landslide at the inevitable Quebec independence referendum? Especially if Les Troubles are as harrowing as they sound.

The areas that the state-government-in-exile is likely to return to is the area along the Virginia border. The US never conquered that corner of the state (up in the Appalachians), and it likely had a *very* low Negro population in the first place. Think of it as the uno-reverse area of OTL West Virginia.

 

[1962strat]

Britain has good relations with Argentina anyways (they were an honorary Commonwealth member in practice in the early 20th after all)

The success of the revolution in Argentina probably affected that, tho. The relationship between Britain and Argentina was indeed very good, but it was based on a quasi-neocolonial model, with Britain all but controlling the economy. They made up large part of the exports, and had a near monopoly on investment, primarily in infrastructure for export and export related industries.

This state of affairs was held up in Argentina mainly by the landowner elites that dominated the country around that time, and while it led to some of the most prosperous times of the country, it wasn’t adaptable and made Argentina overtly dependent on Britain, as well as stunted industrial growth. Indeed, when the Great Depression came and Britain closed off the empire to imports, Argentina was supremely fucked, and had to scramble to sign an extremely lopsided treaty to get a market from the exports. This was, btw, the moment in which many of the problems that plagued Argentina for the rest of the century started.

Anyways, enough context and back to ITTL, Alem and Co. would’ve likely aimed for a different model that would’ve come into conflict with British dominance, favoring industrialization over export-oriented economy. The alignment of Argentina with America would also play a part, since it would’ve likely also involved an introduction of American investment to compete with Britain’s. Even more post-war, I’d say, since USA would probably be sure to keep their only real ally, from both an ideological and political perspective, strong and in their camp.

So by the time of the war, while Britain would likely still enjoy a fairly good relationship with Argentina and would still take a substantial amount of their exports, the picture that London would probably get is of a country slipping further and further away from their control, and not someone they can freely trust.

 

[Reisen Storm]

Are we talking (in order from least to most) Sweden, Yugoslavia, 1990s China, 1970s China or North Korea. To put it another way, will a family be able to own a Grocery (and the store it is in), buy fish from fishermen, fruit from Farmers (on their own land) and sell to their neighbors.

Sounds like revisionist talk. Hopefully, Chile will be more like the USSR in the 1930's and put an end of such reactionary thoughts.

 

[Gman]

Sounds like revisionist talk. Hopefully, Chile will be more like the USSR in the 1930's and put an end of such reactionary thoughts.

Comrade, embrace market socialism and the New Economic Plan and turn your thoughts away from a command economy. Syndicalism is in vogue and we cannot let a dictatorship of the proletariat arise and consolidate a new class of bureaucratic-imperialist apparatchiks over the honest working man and woman.

 

[Reisen Storm]

Comrade, embrace market socialism and the New Economic Plan and turn your thoughts away from a command economy.

Market Socialism and the New Economic Plan only serves to destroy the first, and perhaps the only, Workers' Revolution of the world. Chile would best serve under a five-year plan for the development of the national economy.

Syndicalism is in vogue and we cannot let a dictatorship of the proletariat arise and consolidate a new class of bureaucratic-imperialist apparatchiks over the honest working man and woman.

This is why Chile needs a vanguard party to politically lead the proletariat in revolution.

 

[Ggddaano]

Yes and No. Long is not going to plot a war of vengeance on the US for the GAW but, I don't think he's just roll around and suck it. He's a populist and a population that just experienced the most apocalyptic war so far and it's brutal aftermath probably wants a guy to stand up for them instead of being a leash to the yankee like the conservative redeemers before him, probably going to do some provocative things to please the masses but stop short of war

Also, the US President at the first years of the Long Administration is JOHN PERSING for crying out loud. The guy who burned their cities and towns to the ground. The CS-US relations in the 30s is going to be US- Soviet 1960s OTL levels of cold. Because of Pershing and Long's Nationalistic Policy.

Random question for the author-will there still be a syndicated radio show in the 1930s called "Amos n' Andy" to give Huey his "Kingfish" nickname? That is where the name comes from, after all-and the chapter book entries on him include that nickname (Every Man A Kingfish). I don't see why radio can't develop along relatively similar lines to OTL, and why some same or similar programming still comes around. You can just do what the show "For All Mankind" does and keep media largely the same despite seismic changes (one of my main beefs with that show, despite its clever programming and unique ways of subverting actual historical events).

 

[Ggddaano]

Random question for the author-will there still be a syndicated radio show in the 1930s called "Amos n' Andy" to give Huey his "Kingfish" nickname? That is where the name comes from, after all-and the chapter book entries on him include that nickname (Every Man A Kingfish). I don't see why radio can't develop along relatively similar lines to OTL, and why some same or similar programming still comes around. You can just do what the show "For All Mankind" does and keep media largely the same despite seismic changes (one of my main beefs with that show, despite its clever programming and unique ways of subverting actual historical events).

Sorry for getting off topic and mentioning that other program. I was just thinking of an example where that happened in an ATL.