Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

If the South Never Joined the US -- A Playthrough

Recommended Posts

I'm kind of surprised @Patine didn't comment on the travel ban and border wall I have constructed under Blaine's presidency to keep Southerners out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm kind of surprised @Patine didn't comment on the travel ban and border wall I have constructed under Blaine's presidency to keep Southerners out. 

Yes, actually, for some reason, I'd made my comments last night after reading Lincoln, and forgot to go back and read Blaine. And that is quite extreme, but I assume the South was doing actions that Blaine at least could have "Trumped up" (pun intended) and exaggerated to justify such actions to the public. But almost employment? I think Krushchev, Ulbrecht, and Hoxha, each achieved that, but no one in history with a market economy I'm aware of. Are you sure that's realistic, especially for the 19th Century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Yes, actually, for some reason, I'd made my comments last night after reading Lincoln, and forgot to go back and read Blaine. And that is quite extreme, but I assume the South was doing actions that Blaine at least could have "Trumped up" (pun intended) and exaggerated to justify such actions to the public. But almost employment? I think Krushchev, Ulbrecht, and Hoxha, each achieved that, but no one in history with a market economy I'm aware of. Are you sure that's realistic, especially for the 19th Century?

I'm not quite sure. I'm pretty sure my alternative history will in some ways be unrealistic. I'm just trying to take into account that I think America would progress much faster without the South, and quickly outpace the world economically and socially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15. Robert Todd Lincoln (NY), Federalist, (1893-1897)

Lincoln, the son of Abraham Lincoln, was the longest-serving VP before entering office. Despite this, he was more of a token politician, and was considerably out of the loop, relegated only to represent the country at ceremonies. As such, the country panicked when this inexperienced and unambitious man took office. Despite Blaine's failing health, Lincoln was never briefed until the day Blaine died. Generally, Lincoln followed the party line, even breaking with Blaine's bipartisan role in supporting the immigration and travel ban, but he did little to prevent it. In 1895, the South emancipated its slaves, and Lincoln urged Congress to relax the immigration ban to allow former slaves to head West to populate the territory and work in the farms and factories. Lincoln's presidency saw a growing concern with pollution and workplace inequality, especially West of the Mississippi. [Note: In this alternative US, almost every yard of earth is covered by factory, farm, commercial business, or residence, excluding parkland. The entire country is heavily industrialized, much more so than the rest of the world combined]. In foreign affairs, European nations, who still colonized South America, were making inroads in Mexican Central America, and aiming for Cuba, which was a state of the Southern United Sates. Despite cries for a defensive policy, or an aggressive military action, Lincoln chose to do nothing, since involvement would mean shifting the budget from domestic polity to military policy. Lincoln's lack of energy during his presidency, stems primarily from his non-desire for being president. He did not address any problems, foreign or domestic. He did not attempt a run for reelection. 

16. Richard P. Bland (MO), Democrat, (1897-1901)

Reacting to European encroachment was the top issue for the election of 1896, and the people narrowly chose not to get involved by electing non-interventionist Richard P. Bland, the first Democratic president in some year. Bland did make a proclamation that he would intervene if any European country aimed for territory in Continental North America from the Yucatan to the border of recently independent Canada. Yet, Bland did not increase the military budget to prepare for an inevitable war. After Spain retook Cuba, the South petition the US for military support in getting it back. Bland refused, but he allowed Southern refugees from Cuba to enter government-prepared sanctuary cities in Montana and Idaho. Bland's main priority was addressing certain inequalities. Under Bland's proposal, a Women's Suffrage bill was brought to Congress for debate, and almost passed the senate. He was successful in establishing a minimum wage, an interest decrease on loans for full-time-working poor, and a reduction of work to 40 hours a week. The US already had the best working conditions in the world, but Bland still improved these. However, his banking policies, which heavily-favored the poor, upset the major financial centers, and his luke-warm attention to European encroachment hurt the stockmarkets, leading to two separate slight and brief economic panics.  While extremely popular among the middle class and poor, the money men in the country compelled Bland not to run for reelection, and offered a military strong man as a compromise for those fearing war, and those still wanting Democratic domestic policies, but on a more moderate scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

Forgive me, but I'm not sure I fully understand what it means, politically and ideologically, to be a "Democrat" in the context of this alternate history and alternate Northern United States. I'm pretty sure I have a very good idea of what a "Federalist," means though. But the lack of a strong "Southern influence" on the opposition party throws for a bit of a loop as to specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar

Forgive me, but I'm not sure I fully understand what it means, politically and ideologically, to be a "Democrat" in the context of this alternate history and alternate Northern United States. I'm pretty sure I have a very good idea of what a "Federalist," means though. But the lack of a strong "Southern influence" on the opposition party throws for a bit of a loop as to specifics.

I have it envisions as such for my scenario: 

Democrats are the more populist, pro-labor party, but also more inclined to emotional reaction, as many populists are. These Democrats oppose investing money on overseas projects (such as wars or other expansion), and favor using money to increase the quality of life, liberty and happiness. Currently, they are more tolerant of immigrants within the country, but they also fear immigrants taking jobs. 

Federalists are much more economically inclined, are more likely to favor measures for the purpose of technological and commercial advancement, regardless of what the workers want; although, they will favor pro-labor legislation that would inevitably lead to greater production and efficiency. Federalists are culturally more conservative, but progressive still. They are more inclined to use the military to protect American interests.  As far as immigration, the richer Federalists love immigrants working for them, but they dislike them for cultural influences. 

Both parties are progressive, overall. Both parties are pro-science and secular, even while much of the population is still religious. Both parties are similar enough that cross over in election is common, and people often vote for the most competent politician, regardless of party, since neither party really neglects any segment of society. Overall, the politics in this alternative US would be rather boring and drama free. I'd imagine there are some colorful 3rd parties, but this US has such high educational standards, and relatively great quality of life that the people are both overwhelmingly rational and knowledgeable and content with their lives. I imagine a US without the South would be somewhat of an economic, social, cultural and intellectual utopia. I expect innovation and progress to occur much faster in the hypothetical world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17. George Dewey (VT), Democrat (1901):

Admiral Dewey, a military strongman in charge of America's navy, was narrowly elected in the election of 1900. He promised to continue Democratic pro-labor laws, but also promised to give national defense more of a focus. However, his complete naivety of politics, legislation, diplomacy meant that VP William Jennings Bryan and Dewey's cabinet were in charge. His presidency saw no real accomplishments in his 8 months in office. Dewey's frustration in getting things done stemmed from his near dictatorial handling of the navy as admiral, an executive leadership style that didn't translate to the presidency. After unilaterally publicly threatening war against any European power entering the Northwestern Hemisphere, much of the cabinet resigned. In his last two months in office, Dewey was not seen, sparking a variety of rumors, until he left the White House, following his resignation letter. His VP Bryan, a non-interventionist, became the next president. Advisers close to Dewey say the former admiral realized he was out of his depth, and missed his maritime profession. 

18. William Jennings Bryan (NE), Democrat (1901-1905):

Bryan succeeded office highly unpopular. He was a non-interventionist in a time when the country was wishing to force Europe out of their sphere of influence. Additionally, he was overtly religious, wanted to bring religion to public schools, and many feared he wanted to erase the clear separation of church and state. On a more harmonious note, Bryan continued the pro-labor policies of the Democratic platform. Bryan's presidency saw a second attempt at Women's Suffrage, which passed a bipartisan congress. Bryan initially threatened not to sign it, as he thought it violated the principles of Christianity, but Democratic Party leaders said that they'd have no choice but to abandon Bryan if he didn't sign the popular law. Bryan signed it in exchange for support for labor laws that seemed radical for the time -- such as minimum healthcare, paid vacation, and equal pay for equal work for Southern emigres, be they black or white. In foreign policy, Bryan reduced the military budget, announced that America would not interfere with the ambitions of other countries unless attacked. As such, European countries, mostly Spain gobbled up the Caribbean and Mexico declared war on France for interfering in their election. Independent Canada allied with Mexico and a North American War was on without US involvement. The South was unable to get involved because of social unrest, impoverishment, culminating in bombings of plantations by poor whites and blacks. The Southern capital of Williamsburg, Virginia was burned, and the Southern president arrested for his own safety. A new provisional government in the South, realizing that they were a failed government hopelessly behind the rest of the Western Hemisphere, immediately petitioned the North to become a part of their country. Bryan opposed the unification, but said he would allow Southerners to work on farms and factories in areas of the country needing more manpower. However, Bryan was not able to veto any unification bill, as it was still being debated in Congress as his term expired. Bryan failed in his attempt to bring religion a larger role in government and in American life. His attempts to do so were unpopular in a very secular United States. He was not even renominated by his party.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

17. George Dewey (VT), Democrat (1901):

Admiral Dewey, a military strongman in charge of America's navy, was narrowly elected in the election of 1900. He promised to continue Democratic pro-labor laws, but also promised to give national defense more of a focus. However, his complete naivety of politics, legislation, diplomacy meant that VP William Jennings Bryan and Dewey's cabinet were in charge. His presidency saw no real accomplishments in his 8 months in office. Dewey's frustration in getting things done stemmed from his near dictatorial handling of the navy as admiral, an executive leadership style that didn't translate to the presidency. After unilaterally publicly threatening war against any European power entering the Northwestern Hemisphere, much of the cabinet resigned. In his last two months in office, Dewey was not seen, sparking a variety of rumors, until he left the White House, following his resignation letter. His VP Bryan, a non-interventionist, became the next president. Advisers close to Dewey say the former admiral realized he was out of his depth, and missed his maritime profession. 

18. William Jennings Bryan (NE), Democrat (1901-1905):

Bryan succeeded office highly unpopular. He was a non-interventionist in a time when the country was wishing to force Europe out of their sphere of influence. Additionally, he was overtly religious, wanted to bring religion to public schools, and many feared he wanted to erase the clear separation of church and state. On a more harmonious note, Bryan continued the pro-labor policies of the Democratic platform. Bryan's presidency saw a second attempt at Women's Suffrage, which passed a bipartisan congress. Bryan initially threatened not to sign it, as he thought it violated the principles of Christianity, but Democratic Party leaders said that they'd have no choice but to abandon Bryan if he didn't sign the popular law. Bryan signed it in exchange for support for labor laws that seemed radical for the time -- such as minimum healthcare, paid vacation, and equal pay for equal work for Southern emigres, be they black or white. In foreign policy, Bryan reduced the military budget, announced that America would not interfere with the ambitions of other countries unless attacked. As such, European countries, mostly Spain gobbled up the Caribbean and Mexico declared war on France for interfering in their election. Independent Canada allied with Mexico and a North American War was on without US involvement. The South was unable to get involved because of social unrest, impoverishment, culminating in bombings of plantations by poor whites and blacks. The Southern capital of Williamsburg, Virginia was burned, and the Southern president arrested for his own safety. A new provisional government in the South, realizing that they were a failed government hopelessly behind the rest of the Western Hemisphere, immediately petitioned the North to become a part of their country. Bryan opposed the unification, but said he would allow Southerners to work on farms and factories in areas of the country needing more manpower. However, Bryan was not able to veto any unification bill, as it was still being debated in Congress as his term expired. Bryan failed in his attempt to bring religion a larger role in government and in American life. His attempts to do so were unpopular in a very secular United States. He was not even renominated by his party.  

Good God, President William Jennings Bryan! The Gabor Vona of American politics! :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...continued

19. Theodore Roosevelt (NY), Federalist, 1905-1919

Roosevelt won a landslide victory in 1904, after several Democratic presidents seemed unwilling to meet the crisis at hand. Roosevelt pledged, as the Democrats did, to be the champion of the workers, and to combat income-gap inequality. However, he broke with Democrats in his insistent of carrying a hard-line policy with Europe. Since America had such a large advantage in manufacturing power and production, they had no end of resources and money in this alternative history, since the workers here are relatively better taken care off, healthier, stronger, happier, better educated, and much more of the country is industrialized. As such, Roosevelt was able to expand his budget further to take care of the needs of both workers and the military, which had been underused, underfunded; although, the ships were top rate in the navy. Roosevelt reached a deal with Congress to allow desperate Southerners to emigrate to the US, gain citizenship, in exchange for service in the US military. By 1912, the US military was 60% foreign born, mostly poor whites from the South. The army increased from a force of 20,000 to 250,000. The navy increased from 22 dreadnoughts to 42 dreadnoughts. Without firing a gun, Roosevelt was able to scare Europe out of the Northwestern Hemisphere. This eventually led to independence movements in the Caribbean, including in Cuba, which had formerly belonged to the South.  Europe's sphere of influence continued in South America, but Europe was on the decline. In fact, America was hyperpower by 1915, and so completely dominated the world's economy, that a large alliance--a United Nations--was forming to predominately to check American dominance. Domestically, Roosevelt decreased the income-gap inequality predominately by making it law that business owners make employees stockholders, profit-share-holders, as well as similar laws, which also bound workers much more loyally to their companies. While many CEOs were initially averse to the measures, they realized that it also had some benefits. Yet, some businesses did move to other countries, the first such instance in US history of emigration; yet, this did not effect the country's economy. In 1912, a petition from the South to join the United States was finally voted on and accepted, provided that Northern companies could modernize and industrialize the territory irregardless of the norms of Southern culture. In effect, make the South Northern. The South narrowly agreed to the provision and rapid modernization and industrialization began in 1914. Protests and violent reaction among small groups of Southerners were quelled only by Southern-born troops and police, under the orders of respected Southern leaders appointed by the North, in accordance to Roosevelt's wishes, to limit anger directed at the North. Robert E. Lee IV, was placed as the administrator of the Southern district, and pacified much of the resistance. Roosevelt, also initiated a policy to encourage Southerners to move North and Northerners to move South to create cultural diffusion, knowing that the North so greatly outnumbered the South that really only the Southern culture would be diluted into oblivion. By 1932, the South seemed as a suburb of the North with only 40% of the population in the South, southern born. The expansion of the US by taking the South scared the United Nations, which created a commercial treaty to trade favorably among themselves, and not purchase American goods when practical. This was called the Quasi-Embargo of 1917. While it did hurt American exports, it also threw the world into a recession. America was so self-sustaining that it was less effected. Thus, many attempted to immigrate to the US for work, but Roosevelt was able to get an immigration ban passed, which would stay in effect until the Quasi-Embargo was lifted. British, German, French, Chinese, and Mexican leadership plotted a potential attack on the US in hopes that severe damage would lead to a balance of power, especially since the US, with very little military experience, was unlikely to be able to defeat a unified world. Much of the world blamed the US economic and financial dominance for impoverishing the rest of the world, since they controlled the world economy. The rough attack plans, which may not have been seriously considered, were leaked, and the US condemned it. Roosevelt was then advised to dilute a possibility of war by leaving the Gold Standard for fiat money, which his economists said could be better manipulated to make the rest of the world less angry. Roosevelt, having just won his 4th term in 1916, and having survived an assassination attempt in 1912, was clearly on the physical decline, despite being in his late 50s. He eventually declined leaving the Gold Standard and ordered a military buildup, but this was never carried out since Roosevelt was found dead in the oval office in early 1919. 

20. Robert La Follette (WI), Federalist/Progessive, 1919-1921

VP La Follette followed Roosevelt into office after the president's death. While ideologically similar on social and domestic issues, he differed in foreign policy. Roosevelt brough the country on the brink of war, and La Follette hoped to end this possibility, even if it cost him reelection. He cancelled the military buildup, and reduced the military budget. He also cancelled Roosevelt's immigration ban. He did, however, like Roosevelt, refuse to abandon the Gold Standard, but he did promote the idea of a World Bank, so long as the US could enter the United Nations. La Follette's cabinet and the Congress were opposed to entering the UN, but La Follette and his supporters convinced the majority to accept it as a means to prevent the UN as being a force to oppose them. Thus, the US was set to join the UN by 1924, and discussion of a World Bank would begin in the same year. The alliance against the US was then dissolved and the Quasi-Embargo of 1917 was lifted in January 1920. Domestically, La Follette used the money saved by the military budget cut to subsidies companies that innovated their industries and that would hire former Southerners, minorities and women. By 1932, 30% of upper management were women. La Follette also presided during an Equal Pay Act which gave all peoples equivalent pay for equal work, regardless of gender or race. He also saw the first major disability act, which found respectful work for the disabled in new government-funded, handicapped accessible work spaces (mostly factories), which also had housing on the premises, as well as handi-capped accessible commercial businesses on the premises as well. However, La Follette's domestic policies, while praised by future generations, increased taxes to the highest level in their history, and while the US was always a land of high taxes (in this alternative scenario), this made it difficult for those inclined towards greed to have much more than they could ever spend. Thus nearly every billionaire not inclined towards philanthropy spent money on campaigns lambasting La Follette and threatening to become Democrat, even though the Democrats were actually more supportive of La Follette's domestic policies than were even Republicans. In the 1920 election, La Follette was defeated in the primaries by Hiram Johnson, who was similar to La Follette, but slightly more moderate. The Democrats, who were happy with La Follette, worked a deal with the president to be their nominee under a new party name, the Progressive Party. Many Federalist joined Democrats in forging this new party, but Democrats that didn't like La Follette joined Federalists in backing Hiram Johnson, who narrowly defeated La Follette in 1920. La Follette spent the rest of his term campaigning for his domestic programs and meeting with billionaires to convince them of the necessity of his high tax plan. While his words were unconvincing at the time, as time passed, the country got used to the elevated taxes, and complaints diminished with each generation; although, taxation became a major campaign issue from then on, even though it was understood that it was suicide to cut any of the domestic programs. The Progressive Party leaders and the Democratic Party leaders (some of whom overlapped) would have an interparty civil war in determining whether their parties were one and the same, or whether they were now two separate parties. The Federalist Party was also at odds with itself as some were much more ideologically similar to Progressives than old school Federalists, including in-coming president Hiram Johnson himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, vcczar said:

...continued

19. Theodore Roosevelt (NY), Federalist, 1905-1919

Roosevelt won a landslide victory in 1904, after several Democratic presidents seemed unwilling to meet the crisis at hand. Roosevelt pledged, as the Democrats did, to be the champion of the workers, and to combat income-gap inequality. However, he broke with Democrats in his insistent of carrying a hard-line policy with Europe. Since America had such a large advantage in manufacturing power and production, they had no end of resources and money in this alternative history, since the workers here are relatively better taken care off, healthier, stronger, happier, better educated, and much more of the country is industrialized. As such, Roosevelt was able to expand his budget further to take care of the needs of both workers and the military, which had been underused, underfunded; although, the ships were top rate in the navy. Roosevelt reached a deal with Congress to allow desperate Southerners to emigrate to the US, gain citizenship, in exchange for service in the US military. By 1912, the US military was 60% foreign born, mostly poor whites from the South. The army increased from a force of 20,000 to 250,000. The navy increased from 22 dreadnoughts to 42 dreadnoughts. Without firing a gun, Roosevelt was able to scare Europe out of the Northwestern Hemisphere. This eventually led to independence movements in the Caribbean, including in Cuba, which had formerly belonged to the South.  Europe's sphere of influence continued in South America, but Europe was on the decline. In fact, America was hyperpower by 1915, and so completely dominated the world's economy, that a large alliance--a United Nations--was forming to predominately to check American dominance. Domestically, Roosevelt decreased the income-gap inequality predominately by making it law that business owners make employees stockholders, profit-share-holders, as well as similar laws, which also bound workers much more loyally to their companies. While many CEOs were initially averse to the measures, they realized that it also had some benefits. Yet, some businesses did move to other countries, the first such instance in US history of emigration; yet, this did not effect the country's economy. In 1912, a petition from the South to join the United States was finally voted on and accepted, provided that Northern companies could modernize and industrialize the territory irregardless of the norms of Southern culture. In effect, make the South Northern. The South narrowly agreed to the provision and rapid modernization and industrialization began in 1914. Protests and violent reaction among small groups of Southerners were quelled only by Southern-born troops and police, under the orders of respected Southern leaders appointed by the North, in accordance to Roosevelt's wishes, to limit anger directed at the North. Robert E. Lee IV, was placed as the administrator of the Southern district, and pacified much of the resistance. Roosevelt, also initiated a policy to encourage Southerners to move North and Northerners to move South to create cultural diffusion, knowing that the North so greatly outnumbered the South that really only the Southern culture would be diluted into oblivion. By 1932, the South seemed as a suburb of the North with only 40% of the population in the South, southern born. The expansion of the US by taking the South scared the United Nations, which created a commercial treaty to trade favorably among themselves, and not purchase American goods when practical. This was called the Quasi-Embargo of 1917. While it did hurt American exports, it also threw the world into a recession. America was so self-sustaining that it was less effected. Thus, many attempted to immigrate to the US for work, but Roosevelt was able to get an immigration ban passed, which would stay in effect until the Quasi-Embargo was lifted. British, German, French, Chinese, and Mexican leadership plotted a potential attack on the US in hopes that severe damage would lead to a balance of power, especially since the US, with very little military experience, was unlikely to be able to defeat a unified world. Much of the world blamed the US economic and financial dominance for impoverishing the rest of the world, since they controlled the world economy. The rough attack plans, which may not have been seriously considered, were leaked, and the US condemned it. Roosevelt was then advised to dilute a possibility of war by leaving the Gold Standard for fiat money, which his economists said could be better manipulated to make the rest of the world less angry. Roosevelt, having just won his 4th term in 1916, and having survived an assassination attempt in 1912, was clearly on the physical decline, despite being in his late 50s. He eventually declined leaving the Gold Standard and ordered a military buildup, but this was never carried out since Roosevelt was found dead in the oval office in early 1919. 

20. Robert La Follette (WI), Federalist/Progessive, 1919-1921

VP La Follette followed Roosevelt into office after the president's death. While ideologically similar on social and domestic issues, he differed in foreign policy. Roosevelt brough the country on the brink of war, and La Follette hoped to end this possibility, even if it cost him reelection. He cancelled the military buildup, and reduced the military budget. He also cancelled Roosevelt's immigration ban. He did, however, like Roosevelt, refuse to abandon the Gold Standard, but he did promote the idea of a World Bank, so long as the US could enter the United Nations. La Follette's cabinet and the Congress were opposed to entering the UN, but La Follette and his supporters convinced the majority to accept it as a means to prevent the UN as being a force to oppose them. Thus, the US was set to join the UN by 1924, and discussion of a World Bank would begin in the same year. The alliance against the US was then dissolved and the Quasi-Embargo of 1917 was lifted in January 1920. Domestically, La Follette used the money saved by the military budget cut to subsidies companies that innovated their industries and that would hire former Southerners, minorities and women. By 1932, 30% of upper management were women. La Follette also presided during an Equal Pay Act which gave all peoples equivalent pay for equal work, regardless of gender or race. He also saw the first major disability act, which found respectful work for the disabled in new government-funded, handicapped accessible work spaces (mostly factories), which also had housing on the premises, as well as handi-capped accessible commercial businesses on the premises as well. However, La Follette's domestic policies, while praised by future generations, increased taxes to the highest level in their history, and while the US was always a land of high taxes (in this alternative scenario), this made it difficult for those inclined towards greed to have much more than they could ever spend. Thus nearly every billionaire not inclined towards philanthropy spent money on campaigns lambasting La Follette and threatening to become Democrat, even though the Democrats were actually more supportive of La Follette's domestic policies than were even Republicans. In the 1920 election, La Follette was defeated in the primaries by Hiram Johnson, who was similar to La Follette, but slightly more moderate. The Democrats, who were happy with La Follette, worked a deal with the president to be their nominee under a new party name, the Progressive Party. Many Federalist joined Democrats in forging this new party, but Democrats that didn't like La Follette joined Federalists in backing Hiram Johnson, who narrowly defeated La Follette in 1920. La Follette spent the rest of his term campaigning for his domestic programs and meeting with billionaires to convince them of the necessity of his high tax plan. While his words were unconvincing at the time, as time passed, the country got used to the elevated taxes, and complaints diminished with each generation; although, taxation became a major campaign issue from then on, even though it was understood that it was suicide to cut any of the domestic programs. The Progressive Party leaders and the Democratic Party leaders (some of whom overlapped) would have an interparty civil war in determining whether their parties were one and the same, or whether they were now two separate parties. The Federalist Party was also at odds with itself as some were much more ideologically similar to Progressives than old school Federalists, including in-coming president Hiram Johnson himself. 

I don't know if the British Navy or German Industry would be so easily overtaken - I'm not sure you've fully looked into the other side of the equation here at the equivalent time. Their advantages and foundations may have been different, but not necessary to be dismissed as non-competitive. Though, admittedly, France was in no real position for international greatness since the final defeat and exile to St. Helena of Napoleon Bonaparte, and Russia was not in a position for international greatness, ironically, until Bolsheviks took power. Japan was a surprise rising power out of nowhere that caught all the "White powers" completely blindsided. Just a few thoughts to consider here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I don't know if the British Navy or German Industry would be so easily overtaken - I'm not sure you've fully looked into the other side of the equation here at the equivalent time. Their advantages and foundations may have been different, but not necessary to be dismissed as non-competitive. Though, admittedly, France was in no real position for international greatness since the final defeat and exile to St. Helena of Napoleon Bonaparte, and Russia was not in a position for international greatness, ironically, until Bolsheviks took power. Japan was a surprise rising power out of nowhere that caught all the "White powers" completely blindsided. Just a few thoughts to consider here.

I am aware of all of this. In this alternative scenario the American industrial superiority is basically supplying the world. The European economies are certainly not 3rd world, but they are a distinct 2nd tier by the time of Roosevelt and La Follette in my alternate history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I am aware of all of this. In this alternative scenario the American industrial superiority is basically supplying the world. The European economies are certainly not 3rd world, but they are a distinct 2nd tier by the time of Roosevelt and La Follette in my alternate history. 

Except that countries like Britain and France had a system of importing raw goods from their vast colonial empires and feeding them into industrial engines in cities back home. I don't really see either giving that system up to rely on a country that can't be easily manipulated or pressured. I'm just playing the "devil's advocate" here and presenting an objective viewpoint (but not an Objectivist viewpoint - I wouldn't knowingly do that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cont...

21. Hiram Johnson (CA), Federalist/Progressives, 1921-1925:

Originally a Federalist that defeated the incumbent Federalist-turned-Progressive La Follette, Johnson himself would join the Progressive Party during the midterm when his party, when the Federalists that controlled congress, successfully passed several measures to strengthen the military in an attempt to convince Johnson to use the military to maintain economic and financial dominance over the world. Johnson, who like La Follette, believed the government should only operate within its own borders, vetoed every pro-military legislation, only to have his veto overridden. Johnson continued La Follette's domestic programs, but was forced to cut funding and lower taxes when Congress cut the budget and lowered taxes over Johnson's veto. Johnson was mostly powerless as president; however, he was instrumental in the development of the Progressive Party. Now united with former president La Follette, Johnson was able to build a coalition of progressive Federalists and progressive Democrats into one Progressive Party. The Democrats folded, either joining the Progressives or the Federalists, who were becoming increasingly eager to exert military influence. Fortunately, most of the country was content with Progressive domestic legislation, and angry with Federalists cutting some programs, despite having wanted their taxes cut. In the election of 1924, Johnson confided with La Follette that a bid for reelection might be disastrous considering his own weakness as president. La Follette considered a run, but he and Johnson opted for a disciple in George W. Norris, another Federalists-turned-Progressive. Meanwhile, mostly unknown to the US at the time, recent Chinese innovation was quickly building the Asian country into a true competitor in the World banking, financial and commercial spheres. The US, mostly Federalists, mistook the European powers as their only potential threat to their dominance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine since you seem to be my only audience now, here's Pres. Hiram Johnson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Patine since you seem to be my only audience now, here's Pres. Hiram Johnson. 

I read these with near religious zeal and fervor, I just don't comment. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22. George W. Norris (NE), Progressive, 1925-1929:

A disciple of Progressive Party leaders Johnson and La Follette, he had also been a partial supporter of former president William Jennings Bryan, but without the religious fervor. Norris continued the Johnson-LaFollette domestic programs, and was able to get a tax increase back to the old rates to afford the programs at their most efficient levels. Norris campaigned that he would eradicate poverty, which was already at the lowest level in the world. Norris, however, was unable to fulfill his promise, as Federalists retook Congress at the midterms. In foreign policy, Norris continued to ignore military, financial and economic buildups of rising powers in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, Mexico and Spain declared war, with the bulk of it occurring in in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Federalists pushed for intervention and military buildup. Norris refused either of these requests. On another note, Norris granted pardons and full citizenship to the few Southern groups that refused to recognize the unification of North and South United States; although, most of them had migrated to Mexico. In the election of 1928, Norris decided to follow La Follette and Johnson by serving only one-term. The election would have been a toss up even with Norris as candidate, and the Federalists won the White House, with moderate Federalist Herbert Hoover, who was able to win over some Progressives who feared overseas competition and the nearby war. Hoover was convincing in his support of Progressive domestic programs, but promised to run them more efficiently, and allow for the transfer of funds to the military and defense budgets, even if he had to pay out of his own pocket, and those of his equally wealthy friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23. Herbert Hoover (CA), Federalist, 1929-1933:

Hoover emerged as a Federalist that could win over progressives that did not support non-interventionalism. On day one, Hoover reduced taxes directed towards domestic programs by cutting employees down by 20%, by forcibly retiring all federal employees once they reach the age of 60. Hoover felt he could do this since all federal employees had a guaranteed pension, allowing any former employee to live moderately in retirement. In reaction, a healthcare debate for seniors was debated in Congress, but this was narrowly voted down when leading progressives wanted to include universal healthcare. Hoover admitted that universal healthcare was desirable, but that the country would have to figure out how to make it work, since it would require an expansion of hospitals across the entire country to make it equal for everyone. Within 100 days, Hoover announced his support for the Mexican government against Spain, and began to arm Mexican's, while also increasing the number of troops for defense purposes only. In retaliation, Germany, the UK and France armed Spain. When Hoover ordered the sinking of all European vessels within 500 miles of the US coast, a wayward Spanish admiral fired into New Orleans. Hoover ordered an attack, but the military generals warned Hoover that the military was unprepared, and had no military experience, even among its generals and admirals. Thus, Hoover refrained from declaring war, despite an outcry in his own party. Progressives blamed Hoover's interventionist policy for Spain's attack on New Orleans. Hoover continued sinking ships within the radius, but would not declare war. When a Chinese merchant ship was accidentally sunk, China slapped an embargo on the US. The European powers followed. Mexico, meanwhile, was needing more support than weapons. Hoover, not wishing to officially declare war, said the the US government would arm volunteers wishing to fight for Mexico, as a means to get potential soldiers some experience. About two brigades worth of troops, mostly Southern born Federalists, volunteered. By 1932, Hoover's half-assed commitment to intervention made it clear that he would be a one-term president. Federalists opted to stay with Hoover, however, since it was predicted Federalist's would lose anyway. In 1932, the voter favored progressive reform, but also called for war, despite some legislators lecturing the people that they didn't know what war entailed. The Progressive Party primary led to one pro-war progressive candidate, who would destroy Hoover in the 1932 election. The defeated Hoover opted to do nothing during his lame duck months and Mexico was on the verge of defeat, and America was feeling some economic repercussions from the embargos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, vcczar said:

23. Herbert Hoover (CA), Federalist, 1929-1933:

Hoover emerged as a Federalist that could win over progressives that did not support non-interventionalism. On day one, Hoover reduced taxes directed towards domestic programs by cutting employees down by 20%, by forcibly retiring all federal employees once they reach the age of 60. Hoover felt he could do this since all federal employees had a guaranteed pension, allowing any former employee to live moderately in retirement. In reaction, a healthcare debate for seniors was debated in Congress, but this was narrowly voted down when leading progressives wanted to include universal healthcare. Hoover admitted that universal healthcare was desirable, but that the country would have to figure out how to make it work, since it would require an expansion of hospitals across the entire country to make it equal for everyone. Within 100 days, Hoover announced his support for the Mexican government against Spain, and began to arm Mexican's, while also increasing the number of troops for defense purposes only. In retaliation, Germany, the UK and France armed Spain. When Hoover ordered the sinking of all European vessels within 500 miles of the US coast, a wayward Spanish admiral fired into New Orleans. Hoover ordered an attack, but the military generals warned Hoover that the military was unprepared, and had no military experience, even among its generals and admirals. Thus, Hoover refrained from declaring war, despite an outcry in his own party. Progressives blamed Hoover's interventionist policy for Spain's attack on New Orleans. Hoover continued sinking ships within the radius, but would not declare war. When a Chinese merchant ship was accidentally sunk, China slapped an embargo on the US. The European powers followed. Mexico, meanwhile, was needing more support than weapons. Hoover, not wishing to officially declare war, said the the US government would arm volunteers wishing to fight for Mexico, as a means to get potential soldiers some experience. About two brigades worth of troops, mostly Southern born Federalists, volunteered. By 1932, Hoover's half-assed commitment to intervention made it clear that he would be a one-term president. Federalists opted to stay with Hoover, however, since it was predicted Federalist's would lose anyway. In 1932, the voter favored progressive reform, but also called for war, despite some legislators lecturing the people that they didn't know what war entailed. The Progressive Party primary led to one pro-war progressive candidate, who would destroy Hoover in the 1932 election. The defeated Hoover opted to do nothing during his lame duck months and Mexico was on the verge of defeat, and America was feeling some economic repercussions from the embargos. 

I thought Hoover had been a non-interventionist himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

I thought Hoover had been a non-interventionist himself.

He mostly was, but in this scenario he's trying to align his campaign promise (which he used to win the election) with is own belief (non-intervention), which led to this sort of muddled middle action that made nobody happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2017 at 1:09 PM, vcczar said:

if Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia did not sign the Constitution or Articles of Confederation

If they didn't sign on to the Articles of Confederation, the US would have never achieved independence.

If they pulled out after the Treaty of Paris or during the Constitutional Convention, the US would not have had the wherewithal to make the Louisiana Purchase and most likely would have never become a transcontinental nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pilight said:

If they didn't sign on to the Articles of Confederation, the US would have never achieved independence.

If they pulled out after the Treaty of Paris or during the Constitutional Convention, the US would not have had the wherewithal to make the Louisiana Purchase and most likely would have never become a transcontinental nation.

This is an alternate history, so reality will be somewhat lifted from the narrative. This presumes that the Southern colonies declared independence independent of the Northern colonies, and that together, but disunited, they still defeated the British. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

This is an alternate history, so reality will be somewhat lifted from the narrative. This presumes that the Southern colonies declared independence independent of the Northern colonies, and that together, but disunited, they still defeated the British. 

I don't know if they could have defeated the British as two separate independence-seeking forces working separately. At the height of British colonial power in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the British military and administrative forces, especially those who worked in the colonies, were masters of Divide and Conquer tactics, something Benjamin Franklin knew well when he pushed that unity of the 13 colonies was absolutely essential in a War of Independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't know if they could have defeated the British as two separate independence-seeking forces working separately. At the height of British colonial power in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the British military and administrative forces, especially those who worked in the colonies, were masters of Divide and Conquer tactics, something Benjamin Franklin knew well when he pushed that unity of the 13 colonies was absolutely essential in a War of Independence.

While I agree with both of you in this regards, and would argue the same if someone realistically proposed it as an actual possibility, you are missing the point of this whole series--it's hypothetical. I want to build a hypothetical of the North having never been tied to the South; yet, having achieved Independence. As unlikely as it would have been, and I agree that it was very unlikely, I am saying that it was the case in this hypothetical scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I watch too, just don't comment. Its a cool scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kingthero said:

Btw I watch too, just don't comment. Its a cool scenario.

Thanks, I'll get back to it soon. The next president serves for a long period of time and I'm trying to think of what he ends up doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×