In regards to number 2 isn't the easy answer to just split Quebec off into it's own allied republic and swallow the rest of Canada?1) If the US-Chilean Crisis of 1879 isn't butterflied, US naval rearmament is inevitable. If it IS butterflied, then later German (3) naval trouble-making in Latin America waters will have the same effect.
2) As I posted earlier, politically, Quebec should stand as Canada's best shield against American Imperialism. It is not like the US would be all that sanguine about swallowing up so many millions of native French-speakers. And if 1775 is any guide, I'm afraid the US, in any "revanchist" campaign, could be counted on making a complete pig's breakfast of what would inevitably (IMO) be a very sorry affair.
3) Assuming a united Germany isn't butterflied!
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
The latest point that the U.S. could conceivably take parts of Canada would be to have done better during the War of 1812. At this point, the average Canadian has made it quite clear they don't want to be Americans and the Americans have no illusions that they're waiting to be 'liberated.'
I do wonder if Washington might not try enticing Canadians to come settle in the South at some point, though. Tough sell to them, but they're not likely to be too amenable to the pre-war social order, and the average person is of near enough heritage that it might not raise the hackles of anti-immigration types too much.
I do wonder if Washington might not try enticing Canadians to come settle in the South at some point, though. Tough sell to them, but they're not likely to be too amenable to the pre-war social order, and the average person is of near enough heritage that it might not raise the hackles of anti-immigration types too much.
I mean quite honestly the US could
have taken Canada a lot later than that. Given the population disparity the US could easily flood western Canada with settlers after an alt-WW1 and at the bare minimum annex them.
Firdaus_Rifa
Banned
I have read this timelines and it is quite terrific and amazing. This could really be a good mod for New Campaign Trail game. Is Lincoln a Moderate or Moderate Radical? That quite oxymoron itself i think but does Lincoln radicalize enough to be the same ideologically like OTL Trumbull or near on par with Stevens and Sumner?
I lean more towards a downsizing of the navy as OTL. I do see the army being expanded beyond its OTL size. IOTL, the U.S. had 1,052,038 officers and men, with 622,102 present for duty. By November 1865, the War Department had mustered out and sent home more than 800,000 troops, with only 87,550 soldiers garrisoning the South in January 1866 (vs. 270,000 in June 1865). On 8 Sept, all USCT regiments raised from the North were discharged - so 13 more regiments went home in Dec 1865. The U.S. regular army had a peak strength of 57,000 in September 30, 1866, which was then downgraded to 45,000 in 1869 after Congress failed to appropriate the money to continue funding the army size. It was then reduced to 30,000 in 1870 before shrinking to 25,000 enlisted men in 1874, where it remained until the Spanish-American War. Apart from the greater regular army size, there is the ITTL National Guard along with the paramilitary organizations in the South. Hence, I could see greater military preparedness on land though some regression will naturally occur from the downsizing.
However, the U.S. Navy back in this day was mostly a coastal and riverine force. The majority were not suitable for power projection and Congress did not see an enemy to fight. The U.S. Navy was expensive to upkeep, with the $122 million budget in 1864-65 cut to $19 million in 1870-71. Some of the more innovative projects like Wampanoag, a fast commerce raiding sloop, were abandoned and some captains had to pay out of their pocket for "unnecessary coal usage". During the Virginius affair, the U.S. Navy had just 5 frigates, 14 sloops and 6 monitors at Key West, Florida, while Spain had 7 large armored warships, which the U.S. Navy had not much to go with. The Virginius affair did prod Congress to increase the repair budget and to fund construction of the last American wooden screw frigate and a few gunboats, but the U.S. Navy was still very obsolete in both armament and design.
It is not until 1883 that the US realizes: Oh God, we must have an actual navy. Because the US Navy is genuinely completely outclassed by the Chilean Navy and most recently the Brazilian Navy after it received the 5,610 ton Riachuelo from Britain. Moreover, Alfred T. Mahan and his book "The Influence of Sea Power upon History: 1660-1783" made a very strong case for naval expansion and for the US to have power to enforce its interests. That finally spurred Congress to fund the US Navy, spending $400 million in 1882-1898 or $24 million annually (6-7% of the Federal budget). It should be said, however, that the early US battleship designs were fairly flawed, with the Indiana-class being hilariously/horrifyingly bad (a "coastal" battleship with its belt armor underwater, questionable seaworthiness in operating in the high seas & would list if it aimed its primary armaments in the sign of direction). The Americans were very, very lucky that their opponents (the Spanish) had regressed so far by 1898 that they could win so easily.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Speaking as an American descendant (third & fourth generation) of Canadian immigrants, I can tell you that as far as Canada-to-USA population flow was/is concerned, the problem has always been one for Canada, not the United States. Namely, massive population loss southward, not northward. It's seen as 'too cold up there', like North Dakota (another perennial population loser).
Hence, Canada has practiced fairly 'open borders' throughout its history compared to the United States.
Historically, the United States has always welcomed Canadian immigrants, as they not only spoke English, looked American (Anglo
), but also spoke in an English dialect that is barely distinguishable (the "t" as a word end often being spoken as 'silent' or sounding 'abou') from the basic American flat tone.So unless Canadians for some crazy reason want to get on a ship and sail for Ellis Island, all they have to do in the Late 19th & Early 20th centuries is get on a train and travel south. AFAIK, only being a convicted felon would be an issue for Canadian immigrants to the United States.
Though I'm readily prepared to be corrected on this matter if I am wrong. All my Canadian relatives died relatively (or even very) young, so I never knew any of them, just their immediate children.
Last edited:
Well yes, you do somewhat pick your poison when it comes to pre-WW1 semi-liberal proto-democracies...
What do we mean by democracy, really ? I mean, all of us would probably agree that it involves a body of citizens being somehow involved in running the country, but what about the details ? I could argue that FPTP and electoral college make the US system so unrepresentative that it is even modern US is not a "real" democracy. So I would say it is more of a scale question than yes/no.
Last edited:
That would be well into the 20th century. In the 1860s there's just been a compromise between Canada East (what became Quebec) and Canada West (what became Ontario) and the Maritimes, to move Confederation forward. It gives some huge benefits to Quebec to protect their language rights and legal opinions which would not fly under the US Constitution. That and there's lingering cultural memories of "swarms of Anglos from the south coming to kill us" as it were. While there were cross border relations, especially men going south to work for a season and then sending money home or eventually buying out land, there wasn't a desire to be a republic in the Quebec liberal class.
The drive for independence as a different republic was part of the resentment French Canada felt with two world wars they hadn't believed in, the draft, and economic difficulties across the century making Quebec feel they might be better off.
There was a bill introduced by Nathaniel Banks in 1866 which sought to make provisions to allow Canada to be annexed. However, it was something seen as mildly ridiculous in Canada, while it was introduced to appeal to the Irish Vote and express sympathy with the Fenians. Needless to say it didn't work.
But I do think you're right that 1812 was the last time the US could have snipped off bits of Canada and had relative acceptance IMO. They could do it by brute force later, but with less positive results.
I always wondered where the Quebec independence movement came from. Did the British use the Canadians as cannon fodder like they did the Australian and New Zealand units? Because I can see why they would be put off concerning the First World War - it wasn’t their Continent to keep balanced, they weren't even in Europe. - but I would think the second World War would have seen at least some urgency, Battle of the Atlantic and all. But if you've got the British saying that they'll just put all of their colonies in the worst plaves, I could see how the idea could come that they really felt disrespected.
I have a few Huguenot relatives who came from France and went to Canada first before coming down to the Great Lakes region in the 1840s. I can imagine it was a lot easier to do than for some.
Last edited:
I mean, part of the logic of buying Alaska(1867) was the thought that the US would eventually be able to peel off a few of the other Canadian territories too
Something like that, probably... the Army will most likely be demobilized too, but that's fine - that's why I created the National Guard and US Constabulary, to keep the peace.
Yes, I agree. In the many, many times we've discussed post-war US imperialism here, my own position has always been that the US will be just as rapacious, just cloaking itself in a more progressive mantle, and that Black equality just means Black and White Americans sharing the spoils of colonialism.
Wait... I'm Latin American. Welp, pack it up boys, timeline's over.
The Whig Party died in the South not because all Southerners had embraced Democratic values, but because Northern Whigs were increasingly embracing anti-slavery. Giving that the largest contingent of Whigs were Northerners, Southerners just didn't want to share their party with them anymore. In other ways, they wanted the Whig party to embrace slavery, and when it refused, they left the Party. Some did go to the Democrats, but others were just as skeptic of them and could not stomach joining the party they had been fighting for years. This led to "enduring Whiggery" in the South, represented in the votes for Fillmore in 1856 and Bell in 1860, where they obtained pretty decent results and proved the chief opposition to Buchanan/Breckinridge. When secession came, these old party labels were thrown away as the important question became: are you in favor of seceding to protect slavery? And this was something virtually all Southern leaders, whether Whig or Democrat, could agree upon. To be sure, conditional Unionists and then opponents of a centralized war effort all tended to come from a Whig background, but there was no established pattern - Lee was closer to the Whigs for example. Confederates initially gloried in a lack of political parties and divisions. They wished for secession to be a Southern movement, not a Democratic one. So even though the Democrats were dominant (but not as dominant as it could be expected), they didn't try to exclude former Whigs.
Now, your question makes me realize that TTL's Junta seems almost like a Whig movement overthrowing a Democratic one, given how its leaders (Toombs, Stephens, Hunter) were Whigs, while Breckinridge and Davis had been Democrats.
Why is it absurd? Sorry, I know little about naval matters...
Thank you! These are perfect. As for Congress... the OTL 1864 House results were already disastrous. The Republicans just would need to carry some 4 to 6 seats more to get the 4/5ths majority I described, so maybe one more Kentucky seat, and two seats each from the Midwest and the East, and carrying all seats in the more thoroughly Reconstructed Maryland. Also, no "Radical Democracy" here. Chesnuts should have been able to hold onto many Lower North and urban New York seats - those in the West being more likely officially National Union, and those in the East officially National American, but I suppose they could be grouped into an umbrella opposition. Maybe a couple of Kentucky seats could be outright Copperhead. As for the Senate, the only change would be Republicans managing to carry the New Jersey seat, with Chesnuts holding onto Kentucky and Delaware because Lincoln only carried the states by a plurality. Virginia's Senators will probably still not be seated, for the same concerns that made the Congress reject them OTL are here as well.
So:
House (total 193): Republicans 159, Opposition 34
Senate: Republicans 38, Opposition 10.
Eh, I don't think I can do anything to prevent German unification at this point. Nor do I wish for the US to expand into Canada.1) If the US-Chilean Crisis of 1879 isn't butterflied, US naval rearmament is inevitable. If it IS butterflied, then later German (3) naval trouble-making in Latin America waters will have the same effect.
2) As I posted earlier, politically, Quebec should stand as Canada's best shield against American Imperialism. It is not like the US would be all that sanguine about swallowing up so many millions of native French-speakers. And if 1775 is any guide, I'm afraid the US, in any "revanchist" campaign, could be counted on making a complete pig's breakfast of what would inevitably (IMO) be a very sorry affair.
3) Assuming a united Germany isn't butterflied!
Thank you! Lincoln is still considered a Moderate within the Republican Party, it's just that the Overton window has shifted so far that what's "Moderate" is a position that not even the most Radical dreamed of before. Lincoln is in support of limited Black suffrage, full civil equality for Black people, Reconstruction led from the ground with Federal oversight, land redistribution but allowing for the return of lands of pardoned Southerners, and punishing the Confederate leadership while offering pardons and a say in Reconstruction to recanting Southerners. The Radicals like Stevens and Sumner wish for universal Black suffrage and the interdiction of all Confederates, Reconstruction led by the Federal government after a period of military rule, full political and social equality, no return of any lands or pardons to Confederates, only to ironclad Unionists, and exclusion of Southerners from Reconstruction.
Think of how in the French Revolution many started wishing only for Constitutional Monarchy and then moved to a Radical Republic, making the radicals of yesterday become the conservatives of today.
Huh, that reminds me of a TL by @Paradox-less (who sadly seems not active anymore) where Chile and the US went to war and Chile whooped the US' ass because its fleet was just so much better. Still, interesting info! This means that a more stable Spain could have held its own... hm.
If anything, I'd hesitate to call the US a democracy given how a part of it was basically a one-party region that ruled by oppressing a segment of its population through fraud, lynching, and violence.
I do think the Canadians could be somewhat more scared of this more centralized, nationalist USA. Could that have effects on the birth of the Confederation?
A while ago (last millennium) I was at a lecture from a former officer who'd commanded a battalion in WW2 and a Commonwealth Brigade in Korea. He said he always felt he had to give the most dangerous jobs to his British battalion.
More generally, the various Dominion Corps were often treated as being high quality (often due to being better fed in childhood) troops and used where needed. Not "cannon fodder".
I was talking about modern US here. I felt that demonstrating that even a democratic-ness of a modern country can be questioned will prove my point that it may be impractical to use binary yes/no to answer "is this a democracy" question. That being said, that is a good point too. How democratic US was until 60s ? Again, I would say that is scale. It was better than a full-blown dictatorship where there is no democracy for no one, but not far from full democracy. And to repeat myself, even today the US system has some elements that are arguably undemocratic.
Well, given that we were talking of the German and Austrian Imperial Parliaments in comparison with the Third French Republic and the British parliament, I thought we were talking of the US around the same years.
Btw, to everyone, here's a little fun fact that may give some of you a kick, and also get to know your author's culture a little better. So, in Ecuador, for some reason the New Year's tradition is for young men to dress in drag and ask for money. These are the "viudas," literally, "widows." The idea is that these are, supposedly, widows who are now forced to beg after their husband, the Old Year, has passed away. It's a very popular tradition, odd for a Catholic country which retains some backwards ideas on gender and sexuality. Heck, I've done it myself a couple of times. Yes, gentle reader, you dear author has gone on drag before.
Anyway, with that fun fact I say goodbye to yet another year. As I said before next update will be the last real one. Then a short epilogue, and we enter Reconstruction. Happy new year to each and every one of you, may this new year be one of happiness and success for you.
While we don't have a similar cool tradition in Canada, I'm amused to have done something similar for Christmas myself 😄
Great tradition we should import!
Looking forward to more from this wonderful TL! HAPPY NEW
IMHO, the US Army should adopt the Spencer rifle and Spencer carbine as the standard service weapons, while the National Guard and Constabulary receive trapdoor Springfields.
I think missed this.
I get it, thought it was not something to be expected in the context.
@Red_Galiray Here we go so just to explain what happened to the Senate Unionists:
The Unionist in Kentucky John B. Thompson retired and is replaced by Lazarus W. Powell from the New Democrats (in the Opposition Alliance), the other Unionist of Kentucky Garrett Davis (who had been elected to the senate in 1860) becomes a National Union man. Both Unionists in West Virginia Waitman T. Willey and Peter G. Van Winkle became Republicans, with Willey only doing so when re-electd. The last Unionist Reverdy Johnson ended up joining the National American Party.
And according to my reading this is how the Senate would look like:
Again if I got anything wrong then I am willing to fix it.
The Unionist in Kentucky John B. Thompson retired and is replaced by Lazarus W. Powell from the New Democrats (in the Opposition Alliance), the other Unionist of Kentucky Garrett Davis (who had been elected to the senate in 1860) becomes a National Union man. Both Unionists in West Virginia Waitman T. Willey and Peter G. Van Winkle became Republicans, with Willey only doing so when re-electd. The last Unionist Reverdy Johnson ended up joining the National American Party.
And according to my reading this is how the Senate would look like:
Again if I got anything wrong then I am willing to fix it.