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

tfw the slavocrats in america get mad because they can’t control the government anymore so they rebel and send their nation into a civil war, forming their own breakaway confederacy, only to destroy literally everything and negatively-polarize their entire populace against all they represent once in charge of that breakaway confederacy due to their sheer ineptitude at everything
(the righteous immolation of Georgia is inevitable)
IMG_8981.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Say would there be a second wave of socialism because we still have the president before Teddy Roosevelt to worry about since he came in by corruption
the collapse of the confederacy vindicates the general 1st Internationale consensus of “yup, landowners are literal cancer,” so i’d say that with this substantial additional development that is this more-radical civil war, either Socialism/Syndicalism ITTL is going to have a lot more traction and general appeal, or Georgism is going to become synonymous with “liberal." I'm not even getting into the specifics of exactly how Marxian Thought would be altered ITTL, because that's another 3 paragraphs fit for it's own post.
and with all of this going on simultaneous to the development of Socialist Thought in Europe, the entire event would considerably alter the way that these major ideologies form. with the more radical direction the American Electorate is with the increasingly-Radical Republican Party, the traditional party of Labour-Aristocracy would become one of Welfare-Corporatism. Sure, the Chinese Exclusion Act is still happening (with biracial political support to "prevent the devaluation of our labor via the importation of foreign orientals en-masse" or some unreasonably racist but still labor-related in reasoning) but with segregation being seen as more of a "southern" (derogatory ITTL) thing, the shift in stance that both parties took due to the segregation of southern-state primary elections would not exist, as neither would suffrage for many ex-confederates ITTL.
the most realistic scenario for this TL's policial situation in regards to race and policy, funnily enough, is that of the Republican Union in the "What Maddness Is This: Redux" TL, in which the Republican Union is a de-facto ultranationalist herrenvolk totalitarian democracy, yet their ultranationalism is nearly civic-nationalist in how it is for Americans of every race, the only catch being that an American is a "human", and they have an interesting definition of what a "human" is. (spoilers: it doesn't include the irish.)
Corporatism, in the Anti-Revolutionary Paternalistic Conservatism practiced by Bismark, General Grant, and Disraeli is poised to really take off, albeit with a slightly less racist and more Georgist outlook in policy.
ethnic cleansing campaigns that coincided with colonial expansions in Africa after the ITTL US Civil War would become politically-untenable for many european parlimentarians with the altered, more euroskeptic US Foreign Policy and the public backlash when the papers report it as "atrocities committed by the [insert colonizing country here] against the natives in [name of colony] comparable only with the massacres of Blacks by the barbarous Southrons during the American Civil War."
essentially, when Bebel takes his stand against German Imperial Atrocities (if German Colonization still even happens in any similar way ITTL), he wouldn't be booed, instead, the SPD would supermajority-sweep the Reichstag, along with any other Social-Democratic party in the metropole of any other European Empire when the reports of atrocities in the colonies start coming in.
anything resembling what the Confederacy would have appeared to be for the vast majority of people at that period is tainted by that association, so there is no way for Brazil to have that large of a slave population, let alone the continued institution of slavery, past 1870 at latest.
unlike in our timeline, i predict that ITTL, it would be recognized earlier & by many more that "racism is bad," but not because it's bad, but because you look like a Southron while doing so.
 
Last edited:
That being said, some aspects of the stronger civil rights laws will probably still percolate down; it was, after all, the 14th Amendment that was behind the Wong Kim Ark case.
This is essentially what I was trying to communicate. With precedent already in place and with the Chinese community seeing a potential openning, we may see some earlier advances for that community.
 
I wonder how South America will turn out with a more radical Union bet they would try to get them as radical as themselves because SA is the USA playground except for Canada that’s British unless it’s Alaska
 
Unfortunately my suspicion is that anti-Chinese sentiment will if anything be even stronger in the shorter term; a genuinely free black population means that the accessible pool of labour just got a whole lot bigger, and given that a large amount of economic output will have to be devoted to rebuilding the South, that means labour competition will be a lot more intense.
 
So the prominent copperheads who had to flee the country : Wood, Pendleton , Seymour , and Clement McShoothimselfincourt. Did they go to Canada? I know that’s the easiest place to run to but if I were them I’d be paranoid and looking to get a body of water between me and the Union
 
I mean how influential this USA will be as like the USSR would spread their ideology to others it will not like the ussr but they similar but very different from each other
That makes more sense, but what is the US' ideology? This radicalism, more than a coherent ideological program aside from liberal principles of equality and freedom, is a economic model - they believe the North is the model of a good society, where everyone can advance through free labor. Would they similarly want to foster capitalistic development in that vein elsewhere?

Especially with how he was actually born four years after the POD (though before the TL really diverges from OTL) meaning he’d be a different person ITTL.

What would be a fitting coda for the Civil War ITTL could be the Confederate equivalent to the Volkssturm charging Union lines equipped with gatling guns with pikes and smoothbore muskets with them being as if they came from a battle in the 16th or 17th century with that in mind.
Yeah, by the time Teddy becomes relevant every American would have led such a different life that they will be substantially different from their OTL counterparts.

Hm, it's like poetry, it rhymes.

I mean, from the point of view of the 19th century it doesn't seem evil at all...
Surely wanting to send children into battle is evil no matter the age? The fact that Union soldiers were horrified in the few occasions they did face children is a testament to this.

Had a thought, its been more or less established that the African American community in this TL is going to find more room socially and politically in the 19th century and achieve earlier equality, and we've similarly established that the "White" immigrants (usually Catholics) will similarly find their place in this TL's America. Finally, the status of Native Americans still seems to be in the air and has been discussed more fully elsewhere.

But I'm curious about what will happen with other minority groups. The two that leap to mind are Hispanic Americans and Chinese immigrants. I'll admit I'm not well read on this topic so I'm curious what will happen. I feel like the Tejano community might find space in reconstruction Texas and possibly space to reclaim some of what was taken from them after the Texas Revolution, does anyone know how the Tejanos reacted to the civil war?

Finally, I feel like there's room for Chinese Immigrants on the west coast to get earlier recognition. The main thing that springs to mind is that the Chinese Exclusion Act might go to the supreme court and be found unconstitutional on the same grounds that things like black codes and similar were. I could see perhaps the San Francisco Chinese community approaching a lawyer associated with Reconstruction and ask him to take their case. Even if the Chinese Exclusion Act (or TTL equivalent) stands, the fact that it gets fought harder would still be something.

Sorry, this was a bit of a ramble, but I hope it was somewhat coherent.
It's a little cynical, but probably Black equality just means they will join in oppressing other groups and reaping the benefits of this exploitation. However, the stronger Civil Rights laws plus a nation more focused on equality as an objective will mean more open and successful challenges to all forms of discrimination.

I'm afraid that anti-Chinese sentiment is still going to be a thing. For example Charles Sumner was criticized for being pro-Chinese. The sole dissenter in Civil Rights cases, John Marshall Harlan, was anti-Chinese. What I mean here is not being prejudiced against one group does not mean you are generally tolerant. In this case it seems that they saw African Americans as Americans . Xenophobia is fear of the unknown, after all. They were familiar with African Americans, but not the Chinese.
Certainly. I can already see the argument - Black Americans have already been blessed by American civilization, the Chinese not, so it makes sense to deny their rights to the Chinese.
tfw the slavocrats in america get mad because they can’t control the government anymore so they rebel and send their nation into a civil war, forming their own breakaway confederacy, only to destroy literally everything and negatively-polarize their entire populace against all they represent once in charge of that breakaway confederacy due to their sheer ineptitude at everything
(the righteous immolation of Georgia is inevitable)
View attachment 865636
Ugh, the Southern slavocrats were one of the most stupid groups in human history. So full of pride and arrogance, which led them to basically commit suicide.

the collapse of the confederacy vindicates the general 1st Internationale consensus of “yup, landowners are literal cancer,” so i’d say that with this substantial additional development that is this more-radical civil war, either Socialism/Syndicalism ITTL is going to have a lot more traction and general appeal, or Georgism is going to become synonymous with “liberal." I'm not even getting into the specifics of exactly how Marxian Thought would be altered ITTL, because that's another 3 paragraphs fit for it's own post.
and with all of this going on simultaneous to the development of Socialist Thought in Europe, the entire event would considerably alter the way that these major ideologies form. with the more radical direction the American Electorate is with the increasingly-Radical Republican Party, the traditional party of Labour-Aristocracy would become one of Welfare-Corporatism. Sure, the Chinese Exclusion Act is still happening (with biracial political support to "prevent the devaluation of our labor via the importation of foreign orientals en-masse" or some unreasonably racist but still labor-related in reasoning) but with segregation being seen as more of a "southern" (derogatory ITTL) thing, the shift in stance that both parties took due to the segregation of southern-state primary elections would not exist, as neither would suffrage for many ex-confederates ITTL.
the most realistic scenario for this TL's policial situation in regards to race and policy, funnily enough, is that of the Republican Union in the "What Maddness Is This: Redux" TL, in which the Republican Union is a de-facto ultranationalist herrenvolk totalitarian democracy, yet their ultranationalism is nearly civic-nationalist in how it is for Americans of every race, the only catch being that an American is a "human", and they have an interesting definition of what a "human" is. (spoilers: it doesn't include the irish.)
Corporatism, in the Anti-Revolutionary Paternalistic Conservatism practiced by Bismark, General Grant, and Disraeli is poised to really take off, albeit with a slightly less racist and more Georgist outlook in policy.
ethnic cleansing campaigns that coincided with colonial expansions in Africa after the ITTL US Civil War would become politically-untenable for many european parlimentarians with the altered, more euroskeptic US Foreign Policy and the public backlash when the papers report it as "atrocities committed by the [insert colonizing country here] against the natives in [name of colony] comparable only with the massacres of Blacks by the barbarous Southrons during the American Civil War."
essentially, when Bebel takes his stand against German Imperial Atrocities (if German Colonization still even happens in any similar way ITTL), he wouldn't be booed, instead, the SPD would supermajority-sweep the Reichstag, along with any other Social-Democratic party in the metropole of any other European Empire when the reports of atrocities in the colonies start coming in.
anything resembling what the Confederacy would have appeared to be for the vast majority of people at that period is tainted by that association, so there is no way for Brazil to have that large of a slave population, let alone the continued institution of slavery, past 1870 at latest.
unlike in our timeline, i predict that ITTL, it would be recognized earlier & by many more that "racism is bad," but not because it's bad, but because you look like a Southron while doing so.
Yeah, a lot of progressive thought will simply be based on the idea of rejecting Southern ideas as completely un-American, and I can totally see a nationalism that sees the people as "Americans" no matter the race, but excludes everyone who does not share their values, whatever they are. All this overseen by a paternalist nationalist State, which will act swiftly to defend the status quo against both reactionary and revolutionaries.

I wonder how South America will turn out with a more radical Union bet they would try to get them as radical as themselves because SA is the USA playground except for Canada that’s British unless it’s Alaska
Just a different flavor of imperialism. Something like FDR's policies decades earlier.

Unfortunately my suspicion is that anti-Chinese sentiment will if anything be even stronger in the shorter term; a genuinely free black population means that the accessible pool of labour just got a whole lot bigger, and given that a large amount of economic output will have to be devoted to rebuilding the South, that means labour competition will be a lot more intense.
There were already some tensions between Chinese and Black laborers OTL, that are bound to just get worse if Black people have more leverage. Imagine a Black community forcibly expelling Chinese immigrants, who would be preferred by employers because they would enjoy less protections.

So the prominent copperheads who had to flee the country : Wood, Pendleton , Seymour , and Clement McShoothimselfincourt. Did they go to Canada? I know that’s the easiest place to run to but if I were them I’d be paranoid and looking to get a body of water between me and the Union
Vallandigham fled to Canada, indeed, but he sneaked back into the country and Lincoln decided to leave him alone, guessing that arresting him would do more damage than anything, because Vallandigham would become a martyr. The others all fled to Europe instead, especially because their clearer involvement with the Draft Riots means the Union can probably hang them with not too much trouble.
 
Surely wanting to send children into battle is evil no matter the age? The fact that Union soldiers were horrified in the few occasions they did face children is a testament to this.
Certainly not always, at least not by the standards of the time. I've been reading the Homeric epics (and am currently reading the Aeneid), and that furnishes plenty of examples of "beardless youths" (i.e., children, by modern standards) going into battle and either being passed over lightly and without comment or indeed praised. In the Aeneid in particular the episodes of Nisus and Euryalus and the killing of Numanus by Ascanius in Book IX show characters who are explicitly quite young (Euryalus and Ascanius) fighting and even being killed in battle, and being praised for it. Ascanius even has Apollo come down and congratulate him (and then tell the Trojans to keep him out of battle, a bit of a mixed message).

Of course, that was 1800-2600 years before the Civil War, so there's that.
 
That makes more sense, but what is the US' ideology? This radicalism, more than a coherent ideological program aside from liberal principles of equality and freedom, is a economic model - they believe the North is the model of a good society, where everyone can advance through free labor. Would they similarly want to foster capitalistic development in that vein elsewhere?
On that note, I would argue that the US ITTL is more in the radical-liberal tradition that was present in the "Latin World", a liberalism that was more "revolutionary" than the form of liberalism present in Britain that we think of as the predecessor of modern liberal thought, than a predecessor to socialism when it comes to its ideology, now you've mentioned it.
Ugh, the Southern slavocrats were one of the most stupid groups in human history. So full of pride and arrogance, which led them to basically commit suicide.
And this is even more true ITTL with how they've literally couped their own government in what is very much an example of how ideological "purity" (in this case, the ideologies of slavocracy and "state's rights") overriding pragmatic concerns and acceptance of grim realities has led to many a defeat or disaster. I imagine there would be many who would be comparing the Southern slavocrats to the ruling elites of Paraguay with that in mind due to the sheer devastation both regions would be going through by the end of the war.
Yeah, a lot of progressive thought will simply be based on the idea of rejecting Southern ideas as completely un-American, and I can totally see a nationalism that sees the people as "Americans" no matter the race, but excludes everyone who does not share their values, whatever they are. All this overseen by a paternalist nationalist State, which will act swiftly to defend the status quo against both reactionary and revolutionaries.
Speaking of which, Separated at Birth's Fascism (which is a very different ideology from the real-world ideology of Fascism) is basically a good description of what you are describing, now you've mentioned it. And such a paternalist nationalist state could provide a catalyst for civil service reform and general development of state capacity as part of such a paternalistic drive, with that in mind.
 
Would they similarly want to foster capitalistic development in that vein elsewhere?
I'm not sure they'd need to. I mean, they might want to support more equitable approaches to capitalism in general, at least on some issues, but free labor capitalism was on the rise worldwide at this point anyway. They might become an active supporter of campaigns for worker rights and stuff in the right circumstances, but that's probably it, so it's not really something they can export like the USSR did communism.
 
More likely, anyway, the U.S. becomes inconsistent, with pro-labor developments at home matched by anti-labor developments in foreign branches. It's worth remembering how the 1950s saw the apex of U.S. worker success while at the same time the U.S. was supporting violent suppression of labor in, for instance, Central America. Conversely, I could quite easily see the U.S. fighting labor at home and supporting it abroad. Even with something like democracy and republicanism even more deeply absorbed as American values, the U.S. has been an inconsistent supporter at best abroad, so labor certainly will not see consistent American support.
 
More likely, anyway, the U.S. becomes inconsistent, with pro-labor developments at home matched by anti-labor developments in foreign branches. It's worth remembering how the 1950s saw the apex of U.S. worker success while at the same time the U.S. was supporting violent suppression of labor in, for instance, Central America. Conversely, I could quite easily see the U.S. fighting labor at home and supporting it abroad. Even with something like democracy and republicanism even more deeply absorbed as American values, the U.S. has been an inconsistent supporter at best abroad, so labor certainly will not see consistent American support.
The Labor movement in America in our timeline was already way more violent than in day Europe. So good lord it’s not gonna be pretty here. An actual pitched battle of Blair Mountain 👀
 
Last edited:
The major problem with the 'USA-as-USSR' analogue is that, currently, it has no real reason to be that way for the foreseeable future. What would it be exporting? Democracy? Republicanism? A stumbling block is, again, that the United States is still very, very racist even if it becomes just a little bit less so. It may hate Europe for its kings and aristocrats, especially now, but they're tolerable because they're white. The rest of the country might not be as bad as the slavers are in this regard but they produced their fair share of pseuds who concocted all sorts of nonsense about WASPs on their own without any help. It isn't going to take much for the types who would cook these ideas up to view the current situation in the CSA as simply being filled with the wrong kinds of white people either.

As ironic as reverse filibusters would be - i.e., the idea that the American government has rogue actors that go abroad to free places rather than annex them to itself (though I could see a random person in-universe being a kind of 19th century 'gentleman adventurer' sort who fits this description as a one off sort of thing) - it won't dare risk upsetting the various empires by trying to run interference in their colonies directly like this; it would directly invite more meddling in the Americas like what's currently happening in Mexico and the country isn't in the position at this point in time to tell them all to go pound sand. Plus, it likes and needs the trade that they provide. Many parts of the country were totally willing to reap the benefits of slavery - just as they are with stealing native land - so long as it remained profitable and I can't imagine that changing here.
 
Last edited:
The major problem with the 'USA-as-USSR' analogue is that, currently, it has no real reason to be that way for the foreseeable future. What would it be exporting? Democracy? Republicanism? The major stumbling block is, again, that the United States is still very, very racist even if it becomes just a little bit less so. It may hate Europe for its kings and aristocrats, especially now, but they're tolerable because they're white. The rest of the country might not be as bad as the slavers are in this regard but they produced their fair share of pseuds who concocted all sorts of nonsense about WASPs on their own without any help. It isn't going to take the types who would cook these ideas up to view the current situation in the CSA as simply being filled with the wrong kinds of white people either.

As ironic as reverse filibusters would be - i.e., the idea that the American government has rogue actors that go abroad to free places rather than annex them to itself (though I could see a random person in-universe being a kind of 19th century 'gentleman adventurer' sort who fits this description as a one off sort of thing) - it won't dare risk upsetting the various empires by trying to run interference in their colonies directly like this; it would directly invite more meddling in the Americas like what's currently happening in Mexico and the country isn't in the position at this point in time to tell them all to go pound sand. Plus, it likes and needs the trade that they provide. Many parts of the country were totally willing to reap the benefits of slavery - just as they are with stealing native land - so long as it remained profitable and I can't imagine that changing here.
yeah I’m having trouble thinking of some ideology that can be exported and as much as I’m drooling at my country doing what should have been done to the slavers the voice in the back of my head is telling me “I’d hold off until we see how the labor movement is handled” .

Hats off to ya Red, I’m simultaneously thrilled and very nervous about where your world ends up
 
On that note, I would argue that the US ITTL is more in the radical-liberal tradition that was present in the "Latin World", a liberalism that was more "revolutionary" than the form of liberalism present in Britain that we think of as the predecessor of modern liberal thought, than a predecessor to socialism when it comes to its ideology, now you've mentioned it.
It's worth noting that to the people of this day and age, this would not have seemed at all remarkable that a liberalism unleashed at the governmental level would be intensely radical and highly revolutionary in practice; indeed that would be the expectation of many. We know now that 1848 marked a clear endpoint of revolutionary radical liberalism as a revolutionary force in Europe, but we're not that far removed from that; to many people this would be nothing but liberalism returning to form, for better or worse.
 
Top