What's the 16th? I thought the last amendment was the 15th (Direct Election of Senators)
Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
Thank you! I’m quite proud of it. “Bound for
Bloodshed” remains my personal favorite since I came up with that as I was reading “The Sleepwalkers” but I do like a good pun hahah
You do not, actually, have to hand it to Lodge
I mean this is Cabot Lodge we’re talking about
Definitely
d’oh yes the 16th
Speaking of South Africa, has anything changed with them over the years? Would we get Apartheid sooner with an influx of racist immigrants from the Confederacy arriving in South Africa?
No. Apartheid was wanted only by boers who are independent. Confederates would be a minority in Cape Colony.
Last edited:
Considering his status as a general, I bet many people will answer his call to arms. Since Alabama is occupied, I wonder what place he's giving the speech?
Lack of Boers means no outright apartheid, but it's still a British settler state so the treatment of Natives without property isn't great.
Truman?
Second Wave: The Postwar Progressive Revolution of 1917-31
"...marches in not only New York and northern New Jersey, traditionally the hotbed of Irish-American activism going back to the Famine, but also Boston, Providence, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and even Philadelphia. As with any St. Patrick's Day in America, there were Gaelic games, there were songs sung in Irish, and copious amounts of dark beer (especially in states where it was legal), but the "17th in '17" had a certain other aspect to it, both in the symbolism of the date and its sociopolitical context. The Great American War had just ended and tens of thousands of Irish-American and Irish volunteer soldiers had returned from the front, and the marches across the United States were as much a celebration of Irish Catholic heritage as it was a protest for backpay for general infantrymen, well-paid work for veterans in factories that were quickly realizing they had a massive labor surplus with the surge of discharged men and a rapidly declining demand for production goods, and a show of sympathy by Irish-Americans for their cousins in Ireland as the conflict there began to erupt again.
Though the St. Patrick's Day Marches were not directly related to the labor movement, and they were considerably more peaceful than the massive strikes that would erupt the United States over the next year, they can be considered as part of the general wave of labor activism that rippled across postwar America nonetheless. The Marches introduced dozens of prominent Irish-Americans to each other and to political coordination, bringing together in its aftermath Bostonians like David Walsh, John F. "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald, and Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. (with his more famous infant son brought in attendance to a great many of the events of March 1917) with New York politicians like future Governor Al Smith or House Majority Whip John J. Fitzgerald and New Jersey's Frank Hague and a young Eamon "Dev" de Valera. It also augured, with its calls for labor solidarity and solidarity with the Irish people as violence returned to that island, was unequivocally an event that revealed the potency of organization, coordination, and mass action to not just Irish-Americans but all Americans..."
- Second Wave: The Postwar Progressive Revolution of 1917-31
(Hat tip to Dan for the idea behind this entry)
Though the St. Patrick's Day Marches were not directly related to the labor movement, and they were considerably more peaceful than the massive strikes that would erupt the United States over the next year, they can be considered as part of the general wave of labor activism that rippled across postwar America nonetheless. The Marches introduced dozens of prominent Irish-Americans to each other and to political coordination, bringing together in its aftermath Bostonians like David Walsh, John F. "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald, and Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. (with his more famous infant son brought in attendance to a great many of the events of March 1917) with New York politicians like future Governor Al Smith or House Majority Whip John J. Fitzgerald and New Jersey's Frank Hague and a young Eamon "Dev" de Valera. It also augured, with its calls for labor solidarity and solidarity with the Irish people as violence returned to that island, was unequivocally an event that revealed the potency of organization, coordination, and mass action to not just Irish-Americans but all Americans..."
- Second Wave: The Postwar Progressive Revolution of 1917-31
(Hat tip to Dan for the idea behind this entry)
Interesting update. Few things I'm interested by:
The question being, what will Joseph Jr. do? (It having to be him since JFK was born in May '17 and Robert and Ted both being younger than him)
And so our resident annoying Senate President Pro Tempore shows up at last.
The Central European War
"...the European public had, naturally, been almost entirely sympathetic to the United States and Argentina, and not just because of the large numbers of Italians, Irish, and Germans who had emigrated to those lands over the prior decades. News of the Confederacy's surrender in November had been met with widespread approval in most of Europe, even in countries that had been generally sympathetic to it like France, but the provisions of the Mount Vernon Treaty nonetheless surprised a great many Europeans, especially policymakers.
While the Confederacy's defeat meant that European opposition to slavery was borne out in full, the economic provisions of the treaty nonetheless was seen as unusually harsh. Even in cases like the Congress of Vienna that had fundamentally reshaped European borders and culled French ambitions on the continent, Mount Vernon laid out stipulations on internal Confederate matters and conduct that Europeans viewed as essentially making the Confederate States a vassal of Philadelphia. This built upon the sense amongst leaders in countries like France that the Great American War had been unusually barbaric, with atrocities so utterly beyond the pale. "We see in this final conclusion of the war," Paleologue declared to the Corps de legislatif as the United States Senate debated the terms of the treaty, "that in the Americas a new type of war has been waged, one that is not gentlemanly but rather barbaric, cruel, and arbitrary." German observers returning from the burned fields of Georgia and South Carolina remarked ruefully that it seemed like Americans fought the Confederates the way that Europeans fought rebellious colonial subjects and African Natives; implicit in this observation was the perception that there was a "proper" way for white Europeans to fight one another, and a way for them to fight their racial inferiors, and that the combatants of the Great American War had broken this gentleman's agreement over how war was meant to be conducted.
As the Central European War thus approached closer and closer, Europe contented itself with the impression that it remained the apex of world civilization in not only technology and culture but also in warfare, as Europeans would never maintain chattel slave societies, and Europeans would never conduct chemical warfare or level entire cities to starve populations to death. This comforting lie made it so that the documentation of the previously unknown horrors of modern industrial warfare in North America helped military leaders devise strategies to avoid the type of bloodshed that typified the Great American War but in a stroke of cruel irony made it likelier that political leaders would stumble into a war, out of the misguided belief that a cousin to that terrible conflict on European shores could never sink to that level of terror..."
- The Central European War
While the Confederacy's defeat meant that European opposition to slavery was borne out in full, the economic provisions of the treaty nonetheless was seen as unusually harsh. Even in cases like the Congress of Vienna that had fundamentally reshaped European borders and culled French ambitions on the continent, Mount Vernon laid out stipulations on internal Confederate matters and conduct that Europeans viewed as essentially making the Confederate States a vassal of Philadelphia. This built upon the sense amongst leaders in countries like France that the Great American War had been unusually barbaric, with atrocities so utterly beyond the pale. "We see in this final conclusion of the war," Paleologue declared to the Corps de legislatif as the United States Senate debated the terms of the treaty, "that in the Americas a new type of war has been waged, one that is not gentlemanly but rather barbaric, cruel, and arbitrary." German observers returning from the burned fields of Georgia and South Carolina remarked ruefully that it seemed like Americans fought the Confederates the way that Europeans fought rebellious colonial subjects and African Natives; implicit in this observation was the perception that there was a "proper" way for white Europeans to fight one another, and a way for them to fight their racial inferiors, and that the combatants of the Great American War had broken this gentleman's agreement over how war was meant to be conducted.
As the Central European War thus approached closer and closer, Europe contented itself with the impression that it remained the apex of world civilization in not only technology and culture but also in warfare, as Europeans would never maintain chattel slave societies, and Europeans would never conduct chemical warfare or level entire cities to starve populations to death. This comforting lie made it so that the documentation of the previously unknown horrors of modern industrial warfare in North America helped military leaders devise strategies to avoid the type of bloodshed that typified the Great American War but in a stroke of cruel irony made it likelier that political leaders would stumble into a war, out of the misguided belief that a cousin to that terrible conflict on European shores could never sink to that level of terror..."
- The Central European War
Oh Lord, so many people here.
Eamon Develara being Senate pro-Tem and staying there like Strom Thurmond until age 102.....
Joe Kennedy Jr being President I figure is a given.
JFK, if he happens, is probably some history teacher.
oh god they're just going full bore sticking their head into the sand
We’ll see more of the Kennedys, and Dev, before long…
“Europe would never start a massive industrial general war”
*Always Sunny theme plays*
The Gang Starts an Industrial War
The politicians, at least. We’ll get to some of the strategic calculations by European military leaders in a bit
Yeah, that guy. Honestly he's one of the biggest haters to become president.
Huzzah!!!!!!! Glad I could be of help
I imagine the Liberal aristocracy is looking at these protests with more than a little bit of distaste and a dash of panic (at least the ones with foresight. The rest probably nervously laugh it off)
I wonder if Hughes was asked to speak in New York - can't imagine he'd turn down a chance to snub Britain's nose a bit and also, you know, TALK. At length. While reveling in the sound of his own voice
(I say this as a fan of good ol President Hughes!!!!)
He's been President for fifteen minutes and the guy is already a complete disaster. I would say something like "get the popcorn, this is gonna be fun!" but then I remember that his gross incompetence is going to lead to lots of Americans dead, either because they are shot by Confederates or because they'll die of malnourishment and disease due to Mellon's deflationary policies.
I think this book title tells us a few things about what's coming. We know that Pershing becomes President in 1933 after three terms of Democrats.
I think it is fair to guess that Liberals have a pretty great 1930. This makes sense: there have been three instances of a "ten-year itch" midterm in the 20th Century after the direct election of Senators OTL. In those three midterms (1930, 1942, 1990) the President's party has averaged losing six Senate seats and 35 House seats. In the one instance of it happening ITTL post-POD (1902) the incumbent President's party lost nine Senate seats and 77 House seats. Now, it isn't quite a perfect comparison because 1902 ITTL is before the direct election of Senators but you get the general idea - bad things happen to the incumbent party when they've held the Presidency 10 straight years.
So, we get a Liberal wave in 1930 and Pershing wins in 1932. Go back to that book title: the "Postwar Progressive Revolution" ends in 1931. It seems to me that Pershing is the Warren G. Harding of this timeline - a right-wing President who's (landslide?) election helps end American Progressivism. Now, you might be saying "well wait a second, Pershing was described as 'a moderate, perhaps even progressively-minded Liberal' not that long ago" and I would counter with yes, but if the Progressive movement taught us anything both OTL and ITTL is that today's progressives oftentimes became tomorrow's reactionaries. Look at Joseph Foraker: in 1892 he's described as a "young, ambitious reformer" and by 1900 he's an old stand-patter. Foraker didn't change but the ground shifted so rapidly under his feet that he was left behind.
Thus it appears with Pershing. If the Progressive Revolution ends in 1931 as this book title indicates it appears that the Liberals who win in their 1930 mid-term landslide mortally wound progressivism and Pershing himself finishes it off Mortal Kombat style two years later. We get our "return to normalcy" election after all, just twelve years later than OTL.