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

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Things aren't horrible in Hawaii at this point - what is needed is for the government to simply take the stance that a beloved ally is better than a anything. They need to be willing to accept that Hawaii is a very good friend who can be seen as an equal on the world stage, an equal which supplies them with goods that are economically beneficial and whom they can help in return the same way. As long as there's no problems, why fix wasn't isn't broken?

Where the problems occurred was in thinking they could control the Kingdom themselves; and that means they need to be willing to come down hard on anyone who tries to overthrow it.

I wonder if it's possible, given the worse nature of this Civil War, for America to see revolts in other places as bad, too. Perhaps some of those Hawaiians who fought for the Union as volunteers will go back and cause a shift in the dynamics so decades later there aren't the revolts and overthrowing of the kingdom - and at the same time, the government of the U.S. - because of contact with these friends - is willing to agree with them that the Kingdom of Hawaii needs to be kept as an ally and not interfered with.

While it might not directly help Latin American states, the U.S. seeing Hawaiians as worthy allies who are equals might start the slow process toward the U.S.seeing others as their equals, too.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Modern US foreign policy is traced to the Korean War to a degree but otherwise mostly to the Wilson Presidency. Yes. That Wilson.
Get rid of Wilson and having a US superpower/great power won't end up badly.

Hardly. Idealistic American foreign policy goes back to Jefferson--not, I should add, President Jefferson, either, but Revolutionary War Jefferson. It's connected to the broader idea of American exceptionalism, which itself goes back to the colonial era ("city on a hill" and all that); the United States is an extraordinary country that has a mission to improve the world. Short of more or less destroying the country, or at least turning it into a dictatorship, that idea isn't going anywhere.

Meanwhile, on the other hand the actual content of America's foreign policy tends to be more or less standard great power/superpower shenanigans, i.e. shortsightedly "protecting" so-called "interests" through self-undermining actions. Since all great powers and superpowers do this kind of thing, the only real way to avoid this is to prevent the United States from becoming a great power or superpower, which is impossible at this stage. Even if the United States lost the Civil War, which it isn't, the remaining rump United States would still be industrialized and rich enough to be a great power, and would inevitably get up to many of the same kind of thing.

 

[Crust3038]

Hardly. Idealistic American foreign policy goes back to Jefferson--not, I should add, President Jefferson, either, but Revolutionary War Jefferson. It's connected to the broader idea of American exceptionalism, which itself goes back to the colonial era ("city on a hill" and all that); the United States is an extraordinary country that has a mission to improve the world. Short of more or less destroying the country, or at least turning it into a dictatorship, that idea isn't going anywhere.

Meanwhile, on the other hand the actual content of America's foreign policy tends to be more or less standard great power/superpower shenanigans, i.e. shortsightedly "protecting" so-called "interests" through self-undermining actions. Since all great powers and superpowers do this kind of thing, the only real way to avoid this is to prevent the United States from becoming a great power or superpower, which is impossible at this stage. Even if the United States lost the Civil War, which it isn't, the remaining rump United States would still be industrialized and rich enough to be a great power, and would inevitably get up to many of the same kind of thing.

Wilson was the man who took generic globe-wide Imperialism, removed pragmatism and realpolitik from its inner workings, and made it into America's secular religion. He took, what some already called a perversion due to the many genocides it has already caused, Manifest Destiny, and made it even more annoying by making it a global phenomenon, not just an Americas-only one.
In other words: If America had been a typical Imperial great power, it would not make as many fuck ups as it did when Wilson added some extra spicing.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Things aren't horrible in Hawaii at this point - what is needed is for the government to simply take the stance that a beloved ally is better than a anything. They need to be willing to accept that Hawaii is a very good friend who can be seen as an equal on the world stage, an equal which supplies them with goods that are economically beneficial and whom they can help in return the same way. As long as there's no problems, why fix wasn't isn't broken?

It wasn't even that, really. Although it's the popular narrative that the United States was basically solely responsible for overthrowing the monarchy, it is better seen as the culmination of multiple years of instability and discord driven by essentially a conflict between big business interests and the rest of society, with external intervention playing only a relatively minor role of buttressing these internal forces (this is the case with most coups, rebellions, and the like, anyway; foreign involvement is usually only one of many factors leading to them). In the years leading up to the overthrow, the monarchy had become totally dependent on the goodwill of the American business element to remain in power--not only were they the leading businessmen of the country, owning a very disproportionate share of wealth and producing a very large share of the country's national income, but they also made up most of the monarch's advisors and, crucially, most of the military forces. Once they were convinced that the monarchy was no longer serving their business interests, the monarchy was going to go--which, of course, is exactly what it did.

The main substantial activity by the United States in relation to the overthrow was, in fact, just landing Marines with orders to prevent violence. Certainly interference in the country's internal affairs, but the fact that this was enough to lead to the monarchy's collapse indicates just how weak it was by 1893. The main charge that can be levied at the United States is that it did not intervene to kick the Republic out of power and put Liliuokalani back on the throne, not that Marines stormed 'Iolani Palace and forced her to abdicate.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Wilson was the man who took generic globe-wide Imperialism, removed pragmatism and realpolitik from its inner workings, and made it into America's secular religion. He took, what some already called a perversion due to the many genocides it has already caused, Manifest Destiny, and made it even more annoying by making it a global phenomenon, not just an Americas-only one.
In other words: If America had been a typical Imperial great power, it would not make as many fuck ups as it did when Wilson added some extra spicing.

As I outlined the United States had an extremely long history of idealistic foreign policy ideas. The only reason they were ever limited to just the Americas was because the United States was relatively weak and could barely project power that far, if even that. Once the United States started acting on the world stage instead of just the hemispherical one, it was only a matter of time before American politicians adapted American concepts of how the world ought to work to foreign policy language, simply because it's powerful rhetoric to get Americans to go along with what you're doing. Wilson was an extreme, but it was inevitably going to come as the United States became a great power.

 

[Zek Sora]

The odd thing, of course, is that the Monroe Doctrine rested upon British, not American power.

Well, maybe for part of its existence. I would say the Venezuela crisis of 1895 kind of illustrates the exact opposite (MD being enforced in opposition to British power), and certainly around the time of the Civil War, it rested largely on American power: see the French invasion of Mexico at the war's start, followed by immediate withdrawal from Mexico as soon as the war ended (and Union troops dispatched to the Texas border), or the failed recolonization of Santo Domingo by the Spanish, who withdrew in 1865 in large part out of fear of American intervention.

Get rid of Wilson and having a US superpower/great power won't end up badly (too much).

I gotta say, I dislike Wilson as much as the next guy, but I think this might be overestimating his influence a wee bit.

 

[Red_Galiray]

Oh. But you've got good knowledge of the Civil War.

Thanks.

Just because it came up, I'd like to point out that with major changes to the diplomatic and political landscape in the 1860s brought about by a radically different US, it's extremely unlikely the Belgian Congo would even exist. It took a lot of luck and careful politicking and for the bigger colonial powers to be balanced against each other just so for Leopold to get his hell state.

More depressingly, whoever does get it won't be that much better- and I include a hypothetical US, by the way. Wild rubber colonies cannot be run ethically, because absolutely no person in the world will harvest wild rubber voluntarily.

What makes rubber such a difficult thing to harvest?

I wonder if it's possible some confederate die-hard officer will actually try arming the people with pikes after they start running out of guns, which will be one of those monents where the average Dixielander realize the pro-slavery firebrands are out of touch with the people and reality.

Will this also include details of the "Yankee Emissaries" from mini-update 3? You said you'd discuss them in a following full size update.

I'm not american either, and am not even a big fan of the USA overall. But whenever someone mentions slavery I have a strong urge to saute General Sherman.

Towards the end the Federals might find themselves faced only by invalids and school boys. That would be particularly tragic.

Yeah... I intended to talk about them but as I said I kind of got carried away and ran out of space. In any case, I think the information about them fits better in a future update about actual Reconstruction and how it works on the ground.

Maybe make the world ITTL a more multipolar world as opposed to the unipolar American world order we have IOTL?

I have considered that, yes. Also, I have to confess that I have a big love for France, so I may wank them in the future to provide the necessary counterpart.

Ironically, your best bet for reforming American foreign policy might have to come from the future evolutions of the Chestnuts and their successor movements. They already possess strong tendencies towards hostility against the rich and isolationism, plus they draw heavily from largely non-Protestant minorities, so one step you could take is that when the inevitable happens and an opposition party to the Republicans is elected, it draws from traditions more in line with those portions of the movement. While that government's negative domestic policies might be stymied by a more reconstructed South, a combination of the distraction and new political theories about isolationism could help limit or alter the imperialism of the United States in Latin America due to more adversarial relations with large corporations and a stronger identification with Catholics.

Though the parties may die, the Chesnuts and their ideas would probably remain in some form or another, and the positions you described may make their successors more open to populist and pro-labor movements. The problem is, of course, Black voters. Someone once mentioned that you can't be the party of the Robber Barons, the Irish immigrant and the downtrodden African American. The Republicans cannot maintain their coalition indefinitely and somewhere down the line they will split, and the resulting party is almost certainly secured to absorb the old Democratic element and Chesnut ideals. But, oh God, the political coalitions will be a mess.

The way to stop the US from interfering with its southern neighbors is, simply, to weaken its capability to do so. That doesn't literally mean weaken the US, though it would help. Strengthening at least some of South America would, if nothing else, give rise to an alternative pole for politics, society and the economy to rely upon. Just as, ironically, one of the things that strengthened Argentina in the late nineteenth century was a British patron, a stronger Southern Cone or perhaps a surviving Empire of Brazil would make it much more difficult for the US to easily interfere in the continent.

I agree completely with this take, and it's what I follow in my other TL. Sometimes my distaste for American exceptionalism tempts me and I toy with engaging in wild and unrealistic PODs to do anything to strengthen Latin America.

Which, ironically, could set up this self-righteous America to declare itself the Monroe Doctrine/anti-imperialist protector of New World republics, and focus on building influence as an alternative to European corporate domination. Of course, that could easily sour into an attempted Greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere, or blossom into a sort of New World Non-Aligned Movement.

The second is the most likely outcome, sadly. I can easily see people coming up with "American civilization and kindness uplifted the Black man from slavery and ignorance. We should uplift the savages down south too."

Don't forget that America forced France to chicken out of Mexico by simply threatening them. I don't think ACW is going to be much longer ITTL.

The official, formal war will last at least as far as the 1864 election. On the other hand, insurrections and guerrillas may be counted as part of the war as well.

The trick, of course, would be 1) keeping the British and the French from spoiling the show, and 2) preventing anything on the order of the United Fruit Company from getting off the ground.

I must say, despite being Latin American, or perhaps because of it, I'm skeptical of Latin America's chances after 1850. I'm of the opinion that the opportunity for most countries was lost due to the disaster of the independence wars. Brazil, Argentina and perhaps Mexico are exceptions, but by 1850 most of them already have difficult problems and any POD would be focused on merely overcoming those instead of making the country better.

A Breckenridge presidency is a fascinating POD

I agree, that's why I think I will add that as bonus content.

Radical Republicans at this moment are not in a position to end racism, but they are in the position to change the rules of the game so that racism (relatively) quickly becomes an untenable position for the majority of white people, particularly the educated and urbanised.

I think some de facto segregation is probably inevitable, but you're quite right that the progress of this reconstruction will give Black and White Americans more opportunity to mingle, thus weakening prejudice in the long run. Btw, crazy to think that interracial marriage only received majority support among Whites in the 90's.

Modern US foreign policy can be traced to the Korean War to a degree but otherwise mostly to the Wilson Presidency. Yes. That Wilson.
(is not bias-free, warning: full of triggers for leftists)

I hate Wilson and love the Cynical Historian. Wilsoooonnnnn!!

Hardly. Idealistic American foreign policy goes back to Jefferson--not, I should add, President Jefferson, either, but Revolutionary War Jefferson. It's connected to the broader idea of American exceptionalism, which itself goes back to the colonial era ("city on a hill" and all that); the United States is an extraordinary country that has a mission to improve the world. Short of more or less destroying the country, or at least turning it into a dictatorship, that idea isn't going anywhere.

It's an annoying tendency of those gringos. It will probably continue, just under a different guise.

Well, maybe for part of its existence. I would say the Venezuela crisis of 1895 kind of illustrates the exact opposite (MD being enforced in opposition to British power), and certainly around the time of the Civil War, it rested largely on American power: see the French invasion of Mexico at the war's start, followed by immediate withdrawal from Mexico as soon as the war ended (and Union troops dispatched to the Texas border), or the failed recolonization of Santo Domingo by the Spanish, who withdrew in 1865 in large part out of fear of American intervention.

I disagree strongly with the idea that the French only invaded because the US was distracted and that they ran with their tail between their legs as soon as the Civil War ended. This narrative reeks strongly of "the US singlehandedly saved Mexico, who was too incompetent to save itself", as if the Maximilian regime was completely victorious and stable until the Americans came. It was the Mexicans who defeated the French, it was the Mexicans who deposed Maximilian, it was the Mexicans who won. Yet everybody acts as if mighty United States scared the French with just a few regiments along the Rio Grande. Now, I'm biased because I'm a Francophile and have a somewhat jaded view of the US, but I think the French could have defeated the Union in 1860, that the US actually did nothing to defeat their intervention, and that the victory over France is entirely Mexican.

 

[generalurist]

I have considered that, yes. Also, I have to confess that I have a big love for France, so I may wank them in the future to provide the necessary counterpart.

That could be fun, but I'm not sure how you'd go about making France a global power on the same level as Britain or (after WW1) USA. Somehow un-fucking their naval design and procurement wouldn't be a bad start though. Have them follow up more on their leap forwards by making the first Ironclad maybe?

Yeah... I intended to talk about them but as I said I kind of got carried away and ran out of space. In any case, I think the information about them fits better in a future update about actual Reconstruction and how it works on the ground.

Makes sense. Will that wait until after the war is over, or will reconstruction get going in earnest in some places before then>

I agree completely with this take, and it's what I follow in my other TL. Sometimes my distaste for American exceptionalism tempts me and I toy with engaging in wild and unrealistic PODs to do anything to strengthen Latin America.

What sort of 'wild' PODs do you ponder, if I may ask?

The second is the most likely outcome, sadly. I can easily see people coming up with "American civilization and kindness uplifted the Black man from slavery and ignorance. We should uplift the savages down south too."

Yup. Also since some places in Sub-Saharan Africa practice slavery, they might try and frame it as an extension of the antislavery crusade Lincoln started. It's of course not so simple, but the public may be convinced.

 

[Rattigan]

I think some de facto segregation is probably inevitable, but you're quite right that the progress of this reconstruction will give Black and White Americans more opportunity to mingle, thus weakening prejudice in the long run. Btw, crazy to think that interracial marriage only received majority support among Whites in the 90's.

The problem, of course, is that the best way to reliably decrease racist beliefs is to have people of different races live and work with one another. A US de facto divided into 'white states' and 'black states' probably wouldn't be much less racist but might see the African Americans in the black states be better off...

I disagree strongly with the idea that the French only invaded because the US was distracted and that they ran with their tail between their legs as soon as the Civil War ended. This narrative reeks strongly of "the US singlehandedly saved Mexico, who was too incompetent to save itself", as if the Maximilian regime was completely victorious and stable until the Americans came. It was the Mexicans who defeated the French, it was the Mexicans who deposed Maximilian, it was the Mexicans who won. Yet everybody acts as if mighty United States scared the French with just a few regiments along the Rio Grande. Now, I'm biased because I'm a Francophile and have a somewhat jaded view of the US, but I think the French could have defeated the Union in 1860, that the US actually did nothing to defeat their intervention, and that the victory over France is entirely Mexican.

The fullest of agreements with this.

Yup. Also since some places in Sub-Saharan Africa practice slavery, they might try and frame it as an extension of the antislavery crusade Lincoln started. It's of course not so simple, but the public may be convinced.

It's worth remembering that a lot of British colonial ventures in east and west Africa began as/had the pretext of being (delete according to taste) attempts to clamp down on the slave trade.

 

[Worffan101]

WRT the Mexican "Second Empire", the French-backed regime was effectively only an on-paper government, had zero popular support, and only existed at all because of French guns. Which is why it basically evaporated when the French pulled out (partially because it was a disastrous money sink and partially because the USA now had a vast and well-armed industrial military and was getting Very Upset about European mucking about in our hemisphere. All the actual heavy lifting was done by Mexican loyalists, the most the US really did was scare the French into pulling out, which they were already doing anyway because the entire affair had been a nonstop debacle.

 

[Workable Goblin]

It's an annoying tendency of those gringos. It will probably continue, just under a different guise.

Every country does it. Well, not "it" exactly, but every country has its own particular self-conception that colors how it engages with the world. In the case of the United States, it is simply the idea that America has something special to offer the world, which at the time was even somewhat justifiable given that it was one of the few major democratic republics, and relatively stable and effective to boot. In the greater scheme of things, this is really not such a bad self-conception; at the very least, it offers opportunities to induce domestic discontent with overly blatantly imperial actions and tends to discourage outright conquest.

Now, I'm biased because I'm a Francophile and have a somewhat jaded view of the US, but I think the French could have defeated the Union in 1860, that the US actually did nothing to defeat their intervention, and that the victory over France is entirely Mexican.

This is going much too far in the other direction. Of course Mexicans did the fighting and the dying, but that doesn't mean that the United States did nothing, or that the possibility of its involvement was not a concern for the French. On the most basic level, the United States provided arms and money to Juarez, and facilitated the sale of Mexican bonds in the United States for them to obtain more money, which is clearly not "doing nothing". I mean, that's about the level of American involvement in most of the later actions you are implicitly criticizing, and I doubt you would say that the United States "did nothing" in relation to the various coups and other shenanigans it got up to during the Cold War.

On a more complex level, France's victory over the United States in 1860 would have been neither obvious at the time (or today, for that matter) nor easy, and given that France at the time tended to get itself involved in many different conflicts because of Napoleon III it was certainly not obvious that it would be worthwhile--what's the use of beating America if it leads to France itself falling? Therefore, the threat of American intervention--despite any weaknesses the country may or may not have had--was certainly capable of influencing French foreign policy. One could compare this to how the threat of North Korea influences modern American foreign policy, even though the United States could certainly beat North Korea militarily. The cost of doing so, however, is unpalatable for any gain that it could bring.

 

[Red_Galiray]

That could be fun, but I'm not sure how you'd go about making France a global power on the same level as Britain or (after WW1) USA. Somehow un-fucking their naval design and procurement wouldn't be a bad start though. Have them follow up more on their leap forwards by making the first Ironclad maybe?

Makes sense. Will that wait until after the war is over, or will reconstruction get going in earnest in some places before then>

What sort of 'wild' PODs do you ponder, if I may ask?

Yup. Also since some places in Sub-Saharan Africa practice slavery, they might try and frame it as an extension of the antislavery crusade Lincoln started. It's of course not so simple, but the public may be convinced.

I'm not sure either. I will refrain from making any unrealistic change, but I would like to see a stronger France. That's why I considered having widespread use of Gatling guns, so that France would copy those techniques and repeal the Prussians.

Reconstruction will start in many areas before the war, and will get at least two chapters to it. In fact, for all intents and purposes, Tennessee and Louisiana had both been reconstructed under Lincoln's terms. They were ready to send Senators and Representatives, but Charles Sumner prevented that through a filibuster. Nonetheless, almost everybody was convinced that the next Congress would follow Lincoln's will regarding reconstruction, meaning that both states would be immediately admitted back.

At times it was basically translating the Latin America from my other TL to this one, especially Gran Colombia. Other ideas where a Mexican Empire, reunited Gran Colombia, reunited La Plata, etc.

The problem, of course, is that the best way to reliably decrease racist beliefs is to have people of different races live and work with one another. A US de facto divided into 'white states' and 'black states' probably wouldn't be much less racist but might see the African Americans in the black states be better off...

The fullest of agreements with this.

It's worth remembering that a lot of British colonial ventures in east and west Africa began as/had the pretext of being (delete according to taste) attempts to clamp down on the slave trade.

It's a tricky topic because Black and White Americans at times voluntarily segregated. Black people were especially anxious to get away from White control, and as a result tried to form their own communities and churches aside from Whites. But I think that de jure integration can do much to overcome that. One promising incident is that Louisiana desegregated its schools and most Whites, predictably, pulled out only to return a few months later now to integrated schools.

WRT the Mexican "Second Empire", the French-backed regime was effectively only an on-paper government, had zero popular support, and only existed at all because of French guns. Which is why it basically evaporated when the French pulled out (partially because it was a disastrous money sink and partially because the USA now had a vast and well-armed industrial military and was getting Very Upset about European mucking about in our hemisphere. All the actual heavy lifting was done by Mexican loyalists, the most the US really did was scare the French into pulling out, which they were already doing anyway because the entire affair had been a nonstop debacle.

Agree with how the Mexicans did the heavy lifting, and although I concede the point that "the US did nothing" is going too far, I still think the American involvement and their role in ending the conflict is very overstated.

On a more complex level, France's victory over the United States in 1860 would have been neither obvious at the time (or today, for that matter) nor easy, and given that France at the time tended to get itself involved in many different conflicts because of Napoleon III it was certainly not obvious that it would be worthwhile--what's the use of beating America if it leads to France itself falling? Therefore, the threat of American intervention--despite any weaknesses the country may or may not have had--was certainly capable of influencing French foreign policy. One could compare this to how the threat of North Korea influences modern American foreign policy, even though the United States could certainly beat North Korea militarily. The cost of doing so, however, is unpalatable for any gain that it could bring.

You're right that I overstated my point. But I still think the narrative that the French only pulled out because they were scared of the Americans is incorrect. Mostly because during the Civil War Lincoln did actually send troops to plant the Union flag in the Rio Grande. The expedition failed due to the Confederates. If the Union couldn't even get through these mere half-starved insurrectionists, why should the French be scared? Now, this is a somewhat sardonic comment, since the French could not know the real strength of the Union and a war with it was certainly not worth it. But the United States did made plans for a more decisive show of force after the war was over. It was the brainchild of Grant, who was feeling uncharacteristically bellicose and wanted to send an entire Army under Sheridan, but it never came to be. Since the French pulled out anyway, I have to conclude that it was the Mexicans who forced them to stop the intervention. Certainly, they received American help, but to say that France was only defeated due to the Americans it's just too much.

As for a Franco-American War, well, I think the dilemma is similar to an Anglo-American war. I think both Britain and France could have absolutely defeated the Union in 1860 if they put all their resources and strategy into doing so. But neither country will win anything from going into a total war and would simply back away, similar to our example with North Korea. What I take issue with is how many extrapolate that into "the US could have defeated all of Europe and the Confederacy with an arm behind its back." Like that annoying wank, Burnished Rows of Steel.

Ultimately, I think it's simply that my bias is showing. As I said, I'm a big fan of France and my opinions of the US are somewhat sour due to its long history of treating Latin American like a backyard. That's why the future foreign policy of this US distresses me, since I would like to create a better US but it seems impossible to do so. I would only end with an US that coups government not to protect from socialism but to export American values. Same result, different rhetorics.

 

[Worffan101]

Agree with how the Mexicans did the heavy lifting, and although I concede the point that "the US did nothing" is going too far, I still think the American involvement and their role in ending the conflict is very overstated.

The French by the late 1860s were super overstretched and Nappy III was just starting to realize it, though he didn't get by just how much. Also the Prussians had just beat the life out of the Austrians and there was reason to expect a major war soon.

Only it wasn't Napoleonic War 2: Electric Boogaloo, it was the French getting their crap shoved in by the Germans.

Essentially, pissing off the USA was a very bad idea and even Nappy III knew it, so the moment the USA started making serious noise, he backed out. It was a losing war anyway, with the US able to support the loyalists again Max was super fucked, open US noise only sped up the French timetable.

 

[5000 Cows]

Realistically, the US is still going to be somewhat paternalistic with regards to other nations at best. Though speaking of at best, I'd have to concur with above posters that the most optimal outcome at least as far as moderating gung ho American adventurism and interventionism, is to have some strong bedrock allies. It may outweigh said allies, but it's important for the average American to at least regard such nations as (roughly) equal.

 

[Red_Galiray]

The French by the late 1860s were super overstretched and Nappy III was just starting to realize it, though he didn't get by just how much. Also the Prussians had just beat the life out of the Austrians and there was reason to expect a major war soon.

Only it wasn't Napoleonic War 2: Electric Boogaloo, it was the French getting their crap shoved in by the Germans.

Essentially, pissing off the USA was a very bad idea and even Nappy III knew it, so the moment the USA started making serious noise, he backed out. It was a losing war anyway, with the US able to support the loyalists again Max was super fucked, open US noise only sped up the French timetable.

Yeah, I agree with this. If the US had decided to go war the French as soon as the Civil War ended they probably could have kicked them out of Mexico. But the Mexicans themselves had already achieved that. My issue is how people act as if the Americans saved the Mexicans, who by implication did nothing and could have done nothing to defeat the French themselves.

Realistically, the US is still going to be somewhat paternalistic with regards to other nations at best. Though speaking of at best, I'd have to concur with above posters that the most optimal outcome at least as far as moderating gung ho American adventurism and interventionism, is to have some strong bedrock allies. It may outweigh said allies, but it's important for the average American to at least regard such nations as (roughly) equal.

I wonder who could be that ally, however. Mexico? Too far from God, too close to the United States. Brazil? A slave empire, and I don't think the US would take kindly to them. Argentina? Too weak, really.

 

[fernerdave]

It's the 1860s, pikes went out of fashion in warfare over a century ago, before the revolutionary war. Did every immigrant bring their heirlooms over or something and bring them out for the riots?

I recall that John Brown got hold a bunch of swords in Kansas, they had been made for a fillibuster into Canada that didn't make it over the border.

 

[fernerdave]

Yeah, it seems quite left-wanky, especially with the 'bullet' part.

What it says on the tin -Radical!

 

[Workable Goblin]

Mexico? Too far from God, too close to the United States.

I'm not sure this is actually quite as difficult as that quote implies, actually. Just look at the relatively friendly relations between Juarez and the Union. Since by this point the United States has more or less satiated its territorial appetites in Mexico, if you can make the latter internally stronger (i.e., avoid the Porfirato and the resulting civil war) then there are certainly interesting prospects for a deeper partnership. It's not terribly different than France and Germany in the modern day, or France and Britain at about the same time OTL.

Brazil? A slave empire, and I don't think the US would take kindly to them.

Well...but how relevant is that, really? The United States is almost certainly going to go into a shell after it wins the Civil War, and probably won't be interacting that much with even the rest of the Americas, at least in an official, diplomatic sense, until the 1880s or 1890s, by which point Brazil is or is about to be an abolitionist republic...a deeply corrupt and undemocratic republic, mind you, but when has that ever stopped America?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

What makes rubber such a difficult thing to harvest?

There's three things to know about the African rubber colonies.
1. Rubber was incredibly lucrative, and getting more so every year. Demand was quickly outstripping supply. That meant there was a massive profit motive for the French, Portuguese, Belgians and whoever else to force local workers to harvest the rubber, no matter how horrible the conditions.
2. In that time and place, rubber was not grown on plantations. It's a completely different economic model from how it would eventually work in, say, Malaysia. Rubber trees take time to grow. Europe and America needed rubber now. That meant either harvesting rubber trees in the Amazon- also a site of atrocities, though less remembered now- or rubber vines in the Congo.
3. This is how you harvest Congo rubber in the 1880s. Do not read this if physical mutilation is a trigger for you.

Rubber vines are hard to simply tap. They drain slowly, they're high up on the tree, it's hard to get equipment up there to collect.

So instead, a person is sent to climb the tree with a knife.

They are naked, or nearly naked.

They slash the vine with the knife, and lie there while the rubber gradually coats their body. It gets hot in the Congo. There are many things that bite. There is only so much water you can take up the tree with you, and less food. While you stay there, in the heat, with the insects, with the thirst and the hunger, the rubber keeps on pouring. There's a lot if it, and even in that awful heat it can take days to dry on you.

They return to the camp where the rubber is 'collected.' That means it is torn from their body. That also means hair is torn. That also means, infamously, skin can be torn too. If the rubber has set hard... quite a lot of skin.

For some reason, you can't get people to volunteer for this. So you force them. The Force Publique was the most infamous example of this, and the Belgian Congo was worse than its neighbors. But both the French and Portuguese rubber colonies also involved forced labour, because you need to threaten people's lives (or the lives of their families or entire village) if you want them to risk being skinned alive for your profit.

No one would go to the expense of colonising the Congo without Rubber- Ivory was valuable, and so were its mineral resources, but the first was never as lucrative as Rubber and the metals could only be exploited once the colony was already set up.

That means anyone who runs it will finance the administration with wild rubber- and that means many, many deaths.

 

[Worffan101]

Yeah, I agree with this. If the US had decided to go war the French as soon as the Civil War ended they probably could have kicked them out of Mexico. But the Mexicans themselves had already achieved that. My issue is how people act as if the Americans saved the Mexicans, who by implication did nothing and could have done nothing to defeat the French themselves.

The Mexican loyalists were basically exhausted, disorganized, and unsupplied by this point. If the Civil War had gone on longer it's likely the situation would've stalemated for the duration. Once the USA could start sending support Juarez's way (the USA was friendly to his regime, it was only when things backslid under Diaz and the subsequent chaotic revolutionary period even as the USA started to get a massive ego that relations collapsed) the loyalists were going to win, it was only a matter of time. The threat of direct US intervention only sped up the timetable.

In a post-ACW US/France war situation over Mexico, France is going to lose Mexico fast, as in, weeks to months fast, and it's unable to invade the USA, there's just no way it can supply an invasion of the coasts, much less a full-scale penetration of the core, and Britain by this point was solidly against fucking with the USA. Furthermore the Prussians and their coalition were getting ready to jump France and it's obvious that Bismarck could extract even more from France if it's busy bleeding itself to prop up a doomed regime. So France is, knowing that the Germans are hostile and Prussia is consolidating the little states around itself for a showdown over Alsace, while Austria just got its ass kicked by a bunch of Italians and the Prussians, needs to get out of the Mexico debacle and fast.

I don't think the French would be stupid enough to call America's bluff here, because it isn't a bluff and France's hand is super weak. Max is dead meat and the loyalist regime is going to win, the most America has any reason to do is try to influence the aftermath--either by supporting local democracy or by propping up US-friendly asshats.