Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
It’s very specific to LatAm
I’d say interventionist v. isolationist is a bit too simplified/reductive
It’s a start at least
Youd be on solid ground with that guess
Just remember, the Spanish word for Nasser is Anastasio Somoza.
Of course this leads to the Sandanistas possibly being US supported and Somoza still coming to the same end in 1980....
Unfortunately it seems Central America and the Caribbean are doomed to have a 20th century (or at least the first half or three-quarters) similar to OTL: ruled by ultra-corrupt oligarchs or military juntas who exist to facilitate American companies’ looting of their countries. And if they step out of line the Marines will be there to make them safe for business again
If anything it's likely to be worse as the US isn't spreading out much globally and instead is paying far closer attention to the western hemisphere as its turf.
Heh.Just remember, the Spanish word for Nasser is Anastasio Somoza.
Of course this leads to the Sandanistas possibly being US supported and Somoza still coming to the same end in 1980....
It would be a nice symmetric corollary - Zelaya as a stooge of the US rather than its opponent as in OTL, and conversely Somoza as an opponent of the US, rather than its stooge. With the added lol of Somoza being a populist figure rather than somebody imposed externally
This is precisely the idea - a U.S. unworried about Europe and with a miniscule footprint in Asia has way more time and energy to export freedom to the rest of the Americas
As an American trust me that my comment was stated with the deepest level of sarcastic dark humor, lol
It seems reasonable that Brazil could support leaders that the US supported iOTL, Brazilian Integralism in some ways seems like the anti-OTL USSR. Both Monarchist *and* highly conservative Catholic, even in a way that neither Mussolini nor Franco were. (To the point where I'm worried about Brazilian Jews). And while Chilean Syndicalism isn't OTL Marxism, Chile *is* local to Brazil, just not in a place where Brazil can get to them without going *through* Argentina.
iTTL, Vatican II could either cause a split in the Papacy *or* what could bring down a Brazilian regime (aka OTL Soviet 1989)
iTTL, Vatican II could either cause a split in the Papacy *or* what could bring down a Brazilian regime (aka OTL Soviet 1989)
Late 1980s/early 1990s is, incidentally, more or less where I'd planned to place TTL's equivalent of Vatican II, though it won't go nearly as far.
Ireland Unfree
"...of considerable ambition and scope. Chief Secretary Samuel had arrived at Dublin Castle brimming with ambition and an eagerness to pursue what was rapidly emerging as the chief priority of the Chamberlain government - the Irish Convention. He was assisted greatly by Midleton's advice and extensive notes on Ireland's various players and personalities to better help him understand the hornet's nest he was wandering into, and Samuel was so impressed that he asked Midleton to stay on for the Convention as a sort of unofficial ambassador of the British Liberals to Southern Unionists, generally regarded as the key piece to solving the puzzle. Midleton agreed, reluctantly, and in the end was glad he did, dismissing Samuel as in over his head, overly sympathetic to Irish nationalists, and dismissing Protestant concerns [1] based on his own stereotypes of Ulstermen.
Due to security concerns in Belfast, the Irish Convention was decided to be held entirely in Dublin, mediated by the Lord Lieutenant in absentia, passing thus the role of interloper on to Samuel. The Convention's first five sittings were held in the Four Courts, and later on moved to Dublin Castle itself. It was a motley group of representatives, with the nationalists dominated by Redmond, Devlin and O'Brien (Dillon's absence was curious and later critical), while Carson and Craig boycotted the proceedings entirely, leaving the representation of Ulster to the Lord Londonderry, Sir Hugh Pollock, Sir Alexander McDowell and the Reverend John Irvin. Southern Unionists were on the contrary well-represented in their views, with Midleton and Lord MacDonnell, as well as the Church of Ireland's Archbishop of Dublin John Bernard speaking on their behalf - as Redmond would put it, "Ulster sent their seconds, Leinster her eminences." In time, this too would become a critical issue, as though Londonderry was a fair and honest broker on behalf of Ulster Orangeman though he was, the populist leaders of the Ulster resistance sat not at the table of their own volition, and men like Craig would for decades claim that Ulster had been betrayed at the Irish Convention. [2]
Samuel, in his copious notes, wrote that several things quickly became apparent to him. The first was that Ulster's intransigence was perhaps not as firm as he had initially thought, and he observed that, "Having sat in Westminster and heard tale of this reactionary apes from Belfast, I instead saw for the first time a traditional but instinctively liberal people firm in their belief that a United Ireland would force them into Catholicism that they believed they had rejected in the Enlightenment." If the question of schooling in Ireland could be solved, he thought, then a huge obstacle could perhaps be lifted. It was here that Samuel also began to notice that the Catholic bishops of Ireland - a group to whom he, as a staunch British Liberal and a Jew to boot, was wholly unsympathetic towards - were displaying a level of stubbornness he had not expected, and that Devlin in particular seemed utterly in thrall to them, refusing to take any position which disaligned him from the Catholic hierarchy. [3]
The three dominant figures of the Convention, however, came to be Redmond for the nationalists in the swan song of his life, Midleton for the moderate Southern Unionists, and McDowell for Ulster, quickly replacing Londonderry as the chief potentate of that delegation as he rapidly established himself as a man Redmond could trust but who also got on well with the Ulster Council. Redmond was deeply skeptical of a carveout for Ulster specifically but was generally open to using the local boards as the architecture for provincial and county autonomy, which McDowell surprised him by largely adhering to. [4] This was about as far as structural agreement early in the Convention went; Redmond advocated a unicameral Irish Assembly with full powers of governance, essentially making Ireland a Dominion, while both McDowell and even Midleton preferred reserving customs, excise and defense in the hands of Parliament, and wanted a bicameral body - ideally with an Irish House of Lords, to protect the interests of the Ascendancy, but a Senate based on Ireland's counties would do fine - as a check on what they anticipated would be a lower house dominated by the nationalists, especially as Midleton could sense that Redmond's health was fragile and that "within years, it shall be Devlin we treat with."
Indeed, as autumn advanced, Redmond's declining physical stamina was apparent for all to see, even as he remained mentally astute as ever and spoke with a vigor his body did not share whenever he addressed the Convention. For Midleton and, a lesser extent, McDowell and Londonderry, the moment was critical - they needed a deal with Redmond and O'Brien while there was a deal to be had, otherwise there may never be another chance to get a favorable settlement for Ulster. It was increasingly apparent that for whatever Samuel had learned of the Catholic hierarchy's foot-dragging and that Ulstermen could be bargained with, in their view he had been sent to Dublin to "free Ireland from British shackles," as Londonderry but it derisively, and he would not waver from that task.
This was a misreading of Samuel's intentions - and even decades later, now, Herbert Samuel is held in contempt in much of Ulster for allegedly putting his "thumb on the scale" in favor of Irish nationalists - but there was nonetheless some truth to the idea that there was enormous pressure from London via the Chief Secretary to "knock heads together" and find "a Constitution on the quick." Chamberlain had by October of 1917 settled on late January as the date to drop the writ for all of the United Kingdom and he had no illusions about George Barnes or Hugh Cecil allowing him to pass that date by very long. Chamberlain was in most important ways very much not his father, but he had observed from Joseph's time as Prime Minister the importance of an electoral theme; 1894 had been waged as the "People vs. the Peers," and 1903 had been the Tariff Election (one which did not go quite as well for Chamberlain pere). Accordingly, Chamberlain was eager if not desperate to make a poll in late January or early February a referendum on the settlement to emerge from the Irish Convention; a Liberal majority coming out of such a poll would be essential to passing an Irish settlement through the Commons, where one had to hope that the Liberal peers in the Lords and enough Tories, under pressure from an irate King George V, would acquiesce to it..."
- Ireland Unfree
[1] This is an Irish nationalist book, not a Catholic book
[2] To which I would say "Yeah, but you could have, you know, gone to the Convention that would settle the matter."
[3] This was indeed the biggest sticking point of the OTL Irish Convention - Ulster wanted a guarantee of non-clerical control of schools, the Irish Catholic hierarchy refused, and an effort to find a settlement on provincial autonomy and internal fiscal compromises flamed out over disagreements between Belfast and Dublin quickly thereafter. Its interesting reading about the Convention, though, just how close Redmond and Midleton were to cutting a deal.
[4] A carveout for Ulster was one of the major sticking points iOTL - here, without an Easter Rising to badly poison the well across Ireland, and more local authority from the first Chamberlain years, this is perhaps not as live of an issue.
Due to security concerns in Belfast, the Irish Convention was decided to be held entirely in Dublin, mediated by the Lord Lieutenant in absentia, passing thus the role of interloper on to Samuel. The Convention's first five sittings were held in the Four Courts, and later on moved to Dublin Castle itself. It was a motley group of representatives, with the nationalists dominated by Redmond, Devlin and O'Brien (Dillon's absence was curious and later critical), while Carson and Craig boycotted the proceedings entirely, leaving the representation of Ulster to the Lord Londonderry, Sir Hugh Pollock, Sir Alexander McDowell and the Reverend John Irvin. Southern Unionists were on the contrary well-represented in their views, with Midleton and Lord MacDonnell, as well as the Church of Ireland's Archbishop of Dublin John Bernard speaking on their behalf - as Redmond would put it, "Ulster sent their seconds, Leinster her eminences." In time, this too would become a critical issue, as though Londonderry was a fair and honest broker on behalf of Ulster Orangeman though he was, the populist leaders of the Ulster resistance sat not at the table of their own volition, and men like Craig would for decades claim that Ulster had been betrayed at the Irish Convention. [2]
Samuel, in his copious notes, wrote that several things quickly became apparent to him. The first was that Ulster's intransigence was perhaps not as firm as he had initially thought, and he observed that, "Having sat in Westminster and heard tale of this reactionary apes from Belfast, I instead saw for the first time a traditional but instinctively liberal people firm in their belief that a United Ireland would force them into Catholicism that they believed they had rejected in the Enlightenment." If the question of schooling in Ireland could be solved, he thought, then a huge obstacle could perhaps be lifted. It was here that Samuel also began to notice that the Catholic bishops of Ireland - a group to whom he, as a staunch British Liberal and a Jew to boot, was wholly unsympathetic towards - were displaying a level of stubbornness he had not expected, and that Devlin in particular seemed utterly in thrall to them, refusing to take any position which disaligned him from the Catholic hierarchy. [3]
The three dominant figures of the Convention, however, came to be Redmond for the nationalists in the swan song of his life, Midleton for the moderate Southern Unionists, and McDowell for Ulster, quickly replacing Londonderry as the chief potentate of that delegation as he rapidly established himself as a man Redmond could trust but who also got on well with the Ulster Council. Redmond was deeply skeptical of a carveout for Ulster specifically but was generally open to using the local boards as the architecture for provincial and county autonomy, which McDowell surprised him by largely adhering to. [4] This was about as far as structural agreement early in the Convention went; Redmond advocated a unicameral Irish Assembly with full powers of governance, essentially making Ireland a Dominion, while both McDowell and even Midleton preferred reserving customs, excise and defense in the hands of Parliament, and wanted a bicameral body - ideally with an Irish House of Lords, to protect the interests of the Ascendancy, but a Senate based on Ireland's counties would do fine - as a check on what they anticipated would be a lower house dominated by the nationalists, especially as Midleton could sense that Redmond's health was fragile and that "within years, it shall be Devlin we treat with."
Indeed, as autumn advanced, Redmond's declining physical stamina was apparent for all to see, even as he remained mentally astute as ever and spoke with a vigor his body did not share whenever he addressed the Convention. For Midleton and, a lesser extent, McDowell and Londonderry, the moment was critical - they needed a deal with Redmond and O'Brien while there was a deal to be had, otherwise there may never be another chance to get a favorable settlement for Ulster. It was increasingly apparent that for whatever Samuel had learned of the Catholic hierarchy's foot-dragging and that Ulstermen could be bargained with, in their view he had been sent to Dublin to "free Ireland from British shackles," as Londonderry but it derisively, and he would not waver from that task.
This was a misreading of Samuel's intentions - and even decades later, now, Herbert Samuel is held in contempt in much of Ulster for allegedly putting his "thumb on the scale" in favor of Irish nationalists - but there was nonetheless some truth to the idea that there was enormous pressure from London via the Chief Secretary to "knock heads together" and find "a Constitution on the quick." Chamberlain had by October of 1917 settled on late January as the date to drop the writ for all of the United Kingdom and he had no illusions about George Barnes or Hugh Cecil allowing him to pass that date by very long. Chamberlain was in most important ways very much not his father, but he had observed from Joseph's time as Prime Minister the importance of an electoral theme; 1894 had been waged as the "People vs. the Peers," and 1903 had been the Tariff Election (one which did not go quite as well for Chamberlain pere). Accordingly, Chamberlain was eager if not desperate to make a poll in late January or early February a referendum on the settlement to emerge from the Irish Convention; a Liberal majority coming out of such a poll would be essential to passing an Irish settlement through the Commons, where one had to hope that the Liberal peers in the Lords and enough Tories, under pressure from an irate King George V, would acquiesce to it..."
- Ireland Unfree
[1] This is an Irish nationalist book, not a Catholic book
[2] To which I would say "Yeah, but you could have, you know, gone to the Convention that would settle the matter."
[3] This was indeed the biggest sticking point of the OTL Irish Convention - Ulster wanted a guarantee of non-clerical control of schools, the Irish Catholic hierarchy refused, and an effort to find a settlement on provincial autonomy and internal fiscal compromises flamed out over disagreements between Belfast and Dublin quickly thereafter. Its interesting reading about the Convention, though, just how close Redmond and Midleton were to cutting a deal.
[4] A carveout for Ulster was one of the major sticking points iOTL - here, without an Easter Rising to badly poison the well across Ireland, and more local authority from the first Chamberlain years, this is perhaps not as live of an issue.
I think what we will see is that the elections are held in the safest regions that are not fully occupied or are not making Warlord Era China scream due to fear (which means like three and a half states, as I remember), with the candidates consisting of:
-The guy the remainders of the Confederate Establishment wants
-Village Idiot
And absolutely no one else, due to some contrived reasons the ones in charge make up.
The Yellow Peril
"...the backlash against immigration into the United States had been brewing for years, arrested briefly by the war, but finally burst free in the postwar depression (sometimes called the "Root Recession" for the alliterative messaging the administration's opponents could use to firmly place blame where it belonged, on the economic policies of President Root - but it was indeed a depression). What set the explosion of nativism in the postwar years apart from what preceded it, however, was how broad these sentiments were, the way they cut across partisan lines and extended to all manner of ethnic and religious groups, and how they were successful in coalescing into the Immigration Act of 1918, which placed the first country-of-origin restrictions and limitations into American immigration policy, limitations that would persist in some form (though with revisions and relaxations) for decades.
Immigration to the United States, as this book has argued in previous chapters, is inexorably linked with American identity, but so is nativism - every generation of Americans have found a new group that arrives that is thought to somehow threaten the extant native-borns' physical or economic security, often phrased in racial of cultural terms. Prominently, the first wave of such persons were the Irish who arrived in the great migrations after the Famine of the 1840s; the discrimination suffered by these Irishmen was fundamental to fostering an Irish community that, in time, would come to form a bedrock of the Democratic Party, particularly in New York, Chicago, and increasingly in Liberal strongholds like Boston or Philadelphia. Ironically, it was then the Irish in California who were the first adamant opponents of Chinese and, later, Korean and Japanese immigration to the West Coast, and back East, before long the Italians, the Poles, Serbs, Greeks, and Jews were the new scapegoats looked down upon as a great wave of new arrivals began to build steam in the early 1890s and crested right as the Great American War broke out. The end of the war also saw a massive refugee wave of freedmen from the Confederacy beginning in 1915; between that year and 1920, as many as one and a half million Negro men, women and children are thought to have fled across the Ohio, more than doubling the Negro population of the United States in the space of a few years, and over a million more concentrated themselves in western and central Kentucky, under American military administration.
American soldiers thus returned from the battlefield, having been rotated in and out of combat for two or three long years depending on their cohort, to often find their cities irrevocably changed. In the words of one famous anonymous soldier publishing an essay in the New York World, neighborhoods once "lily white with an Episcopalian Church at its center" were now "crawling" with Italians and Greeks, "stinking of the incense of their rituals." One "hears not a lick of English on the streets," and "these new townships, invariably overwhelmingly male, are inevitably dens of vice, drinking, gambling and lust for American women, who have had to defend their honor for years alone as their cities were overrun." These were certainly not uncommon sentiments.
The massive labor strikes of the Red Summer of 1917, which continued at a smaller scale well into autumn, further terrified the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority, which suddenly saw its position at the top of the American social hierarchy irrevocably threatened. Even as tens of thousands of temporary laborers from the war years took their earnings from shuttered factories and went home - especially prevalent amongst Italians and French-Canadians - it seemed that a tipping point was close to being reached. The labor movement in 1917 was dependent on immigrants, and thus immigration quickly came for conservatives to be synonymous with political radicalism, with the end of Protestant majorities suddenly being equated to the abolition of the English language and mass nationalizations of American industries under socialist administration.
This was not a commonly held view, to be clear, but that this fringe paranoia was mainstreamed spoke to the upheavals of the time, and it was against this backdrop that the American Defense League, or ADL, was founded in October 1917 in Indianapolis. The most prominent anti-immigration organization previously had been the Immigration Restriction League, chaired and encouraged by none other than Henry Cabot Lodge, the powerful Massachusetts Senator who was now the Secretary of State. The issue for the IRL had been that it was too fundamentally a project of upper-class WASPism; Lodge was a "Brahmin's Brahmin," referring to the Boston aristocracy from which he hailed, too wealthy and obsessed with his Mayflower heritage to ever press his project to a wider audience. Attempts to form an American subchapter to the powerful, well-organized and fiercely anti-Catholic Orange Order of Canada had always struggled due to the Order's association with the British Crown and specific fixations, but the ADL came close. The American Defense League viewed its mission as broader than simply attacking immigration - it was also intended to be an organization that would defend American interests at home against labor radicalism, against political corruption, and against "public vice," strongly supporting the banning of alcohol entirely rather than simply its sale across state lines as bills before Congress proposed [1], opposing the women's vote, and generally acting as a reactionary bulwark for middle and working class voters alarmed by rapidly changing cultural mores.
It was also hard to separate the ADL's activities from the place of its founding, Indianapolis. It was the city with the proportionately largest Negro population in the United States, narrowly ahead of Cincinnati (though numerically smaller), in a state which unlike other parts of the Midwest had been largely populated and settled by smallholder farmers from the pre-1861 American South, particularly Kentuckians and Tennesseans, and which had in the late 19th century attracted huge numbers of so-called "Southern Tories" who had opposed secession and migrated from the Appalachian hill country of eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, western North Carolina, and northern Alabama. These "Tories" had settled in large numbers in the Ohio Valley and its hinterland; they had been the men and women who had powered the mills, factories and depots of places like Columbus, Vincennes, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Kokomo, and Muncie, and formed the bedrock of Indianapolis' commercial and professional classes now in later generations. They had brought with them from the Appalachian Uplands a distinctive suspicion of outsiders, a set of racial views that were considerably harsher than even the prevailing attitudes of most Americans at the time, and though they had little affinity for the Confederacy as a whole, they had powered a certain populist cultural conservatism that was unique to Indiana and set it largely apart from most else of the Midwest save for swaths of western and southwestern Ohio, parts of southern Illinois, and southern Missouri.
Indiana was also, along with Ohio, the epicenter of the freedmen refugee crisis, with places like Evansville in 1917 representing large encampments of those who had been approved by the Army's rigorous strictures to cross the river. Indianapolis was thus set hard on edge, and a massive race riot engulfed the city's south side, home to not only a large Negro population but also its Italian community, on November 17, 1917, spurred on by the ADL and seeing six people left dead and dozens of encampments, businesses, and homes destroyed.
Within weeks of the ADL's revelation as an organization and its coordinated attacks on racial, ethnic and religious minorities - one of Indianapolis' oldest synagogues was destroyed just prior to the Christmas holiday - new chapters were springing up around the country, and very pointedly the Chinese Exclusion League of California, with the support of its patron Senator Phelan, voted to invite San Francisco's ADL chapter to join them as an observer. The nativist impulses in California were now finding new allies, and a sophisticated web of restrictionist organizations spread out across the country..." [2]
- The Yellow Peril
[1] More to come
[2] The ADL and its other ugly ilk will become more important in the 1920s, this is meant to record its starting point
Immigration to the United States, as this book has argued in previous chapters, is inexorably linked with American identity, but so is nativism - every generation of Americans have found a new group that arrives that is thought to somehow threaten the extant native-borns' physical or economic security, often phrased in racial of cultural terms. Prominently, the first wave of such persons were the Irish who arrived in the great migrations after the Famine of the 1840s; the discrimination suffered by these Irishmen was fundamental to fostering an Irish community that, in time, would come to form a bedrock of the Democratic Party, particularly in New York, Chicago, and increasingly in Liberal strongholds like Boston or Philadelphia. Ironically, it was then the Irish in California who were the first adamant opponents of Chinese and, later, Korean and Japanese immigration to the West Coast, and back East, before long the Italians, the Poles, Serbs, Greeks, and Jews were the new scapegoats looked down upon as a great wave of new arrivals began to build steam in the early 1890s and crested right as the Great American War broke out. The end of the war also saw a massive refugee wave of freedmen from the Confederacy beginning in 1915; between that year and 1920, as many as one and a half million Negro men, women and children are thought to have fled across the Ohio, more than doubling the Negro population of the United States in the space of a few years, and over a million more concentrated themselves in western and central Kentucky, under American military administration.
American soldiers thus returned from the battlefield, having been rotated in and out of combat for two or three long years depending on their cohort, to often find their cities irrevocably changed. In the words of one famous anonymous soldier publishing an essay in the New York World, neighborhoods once "lily white with an Episcopalian Church at its center" were now "crawling" with Italians and Greeks, "stinking of the incense of their rituals." One "hears not a lick of English on the streets," and "these new townships, invariably overwhelmingly male, are inevitably dens of vice, drinking, gambling and lust for American women, who have had to defend their honor for years alone as their cities were overrun." These were certainly not uncommon sentiments.
The massive labor strikes of the Red Summer of 1917, which continued at a smaller scale well into autumn, further terrified the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority, which suddenly saw its position at the top of the American social hierarchy irrevocably threatened. Even as tens of thousands of temporary laborers from the war years took their earnings from shuttered factories and went home - especially prevalent amongst Italians and French-Canadians - it seemed that a tipping point was close to being reached. The labor movement in 1917 was dependent on immigrants, and thus immigration quickly came for conservatives to be synonymous with political radicalism, with the end of Protestant majorities suddenly being equated to the abolition of the English language and mass nationalizations of American industries under socialist administration.
This was not a commonly held view, to be clear, but that this fringe paranoia was mainstreamed spoke to the upheavals of the time, and it was against this backdrop that the American Defense League, or ADL, was founded in October 1917 in Indianapolis. The most prominent anti-immigration organization previously had been the Immigration Restriction League, chaired and encouraged by none other than Henry Cabot Lodge, the powerful Massachusetts Senator who was now the Secretary of State. The issue for the IRL had been that it was too fundamentally a project of upper-class WASPism; Lodge was a "Brahmin's Brahmin," referring to the Boston aristocracy from which he hailed, too wealthy and obsessed with his Mayflower heritage to ever press his project to a wider audience. Attempts to form an American subchapter to the powerful, well-organized and fiercely anti-Catholic Orange Order of Canada had always struggled due to the Order's association with the British Crown and specific fixations, but the ADL came close. The American Defense League viewed its mission as broader than simply attacking immigration - it was also intended to be an organization that would defend American interests at home against labor radicalism, against political corruption, and against "public vice," strongly supporting the banning of alcohol entirely rather than simply its sale across state lines as bills before Congress proposed [1], opposing the women's vote, and generally acting as a reactionary bulwark for middle and working class voters alarmed by rapidly changing cultural mores.
It was also hard to separate the ADL's activities from the place of its founding, Indianapolis. It was the city with the proportionately largest Negro population in the United States, narrowly ahead of Cincinnati (though numerically smaller), in a state which unlike other parts of the Midwest had been largely populated and settled by smallholder farmers from the pre-1861 American South, particularly Kentuckians and Tennesseans, and which had in the late 19th century attracted huge numbers of so-called "Southern Tories" who had opposed secession and migrated from the Appalachian hill country of eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, western North Carolina, and northern Alabama. These "Tories" had settled in large numbers in the Ohio Valley and its hinterland; they had been the men and women who had powered the mills, factories and depots of places like Columbus, Vincennes, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Kokomo, and Muncie, and formed the bedrock of Indianapolis' commercial and professional classes now in later generations. They had brought with them from the Appalachian Uplands a distinctive suspicion of outsiders, a set of racial views that were considerably harsher than even the prevailing attitudes of most Americans at the time, and though they had little affinity for the Confederacy as a whole, they had powered a certain populist cultural conservatism that was unique to Indiana and set it largely apart from most else of the Midwest save for swaths of western and southwestern Ohio, parts of southern Illinois, and southern Missouri.
Indiana was also, along with Ohio, the epicenter of the freedmen refugee crisis, with places like Evansville in 1917 representing large encampments of those who had been approved by the Army's rigorous strictures to cross the river. Indianapolis was thus set hard on edge, and a massive race riot engulfed the city's south side, home to not only a large Negro population but also its Italian community, on November 17, 1917, spurred on by the ADL and seeing six people left dead and dozens of encampments, businesses, and homes destroyed.
Within weeks of the ADL's revelation as an organization and its coordinated attacks on racial, ethnic and religious minorities - one of Indianapolis' oldest synagogues was destroyed just prior to the Christmas holiday - new chapters were springing up around the country, and very pointedly the Chinese Exclusion League of California, with the support of its patron Senator Phelan, voted to invite San Francisco's ADL chapter to join them as an observer. The nativist impulses in California were now finding new allies, and a sophisticated web of restrictionist organizations spread out across the country..." [2]
- The Yellow Peril
[1] More to come
[2] The ADL and its other ugly ilk will become more important in the 1920s, this is meant to record its starting point
I think Louisiana, Florida and North Carolina will be the only states capable of holding out elections lol. Most will just be reappointed by state legislatures in exile because of the American occupation.
That’s where we’re headed, if some needles can be threaded by the Convention - easier said than done.
Much of southern Mississippi is in relatively okay condition but, yes, a clusterfuck looks likely
There is one other state with a majority of the state able to hold an election: Kentucky.
(Actually, I think Arkansas may qualify as well)