Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)

[1962strat]

I binged this in a week... and just wow. Great timeline by all standards. The level of detail, dedication and originality is honestly extremely rare to see, and I dare say it beats anything I've read before in those regards. I must admit that with my rather sub-par knowledge of American internal history I found myself glossing over the American and CSA politics updates, but I still immensely enjoyed the story.

What I would praise the most is how organic the CdM world feels. The fact that you took the time to write about often forgotten in AH corners of the world like Latin America or Korea, beyond "they are in X country's sphere of influence and have no agency whatsoever", made it feel so much more dynamic than other timelines. And as a Latin American myself, I quite appreciated the focus.

As a constructive critic, and let me prelude this by saying that it doesn't take away from the fact that I consider this among the best I've read on this site, I would say that the ending to the War in the Cone didn't feel very coherent.

Firstly, I think that the importance of Uruguay to Argentina, in particular the access to the Plata basin, is understated. It is an existential threat to the capital, and in a state as centralized as Argentina that translates to an existential threat for itself. Brazilian warships in Colonia del Sacramento is totally unacceptable to Argentina, and most of the population, an overwhelming part of which lives in the area, would support further efforts to fight that. Even with the gains in Patagonia, this treaty is a strategic disaster for Argentina. Patagonia is resource rich and control over the Horn is valuable, but it's also an empty desert for the most part, far away from population centers. Holding Tierra del Fuego means nothing if Brazil is able to put a fleet in Montevideo and threaten the very heart of the nation.

Going with Argentina's internal situation, the fact that Brazil still occupies territory and that they were clearly attacked would keep the population supportive of the war effort, especially with a figure as influential as Alem ITTL supporting it. The sea lanes remaining open and Argentina having a large agricultural sector also means that the situation in unoccupied territories would not be catastrophically bad. Military losses could be a sticking issue, but staying behind the Parana and not seeking peace should be a safe choice politically.

Then the situation abroad: you got Brazil plagued by mutinies and domestic strife, Mexico and Chile capitulated, and a CSA that it looks like it could collapse any moment. The latter would mean that all American attention would be focused in Brazil, either bringing overwhelming military force or pressuring Brazil to back down just with the threat of it. All they have to do is wait behind the Paraná, either for America to finish off the CSA or for Brazil to collapse by itself.

It's under these conditions that Argentina agrees to a lopsided peace with Brazil, which in my opinion makes no sense at all under the conditions presented. With them clearly being the more orderly party in the home front and with the ever-looming threat for Brazil of having to win before the US finishes off the CSA, they had all the advantages.

And lastly, the matter of the alliance with the US: Argentina and the USA are allied, and and the USA is fighting Brazil as well. I'm not sure if Argentina is at war with the CSA as well, but it doesn't really matter. Then the treaty is portrayed as a British-sponsored event, with little input from the USA, looking dangerously like Argentina threw the USA under the bus to get their own peace, which would no doubt be awfully received back in North America. For two countries who are said to enjoy a "special relationship", this doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when it would've been more advantageous for both of them to negotiate in lockstep.

Anyways, my rant grew a bit longer than I wanted to, but don't let that take away from the fact that this timeline is fucking great, and props to @KingSweden24.

 

[KingSweden24]

I binged this in a week... and just wow. Great timeline by all standards. The level of detail, dedication and originality is honestly extremely rare to see, and I dare say it beats anything I've read before in those regards. I must admit that with my rather sub-par knowledge of American internal history I found myself glossing over the American and CSA politics updates, but I still immensely enjoyed the story.

What I would praise the most is how organic the CdM world feels. The fact that you took the time to write about often forgotten in AH corners of the world like Latin America or Korea, beyond "they are in X country's sphere of influence and have no agency whatsoever", made it feel so much more dynamic than other timelines. And as a Latin American myself, I quite appreciated the focus.

As a constructive critic, and let me prelude this by saying that it doesn't take away from the fact that I consider this among the best I've read on this site, I would say that the ending to the War in the Cone didn't feel very coherent.

Firstly, I think that the importance of Uruguay to Argentina, in particular the access to the Plata basin, is understated. It is an existential threat to the capital, and in a state as centralized as Argentina that translates to an existential threat for itself. Brazilian warships in Colonia del Sacramento is totally unacceptable to Argentina, and most of the population, an overwhelming part of which lives in the area, would support further efforts to fight that. Even with the gains in Patagonia, this treaty is a strategic disaster for Argentina. Patagonia is resource rich and control over the Horn is valuable, but it's also an empty desert for the most part, far away from population centers. Holding Tierra del Fuego means nothing if Brazil is able to put a fleet in Montevideo and threaten the very heart of the nation.

Going with Argentina's internal situation, the fact that Brazil still occupies territory and that they were clearly attacked would keep the population supportive of the war effort, especially with a figure as influential as Alem ITTL supporting it. The sea lanes remaining open and Argentina having a large agricultural sector also means that the situation in unoccupied territories would not be catastrophically bad. Military losses could be a sticking issue, but staying behind the Parana and not seeking peace should be a safe choice politically.

Then the situation abroad: you got Brazil plagued by mutinies and domestic strife, Mexico and Chile capitulated, and a CSA that it looks like it could collapse any moment. The latter would mean that all American attention would be focused in Brazil, either bringing overwhelming military force or pressuring Brazil to back down just with the threat of it. All they have to do is wait behind the Paraná, either for America to finish off the CSA or for Brazil to collapse by itself.

It's under these conditions that Argentina agrees to a lopsided peace with Brazil, which in my opinion makes no sense at all under the conditions presented. With them clearly being the more orderly party in the home front and with the ever-looming threat for Brazil of having to win before the US finishes off the CSA, they had all the advantages.

And lastly, the matter of the alliance with the US: Argentina and the USA are allied, and and the USA is fighting Brazil as well. I'm not sure if Argentina is at war with the CSA as well, but it doesn't really matter. Then the treaty is portrayed as a British-sponsored event, with little input from the USA, looking dangerously like Argentina threw the USA under the bus to get their own peace, which would no doubt be awfully received back in North America. For two countries who are said to enjoy a "special relationship", this doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when it would've been more advantageous for both of them to negotiate in lockstep.

Anyways, my rant grew a bit longer than I wanted to, but don't let that take away from the fact that this timeline is fucking great, and props to @KingSweden24.

What an incredibly kind thing to say! I am honored (and seriously impressed you curbed both OG CdM and the sequel so far in a week).

Your feedback is pretty fair; the War in the Cone was a situation where I wrote myself into a bit of a corner in wanting to make it clear why Brazil needed to nope out and leave the door open for a “mutilated victory” that also left Argentina unsatisfied to (potentially) set up for future rounds. Of all the GAW content, Asunción is the peace agreement I was least satisfied with. A retcon where Brazil agrees not to station warships in Uruguayan ports seems like the cleanest way to address your point, TBF; and considering that the USA is looming and ready to sink Dom Leopoldo Agosto’s cherished fleet at their leisure, Rio might just take that deal (further infuriating Team Mutilated Victory).

 

[1962strat]

What an incredibly kind thing to say! I am honored (and seriously impressed you curbed both OG CdM and the sequel so far in a week).

Kinda inopportune for me, tbh, since I have an exam on Tuesday, lmao. I'll hold your timeline responsible if i do well.

Your feedback is pretty fair; the War in the Cone was a situation where I wrote myself into a bit of a corner in wanting to make it clear why Brazil needed to nope out and leave the door open for a “mutilated victory” that also left Argentina unsatisfied to (potentially) set up for future rounds. Of all the GAW content, Asunción is the peace agreement I was least satisfied with. A retcon where Brazil agrees not to station warships in Uruguayan ports seems like the cleanest way to address your point, TBF; and considering that the USA is looming and ready to sink Dom Leopoldo Agosto’s cherished fleet at their leisure, Rio might just take that deal (further infuriating Team Mutilated Victory).

That would be better, tho the treaty would still be pretty lopsided IMO, but short of retconning the last 3-4 Latam updates that's kinda set in stone, and idk if you wanna go quite that far. The other thing I would add, regardless of which option you choose, is that the treaty be put forward by the US in the line of their initiative to knock Bloc countries off, so that it doesn't look like Argentina is just doing their own thing.

As for the Argentinan irredentism part, I think you'd have always struggled to get that with the Axis winning so decisively. There was simply no reason for Argentina to low ball terms when they held so many advantages, so those two things were kinda incompatible.

A settlement that IMO could have made sense is something like status quo ante bellum, with Uruguay kinda partitioned along the pre-war Blancos/Colorado control. It's acceptable for Argentina cause it secures control of the Plata basin, and Brazil gets some consolation prize. Of course, this would be in the context of the American fleet putting pressure and maybe shelling some coastal cities, so Brazil would know that it would get worse.

I think it was also mentioned somewhere that the Americans were using some intelligence leaks to feed the Brazilians false info about deployments to Argentina, so that could also be as a resource to pressure Brazil to justify some decision.

Anyways, I'm rambling incoherently, and these are just ideas.

 

[nevaRRaven164]

[2] Whoever had this one guessed, congrats.

ME finally we get seventy something year old war hero as president

 

[JustInThePhilippines]

I haven't entirely decided what to do with the Kings, but I'd like them to make an appearance. (My original idea was MLKJr = Mandela but it was pointed out that that's quite cliche and I liked Jesse Jackson = Gerry Adams better anyways haha)

When writing that comment about Kentucky, I thought it would be interesting seeing MLK Sr as a refugee of the GAW of enslaved parents in Georgia who fled to Kentucky during Pershing March to the Sea considering he's turning 18 on December 19 1917. Just guessing

 

[KingSweden24]

Kinda inopportune for me, tbh, since I have an exam on Tuesday, lmao. I'll hold your timeline responsible if i do well.

That would be better, tho the treaty would still be pretty lopsided IMO, but short of retconning the last 3-4 Latam updates that's kinda set in stone, and idk if you wanna go quite that far. The other thing I would add, regardless of which option you choose, is that the treaty be put forward by the US in the line of their initiative to knock Bloc countries off, so that it doesn't look like Argentina is just doing their own thing.

As for the Argentinan irredentism part, I think you'd have always struggled to get that with the Axis winning so decisively. There was simply no reason for Argentina to low ball terms when they held so many advantages, so those two things were kinda incompatible.

A settlement that IMO could have made sense is something like status quo ante bellum, with Uruguay kinda partitioned along the pre-war Blancos/Colorado control. It's acceptable for Argentina cause it secures control of the Plata basin, and Brazil gets some consolation prize. Of course, this would be in the context of the American fleet putting pressure and maybe shelling some coastal cities, so Brazil would know that it would get worse.

I think it was also mentioned somewhere that the Americans were using some intelligence leaks to feed the Brazilians false info about deployments to Argentina, so that could also be as a resource to pressure Brazil to justify some decision.

Anyways, I'm rambling incoherently, and these are just ideas.

Good luck with your exam!

No, I think those are decent thoughts. Uruguay is definitely not a “settled” matter, internally or otherwise, that’s for sure.

ME finally we get seventy something year old war hero as president

“Finally” 🙃

When writing that comment about Kentucky, I thought it would be interesting seeing MLK Sr as a refugee of the GAW of enslaved parents in Georgia who fled to Kentucky during Pershing March to the Sea considering he's turning 18 on December 19 1917. Just guessing

The Kings as a Kentuckian political dynasty could be kind of hilarious

 

[JustInThePhilippines]

The Kings as a Kentuckian political dynasty could be kind of hilarious

Good Idea, but I was thinking of more of a young conscripted solder in the nascent Free Commonwealth Army fighting the confederate paramilitary groups (Like the Hellfighters during GAW) Considering the situation, I predict a massive government program to support freedmen, reconstruct Kentucky and form a civilian government. Probably forming an Army for the Defense of the free commonwealth

I realized that the Kentucky is going to be closer to OTL Philippines 1935-1946 than Pueto Rico.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Good Idea, but I was thinking of more of a young conscripted solder in the nascent Free Commonwealth Army fighting the confederate paramilitary groups (Like the Hellfighters during GAW) Considering the situation, I predict a massive government program to support freedmen, reconstruct Kentucky and form a civilian government. Probably forming an Army for the Defense of the free commonwealth

A bit difficult - James Albert King (MLK's paternal grandfather) looks to have been born North of the Ohio River in 1864. And I really can't imagine the son of an Irishman and a freed African-American woman moving SOUTH after the Confederacy secures its independence.

 

[JustInThePhilippines]

A bit difficult - James Albert King (MLK's paternal grandfather) looks to have been born North of the Ohio River in 1864. And I really can't imagine the son of an Irishman and a freed African-American woman moving SOUTH after the Confederacy secures its independence.

Yeah, Fair Point.

Not in the South, Just in Kentucky

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Pretty decent President all things considered, likely far better than his successor. Interested in seeing Curtain Jerker's response.

First of all thank you for thinking of me, I'm more than a little flattered that at least one person cares what I have to say.

Several updates ago our author wrote: "He [Hughes] wound up being a less interesting character than I'd thought he'd be when we first introduced him 20 years earlier, because 'decent man does his job relatively competently while learning from his mistakes' is not super intriguing historically or narratively, but he fit what I set out to accomplish and like Hearst, Chamberlian, Boulanger and so many others it'll be weird to see him "drop out" so to speak."

I want to dwell on the bolded part (which is my emphasis, not in the original for the record) and talk about mistakes. The central question about Hughes, apparently unasked by in-universe historians past and present, is: "how many more mothers buried their sons because of Charles Hughes's mistakes?" He was a wartime President and the stakes are sky-high when leading the country in wartime.

The fact that seemingly in-universe historians (to say nothing of the American people at large) are not asking this question is indicative of the whitewashing Hughes specifically and the Liberal party in general has gotten ITTL to this point. Since 1880, Democratic Presidents have been portrayed in the narrative as feckless, Native-slaying cowards (Custer), monumentally corrupt machine bosses (Hill) or angry, bitter egomaniacs (Hearst). Meanwhile, James Blaine gets a in-universe book named "Titan," John Hay gets "The Cornerstone: John Hay and the Foundation of American Global Prestige" and Hughes himself gets dubbed "American Charlemagne." That doesn't take into account the multiple times the author called this the "John Hay Fan Fiction thread." All authors love their creations and it is clear that ours is no exception.

My greater point is this: When Democrats make mistakes, the electorate rightly punishes them for it. Custer and Hill were equal parts incompetent and corrupt and the electorate voted for Hay in 1892. Hearst let his ego and ambition overwhelm him in 1912 and the electorate punished him for it. That's a good thing! When parties screw up they should be punished for it.

The issue is that the electoral punishment only goes one way. When John "Gary Stu" Hay commits sins both political and personal his Liberal successor wins re-election in 1900. When Hughes quits the electorate overlooks his numerous mistakes and rewards his party with a trifecta in 1916.

I am NOT asking for Democrats to be perfect or flawless or win every election. I am only asking that when the Liberals screw up they stop getting rewarded for it.

 

[theINQUISITOR]

The Kings as a Kentuckian political dynasty could be kind of hilarious

I like the idea of MLK breaking into politics as a reformist anti-corruption type. Would be true to his OTL legacy in any case.

 

[KingSweden24]

"...just how much Charles Evans Hughes' legacy is buffeted by the fact that he retired in 1916 and it was Root who was holding the bag 1917-21 instead of him. I think one underrates this at your peril; Hughes got to enjoy a favorable comparison to Hearst by only seeking one term instead of going for three, and he had little directly to do with the clusterfuck of the Root years. He stepped aside as Atlanta glowed in the night and victory was imminent rather than presiding over mass unemployment, social unrest and the Great Resistance. Even in the 1920s there were many who noted that Hughes had got out while the getting was good, though at that time it was more to express sympathy for the almost providential bad luck that befell Root, and the notion that there may have been something ungentlemanly about sticking his successor with a postwar instability that any President would have struggled with did not arise until after his death, and is one major reason for the decline in Hughes' status among Presidents and his erosion from "basically Washington" at the time of his death to "good, not great" by the late 1970s.

That being said, we can try to extrapolate how he would have run a second term, and at least there it's hard to argue that Hughes would not have been a considerable upgrade over Root, if for no reason other than that he would not have invited Andrew Mellon into his administration. Hughes and "the bankers" generally did not get along, and while he understood the importance of a Treasury Secretary who understood what he was doing, the idea of Mellon being in a second-term Hughes Cabinet and having as much near-boundless power as he did is very hard to picture. Hughes probably convinces to Cortelyou to stick around through late 1917 or early 1918, by which point the demobilization issues were evident, but Cortelyou could well have combatted them much more effectively if only by not buying into Mellon's ultra-deflationary mindset. And while the historical perception of Root and Stimson having a breach is largely extrapolated - Stimson considered both Hughes and Root his mentors - Hughes would probably have listened to Stimson's advice much more than Root did, as Stimson was one of the few people who Hughes actually listened to rather than just reading as much as he could about an issue and drawing his own conclusions.

This is not to excuse Hughes' mediocre judgement in personnel; for every Stimson, Cortelyou or Kenyon there was a Ballinger, Herrick or a Goff. But all three of those men were sacked or encouraged to resign - often later than they should have been - while Mellon and Van Devanter were allowed to stay well past the point where they were not merely inept functionaries who clearly couldn't do their jobs like Hughes' less-glittering Cabinet officers but outright electoral liabilities. 1918 would almost surely have gone badly for the Liberals with Hughes in charge, and Democrats would likely have taken 1920 (and probably handily as their demographic and ideological advantages really started to cement themselves by the late 1910s as people's fond memories of the peaceful Hearst era were compared to four years of war then four years of hardship), but at the margins you probably have slightly better results. Beyond that, Hughes appointed fine jurists like Mack and Kenyon to SCOTUS, who largely nestled under the wings of Oliver Wendell Holmes and became moderate, sober judges of the law; Root expended enormous political capital on two failed nominees before he wound up in the end with an old crank in George Wickersham who's regarded as one of the lesser judges of his day. [1] Hughes was not as married to the silly Liberal canard that "politicians bribing the electorate is the same as the electorate bribing politicians" and was intrigued by the works of Richard Ely, and some kind of support for unemployed veterans, at minimum, would have been likely. This is a long-winded way of saying that Hughes was not the best judge of competency, but he was nowhere near as a atrocious at it as Root.

What I'm getting at here is that a second-term Hughes would have done a way better job than Root, in all likelihood, which is better for America but would have left his reputation much less shiny with the hard choices and politically inconvenient tradeoffs the postwar depression, demobilization, and occupation would have required, and his place in the bottom of the Top Ten Presidents would probably see him instead somewhere in the lower upper-half instead. The President who "won the war, but lost the peace" would likely be his legacy, a decidedly more mixed reaction than the often oversimplified and sterile version of him one gets in school but, perhaps, a more historiographically interesting one in the end..."

- "WI: Charles Evans Hughes Elected to Second Term" (alternatehistory.en)

[1] Coming soon.

 

[KingSweden24]

A bit difficult - James Albert King (MLK's paternal grandfather) looks to have been born North of the Ohio River in 1864. And I really can't imagine the son of an Irishman and a freed African-American woman moving SOUTH after the Confederacy secures its independence.

Huh had no idea MLK Jr. was part Irish

I like the idea of MLK breaking into politics as a reformist anti-corruption type. Would be true to his OTL legacy in any case.

It'd be interesting to have him in a very different role than OTL, at least.

 

[KingSweden24]

"...the first Presidential inauguration held in Philadelphia in one hundred and twenty years, and Root insisted that it be held on the steps of Independence Hall, thus limiting the size of the crowd that could realistically come and see him. It was a far cry from the massive turnouts for Hearst and Hughes in recent inaugurals, and many of those there were veterans in uniform, whom Root insisted on giving choice seats near the front, angering important Congressmen who had hoped to be so honored.

March 4, 1917 saw a light rain and cool wind as Root and Hughes arrived at Independence Hall by horse-drawn carriage, the last inauguration in which the President did not arrive with his predecessor via automobile. Hughes looked old, exhausted and relieved to be done with the Presidency, and he declined the opportunity to give remarks at either the inauguration itself or the inaugural ball that followed thereafter. Upon being sworn in by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, Root gave a brief, nine-minute address that was less than five thousand words long and hardly bears mentioning on the list of grand sweeping oratories of Presidential history; he perfunctorily thanked Hughes and Hadley (who left Philadelphia within an hour of the oath to his retirement in Colorado, where he rapidly vanished into obscurity and died in St. Louis in 1927 as a historical footnote) for their hard work over the last four years and then spoke at length of the "bravery of the American general infantryman in the face of the Confederate gun, and of the floor laborers whose ceaseless toil kept our armies and fleets supplied and like a python crushed the enemy through overwhelming strength." Root made little mention of the treaty he had just finished negotiating in Mount Vernon other than to encourage the Senate to "pass this peace with haste," and spoke sparingly and without detail of a "new era of prosperity and peace upon this continent ahead out of the shadow of war."

The American public in March of 1917 was tired after three-and-a-half very long years of bodies coming from the front, of funerals held instead of weddings and birthdays, of rationing and conscription and even two years without a World Series or horse-racing to distract them. The "New Republic," as Hughes had coined it in several speeches including his farewell address, looked very different than the one of the Last Summer of 1913, and there was a tremendous amount of trepidation at what lay ahead, especially as looming labor unrest and higher unemployment was already rearing its head four months after armistice. The task for Root, then, was to steer the ship of state safely back into port after many years at stormy sea, and the spent electorate quickly proved itself highly impatient to disembark.

To that end, Root aimed to establish his Cabinet with haste. Cabot Lodge was the obvious statesman to be chosen for Secretary of State, already long-since established, and many Senators were eager to get rid of him and "kick him upstairs" to his career capstone, but there was a whole other slew of positions to fill. Root was as old-fashioned in his sensibilities to construct a Cabinet as he had been in policy and campaigning, and still was married to the long-buried idea from the 19th century that a Cabinet should be geographically and factionally balanced, and as such gave considerably more weight to what party bosses thought than Hughes had as an outsider Governor who had never served in federal office before. For the role of Attorney General, for example, Root deferred to Indiana's delegates who had helped pick up a Senate seat there and several House seats in choosing the state's preeminent Appeals Court judge Willis Van Devanter for the role; Van Devanter's staunch conservatism had not yet reared its head from a fairly low-key career on the bench, and he seemed uncontroversial at that time as a sober-minded choice from the judiciary. For Interior, managing the vast federal lands and potentially bubbling conflicts with Mormon settlers and Natives, Root went with outgoing California Senator John Work, now out of a job to make way for the brash Hiram Johnson; for Commerce, former Massachusetts Governor Louis Frothingham checked an important box in mollifying progressives.

Arguably his two most important choices, however, were related to holdovers from the Hughes Cabinet. Henry Stimson was something of a protege of Root's, with Stimson having gotten his start working in various federal departments, including as an ambitious young US Attorney, under Root. As such, Root was keen to persuade Stimson to stay, in part due to the fact that Stimson had succeeded in managing the War Department where Hughes' first choices had either spectacularly failed or dramatically disappointed even after righting the ship. Stimson agreed to remain in Philadelphia even though he was initially quite dismayed that Lodge was getting to be made Secretary of State instead of him; Stimson did not care for Lodge, and the two men would butt heads frequently. The other choice, though, came down to Treasury Secretary George Cortelyou, who while less prominent publicly had arguably been Hughes' most capable lieutenant, managing the Republic's finances through the entirety of the conflict and negotiating relationships with banks, overseas lenders, and carefully navigating the Treasury's intake and outtake; there is a reason why today the Treasury Department's headquarters in Philadelphia bear's Cortelyou's name, and not somebody like Alexander Hamilton. Cortelyou was not keen to stay in office, wanting to return to the private practice of law, and Root did not press him as hard as he could or should have to stay. After some cursory, friendly conversations in December and January, Cortelyou elected to retire, both of his own volition and because he did not feel that Root was particularly keen to listen to him even if he went against his instinct and stayed.

The talented Treasurer, then, was gone, and Root needed a replacement that understood finance and would keep various factions happy. Penrose arrived at that hour, then, to suggest a figure that would represent Pennsylvania, one of the Liberal Party's strongholds that was unrepresented in the Cabinet: Andrew Mellon, a Pittsburgh financier whose family was involved with almost every great enterprise of that city. Root's diaries suggest he was at first skeptical, having held the job himself, that Mellon had the right temperament for public office, but he interviewed no other candidates and did not seem to push back on Penrose's considerable pressure to get his "man" at Treasury. And so, Root made what was possibly his worst decision as President among his first - he invited Mellon to serve in his Cabinet, and thus "Mellonism" was born..."

- The Root of the Problem: The Tumultuous Term of America's 29th President

 

[Gman]

Isn't pursuing a deflationary fiscal policy generally viewed as dangerous. Here we have an expanded federal government dealing with demobilisation and the need to co-ordinate the massive US economy through to peacetime and re-integrate millions of veterans, all while the Secretary of the Treasury (basically the Finance Minister) is a fiscal conservative and economically classical liberal who wants to strip the government to the bone. The 1920s Progressive Second Wave can't come soon enough.

 

[username5243]

Isn't pursuing a deflationary fiscal policy generally viewed as dangerous. Here we have an expanded federal government dealing with demobilisation and the need to co-ordinate the massive US economy through to peacetime and re-integrate millions of veterans, all while the Secretary of the Treasury (basically the Finance Minister) is a fiscal conservative and economically classical liberal who wants to strip the government to the bone. The 1920s Progressive Second Wave can't come soon enough.

Yeah Mellon is not who I would want running things at this point.

There was an old TL on this board where a series of executive branch deaths/resignations resulted in Treasury Sec Mellon ascending to the presidency.

In the middle of the Great Depression.

It went about as well as you could expect.

 

[Gman]

I think the timeline is Ruins of an American Party System

 

[Gman]

Also, laissez-faire classical liberalism discrediting itself here above and beyond the Gilded Age and 1904 will be quite satisfying to watch. As a certain Southern governor said, Every Man (and Woman) A King!

 

[KingSweden24]

Isn't pursuing a deflationary fiscal policy generally viewed as dangerous. Here we have an expanded federal government dealing with demobilisation and the need to co-ordinate the massive US economy through to peacetime and re-integrate millions of veterans, all while the Secretary of the Treasury (basically the Finance Minister) is a fiscal conservative and economically classical liberal who wants to strip the government to the bone. The 1920s Progressive Second Wave can't come soon enough.

It absolutely is, especially in this specific situation

Yeah Mellon is not who I would want running things at this point.

There was an old TL on this board where a series of executive branch deaths/resignations resulted in Treasury Sec Mellon ascending to the presidency.

In the middle of the Great Depression.

It went about as well as you could expect.

Yikes

Also, laissez-faire classical liberalism discrediting itself here above and beyond the Gilded Age and 1904 will be quite satisfying to watch. As a certain Southern governor said, Every Man (and Woman) A King!

That’s basically the exact sequence here, and why our alt-1920s serves as in inverse of OTL.

 

[Dragonboy]

@KingSweden24 ! Amazing work! You're amazing!