Talk:President of the Confederate States (Two Americas)

I agree that Woodrow Wilson could have become a president of the CS, but the Bushes hailed from New England! The fact they moved to Texas in OTL does not mean they would have immigrated there in the new ATL. Though the "Two Americas" TL is a bit too far-fetched (being a continuing enemy to the extent of siding with the Axis powers!), and I am working on introducing a new TL allowing a friendlier co-existence, allow me to suggest that you add the following presidents to your list:

Harry Truman, born in Missouri. Beware the butterfly affect as to who FDR choses as VP.

Dwight Eisenhower, born in Texas and moved to Kansas. Again, consider the USA in WW2 without him!

Lyndon Johnson, a Texan. He possibly could have had been in office when visiting US president Kennedy was assassinated "under his watch" according to your ATL.

Jimmy Carter, a Georgian. One can wonder if there would have even BEEN a hostage crisis in Iran if Carter had not been in Washington. But I suppose the hostages could have been taken from the CS embassy instead.

Bill Clinton, from Arkansas. No comment needed, I suppose.

Modern post-WW2 history would perhaps be quite different with these presidents in a nation under scrutiny for having been on the wrong side in that war! Who would have taken their places? How would those other men have governed the US in that half-century?

Stay tuned as I flesh out a timeline of my own to deal with the continuance of the CS along side the US.--SouthWriter 20:26, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Chosing presidents and the butterfly effect
I perceive that there is a superficial adherence to any "butterfly" affect in your ALT. In putting up John Connally as the first Republican president (and thus the one to abolish slavery in the 1980's!) you seem to have just looked at the home of the politicians that had been vying for the nomination in 1980. You have stated, for convenience, that those born prior to the end of WW2 (1946) could be politicians of either America, even though the CSA is an "occupied" country after that war.

You have stated that the assassination of JFK went the same, with Texan LBJ having been his VP. We can assume, then, that Gov. Connally (D-Tex) was injured as in OTL. In OTL, Connally had an interesting history with Kennedy and Johnson, and then the link between Nixon and George H.W. Bush. When Nixon had chosen Connally, a democrat, as Treasury secretary, the Texan had secured a diplomatic post for George Bush (Sr.) who had lost a senate race in Texas but had campaigned for Nixon. Without Connally the presidential politics of the second half of the twentieth century would have been quite different.

With the corrupt administrations of Huey Long and his lackey Richard Leche as the war-time presidents of the this ATL, it is no wonder that the CSA came down on the side of the Axis in WW2. But then, you are stuck searching for a convenient southerner to put into the presidency in the years corresponding with OTL. The next one that "fit" apparently was Jimmy Carter (elected in OTL, 1976). That leaves his successor to be Connally who by then had switched parties after campaigning for Nixon and then being rejected as VP to replace Agnew. He probably would have been a good choice for VP in the ATL if he had remained a democrat (the switch was in 1973). The connections that Connally had in OTL seem to make it hard to just drop him into the spot in the ALT because he made a valiant run at the job at about the right time.

I guess what I am getting at is that this is an interesting alternate history, but it needs a little bit more thought to be a viable one. I would rather be a contributor to an established ATL than create another one. Either way, it is an interesting exercise in creativity.--SouthWriter 19:32, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting lists
I see that you have been considering what I wrote. As I said, the Confederate states never would "claim" to have authority over the United States. Their fight was to defend their territory, not reclaim territory taken from them (as Lincoln and the US armies were doing). The US could continue to claim "possession" of the CSA, and thus accept presidents from their ranks, but it would not work the other way around. I see that you have put Eisenhower and Clinton in the CSA, but have not removed them from the USA list. I'm not sure what form the Republican party might take in the CSA, so I can see why you hesitate to make even Ike a Republican (I believe he was probably "nonpartisan" as a general). Perhaps a new Party, such as the "Conservative Party" or the "Nationalist Party" might work.

For the empty slot after Clinton, perhaps you could put Al Gore. At any rate, he probably should be removed from the spot in the USA. Judging from your take on this Time Line, you are not a native southerner. Any help I can give you, you know I am glad to at least give suggestions. :-)SouthWriter 03:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I see you found a president for the slot after Bill Clinton in the Confederacy. Good choice. I always thought it was foolish for him to lose momentum as he did in OTL due to a seemingly innocent epithet that was blown way out of proportion by the media and his opponents. But for what it's worth, I still don't think Al Gore would have made it to the presidency of the US. Reading about his father, who preceded him in Tennessee politics, I can't imagine Al Gore, Sr., in Washington. Al Gore would have grown up, instead, in the political scene of Richmond, where his father would most certainly have been a player in the ending of "Apartheid" (or revised slavery, if you must). I can see a close race in the 1998 election, though. George Allen, a Virginian, would indeed have a popular appeal among the Confedaralists (good choice of alternative party, by the way), but as a powerful democrat from a powerful political family Gore may have gotten close, especially with support from the newly liberated blacks. SouthWriter 14:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't you who added George Allen -- or Harry Truman for that matter! Anyway, I still think George Allen was a good choice -- even if Yankovich added him. It does show that someone besides me is looking at your timeline. I was beginning to wonder. Of course, it was rude for Yank to make additions without discussion. SouthWriter 15:11, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering how I came up with these people I have never heard of before. But anyway, I had to remove them because they are not my ideas, and were just added without bringing it up. I left a message to the two who edited the page and told them to please discus it first. I will leave those spots open and see if they really care enough to bring it up, than I will re-add them. — " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#00FF00&#039;"&gt;Nuclear " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#0000FF&#039;"&gt;Vacuum 15:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait. You've never heard of George Allen? Not even the coach (Allens dad)? It would help me if I knew a little about where you are coming from. And I'ld like to know what you think of moving Al Gore south. He was born in 1946, while his father was a representative of Tennessee in Richmond. I feel strongly that he would also be a politician in the south along side Bill Clinton. He would probably win against anyone the Confederalist ran and continue Clinton's policies for a new south.SouthWriter 15:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my rudeness, I just simply did not know that this article had a discussion page. Yankovic270 16:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's okay. I appreciate you not taking it the wrong way. So please discuss your ideas. If I like them (which I already do), I will add them in. Secondly, I am not the one who came up with "Confederalist," and I am not using it. The only party in the South is the Democratic Party (and the Democratic Party of Jefferson Davis). It is a single party state, it allows other parties, but only the Democratic Party is the only presidential party. Don't try to change my mind, I am not changing this. Third, I don't know what to sayw about Gore. I need more time to think. — " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#00FF00&#039;"&gt;Nuclear " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#0000FF&#039;"&gt;Vacuum 17:12, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yankovich is the only one who made edits besides you, I think, so I guess the credit is due to him for what I still think is a good name for a place where no Republicans could ever be tolerated, apparently. However, you seem to have just come to the idea of a single party presidency.  However, if you go by the constitution of the CSA (Article 2, Section 1), I think you should at least hold to a "non-partisan" approach -- with the man, not the party being elected.  It is true, of course that a Republican was a rare thing indeed in southern governors until the seventies, at least in OTL.  Could you at least tell us why you want a "single party" in the presidency?SouthWriter 00:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC


 * Actually, Bill Potter has edited here as well. He is the one who came up with "Confederalist." I don,t really know why I want the CSA to be a single-party state. I guess it would be to the South's fear of the North, they would keep the status quo. Plus I really want to have a say in this because this is quickly turning into a time line that is not what I originally wrote out in my head. Also I do not intend the CSA to be a single-party state for long. Maybe the next president will be supported by a different party, but for now, this is how I wish for it to be. -  Nuclear Vacuum  00:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like maybe I should not have latched on to this one. I am sorry to send it in a direction that you had not imagined!  I think that just leaving "party" politics totally out of the chart might be the best thing for right now.  If you took that column out, it would not be so blatant a reality.  I can imagine that with men as different as Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee in the White House within a decade of each other all "Democrats" are not the same.  It would basically come down to a ideological battle for votes in a general election (technically a referendum to inform the electors of the electoral college) anyway.  The executive, once elected, does not answer to the "party" anyway.  If though, the Congress was largely Democratic most of the time, laws would pass pretty easily, only depending on the ideology of the president as to whether they would face a veto.


 * If you'd rather I not be an "adviser" to this time line, I will retreat and leave it to your imagination and research. I have lot on my plate over at 1983: Doomsday.  Contact me at my talk page if you are stuck on anything, but remember it's your creation, and you don't have to please anyone else with how it goes. --SouthWriter 01:36, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, please forgive me, I didn't mean it that way. I am just ticked off that Yankovic and Potter were putting words in my mouth, I wasn't implying you. I am always happy to read the comments you have. I want this timeline to be as accurate as possible, and you seem to know more about the South than I do (and I live in Florida). So please don't take off. — Nuclear Vacuum  03:29, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

and such. Seriously, I love to hear what you have to say. It's pretty much the only way I can learn. I never knew Al Gore's father was in politics, and I probably wouldn't have know without you putting it out.