I'm just wondering how long it lasts. In a Cincoverse update from the present day you mention that "The country [CSA] is experiencing a manufacturing renaissance, especially in light metals, electronics and increasingly machine goods." So somewhere along the line things change from 1917, just curious as to how long it takes.

It would be bleak (yet on brand) if it took literally a hundred years for the Cincoverse South to make up the lost ground from 1913 onwards. It makes sense - the Americans basically set half the country on fire and then not only didn't pay to rebuild the place (unlike OTL's post Civil War) they also took back North everything that they didn't burn to a crisp. The right-to-work fueled flight of factories from MI/OH/PA/NY/etc down South either doesn't happen at all or it is slow trickle compared to OTL. (And I would be floored if a Taft-Hartley analogue gets passed in the Cincoverse USA). All those sweet federal dollars that Southern politicians made sure to funnel to their districts obviously aren't a thing either here as opposed to OTL. There's no Texas/Oklahoma revenue to add to the CSA coffers either.
It (probably) wouldn't take that long. Economic treaties are revised all the time; Mount Vernon's tariff regime is hardly etched in stone.

That said, the sans-Texas/OK South without OTL federal dollars will be spectacularly poorer than in our world. Mexico in OTL 1920, after the Revolution had more or less ended, would be a decent comparison.
I wonder how long it will take before the Confederacy remnants and/or ideological groups start pulling shit to attempt to ignore the terms of the treaty? I could certainly see an attempt at mass-murder of any blacks they can find before they're allowed any of the "advantages" or "rights" a new constitution would give them.

I could also certainly believe the Confederates or ideological groups fucking around with covertly sabotaging any and all US treaty ports, concessions, or annexed territory. US goes "you're breaking the terms of the treaty!", CS goes "it's not us, it's actually they're just random unsatisfied citizens who are rightfully upset with the state of affairs and that you have 0 proof we are funding, but if you insist we'll crack down on them immediately *does nothing/the bare minimum*"

Actually, what's to stop things like assassinations and the like tearing through the US itself in the first few years by disgruntled Confederates? In all the chaos, people could slip over borders very easily.
This will happen more or less immediately.

The assassination part, hmm, maybe. It's a fair argument.
Let's face it, if the next update on "Centro" is about someone being appointed the next US Ambassador to Honduras in 1938, it won't be that bad. :)

Thank you on the FLDS. Trying to figure out what early 20th century america is like with a religious leader telling their followers to derail trains.

The question is if the USA takes Arizona, how will the Confederates deport them there. Are we looking at a situation where the US only gives an entrance visa to a Confederate Negro if they agree to go to former Confederate Arizona.

As a dark note on the FLDS, given the conflicts within the grouping, it wouldn't be *that* bizarre if the FLDS interpreted Brigham Young's words to basically refuse to treat Negros as humans. Not pro-slavery but simply not willing to ever have business with or for that matter talk to. Think running a store and treating negros as if they aren't there when they walk it.
And did we miss the capture in the Barn?
We did indeed miss "the Barn."

Yeah, a religious sect more or less treated like a heretical cult by the mainstream LDS authorities (even ones who resent polygamy bans born of pragmatism and overbeaing federal authority) but with a huge follower base in a concentrated part of the country I don't know if I've seen explored thoroughly in a TL before. Definitely a big problem, long term.
I fully expect that as the US draws down a *LOT* of weaponry is going to find itself in Black hands. And functionally, between the treaty ports, control of the Mississippi (and its basin), it will be a long time before that *stops* happening. Imagine a boat owned by an American going up the Tennessee River to Knoxville and arranging to meet local blacks and give them Machine guns and the Confederacy not being able to stop it. Imagine the armed Negros being a larger group and better armed than the Confederate Military.
Definitely. One more reason why abolition is sort of a fait accompli at this point - there is no way to re-enforce slavery upon such a population.
They gambled and lost, can't feel bad for them, they started the war, and the United States just ended it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd piss on their graves before I feel sorry for them.
*insert "Fuck Around, Find Out* Chart meme here*
  1. Arizona could be where the Texans send their freedmen and Kentucky could be where the Easterners send theirs. And there’s always Liberia!
  2. The Arizona Mormons would have to eventually deal with black people if they end up outnumbered by them.
  3. Could it be possible to have someone going full Colonel Kurtz in the ruins of Centro? Or someone wanting to be William Walker 2.0?
  4. I’m personally worried about the generations of Confederates who will be born who will grow up suffering for a war they had no responsibility for. At least the political destabilization is going to end after a relatively short period. But there’s no way that any revanchist movement is going to be in any position to do anything.
A Full Kurtz in Honduras or something would be kind of darkly hilarious.

And, yeah, life for most Confederates will be very grim for a few decades, white and Black alike.
Given these conditions, and what we know from the EU thread, the CSA sounds like it'll be even more of an economic basketcase than OTL Mexico. I imagine the US border states will be flooded with Confederate migration - it'll be interesting to see how they deal with illegal immigrants who share a language compared to OTL Mexican immigration.
This was something I thought about and one dark conclusion I came to was that they may speak English, but many Americans will likely not be very happy about large waves of immigrants who as often as not are Black.

And if anybody has ideas for how to get the CSA to go Full 1994 (if you know Mexican history you know what I'm talking about), I'm all ears! Lol.
Any chance the Union gets territorial concessions from the Republic of Texas?
Unlikely, for the reasons @DanMcCollum elaborates upon
I wonder how militaristic and well equipped some police forces will be in the Confederacy.
Extremely well, since "police constabularies" are not covered in the Treaty (and I gotta keep the LatAm/South Africa analogue going)
Agreed. One trouble spot at a time. If Texas sees no sign of Abolition (at the very least born-free laws) in another 5 years, then I could see the US exerting more pressure. But at this point, Texas is the only place in the (Western?) world that a child born to slaves will be a slave and that makes *them* the target of all of those anti-abolition groups which got stronger before the GAW. And I doubt that there is any place for a Texas slave owner to sell slaves now. The Brazilians aren't going to take them and the Confederates aren't that stupid. Who are they going to sell them to, the Ottomans?
We'll have to cover these considerations for Texas here soon, especially with Lodge and other hard abolitionists ascendant in the US
Can't wait to read Confederate copium going forward.
It'll be delicious, I hope
 
A Full Kurtz in Honduras or something would be kind of darkly hilarious.

And, yeah, life for most Confederates will be very grim for a few decades, white and Black alike.
With how messy the situation in former Centro is it makes sense that some ambitious American officer could make the argument for staying to “stabilize the region”. Meanwhile they’re actually installing a puppet regime and generally acting like the second coming of William Walker. But this time the locals have absolutely no power to resist them. In the meantime America sees the grandiosely titled “Provisional Government of Centroamerica”* as a beacon of stability and provides them with support. America has more important problems dealing with the ongoing occupation of the Confederacy to spare much thought about Centro.

Hopefully there’d be people who can understand that those on the bottom need to stick together to survive. Especially with the Confederacy basically ungovernable for a decade or so. Maybe this reluctant interracial cooperation could result in Socialist thought being brought into Confederate politics. The contrast between those who can work together and those who black the new freedmen would be interesting to read about. But between the American occupation forces and the freedmen being armed I can’t see TTL’s KKK being very successful in the long term.

*I also like the idea of this new government resurrecting the old name of “Federal Republic of Central America” to distance themselves from the old regime.
 
And if anybody has ideas for how to get the CSA to go Full 1994 (if you know Mexican history you know what I'm talking about), I'm all ears! Lol.
So I'm hazarding a guess: A far-left anti-imperialist paramilitary group in some far-flung part of the country akin to the Zapatista Army (let's say in Louisiana considering the EZLN's base of operations is based in Chiapas IOTL, which has a significant, if not predominantly, Mayan population and Louisiana would be Cajun country), an assassination of a hand-picked Presidential candidate and that party's general secretary (the latter of which is perpetrated by the brother of said president). Corruption, and mismanagement which leads to the CSA having the worst economic crisis in its history. Am I'm guessing there is where you want to go? If so when do you want it?
 
So I'm hazarding a guess: A far-left anti-imperialist paramilitary group in some far-flung part of the country akin to the Zapatista Army (let's say in Louisiana considering the EZLN's base of operations is based in Chiapas IOTL, which has a significant, if not predominantly, Mayan population and Louisiana would be Cajun country), an assassination of a hand-picked Presidential candidate and that party's general secretary (the latter of which is perpetrated by the brother of said president). Corruption, and mismanagement which leads to the CSA having the worst economic crisis in its history. Am I'm guessing there is where you want to go? If so when do you want it?
That doesn't seem likely.

Sure, Cajun identity, but if there's any area that the US is going to be keeping a very tight lid on, it'll be Louisiana. They want economic control of the Mississippi, and they'll pressure their economic colony to ensure that's never really under threat by whatever means necessary.

If we're looking at areas that will have an ethnic/identity-based pseudo-separation akin to the Chiapas situation, I think you're more likely to see it in the Black Belt than anything, depending on where demographics of Black Confederates end up being most concentrated, we're either talking a portion of Alabama/Mississippi under "siege" or a South Carolina that never dealt with the fact that a majority of its population was Black pre-Civil War and is about to go through some major problems.

Alternatively, remember the previously-mentioned Mountaineer Irridentism of West Virginia and think of possible Appalachian groups that have enough resentment of the Confederate Government that they take effective control and then maintain control because they're in areas otherwise not economically profitable enough for the strained Confederate Government to commit to crushing them. That would see remaining Appalachian areas of Virginia, Tennessee, and perhaps even Georgia go pseudo-independent and valuable proxies for the US government even if only subtly. You could even have some fun Blair Mountain/UMW type fun with a Zapatista-inspired Socialist/Syndicalist/whatever "government" that forms in the areas that the US is more than happy to deal with rather than the CSA as long as they get decent rates.
 
There may be a lot of armed groups in Texas that refuse to be enslaved again or allow slavery to expand.
Due to the way in which Texas broke off, the Texas slaves are among the slaves that the US Military would have had the *least* access to. East Texas south of Dallas was never conquered, and I would imagine that a good number of the slave owners still consider themselves to be Confederates. The CSA/Texas treaty is still out there, and even if the USA/CSA treaty mentions it, I'm not sure it would cover everything. And I don't think the USA want the Texans at Mt. Vernon.

In fact, a smart slaver in West Louisiana might deliberately sell their slaves *into* Texas with the idea that a Texas slave owner might get another 10 years out of them before Texas finishes slavery off.
Texas is balancing the very real issue of balancing satisfying the United States (and its abolitionists) vs trying to bring an end to the fighting within country.
 
You forget Mexican military surplus.
Yes, but again, the Mexican border is farther away from where most of the Slaves are. Given the relative climate of parts of Texas, I would expect any plantations with more than 20 slaves farming a piece of Land to be against what will be the Confederate/Texan border. (In modern terms OTL term, east of the I-35 corridor running from OKC to Dallas and the I-45 Corridor running from Dallas to Houston. ) That area is most like the remainder of the CSA in climate. El Paso, OTOH is more like Las Vegas (which is almost as close as East Texas. (Of course iTTL there isn't much *left* of El Paso.)
 
Now to Post-War Economics.

So since a lot of industry has either been lost or destroyed the CSA (I will also include Texas in this) will be reduced to providing mainly commodities or various other raw materials to the US, Mexico and possibly Europe. With the European war there might be some profits but much of this will be eaten by debt payments. Then you have various investors from Mexico, the US and Europe coming to buy various assets at fire sale prices. Needless to say they will be hated but the national and state governments need the money. New Orleans and Houston may be the first instances of 'offshore banking' or 'shell companies'. The Confederate currency may be worth something in areas of government control but many other areas will rather use Union money or even barter. Politicians, religious groups and various sorts will preach and rail against the 'moneylenders'. There may also be a 'loan and mortgage crisis' as many pre-war bank loans, farm and house mortgages will be coming due and the value of the property is much less that the pre-war value, that is assuming the original debtor is even alive and the property intact.

Many Confederates with military training, skills or wealth may leave for Europe, Latin America or even the various European colonies with the invitation of the various powers. This is to form a class loyal to the European government and who have little sympathy with the natives. This will cause a brain drain of sorts.
 
With how messy the situation in former Centro is it makes sense that some ambitious American officer could make the argument for staying to “stabilize the region”. Meanwhile they’re actually installing a puppet regime and generally acting like the second coming of William Walker. But this time the locals have absolutely no power to resist them. In the meantime America sees the grandiosely titled “Provisional Government of Centroamerica”* as a beacon of stability and provides them with support. America has more important problems dealing with the ongoing occupation of the Confederacy to spare much thought about Centro.

Hopefully there’d be people who can understand that those on the bottom need to stick together to survive. Especially with the Confederacy basically ungovernable for a decade or so. Maybe this reluctant interracial cooperation could result in Socialist thought being brought into Confederate politics. The contrast between those who can work together and those who black the new freedmen would be interesting to read about. But between the American occupation forces and the freedmen being armed I can’t see TTL’s KKK being very successful in the long term.

*I also like the idea of this new government resurrecting the old name of “Federal Republic of Central America” to distance themselves from the old regime.
Fruit company warlordism is exactly the kind of hell that this TL specializes in tbf
So I'm hazarding a guess: A far-left anti-imperialist paramilitary group in some far-flung part of the country akin to the Zapatista Army (let's say in Louisiana considering the EZLN's base of operations is based in Chiapas IOTL, which has a significant, if not predominantly, Mayan population and Louisiana would be Cajun country), an assassination of a hand-picked Presidential candidate and that party's general secretary (the latter of which is perpetrated by the brother of said president). Corruption, and mismanagement which leads to the CSA having the worst economic crisis in its history. Am I'm guessing there is where you want to go? If so when do you want it?
Well, it doesn’t have to be a 1-to-1 1994 redux, just trying to think of how to create something analogous in its general disastrousness. I do have some ideas around something before segregation ends in the early 1990s but it’s less Mexico and more Colombia
That doesn't seem likely.

Sure, Cajun identity, but if there's any area that the US is going to be keeping a very tight lid on, it'll be Louisiana. They want economic control of the Mississippi, and they'll pressure their economic colony to ensure that's never really under threat by whatever means necessary.

If we're looking at areas that will have an ethnic/identity-based pseudo-separation akin to the Chiapas situation, I think you're more likely to see it in the Black Belt than anything, depending on where demographics of Black Confederates end up being most concentrated, we're either talking a portion of Alabama/Mississippi under "siege" or a South Carolina that never dealt with the fact that a majority of its population was Black pre-Civil War and is about to go through some major problems.

Alternatively, remember the previously-mentioned Mountaineer Irridentism of West Virginia and think of possible Appalachian groups that have enough resentment of the Confederate Government that they take effective control and then maintain control because they're in areas otherwise not economically profitable enough for the strained Confederate Government to commit to crushing them. That would see remaining Appalachian areas of Virginia, Tennessee, and perhaps even Georgia go pseudo-independent and valuable proxies for the US government even if only subtly. You could even have some fun Blair Mountain/UMW type fun with a Zapatista-inspired Socialist/Syndicalist/whatever "government" that forms in the areas that the US is more than happy to deal with rather than the CSA as long as they get decent rates.
Appalachia would be hard to penetrate even with a good army; you could see some borderline Afghan situations in certain hollers!
There may be a lot of armed groups in Texas that refuse to be enslaved again or allow slavery to expand.
Interesting times!
Yes, but again, the Mexican border is farther away from where most of the Slaves are. Given the relative climate of parts of Texas, I would expect any plantations with more than 20 slaves farming a piece of Land to be against what will be the Confederate/Texan border. (In modern terms OTL term, east of the I-35 corridor running from OKC to Dallas and the I-45 Corridor running from Dallas to Houston. ) That area is most like the remainder of the CSA in climate. El Paso, OTOH is more like Las Vegas (which is almost as close as East Texas. (Of course iTTL there isn't much *left* of El Paso.)
That was certainly in OTL where most of the plantations were
Now to Post-War Economics.

So since a lot of industry has either been lost or destroyed the CSA (I will also include Texas in this) will be reduced to providing mainly commodities or various other raw materials to the US, Mexico and possibly Europe. With the European war there might be some profits but much of this will be eaten by debt payments. Then you have various investors from Mexico, the US and Europe coming to buy various assets at fire sale prices. Needless to say they will be hated but the national and state governments need the money. New Orleans and Houston may be the first instances of 'offshore banking' or 'shell companies'. The Confederate currency may be worth something in areas of government control but many other areas will rather use Union money or even barter. Politicians, religious groups and various sorts will preach and rail against the 'moneylenders'. There may also be a 'loan and mortgage crisis' as many pre-war bank loans, farm and house mortgages will be coming due and the value of the property is much less that the pre-war value, that is assuming the original debtor is even alive and the property intact.

Many Confederates with military training, skills or wealth may leave for Europe, Latin America or even the various European colonies with the invitation of the various powers. This is to form a class loyal to the European government and who have little sympathy with the natives. This will cause a brain drain of sorts.
Agree broadly with these thoughts
 
With Maryland taking up the City of Alexandria and Alexandria County, is re-cession of those jurisdictions back to the District of Columbia more likely to happen? Residents of Alexandria (today’s Arlington) County opposed retrocession because it was less reliant on the slave trade with the City of Alexandria supporting the retrocession petition for the opposite reason along with the loss trade due to the opening of the C&O Canal.

With both DC and Alexandria in ruin, I can see the Maryland General Assembly being supportive of the feds taking back Alexandria to save on the cost of reconstruction.
 
With Maryland taking up the City of Alexandria and Alexandria County, is re-cession of those jurisdictions back to the District of Columbia more likely to happen? Residents of Alexandria (today’s Arlington) County opposed retrocession because it was less reliant on the slave trade with the City of Alexandria supporting the retrocession petition for the opposite reason along with the loss trade due to the opening of the C&O Canal.

With both DC and Alexandria in ruin, I can see the Maryland General Assembly being supportive of the feds taking back Alexandria to save on the cost of reconstruction.
Alexandrians may also see retrocession as their best path to reconstruction money.
 
Fruit company warlordism is exactly the kind of hell that this TL specializes in tbf
It makes sense that at least one Centro successor would be propped up wih US soldiers gone neo-filibusterer and funded by a fruit company. Maybe in one of these new banana republics the fruit company pulling the strings could be hiring former Confederate soldiers as mercenaries. Which could ironically have troops who served under opposite sides of the war effectively fighting together under a regime set up by the Boston Fruit Company.
 
With Maryland taking up the City of Alexandria and Alexandria County, is re-cession of those jurisdictions back to the District of Columbia more likely to happen? Residents of Alexandria (today’s Arlington) County opposed retrocession because it was less reliant on the slave trade with the City of Alexandria supporting the retrocession petition for the opposite reason along with the loss trade due to the opening of the C&O Canal.

With both DC and Alexandria in ruin, I can see the Maryland General Assembly being supportive of the feds taking back Alexandria to save on the cost of reconstruction.
Depends if the Feds even want it. And welcome aboard! I think we've only connected in Chat previously.
It makes sense that at least one Centro successor would be propped up wih US soldiers gone neo-filibusterer and funded by a fruit company. Maybe in one of these new banana republics the fruit company pulling the strings could be hiring former Confederate soldiers as mercenaries. Which could ironically have troops who served under opposite sides of the war effectively fighting together under a regime set up by the Boston Fruit Company.
Fruit company "juice" (heh) makes for strange bedfellows!
 
Mount Vernon Congress (Part III)
"...no doubt that the non-Virginian territorial questions were perhaps the most difficult.

The Confederacy had been ready to accede American domination over the Indian Territories - what now was called "Sequoyah" in official documents and was governed as an ad hoc confederation between the six most powerful tribes with landholdings set aside for smaller tribal groups as well as pockets for white and colored emigres in the southwest, [1] northwest and central parts of the country. McReynolds nonetheless delayed the drafting of the clauses pertaining to Sequoyah for several days with badgering over some kind of "restitution" for the loss of the Confederate protectorate and making sure that Confederate trading rights "in Indian lands" were protected under prewar provisions, attempts which produced nothing but further enmity from the American delegation, particularly Senator Turner, who while a committed anti-Confederate hawk was not considered as politically dependent on abolitionist groups as Root or Lodge. This provocation of a man who already detested his counterparts proved a crucial blunder for McReynolds; hope that the Washingtonian would temper Lodge's instincts on the slave question would prove incorrect as February arrived and marched on.

It quickly became apparent that the United States was not done redrawing the North American map, particularly in the West. The Arizona Territory had been preparing to petition for statehood as 1913 arrived but Niagara, the Summer Crisis and then the war had interrupted such endeavors, and Arizona had fallen in the war's first months, first with Yuma being captured within a week of the Battle of Baltimore and then Pershing's daring march through the Sonoran Desert to seize Yuma as Phoenix fell under the guns of high ground around Flagstaff. Since then, Arizona had barely even offered up much resistance as many of its citizens had fled eastwards into Texas, and it had blossomed as a military campground for the United States to supply its operations in Mexico and Texas over the remainder of the war. As a direct territory of Richmond with limited self-rule rather than a state, it seemed easy pickings for the United States, and once more the ideals of Blainism were thrown to the rubbish bin by his last true ideological heir [2] as Root pushed most aggressively, encouraged by his military coterie that included Pershing, to absorb the Arizona Territory into American custody.

The Army was not the only group that got a vote on such matters, though, and the Navy - represented at Mount Vernon by Admirals Knight, Sims, and the hero of Hilton Head, Belknap - wanted to see to it that the Congress led to benefits for them beyond merely limiting the Confederacy to a cutter service. Knight and Sims, both close personally to Lodge, presented another plan that essentially solidified facts on the ground: the acquisition of the Florida Keys by the United States. The initial proposal presented by Sims in fact was more modest than what Lodge eventually got into the final agreement, proposing only to seize the Keys from Duck Key and west, roughly the lower half of the island chain. There were a number of problems with this, however, including concerns from Belknap about provisioning such a territory, and Lodge was unsure why to "settle for a half measure" when the whole chain could simply be snapped up. Accordingly, the "Gibraltar of the Caribbean" at Key West was not only attached to the treaty, but the entire archipleago starting at Elliott Key at the south end of Biscayne Bay was attached, and the United States would "enjoy unfettered and unmolested road and rail access to the mainland from the Keys" in perpetuity. The Florida Keys Territory was, officially, an insular territory of the United States along with the Virgin Islands, Samoa, the Wake and Midway Atolls, and the Port Hamilton and Chusan Islands territories in East Asia..."

- The Bourbon Restoration: The Confederate States 1915-33

"...start of the war a population of approximately a million Negroes in the United States in 1913; figures are more difficult to ascertain in Dixie, but it is estimated that out of the country's prewar population of about twenty-five million and change, about nine and a half million were Black, either free or in bondage, though this number is regarded as an undercount. Negroes both free and slave consisted generally between thirty-five and forty percent of the Confederate population since secession, with that number close to the lower end of that figure at the beginning of the Great American War due to emancipated freedmen generally decamping north or south to greener pastures and a parity in birthrates during the 1890s and a substantial White advantage in the birthrate starting around 1900. After many states had banned the residency of freedmen in the 1860s and 1870s, the total population of freedmen had grown from 2% of the population to nearly 8% by 1913, and a great many free persons of color wound up serving as volunteers in the Confederate Army or working in factories to support the war effort; while revisionist historians have posited for decades now that most Negroes were "happier" under slavery to act as apologists for the plantocracy, it is also not so simplistic as to say that the colored population of Dixie hated their home country or sought its overthrow as fifth columnists on behalf of the Yankees, as a different branch of Confederate revisionism would often claim.

During the course of the war, it is thought that somewhere in the proximity of four hundred thousand Negroes died of starvation or other war-related mortalities, while close to a million more fled north by late 1916 as order collapsed or the Yankee armies approached. As many as a quarter million such souls made it over the Ohio River either through evading river patrols, bribing military officers, or through petition; hundreds of thousands of others turned around and joined the fight, while their comrades remained largely camped in Kentucky, particularly a belt running approximately from Paducah in the west to Louisville within seventy kilometers of the river. As tens of thousands of white Kentuckians fled east and south from the fighting, this had had the impact of almost overnight changing the demographics across much of the Bluegrass state, and in the months between November 11th and the Mount Vernon Congress, thousands more Negro refugees, often runaway slaves or those freed by advancing Yankees, streamed into Kentucky by the day, hoping to either escape across the river into the United States, or at least concentrate themselves in what was rapidly emerging as a promised land for the freedman.

This bubbling refugee crisis, which was already attracting hostility in the United States as demobilization barreled along and Ohio and Indiana in particular became swamped with former slaves, was simply part of a broader issue that finally arrived as the final piece of the puzzle at Mount Vernon - how was the United States to enforce its new stated war aim to end slavery permanently in the Confederacy generally, and what was to be done with Kentucky specifically?"

- A Freedom Bought With Blood: Emancipation and the Postwar Confederacy

[1] Watch this space, because a white "homeland" within Sequoyah next to Texas is going to become a problem.
[2] This is years ago in both the TL and the lives of all of us readers, but the first Panamerican Congress had a failed clause pushed by Blaine to forbid wars of territorial conquest in the Americas, so Root is very directly operating contrary to how Blaine and Hay had hoped the Americas would govern themselves. As @Curtain Jerker has pointed out more than once, the GAW can very much be considered the endpoint of the failure of Hay's pretty naive vision of a semi-collaborative American system of international relations that nonetheless has the USA as the sun the other planets orbit.
 
Top