Inspired by a few brief discussions on this forum about the makings of an American Crisis around the beginning of WW1, I wanted to ask: is it possible to team an economic depression beginning in August 1914 triggered by the Entente alongside a general strike triggered by an interventionist President trying to get involved in the war to create an nationwide crisis in the United States, perhaps large enough to cause a Second Civil War?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
American Crisis in 1914
- Thread starter Venocara
- Start date
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
That's one interpretation. But in 1914, the US was still a net debtor nation. In the last week of July, British and French investors started to liquidate their American security holdings into currency. And many of them then started converting their dollars into gold, to repatriate the cash back to their respective countries. If that had continued, these investors could have depleted the gold reserves that backed the value of the dollar. A recipe for a depression in financial markets and across the American economy. Investors could then buy the aforementioned stuff that floats or goes bang at greatly depressed prices, which I don't think would necessarily be sufficient to bring about an economic boom.
Unlikely. If the War starts up as per, it's going to obvious to everyone in the entire world that the European Powers are going to be places to sell lots of stuff that floats or goes bang or resembles bangsticks of various sizes. It might only be a short war, but it's more likely to bring about an economic boom in America than an economic crisis.
I always thought that an economic boom would be inevitable for America if they stayed out the war as they raked in the profits of the arms sales. But as @Mumby says apparently an economic crisis was only narrowly averted in OTL; it is said that only W.G. McAdoo closing the NYSE in July 1914 prevented the depletion of America's gold reserves and the resultant collapse of the dollar.
Where would a general strike fit in with all of this?
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Where would a general strike fit in with all of this?
It doesn't unless you go back a few decades and drastically alter the course of American Labor.
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Mind you it's doable, the biggest block though is the leadership of the AFL.It doesn't unless you go back a few decades and drastically alter the course of American Labor.
What about the United States in 1916 doing a full invasion of Mexico instead of just a expedition like OTL.Inspired by a few brief discussions on this forum about the makings of an American Crisis around the beginning of WW1, I wanted to ask: is it possible to team an economic depression beginning in August 1914 triggered by the Entente alongside a general strike triggered by an interventionist President trying to get involved in the war to create an nationwide crisis in the United States, perhaps large enough to cause a Second Civil War?
It doesn't unless you go back a few decades and drastically alter the course of American Labor.
I assume you're referring to events between the 1870s and 1890s...
Mind you it's doable, the biggest block though is the leadership of the AFL.
...but what major changes would be needed to have it happen with a POD post-1900?
Alternatively, is it easier to trigger a crisis by having a "Pacifist Expeditionary Force" led by a Coxey-esque figure organise a march on Washington to protest against entry into the war?
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Pronouns
- She/Her
No there isn't a plausible way to rush it from 1900 and honestly I don't know what the point of limiting yourself to that is.
If you want to use it to set a story in the context I don't think you have any reason to focus about it being plausible, and if looking to make it historically grounded going back to 1896 or the Homestead or Pullman Strikes can do the job very effectively, and outside of the other place's arbitrary divide I'll admit I don't see the reason to worry.
If you want to use it to set a story in the context I don't think you have any reason to focus about it being plausible, and if looking to make it historically grounded going back to 1896 or the Homestead or Pullman Strikes can do the job very effectively, and outside of the other place's arbitrary divide I'll admit I don't see the reason to worry.
Last edited:
1896
Having done some more research I can see that you were right; the fact that most of the labour unions supported the US war effort makes it rather implausible to have them call a general strike to stop it. I would like to ask: what happened in 1896 that could have changed things? Alternatively, in order to remove the pro-war influence of the AFL's leadership, would it not be possible to break the union in the late 1890s or early 1900s and have a new more radical one emerge?
Alternatively, is it easier to trigger a crisis by having a "Pacifist Expeditionary Force" led by a Coxey-esque figure organise a march on Washington to protest against entry into the war?
I've been thinking more about this and I think that the fact that both the Panic of 1893 and the Great Depression led to marchs on Washington in OTL means that another march in the aftermath of a crash in 1914 doesn't seem to implausible, especially if the government looks like it wants to make things worse by embroiling the country in an unpopular European war. What do you think?