The Union Forever: A TL

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by Tom Veil

I think Expat got his states mixed up, but that his point is valid. The states in the Deep South have already ended slavery, and by now the slaves in the gradual emancipation states like Virginia have surely heard that they will eventually be freed. Well, what's to stop a brave black Virginian from freeing himself a little bit early? He can run not only north, but also south or west, and no one is going to be returning fugitives these days.

Indeed, I agree that fugitive slaves will be an issue and if anything will speed up emancipation in the remaining slave states as holding on to their remaining slaves will be very difficult.

[jlckansas]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Hey everyone, as you know the 1864 elections are approaching. A few questions I have are

1) Will the Republicans keep Hannibal Hamlin as the VP nominee or pick someone else and if so who?

2) Who will the Democratic nominees be?

3) What will be the central issues?

1. Could see a General being picked as the VP candidate. Or going with someone from the South in Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, or Tennessee. Maybe General Lee or Longstreet if they are rehabilitated politically.

2. Might be Andrew Johnson or some other person from the pro union south. Alternatively could be Northern Democrat Presidential nominee with a Southern Democrat VP. Both balance the Northern wings with the southern wings.

3. Settlement in the west. Freedmen in south and their movement in the US. The trancontinental RR linking California to the east. Canadian/UK relations, Fenians would be involved in this. Latin American relations.
Trade with Europe and Asia. The Indian question.

[SilverSwimmer]

Originally Posted by jlckansas

Canadian/UK relations, Fenians would be involved in this.

Would the Fenians even get the chance to attack Canada?

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Tom Veil

Well, what's to stop a brave black Virginian from freeing himself a little bit early? He can run not only north, but also south or west, and no one is going to be returning fugitives these days.

No one's going to be helping them escape if they go south or west, either. And if he has elderly parents or small children, they probably can't come with him. A lot of men would chose to wait that small amount of time to keep their family together.

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Not a bad idea in theory, but I think it would be viewed as to radical a solution in the TL. Also who exactly would constitute “aristocracy”? If this was done I can imagine it would create even worse bitter and lingering hostility in the South.

The idea is to do a preemptive strike against any attempts by the existing ruling class of the South to use racism as a way of mobilizing the poor white population against any racial or economic reforms the North might consider aside from emancipation itself. Furthermore, it would be a way of shoring up Lincoln's support among his own party while turning the poor whites of the South into a solidly Republican voting bloc to add to the heavily Republican freedmen and Union soldier voting blocs.

"Aristocracy" in this case are the people who had owned major plantations and substantial numbers of slaves pre-war. I don't know what the exact numbers would be, and they'd probably be subject to political discussion ITTL anyway, but a good starting point might be anyone who owned more than 10 slaves and/or 100 acres of land. The pre-war political class in the South will scream bloody murder, but after dragging the South into a war it couldn't possibly win, and without the OTL widespread destruction of Southern cities and infrastructure to hold against the North, they simply don't have any credibility. Oh, and most of them aren't going to be able to vote anyway, unless of course they agree to the above land reform, with perhaps the added carrot that in addition to restored voting rights, those landholders who willingly forfeit their holdings to the government for redistribution will be allowed to keep more of their pre-war non-human property than those whose property has to be seized instead.

It also would fit some of Lincoln's personal leanings on economic philosophy, which were more leftist than you might expect. So as far as he would be concerned, this idea would be morally correct, beneficial to his party's future electoral prospects, a good way of knocking the legs out from under any attempts to claim that all whites were being punished to carry out a policy that only supported blacks, and a way to finish destroying any possibility that the Southern elite who had torn the nation apart could ever try the same thing again.

EDIT: One more thing I just thought of: the expansion (and, presumably, renaming) of the Freedmen's Bureau could also be sold as a reconciliation measure: the ordinary soldiers of the Confederate Army, who weren't the ones responsible for the rebellion, are being repaid for their own wartime sacrifices. This would make an especially welcome (to the US government, at least) picture when set against the rich Southern planters who started the war, paid other men to fight in their place when they weren't just exempted by virtue of owning enough slaves and land, and then did whatever they could to drive the families of soldiers off the land that the soldiers could no longer work while they were fighting for the Confederacy.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

The idea is to do a preemptive strike against any attempts by the existing ruling class of the South to use racism as a way of mobilizing the poor white population against any racial or economic reforms the North might consider aside from emancipation itself. Furthermore, it would be a way of shoring up Lincoln's support among his own party while turning the poor whites of the South into a solidly Republican voting bloc to add to the heavily Republican freedmen and Union soldier voting blocs.

"Aristocracy" in this case are the people who had owned major plantations and substantial numbers of slaves pre-war. I don't know what the exact numbers would be, and they'd probably be subject to political discussion ITTL anyway, but a good starting point might be anyone who owned more than 10 slaves and/or 100 acres of land. The pre-war political class in the South will scream bloody murder, but after dragging the South into a war it couldn't possibly win, and without the OTL widespread destruction of Southern cities and infrastructure to hold against the North, they simply don't have any credibility. Oh, and most of them aren't going to be able to vote anyway, unless of course they agree to the above land reform, with perhaps the added carrot that in addition to restored voting rights, those landholders who willingly forfeit their holdings to the government for redistribution will be allowed to keep more of their pre-war non-human property than those whose property has to be seized instead.

It also would fit some of Lincoln's personal leanings on economic philosophy, which were more leftist than you might expect. So as far as he would be concerned, this idea would be morally correct, beneficial to his party's future electoral prospects, a good way of knocking the legs out from under any attempts to claim that all whites were being punished to carry out a policy that only supported blacks, and a way to finish destroying any possibility that the Southern elite who had torn the nation apart could ever try the same thing again.

EDIT: One more thing I just thought of: the expansion (and, presumably, renaming) of the Freedmen's Bureau could also be sold as a reconciliation measure: the ordinary soldiers of the Confederate Army, who weren't the ones responsible for the rebellion, are being repaid for their own wartime sacrifices. This would make an especially welcome (to the US government, at least) picture when set against the rich Southern planters who started the war, paid other men to fight in their place when they weren't just exempted by virtue of owning enough slaves and land, and then did whatever they could to drive the families of soldiers off the land that the soldiers could no longer work while they were fighting for the Confederacy.

Excellent points Sandman. If your proposed reforms were carried out they would no doubt have been of great benefit to the nation (although I believe many people would rather keep their property than vote). However, Reconciliation in this TL is less sweeping than OTL reconstruction because the TL's Civil War was much sorter. As such the war never really took on a "lets radical change the social order in the South" but remained more strictly a “preserve the Union” affair minus slavery. This means that Blacks will probably be worse off in the short run as the southern states will disenfranchise them immediately. However civil rights might come earlier because southern Whites are not as bitter as OTL because of the lack of reconstruction.

[MacGregor]

The Second Term of Abraham Lincoln

1864-1868

1864 President Election

Incumbent Abraham Lincoln headed into the 1864 Presidential elections with a commanding lead being at the time one of the most popular Presidents in American history due to his successful completion of the war and forcing France’s withdraw from Mexico. As such Lincoln was unanimously nominated as the presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention in Baltimore. At the convention there was considerable talk of dropping Vice President Hannibal Hamlin from the ticket. Major General Sedgwick was mentioned as a possible replacement but Sedgwick decided instead to run for the governorship of Connecticut, which he easily won. In the end, Hamlin was left on to appease the more radical elements in the Republican Party although some radical republicans decided to back John C. Freemont as a third party candidate.


Horatio Seymour
Presidential Canidate (D)
New York

The Democrats at their national convention had considerable difficulty in finding a suitable candidate for President. Andrew Johnson the current Governor of Tennessee seemed to be a good choice, but Johnson made it clear that he would not run against the man that “saved my beloved Union”. Johnson also probably realized that Lincoln was almost certainly going to win reelection. After much debate the Democrats finally nominated former New York Governor Horatio Seymour for President. Lazarus W. Powell, a former Governor and current Senator from the state of Kentucky was chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee.

As predicted, Lincoln easily won reelection to a second term. Seymour carried only the former Confederate States allowed to vote and Kentucky (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida did not participate as they would not fully return to the Union until 1865 due to their proposed state governments not meeting the standards of the Republican controlled Congress). Lincoln’s reelection was seriously aided by the huge number of Union war veterans who would be a main source of support for the Republicans for decades to come.

Reconciliation

Reconciliation was Lincoln’s primary concern during his second term. By November of 1865 all the former Confederate States had successfully been readmitted into the Union, with South Carolina being the last to rejoin. Union troops however still occupied much of the South to protect the newly freed black population and prevent any lingering Confederate sentiments from reigniting the conflict.

Compromise of 1865: One of the planks in Lincoln’s campaign platform was for a constitutional amendment to officially ban slavery in the United States. However, three-fourths of the state legislatures would be needed to ratify the amendment. This meant that some sort of deal would have to be struck with the southern states in order to gain their votes. Thus, in what sometimes is termed as the compromise of 1865, it was agreed that Federal troops would be removed from most of the South once the southern states had ratified the thirteenth amendment.

13th Amendment: The thirteenth amendment to the constitution was ratified on December 3rd, 1865 stating…

Sec. 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction, after June 1, 1867.

Sec. 2: Congress, in conjunction with the states, shall have power to enforce earlier emancipation, or to provide recompense for emancipation, prior to June 1, 1867, upon due consideration of the subject's participation in rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 3: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


June 1st, 1867 was chosen as the date for final emancipation so that the few remaining slave states would have time to complete their earlier agreed upon timetables for gradual compensated emancipation.


Western Expansion

Homestead Act of 1865: The Homestead Act of 1865 was another of the Lincoln administration’s crowning achievements. This act provided 40 acres and supplies to start up a small farm to any single man or family who would uproot and settle in the United States’ western territories. This offer also applied to the recently free, or soon to be free, blacks of the former Confederacy. Over the next two and half decades millions of American citizens would take the trek west including a large number of blacks. In years to come these significant numbers of African American landowners in the western states would play an important role in the Civil Rights movement of the twentieth century.

Alaska Purchase: In 1867, Lincoln reluctantly authorized Secretary of State William H. Seward to purchase Alaska from the Russian Empire for 7.5 million dollars. Although Lincoln was not a big proponent of American expansion, the near war with France over Mexico taught Lincoln that the less territory the Europeans held in the New World the better.

Transcontinental Railroad: Besides the admission of Nebraska into the Union on the 15th of December, 1866 the other big development in the west was the opening of the Transcontinental Railroad. This cross continental railway was officially completed on October 23rd, 1868. (It is worth mentioning that the popular urban legend that Lincoln drove in the golden spike to complete the railroad is false as can be seen in the photograph below).


Completion of the Trancontintal Railroad
October 23, 1868


Foreign Developments

Lincoln’s second term was focused primarily of domestic issues but it is worth mentioning a few points concerning European developments. In Europe the Kingdom of Prussia triumphed over the Empire of Austria in a brief war in 1866. This victory, coupled with that over Denmark in 1864, sent shock waves through the continent that Prussia was a power to be dealt with.

However, following Prussia’s victory in the Austro-Prussian War Prussian Chancellor Otto Van Bismarck was unable to forge an alliance with their defeated foe after Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph I was assassinated by the deranged father of a fallen Austrian soldier in the streets of Vienna on November 29th, 1866. Franz Joseph was succeeded to the throne by his younger brother Ferdinand Maximilian who was crowned Emperor Maximilian I. Unlike his older brother, Maximilian I favored forming an alliance against the emerging power of Prussia. Soon after his coronation the new emperor established an alliance with Napoleon III of France (It has been speculated that Napoleon III and Maximilian's friendship might have been aided by the rumor that Maximilian was actually fathered by Napoleon II during his time in Austria). This Franco-Austrian Alliance would become a fixture in European politics for decades to come.


Maximilian I
Emperor of Austria
1866

[Shadow Knight]

Interesting...didn't see the Franco-Austrian alliance coming into being. I wonder if this means Prussia and Russia are going to be close. With maybe a very friendly Britain along for the ride too.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by Shadow Knight

Interesting...didn't see the Franco-Austrian alliance coming into being. I wonder if this means Prussia and Russia are going to be close. With maybe a very friendly Britain along for the ride too.

I have always thought that an Alliance between France and Austria made sense. They are both interested in keeping Germany and Italy from becoming major powers and are both Catholic.

This alliance will definitely bring Prussia and Italy closer together. Russia may decide to join but that will depend on subsequent factors. I agree though that Britain will probably be less than thrilled by the Bonaparte-Hapsburg Axis.

[SilverSwimmer]

MacGregor, what is the status of Anglo-American relations? I dont recall there being an update on whether or not Trent affair type thing went down, or whether the CSS Alabama was put into play. This could seriously improve the two countries relations.

[Shadow Knight]

Originally Posted by SilverSwimmer

MacGregor, what is the status of Anglo-American relations? I dont recall there being an update on whether or not Trent affair type thing went down, or whether the CSS Alabama was put into play. This could seriously improve the two countries relations.

Well the CSS Alabama (and other commerce raiders were mentioned), but from the way it was worded it sounded like the British were a bit more active in clamping down on the raiders being built in the UK. From what I read though the CSS Alabama was built in secrecy, and in TTL seems to escaped the British authorities by the skin of its teeth.

[Shadow Knight]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

I have always thought that an Alliance between France and Austria made sense. They are both interested in keeping Germany and Italy from becoming major powers and are both Catholic.

This alliance will definitely bring Prussia and Italy closer together. Russia may decide to join but that will depend on subsequent factors. I agree though that Britain will probably be less than thrilled by the Bonaparte-Hapsburg Axis.

No I agree it makes perfect sense, just didn't see it coming to be honest, but with France not being distracted in Mexico it makes perfect sense.

I would think Russia would be highly in favor of supporting Prussia. Austria-Hungry is a rival in Russian eyes to their endeavors in the Balkans. And with Prussia the victor in the last war siding with a proven winner is usually a safe bet (Not always mind you).

[jlckansas]

Will be seeing President Lincoln traveling to California before his term is over? Since the Transcontinental RR is completed before he leaves office, he could be the first sitting president to visit the west coast. IIRC Lincoln mentioned that when he left office he wanted to travel to California. Maybe with Mrs. Lincoln's problems he might decide that living in California, where there would not be the amount of folks wanting his attention and open area, would have certain advantages.

Also would Longstreet or some of the other Confederate general be rejoining the army? Might be a way of reconciliation.

jlckansas

[Van555]

woot! this means Germany an become complete

[Tom Veil]

Originally Posted by jlckansas

Will be seeing President Lincoln traveling to California before his term is over? Since the Transcontinental RR is completed before he leaves office, he could be the first sitting president to visit the west coast. IIRC Lincoln mentioned that when he left office he wanted to travel to California. Maybe with Mrs. Lincoln's problems he might decide that living in California, where there would not be the amount of folks wanting his attention and open area, would have certain advantages.

If Lincoln goes to California, perhaps someone can write a book titled "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln and Notes of a visit to California." OTL is awesome.

[benjamin]

One person you may want to take into account is French Empress Eugenie. She was the driving force behind the French intervention in Mexico and was a staunch Catholic conservative. Without the failure of the Mexican Adventure there will be no move to marginalize her influence over French foreign policy. In fact Napoleon III will probably be more likely to listen her in the future if only to get her to shut up and make up for the fact that he didn't listen to her regarding Mexico. This means a more anti-Italian/pro-Pope foreign policy, and as has already been said makes sense of a Franco-Austrian alliance. While Maximilian did not care for his older brother, his assassination may blunt some of Max's liberal leanings.

Prussia and Italy of course are a perfect partnership; both want to humble Austria and reduce French influence and have few if any conflicts of interests.

Russia and Austria could go either way. Russia assisted Austria in the revolutions of 1848 but they both covet control of the Balkans. Russia was angered by Austria's stance during the Crimean War, but as Austria did not actually declare war that damage can be repaired. It may be possible for Austria and Russia to come to terms if a solution favorable to both nations can be reached...even better if its brokered by the French.

Britain is weary of France (being her perennial enemy) since the war scare of 1858. Britain also sees Russia as a serious rival especially in Asia. In fact in 1860 there was an incident at Tsushima where British warships chased off a Russian ship that was trying to assert control over the island. Russia didn't want war so soon after Crimea but illustrates that Russia and Britain will not being seeing eye-to-eye for a long while. Also, once the Suez Canal is finished, Britain will want control of it to the anger of France.

So to summarize: Franco-Austrian alliance, Prusso-Italian alliance, Russia could go either way just as long as its opposed to Britain and vice-versa. If Austria and Russia ally then the Ottoman Empire is probably screwed. Denmark will almost certainly lose land to Prussia regardless, especially if Britain is friendly with Prussia. If this can be done without a war then Denmark will be better off than OTL.

Benjamin

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by benjamin

One person you may want to take into account is French Empress Eugenie. She was the driving force behind the French intervention in Mexico and was a staunch Catholic conservative. Without the failure of the Mexican Adventure there will be no move to marginalize her influence over French foreign policy. In fact Napoleon III will probably be more likely to listen her in the future if only to get her to shut up and make up for the fact that he didn't listen to her regarding Mexico. This means a more anti-Italian/pro-Pope foreign policy, and as has already been said makes sense of a Franco-Austrian alliance. While Maximilian did not care for his older brother, his assassination may blunt some of Max's liberal leanings.

Prussia and Italy of course are a perfect partnership; both want to humble Austria and reduce French influence and have few if any conflicts of interests.

Russia and Austria could go either way. Russia assisted Austria in the revolutions of 1848 but they both covet control of the Balkans. Russia was angered by Austria's stance during the Crimean War, but as Austria did not actually declare war that damage can be repaired. It may be possible for Austria and Russia to come to terms if a solution favorable to both nations can be reached...even better if its brokered by the French.

Britain is weary of France (being her perennial enemy) since the war scare of 1858. Britain also sees Russia as a serious rival especially in Asia. In fact in 1860 there was an incident at Tsushima where British warships chased off a Russian ship that was trying to assert control over the island. Russia didn't want war so soon after Crimea but illustrates that Russia and Britain will not being seeing eye-to-eye for a long while. Also, once the Suez Canal is finished, Britain will want control of it to the anger of France.

So to summarize: Franco-Austrian alliance, Prusso-Italian alliance, Russia could go either way just as long as its opposed to Britain and vice-versa. If Austria and Russia ally then the Ottoman Empire is probably screwed. Denmark will almost certainly lose land to Prussia regardless, especially if Britain is friendly with Prussia. If this can be done without a war then Denmark will be better off than OTL.

Benjamin

Thanks for the excellent comments. However, couldn't Russia and the UK be allied as in OTL WWI?

[Shadow Knight]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Thanks for the excellent comments. However, couldn't Russia and the UK be alied as in OTL WWI?

I wonder might they have a common ally in Prussia, but not be allied to each other? Prussia would be in a good position, but likely spend a lot of diplomatic capital making sure Russia and the UK didn't come to blows over competing interests (the Ottoman Empire, Central Asia, China, etc.).

[Jord839]

First of all, great TL. I've been reading for a while now but haven't commented just yet.

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Thanks for the excellent comments. However, couldn't Russia and the UK be alied as in OTL WWI?

Well, IIRC, the major fixture of British policy at this time IOTL was the containment of Russia, which only shifted with the ascent of Germany as the more immediate threat to "balance" on the continent. While theoretically they could be drawn in on the same side, it's kind of a tough sell for the British policymakers, although as Shadow Knight points out, they both have reason/history to support Prussia in the conflict. If they do end up fighting on the same side, expect some serious jockeying over interests in the postwar.

[benjamin]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Thanks for the excellent comments. However, couldn't Russia and the UK be alied as in OTL WWI?

It's not ASB but its not that plausible either IMHO. Disputes over the Ottoman Empire, Central Asia, Northern China and influence in Japan put Britain and Russia at odds throughout the entire second half of the 19th century. Their alliance in WWI came about because of German stupidity more so than an actual feeling of good will between Britain and Russia. While Russia and Prussia shared an interest in oppressing the Poles, the fact that they shared a long volatile border enhanced the likelihood of conflict. The same of course could be said regarding Russia and Austria so it could go either way for Russia when they look for allies. In regards to Britain she will do her utmost to protect the trade routes to and from Asia (i.e. India) and work to prevent any one nation or alliance from dominating continental Europe. So Britain will probably side against any alliance that looks to gain the upper hand which will probably the empires of France and Austria.

Benjamin