Under the Eagle Flag 2.0: An Alternate History of the World, 1821-2010

[Free Lancer]

Very Interesting and very eager to see were this goes next

[stevep]

Desmond

Just catching up after my holiday. The north have probably secured victory by the US staggering on until the election of a northern President, as that will enable them to depict the south as rebels rejecting the rule of Congress. This could go a long way to avoiding splits in the north, despite the actions of Brown and Fremont and the actions of many in the north during Upshur's presidency. Also it is likely to make foreign recognition of the south less likely. [However the south is likely to be even more determined to stand firm against the northern 'aggression'].

The question of intervention or simply recognition by other powers is a key one. Britain is opposed to slavery but according to a lot of sources came close a number of times to recognising the south. TTL there is the bitterness of the Oregon war and concern about the aggressiveness of the US which might make recognition more likely, especially since it is the north that would pose a threat to Canada. Recognition by Britain would be crucial both because it would mean other countries would likely follow and because it would make a northern blockade far more difficult politically. However I suspect it won't occur as otherwise I can't see the north winning a decisive victory, which seems to be on the cards.

The other option, even without foreign recognition, would be for the two sides to accept the separation. Even without questions of borders and disputed areas this is unlikely given heated feelings however.

Since temperatures are markedly higher I would expect the states that OTL went with the south to do so, possibly along a similar line to Tennessee and Virginia OTL, rejecting the right of Washington to force other states into line. Also given the bad blood in Missouri over northern attacks I would expect it and Arkansas to definitely be more in the southern camp. The important question, as it was OTL, would probably be Kentucky as it would give the south a border on the Ohio and more depth while the north might be more expose to being cut in two. [Presuming as Pyro says it is a slave state still loyal at the moment].

Given how long tension has been rising, the fact the southern interests have been in power and there is a fairly long hand-over period [election in November and inauguration in March] I wonder if some elements of the old government would have taken steps to weaken the military and economic power of the government and arrange that as much as possibly ends up in southern hands?

Anyway, looking forward to seeing more.

Steve

[Free Lancer]

I have a question
What is the state of the US Military? is it like the OTL or has it changed?

[Desmond Hume]

Originally Posted by Pyro

What about Kentucky? I'm guessing they are still in the Union but I'm curious to know of what is happening there.

As of the establishment of the CAS, Kentucky is still in the Union. Whether or not it will stay in the Union remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Free Lancer

Very Interesting and very eager to see were this goes next

Thanks!

Originally Posted by stevep

Desmond

Just catching up after my holiday. The north have probably secured victory by the US staggering on until the election of a northern President, as that will enable them to depict the south as rebels rejecting the rule of Congress. This could go a long way to avoiding splits in the north, despite the actions of Brown and Fremont and the actions of many in the north during Upshur's presidency. Also it is likely to make foreign recognition of the south less likely. [However the south is likely to be even more determined to stand firm against the northern 'aggression'].

The question of intervention or simply recognition by other powers is a key one. Britain is opposed to slavery but according to a lot of sources came close a number of times to recognising the south. TTL there is the bitterness of the Oregon war and concern about the aggressiveness of the US which might make recognition more likely, especially since it is the north that would pose a threat to Canada. Recognition by Britain would be crucial both because it would mean other countries would likely follow and because it would make a northern blockade far more difficult politically. However I suspect it won't occur as otherwise I can't see the north winning a decisive victory, which seems to be on the cards.

The other option, even without foreign recognition, would be for the two sides to accept the separation. Even without questions of borders and disputed areas this is unlikely given heated feelings however.

Since temperatures are markedly higher I would expect the states that OTL went with the south to do so, possibly along a similar line to Tennessee and Virginia OTL, rejecting the right of Washington to force other states into line. Also given the bad blood in Missouri over northern attacks I would expect it and Arkansas to definitely be more in the southern camp. The important question, as it was OTL, would probably be Kentucky as it would give the south a border on the Ohio and more depth while the north might be more expose to being cut in two. [Presuming as Pyro says it is a slave state still loyal at the moment].

Given how long tension has been rising, the fact the southern interests have been in power and there is a fairly long hand-over period [election in November and inauguration in March] I wonder if some elements of the old government would have taken steps to weaken the military and economic power of the government and arrange that as much as possibly ends up in southern hands?

Anyway, looking forward to seeing more.

Steve

I'm not so sure a Northern victory is in the cards; there's still a chance that all the slave states will secede (well, maybe not Delaware), and things could always go sideways if Seward botches the opening stages of an armed conflict. And given that the destruction of the Oregon War is only 10 years in the past, the North is notably weaker than OTL--somewhat lower population, less industry, fewer railroads, etc.

Probably the best end to all of this would be for both sides to accept separation, but a lot of blood will probably need to be spilled first.

The foreign powers, as in OTL, will sit back at first; their ultimate attitude will be determined by events yet to be written. Which is another way of saying I'm making it up as I go.

Originally Posted by Free Lancer

I have a question
What is the state of the US Military? is it like the OTL or has it changed?

It's a lot like OTL in terms of size; however, due to the Oregon War many people who would have been leaders in OTL are either dead or discredited, and its prestige is rather lowered by its defeat in the Oregon War.

[Free Lancer]

It's a lot like OTL in terms of size; however, due to the Oregon War many people who would have been leaders in OTL are either dead or discredited, and its prestige is rather lowered by its defeat in the Oregon War.[/QUOTE]

so new military Leaders are going to emerge very Interesting,

Depending on how the civil war goes I assume this will be the Redemption of the US military?

when can we Expect an update?

[Desmond Hume]

Originally Posted by Free Lancer

It's a lot like OTL in terms of size; however, due to the Oregon War many people who would have been leaders in OTL are either dead or discredited, and its prestige is rather lowered by its defeat in the Oregon War.

so new military Leaders are going to emerge very Interesting,

Depending on how the civil war goes I assume this will be the Redemption of the US military?

when can we Expect an update?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, there will probably be some leaders on both sides who are not well known in OTL.

There may be some redemption for the US military, but there may be some further discrediting too. You can bet the history books in a certain part of North America will focus on the redemption part, though.

As you can probably tell if you've been reading from the beginning, updates tend to happen...sporadically. I'm travelling right now, so I might have to leave you hanging for a couple weeks. Sorry!

[stevep]

Desmond & all

I would say overall the US army should perform a bit better in the early stages than OTL. Simply because the Oregon War will have cleared out a good bit of dead-wood and mean a lot of the long term veterans and probable early recruits will have experience. Also, having lost that conflict it is a great incentive to people thinking about what went wrong and putting it right.

On the other hand the aftermath of the war may well have lead to the army being discredited and less funds being made available. Also the heated political division, which seems to make OTL seem like a period of peace and stability, probably means there's been a lot more political interference with various governments seeking to remove 'unreliable' officers. Unreliable meaning someone who might not agree with the government which given the instability could mean just about anyone. Plus, especially with Fremont's example there is likely to be a desire to keep a closer control on 'rogue' commanders in case they do something their political superior's don't approve of. [Including theoretically a march on Washington/Richmond wherever]. The latter is [probably] unlikely but politicians may not view things that way.

The navy could well be more dramatically affected. Having fought the UK and probably, when they can tear their attention away from internal conflicts, still viewing it as enemy No. 1 they have two choices. Some big build up and/or radical designs to try and protect at least the coastlines in the event of a new conflict. However this would be very, very expensive and I doubt the will and resources will be there. Therefore, coupled with probably a decline in overseas trade after as well as during the war, it's more likely that the navy is largely given up as a lost cause and has less investment.

In terms of the north winning I notice reading back that opening chapters refer to nations to the south so you could be right that the south may stay independent, at least for a while. [If it stays so for a generation or so it's likely to stay separate permanently, although there could well be repeated clashes and border 'alterations']. However, even with a more united south including the bulk of the border states, if the north has the will and there isn't at least external recognition of the south, the economic superiority of the north is likely to be decisive. It could be a hell of a war and whether the north had enough rage to pay the necessary butcher's bill is the big question. There could easily be a substantial peace movement building up after a year or two without clear success. [Especially it's unlikely that the rather fluky easy capture of New Orleans will occur TTL]. Not to mention a war bloody enough to see the south finally overrun is likely to mean enough anger in the south and exhaustion in the north that the result is not final.

Probably the big issue here might be if the south is a little more coherent in it's organisation than the chaotic mess it was OTL. Possibly with a lot of experience from the Oregon conflict and the clear threat from the north they might be less inclined to overwhelming states-rights, at least for the initial crisis. Coupled with superior political leadership that might make a big difference.

Anyway, interesting times ahead. Look forward to finding out more. Plenty of time so hopefully you're travelling goes well.

Steve

Originally Posted by Desmond Hume

Yes, there will probably be some leaders on both sides who are not well known in OTL.

There may be some redemption for the US military, but there may be some further discrediting too. You can bet the history books in a certain part of North America will focus on the redemption part, though.

As you can probably tell if you've been reading from the beginning, updates tend to happen...sporadically. I'm travelling right now, so I might have to leave you hanging for a couple weeks. Sorry!

[Grey Wolf]

Just saved all the pages to read in detail tonight at home. Did I not know this existed at all?????? Flicking through it, it looks very good indeed, and anything which Steve spends a lot of time commenting on is always a good sign!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[stevep]

Grey

Many thanks for the complement, although I'm tempted to say you don't see a lot I read and comment on.

Talking of threads have you seen EdT's latest, which looks very interesting and is storming along at a great rate.

Steve

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Just saved all the pages to read in detail tonight at home. Did I not know this existed at all?????? Flicking through it, it looks very good indeed, and anything which Steve spends a lot of time commenting on is always a good sign!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Desmond Hume]

So, I really thought I'd have more time to work on this over the summer. Did not see another month-long hiatus coming.

I think I'm going to have to change up my writing process a little to continue this TL. I'm thinking of doing shorter (but hopefully more frequent) updates in the future, and maybe telling more of the story through maps instead of prose. I have problems with getting bogged down in research instead of actually writing that I need to resolve. Anyway, here's an update.

Chapter 23: The Incident

Newly-inaugurated President Seward faced a grave challenge in confronting the seceded states that had formed the Confederation of American States. He initially hoped to persuade the Southern states to return to the Union voluntarily, but as the spring of 1857 dragged on this seemed less and less likely. Any forceful action against the rebel states risked sparking the secession of the five loyal slave states. Seward’s Cabinet was itself divided over what to do, with Secretary of War Thaddeus Stephens urging military action before the seceded states pulled together while Vice President Wilmot led the voices urging a diplomatic solution.

Division in the North gave the CAS time to establish itself. The Provisional Government spent March and April drafting a constitution, one which was largely borrowed from the United States Constitution but contained some important differences such as explicitly protecting slavery, giving somewhat more power to the legislative branch, and devolving slightly more power to the states. Ironically, though, perhaps due to the recognition that Northern aggression was likely the Confederation Constitution was actually rather restrained on the topic of state’s rights, to the extent it even disappointed some state’s rights hardliners. President Mason and other supporters of ratification soothed whatever state’s-rights discontent that existed, though, by promising that changes to the Constitution could be considered once “this terrible hour of national peril is past.” This was enough to achieve ratification in all nine states by the end of April. During the same period, President Mason chose his first Cabinet. He picked the fiery Alabaman William Yancey as Vice President (his primary purpose was to travel around the South making speeches, as Mason did not value his advice very highly), while Georgia’s Alexander Stephens became Secretary of State and Jefferson Davis became the Secretary of War for a different country.

As the secession crisis dragged on into early summer, tensions coalesced around one flashpoint: the crucial federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. During the lame-duck period, Secretary of War (still for the United States) Jefferson Davis had seen to it that many federal military installations in the South were handed over to state authorities. However, he had not managed to arrange for Harper’s Ferry to change hands. After the Oregon War, the Harper’s Ferry armory had been substantially expanded; it was located in a strategic spot on the Potomac not far from Washington but far enough inland it was considered safe from British aggression. The garrison at Harper’s Ferry remained loyal to the Union despite being partially surrounded by a seceded state. As the CAS established its institutions, including provisions for an Army of the Confederation, federal control of the armory began to seem more and more unacceptable. President Mason (a Virginian) took a personal interest in the matter. All of the other federal military installations in the state had been handed over to state forces thanks to Davis’ treachery, and the presence of a substantial garrison of what were now foreign soldiers could be seen as an affront to Virginia’s sovereignty.

Shortly after the CAS constitution was ratified, Mason ordered a column of soldiers commanded by his fellow Virginian Col. Robert E. Lee to surround the Harper’s Ferry armory and demand that it be relinquished to CAS authority. This act forced the crisis that had been building ever since Seward’s inauguration. The Cabinet and the Congress in Washington could no longer dither over what should be done about the secession issue. There was still a real threat that other slave states could secede, particularly Maryland and Kentucky (Missouri had the same possibility, but by this time there were already two rival legislatures in the state and it was clear the question in Missouri would be decided with guns, not votes). This was the moment when Seward had to decide whether he would fight for the Union or not.

Seward believed in the Union, as did most Northerners in 1857. Whether or not the Union was worth fighting for against Southerners who did not want to be part of it was a more complicated subject, both for Seward himself and for Americans generally. The agonies that must have accompanied Seward’s decision must have made what presidents like Webster and Clayton suffered to save the Union pale in comparison. But Seward chose to take action to save the Union, even if it risked armed conflict.

On 12 May 1857 the garrison at Harper’s Ferry received a cable ordering them not to surrender. Seward simultaneously ordered Army units based in Washington to march towards Harper’s Ferry to reinforce the garrison (some of these were the same units that had been called in to crush Brown’s Rebellion, ironically). Lee did not have clear orders for dealing with this response (Mason had honestly believed Seward would not force a crisis over the armory), but he knew what he had to do. Had he not seen just two years earlier the deranged face of abolitionism on the Capitol steps during Brown’s Rebellion? That was the face that now sat in the White House and glowered across the Potomac at the sacred soil of Virginia, plotting against the lives and property of all Virginians and all Southerners. Virginia must be defended; state sovereignty must be safeguarded against tyranny. Lee knew the President would agree.

During the night of 13 May, Lee’s forces opened fire on the Harper’s Ferry armory. The defenders took numerous casualties. The garrison commander realized that his situation was not ideal; Lee had 800 men from the combined forces of the Army of the Confederation and the Virginia militia behind him, plus he had reinforcements much closer at hand and the townspeople were largely on his side. Shortly after dawn on the 14th, a white flag went up over the armory. Lee graciously allowed his enemies to retreat across the Potomac into Maryland with their weapons. The news of what had happened in Harper’s Ferry was received with astonishment in Washington and Charleston. The states were at war.

[Free Lancer]

First off let me say great chapter and good to see this back

so Seward will Either see the Union crumble around him or see it reborn in the ashes of its war fires

i wonde if fremont will be making a return now with the war on.

is Philip Kearny still alive at this point?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Free Lancer

First off let me say great chapter and good to see this back

so Seward will Either see the Union crumble around him or see it reborn in the ashes of its war fires

i wonde if fremont will be making a return now with the war on.

is Philip Kearny still alive at this point?

Agree, it's great to see more of this and we now have the spark for the conflagration. A bit different from Fort Sumter but basically similar, although the fact the north has men marching to relieve the armoury might improve the south's position a bit as they can claim their hand was forced. Might just mean that some in the north are a bit less certain about their commitment to the war. The question now will be how the 6 other slave states react. Would expect Delaware to stay loyal, Missouri as you say will be decided by rifles but the others and especially Kentucky and Tennessee [giving the south some depth] and Maryland [because it would isolate Washington and give the south another big port] would be significant.

There's bound to be some conflict in the west as well but the south has a weaker position there. [Can't remember in TTL if gold has been discovered in California yet? If so there will be a lot of settlers there so more likely to be pro-union but if not then it might be more contested and probably also seen as somewhat less important].

Desmond - I see you took up my idea that the south used the transition period to transfer as much of the military resources as possible to state control, which will weaken the north's dominance a little. Getting a stronger and more developed Harper's Ferry will also help.

Steve

PS Free Lancer - I think there was a reference earlier on that Fremont still has a role to play, although I think it was hinted it would be less successful than his role in Kansas.

[Biggles]

Subscribed.

I don't normally do American TLs as I don't know enough background to find them interesting, but this one is one I'm definitely enjoying. Plus there are also hints of a British-wank to come in later updates so I'll be looking out for that as well

[jycee]

Glad to see this is still going Desmond.

I like how you began the war, kinda like OTL but a little different. Also having Davis as Secretary of War of both the US and the CAS is certainly original way to give an advantage to the South.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Biggles

Subscribed.

I don't normally do American TLs as I don't know enough background to find them interesting, but this one is one I'm definitely enjoying. Plus there are also hints of a British-wank to come in later updates so I'll be looking out for that as well

Biggles

I don't know if it's going to end up as a Brit-wank as there might be an American revival by the end. Plus while a weaker America will probably be in Britain's interest it's not a certainty.

Steve

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by stevep

Biggles

I don't know if it's going to end up as a Brit-wank as there might be an American revival by the end. Plus while a weaker America will probably be in Britain's interest it's not a certainty.

Steve

Well the very first instalment talked about a British base on Hawaii and we've seen greater immigration to Canada so it might not be a full on Brit-wank but certainly better than ATL - after all, America will still be rebuilding from the Civil War throughout the only period where they could pose a potential threat to the empire. Plus, the talk of a Premier hints at a parliamentary type system which could be a sign of British influence.

[Desmond Hume]

Originally Posted by Free Lancer

First off let me say great chapter and good to see this back

so Seward will Either see the Union crumble around him or see it reborn in the ashes of its war fires

i wonde if fremont will be making a return now with the war on.

is Philip Kearny still alive at this point?

Thanks! Fremont's going to return soon; he's still under arrest in Nebraska when the war starts, but he won't stay there for long.

I actually hadn't read much about Philip Kearny before you mentioned him, so thanks for that! He sounds like just the kind of personality who could cause problems in an extended civil war if central civilian authority breaks down, so he might well make an appearance thanks to you!

Originally Posted by stevep

Agree, it's great to see more of this and we now have the spark for the conflagration. A bit different from Fort Sumter but basically similar, although the fact the north has men marching to relieve the armoury might improve the south's position a bit as they can claim their hand was forced. Might just mean that some in the north are a bit less certain about their commitment to the war. The question now will be how the 6 other slave states react. Would expect Delaware to stay loyal, Missouri as you say will be decided by rifles but the others and especially Kentucky and Tennessee [giving the south some depth] and Maryland [because it would isolate Washington and give the south another big port] would be significant.

There's bound to be some conflict in the west as well but the south has a weaker position there. [Can't remember in TTL if gold has been discovered in California yet? If so there will be a lot of settlers there so more likely to be pro-union but if not then it might be more contested and probably also seen as somewhat less important].

Desmond - I see you took up my idea that the south used the transition period to transfer as much of the military resources as possible to state control, which will weaken the north's dominance a little. Getting a stronger and more developed Harper's Ferry will also help.

Steve

PS Free Lancer - I think there was a reference earlier on that Fremont still has a role to play, although I think it was hinted it would be less successful than his role in Kansas.

Thanks! I thought Harper's Ferry was a nice place to begin an ATL civil war, given its role in the lead-up to OTL's. And the stuff I uncovered about the armory there was quite fascinating too.

The fate of the remaining Union slave states will be revealed in the next update. Without giving too much away, I'd think that Maryland and Kentucky will be major theaters of battle in the upcoming war whether they formally secede or not. And at this point Missouri's been a bloodbath for over a year already, and it won't be getting better any time soon.

The South will try to assert itself in the West; they'll definitely try to grab New Mexico territory, but I'm undecided whether or not to let them have it yet. The South is definitely not getting California; gold has been discovered there, and most of the settlers are from the North (Fremont was the first governor of the state of California, remember).

Originally Posted by Biggles

Subscribed.

I don't normally do American TLs as I don't know enough background to find them interesting, but this one is one I'm definitely enjoying. Plus there are also hints of a British-wank to come in later updates so I'll be looking out for that as well

Thanks for subscribing!

Originally Posted by jycee

Glad to see this is still going Desmond.

I like how you began the war, kinda like OTL but a little different. Also having Davis as Secretary of War of both the US and the CAS is certainly original way to give an advantage to the South.

Thanks! I'm thinking that Jeff Davis' name is going to be a byword for treason throughout history ITTL; what he's done makes Benedict Anderson look like nothing!

Originally Posted by Biggles

Well the very first instalment talked about a British base on Hawaii and we've seen greater immigration to Canada so it might not be a full on Brit-wank but certainly better than ATL - after all, America will still be rebuilding from the Civil War throughout the only period where they could pose a potential threat to the empire. Plus, the talk of a Premier hints at a parliamentary type system which could be a sign of British influence.

I'm really undecided about how colonialism will go later in the 19th century, but the United States is not going to be asserting itself all that much outside its borders (whatever they end up being ) until around 1900; so it seemed natural to give Hawai'i to the British.

Again, I'm mostly undecided about what the new United States government will look like, but you're right that it won't look much like OTL's and it will have a strong legislative branch that works something like a parliament. When the time comes I'll start up a constitution-writing thread and you all can help me come up with a new form of government!

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Desmond Hume

I'm really undecided about how colonialism will go later in the 19th century, but the United States is not going to be asserting itself all that much outside its borders (whatever they end up being ) until around 1900; so it seemed natural to give Hawai'i to the British.

Desmond

Actually, without the US, or some other major power in N America, then Hawaii is a bit out of the way. [For the US it's an obvious stepping stone to China and the rest of the east but European powers will link to the region more naturally via the Indian Ocean.

Hence I could see it staying fairly independent for quite a while, unless/until a period of rampant imperialism means that people are seeking to snap up any territories they can. At which point I would say Britain is likely to seek a strategy of deny, applying a protectorate to prevent anyone else. Might be an attempt to establish sugar plantations by US interests separate from any government backing as OTL. [This could really trigger British intervention if this was from a victorious south looking to expand slavery but that's probably pretty damned unlikely.]

Steve

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by stevep

Desmond

Actually, without the US, or some other major power in N America, then Hawaii is a bit out of the way. [For the US it's an obvious stepping stone to China and the rest of the east but European powers will link to the region more naturally via the Indian Ocean.

Hence I could see it staying fairly independent for quite a while, unless/until a period of rampant imperialism means that people are seeking to snap up any territories they can. At which point I would say Britain is likely to seek a strategy of deny, applying a protectorate to prevent anyone else. Might be an attempt to establish sugar plantations by US interests separate from any government backing as OTL. [This could really trigger British intervention if this was from a victorious south looking to expand slavery but that's probably pretty damned unlikely.]

Steve

Hawaii was originally "discovered" by the British (though they called them the North Sandwich Islands) and it was under their de facto control for quite a period of time before the US took over.

Also, I wonder what's going to happen with the Panama Canal? With the state the US is in the only nations I can see with the resources, military power and will to construct it are either the British or the French.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Biggles

Hawaii was originally "discovered" by the British (though they called them the North Sandwich Islands) and it was under their de facto control for quite a period of time before the US took over.

Also, I wonder what's going to happen with the Panama Canal? With the state the US is in the only nations I can see with the resources, military power and will to construct it are either the British or the French.

Biggles

I know at some point there was some agreement between Britain and the US that neither would construct a canal across the isthmus without the agreement of the other. Think that was after this time and is rather unlikely to occur TTL. Hence would agree that either Britain or France are the only powers really likely to but not sure whether either would be that eager at the moment. Don't think the traffic around the Horn is particularly important and that's probably the only area which would make it of interest to them. Although possibly when the guerno traffic from the Andean
region takes off?

Steve