A Glorious Union or America: the New Sparta

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by TheKnightIrish

Oh and on the Turchin's I recommend Stephen Chicone's "John Basil Turchin and the Fight to Free the Slaves".

Sweet. Awesome.

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by TheKnightIrish

I will do a brief note on the death of Forrest shortly and then do another political overview as of the summer of '63.

I take objection to the Statement Forrest was a "Bushwacker" "overseer" and "lyncher" there is nothing to this point in his career that supports these allegations
Forrest was not a "bushwacker he was a General in the Confederate States Army. Who had he lynched at this point in his life?
You also butterflyed away several primary schools Forrest set up for the children of former slaves after the ACW.
You also did not mention the death of the lady who shot him as there would have been several staff members around Forrest and they would have shot her as the combatant she was. This last would have happened if any woman was shooting at someone be they North or South, and as you have stated as fact she killed Forrest it would have to have been done by pistol at close range meaning his staff/standard bearers/ bodyguards would have shot at equally close range his assailant.

Other than this you are putting on a excellent timeline. I do not think the "Forts of Richmond would have fallen as easily as you had them fall, since no other forts in the ACW did. In the movie " Glory" they do not make clear the assault failed with casualties being (officially) five Union to each Confederate.

I picked on the Forrest scenerio mostly for the bushwacker/lyncher comment. Because of his early envolment in the KKK and his pre war occupation as a slave dealer (not overseer) Forrest can not get a fair hearing. The only lynching mentioned under his command was at Fort Pillow which has not happened in your time line as you are in 1863 and Pillow happened in 1864. Another strike against Forrest is he had no formal education so the educated elites of the current generations fail to give him credit for being one of the greatest Cavalry Officers of all time. His personal life is spotted with controversy, but his military skills are studied to this day. Three of who did a fair job of using his tactics when they were in command, Rommel, Patton, and Schwarzkopf.

[iopgod]

The thread could easily get derailed by an argument about the virtues or otherwise of Forrest's character and actions, but I thought that the comments in question were well flagged as the in-timeline opinions of a historian with a noted Union-bias making a quick point during oral debate, rather than the author of the timeline making a definitive statement of WHAT WAS SO. It is probably a mistake to confuse the two.

[TheKnightIrish]

I picked on the Forrest scenerio mostly for the bushwacker/lyncher comment. Because of his early envolment in the KKK and his pre war occupation as a slave dealer (not overseer) Forrest can not get a fair hearing. The only lynching mentioned under his command was at Fort Pillow which has not happened in your time line as you are in 1863 and Pillow happened in 1864. Another strike against Forrest is he had no formal education so the educated elites of the current generations fail to give him credit for being one of the greatest Cavalry Officers of all time. His personal life is spotted with controversy, but his military skills are studied to this day. Three of who did a fair job of using his tactics when they were in command, Rommel, Patton, and Schwarzkopf.

First thing I should say is that my 2012 US Historians in TTL have a completely different view of the Civil War (in other words their views are not mine!).

The most popular alternative name for the Civil War in this TTL is the Slaveholders Rebellion, and without giving too much away, the historiography of the war is going to be very different. A lot of negative myths and sterotypes about some of the rebels and their leaders are going to persist. Conversely the reputation of some Union commanders will be grossly inflated over time.

While the strategy and tactics of the War will receive the same degree of analysis, their will be a consicous effort in the post-war era (for reasons that will become apparent) to discredit the Southern Leadership, civil and military.

You also did not mention the death of the lady who shot him as there would have been several staff members around Forrest and they would have shot her as the combatant she was. This last would have happened if any woman was shooting at someone be they North or South, and as you have stated as fact she killed Forrest it would have to have been done by pistol at close range meaning his staff/standard bearers/ bodyguards would have shot at equally close range his assailant.

I always like to use the defence that "only alternate history has to be plausible. Real history just has to happen." The question for the reader, like all history, is to question how accurate the presentation of the event is. Mrs Turchin was definitely more in the image of the terrifying British memsahibs of the Empire (like Lady Florentia Sale) rather than your typical Eastern US woman of the 1860s.

But I agree it does seem slightly implausible that she would escape. I'm not sure she would be gunned down by Forrest's staff but her escape is a little implausible. The timely arrival of David Stanley's Union cavalry in the vicinty may account for the lacklustre performance of Forrest's staff. I also think the Union press and the Army of the Cumberland will have sought to exaggerate the "incident".

And sometimes I just like to be a bit provocative!

[Corder]

I do not think the "Forts of Richmond would have fallen as easily as you had them fall, since no other forts in the ACW did. In the movie " Glory" they do not make clear the assault failed with casualties being (officially) five Union to each Confederate.

I have been thinking about this one too. It did seem that the Forts in the north west of the city fell quickly and I have been looking for plausible reasons why this might be so.

1. This is the early summer of 1863. There has been a year's less construction on the Richmond defenses than there was in OTL when Grant advanced on Richmond and Petersburg.
2. The pace of Kearny's advance seems more dramatic to me, perhaps leaving less time or giving less indication that the speed of works needed to be increased.
3. Lee had stripped the garrison of Richmond of its best troops for the attack on the Army of the James/The Battle of the Blackwater. I would imagine this means fewer good troops to work on the defences (although I wonder to what extent these works were carried out by slave labor).
4. Kearny does concentrate the bulk of his force (something like 6 corps) against two forts/points, while Lee is distracted - sending Jackson's whole corps and a reserve division east in the direction of Sedgwick's demonstration.
5. Battery Wagner is an example of a bloody repulse but didn't E.O.C Ord do a lot better in his assault on Fort Harrison which overan the Fort at the first attempt. (Again I recall that Confederate reinforcements were either directed to the wrong point or where distracted from Ord's impending attack as seems to have happened in TTL).
6. It is a night attack and those are inherently unpredictable.

Some speculative thoughts for comment.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

You also butterflyed away several primary schools Forrest set up for the children of former slaves after the ACW.

That seems a fair trade for reducing the influence, effectiveness, and respectabilty of the KKK. Forrest struggled financially after the war. When did he have the time and money to setup schools?

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

You also did not mention the death of the lady who shot him as there would have been several staff members around Forrest and they would have shot her as the combatant she was.

They weren't there either of the times Forrest was nearly mortally wounded in OTL. Period soldiers would still have hesitated to shoot a white woman even if she had just shot one of their own. If they had shot Mrs. Turchin, press and later historians would have portrayed her as trying to "defend her honor". Forrest would become one of the most vilified men of TTL.

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

I do not think the "Forts of Richmond would have fallen as easily as you had them fall, since no other forts in the ACW did.

Ft. Donelson. Ft. Pillow fell even easier. Ft. Henry easier than that.

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

His personal life is spotted with controversy, but his military skills are studied to this day. Three of who did a fair job of using his tactics when they were in command, Rommel, Patton, and Schwarzkopf.

Forrest was a complex man, with good and bad points, but to claim Rommel copied Forrest's tactics is stepping into 67th Tigers's land.

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Fiver

Forrest was a complex man, with good and bad points, but to claim Rommel copied Forrest's tactics is stepping into 67th Tigers's land.

from:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=184

Military historians and tacticians study Forrest's tactics and movements, and still utilize his tactics in battle plans. Forrest's battles have been and are still studied today. The war colleges for most armies around the world study Brice's Crossroads. German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, and four other German military leaders, visited the battlefield in 1937, while touring the United States.

[TheKnightIrish]

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

from:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=184

Military historians and tacticians study Forrest's tactics and movements, and still utilize his tactics in battle plans. Forrest's battles have been and are still studied today. The war colleges for most armies around the world study Brice's Crossroads. German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, and four other German military leaders, visited the battlefield in 1937, while touring the United States.

Fascinating! (I didn't know Rommel had visited the US).

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Fiver

Ft. Donelson. Ft. Pillow fell even easier. Ft. Henry easier than that.

Fort Henry and Donelson surrendered ,Pillow was defended by militia.
The Forts at Richmond according to The Irish Knight were being defended by The Army of Northern Viirginia not exactly an amature unit.
And to the time of Kearnys taking over the AOP had not lost a defensive battle.
So attacking The Richmond forts at night (something the AOP would not have had time to train for) would have resulted in the same disaster as befell the 54th Massachusetts at Fort Wagner at about the same time in OTL.
You can despise the Confederate States Army for the cause they fought for, but to belittle thier ability to fight because of that hatered is not the sign of reasoned historical analysis.
As is I like TIK's timeline let my criticism of the night attack stand as pointing out where he has perhaps done some slight handwaving, and disregard my remarkes on the death of Forrest. I did post them before I read his part on how he died.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, and four other German military leaders, visited the battlefield in 1937, while touring the United States.

That happened in a novel.

In real life, Rommel served as War Ministry Liason Officer to the Hitler Youth throughout 1937.

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Fiver

That happened in a novel.

In real life, Rommel served as War Ministry Liason Officer to the Hitler Youth throughout 1937.

So I got false information from a biography site, however your link says " German officers openly visited United States military sites and even attended American military schools before the war, " so wrong about Rommel could be right about Forrest having influnce on WWII tactics. Certian Patton would have been familar with Brice's Crossroads, maybe even Rommel might have known of it.

[Lycaon pictus]

I like this timeline and I want to see what happens next. (I'm really curious about the implied changes in American society after the war, but obviously those will take a while to get to.)

[TheKnightIrish]

Originally Posted by Lycaon pictus

I like this timeline and I want to see what happens next. (I'm really curious about the implied changes in American society after the war, but obviously those will take a while to get to.)

Thanks - getting there.

Sorry for the delay all. I am just organizing my Orders of Battle for the three (almost two) theaters for the coming campaigns. Next update tomorrow! Big Hint:

Philip Kearny is Appointed Commanding General of the United States Army...

[TheKnightIrish]

Chapter Fourty-Eight

A New Crowned King

From “The War Between the States” by Otis R. Mayhew
Sword & Musket 1992

“The Summer of 1863 became known as the Summer of Victories. The telegram from Kearny to the President “The Army of the Potomac has this morning returned Richmond to the Union” caused an explosion of celebration in the North. This news was promptly followed by the news Petersburg had been abandoned to the Army of the James. Then the news Grant had taken Vicksburg and Johnson had been repelled from Port Hudson arrived. The newspapers even began to revisit their disappointment with the Army of the Cumberland – the Battle of Elk River was no longer a stalemate but a “repulse of the rebel army” and the Union Army “now stood at the doors of Chattanooga and Rebel State of Georgia”. Gideon Welles noted in his diary that for weeks "every day seemed like the 4th July".

The North celebrated throughout the Summer of Victories

From “Kearny the Magnificent” by Roger Galton
NorthWestern

“Kearny now faced a number of challenges: the occupation of northern and eastern Virginia including two cities; a wave of irregular warfare that was already raising its ugly face in the occupied elements of Virginia as it spread from the Valley; and the now unanchored Army of Northern Virginia. Above all Kearny was concerned with the sense in the north that the war was almost won. “We have taken the rebel capitol and split the rebel section, but they still maintain three armed hosts in the field. I see no prospect of the rebels’ defeat until we have humbled all three in battle” and thus “the nation must not falter at the last for want of resolve. We must fight this rebellion to the finish with all our might” (Kearny to Governor Parker of New Jersey)…

Lincoln read Kearny’s missive to the cabinet. “I would be grateful if I could be permitted to use my discretion in forming the garrison of Virginia and reorganising our forces here”. “Gentlemen, I think we can do General Kearny more honor than that” was Lincoln’s response…

Lincoln addresses the cabinet before approving Kearny's promotion

An Order was promulgated to all the elements of the Union Army: Major General Philip Kearny Jr was appointed Commander of the United States Army effective from 30th July 1863…

In his few public statements and in all his public correspondence (correspondence he knew would be passed to newspapers for publication) Kearny maintained his surprise at the appointment “I am neither a West Point man nor have I much interest among our representatives in Washington… I am surprised that an unworthy such as I should be appointed to a position of such responsibility”. His private correspondence and the testimony of those who knew him best contradict these public expressions of humility by Kearny. “He was fiercely ambitious” according to his cousin John Watts dePeyster, “and considered himself a better soldier in every way that many a West Pointer appointed to high rank and commands early in the war”.

As to his political connections, his relationship with President went back to a backwoods lawyer who helped an ambitious cavalry officer recruit a picked company in Illinois for the Mexican War. During the Civil War Kearny had corresponded regularly with the Governors of every state which had provided troops, first to his brigade, then to his division, corps and finally his army, praising the performance of that state's officers and men. He was well known both to the Governors of the north and to the newspaper reading public in each state as his letters of praise were invariably published. Joel Parker of New Jersey, Austin Blair of Michigan, and former governor of New York Edwin D. Morgan were particular correspondents of Kearny’s who were on all record as lobbying for his preferment…

His appointment to the command of all the Union armies caused Kearny to scrap his initial plans for the reorganisation of the Armies of the Potomac and the James. He now planned a fundamental reorganisation…

Two new departments were created: the Department of Northern Virginia with its headquarters in Richmond was placed under the command of General John Sedgwick. It was to be garrisoned by the troops of II Corps. II Corps had taken the most casualties over the last year of campaigning and was in dire need of a period of comparative rest and reorganisation. It was therefore placed at Sedgwick’s disposal, while Kearny had another role in mind for its now unemployed commander Gouvenor K. Warren.

The Department of South Eastern Virginia with its headquarters in Petersburg was placed under the command of Kearny’s fellow New Yorker, James Wadsworth. The garrison would be drawn from the Army of the James’ I Corps. The entire first division was placed at Wadsworth’s disposal, along with the existing garrisons of Norfolk and Suffolk…

John J. Peck was raised to command of the Army of the James to which two new divisions made up of negro troops were added. XVIII Corps would therefore remain a two division corps under John G. Foster while VII Corps rose to a three division corps under Horatio Wright…

The changes to the Army of the Potomac were even more wide ranging. John F. Reynolds was transferred from the Army of the James to replace Kearny at the head of the Army of the Potomac. II Corps was withdrawn from the Army. With Hooker’s departure for Washington, Sickles rose to lead III Corps, with Gershom Mott replacing him in command of its II Division. J.J. Barlett would replace Wadsworth at the head of Meade’s IV Corps II Division. A.A. Humphrey would replace Sedgwick at the head of V Corps, with James Barnes replacing Dan Butterfield in command of its I Division and Samuel Crawford replacing Humphrey at the head of its III Division. Finally Mansfield was too infirm to lead XII Corps further, so Alpheus Williams was promoted to command with Thomas Ruger replacing him in command of its I Division…”

[A full order of battle will follow shortly]

[Darth_Kiryan]

HOLY SHIT!

Had to happen sometime, but wow! Good on Kearney. And Reynolds in command of the AOTP. Good on Reynolds.

Kearney. Grant. Reynolds. There are "fighting generals" everywhere.

[TheKnightIrish]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

HOLY SHIT!

Had to happen sometime, but wow! Good on Kearney. And Reynolds in command of the AOTP. Good on Reynolds.

Kearney. Grant. Reynolds. There are "fighting generals" everywhere.

Wait to you see where Hooker and his new Chief of Staff, Dan Butterfield, end up!

[mrmandias]

The Union slate of generals is starting to look formidable.

[TheKnightIrish]

Chapter Fourty-Nine

War to the Hilt

From “Kearny the Magnificent” by Roger Galton
NorthWestern

“Kearny was well aware of the risks associated with his appointment in the middle of the campaigning season. “There is a great temptation to meddle in every aspect of our army’s organisation and to make great plans for the remainder of this year, but there is great danger involved. I must be certain not to leave any element of our forces disorganised while I shuffle my cards in the midst of a hand in play”…

It was essential for Kearny to establish the scope of his new authority. A meeting with the President and Secretary Stanton was required and soon. Thankfully the President had already foreseen such a need, and coupled with his desire to “see free Richmond” he had already laid plans to travel south by sea. Secretary Wells, on hearing of the plans was beside himself with nerves. An escort of three warships was assigned to the President to “sweep the waters before the President’s conveyance for mines and such”. No one wanted to loose the President as General McClellan had been lost...”

From “The King and his Heir – Lincoln and Kearny in the Civil War” by Robert Todd Lincoln II
Grafton Press 1939

“It was hard to know who was the more idolised as the President and the First Among His Generals ambled around Richmond. The city’s newly freed negros fell at the feet of their “Father Abraham” while every soldier stood a bit taller at the sight of “the ironplated Kearny”. It was not lost on Kearny’s admirers and detractors alike that he could not pass a limbless grey rags-clad figure without a salute, and a bundle of greenbacks where these would be accepted…

When General Sedgwick enquired of Kearny’s staff whether more military escorts should be sought to hold back the crowds, General Kearny’s new chaplain, Rev. James Smith Bush (of Orange, New Jersey) responded that both men were “protected by a host no earthly power could overcome”…”

President Lincoln and General Kearny walk through Richmond

From “Kearny the Magnificent” by Roger Galton
NorthWestern

“Kearny’s first concern was recruitment. As a fervent believer in esprit de corps he was appalled by the recruitment practices of the northern governors. Instead of providing a steady flow of reinforcements for depleted existing regiments, northern governors insisted on raising new regiments and providing fresh commissions, in many cases granting senior field commissions to men with no previous experience after full two years of war. Regiments with a history, with a proven character, were being whittled away to nothing by illness, battle and by expiring enlistments.

Kearny considered this method impractical and bad for moral. It denied experienced regimental officers in the field robust commands; it denied recruits a leavening of experienced comrades, NCOs and officers to provide a solid foundation in their transition from civilian to military life; and it was genuinely disturbing to an officer like Kearny to see fine regiments wither on the vine after two and more years of war...

He was direct in his approach to the President and Secretary Stanton. “I have convinced many to re-enlist in this army upon expiry of their enlistments. I will continue to address each regiment personally where I can to implore the men to remain and serve to see this struggle through. However many do not re-enlist for the simple reason their beloved regiments are dying for want of re-enforcement and recruitment, and they will not serve under any other regiment’s flag…Should fresh regiments continue to be sent I will break them up to reinforce the old. Should fresh commissions be granted I will remove those officers from their regiments and place them wherever I judge they may do most good. I will thus instruct those officers under my command to do likewise. I will have re-enforcements for our existing regiments. I will accept whole companies if necessary. But I deem it in the best interests of our cause that the system be changed…” (Notes according to Secretary Stanton)…

It would appear, if Stanton’s notes are to believed (no notes, if any were made, from Kearny nor Lincoln survive), that Kearny adopted an aggressive argument expecting Lincoln and Stanton would protect the governors’ right to recruit as they saw fit. Stanton agreed wholeheartedly with Kearny. It was pure inefficient gubernational political patronage. Lincoln was more reserved, offering Kearny his support, but suggesting Kearny correspond with the governors directly on the matter…”

From “Kearny and the Radicals” by Hugh W. McGrath
New England Press 1992

“The James Conference was a watershed moment for the Lincoln Administration as Lincoln, Kearny and Stanton discussed their visions for post-war reconstruction for the first time with each other in detail.

It was a tenet of faith with Kearny that the aristocratic political leadership of the south had led an unsuspecting southern people down the road of treason, and that the south’s military officers had betrayed the most sacred oaths to defend the nation and the constitution. Kearny’s view of the post war South showed a clear dichotomy in his thinking: the southern people, and the Confederate rank and file, should be spared punishment. The Confederate political and military leadership should be subjected to the harshest measures. “If we cut off the head completely the Southern Serpent will die. Whether we impose a new leadership on the South or encourage a new leadership from its infancy, there are no circumstances under which we should allow arch-traitors and oath breakers to resume their places in our society”.

General Kearny favoured execution of the Confederate ring leaders – The President, some members of the Cabinet, Governors and perhaps former US officers in the Confederate service. The murderers of officers and enlisted men who had laid down their arms should also face the gallows in Kearny’s opinion. "Remember General Hunter for the nation shall".

Beyond that Kearny favoured a lifetime ban on any former Confederate officer or officeholder from public office or government employ. Kearny also favoured a permanent disenfranchisement for such men. “Treason, in this case a double treason, against our country and against God’s most precious gift, liberty, is the greatest crime of which a man is capable. Add to that the oath breaking by the very defenders of our country and their treason becomes threefold…” (Kearny in a separate note to Secretary Stanton. It is a sentiment that Kearny expressed and paraphrased in many letters to friends and correspondents in the north)…

Stanton recorded one phrase in the margins of his notes that is indicative of his own concerns: “Who will say Remember Hunter?” [Stanton’s own emphasis]…

Lincoln was notably taken aback according to Stanton’s recollection. This was not the re-united Union that Lincoln sought. Lincoln sought to outline his vision of a “liberated” south not a “conquered” one. The enforcement of emancipation and statutory protection for the newly liberated slaves, yes, but also an open door to southern states to fully participate in the political life of the country once a portion of its population had taken an oath of allegiance.

Stanton records that Kearny was unconvinced by the President’s words. If the southern leadership were spared the full consequences of its treason “the South will rise again and our sons and our grandsons will only have to fight this war again”...

It is unknown whether the President now harboured any doubts about the man he had raised to command the armies of the Union, but John Hay recalled that the President seemed more downcast and contemplative after the James Conference than at any time since the death of General McClellan…”

President Lincoln was most impressed during his visit to Richmond by General Kearny's bugler 14 year old Gustave A. Schurmann

[Corder]

Poor Lincoln. He faces a peace perhaps more terrible than the war. Kearny may not completely wrong though.

[TheKnightIrish]

Commanding General Army of the James: John J. Peck

The Army of the James is currently screening Petersburg from Dinwiddie Court House to as far east as the notorious Blackwater River.


XVII Corps Commander: John G. Foster, II Division: Innis N. Palmer, III Division: John W. Phelps

John Wolcutt Phelps had been outlawed by President Davis along with General David Hunter. However by the time of the issue of this order, condemning the raising of negro troops, Phelps had resigned his commission. After the murder of General Hunter he was offered a Major-General's commission and command of a negro division. (In OTL he refused). The I Division has been detached to form the garrison of Petersburg under James Wadsworth.


VII Corps Commander: Horatio G. Wright, I Division: Quincy A. Gilmore, II Division: Henry M. Naglee, and III Division: William Birney

William Birney is the brother of General David Birney, and commands a division largely made up of negro regiments. (One brigade of white troops and two of negro troops).


Cavalry Division Commander: Washington Lafayette Elliott

W.L.Elliott commands an understrength division of two cavalry brigades.