TL-191: Filling the Gaps

[President Mahan]

True, but there are a lot of options in between surrendering everything the US gained in the war and the hard-line approach the Socialists actually took towards Canada upon taking power. Alternative options would have included:

1) Grant Canada its independence, conditioned on it being demilitarized, forbidden from concluding alliances with foreign powers (other than the US), and with it having to make major trade concessions to the US;

2) Grant Canada its independence, but require all of the above, plus keep a large US military force stationed in Canada;

3) Don't give Canada its independence yet, but give it a firm timetable for eventually being given its independence once certain benchmarks are met;

4) Grant immediate statehood to some or all of the Canadian provinces;

5) Don't give any of the Canadian provinces statehood yet, but give them a firm timetable for eventually being given statehood once certain benchmarks are met;

6) Keep Canada as a territory, but end martial law within it, and make the occupation authority civilian rather than military;

7) Keep Canada as a territory, and keep the military as the occupation authority, but end the military tribunals;

8) Annex only the sparsely populated western Canadian provinces, and apply one of Option 1-3, 6, or 7 for Ontario.

Any of those 8 options would have represented a move away from Remembrance, and still would have allowed the United States to credibly claim it gained something from the war, but the Socialists didn't go for any of them. Instead they adopted the most hardline policy available: continue the military occupation in full. There were certainly good political reasons for doing so, but it does represent the Socialists basically acquiescing to the Remembrance ideology.



Another possibility is the Socialists might see some advantage in continuing a large conscript based US military. As we see in the novels, the Democrats ferociously (and successfully) resist the federal government enacting social welfare legislation. It would be very difficult though for the Democrats to oppose veteran's aid programs when they are advocating for increased military spending. Thus maintaining a large conscript army is a convenient way for the Socialists to get much of their redistribution programs executed. Just enacting something like the G.I. bill and a Veteran's Hospital system would let the Socialists effectively channel billions of dollars into education, housing, and health care programs for millions of low income Americans.


As for the biographies of the leading Confederate generals, they look good, though the Breckinridge described in the article seems a little too moderate to be the same man who would later plot to carry out a military coup. Any insight into what prompted Breckinridge to later join the Sellars conspiracy?

Unfortunatley we don't have the look inside the occupation authorities decision making the same we do for Utah with the Abner Dowling POV. Some plan could have been under way in the wake of the war. Its impossible Theodore Roosevelt would not have put some thought into this. I believe there was some long term plan for Canada like a timetable for a transition from military authority to civillian authority. With benchmarks that would allowformer provinces to become territroy. These plan could have went out the window with the Canadian uprising. Also lets not forget that Pacific War was fought over the Japanese trying to stir up rebellion in Canada. The Pacific War lasts into 1935, so there probably is no plan until at least after the 1936 election.

I can imagine there are could be a leadership on the municipal level but anything bigger than that is the US occupational authority. All the cases Moss seems to be involved with relate to the claims against the occupational government like loyalty and property confiscated by the authority. We don't know to what extent the Occupational authority handled other legal matters.

Also looking at the Maps in the Blood and Iron series, it looks like New Brunswick became apart of Maine.


Again, Tiro great job on the bios for the Confederate Generals. I had an old article on the 1916 Confederate Roanoke offensive that I never finished and how it became the forerunner to the Confederate Drive up Ohio. If you plan on doing the army of texas. It looks like in the books there was one big CSA offensive in North Texas in early 1917 that failed.

I enjoyed the putting Bruckner as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia in the Second Great War. The Army of Northern Virginia in GW2 deserves its own article. There had to have been a something like the Maginot Line in Northern Virginia. I could see the line being the brain child of a Whig Congressman from Northern Virginia, Henry St. George Tucker III. Congressman's 10th district was lost to the U.S. and became Virginia's at large Congressman. He long proposed building a large systems of fortifications along the new Border on th Rhappahanock so that the would not lose any further territory. Fears of US retaliation and the financial difficulties brought on by the Collapse preventedThe fortifications from being put in the preliminry stages. It would later be built during the first Featherston administration. Featherston would never allow anything to be named after a former Whig Congressman named Henry St. George Tucker III. Instead it was officially known as the The Northern Virginia Anti-Barrel Defense in Depth System, but it became commonly refered to by its code name the Project Longstreet or the Longstreet Line.

 

[bguy]

I enjoyed the putting Bruckner as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia in the Second Great War.

Unfortunately, that contradicts the novels, which have a man named Hank Coomer commanding the Army of Northern Virginia when MacArthur attacks. It seems unlikely Coomer would have been relieved of his command since he was loyal to Featherston and did a good job fending off MacArthur's attacks, but I guess Coomer could have been killed in action at some point after which Buckner could have been given command of the ANV.

(And as an aside Coomer is described as a long time Freedom Party man, so he could be the answer to the question in the thread about the Radical Libs winning the 1933 election about who would command the Freedomite Army in the event of a Confederate Civil War.)

 

[Tiro]

Aaah, another piece of the CS Civil War falls into place …

I guess Coomer could have been killed in action at some point after which Buckner could have been given command of the ANV.

One COULD depict the opposite scenario as having played out; Buckner is the man who was charged with developing and leading the Defence of Virginia (therefore playing only a consultative role in developing Operation Blackbeard) but is killed in the opening shots of the War before Dowling fixes our PoV on the Army of Northern Virginia.

This would fit with his fate in our own Timeline (he was one of the most senior US Officers killed during the Second World War).

Again, Tiro great job on the bios for the Confederate Generals. I had an old article on the 1916 Confederate Roanoke offensive that I never finished and how it became the forerunner to the Confederate Drive up Ohio. If you plan on doing the army of texas. It looks like in the books there was one big CSA offensive in North Texas in early 1917 that failed.

Thank you very kindly once more; all this shall be taken into account in future articles.

Instead it was officially known as the The Northern Virginia Anti-Barrel Defense in Depth System, but it became commonly refered to by its code name the Project Longstreet or the Longstreet Line.

I'd bet cash money Featherston would prefer that it be known as the 'Stonewall' Line, given Samuel Longstreet's personal and very outspoken opposition to the Freedom Party - I actually quite like the idea that the Army of Northern Virginia is where the Stalwarts send the more 'Whiggish' or old-school Officers so that any conviction on their part that War has Rules doesn't hold up Blackbeard's progress (either that or just so that the attack does not run out of puff along with the more elderly troopers!).

 

[Tiro]

ARMY OF KENTUCKY

GENERAL COMMANDING (Cabell Breckinridge - followed by Thomas Hunt Morgan)

Overshadowed (though not outfought) by the Army of Northern Virginia in the eyes of the Confederacy, the Army of Kentucky would surpass its rival in the course of the Second Mexican War and most particularly by its outstanding defence of Louisville secure its right to be regarded not merely as the coeval of its eastern rivals but the superior of the United States Army.

Such at least was the Army of Kentucky's History as the men who formed its ranks in 1914 understood it; if nothing else it was a legend those soldiers would fight to the death in order to live up to - in the end the weight of that legend became a burden, rather than the foundation of a bulwark, but US Soldiers from no fewer than three Armies died in their corps and their scores to weight that burden down.

The showcase of the 'Louisville' School of thought, the Army of Kentucky was dug in and fortified, determined to stand like a stone wall in the face of the Northern battering ram - "Ready to make sure the South can't lose the War while those Virginia boys take a stroll and try to persuade the World they won it, as ever" according to one wag.

As Generals Custer and Pershing (also Generals Bierce and March, though few deign to remember them) were to prove that tradition of victory and a concentration of manpower (as well as a greater concentration of military assets) second only to that sent storming towards the US Capitals could only prove inadequate in the face of the Northern Colossus at the highest pitch of its fury.

By war's end there were few illusions left to the Army of Kentucky (now the Army of Tennessee); a dour, dogged campaign on the defensive against overwhelming material supremacy, ended by the most decisive US Army breakthrough of the Great War had left Kentuckian Veterans entirely convinced that the Confederacy had been beaten fair and square (not to mention frequently-despised by those armies upon whom the hammer had fallen less relentlessly).

To say that the veterans of Kentucky and Tennessee had little patience for revanchists such as the Redemption League or the Freedom Party (with their absurd notion that a Southern Victory had slipped from the Confederate Grasp only by some accident of History) would be putting things VERY mildly.


The only man who made the transition from blue coat to grey coat and finally to butternut, J. Cabell Breckinridge Senior was a Kentucky soldier who had fought for the Union in the War of Secession before drifting South to eke out a living just in time to serve as a Confederate Volunteer during the Second Mexican War - in which he so distinguished himself that he was able to make a career as a soldier of the Confederacy. Had he fought for the South from the start it is far from impossible that he, not his younger cousin would have been Chief of the General staff - but had he not been so driven to prove his loyalty to the Confederacy again and again, he would almost certainly have retired long before.

He was a man whose time had come and gone, but he was a Breckinridge and the Kentucky War Effort needed him so he soldiered on for one last War - and suffered as a result. Blasted out of the Louisville line by the most terrible concentration of firepower in the US War Effort of 1914, Breckinridge proceeded to mount a stubborn and indefatigable defence of his native state but having handed his enemies the strategic initiative with his strictly defensive strategy he found them determined and well able to wield it as a club with which to beat him out of Kentucky.

Advanced old age, unyielding pressure and the loss of his Home State (not to mention the relentless demolition of the Louisville Strategy that had been his brainchild) took a toll on his physical and mental health even as his inflexible defence took a bloody toll of the invading armies - unable to fire his forces with the Wolverine Ferocity his particular adversary and close contemporary General Custer so expertly evoked, Breckinridge still managed to invest the soldiers under his command with a desperate energy not to be taken lightly but impossible to maintain either in his Army or in his own person.

With the loss of Kentucky a harsh reality, in the face of savage rumours that Breckinridge had covertly returned to his former allegiance and the increasingly desperate efforts of the man himself to claw back some of his lost State(losing countless soldiers in consequence), the Confederate Administration at last decided that the time had come to retire the Old General.

It remains unclear to this day whether he died shortly after from natural causes or suicide.


His replacement Thomas Hunt Morgan was a man of impeccable lineage and extensive connections amongst the Confederate Establishment, as well as a scientific soldier of the most meticulous organisation - he was, in truth, a man more suited to study than to soldiering in the field but if nothing else can be said of him his efforts to husband his men's lives saved countless numbers of them.

In return for his efforts to bring an end to the wasteful sacrifice of good soldiers on the altar of War, he was dubbed 'Ant Thomas' and spoken of in terms more reminiscent of a doting female relative than an insect (much to his dismay).

He proved adequate to the task of holding a defensive line in depth and of husbanding his resources, but confronted with an enemy breakthrough he proved hopelessly inadequate to the task of restoring Confederate Fortunes; his military career was the least of that which was crushed under the almighty Barrel Roll and it can only be said that his second career in education was infinitely more suited to his talents and to temperament.

 

[Tiro]

ARMY OF THE MISSISSIPPI

GENERAL COMMANDING (Richard Taylor Wood)

Put together as a mobile column (with a presence on water and on land) intended to prevent the United States using the Father of Waters as a means of infiltrating the Confederacy and as a floating reserve that could hold the balance against any force using the Mississippi as an invasion highway (from the Gulf or from the North), the Army of the Mississippi began the war not much stronger than a division, fought it in almost complete obscurity and ended it more as something more like a Gendarmerie.

Courtesy of the Confederate Navy having done impeccable work keeping the Gulf of Mexico safe from the attentions of the US Navy (with help from the RN and the Mexican Navy), for the majority of the War this army was kept busy soldiering in the North against the equally diminutive US forces deployed in Arkansas.

The measure of their success in this endeavour can be found in the fact that the Army of the Mississippi was the only Confederate Army that GREW during the War - reinforced at the outbreak of the Red Rebellion, it proceeded to stamp out uprisings across the centre states of the Confederacy with resolute efficiency and a remarkable diversity of military oddments before returning to their campaign in the North.

Put simply the Army of the Mississippi was never in any position to lose the Great War, but their unorthodox campaigning helped ensure that the Confederacy would last far longer than it might have; for those with any knowledge of the Great War, the 'River Rats' can only be called one of the most colourful obscurities of that conflict (even if those colours had a distinctly dirty hue).


Amongst the more colourful characters thrown up in the Confederacy during the Great War, Richard Taylor Wood was a man who thought like a pirate, fought like a guerrilla chieftain and talked like a cavalier - a man from the humblest possible roots, he'd emerged from the backwoods to take service with the CS Army and been handed the Army of the Mississippi on the understanding that he could lock down that valley tighter than a drumhead and the suspicion that the only way he would cause more trouble for the United States than for his own superiors was if he were handed his own independent command.

As notorious for his ability to provoke his superiors into disciplinary fits as he was for his ability to move troops through rough country like ghosts through a graveyard, Wood took a terrible toll on his enemies but quite uniquely managed to end the war with more men than he had started it.

Accusations that this was due only to his recruitment of every variety of rogue, renegade and blatant outlaw he ever came across are far from unsubstantiated.

 

[Tiro]

ARMY OF TEXAS

GENERAL COMMANDING (Harvey Hill - followed by John A. Lejeune)

Texans spent much of the Great War seething at the failure of the Confederate central government to dispatch the assets they felt were required to defend their Home State - despite the truth that this state of affairs had come about in part due to the State Government being persuaded to permit the dispatch of an entire corps from government forces in the area to the Eastern Seaboard on the understanding that this act of solidarity would be the last required of the Lone Star state during the Great War (after which it could look to its own defence and husband its own resources).

Rumours that the Government commander assigned to the area had been purposefully selected as the man least likely to resist the state's importuning to focus his efforts on Texas to the near exclusion of Sequoyah, Sonora and Chihuahua (or protest the refusal of State Troops to commit themselves to the Wider War Effort in the Confederate West) are unsubstantiated but cannot be called implausible.

Had the West been anything more than a tertiary theatre for the United States it is very probable that Sonora north of the Rio Magdalena, Houston State and the Land of the Red Man would not have been the limit of their gains - in truth the deferential nature of General Hill and the interference of the State Government was compensated for in the early part of the War only by the exemplary cooperation and commitment of Sequoyah, as well as the gritty determination of Texan soldiers to hold on to every inch of their Home State that they possibly could and then some.

The situation improved substantially upon the appointment of a tougher commander, one better able to balance the demands of Texas against the needs of the Confederacy and able to restore the Army of Texas to fighting trim; adapting plans to the resources available and improvising to make good what was lacking, The Army of Texas put together one of the most unexpected counter-offensives of the War.

Had the resources available been equal to the fighting spirit displayed, the dismembering of Texas might have been an impossibility (or at least limited to a far smaller morsel of the State); instead keen awareness of the fact that the War effort in Texas was not all that it could have been mixed with the renewed fighting spirit in the Army of Texas and the humiliation of Houston's creation to create an environment so saturated with Revanchism that the proper catalyst would light a fire that could spread across the entire Confederacy.

That spark took the form of Willie Knight; he'd fought for Texas and the Confederacy, he knew that both could have done far better and he was determined to prove that he was EXACTLY the man to do far better than any other possible candidate - it was a contention he was never in a position to prove, despite his best efforts to quite literally eliminate the last remaining obstacle.

It is a matter of some irony that the Redemption League was simultaneously the most blatantly provincial Political Party in Texas (you could fill entire generations of license plates with Knight's quotes concerning his Home State, then still have a few left over for a small run of postcards) and the strongest voice in favour of improving relations with the rest of the Confederacy (The Whigs and the Radical Liberals in the Lone Star State being Texan institutions at heart, even if they did occasionally have to acknowledge the rest of the Country every six years or so).


Harvey Hill, son of General D.H. Hill, is perhaps the most disastrous example of a Great Name deafening those that heard it to reports that he who carried it was not equal to the task set before him - a decent administrator, Hill nonetheless signally failed to show any other soldierly qualities equal to the task before him, suffering the ignominy of becoming the first commander to lose a Confederate State to the Northern Advance (despite the best efforts of Sequoyah's native population to bolster the ranks of his forces).

Having said that Hill seems to have been aware of his limits; upon being relieved of command he was prepared to become an exemplary subordinate and supported his replacement with as much spirit as there was to be found in his mild-mannered person.


A man more different from the milquetoast Hill than John Archer Lejeune is difficult to imagine; a veteran of the Boxer Rising and the occupation of Haiti, popularly known as a 'Marine's Marine' he was granted command of the CS Army in Texas for the very simple reason that no one else cared to accept the post and Lejeune had very courteously continued to fight for it for reasons that remained his own.

A soft-spoken, mild-mannered man who could spit fire and throw lightning if he caught an error of sufficient immensity he would invest his command with a unity and spirit it had never previously shown - proving himself a real soldier's general who could exert the discipline needed to rehearse his men in manoeuvres from platoon to division level until each man knew EXACTLY what was required of him yet was never too hard-hearted to do some kindness for a good soldier.

Quite bluntly if General Lejeune had possessed the resources of manpower and material to match his commitment to excellence, the State of Houston would have died stillborn and US Armies in the West would have been scalped by the Big Indian - that at least is what his men would always believe.

John A. Lejeune was to be the last commandant of the Confederate States Marine Corps; it would be melodramatic to say that the Corps died with him in '42, but no less appropriate for all that.

 

[Tiro]

Well that concludes my write-up of CS Army commanders during the Great War; I hope it was to the satisfaction of all readers and that these articles will provide some food for thought (or at least stimulate discussion on how best to improve upon them).

 

[Letterman]

Featherston's Corpse

I have a question for the thread.

I don't recall it being mentioned or talked about anywhere in this thread.

What became of Jake Featherston's corpse?

Turtledove does not discuss Featherston's mortal remains after he's killed in the middle of "In at the Death" other than the reactions of the remaining Confederate dignitaries after he's killed. Or at least I don't recall if the disposition of Featherston's corpse is mentioned in the book.

My guess is once the US Army had secured the scene, taken the remnant of the Confederate government into custody, they would have probably done the following.

1) put the body in a body bag.

2) put the bag on a transport aircraft and either a) flown it to the nearest US port so it could be put on a US naval vessel and sailed out to sea, or b) simply flown out as far as they could over the Atlantic and dumped out the back.

(in either case, almost certainly weighing the bag and/or body down so it would sink immediately)

3) also washing away any trace of blood, brains, etc. left on the road at the spot where Featherston died so that said spot would not become a shrine for Freedom Party stalwarts, Freedomites, and/or anyone else who would have wanted to make Jake Featherston a martyr.

I think they would have done the above to ensure that Jake Featherson is completely erased from existence.

They would certainly not want to bury the body anywhere, because that grave would almost certainly have become a shrine for the Freedom Party stalwarts and other Southerners who would not want to accept defeat.

 

[Tiro]

I have to say that this sounds commendably plausible; it's possible that the corpse might be put on public display for long enough to convince the public that Featherston is no more and to allow the experts to confirm that it is he - but then the Snake is due for an appointment with the incinerator physically AND spiritually.

The body is luckier than the soul in this respect - at least the fires of the crematorium STOP burning at some point.

 

[Tiro]

Just putting forward a Casting Call for the impressively-unpleasant Roger Kimball …

… and for George Enos, the man whose death books the captain his date with destiny, courtesy of Mrs Enos.

 

[Tiro]

I've been reading up on the American Civil War (US) and recently came across the Order of the Sons of Liberty, an organisation in the Old North-West of the Federal States (strongest in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio) with paramilitary aims, pseudo-Masonic rituals (secret signs, peculiar initiations) and large stockpiles of weaponry in several states.

A distinctly eccentric constituency to say the least - but a perfect model for the very sort of quislings and fifth columnists which may very well have made The Confederate State's work slightly easier as the Army of Kentucky stormed across Ohio to Sandusky.

If I ever get around to fleshing them out I would dub this particular body THE SONS OF LIBERTY LEGION and describe them as quintessential Copperheads (Northerners willing to do The South favours AND scheming Snakes); it's not hard to see them as the sort of bigots who marched with the Soldier's Circle but found that a long history as strike-breakers and reactionaries rather a liability in a frequently-Socialist USA (ironically turning to the hated Confederacy for a model that would allow them to update their methodology and reflect some borrowed Glory).

It's easy to imagine them plotting elaborate schemes like burning Chicago or sabotaging warships on the Great Lakes - and proving EXACTLY as useful as their namesakes did in the latter years of the Civil War as we know it (which is to say that they promised much but delivered very little on those promises). They might, of course, prove more useful as the foundations for a CS Administration of their conquered territory - but I wouldn't bet on it.

For the sake of an homage to THE PRESBYTERIAN BUTCHER, I really would love to suggest that this nasty lot got their start as the National Patriotic Party, but lacking McSweeney as a charismatic figurehead, as well as the ideal climate for the seeds planted by their rotten rhetoric to start sprouting swiftly found themselves descending into irrelevance … before finding ANOTHER charismatic demagogue to pay homage to.

 

[Tiro]

I have actually been considering the Army of Northern Virginia a bit further and while I have yet to really consider their campaigns during the Great Reunification War I have come up with a few ideas for their activities during the Second Mexican War (with a little inspiration from Snake Featherston, whose ideas I do not uniformly agree with - I personally think the Maxim Gun more likely to be a prototype in 1881/1882 than a widespread weapon - but which I admit are something of a formative influence on my own ideas for Military and Political developments in the course of Timeline-191).

Basically I quite like the idea that the Army of Northern Virginia - in the wake of yet another stinging blow to the ego of the US Army at the Battle of Winchester, not long after the bombardment of Washington DC - spent the war somewhat ingloriously (fuelling the desire to out-do the Army of Kentucky during the Great War which I have described as keeping the Big Wheel rolling much farther than expected in 1914).

I have taken the liberty of imagining that while the Army of the Potomac suffered the strategy of excessive caution enforced by a Government eager to ensure that the withdrawal from DC to Philadelphia went as smoothly as possible (and that the heirs of General Lee couldn't possibly make a return visit to the City of Brotherly Love), their opposite numbers were obliged to pursue an almost equally-cautious course courtesy of disruptions behind their lines caused by a coloured population less than enthusiastic to do their part.

While hardly the Red Rebellion (no ideological unity, far more white men to keep an eye on the local coloureds) these were sufficiently serious and sufficiently close to Richmond to require diversion of units and formations from the ANVa to suppress them; it is even possible that this disruption was more a mass migration towards Free Soil (with fighting breaking out only where these movements were stumbled upon by Whites).

I imagine elements of the Army of the Potomac only slowly getting some idea of the thinning of the Army of Northern Virginia's defensive lines forced upon its commander (some steady, defensive-minded veteran explicitly appointed by President Longstreet on the understanding that neither he nor his troops would seek to win the war single-handedly and possibly hand the Yankees some position of advantage thereby), probably due to some hearty cavalry actions on the part of Hampton et al.

I imagine that what followed was a lengthy period of soldiering by manoeuvre, with neither sides willing to risk their bases or a disastrous loss - a War of Nerves with no great battle to enliven it and only scrappy skirmishes by way of action between the lines with honours just about even, although the Yankees get an inkling of relative Confederate weakness.

I would depict the Army of the Potomac as just beginning to move forward to take advantage of those weaknesses just in time to be summoned abruptly back to the defence of Maryland and Pennsylvania in the wake of Anglo-French strikes at various coastal cities (in the interests of ensuring that no enterprising Briton decides to replay the capture of Philadelphia or the Burning of Washington to further compound the misfortunes of the Blaine Administration).

Quite frankly almost the whole Eastern Campaign is a complete frustration to the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia (veterans of the former becoming the hard core of the Remembrance Movement and at least one veteran of the latter - Wade Hampton V - becoming a major exponent of the 'Fire-Eater' school in the interests of keeping Billy from paying Virginia another visit).

 

[jmberry]

Reputations of Pre-Secession (Pre-POD) Presidents

George Washington
Union: As a Virginian slaveholder with ties to the Lee family, Washington began to see a decline in popularity over the years, even if the idea of the US splitting in half would have horrified him. He was still listed as one of the "good" presidents, however, until the Second Mexican War, after which the Remembrance historiography sent his reputation into freefall. If Washington was ever painted in a good light, it was in his early years as a soldier fighting French and Indians and British (That he fought the French and Indians under the orders of the British crown is glossed over). His presidency is depicted as an aloof aristocrat taking all the credit for the actions of Adams and Hamilton and Jay. After GWII Washington's reputation is rehabilitated and he's once again considered one of the good presidents, although he never regains his mythic status.

Confederacy: Washington is considered the spiritual ancestor for the CSA from day one - he's on their friggin seal, for crying out loud! Only Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee rival him in reputation (until Featherston supplants all three).

John Adams
Union: Adams is usually portrayed as the real reason Washington was so successful. His and Hamilton's attempts to foster better relations with the British are downplayed in favor of his patronage of industry and the navy, and of course showing that rabble-rousers will get the boot stomped on them. Even after GWII, Adams tends to rank in the top 5 presidents.

Confederacy: Confederate historiography considers Adams a footnote at best.

Thomas Jefferson
Union: Yankees are dismissive of Jefferson at best. He's a Virginian slaveholder like Washington, but he's also a Francophile and supporter of decentralized government, so that makes him worse. Most of the credit for the Declaration goes to Franklin, and his intellectual pursuits are habitually ignored. Jefferson tends to be either ignored or vilified, depending on how charitable the historian is feeling. The exception is Missouri, where Jefferson is viewed as something of a founding father to the state.

Confederacy: Jefferson might not be as popular as Washington, but he ranks pretty high, especially in Virginia. To hear a Confederate, Jefferson was solely responsible for everything good that happened in the First Party era that Washington didn't do, and is often painted as Washington's right hand and heir-apparent. His ... relationships are swept under the rug.

James Madison
Union: If there's one president who can rival Blaine in reputation, Madison usually winds up on the short list (har dee har har). From starting a loosing war with Britain (which admittedly was at least partly his fault) to both of his vice presidents dying in office (which ... wasn't, obviously), everything bad that happened in his administration is played up as solely his fault. His work is promoting the Constitution is ignored.

Confederacy: What right-minded Virginian gets into a war with England!?

James Monroe
Union: The Yankees are ambivalent to Monroe. Most of his legacy was undone by secession, so he's been reduced to one of the boring presidents that no one care about.

Confederacy: Monroe tends to be played up as the reason the Confederacy could become a world power - his doctrine was a predecessor to the Confederacy's arguments for intervening in Latin America, and the 1820 compromise allowed the South to thrive even when it was carrying around the North like a stillborn conjoined twin. Also, he had a novel way of dealing with freedmen.

John Quincy Adams
Union: Adams, like his father, is lionized by the North - all blame for 1824 falls squarely on Clay and Crawford for complicating the election. Most of what is written about the first Adams applies to him as well.

Confederacy: Adams, like his father, is habitually ignored by Confederates. Anything good that happened in those four years is attributed to Clay.

Andrew Jackson
Union: He was a Tennessean, but the Yankees, paradoxically, LOVE Jackson. His standing up to the Nullifiers, his licking of the limeys, his founding of the modern Democratic party, what's not to love? IF the Trail of Tears is brought up, the general reaction, especially during the Remembrance era, tends to be "Damn redskins joined the Rebs anyway. So what?"

Confederacy: For the same reasons he's lionized in the North, the South hates Jackson. He has some respect in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Florida, enough that when Featherston came to power his remains were exhumed and reburied in a hidden location so they wouldn't be desecrated, but the Confederates as a whole despise the man who dared defy the great John Calhoun. Sequoyahns aren't fond of him either.

Martin Van Buren
Union: Van Buren tends to be placed high on a lot of lists. Democrats will usually bring up that he was the first president born under the US flag, but Republicans and Socialists will focus on his later work with the Free Soil party and opposition to slavery

Confederacy: As the first openly abolitionist president and Jackson's protégé, Van Buren is probably the most hated antebellum US president in the South. That his free soil views didn't coalesce until after he left office is ignored.

William Henry Harrison
Neither country really has an opinion - his term was too short to judge fairly.

John Tyler
Union: As Van Buren is to the South, so is John Tyler to the North - at least the other Southern presidents had the good sense to die before secession!

Confederacy: After Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe, Tyler is the most respected antebellum president. Texans, especially, love the man.

James K. Polk
Union: Yankees respect Polk, although not to the extent they do Jackson. America was probably the most powerful it'd be until Roosevelt's administration, and that deserves credit. Besides, he made Britain back down.

Confederacy: Polk is probably the only president respected in both countries equally. Confederates tend to downplay Polk's foreign affairs in favor of his heritage, of course.

Zachary Taylor
Union: On the one hand, Taylor was committed to preserving the Union and putting naysayers in their place. On the other hand, he was Jefferson Davis's father-in-law. Maybe if he had lived longer...

Confederacy: On the one hand, he was Jefferson Davis's father-in-law. On the other hand, Taylor was committed to preserving the Union and putting naysayers in their place. Maybe if he had lived longer...

Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan
Both countries agree that these three were pretty bad and constantly made a troubled situation worse.

Abraham Lincoln
Union: For the longest time, Lincoln was viewed as a disaster of president, someone who let good men die over a few slaves. The Republicans and Socialists both respected him, but never really tried to argue in his favor. After GWII, Lincoln, like Washington, begins to experience a rehabilitation, although he still ranks far lower than OTL.

Confederacy: From Davis to Featherston, Lincoln tends to be caricatured as some ape-faced buffoon who stumbles from one military disaster to another. Paradoxically, since the Union lost the War of Secession Lincoln isn't outright hated like his OTL reputation was for the longest time, certainly not to the extent of John Brown or Nat Turner. He's just something of a laughingstock to Southerners.

 

[Tiro]

Confederacy: What right-minded Virginian gets into a war with England AND LOSES!?

A modest correction suggested to improve upon an already-excellent article.

- I'd actually suggest that Washington would be remembered with more respect than might be inferred from TR's glib little line, if only as Father of his Country - after all the United States held together in its early years in great part because Mr Washington took pains to ensure that it would - but I do imagine that while his memory is respected in the North it is VENERATED in the South.


- One further suggestion would be that if anyone approaches Washington and Lee's level of Hero Worship in the South it would be Stonewall Jackson (I'd imagine that James Longstreet is well-regarded for victory in the Second Mexican War but regarded as controversial for the concessions he was willing to make in order to clinch that victory), even if I believe that a lot of credit for his Presidency would derive from Old Pete making sure to whisper in the right ears (working behind the scenes all the while).


Master Berry, I enjoyed this article so thoroughly that I feel moved to ask if you will consider doing similar articles for the post-War of Secession Presidents in one or the other of those feuding twin republics: might I please ask if you have any ideas on that score?

I must admit to being primarily curious as to how Historians see President Davis; even given a Victorious War of Secession I imagine that he would go down as a Liberator, rather than "First in Peace, First in War, First in the Hearts of his Countrymen" (especially given his tight-fisted and rather ill-tempered man management skills).

Which is to say he'd probably be a legend, but far less an Icon than Mr Washington or General Lee.

 

[Tiro]

^I posted this elsewhere but I wanted to post it here just because I think its such a perfect model for The Snake; so far as I can tell all this actor needs is a haircut!^

 

[Faeelin]

True, but there are a lot of options in between surrendering everything the US gained in the war and the hard-line approach the Socialists actually took towards Canada upon taking power. Alternative options would have included:

Also, settle refugees from the south (read blacks) in Canada and Utah. Honestly, why wouldn't you do this?

 

[jmberry]

A modest correction suggested to improve upon an already-excellent article.

- I'd actually suggest that Washington would be remembered with more respect than might be inferred from TR's glib little line, if only as Father of his Country - after all the United States held together in its early years in great part because Mr Washington took pains to ensure that it would - but I do imagine that while his memory is respected in the North it is VENERATED in the South.


- One further suggestion would be that if anyone approaches Washington and Lee's level of Hero Worship in the South it would be Stonewall Jackson (I'd imagine that James Longstreet is well-regarded for victory in the Second Mexican War but regarded as controversial for the concessions he was willing to make in order to clinch that victory), even if I believe that a lot of credit for his Presidency would derive from Old Pete making sure to whisper in the right ears (working behind the scenes all the while).


Master Berry, I enjoyed this article so thoroughly that I feel moved to ask if you will consider doing similar articles for the post-War of Secession Presidents in one or the other of those feuding twin republics: might I please ask if you have any ideas on that score?

I must admit to being primarily curious as to how Historians see President Davis; even given a Victorious War of Secession I imagine that he would go down as a Liberator, rather than "First in Peace, First in War, First in the Hearts of his Countrymen" (especially given his tight-fisted and rather ill-tempered man management skills).

Which is to say he'd probably be a legend, but far less an Icon than Mr Washington or General Lee.

I think it's implied that the "Father of the US" role Washington normally has was transferred to Ben Franklin instead. Keep in mind Rosencrans also vilifies Washington by the end of HFR, so I always inferred that the Remembrance culture denigrates anything associated with the South (except Jackson and to a lesser extent Polk), although certainly Washington doesn't get it as bad as Jefferson or Madison (or worse, Burr) do.

As for Confederate heroes, Stonewall is with Lee and Davis, but everyone knows it's Albert Sidney Johnston who stands above (Jackson doesn't have the advantage of dying TTL, so his reputation isn't as sterling as we're familiar with).

 

[Tiro]

Also, settle refugees from the south (read blacks) in Canada and Utah. Honestly, why wouldn't you do this?

Probably because those Coloureds (being sensible enough to get out of one incipient war-zone while the going is better than it ever will be again) are presumably sensible enough to resettle somewhere with a much smaller likelihood of going up in flames!

I think it's implied that the "Father of the US" role Washington normally has was transferred to Ben Franklin instead.

Doubtless Old Man Franklin is quite put out by all this and would be ardently campaigning for recognition as the Cool Uncle of the American Revolution if it weren't for the fact that he's been dead for nearly two centuries (not to mention being kept to his chores in Purgatory by that spoilsport Mister Adams SENIOR).

As for Confederate heroes, Stonewall is with Lee and Davis, but everyone knows it's Albert Sidney Johnston who stands above (Jackson doesn't have the advantage of dying TTL, so his reputation isn't as sterling as we're familiar with).

A martyr's crown is a thoroughly unfair advantage in the Public Relations game, as I'm sure John Brown would agree (if it weren't for his refusal to agree with anything even vaguely associated with Confederates).

 

[Tiro]

Speculations on President Smith (Richmond Agreement)

It recently struck me that while Mr Al Smith's behaviour in the face of the Featherston Regime makes a good deal of sense if he is operating on the understanding that he has bigger fish to fry than the Confederate States of America and still more if he believed that he was dealing with a vindictive politician rather than a Predatory Monomaniac.

- To start with, I think that to understand the political situation in the United States at this time you have to remember that it's been twenty years since the Great War; the Generation that fostered Remembrance and led the Great War are pensioners - the Generation that fought the Great War are as settled down as they can possibly get and not as young as they were - most importantly of all the children and grandchildren of the above are now old enough that when the War comes it will mostly be fought by THEM.

In those circumstances it is very, very easy to understand why the United States aren't looking to start a fight and are more than willing to allow the Government to talk its way out of trouble (especially since a solid majority of the opinion are confident that Johnny would have to be CRAZY to believe that he can win another Great War after being so comprehensively beaten in the last one - the problem is that while Johnny may be thinking much along those lines himself, Boss Jake most certainly is not and his variety of madness is contagious).


- The Government, in turn, has Problems enough to vex them even without taking the Confederate States into consideration; the Crash hasn't exactly been kinder to the United States than it has to the Confederacy and quite frankly the CS Rearmament programme (and affiliated projects) doesn't even come close to the New Deal, but it WAS an Economic stimulus of a sort that does not seem to have been enacted in The North - most probably because the Socialists only have a working majority and the Democrats are being obstructive in the face of efforts to change that situation which doesn't involve a re-armament programme of their very own (which the Socialists are likely to show some reluctance over given the self-evident Material Superiority of the North and their desire to improve the lot of the Common Man more than that of the Military/Industrial complex … also their reluctance to countenance the casualties of ANOTHER War between the States).

Even if the Socialists are willing to countenance a Military build-up and given the … difficult International Situation (as the Japanese rejoice in past successes while the Bear, the Lion and the Gallic Eagle circle Germany) they might well be, there's a good deal of logic to conciliating the Confederates for now.

For one thing if the CS are willing to be conciliated then this means the next Great War won't be fought on American Soil - so it's possible for the US to either remain Neutral or at least commit their troops only at their own convenience (for my money they might do worse than to pursue a Pacific Strategy, given that the Socialists owe the Japanese some payback and that the Empire of the Rising Sun will be a much softer target than the Whole-Hearted Entente … as well as one less likely to arouse outrage in the Confederate Breast); given that at this point the German-US alliance profits the former more than the latter (why should the US fight over the Kaiser's right to make Belgium lick his boots?), then why not try for a political realignment which puts the US in a better position to profit from any future War?

The problem is that for the US to turn a straight profit from any War it needs to focus its efforts and make sure that the Enemy can't touch them; the best way to achieve this state of affairs is to make sure the Confederacy is feeling well-disposed towards Cousin Billy.


- Now at this point the Government's best chance of doing that is to talk territorial concessions; given that the US Army's are having significant difficulties with the sheer amount of occupied territory it has to hold down* and that the country isn't willing to contemplate a permanent State of War, then it follows that the best way to deal with at least some of these problems is to do so politically and the most logical way to do so would be to hand them back to the original owners.

(*Canada is the Great White Elephant, Utah and the formerly-Confederate States all have the potential to become bleeding ulcers on the body of the State).

Following on from this logic the most logical beneficiary is the Confederate States; not only would receiving Houston and Kentucky and Sequoyah back into their fold seriously undercut support for the Revanchist movement - at least in theory people are a lot less likely to fight for a couple of counties than for full States.

If nothing else it also opens up the possibility of other negotiated concessions on a more modest scale (and were I CS President at this time then I'd be assiduously working to milk the Yankees for all the territories I could get as the price of my keeping the border peaceable, particularly the formerly-British Caribbean Islands - which would effectively add the Caribbean to that Confederate Lake the Gulf of Mexico but represents a development which would hardly heap coals of fire on Yankee heads).

It should be noted that a plebiscite is the PERFECT means through which the United States can make territorial concessions without seeming weak; by allowing the inhabitants of these occupied territories to chose their own fate one appears the epitome of Democracy (and makes it easier to sell their loss - "if they don't want us, why bother keeping them?").

Better yet if the whole things works out then you have a solid precedent for applying the same approach to Canadian Territories (and in fact at this point in time the Canadians have been FAR more active against the United States than the Confederates - even Featherston has only thrown harsh language, rather than bombs).


- Why then did this perfectly sensible approach fail? Quite simply because this all assumes that Featherston is an opportunist pursuing Personal Power rather than a predator looking to exact a terrible vengeance; given that for all his Venom The Snake has already proven that he's willing to pull in his fangs when it profits him (consider his decision to lie low and play respectable after the Hampton Assassination) and the fact that for all his rhetoric he hasn't so struck a blow against the United States since the close of the Great War this is perhaps not an unfair mistake to make (heck, he even hosted THE OLYMPICS like a true Statesman).

Coupled with very real domestic problems (Red Guerrillas, relics of the Radical Liberals, an economic situation which seems to have benefitted from an alleviation of symptoms but not necessarily a long-term cure) there are at least some grounds for believing that the two sides can come for an understanding without being obliged to come to blows first.

In fact the only problem is that grounding any approach to dealing with Featherston in logic is doomed to fail in the long term; Featherston is not a pragmatist except insofar as he can be persuaded to show patience in the expectation that this will put him in a better position to get EXACTLY what he wants.

The problem is that what he wants is a world full of dead Yankees and he's running out of patience.


- Look at things from The Snake's perspective, the perspective of a man who is a World Leader but who very definitely is neither a diplomat or a politician (except insofar as he sees the latter as the path that will put him in the position to become what he REALLY wants to be - Absolute Master of all that he cares to take notice of); he really does believe that the Confederate States can whip the United States single-handed on the Field of Battle.

That at least is the only serious explanation that I can think of for his failure to ensure that the British would fan the flames in Canada, his failure to see how the United States will react to the impending European War (if the United States becomes seriously involved, The Snake might do worse than to let them deploy their forces abroad THEN Strike), his apparent failure to sow division in the United States (rather than reap the benefits of a pre-existing bit of difficulty) and his most complete damning failure of all - his failure to consider the suffering the Confederacy is certain to endure as anything but the price of doing EXACTLY what he wants.

There's a reason we call him The Snake - that Featherston is as cold-blooded as they come.

 

[bguy]

Another strong analysis, though there are a few points where I disagree.

- The Government, in turn, has Problems enough to vex them even without taking the Confederate States into consideration; the Crash hasn't exactly been kinder to the United States than it has to the Confederacy and quite frankly the CS Rearmament programme (and affiliated projects) doesn't even come close to the New Deal, but it WAS an Economic stimulus of a sort that does not seem to have been enacted in The North - most probably because the Socialists only have a working majority and the Democrats are being obstructive in the face of efforts to change that situation which doesn't involve a re-armament programme of their very own (which the Socialists are likely to show some reluctance over given the self-evident Material Superiority of the North and their desire to improve the lot of the Common Man more than that of the Military/Industrial complex … also their reluctance to countenance the casualties of ANOTHER War between the States).

There was a passing reference in The Victorious Opposition to New York City having a major airport being built with federal money during the Smith Administration, so that could imply that the US finally enacted a large scale public works program around that time.

Otherwise, I think you covered most of Smith's reasons for wanting the Richmond Agreement save for one major point; that the US has been dealing with really nasty insurgencies in Houston, Kentucky and (to a lesser extent) Sequoyah since 1934. Just consider these quotes from the novels:

Here's how things stood around 1935:

"Since the Freedom Party triumphed in the Confederacy, Houston hadn't been reluctant- it had been downright insurrectionary. It had a Freedom Party of its own, which had swept local elections in 1934 and sent a Congressman to Philadelphia. Every day seemed to bring a new riot."

"The trains left on time. People started shooting at them as soon as they passed from Kansas to Sequoyah, which had also belonged to the CSA before the war."

"But bad as Sequoyah was, it didn't prepare anybody for Houston. The train was two days late getting into Lubbock because of repeated sabotage to the tracks. Signs screamed out warnings: Saboteurs will be shot without trial."

And the US response to this:

"I have declared full martial law in this state. That declaration is now being published in newspapers and broadcast over the wireless. The citizens of Houston are responsible for their own behavior. If anyone hinders your progress towards or through the city in any way, shoot to kill."

With the result being:

"Lubbock didn't look like a town that had seen rioting. It looked like a town that had seen war. Blocks weren't just burnt out. They were shattered, either by artillery fire or bombardment from the air."

Nor did things seem to get better with the passage of time Here's a description of Kentucky circa 1938.

"On the way to Philadelphia, the train went through Illinois and Indiana, and Ohio, not through Kentucky. Going through Kentucky was less dangerous than going through Houston, but only a little. Freedom Party men, whether homegrown or imported from the CSA, made life there a pretty fair approximation of hell. Long military occupation and memories of a lost uprising had helped cow the Mormons. Nothing seemed to cow the militants in the states taken from the Confederacy."

And Houston around the same time:

"By God, Colonel, there were stretches of front during the Great War where a man was safer than he is in Houston today. During the war, only cowards got shot in the back. Here, it can happen to anybody at any hour of the day or night."

So by 1940 the US would have been fighting the Freedomite rebellion in those territories for 6 years. It's not that the occupied Confederate States are a potential bleeding ulcer on the body of the US, it's that they're an actual bleeding ulcer on the body of the US and have been for a long time. And what was it that OTL George Marshall said, that no democracy can fight a seven year war.

It should be noted that a plebiscite is the PERFECT means through which the United States can make territorial concessions without seeming weak; by allowing the inhabitants of these occupied territories to chose their own fate one appears the epitome of Democracy (and makes it easier to sell their loss - "if they don't want us, why bother keeping them?").

Interesting thought, though I think in spite of everything that Smith did sincerely hope to win the plebiscites. Why else would he insist on letting African-Americans vote in the plebiscite if he wasn't trying to give the US ever advantage he could in advance of the vote? That condition could have blown up the entire deal with Featherston, so there's no reason for Smith to make that a deal breaker unless he genuinely wants to win the plebiscite.

Better yet if the whole things works out then you have a solid precedent for applying the same approach to Canadian Territories (and in fact at this point in time the Canadians have been FAR more active against the United States than the Confederates - even Featherston has only thrown harsh language, rather than bombs).

Have to disagree here. Up to 1934 the Canadians were more of a problem for the US, but once Featherston came to power, the occupied Confederate territories became much more problematic.

That at least is the only serious explanation that I can think of for his failure to ensure that the British would fan the flames in Canada, his failure to see how the United States will react to the impending European War (if the United States becomes seriously involved, The Snake might do worse than to let them deploy their forces abroad THEN Strike), his apparent failure to sow division in the United States (rather than reap the benefits of a pre-existing bit of difficulty) and his most complete damning failure of all - his failure to consider the suffering the Confederacy is certain to endure as anything but the price of doing EXACTLY what he wants.

I agree with all of this, except for the suggestion that Featherston made a mistake for not waiting to see what the US did in regards to the European War. The US-German alliance seems to have been pretty much dead by 1941 (indeed it pretty much seemed dead by 1932, when Germany did not help the US in the Pacific War), so it seems very unlikely the US would have intervened in the European War. (Which makes Churchill-Mosley's decision to declare war on the US even more baffling.)