Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
Welp, with these actions, the southerners have basically reduced the likelihood of British intervention from 25% to flat 0. Between British abolitionists and radicalized British textile workers, there will be such a backlash to even receiving southern diplomats that Judah Benjamin's job will basically become impossible.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see southern unionism radicalized here. Places like East Tennessee were luke-warm about secession IOTL, and the region had one of the lower populations of slaves per capita in the CSA. Now? Well, it's quite likely the Frankland Convention goes off early enough that federal troops could arrive in time to protect it. We may see both Frankland and West Virginia emerge out of this war, when all's said and done.
On the other hand, there could be some negative effects on the union army, as the most ardent abolitionist generals weren't always the best commanders. Men like O.O. Howard come to mind. There were also generals--Banks for example--who seem to have been promoted more based on political connections than ability. Not sure radicalization of the north curbs that. McClellan probably doesn't fair well; IIRC a lot of his support came from Pennsylvania's war Democrats, so if they take a beating in 58, he may be weakened as a result. But McClellan was far from the only "politician in uniform".
I hope Sam Grant turns up as part of the Republican machine in Illinois; Chernow's biography of him makes me think he'd be equally radicalized by all this, and Grant getting promoted early would probably be beneficial.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see southern unionism radicalized here. Places like East Tennessee were luke-warm about secession IOTL, and the region had one of the lower populations of slaves per capita in the CSA. Now? Well, it's quite likely the Frankland Convention goes off early enough that federal troops could arrive in time to protect it. We may see both Frankland and West Virginia emerge out of this war, when all's said and done.
On the other hand, there could be some negative effects on the union army, as the most ardent abolitionist generals weren't always the best commanders. Men like O.O. Howard come to mind. There were also generals--Banks for example--who seem to have been promoted more based on political connections than ability. Not sure radicalization of the north curbs that. McClellan probably doesn't fair well; IIRC a lot of his support came from Pennsylvania's war Democrats, so if they take a beating in 58, he may be weakened as a result. But McClellan was far from the only "politician in uniform".
I hope Sam Grant turns up as part of the Republican machine in Illinois; Chernow's biography of him makes me think he'd be equally radicalized by all this, and Grant getting promoted early would probably be beneficial.
Hahah, that seems like a fitting punishment for treason!
Oh yeah. You though the 54 midterms were bad? The Republicans will do to the Democrats what Sherman did to Georgia. Or worse.
The Northern Democrats were barely held together by Douglas after Kansas OTL. Since the South won ITTL, they probably have no choice but abandon the Democratic party completely and adopt a new name.
He did that IOTL as well.
Especially a Southern young man.
We'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree
And then we'll hang Stephens and Lee
And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed they mean to do
For his soul is marching on.
I doubt McClellan would do much even if he had 200,000 men. He thought Lee had twice his manpower... he actually had half.
Some Northerners may be more willing to join John Brown now.
I hadn't considered that Grant could get involved in politics as a result of the POD. As far as I knew, he was mostly apolitical. Could you expand on this please?
Not AJNolte, but I am a student of Ulysses S. Grant's history. Even before the ACW, Grant's life was shaped by sectionalism and slavery. Grant was raised by his father was an avowed abolitionist, and traveled through northwest Virginia and Kentucky, although his thoughts about slavery and the South were not recorded. In West Point, Grant made a number of Southern friends, though he engaged in heated discussions and nearly came to blows with his roommate Frederick Dent, son of a slave owner, over slavery. Grant's experience in the Mexican-American War reinforced his distaste for slavery, blaming Polk for the "wicked" war driven by Southern "slave power".
Still, Grant distinguished between Southerners and slavery. Grant made more Southern friends in Mexico and married Julia Dent, the sister of his West Point roommate. Although Julia's father was a proud proponent of slavery, it did not matter much to Grant. After some trying times, Grant stayed in Missouri, surrounded by slavery. He worked with slaves, including four young servants owned by Julia. However, they were more trouble than help to Grant, he was too kindhearted to enforce unpaid and reluctant labor with severity. For free black workers Grant paid them more than anyone else, causing his white neighbors and white workers to complain about it. In Grant's letters to his family, there is a hint of shame in that Grant never referred to the blacks around him as slaves, but only as "negro men" or "servants," as if to conceal the fact that they were slaves. Neighbors recorded that Grant objected to the institution of slavery on principle and opposed its expansion. However, he assailed abolitionists as agitators who, in advocating immediate abolition, imperiled the Union.
Grant was a staunch supporter of the Whig party and its leader, Henry Clay, but drifted about politically in 1850s. At one point, Grant joined a Know-Nothing lodge, but stopped attending meetings after being offended by the secrecy and ceremony of the nativist order. He eventually became a Democrat by default. The new Republican party, with its agitation of the slavery issue, worried him. In the 1856 presidential election, Grant voted for Democrat Buchanan over Republican John C. Fremont out of fear that the Union would break if Fremont won. After the Dred Scott case, Grant seemed to be "thoroughly informed" on political issues, reading accounts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 and wondering "who got the best of the argument." By this point, it is fairly certain that Grant was an Unionist at the core; he "could not endure the thought of the Union separating."
When Grant returned to Illinois, he tried to stay out of politics but could not help but observe that Lincoln had a good chance at capturing the presidency. However, Grant confessed to not "quite like the position of either party" and was relieved to know that he had not satisfied the residency requirement for voter registration. Still, Grant may have been more of a Republican than admitted; he declined to help his friend John A. Rawlins drill a march company supporting Douglas while occasionally dropping by the meeting of Republican marching clubs (the "Wide-Awakes") and helping out with formations and drilling. Eventually, Grant's prediction that the nation would be split asunder came true on the morning of April 12, 1861.
The problem with radicalizing Grant would be his marriage with Julia Dent, a member of a slave-owning family. Though Grant's opinions were respected by his neighbors, he could not simply proclaim his beliefs in abolition without being kicked out by the people of Missouri. Not to mention the fact that his association with the Dent family marked him as a Democrat in the eyes of many Republicans. Above all, Grant cherished the unity of his country more than he did abolitionism. Should the country's unity be preserved by slavery the choice was fairly obvious for Grant.
Not really. First, you need to pick out a weapon they can all use with minimal training, and get it down there and spread out to enough plantations to maybe get you a foothold. Without being detected or noticed in anyway.
THEN you need to train and organize them, all without anyone noticing, a issue given they couldn't really group up for any length of time.
And for good measure, find and appoint officers for this army, again, unnoticed by the masters, who are pretty sensitive to this.
Oh, and win. Somehow.
Yeah, McClellan shouldn't be taken on. Or at least shoved into a training spot somewhere, away from the battle.
Hoh boy. That's gonna vindicate a lotta Dems on how Slavery has fucked the party over.
In meridie est destrui!
Interesting. Grant is an intriguing figure, that's for sure. He's one of my favorite historical characters. Grant will fight for the Union and will play an important part ITTL, but I don't think of him as a politician, at least in the ante-bellum period. Thanks for the information.
I have to recognize that, for all his fallings, Little Mac was simply a brilliant organizer. He could create an army like no one, but then he didn't use it.
That's why I said the most likely time for him to be relieved by a more radicalized Lincoln is winter of 1861/2 when he kept stalling He might not have the patience he did OTL (and even OTL I compared him in a high school paper to a frustrated baseball manager with a bad pitching staff). Who he would replace im with would be interesting.
Honestly, the only reasons Little Mac didn't get the boot for awhile despite being a lazy little bastard who literally had at least one battle all but HANDED to him, was politics, and a risk of a coup.
So here, with the Union being more radcalized, he's gonna have a lot more pressure to step up, or step out.
In meridie est destrui!
One way we could radicalize it further if an in a coastal state a slave revolt started supplied by the union in the civil war once it started and then they reached to areas where they could do a guerilla war-making confrency send more and more troops into the area and as union Tropp arrive from the coast to support them more.
Lincoln's patience is seriously incomprehensible. Heads of State are generally patient with Generals who have won battles, not with Generals who haven't achieved anything.
I don't think McClellan had the nerve to launch a coup attempt. If he doesn't have the nerve to attack Lee after getting his battle plans, I don't think he'd have the nerve to actually march on Washington. And although his soldiers adored him, I believe that at the end they loved the Union more, so unless McClellan convinces them that a coup is the only way of saving the Union, they wouldn't join him. Though, a coup attempt can add drama to the Timeline, and interesting possibilities.
That's a good idea, but early in the war the Union would probably try to avoid slave revolts. They would be more open to the option later, but if they can reach the slaves to supply them, they should also be able to reach the area with their own troops. In that case, using professional troops is better and safer than slave revolters. Perhaps Radicalized Unionists could lend them a hand, though.
True, but he was tempted some times.
So it's worth considering.
In meridie est destrui!
Admiral Halsey
Banned
You know for all McClellan's faults one can easily argue his building of the army during the winter of 1861/62 was a key root of Union victory.
Perhaps he wins a victory somehow and then decides to try a coup.
Yes. Had his duties been limited to building up armies, he would have been an unsung hero but recognized by historians.
Alright, to increase suspense even further here's a little snippet of the next chapter.
"Douglas had been greatly troubled when he rallied his men to opposition of Kansas' admission. He had presidential ambitions, and he needed the South's support to win the nomination because the Party required 2/3 of the votes of the Convention. Approving Kansas would destroy the Northern Democracy, thus making a nomination worthless. Consequently, the choice was clear. Many congratulated Douglas. Even former foes now held him in an altar as a man of value and principle. "You have chosen the only rute that can save the Northern Democracy" exulted a constituent. "With your support, the right will triumph", said another. But the right didn't triumph, and Kansas had been admitted as a slave state. Outrage against the Democrats was palpable everywhere in the North, and Douglas was now vilified by Republicans again, and now also by Southern Democrats who saw him as no better than a Black Republican. Perhaps worse, because he was also a traitor. They vowed to annihilate him, to attack him and hang his "rotten political corpse". It was clear that no Democrat could win an election in the North, and Douglas himself was more than vulnerable, for he was up for reelection. The news that Senator Lincoln would head to Illinois to campaign against him further aggravated his fears of losing. Only one course of action seemed possible. He had to create a new Party".
