Admiral Halsey
Banned
Maryland is a state that honestly can't Secede because then D.C. is surrounded and could easily fall. Though having to move the capital back to Philadelphia could galvanize the Union just that much more.
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
D.C. almost fell in OTL. The governor of Maryland cut the telegraph lines and secessionists destroyed the railway. D.C. was isolated, with only three units to defend it. Winfield Scott was actually organizing clerks into militias for a last stand, while Lincoln despaired. But of course, Johnson didn't act and Butler achieved a rare victory by repairing the railway and pouring troops into Washington by land and sea. I don't think Maryland could outright secede, but troubles like that could continue happening.
Thanks for the information.
Southern unionist didn't care about slavery, they were loyalist people loyal to Washington not to richmond. Most unionist were not anti slavery, but they never turned on the union when Lincoln did the emancipation proclamation. 250,000 union troops were southerners and most came less slave owning areas.
'Most of the white Southerners who chose to join the Union Army lived in the Confederacy’s border states and the Deep South’s relatively poor “white counties,” which were too infertile to support plantation agriculture. As a result, they had few if any black residents, either slaves or freedmen. White counties were concentrated in but not confined to the Appalachian Mountains—western Virginia, eastern Kentucky, western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, and northern Alabama. Many Southern Unionists in these states shared Northerners’ hatred of the region’s aristocratic, slave-owning oligarchy."
"So strong was pro-Union sentiment in mountainous North Alabama and adjoining East Tennessee that it was proposed the two regions unite to form a new loyal state called Nickajack. Representatives from 26 counties in East Tennessee’s mountainous, grain-growing and stock-raising region agreed to secede from Tennessee. Their petition to do so was rejected by the state legislature, and Confederate troops were sent to occupy East Tennessee to prevent its secession. In East Tennessee the vast majority of whites owned no slaves, and Union supporters outnumbered Confederate supporters. The majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves."
@Red_Galiray yes but you forget Egypt produces cotton enough in fact to supply all of the UK and the rest of europe without the confederates.
British newspapers were not covering it, this especially about a war that entire poing is about slavery is being covered, who ever works with confederates will lose the election.
Colorado War, Sand Creek Massacre and the Sioux War of 1865[edit]
Main articles: Colorado War, Sand Creek massacre, and Powder River Expedition (1865)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameri...Sand_Creek_Massacre_and_the_Sioux_War_of_1865 here a good site to find some stuff
By then it was too late to turn against Washington. Besides, aside from the initial boost, these states would be quickly retaken by the Union. My point is, had things been different, the border south could have joined the Confederacy. It would have been unlikely, they wouldn't have worked closely with Richmond and probably a West Virginia like situation could have arisen. But it's not impossible. And while the Confederacy did fight for slavery, the common soldiers fought not because of slavery, but to maintain white supremacy and defend their homes. Even if they don't like slavery, if they think an army of John Browns ready to kill and murder is marching, they would join the Confederacy.
Britain obtained 80% of its cotton from the US South, and the Egyptian cotton boom happened after the start of the war.
You are giving way too much importance to the US and slavery. Many Britons were friendly to the Confederates. Motions to recognize them almost passed many times. Most newspapers covered the war, seeing the Union as hypocrites and even rotting for the Confederacy. Punch, for example, ran several cartoons deploring Lincoln as a tyrant, and saying that the Confederacy would win as late as January 1865. And it was well known that the US employed slavery, and they were criticized for it. But that didn't stop trade.
Many british disliked the usa but also hated slavery more, you can hate both sides but one more than the other. Also alot of pro-confederate believed the south could be reformed to get ride of slavery. Also crimean war was kinda important so people attention were else where. I also doubt pro confederacy, majority werr pro union only stuff like the trent affair did public opinion turn against union as they caused problems.
Liberal newspapers were pro union talking about how had slavery was and how the uk should support the union British press is political in nature. Just because the daily mail likes nazis in the 30s doesn't mean Britian liked nazis.
You just brought up king cotton britain was already prepared for the conflict with a surplus, and then britain told the empire to give cotton which it did, no south cotton will do nothing to britain if will just go to the empire for cotton, which it did so how would it be any different here.
Last edited:
And many more just didn't care. At the end of the day, states were guided by realpolitick, not by ideology or moral concerns. And the second is just another argument against British intervention.
Look, my main objective is making an interesting and realistic timeline, in that order. I don't want foreign intervention. I think it's even less likely than the Border South joining the Confederacy, and would make everything much more complicated, and result in a bloated and difficult to follow Timeline. But since that's been ruled out, the only way of preventing the Confederacy from being defeated in three months is making the Border South join. It's possible, though not likely. But I'm willing to accept a little implausibility for the sake of a more interesting story.
here a list of some wars you can escalate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paiute_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cloud's_War push this up to an earlier time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_campaign same
we can also cause a whole scale war across there if the escalation in Britain cause them to start sending arms to the Indians same with the French seeing it as an easy way to limit usa epasnion and doesn't even have to be them could be the confredtes too with extra arms shipment sending it
finally what about the riots against the army grew much worse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paiute_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cloud's_War push this up to an earlier time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_campaign same
we can also cause a whole scale war across there if the escalation in Britain cause them to start sending arms to the Indians same with the French seeing it as an easy way to limit usa epasnion and doesn't even have to be them could be the confredtes too with extra arms shipment sending it
finally what about the riots against the army grew much worse
history is full of surprises and that in to in the realm of impossible this is not like sea lion invasion this is more like Germany being able trick the British and what about earleir ghost dance movement
Oh, you are on about foreign intervene i thought this was about international relations during the war both me and you were talking about two different things then, sorry for the mistake 4 am here. I stopped with foreign intervene at the smash memes, so we ended up for half a page talking about two different things.
Exactly! ...Sorry, I'm not familiar with that movement, but Wikipedia says it developed in 1890. What could happen if it developed earlier?
I mean, they are closely related. But anyway, I think I'll have no direct foreign intervention, and Border South secession in order to have a longer and better story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance#History this is some context but this shows it was starting in 1869 and just have it start earlier than straight away the prophet then we are good
Yeah, I got really confused on what was happening i thought we were discussing confederate international diplomacy and king cotton, not foerign intervene (french or nothing
)
)Trust me we were on two different wave lengths here, not once did i think this was linked to foerign intervene i thought it was about how effective king cotton was. I was well passed french intervention, i thought this be a new conversation, discussing the merits of cotton, british politics.
I... weren't we? Haha. I thought we were. Let's leave it at that though.
Tomorrow night most likely, yeah. Just putting the finishing touches.
Chapter 6: The Slavocrat Giant He Slew
Chapter 6: The Slavocrat Giant he slew
The 1854 mid-terms were, without a doubt, a disaster for the Northern Democracy, and a great boom for the recently born Republican Party. But the Democrats rebounded in 1856, and now controlled Congress and the White House. But 1858 promised a new disaster. Dred Scott and the Kansas debacle had galvanized the North. Even the most moderate and conservative men of the North weren’t willing to forgive the Democrats for forcing slavery in Kansas. The first sign of their new resolve to fight was in Minnesota. An enabling act had allowed the state to draw a state constitution and petition for statehood. This event had been marked by a fight of its own between Republicans and Democrats who created their own constitutions. But the Kansas struggle had sidelined this. The Republicans of Minnesota, however, saw their chance and took it. By convincing the people of Minnesota that the Democrats would force slavery down their throats if they won, they achieved an electoral victory, for even if the Democrats there hadn’t had anything to do with Kansas, they were still responsible for virtue of their party. Republicans this time forfeited the moral high ground and freely used cheap tactics, such as racial fearmongering and even fraud. Many Republicans in the Northwest and East were worried about this, but ultimately, they decided to uphold the old principle of “an eye for an eye” – if the Democrats were allowed to use fraud to ensure bondage, using fraud to ensure liberty was noble and necessary. The Senate had already passed Minnesota statehood, a move Northern and Southern Democrats thought would help Kansas pass. It then passed the House with Northern Democratic support. This was an attempt to maintain the balance, since there was a new free state and a new slave state. But much to the Democrats’ dismay the Republicans in Minnesota took control and sent two Republican Senators to Congress.
Oregon would in 1859 gain statehood in a less dramatic fight. The new state sent two Democratic Senators. But this wasn’t so much because Republicans didn’t want to fight than because they were fighting elsewhere, in Kansas. Kansas statehood had affirmed Lecompton as the capital, and its legislature as the rightful territorial government, but the rival legislature at Topeka refused to yield. The Free-Soilers did everything in their power to overcome the Slaver’s voter suppression and fraud. This was a daunting task, because the Lecompton Legislature retained its skill when it came to fraud. But Republicans now had their backs, and investigation after investigation uncovered these attempts. Northern Democrats saw the writing in the wall, and tried to minimize damage by supporting the Republicans, much to the South’s dismay. The result was a brooked legislature that failed to elect anyone to the Senate for almost a year, before it gathered enough strength to send two Democrats there (one of whom, betraying the legislature, would become a Douglas man in 1859). A wave of outrage came from the South, but Republicans stood firm. But the greatest outrage was against Douglas and his “traitor crew”. If the Republicans had managed to “overthrow the legitimate government of Minnesota” and “deny her just rights to the duly approved government of Kansas”, it was because Douglas had helped then.
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
Douglas called for a convention of the Northern Democratic. He held it in Illinois. There the delegates condemned the Kansas’ debacle; upheld the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty while making it clear that whatever happened in the territory was not popular sovereignty at all; and above all presented themselves as the only national party, the only party of Union. The Republicans were abolitionist mobs who would bring ruin, the Southern Democrats were pro-slavery fanatics who didn’t respect the constitution. But Douglas and his men were the answer, the only men who would prevent civil war and the also the disaster of Negro equality. The new National Union Party had been founded. This came as a result of fury against the South by the former Northern Democrats who now envisioned Civil War and political disaster. “The Northern Democracy… are unwilling to submit themselves to assassination or to commit suicide”, reported a newspaper. "We cannot recede from [popular sovereignty] without personal dishonor," said a Douglas Democrat from Ohio, "never, never, never, so help us God”. "I never heard Abolitionists talk more uncharitably and rancorously of the people of the South than the Douglas men," wrote a reporter. "They say they do not care a damn where the South goes…”. The breach that had separated the two sides of the party simple couldn’t be healed.
William L. Yancey
The move was both condemned and ridiculed. Douglas’ statement that his was the only national party was ridiculous. The only thing he had done was “hiding the slaver wolf under the guise of a constitutional sheep”. He still could not be trusted, or at least so thought many Northerners. The South reacted with major fury. The "Demagogue of Illinois," explained an Alabama editor, "deserves to perish upon the gibbet of Democratic condemnation”. Douglas was a revolutionary traitor. “At least the Black Republicans charge at you directly”, said Alexander Stevens, “Douglas sneaks behind and buries the black knife on our back”. “We have never infringed the rights of the North!”, claimed the fire-eater Yancey, “Ours is the property at stake! Ours is the honor to lose!”. This led to the start of internecine Democratic warfare between the National Union and pro-Buchanan administration democrats. The fight decimated the Democratic Political Machine in New York, allowing the Seward faction to take over. But another political machine was running like a well-oiled engine: Lincoln’s Republicans in Illinois.
Senator Lincoln was decided to strike “while the iron is hot”. If they managed to unseat Douglas, the Northern Democracy would perish. And then a Solid North could carry the Republicans to the White House. His Republican Convention, also scheduled to take place in Illinois, upheld moderate Republican principles, such as their intent to “reconstruct” the Courts to reverse the Dred Scott decision; ban slavery from the territories; and enforce political but not social equality. The convention proclaimed views widely held by most Republicans in 1858, but just 4 years earlier those views would have seemed to be radical. Lincoln also endorsed for the first time abolition in the District of Columbia (he still endorsed compensation though) and didn’t make a single mention of colonizing the Black population. The Senator’s views had been evolving just as the views of the entire nation did. And now he prepared to give the coup de grace to Douglas, by challenging him to several debates.
Back in 1856 Lincoln and Douglas had already sparred in several famous debates, four in total. Lincoln had won, and Frémont carried Illinois. But now the stakes seemed higher. If Douglas lost, he would lose his seat. Furthermore, he would appear weak and Lincoln would be strengthened and glorified as the man who destroyed his National Union before it had even properly started. But refusing to debate would demoralize and destroy the Democratic Party in Illinois. Lincoln had thrown the gauntlet at him, and seeing no other option, Douglas took it and accepted his challenge.
Matching the rising tensions, the debates were greater in number this time. There were eight debates in total. One politician would open and speak for an hour. The other would then speak an hour and a half. Finally, the first would close with a statement of half an hour. Each opened in four debates. The man who opened would have the advantage, since he could force his opponent to spend his time defending vulnerable positions. "When you see Abe at Freeport, for God's sake tell him to 'Charge Chester! charge!'… We must not be parrying all the while. We want the deadliest thrusts. Let us see blood follow any time he closes a sentence”, said a journalist in a letter to one of Lincoln’s associates. Lincoln’s main argument was that Douglas and his Democrats had departed from the Founders and was trying to perpetuate and nationalize slavery, eradicating the love of reason and liberty. The fact that he had founded a new party was meaningless, it was the same old tired Democratic standard under a new guise, and if elected they would at best allow evil to triumph, and at worst assist it. Then he dropped his most powerful question: Could the settlers of any territory outlaw slavery? “Our David has slew Goliath!” gloated a reporter upon hearing the question. Douglas tried to say “yes”, because without the rules needed to protect slavery it simply couldn’t exist. But this wasn’t enough this time – Kansas had shown that it didn’t matter what the settlers thought, the South would still force slavery down their throats.
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Douglas also attacked, his tactics appealing to racism and prejudice. Lincoln was a Black abolitionist who would liberate the slaves, allow them to submit the South in fire and brimstone and then bring the Negroes to Illinois. He also focused on the differences between the National Union and the Democratic Party, and the fact that unless both were stopped the result would be "warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance, until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall and become the victim of the rapacity of the other." But his main strategy remained pushing the race issue forward. "The signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro... or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men”, he proclaimed in one debate. In another he asked of the crowd "Are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? ('No, no.') Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State… in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters on an equality with yourselves? ('Never,' 'no.')… If you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote… then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. ('Never, never.')”
This “demagogism” was exasperating to Lincoln. Nonetheless, he continued to defend the political equality of Black people, while he asserted that he didn’t seek social equality. "I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily have her for a wife. (Cheers and laughter)". He clearly spelled his beliefs later in a more serious statement: "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social equality of the white and black races, (applause)—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” [1]. But he maintained his belief that there existed certain natural rights that couldn’t be denied, no matter the race, and that in that respect Black people were equal. For example, whether the Black man was morally or intellectually equal to the White man, "in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. (Great applause.)". Douglas continued to hit him by asserting that Lincoln had no plan to bring slavery to an end. After all, Lincoln had several times states that he would intervene with slavery where it already existed. Consequently, how would he place it in the route to extinction? Lincoln answered that, once it was limited, and in its due time, it would disappear. But the important issue was slavery at the present time, and accepting it as morally wrong and fighting against it.
"That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles— right and wrong—throughout the world... from the beginning of time... The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings... No matter in what shape it comes, whether from a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle”.
Most voters, and most historians, concluded that Lincoln had won the debates. His Republicans, aided by state redistricting that reflected the greater growth of the Northern counties, earned a majority in the Legislature. Lincoln, as the Republican leader, was the one who would select the official candidate. The Party had been so focused on Lincoln and his rivalry with Douglas that they had payed little mind to who exactly would replace the Little Giant. Either way, they knew that Lincoln would gather more excitement and votes than anyone they could have put forth, and that Lincoln was the only one skilled enough in oratory to challenge Douglas. Owen Lovejoy, more radical than Lincoln but still not as radical as the Easterners, was selected. He was one of Lincoln’s most loyal and stalwart friends, and had been an essential part of Lincoln’s campaign in 1854. He was quickly accepted and sent to the Senate. Douglas, for his part, returned home to mourn his Party and his nation.
This mourning was more than justified. The 1858 mid-terms had been an even greater disaster. In the Senate, the Republicans won the two Minnesota seats, and seats in Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Democratic and National Union struggles allowed Know-Nothings to keep their four seats. The two Know-Nothings up for reelection, John Bell and John Breckenridge, were old Whigs who, after initially deciding to retire, remained in the Senate decided to prevent Civil War and disunion, and most closely resembled the National Union men. In total, the Republicans won 7 seats, for a total of 27 seats. The Democrats lost 6 seats, but they kept the majority with 36 seats. But 7 of them were National Union Senators, a Senator from California, Oregon, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and New Jersey each, who left the Party together with Douglas. Thus, in practice no Party had the majority but the South controlled the Senate with a plurality,
Red - Republican, 28 seats.
Blue - Democrat, 29 seats.
Purple - American, 4 seats.
Cyan - National Union, 7 seats.
The House was the greatest disaster. Despite their attempt at rebranding, the Northern Democratic Party was decimated, going from 49 to 21 seats[2]. The Republicans now had the advantage in the Lower North, having more Congressmen and around 55% of the popular vote. In the White House, President Buchanan dined with some friends when the telegrams came. "We had a merry time of it," wrote the president next day, "laughing among other things over our crushing defeat. It is so great that it is almost absurd”. The National Union seemingly died stillborn. Now it was time to attack the Southern Democracy. But before the Republicans could give them a political hit, John Brown decided to strike.
_________________________________
[1] IOTL, Lincoln also said he didn't favor "political equality", and ended by saying that he beliefs that the races can never coexist peacefully.
[2] ITOL, John Bell and John Breckenridge retired and Democrats won their seats. Also, Minnesota appointed two Democrats to the Senate at first. Later one of them was defeated for reelection by a Republican. The seat distribution in the Senate was 38 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 2 Know-Nothings. Finally, in the House IOTL, the Democratic Party went from 52 to 36 seats.
Last edited: