Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
More or less yeah. I've quoted some of his comments in newspapers before on this thread (that was how he primarily made money), and he wrote a letter to Lincoln on behalf of the first international congratulating him on enacting the emancipation proclamation.
Perhaps ITTL he writes another one for the confiscation acts
That's my secret Athelstane. I'm always with a vengeance.
Yeah! I also think it nicely illustrates how the Revolution keeps moving forward. OTL the Radicals would have died of joy at this platform, but here they feel it's not enough.
Peace is more difficult than war after all.
My objectives, nicely summarized! I mentioned it a lot, but giving land to the freedmen, and through it economic independence, is certainly revolutionary. Harsh punishment for the worst traitors will also ensure that they never try anything like this ever again.
Thank you very much for your kind words.
I think Lincoln's legend, so to speak, will still be overwhelmingly positive, but his more authoritarian actions and him not being martyred may counter that. Also, being forced to see equality in the South, be it within the South or exiled in Europe, is probably a worst punishment for the rebels than execution.
I like Philipps too, but he never showed any interest in being elected and as a result his influence was limited to his speeches. These were certainly influential on the thinking of many men, but when writing the TL it means that I can only include quotes from him from time to time. He appears in other chapters too, in the same manner.
Thank you! I do think more solidarity between white workers and workers of color could be achieved, and the legacy of the Civil War could make a "crusade against wage slavery" the natural follow-up of the "crusade against chattel slavery". It could also, as you note, imbude workers with a determination to use violence to achieve this lofty objective.
Correct, that's why Radicals are disquieted by the quick restoration the plan promises. They want more assurances that the new states won't just be the old South with a new coat of paint.
I'm really intrigued by the idea of Black communal land ownership, and plan to include it in the future. And yes, militias sometimes operate as de facto integrated units for the purposes of defense.
Thank you very much!
Black people certainly considered education for their children as one of the most important things they wanted. For them, it certainly was a right, a social right but a right nonetheless.
If you want chaos and anarchy just wait!
I have said here, and I maintain, that more profound changes can start in 1890 when populist movements start to sweep the South. By that time, the Civil War generation will have started to wane. The key thing is that Black political power and civil rights may be maintained until them, and if that happens when the populists arrive the political result can be nothing short of amazing.
Oh, I love Atun-Shei. I will watch this at once, thank you.
Forget Grant, forget Garfield, forget Stanton. This is the true chosen one.
Exactly. These schools are little more than Bureau agents reuniting some freedmen and trying to teach them their letters and some basic maths whenever they can. In "Union Colonies" some White Unionists go to. They aren't obligated and most only go reluctantly. I like to imagine them singing Union songs and talking of the horrors of slavery.I was thinking more along the lines that these could end up being villages and even small cities in the larger cases. And that with whites and blacks living and serving together and Leadership they might serve as a model of integration in that way.
I did not see Red meaning schools in the classical term, even the one-room schoolhouse term, when he mentioned that school was going on while the war raged. I saw it more as just someone who was smart enough gathering a bunch of people together and developing systems to teach numbers, letters, and so on in creative ways. In fact, you could see Sesame Street emerge a century earlier in this timeline.because that's basically how I see it. People using all sorts of creative ways to teach basic concepts, not really in a "sit down and study" fashion. They might even have to bug out, as I remember the term being from MASH, if guerillas neared. And, yes, it would have all races together out of necessity, only because said creative person would be like, "hey, you got a few minutes let me teach you something cool." And then he or she first sent to a song and tries to teach the people something, like how the government works. "Oh I'm a Bill, I'm Just a Bill, and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill..."
Okay, Sesame Street is one thing, I guess the idea of Schoolhouse Rock might be a little far-fetched for musical tastes of the 1860s.
Thank you very much. I'm really proud of this update and I'm so glad to hear you enjoyed it to! And yes, there will be resistance, though we'll see most of it in the next part of the TL.. This part will include the election, of course.Fantastic update. Loved seeing the amount of effort Lincoln and the Republicans are putting to address slavery and the issue of give black people their freedom as well as the beginning of Reconstruction. I think this update is my favourite just because I enjoyed reading about Reconstruction and how similar yet different it is to OTL. I'm also really curious to see if the Southern Democrats will attempt to push back against Reconstruction and how Lincoln will handle it. Also will you cover the next election? Great job!
But constitutional amendments are coming, and soon!
Many of Lincoln's measures are geared to force the Confederates to exile themselves permanently. He'd probably be happier with Johnny Breck in exile than hanged from a sour apple tree.
Thank you! Even if forty acres and a mule aren't given to every single freedman, having a prosperous Black community willing to lend their poorer brothers a hand would help a lot. They wouldn't be completely at the mercy of White employers, bankers and politicians. I think the food situation could improve, especially because, as mentioned, freedmen dislike growing cotton and often spend a lot of time tending to their own gardens. Of course, the Southern situation is even worse, but in any case the few Black people that did obtain land clung to it tenaciously. I think they would do so here as well. I'm keeping my lips sealed regarding Longstreet. Come the war's end, he won't be a Confederate anymore, but you all will have to wait for the how and why. I at least can say that this turn won't come due to racial sympathies, because he'll stay true to his OTL self: accept Reconstruction, but retain some prejudices.
I will explore it! These Catholic, French speaking, and cultured Mulattoes will play an important part in Reconstruction, especially early Reconstruction in Louisiana.
Any change is always seen as too radical... The greatest irony is that if the South were more moderate, they could have retained slavery for decades more.
Thanks! I think the fact that the US is a democratic society could also result in some sort of "revolutionary democracy", that is, that the Revolution can be achieved through democratic means as long as the State is powerful enough to slap down the reactionaries that will inevitably oppose it. Also, I really like the idea of future socialists talking of a "Second Reconstruction against Capitalism".
I'm partial to the name "Workingmen". A socialist party was briefly named that, but my affection for the term comes from a Victoria 2 AAR - the socialist party in the US is called "Workingmen's Party".
It's sometimes quite difficult to strike the right balance between idealism and cynicism. I like to think that I've managed well so far.
I want to integrate that, but I don't know how to do so organically, and also I don't know a lot about Marx. Marx is mentioned to write a dispatch after the Emancipation Proclamation talking of how a "Revolutionary War" has started. Maybe in a mini update? I could include the "Engels Brigade" too.
When they met with the Engels Brigade, my boys.
When they met with the Engls Brigade.
Didn't those cowardly slavocrats tremble when
They met with the Engels Brigade.
I also kind of want to have Garibaldi leading a brigade? I maintain that giving him command of the Union Army would have been too much, but maybe he and some "Red Shirts" could be allowed to run around the South, killing guerrillas and freeing slaves.
Last edited:
A mini update on the Engels Brigade and the international socialist reaction to the Civil War sounds cool!
On another note, people have suggested that the 3rd confiscation act would sadly make a powerful tool for the bourgeois to suppress socialists and labor unions. Others have suggested that the legacy of the Civil War in the south among blacks and poor whites might make the region actually more resistant to the excesses of capitalism. I wonder if you could combine these factors. Like, maybe as the Gilded Age develops the existing communal farms and such organizations in the south try to help workers in the region organize to resist the robber barons. When the authorities start trying to crack down on these movements, some people will think "hold on, I thought we were supposed to be helping these people keep their economic freedom?"
IDK maybe I'm completely off on how things could work.
Yes, that's quite a concern. In fact, the Third Confiscation Act is aimed at "persons or combinations formed to resist the government of the United States". A strike is certainly resisting, isn't it? At the same time, the legacy of the war and Reconstruction is sure to create new ideas and conceptions of what the State should do and what freedom truly means. The next great conflict will be over labor.
You know ... So, hear me out: Our friend here was a former Democrat who moved into the GOP but eventually became disillusioned with them as a result of focusing more on Big Business and moving away from the Yeoman ideals he had. We also know in this timeline that the Democracy is largely dead and nothing too stable has risen up to take its place. There will eventually be a rival party to the GOP which rises up: likely a party built upon an alliance between the still operating City Poliitcal Machines, agrarian interests, disillusioned Republicans, and economic radicals and so forth. In this field, our friend here may become one of the chief organizers of the new Party. I doubt he'd get tothe Presidency - his personality is a bit too ... quicksilver for that, but I could certainly see him emerge as a governor or Senator (of ourse, even in OTL, the GOP dominated Minnesota politis so utterly that it lead to the rise of a state-based 3rd party in the early 20th century. Just like neighboring Wisconsin and North Dakota, actually. But the new party won't be Democrats, and so they may find a slightly more fertile field to take root in. Especially if the new party, at least on the local level, can contain proto-Farm-Labor elements)
Random question, can anyone remind me of where Fredrick Douglass is in this TL?
You mentioned 1890 and it reminded me that oh... Okay. I better explain first baseball had something called The Reserve Clause that was in existence since 1879 till it was struck down in 1976. The Reserve Clause said that a player was tied to his team once he signed with them and could only leave the team by being traded or released. Free agency became a thing in 1976 after a couple players played the 1975 season without signing contract. They were ruled free agents because the signing of the contract that had been sent was just so automatic and it had never been tried to actually have a player not sign the deal they were tendered.
So in 1890 The Players League was formed by players to try to counter this and also gained higher salaries because a salary cap and been instituted by the National League. In our timeline it drew well but a few factors kept owners from being confident enough to continue. In this time line perhaps something like this will be tried and be successful, with free agency and such existing in sports from the beginning.
So in 1890 The Players League was formed by players to try to counter this and also gained higher salaries because a salary cap and been instituted by the National League. In our timeline it drew well but a few factors kept owners from being confident enough to continue. In this time line perhaps something like this will be tried and be successful, with free agency and such existing in sports from the beginning.
I like this as well and maybe it breed better oppions about the Italians and Italian Unification
Thinking about it again, the possession of land might reduce the black-white income gap but also expands the black capitalist class. Historically, black business during Reconstruction was mostly small business and usually in the service sector: grocery, restaurants, hotels as well as banks and insurance later in the 20th century.
With black ownership of land, they would have more incentive to actually invest their income into their land and more income for their children's education. Furthermore, ownership of land facilitated access to credit markets by serving as collateral on loans, allowing freedmen farmers to finance risky or lumpy investments. For example these black landowners could invest in orchards. A study shows that Cherokee freedmen who owned land were able to invest in orchards, which in the short-run produced little income but had a long and productive lifespan. A farmer could earn $58 per acre planted in apple trees and $7 per acre planted in corn.
With the next generation inheriting their family's wealth, having a better education than historical, facing less restrictions and perhaps having black politicians to support them, it is plausible that the next generation could fulfill Booker T. Washington's vision of an economically independent black community. Also on the black food gardens, I find it funny that after the war the Southerners who chastise and lament about how lazy freedmen were for wanting to grow food instead of cotton would later be begging blacks for food after the crop failures of 1866-67.
Assuming that Garibaldi is still injured at Aspromonte in 1862, he should be available in spring 1864 onward. After getting wounded at Aspromonte, Garibaldi spent 1863 in Caprera due to poor health. IOTL he left Caprera for London in spring 1864. The exact reason for his travel is not entirely clear. It could be the case that Garibaldi was trying to pressure the British gov't over the war between Denmark and Prussia and Austria. Or he could've been attempting to establish closer links with the National League for Polish independence, which was sympathetic to Italian unification. The most likely case is that the trip was planned by politicians Aurelio Saffi and Agostino Bertani, with the intent of swaying British public opinion to push their government into supporting Italin unification.
That said, perhaps with the end of the ACW so close, Garibaldi could go to the U.S. to participate in the fighting as well as gain experienced U.S. volunteers and arms for the next war of Italian unification. Interestingly, to tie in with the "Engel brigade" Garibaldi was starting to show socialist sympathies in his letters to Sicilian revolutionaries after 1862.
Awesome stuff.Chapter 9: Hurrah for the choice of the Nation
The ambient at Charleston during the Democratic National Convention of 1860 can only de described as feverish. The city was indeed under a grave fever, a fever of secession provoked by fear and paranoia. The tired and heartsick Yankees that arrived there to try and mend the divide met hostility, feeling themselves strangers in a strange land. The target of most hate was Stephen A. Douglas, a traitor who had cleaved the Democratic Party in two according to many of the Southern Democrats who met that fateful day.
The decision to come to Charleston hadn’t been easy for Douglas. The Southern Democrats hated him as much as they hated Seward or Sumner, and more than they hated moderates such as Lincoln. Their main goal had been destroying Douglas. They were joined by some pro-administration Northern Democrats who had cast their lot with President Buchanan and the South. Douglas’ attempt at creating another party had failed: his National Union lost dozens of seats to the Republicans. Douglas himself had been vanquished by Lincoln, losing his Senate seat and with it a major part of his influence in the government and his clout within the Party. It was painfully clear that the Southern Democrats had succeeded in their avowed objective to make him perish and hang his “rotten political corpse”. Douglas’ presidential ambitions were all but dead.
But Douglas refused to yield. He knew that no candidate put forth by the Southern Democrats would be able to gather any kind of support from the North. If the choice was between a Republican and a Southern Democrat, even the most moderate and conservative Northerners would cast their vote for the Republican. The prospects of other candidates were similarly bleak. Some Southern Whigs who still didn’t feel comfortable allying with either faction grouped together in the Constitutional Union Party, a sort of reincarnation of the old Whig Party. But the Constitutional Unionists, who nominated wealthy slaveholder John Bell from Tennessee, felt compelled to stump as enthusiastically for Southern rights as the Democrats, which further pushed Conservative Northern Whigs into the Republican fold. Consequently, the odds of Bell winning anything but Border States were low; if Douglas and his National Union made a run their odds of taking any Southern state were unfavorable. Either way, the Republican candidate didn’t need the Border South or the South itself. A solid North was enough to carry them to victory.
In Douglas’ eyes the best Democratic option was mending their differences and running a fusion ticket which could sweep the South, the Border states and perhaps take a couple of Lower North states. If they managed to keep the Republicans from a majority in the electoral college the election would go to the House, where every state had a vote. There a conservative coalition could take the Presidency.
But Douglas’ prospects were hopeless. The Party refused to even let Douglas attend. The crafty former Senator had organized rival delegations formed of Southern moderates and the surviving Northern Democrats, but the South instead admitted Southern delegations made of Fire Eaters and Northern ones made of pro-administration men. The National Convention quickly passed a plank pledging to grant federal protection to slavery in all territories, while spurning any and all attempts by Douglas and his supporters to create a fusion ticket.
Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi presented the substance of the South’s demands, which were for Douglas to support their chosen candidate, John Breckinridge, and the slave code. This was to much for Douglas and his men to swallow, for it would constitute an unconditional surrender to Southern domination of the party, and the country. His attempts to reason with the Southerners and to find common ground or compromise failed. And finally, after six weeks of being ignored and vilified, Douglas decided to give up trying to reunite the party. William L. Yancey, the overzealous Fire Eater, led a group of people into giving cheers “For an independent Southern Republic!” while Douglas and his men left Charleston. Yancey’s parting words surely resonated in Douglas’ ears as he left the harbor: "Perhaps even now, the pen of the historian is nibbled to write the story of a new revolution.”
John Breckinridge
Douglas had lost, but he hadn’t been defeated. Decided to do all he could to prevent the election of a Black Republican and the start of a Civil War, Douglas organized a National Union Convention which quickly nominated him. But unlike him, many had been defeated. The National Union Convention and its efforts were feeble and half-hearted, many tired delegated having resigned themselves to their fate. In this they contrasted with the energy and enthusiasm that dominated the Republican National Convention.
Meeting in Chicago, the Republican National Convention was characterized by adroit action and theretofore unseen popular enthusiasm. The favorite for the nomination was William H. Seward. A prominent Republican, leader in the east and an important player in the Senate for many years, Seward seemed like the natural choice for the Party. But many powerful men and interests weren’t convinced that he was the best choice. The Party needed to carry a Solid North to win, and contrary to the opinions of the South, the North was not entirely united in its opposition to slavery. Large segments of the north did not care, or, led by racism and prejudice, even supported it to an extent.
The Republicans just needed to add Pennsylvania to the states they won in 1856 in order to win. But Seward was seen as a radical, and he alienated nativists. Furthermore, he had made numerous enemies such as Horace Greeley, and his political machine in New York was seen as a shady and corrupt organization. Though Seward remained strong in the Upper North, any Republican would be able to easily sweep the region. Pragmatists and his enemies united and denied him his coveted first-ballot nomination. They then turned to find another candidate among a trio of favorite sons from different states: Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Abraham Lincoln of Illinois.
Some other Republicans had tried to get the nomination, the most prominent of them being Edward Bates of Missouri, who commanded the support of the Blairs, a political family active in Maryland and Missouri. But Bates and the Blairs had been pushed towards the fringe corners of the party, being some of the most conservative Republicans out there. They championed a strategy of building up the party in the Border South by taking in people who had lukewarm commitment to slavery. But this strategy lost ground as the Slavocrats became brasher and bolder. Instead, most Republicans favored a strategy of action from the top, crystalized in the Freedom National doctrine that turned the Federal Government into a weapon to assail slavery wherever it existed.
Chase had many of Seward’s weaknesses and didn’t carry the same level of support; Cameron had a bad reputation as a flip-flopper who had been a Democrat, a Know-Nothing and a Whig. Lincoln, on the other hand, was a successful and respected moderate. Honest Abe had a reputation for moderation, compromise and respect, but he was also a shrewd politician who had built up a political machine in Illinois, a state the Republicans needed to win in 1860. He embodied ideals of integrity and hard-work, with Republicans being able to tout his raise from a humble rail-splitter to a prairie lawyer to one of the nation’s most prominent Senators as a living proof of the superiority of free labor and the promise of the American dream. His debates with Stephen A. Douglas in both 1856 and 1858 were legendary by then. And he had vanquished the feared Democratic leader.
Salmon P. Chase
Lincoln had always considered himself a party man. When he was just a Whig state legislator in Illinois, he dreamed of creating a party machine that would elect Whigs to all offices, from the Senate and the Governorship to local officials. After being elected to the Senate, he worked tirelessly to make that dream a political reality, and he had succeeded. His state was also his most fervent supporter. Many clamored for him to run for president, and although Lincoln did position himself for a run by touring the West and building bridges with constituencies the Republicans needed such as nativists and moderates, he also wrote this to a newspaper: “I must, in candor, say I do not think myself fit for the Presidency.” Similarly, he stated that he would prefer to have another term in the Senate rather than one in the White House. But his opinions started to change after his stunning victory in 1858 against Douglas.
Despite the fact that Douglas was an Illinois Yankee born in Vermont, he was seen as a living symbol of the Slave Power’s grip in National Politics and the North more specifically. As leader of the Northern Democrats, he was a prime target for Republicans. And at the end Lincoln was the David who slew the Little Giant, thus building a national reputation as a powerful and able statesman. Douglas’ attacks and his appeals to racism had failed. Lincoln still recommended focusing in slavery as an institution that had to be contained instead of focusing on its immediate abolition. But after 1858 he took a decidedly more radical turn, also talking of social issues and the future of black people. His speeches still exhibited customary moderation, with Lincoln reiterating that he opposed miscegenation and black suffrage, but like in his debates against Douglas he talked of unalienable rights that black should and must also enjoy. Lincoln also focused on uniting the Republican Party behind a single objective: putting slavery on the road to extinction. And he was remarkably good at reconciling different factions of the Party.
His speech at the Cooper Institute, in New York, was a mark of this. There he assured his audience of his command of the slavery question, his viability as a candidate, and his credentials as a Republican. The Senator attacked the South for trying to “destroy the government unless it prevailed in all points of dispute”, and also singled Buchanan and Chief Justice Taney for attacks. He repeated that he wouldn’t interfere with slavery where it already existed, but also called for Republicans to stand firm and continue steady in the face of threats of secession. He concluded with the following statement: “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” This speech and others gained him favor with Easterners who rejected Seward, and he already had the support of Midwesterners, who believed their turn had come.
The 1860 Republican National Convention
Enthusiastic supporters lined the “Wigwarn” while the votes of the first ballot were tallied. Seward achieved 153 votes; Lincoln had 136. Neither had the required 233. Lincoln’s team of capable politicos worked tirelessly to gain second ballot support for their candidate. Because many believed that Lincoln could be elected while Seward could not, Lincoln was able to get the support of many delegations who chose him as their second option after their preferred candidates failed or after symbolic gestures to one politician or another. As the votes of the second ballot were counted, the Wigwarn lit with great energy that gave "the appearance of irresistible momentum". Finally, the results came: Lincoln had 239 ½ votes. The convention exploded with enthusiastic furor, the yells, cheering and music overwhelming. No one would ever forget that day, where they had chosen not only the best candidate for the election, but also "the best man for the grim task" ahead of them. “Let the new Revolution begin”, wrote Charles Francis Adams in the wake of Lincoln’s nomination. And indeed, the campaign season of 1860 would mark a new era in American politics and history. With Lincoln’s nomination, the Revolution of 1860 began.
After a dark age of the South aggressively, obnoxiously, and arrogantly tried to keep their "way of life" via force, intimidation, fear, hate, mobs, and insults, and whatever else, from the Cannings in Congress to the lynching of innocent Northerners, finally they have been taken off their pedestal, and now they are going for their final solution; war. Here we go!Hurrah, for the choice of the Nation!The Republican National Convention was an event of unprecedented energy, which was carried into the campaign season. Following Senator Lincoln’s nomination, the Party drafted the Plank, which outlined the ideals they would fight for. The Party Plank maintained the strong anti-slavery convictions of the 1856 Plank, but to appeal to moderates it denounced the John Brown raid as the “gravest of crimes”. Most importantly, the Plank pledged to abolish the Fugitive Slave Act and replace it with an “humane” measure which would recognize the right of a fair jury trial and the habeas corpus principle; to protect all territories from the attacks of the Slave Power (a direct rebuke to the admission of Kansas as a slave state); and to “reconstitute” the Supreme Court, setting the path for an overturn of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The biggest sign of this intent was how Lincoln selected former Justice John McLean as his running mate.
Our chieftain so brave and so true
We'll go for the great Reformation
For Lincoln and Liberty too!
We'll go for the Son of Kentucky
The Hero of Hoosierdom through
The Pride of the Suckers so lucky
For Lincoln and Liberty too!
They'll find what by felling and mauling
Our rail-maker statesman can do
For the People are everywhere calling
For Lincoln and Liberty too!
Then up with the banner so glorious
Our Star-Spangled Red, White and Blue
We'll fight till our banner's victorious
For Lincoln and Liberty too!
Our David's good sling is unerring
The Slavocrat Giant he slew
Then shout for the freedom preferring
For Lincoln and Liberty too!
We'll go for the Son of Kentucky
The Hero of Hoosierdom through
The Pride of the Suckers so lucky
For Lincoln and Liberty too!
-Lincoln and Liberty
__________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 10: The Revolution of 1860
McLean was famous for his strong-willed dissent in the Dred Scott case, which basically became the basis of the Republican position on the issue. Another notable action of his was convincing Justice Curtis, the other dissenter, to remain in the Court, after Curtis considered resigning in protest. Curtis and McLean were basically both waiting for Lincoln’s election, so as to deny Buchanan the chance to appoint yet another Southern Democratic Justice.
Aside from those points, the Republican Platform focused on economic issues as a way of uniting the different factions of the Party. Its Whig-Progressive origins, and their ideology of Free Labor showed on their pledges in favor of internal improvements, a Homestead Act, a Transcontinental Railway, and a “readjustment” of the tariff to encourage and protect industry. These measures were in part a response to the Panic of 1857, an economic downturn caused by massive speculation on western lands, lower levels of European investment, and a bubble that formed around the price of bonds and bank notes. They were also designed to appeal to Lower North voters who didn’t care for slavery but would be attracted by the economic potential of these pledges, such as Pennsylvanians who would benefit from a greater tariff or Midwesterners who wanted a Transcontinental Railway.
Most of these points were however eclipsed by a single sentence that vowed to “limit slavery like the Founders intended”, and take all necessary measures to “prevent its expansion”, while at the same time promising to not “interfere in places where slavery already existed” unless it was “by means of constitutional compromise”. This single point was hotly debated. Radicals insisted on leaving out “by means of constitutional compromise”, likening it to a surrender to conservatives, slavers and “other doughfaces”. Moderates were dismayed that such a point was even added. The Blairs of Missouri threatened to leave the party, lamenting a “Jacobin take-over”, while some moderates denounced it as a point that “would hand the national government to the Democrats”.
John McLean
Some historians have agreed with them. Many Northerners expressed their disgust with the Plank in editorials and diaries. “I will not stand for a government controlled by the Negro”, wrote a New York man, while an Indiana Republican confessed to his diary that he “felt threatened by the Radicals who have taken over the Party”. From Ohio, a voter said that though he personally didn’t “give a damn” about the “N---ers”, such a sentence was paramount to “Civil War”. Democrats and National Unionists ran away with the Plank, telling every Northerner that a vote for Lincoln was a vote for “pestilence, war and famine.” Southern Democrats were likewise terrified by the implication, and the already existing fear and hostility that dominated the section before the election seemed to increase even more. “Should Lincoln win the election”, a Missouri Democrat said, “we would have no other option but to risk disunion.” A similar opinion was shared by a Virginia lawyer, who wrote to a diary announcing that “the whole South ought to stand up to this blatant act of aggression.”
But perhaps these historians are overstating their points. This point probably did more to scare the South away than to scare moderates away. Republican moderates were mollified enough by the specification that the measures would only be adopted through compromise. Most did agree with the vital points that slavery was seen as an evil by the Founders, and that it should be put on the road to extinction. And a very significant part of voters was more attracted to the economic measures adopted than the slavery question.
Other voters found themselves back into the Republican folds, even if reluctantly, for there was no other option. Douglas had tried to nominate himself as a desperate last measure, but the Little Giant was unable to mount a campaign, and his whipped men did only a feeble effort. Breckinridge, the Southern Democrat, was anathema to every northerner, as a New York Democrat said: “A vote for the Southern candidate would mean four more years of humiliation. I will not accept that, even if it means risking treason.” The other option, the Constitutional Unionist, had revealed themselves to be as pro-South as Breckinridge, so they weren’t even considered by most. Even those who contemplated Black equality with disgust settled on Lincoln as the lesser of two evils. “At least he’s not Seward”, commented wryly a disappointed Pennsylvania voter who nonetheless voted Republican in the election.
The Republicans carried energy and enthusiasm h into the election, bringing with them youth, dynamism, and new ideas. Thousands of young men joined “Wide Awake” clubs, which were magnified by the South into a red of militias ready to take over their land. Songs and campaign pamphlets filled the presses. From every corner of the North, the popular song “Lincoln and Liberty” seemed to echo. The Republicans represented change, high expectations and a new future, which contrasted with the old and tired Democratic banner, sullied more than ever by corruption.
The Buchanan administration was revealed in several House investigations to have siphoned money into Party coffers by means of graft, bribery and contracts awarded without competitive bidding. This sorry record caused even more outrage when it was revealed that Buchanan had bribed congressmen to vote in favor of Kansas’ admission as a Slave State. Secretary of War John Floyd was singled out due to his corrupt business deals, such as padded government payments, and an infamous order that transferred 125 cannons from Pittsburg to the South, an order Buchanan refused to countermand when the Southern members of his Cabinet convinced him that they were needed to defend against slave uprisings.
“The old sinner”, an Iowa newspaper proclaimed, “had proven himself to be yet again a hireling of the Slave Power.” Republicans stumped about these issues, demanding a “complete change of administration”. Charles Francis Adams denounced this as proof that the Slavocrats were bribing “the people of the Free States with their own money”, while Horace Greeley wrote of "not one merely but two Irrepressible Conflicts—the first between… Free Labor… and aggressive, all-grasping Slavery propagandism… [the second] between honest administration on one side, and wholesale executive corruption, legislative bribery, and speculative jobbery on the other; and we recognize in Honest Abe Lincoln the right man to lead us in both."
Wide Awake Clubs
But slavery remained the focus of the election. Some moderates took pains to describe themselves as the true Party of the White Man, in response to attacks by moderates and Democrats, especially over that contentious part of the Plank, and other events such as a ballot measure in New York that would enfranchise Blacks. The New York measure would manage to pass, even if barely, due to united Republican support and disarray in the conservative ranks. But before that it provided abundant fodder for race-baiting attacks.
Still, radicals and abolitionists stumped fervently for the Republicans, believing them to be a step into the right direction, and an “anti-slavery triumph”, according to Frederick Douglass. Southern despondency and fear only increased as election day approached. Lincoln, in their eyes, was "a relentless, dogged, free-soil border ruffian… a vulgar mobocrat and a Southern hater… an illiterate partisan… possessed only of his inveterate hatred of slavery and his openly avowed predilections of negro equality." Odd feelings of disappointment and excitement mixed as both Union men and secessionist anticipated Southern Independency.
A drought that withered several corps and rumors of Yankee ruffians attacking plantations and inciting slave uprising created panic. R. S. Holt, a prominent planter, reported the “discovery of poison, knives & pistols distributed among our slaves by emissaries sent out for that purpose”, and Lawrence Keitt, infamous for his role in the canning of Charles Summer, wrote: " I see poison in the wells in Texas—and fire for the houses in Alabama. How can we stand it?" Most of these reports were grossly exaggerated, if not outright falsehood. But they helped to fan a flame of fury and fear that resulted in vigilante lynch mobs: "It is better for us to hang ninety-nine innocent (suspicious) men than to let one guilty one pass."
Conservatives and the few surviving Douglas democrats seemed to capitulate, instead warning that a Lincoln victory would mean secession. "Let the consequences be what they may—whether the Potomac is crimsoned in human gore, and Pennsylvania Avenue is paved ten fathoms deep with mangled bodies… the South will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln", declared a Georgia newspaper. In Louisville an editor claimed he received thousands of letters "all informing us of a settled and widely-extended purpose to break up the Union" if Lincoln was elected. John J. Crittenden, denounced the "profound fanaticism" of Republicans who "think it their duty to destroy… the white man, in order that the black might be free… [The South] has come to the conclusion that in case Lincoln should be elected… she could not submit to the consequences, and therefore, to avoid her fate, will secede from the Union." Even Breckinridge himself talked of an "endless, aimless, devastating war, at the end of which I see the grave of public liberty and of personal freedom." Nonetheless, he said that if the North forced the Deep South to secede, he would “exchange six years in the US Senate for the musket of a soldier.”
Northerners refused to listen to these proclamations. They had listened to them time and time again, and every time they proved fruitless. Furthermore, there was nothing Lincoln or the Republicans could do to mollify the South, for the very existence of the Republican Party was considered an insult by them.
When the fateful day came, Lincoln had not only carried a Solid North, he had also managed to take California and Oregon. Breckinridge won a Solid South, the only state he failed to carry being Missouri, carried by Bell instead. Lincoln had not only won a majority of the popular vote, but also 180 electoral votes, a comfortable margin. In the Upper North, Lincoln won more than 70% of the popular vote, losing less than two dozen counties. In the North as a whole Lincoln won almost 60% of the vote, which handily overcame Breckinridge's 52% of the Southern vote.
Furthermore, Republicans won 133 of the House's 238 seats, annihilating the Northern Democracy and the National Union, who would hold only 14 Northern seats. Of the Democrats' 105 seats, 91 were in the South. In the Senate, the Republicans also had a net gain of 5 seats, taking the plurality. The Democrats only won one seat, at the expense of a Douglas man in Kansas. They lost their plurality, having only 28 seats.
Red - Republican, 33 seats.
Blue - Democrat, 28 seats.
Purple - American, 4 seats.
Cyan - National Union, 2 seats.
This landslide victory proved ominous for the South, which saw the North as a united force against them. “The die has been cast”, declared a Virginia newspaper, “we must act now against this revolutionary party, or else we risk the destruction of everything we hold dear”. In the North, many were overjoyed. Charles Francis Adams declared that "The great revolution has actually taken place… The country has once and for all thrown off the domination of the Slaveholders." In Springfield, joyful celebrations "went off like one immense cannon report, with shouting from houses, shouting from stores, shouting from house tops, and shouting everywhere." "We live in Revolutionary Times", wrote a Northern man, "and I say, God bless the Revolution!".
Lincoln - 187 electoral votes, and around 2,410,000 votes (49.8%).
Breckenridge - 111 electoral votes, and around 1,300,000 votes (26.9%)
Bell - 9 electoral votes, and around 930,000 votes (19.2%)
Douglas - no electoral votes, and around 200,000 votes (4.1%)
However, while the Revolution of 1860 was being celebrated in the North, down at Columbia, South Carolina, a Counterrevolution was being planned.
__________________________________________________________________________________
AN: The title "The Revolution of 1860", is taken from the title to one of the chapters of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. All credit goes to McPherson.
There is the Populist Party. Let's say James Weaver bolts the GOP just like IOTL.
Or, you can have one of them managing to become President as a Republican. Now this would be more interesting.
If the Populist Party becomes prominent then would you see people like TR, Taft, and WJB going to them for more progressive policies?
Envisioning Teddy Roosevelt and Williams Jennings Bryan in the same political party feels kind of weird.
If the Democrats are completely destroyed, you might see Roosevelt being part of an urban-centered Republican party and Bryan being part of an agrarian-centered Populist party.
I just woke up, so I initially read this as “being part of an urban-legend Republican party”. That’d be a different reality.
In any case, couldn’t it be possible for a more Radical Reconstruction to decide that First Past the Post is a bad idea? After all, it helped the slavers have a stranglehold on the South and aid in their attack on human decency.
This strikes me as very plausible. IIRC a change from FPTP was mooted occasionally during the progressive era
Last edited:
I suspect something like Illinois’s congressional districts might be a bigger thing, where you have 3-member districts and 3 votes you can allocate any way you want.
It solves a lot of problems without implementing something like proportional representation, which probably wouldn’t have been on the radar.
It solves a lot of problems without implementing something like proportional representation, which probably wouldn’t have been on the radar.
TR (and even young Henry Cabot Lodge) could bolt the GOP to TTL Liberal Republican Party. This party then could merge with other GOP splinter factions like the Greenbacks, the Populists, bla bla, like the Dems did IOTL.
Alternatively, you can have someone like Charles Francis Adams becoming President as a Republican, and former Conservative Whigs and other pro-Spoils System folks bolt the party - let's say American Party.
Last edited: