Fair enough, I'll edit it to say Tredegar is one of the largest locomotive makers, with about a 20% market share
The American System: A Henry Clay TL
- Thread starter TheHedgehog
- Start date
33. Balkan Bloodshed
33. Balkan Bloodshed
“The Crisis of 1853 had nearly plunged eastern Europe into war, but the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches came to an agreement with the Ottoman authorities over the status of religious holy sites in Jerusalem and its environs. However, a series of rebellions in Crete and Mount Lebanon underscored the poor treatment of Christians in the Empire…
The relative quiet in the Balkans did little to stymie the spread of nationalism through the Christian peoples of the Ottoman territories in Europe. Bulgaria, and Serbia in particular were hotbeds of nationalist sentiments, egged on by the sympathetic government in Russia. However, the spark that would ultimately plunge the Balkans into conflict came not from an explicitly nationalist uprising, but rather a tax revolt [1]. The Ottoman government had made limited efforts to improve the conditions of its Christian subjects, but what little reforms were made were often ignored by rapacious local authorities. One of the harshest examples was the conduct of the beys of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There, the beys forced the Christian Serb peasants to pay heavy taxes and would confiscate as much as half their annual harvests, along with taxes on animals and farm equipment.
This onerous burden caused resentment to build, and several minor revolts broke out between 1852 and 1862. Seeking to finally throw off the Ottoman yolk, a group of local Serbian leaders met in August 1867 to plot a better-organized rebellion [2]. Led by Petar Popovic-Pecija [3], a total of eight men began assembling loyal fighters, weapons, and ammunition. They were aided financially by Nikola I of Montenegro, and Pecija secured the allegiance of several powerful clans in the region. Ties were also established between the Herzegovinian and Bosnian conspirators. Nikola I was able to secure the backing of the aged Czar Nicholas I [4]. Nicholas, eager to expand Russia’s Balkan influence, gave financial support, but refused to commit to war unless he received support from other revolutionary groups in the area. Nevertheless, Pecija and his allies charged ahead with their plan, setting the date of rebellion for June of 1868. On June 11th, 1868, a band of rebels seized control of a local bridge in Metkovic, while Catholic and Orthodox forces united to capture Trebinje. A correspondent for the London Times wrote “there is a revolt of the Catholic and Orthodox populations between the Popovo and the Gabela.” By the end of the year, upwards of 100,000 people had been displaced and the fighting showed no signs of slowing down. In fact, once the revolt spread to the Nevesinje region, engulfing nearly all of Herzegovina in conflict. At this point, the semi-independent Serbian government began supplying the rebels while the Ottomans refused the rebels’ demand of reduced taxes. While the Ottoman reinforcements arrived in early August and began to drive back the rebels, Bosnia erupted in the middle of the month. There, ethnic Serbs comprised the majority of the fighters, and they swiftly began harassing the Ottoman reinforcements bound for Herzegovina. In both regions, rebels attacked Muslims and drove them from their homes, a fact which was forgotten amidst the reprisals that came after the war...
The unrest spread quickly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, as in April of 1869, the Bulgarian Revolutionary Committee instigated a long-planned revolt [5]. Having stockpiled arms, the rebels seized a number of towns and villages to the east and south of Sofia, including the cities of Tarnovo and Plovdiv. As the violence spread, the Ottomans reacted swiftly, attacking rebellious towns with, according to one British reporter, “unsettling ferocity.” It did not help that a large contingent of the Ottoman forces were irregulars. Ottoman soldiers committed massacres of civilians in several towns, but the worst was the Batak massacre, where anywhere between 1,500 and 8,000 Bulgarians were killed. Irregulars destroyed a religious school, burning hundreds alive, before besieging the adjacent church and massacring by beheading everyone but the few who agreed to convert to Islam. A conference of the Great Powers convened in Berlin, where they demanded that the Ottoman Empire grant full equality to its Christian minority and allow some level of autonomy in Bosnia and Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire refused.
Eager to cement Russia’s role as the defender of the Eastern Orthodox church, Czar Nicholas I began planning for an invasion of the Ottoman Empire as soon as the uprisings began. On May 11th, 1870, amid the tension after the Berlin Ultimatum, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on the Ottoman Empire, sending in forces to aid the flagging rebellions. Though unable to secure the neutrality of Austria, Nicholas issued his own ultimatum to the Ottomans on June 3rd, threatening war if they did not accept the Berlin terms “without reservation.” This was refused, and the next day, the Russian Empire declared war on the Ottomans. Britain was left in a difficult situation by the outbreak of hostilities. Public opinion was very much against the Ottomans, but the idea of allowing Russia to impose its will on the Balkans was a threat to British geopolitical interests. The government, paralyzed by indecision, simply stood by, and resolved to intervene should Russia get too close to decisive victory. They needn’t have worried, however…”
-From THE GRAND CONSENSUS: EUROPE 1815-1898 by Rebecca Gardner, published 2001
“The Russian army was woefully underprepared for the war. While the Ottomans had undertaken military reforms that had resulted in a moderately modern army, the Russian army was still dependent on peasant levies. Initially, the Russians moved quickly and had occupied the Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia by the middle of June 1870. Under the protection of the Russian army, the United Principalities declared independence while Ottoman forces rushed to bombard Wallachian towns along the Danube. While the Russians could muster upwards of 300,000 soldiers in the Danube to the Ottomans’ 200,000, the Ottomans had near-total control over the Danube River, and their fleet posed a threat to the Russian Black Sea fleet. Worried that early Russian successes would embolden the festering conflict in Serbia and Bulgaria, Osman Nuri Pasha set out on the offensive. Backed by Ottoman gunboats and riverine mines, he crossed the Danube [6] on July 9th, moving north to face Grand Duke Nicholas’s army at Zimnicea. Despite initial Ottoman difficulties, a combination of the Grand Duke’s poor strategizing and the even worse quality of his troops meant that the Russians were forced to withdraw north, and the withdrawal was a disorderly affair. On July 27th, Osman Pasha attacked a combined Russo-Danubian force to the west, across the river from the Bulgarian town of Nikopol. The Russians were better prepared, but once again the more professional Ottoman forces won the battle [7].
The Caucasus front was, similarly to previous wars, given secondary priority. Fighting in the mountains, the Ottoman defenders enjoyed the advantage. Despite this, they were forced to retreat and defend the key city of Kars from a Russian siege. Aside from this, the Ottomans under Ahmed Muhtar Pasha held off the Russians, and there was little change in the front lines.
…the Russian advance ground to a halt, as decades of neglect and stagnation had left their army far behind the Ottomans both organizationally and technologically. Osman Pasha elected to besiege Bucharest starting on November 12th and delay the Russians there while his compatriots crushed the Bosnian revolts and brought Serbia to heel. The ill-equipped and poorly trained Serbian troops advanced south against a distracted enemy, but by September of 1870, the Ottoman counterattack was ready. General Suleyman Husnu Pasha retook the only major gain of the Serbs, the city of Pirot, and pushed the Serbian army to the brink of collapse. On March 17th, 1871, the last major Serbian army, commanded by Dura Horvatovic, was ruined by Suleyman Pasha’s army, and Serbian resistance was reduced to guerilla fighting that was harshly suppressed by the Ottoman forces. Belgrade fell on April 14th. The rebels in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina met similar fates during the campaigns of April.
On May 3rd, 1871, the city of Bucharest surrendered to Osman Pasha’s army, as the Russian army, weakened by several fruitless efforts to break the siege, withdrew north. Now, the nationalist spirit that had gripped the region was ebbing away amid the often-brutal Ottoman repression and the complete humiliation of the Russian army. With the Ottoman army poised to rampage through Wallachia and march into Russian Bessarabia, the ailing Czar Nicholas I sued for peace on May 19th. Serbia and Montenegro followed suit the next day. Seeking to ensure the balance of power was maintained, the British insisted that the peace be determined by an international conference of the Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire. Serbia and Montenegro were pointedly excluded.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Vienna, Russia agreed to withdraw from the sections of the Caucasus they had occupied. They were also forced to drop their claim of defender of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Serbia’s status as a dependency of the Ottomans was affirmed, and it was agreed Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina were territories of the Empire as well. The United Principalities was recognized as a “strictly neural” independent country, with the mouth of the Danube organized as a demilitarized zone. Russia ceded its section of the north bank of the Danube, a part of Bessarabia, to the United Principalities. The treaty was a great victory for the Ottoman Empire, but the rest of Europe had not forgotten the brutality that helped cause the war in the first place…”
-From THE TIDE OF NATIONALISM by Mary Brenneman, published 1999
“In the aftermath of the Russian defeat, waves of brutal reprisals visited death and worse crimes upon countless villages in Bosnia, Hercegovina, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Nearly 500,000 people were displaced by the massacres, rapes, and looting that scarred the pastoral hills of the region, while 30,000 Bulgarians and 15,000 Serbs were estimated killed [8]. Amid the ensuing refugee crisis, nearly 120,000 Serbs and Bulgarians fled to the Dalmatian coast of Austria, and from there, almost 50,000 emigrated to the United States between 1869 and 1874. About half of them arrived in New York City and dispersed through the countryside, but the other half settled in Richmond, Virginia. Initially, there was a great deal of suspicion among the citizens of Richmond. “Suddenly, there are distinctly foreign men and women walking about here,” one man complained in an open letter. Another wrote, “I understand they are fleeing a very unpleasant war in their home countries, but surely, we should not have to bear the burden of housing and employing them. Well, at least they aren’t Catholics.””
-From OUT OF MANY, ONE: IMMIGRATION IN AMERICA by Henry Carpenter, published 2014
[1] A bit simplistic as the rebels were Christians, but their primary grievance was the staggering tax burden they were saddled with.
[2] No Crimean War means the resentment builds and festers, and the rebels start stockpiling weapons earlier. They’re less well prepared than OTL, however.
[3] He led a revolt in 1858 OTL.
[4] Without the Crimean War, he doesn’t get sick, refuse treatment, and die.
[5] Like the Bosnian revolts, the Bulgarians start planning earlier but are less well prepared.
[6] OTL, the Ottomans adopted a defensive posture early on, allowing the Russians to sink an Ottoman gunboat and cross the Danube. TTL, the Ottomans are more vigilant.
[7] I’m glossing over most of the battles, but the Ottoman advance isn’t bloodless. They lose some battles, but the disparity between them and the Russians is greater than in the OTL war of 1876.
[8] Suffice to say that this is way worse than the massacres that precipitated Russian involvement.
“The Crisis of 1853 had nearly plunged eastern Europe into war, but the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches came to an agreement with the Ottoman authorities over the status of religious holy sites in Jerusalem and its environs. However, a series of rebellions in Crete and Mount Lebanon underscored the poor treatment of Christians in the Empire…
The relative quiet in the Balkans did little to stymie the spread of nationalism through the Christian peoples of the Ottoman territories in Europe. Bulgaria, and Serbia in particular were hotbeds of nationalist sentiments, egged on by the sympathetic government in Russia. However, the spark that would ultimately plunge the Balkans into conflict came not from an explicitly nationalist uprising, but rather a tax revolt [1]. The Ottoman government had made limited efforts to improve the conditions of its Christian subjects, but what little reforms were made were often ignored by rapacious local authorities. One of the harshest examples was the conduct of the beys of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There, the beys forced the Christian Serb peasants to pay heavy taxes and would confiscate as much as half their annual harvests, along with taxes on animals and farm equipment.
This onerous burden caused resentment to build, and several minor revolts broke out between 1852 and 1862. Seeking to finally throw off the Ottoman yolk, a group of local Serbian leaders met in August 1867 to plot a better-organized rebellion [2]. Led by Petar Popovic-Pecija [3], a total of eight men began assembling loyal fighters, weapons, and ammunition. They were aided financially by Nikola I of Montenegro, and Pecija secured the allegiance of several powerful clans in the region. Ties were also established between the Herzegovinian and Bosnian conspirators. Nikola I was able to secure the backing of the aged Czar Nicholas I [4]. Nicholas, eager to expand Russia’s Balkan influence, gave financial support, but refused to commit to war unless he received support from other revolutionary groups in the area. Nevertheless, Pecija and his allies charged ahead with their plan, setting the date of rebellion for June of 1868. On June 11th, 1868, a band of rebels seized control of a local bridge in Metkovic, while Catholic and Orthodox forces united to capture Trebinje. A correspondent for the London Times wrote “there is a revolt of the Catholic and Orthodox populations between the Popovo and the Gabela.” By the end of the year, upwards of 100,000 people had been displaced and the fighting showed no signs of slowing down. In fact, once the revolt spread to the Nevesinje region, engulfing nearly all of Herzegovina in conflict. At this point, the semi-independent Serbian government began supplying the rebels while the Ottomans refused the rebels’ demand of reduced taxes. While the Ottoman reinforcements arrived in early August and began to drive back the rebels, Bosnia erupted in the middle of the month. There, ethnic Serbs comprised the majority of the fighters, and they swiftly began harassing the Ottoman reinforcements bound for Herzegovina. In both regions, rebels attacked Muslims and drove them from their homes, a fact which was forgotten amidst the reprisals that came after the war...
The unrest spread quickly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, as in April of 1869, the Bulgarian Revolutionary Committee instigated a long-planned revolt [5]. Having stockpiled arms, the rebels seized a number of towns and villages to the east and south of Sofia, including the cities of Tarnovo and Plovdiv. As the violence spread, the Ottomans reacted swiftly, attacking rebellious towns with, according to one British reporter, “unsettling ferocity.” It did not help that a large contingent of the Ottoman forces were irregulars. Ottoman soldiers committed massacres of civilians in several towns, but the worst was the Batak massacre, where anywhere between 1,500 and 8,000 Bulgarians were killed. Irregulars destroyed a religious school, burning hundreds alive, before besieging the adjacent church and massacring by beheading everyone but the few who agreed to convert to Islam. A conference of the Great Powers convened in Berlin, where they demanded that the Ottoman Empire grant full equality to its Christian minority and allow some level of autonomy in Bosnia and Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire refused.
Eager to cement Russia’s role as the defender of the Eastern Orthodox church, Czar Nicholas I began planning for an invasion of the Ottoman Empire as soon as the uprisings began. On May 11th, 1870, amid the tension after the Berlin Ultimatum, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on the Ottoman Empire, sending in forces to aid the flagging rebellions. Though unable to secure the neutrality of Austria, Nicholas issued his own ultimatum to the Ottomans on June 3rd, threatening war if they did not accept the Berlin terms “without reservation.” This was refused, and the next day, the Russian Empire declared war on the Ottomans. Britain was left in a difficult situation by the outbreak of hostilities. Public opinion was very much against the Ottomans, but the idea of allowing Russia to impose its will on the Balkans was a threat to British geopolitical interests. The government, paralyzed by indecision, simply stood by, and resolved to intervene should Russia get too close to decisive victory. They needn’t have worried, however…”
-From THE GRAND CONSENSUS: EUROPE 1815-1898 by Rebecca Gardner, published 2001
“The Russian army was woefully underprepared for the war. While the Ottomans had undertaken military reforms that had resulted in a moderately modern army, the Russian army was still dependent on peasant levies. Initially, the Russians moved quickly and had occupied the Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia by the middle of June 1870. Under the protection of the Russian army, the United Principalities declared independence while Ottoman forces rushed to bombard Wallachian towns along the Danube. While the Russians could muster upwards of 300,000 soldiers in the Danube to the Ottomans’ 200,000, the Ottomans had near-total control over the Danube River, and their fleet posed a threat to the Russian Black Sea fleet. Worried that early Russian successes would embolden the festering conflict in Serbia and Bulgaria, Osman Nuri Pasha set out on the offensive. Backed by Ottoman gunboats and riverine mines, he crossed the Danube [6] on July 9th, moving north to face Grand Duke Nicholas’s army at Zimnicea. Despite initial Ottoman difficulties, a combination of the Grand Duke’s poor strategizing and the even worse quality of his troops meant that the Russians were forced to withdraw north, and the withdrawal was a disorderly affair. On July 27th, Osman Pasha attacked a combined Russo-Danubian force to the west, across the river from the Bulgarian town of Nikopol. The Russians were better prepared, but once again the more professional Ottoman forces won the battle [7].
The Caucasus front was, similarly to previous wars, given secondary priority. Fighting in the mountains, the Ottoman defenders enjoyed the advantage. Despite this, they were forced to retreat and defend the key city of Kars from a Russian siege. Aside from this, the Ottomans under Ahmed Muhtar Pasha held off the Russians, and there was little change in the front lines.
…the Russian advance ground to a halt, as decades of neglect and stagnation had left their army far behind the Ottomans both organizationally and technologically. Osman Pasha elected to besiege Bucharest starting on November 12th and delay the Russians there while his compatriots crushed the Bosnian revolts and brought Serbia to heel. The ill-equipped and poorly trained Serbian troops advanced south against a distracted enemy, but by September of 1870, the Ottoman counterattack was ready. General Suleyman Husnu Pasha retook the only major gain of the Serbs, the city of Pirot, and pushed the Serbian army to the brink of collapse. On March 17th, 1871, the last major Serbian army, commanded by Dura Horvatovic, was ruined by Suleyman Pasha’s army, and Serbian resistance was reduced to guerilla fighting that was harshly suppressed by the Ottoman forces. Belgrade fell on April 14th. The rebels in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina met similar fates during the campaigns of April.
On May 3rd, 1871, the city of Bucharest surrendered to Osman Pasha’s army, as the Russian army, weakened by several fruitless efforts to break the siege, withdrew north. Now, the nationalist spirit that had gripped the region was ebbing away amid the often-brutal Ottoman repression and the complete humiliation of the Russian army. With the Ottoman army poised to rampage through Wallachia and march into Russian Bessarabia, the ailing Czar Nicholas I sued for peace on May 19th. Serbia and Montenegro followed suit the next day. Seeking to ensure the balance of power was maintained, the British insisted that the peace be determined by an international conference of the Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire. Serbia and Montenegro were pointedly excluded.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Vienna, Russia agreed to withdraw from the sections of the Caucasus they had occupied. They were also forced to drop their claim of defender of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Serbia’s status as a dependency of the Ottomans was affirmed, and it was agreed Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina were territories of the Empire as well. The United Principalities was recognized as a “strictly neural” independent country, with the mouth of the Danube organized as a demilitarized zone. Russia ceded its section of the north bank of the Danube, a part of Bessarabia, to the United Principalities. The treaty was a great victory for the Ottoman Empire, but the rest of Europe had not forgotten the brutality that helped cause the war in the first place…”
-From THE TIDE OF NATIONALISM by Mary Brenneman, published 1999
“In the aftermath of the Russian defeat, waves of brutal reprisals visited death and worse crimes upon countless villages in Bosnia, Hercegovina, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Nearly 500,000 people were displaced by the massacres, rapes, and looting that scarred the pastoral hills of the region, while 30,000 Bulgarians and 15,000 Serbs were estimated killed [8]. Amid the ensuing refugee crisis, nearly 120,000 Serbs and Bulgarians fled to the Dalmatian coast of Austria, and from there, almost 50,000 emigrated to the United States between 1869 and 1874. About half of them arrived in New York City and dispersed through the countryside, but the other half settled in Richmond, Virginia. Initially, there was a great deal of suspicion among the citizens of Richmond. “Suddenly, there are distinctly foreign men and women walking about here,” one man complained in an open letter. Another wrote, “I understand they are fleeing a very unpleasant war in their home countries, but surely, we should not have to bear the burden of housing and employing them. Well, at least they aren’t Catholics.””
-From OUT OF MANY, ONE: IMMIGRATION IN AMERICA by Henry Carpenter, published 2014
[1] A bit simplistic as the rebels were Christians, but their primary grievance was the staggering tax burden they were saddled with.
[2] No Crimean War means the resentment builds and festers, and the rebels start stockpiling weapons earlier. They’re less well prepared than OTL, however.
[3] He led a revolt in 1858 OTL.
[4] Without the Crimean War, he doesn’t get sick, refuse treatment, and die.
[5] Like the Bosnian revolts, the Bulgarians start planning earlier but are less well prepared.
[6] OTL, the Ottomans adopted a defensive posture early on, allowing the Russians to sink an Ottoman gunboat and cross the Danube. TTL, the Ottomans are more vigilant.
[7] I’m glossing over most of the battles, but the Ottoman advance isn’t bloodless. They lose some battles, but the disparity between them and the Russians is greater than in the OTL war of 1876.
[8] Suffice to say that this is way worse than the massacres that precipitated Russian involvement.
Always find a bright side, I guess.
Looks like Virginia is going to remain a powerhouse state ITTL. Being a hub for immigrants and keeping OTL West Virginia is a big boost to both population and natural resources that will keep it economically dynamic. Judging by some of the modern day updates, its going to be funny when Virginia is like 'Hey we love Black people, as long as they aren't Catholic."
Now I'm picturing Virginia even letting in African-descended Muslims, Jews and even practicing indigenous beliefs and Vodun before letting in Catholics.
Well I don't know if Virginia will love black people, but I could see a progressive (for the time period) governor (William Mahone, anyone?) using them to minimize Catholic influence in politics.
You're dead on about Virginia, it'll be another of the major industrial states TTL. I read that one of the reasons West Virginia is so poor and depressing is because geography prevents there from being a city that's the city for trade the way NY has NYC or Illinois has Chicago. TTL, western Virginia is readily connected with Richmond and the eastern seaboard, allowing both more industry like the Tredegar factory in Richmond and more investment in the western coal counties. So both parts of the state benefit immensely.
Lol, it's always amazed me how the US had such virulent anti-Catholicism and such mild antisemitism compared to other countries. Not sure about Muslim immigrants, especially in the 1800s, but the Jews of Richmond will end up similar to Jewish immigrants in other US cities, with their own neighborhoods but semi-assimilated after a couple generations.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
even OTL, the last years of the Nicholas I reign, 1848-1855, were remembered as "the dark 7 years", the times of the harsh repressions and censure. But TTL there would be "the dark 20 years".....
Yeah, Russia does not have a very fun time. Fortunately, the humiliation of defeat will still kill Nicholas, so Russia's almost out of the darkness...
Will Alexander II be even *more* reformist after watching his dad get defenestrated even worse on the world stage?
Well, in 1861 ethnic map of the Balkans looks like this.
So, ITTL Black Sea coast could be save as Turkish, not Bulgarian.
I hadn't thought of that but yeah, I could see him want to build up domestic industry or something along with the massive army reforms that are all but guaranteed so Russia isn't pantsed like that again.
There's definitely going to be a lot of festering resentment and revanchism in the Balkans, which will have... effects on a certain conflict around the end of the century.
The Balkans were such a hodgepodge of ethnic enclaves at that point that I honestly am not sure what the borders will look like, but this is very helpful so thanks for sharing it.
The Ottomans will definitely keep much more of their European territory TTL, and most likely a sizeable chunk of the Bulgarian black sea coast.
34. Reformist Zeal
34. Reformist Zeal
“…the 1872 election seeming vastly more winnable than the previous one, the Whigs’ most prominent members contested the nomination. Abraham Lincoln, Jacob Cox, and James Blaine declared themselves to be candidates, setting up an evenly matched battle. Lincoln, though relatively moderate, was the most radical of the three. Having ascended to the Senate upon the resignation of then president-elect Stephen Douglas, Lincoln was a leading champion of railroad construction and was one of the more racially progressive members of the Senate [1]. In a speech he gave while campaigning for vice president in 1864, Lincoln declared “I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Yet he also worked on Wesley Norris’s legal team in 1863-1865, helping build the argument that Norris was a free man and also had standing to sue because, having been born in the US, he was a citizen. Charles Sumner and his radical allies endorsed Lincoln, viewing him as the radicals’ best chance to get an ally in the White House.
There was Governor Jacob Cox, a civil war hero who had served under McClellan and had helped turn the tide in the Battle of Ebenezerville. After the war ended, Cox returned home to Ohio and was elected Governor in 1866. In contrast to the more enlightened Lincoln [2], Cox was downright conservative on racial issues. He had supported the Western Territories Act but argued that further action was unnecessary. Cox believed that if the Whigs made major issues of abolition and civil rights for blacks, telling Speaker Sherman, “If you center yourself on that issue, you will be beaten.” Consequently, Cox was unpopular with the radicals, with even former president Seward privately calling him “a relic of the old days.” Instead, he was the darling of the moderate, pro-civil service reform section of the party that had gained strength after the Track Scandal. Cox relied on support from these reformists, the vestiges of the southern Whigs, and his friend Samuel Randall’s network of support in the eastern seaboard.
Cox’s friend James Blaine also entered the race. Blaine stood squarely between Lincoln and Cox. Having been a Senator since 1862 and a congressman before that, he had strong connections with other powerful Whigs. However, he lacked the same brand that his opponents had. While Blaine was a strong orator, Lincoln had been stumping for Whig candidates since the 1840s, and Cox leveraged his war hero status. Despite having built a powerful base of support within Pennsylvania, Blaine had failed to assemble the same networks that Lincoln and Cox had assembled over the years.
On the first ballot, Lincoln assumed a narrow lead as Cox and Blaine split the moderate delegates. His support was strongest in New England and the plains west, but aside from Illinois and Minnesota, he lacked strong support from midwestern delegates. Cox and Blaine both wanted to exploit this weakness, as both, being from midwestern manufacturing areas, stood a good chance of winning over these delegates. The two met after the inconclusive second ballot, but their meeting did not go well. Cox proposed that because he had more delegates, Blaine drop out and become Secretary of State. Blaine argued that because he had gained delegates and Cox had lost them, it should be the other way around. The two began to argue and left the meeting never to speak again. Reportedly, Cox told Blaine that he was “too friendly with the negro radicals,” while Blaine called Cox’s status as a war hero “wholly undeserved.”
The third ballot was marked by the sudden rift between the Cox and Blaine camps. A deal between the two had been seen as likely, but now Cox and Blaine had split while Lincoln neared the threshold for the nomination. This momentum was reversed on the fourth ballot when Cox secured the support of the Virginia and Indiana delegations, cutting into the support of both Lincoln and Blaine. The fifth and sixth ballots saw Cox gain, buoyed by an aggressive campaign by his surrogates that smeared Lincoln as too radical and unable to win an election. “This country is not ready for the drastic changes Mr. Lincoln proposes,” said one surrogate. “To nominate him would be to hand the Democrats the keys to the Presidential mansion for another four years.”
By the sixth ballot, Blaine’s fortunes had declined considerably. After receiving the endorsement of North Carolina governor Zebulon Vance, Cox had consolidated the south behind him, while Blaine’s declining momentum meant that several of his supporters in New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan defected to Cox. Meanwhile, Lincoln’s difficulty in winning over moderate and conservative delegates meant even some of his supporters were considering defecting to Cox. On the seventh ballot, after a concerted effort by the Cox campaign to peel off moderate Lincoln supporters, Jacob Cox won the nomination with 168 delegates. Lincoln was in second with 75, and future president Blaine a disappointing third place, 67 delegates. For vice president, the party nominated New York Governor Hamilton Fish, a prominent Lincoln supporter. The party platform had one significant addition from 1868: it called for “comprehensive” civil-service reform to reduce governmental corruption. Finally, the Whigs had found a new issue to focus on, and as the fall campaign developed, the decision to focus on civil service reform would be incredibly timely…”
-From THE EVOLUTION OF THE WHIGS by James Welter, published 1997
Feet of Clay said: Is there any way that James Blaine could have been elected President in 1872, eight years before his election IOTL? And would he be able to oversee the ratification of two constitutional amendments the way he did OTL?
AllBurkedUp said: The problem was that he just didn’t have enough of a support network at the convention. Maybe if he had spent more time rubbing elbows, he could have edged out Cox who was, quite frankly, a racist to such an extent that he made other moderates uneasy. Now, assuming Blaine had won, Congress almost certainly wouldn’t pass an abolition amendment, and if he pushes for it, it wouldn’t make him very popular with what passed for a moderate back then. I could see him having an even tougher time running for reelection than Cox did.
RadicalUnitarian said: I agree, Blaine wouldn’t have got much done. There just wasn’t enough support or momentum for abolition in 1872. Virginia hadn’t even elected William Mahone yet, much less passed the Manumission Act [3]. Much more interesting is the prospect of Abraham Lincoln being nominated, though I doubt he would be able to do much about slavery.
-From BLAINE IN ’72? on whatif.net, posted 2016
“Vice President Johnson had been widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination. However, after a series of disastrous public appearances in which he appeared drunk while giving rambling speeches [4], Johnson quietly abandoned his campaign efforts. He still held out hope of being nominated as a compromise candidate, and so kept the Tennessee delegation from backing anyone else. Meanwhile, a number of other candidates officially entered the race. Governor Thomas Hendricks, a mainstay of Indiana politics since the 1850s, was popular with many southern and conservative delegates. Thomas Bayard, Senator from Delaware, was another leading contender, despite being implicated in the Track Scandal.
The third frontrunner of the three was Congressman John Hoffman of New York, who had assembled an alliance of northern urban machines and wealthy businessmen. His connection to the seedy world of Tammany Hall politics had yet to be exposed, meaning he still had the image of a young fresh face in politics. The first ballot saw Hendricks take the lead, but the expected east-coast support instead rallied behind either Bayard or Hoffman. Successive ballots saw Hendricks duel with Bayard for second place while Hoffman slowly but surely consolidated support from the east and Midwest. After coming just 20 delegates away from the nomination on the fifth ballot, Hoffman offered a deal with Hendricks: Hendricks could select the vice-presidential nominee and could have his pick of cabinet posts. His chance of winning nearly gone, Hendricks accepted, and John Hoffman received the Democratic nomination on the next ballot.
…for vice president, Hendricks urged the nomination of Henry B. Payne, a Congressman from Ohio. Payne was nominated unanimously as the convention turned to the drafting of a platform. While the Whigs had put forth a comprehensive anti-corruption plank, the Democrats adopted a vaguer one condemning government corruption without proposing a law to crack down in it. Specific policy proposals involved restricting Asian immigration and reducing tariffs, neither of which were particularly exciting to voters outside of the south or the pacific coast. But if the Democrats wanted excitement, they would soon get it, as the trial of William Tweed began in mid-August…”
-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012
“Midway through the campaign, the Pennsylvanian Advocate broke a story that was both surprising and not surprising at all: Congressman Hoffman was a close associate to the arrested Grand Sachem of Tammany Hall, William Tweed. Boss Tweed, as he was known, was the powerful and corrupt head of the New York Democratic party, using his influence to manipulate elections and enrich himself off of kickbacks and fraudulent contracts. During his trial, it was revealed that Tweed had aided Hoffman in his political career, from his mayoral campaign to his election as Governor. While there was no evidence that Hoffman was involved in Tweed’s corrupt schemes, the guilt by association was enough in the eyes of the public. The Whigs immediately pounced, with campaign literature denouncing him as a pawn of Tammany Hall and warning that “a Hoffman presidency will mean Tweed pulling the strings and bribery in the halls of Congress.”
What had once been a close race widened considerably as the Whigs touted Cox’s reformist bona fides, pointing to the civil service reforms he had made to Ohio’s state government. The “swamps of Ohio” had been drained, and Cox would “send Hoffman back to the creatures of corruption he associates with,” proclaimed a Whig pamphlet. The Democrats condemned Tweed and insisted that he had had no bearing on Hoffman’s political career, but the connection was enough for many voters. President McClellan was furious, writing that “this election was eminently winnable, yet by selecting a man who shook hands with Tammany Hall, nothing more, I am fated to hand the keys to the Whigs. At least I have the consolation that, having commanded General Cox in the civil conflict, I can say without a doubt that he will be a capable and loyal public servant.”
Jacob Cox won by the largest margin of any Whig up to that point and was the first Whig to carry Delaware and Louisiana since Millard Fillmore in 1852. While abolitionists looked on in consternation, Cox performed well in the south, even coming within 5 percentage points of winning Missouri and Maryland. The Whig message of civil service reform had clearly resonated with voters, and Cox found that a large majority of both parties was more than willing to work with him on the issue. In the weeks after the 1872 presidential election, it seemed as though the divisions within the Whig party had finally been patched up. But, as the saying goes, winning is easy. Governing is the hard part [5] …”
-From THE END OF THE STATUS QUO: PRELUDE TO ABOLITION by Michelle Watts, published 2017
[1] A low bar to clear. And without a long, drawn-out civil war, Lincoln doesn’t have the same evolution on matters of race that he did OTL.
[2] Comparatively speaking, of course.
[3] Spoilers…
[4] The swing around the circle meets his inaugural “address”
[5] I have no idea if this is an actual expression.
“…the 1872 election seeming vastly more winnable than the previous one, the Whigs’ most prominent members contested the nomination. Abraham Lincoln, Jacob Cox, and James Blaine declared themselves to be candidates, setting up an evenly matched battle. Lincoln, though relatively moderate, was the most radical of the three. Having ascended to the Senate upon the resignation of then president-elect Stephen Douglas, Lincoln was a leading champion of railroad construction and was one of the more racially progressive members of the Senate [1]. In a speech he gave while campaigning for vice president in 1864, Lincoln declared “I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Yet he also worked on Wesley Norris’s legal team in 1863-1865, helping build the argument that Norris was a free man and also had standing to sue because, having been born in the US, he was a citizen. Charles Sumner and his radical allies endorsed Lincoln, viewing him as the radicals’ best chance to get an ally in the White House.
There was Governor Jacob Cox, a civil war hero who had served under McClellan and had helped turn the tide in the Battle of Ebenezerville. After the war ended, Cox returned home to Ohio and was elected Governor in 1866. In contrast to the more enlightened Lincoln [2], Cox was downright conservative on racial issues. He had supported the Western Territories Act but argued that further action was unnecessary. Cox believed that if the Whigs made major issues of abolition and civil rights for blacks, telling Speaker Sherman, “If you center yourself on that issue, you will be beaten.” Consequently, Cox was unpopular with the radicals, with even former president Seward privately calling him “a relic of the old days.” Instead, he was the darling of the moderate, pro-civil service reform section of the party that had gained strength after the Track Scandal. Cox relied on support from these reformists, the vestiges of the southern Whigs, and his friend Samuel Randall’s network of support in the eastern seaboard.
Cox’s friend James Blaine also entered the race. Blaine stood squarely between Lincoln and Cox. Having been a Senator since 1862 and a congressman before that, he had strong connections with other powerful Whigs. However, he lacked the same brand that his opponents had. While Blaine was a strong orator, Lincoln had been stumping for Whig candidates since the 1840s, and Cox leveraged his war hero status. Despite having built a powerful base of support within Pennsylvania, Blaine had failed to assemble the same networks that Lincoln and Cox had assembled over the years.
On the first ballot, Lincoln assumed a narrow lead as Cox and Blaine split the moderate delegates. His support was strongest in New England and the plains west, but aside from Illinois and Minnesota, he lacked strong support from midwestern delegates. Cox and Blaine both wanted to exploit this weakness, as both, being from midwestern manufacturing areas, stood a good chance of winning over these delegates. The two met after the inconclusive second ballot, but their meeting did not go well. Cox proposed that because he had more delegates, Blaine drop out and become Secretary of State. Blaine argued that because he had gained delegates and Cox had lost them, it should be the other way around. The two began to argue and left the meeting never to speak again. Reportedly, Cox told Blaine that he was “too friendly with the negro radicals,” while Blaine called Cox’s status as a war hero “wholly undeserved.”
The third ballot was marked by the sudden rift between the Cox and Blaine camps. A deal between the two had been seen as likely, but now Cox and Blaine had split while Lincoln neared the threshold for the nomination. This momentum was reversed on the fourth ballot when Cox secured the support of the Virginia and Indiana delegations, cutting into the support of both Lincoln and Blaine. The fifth and sixth ballots saw Cox gain, buoyed by an aggressive campaign by his surrogates that smeared Lincoln as too radical and unable to win an election. “This country is not ready for the drastic changes Mr. Lincoln proposes,” said one surrogate. “To nominate him would be to hand the Democrats the keys to the Presidential mansion for another four years.”
| Presidential vote | 1 | 2 | … | 7 | Vice-Presidential vote | 1 |
| J. Cox | 101 | 98 | 168 | |||
| A. Lincoln | 119 | 122 | 75 | |||
| J. Blaine | 76 | 83 | 67 | |||
| Other | 24 | 17 | 10 | Other | 29 |
By the sixth ballot, Blaine’s fortunes had declined considerably. After receiving the endorsement of North Carolina governor Zebulon Vance, Cox had consolidated the south behind him, while Blaine’s declining momentum meant that several of his supporters in New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan defected to Cox. Meanwhile, Lincoln’s difficulty in winning over moderate and conservative delegates meant even some of his supporters were considering defecting to Cox. On the seventh ballot, after a concerted effort by the Cox campaign to peel off moderate Lincoln supporters, Jacob Cox won the nomination with 168 delegates. Lincoln was in second with 75, and future president Blaine a disappointing third place, 67 delegates. For vice president, the party nominated New York Governor Hamilton Fish, a prominent Lincoln supporter. The party platform had one significant addition from 1868: it called for “comprehensive” civil-service reform to reduce governmental corruption. Finally, the Whigs had found a new issue to focus on, and as the fall campaign developed, the decision to focus on civil service reform would be incredibly timely…”
-From THE EVOLUTION OF THE WHIGS by James Welter, published 1997
Feet of Clay said: Is there any way that James Blaine could have been elected President in 1872, eight years before his election IOTL? And would he be able to oversee the ratification of two constitutional amendments the way he did OTL?
AllBurkedUp said: The problem was that he just didn’t have enough of a support network at the convention. Maybe if he had spent more time rubbing elbows, he could have edged out Cox who was, quite frankly, a racist to such an extent that he made other moderates uneasy. Now, assuming Blaine had won, Congress almost certainly wouldn’t pass an abolition amendment, and if he pushes for it, it wouldn’t make him very popular with what passed for a moderate back then. I could see him having an even tougher time running for reelection than Cox did.
RadicalUnitarian said: I agree, Blaine wouldn’t have got much done. There just wasn’t enough support or momentum for abolition in 1872. Virginia hadn’t even elected William Mahone yet, much less passed the Manumission Act [3]. Much more interesting is the prospect of Abraham Lincoln being nominated, though I doubt he would be able to do much about slavery.
-From BLAINE IN ’72? on whatif.net, posted 2016
“Vice President Johnson had been widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination. However, after a series of disastrous public appearances in which he appeared drunk while giving rambling speeches [4], Johnson quietly abandoned his campaign efforts. He still held out hope of being nominated as a compromise candidate, and so kept the Tennessee delegation from backing anyone else. Meanwhile, a number of other candidates officially entered the race. Governor Thomas Hendricks, a mainstay of Indiana politics since the 1850s, was popular with many southern and conservative delegates. Thomas Bayard, Senator from Delaware, was another leading contender, despite being implicated in the Track Scandal.
The third frontrunner of the three was Congressman John Hoffman of New York, who had assembled an alliance of northern urban machines and wealthy businessmen. His connection to the seedy world of Tammany Hall politics had yet to be exposed, meaning he still had the image of a young fresh face in politics. The first ballot saw Hendricks take the lead, but the expected east-coast support instead rallied behind either Bayard or Hoffman. Successive ballots saw Hendricks duel with Bayard for second place while Hoffman slowly but surely consolidated support from the east and Midwest. After coming just 20 delegates away from the nomination on the fifth ballot, Hoffman offered a deal with Hendricks: Hendricks could select the vice-presidential nominee and could have his pick of cabinet posts. His chance of winning nearly gone, Hendricks accepted, and John Hoffman received the Democratic nomination on the next ballot.
| Presidential vote | 1 | 2 | … | 7 | Vice-Presidential vote | 1 |
| J. Hoffman | 86 | 103 | 201 | Henry B. Payne | 317 | |
| T. Bayard | 94 | 95 | 93 | |||
| T. Hendricks | 115 | 101 | 11 | |||
| A. Johnson | 14 | 12 | 12 | |||
| Other | 11 | 9 | 3 | Other | 3 |
…for vice president, Hendricks urged the nomination of Henry B. Payne, a Congressman from Ohio. Payne was nominated unanimously as the convention turned to the drafting of a platform. While the Whigs had put forth a comprehensive anti-corruption plank, the Democrats adopted a vaguer one condemning government corruption without proposing a law to crack down in it. Specific policy proposals involved restricting Asian immigration and reducing tariffs, neither of which were particularly exciting to voters outside of the south or the pacific coast. But if the Democrats wanted excitement, they would soon get it, as the trial of William Tweed began in mid-August…”
-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012
“Midway through the campaign, the Pennsylvanian Advocate broke a story that was both surprising and not surprising at all: Congressman Hoffman was a close associate to the arrested Grand Sachem of Tammany Hall, William Tweed. Boss Tweed, as he was known, was the powerful and corrupt head of the New York Democratic party, using his influence to manipulate elections and enrich himself off of kickbacks and fraudulent contracts. During his trial, it was revealed that Tweed had aided Hoffman in his political career, from his mayoral campaign to his election as Governor. While there was no evidence that Hoffman was involved in Tweed’s corrupt schemes, the guilt by association was enough in the eyes of the public. The Whigs immediately pounced, with campaign literature denouncing him as a pawn of Tammany Hall and warning that “a Hoffman presidency will mean Tweed pulling the strings and bribery in the halls of Congress.”
What had once been a close race widened considerably as the Whigs touted Cox’s reformist bona fides, pointing to the civil service reforms he had made to Ohio’s state government. The “swamps of Ohio” had been drained, and Cox would “send Hoffman back to the creatures of corruption he associates with,” proclaimed a Whig pamphlet. The Democrats condemned Tweed and insisted that he had had no bearing on Hoffman’s political career, but the connection was enough for many voters. President McClellan was furious, writing that “this election was eminently winnable, yet by selecting a man who shook hands with Tammany Hall, nothing more, I am fated to hand the keys to the Whigs. At least I have the consolation that, having commanded General Cox in the civil conflict, I can say without a doubt that he will be a capable and loyal public servant.”
| Jacob Cox | John Hoffman | |
| Electoral Vote | 236 | 131 |
| Popular Vote | 3,017,761 | 2,641,683 |
| Percentage | 53.2 | 46.5 |
Jacob Cox won by the largest margin of any Whig up to that point and was the first Whig to carry Delaware and Louisiana since Millard Fillmore in 1852. While abolitionists looked on in consternation, Cox performed well in the south, even coming within 5 percentage points of winning Missouri and Maryland. The Whig message of civil service reform had clearly resonated with voters, and Cox found that a large majority of both parties was more than willing to work with him on the issue. In the weeks after the 1872 presidential election, it seemed as though the divisions within the Whig party had finally been patched up. But, as the saying goes, winning is easy. Governing is the hard part [5] …”
-From THE END OF THE STATUS QUO: PRELUDE TO ABOLITION by Michelle Watts, published 2017
[1] A low bar to clear. And without a long, drawn-out civil war, Lincoln doesn’t have the same evolution on matters of race that he did OTL.
[2] Comparatively speaking, of course.
[3] Spoilers…
[4] The swing around the circle meets his inaugural “address”
[5] I have no idea if this is an actual expression.
Last edited:
Johnson gonna Johnson and Tammany gonna Tammany. Looks like Virginia is going to be the first Southern state to end slavery while South Carolina will be the last. I'm curious to see which states will move with the times easily and which will have to be dragged kicking and screaming. The only hard guess I'll make is that Mississippi and Alabama will linger towards the end while North Carolina and Louisana will be more early adopters.
Can't say I know much about Jacob Cox, but at least from his Wikipedia page it seems like he'll be more diplomatic and fair towards Native Americans, which is a relief after McClellan's aggressive policy. I'm assuming he'll be a one-termer though, given Blaine is set to secure two terms, unless the Whigs somehow keep the White House for a full sixteen years. It's also interesting to see Lincoln in this post-Civil War context, and although there are plenty of other political figures around, I wonder what influence he may have within the Whig Party in the future. Maybe he'd get a cabinet position in the Blaine administration?
Last edited:
It seems no matter the parallel universe, John Hoffman and his magnificent moustache are undone by Boss Tweed’s shenanigans!
Mississippi will drag it out as long as possible (because its Mississippi). South Carolina will make it a point of pride to be the last state to free all the slaves, and that’s right around the time Ordinance Day becomes a major holiday.
Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri will be the first to end slavery, most likely in that order. Louisiana’s sugar plantations mean that they’ll drag their heels a little bit, though not as much as Mississippi or South Carolina.
Cox will pursue a more conciliatory policy, though still rooted in the same general paternalism that anchored indian policy.
He will be a one-term president, though I haven’t quite worked out who his successor will be. And Lincoln will definitely be in at least one President’s cabinet. He’ll become a sort of elder statesman and senate dealmaker.
Unfortunately the Magnificent Moustache loses much of its power once Tweed is invoked. Not to mention his Princess Leia hairdo.
Its a possibility, though I don’t remember ever seeing a Secretary of State Lincoln so I might do that instead. Or both.
I would probably swap out Virginia with Kentucky, or at least add Kentucky to this group. They were the border state of OTL so it seems to make sense that Kentucky would be among the first to end slavery. Then again, Virginia doesn't split here so taking into consideration that West Virginia is still part of Virginia it makes sense. I'd probably expect North Carolina and Tennessee round out the first half of the Southern states ending slavery ITTL.
Yeah there’s a reason I couldn’t justify a second term for Hoffman myself 😂 Tweed strikes again!
Theres also the fact that Virginia is much more industrialized TTL, so that helps the abolitionist cause. I would say North Carolina gets rid of it before Tennessee, and both of them get rid of it before the deep south does it. Kentucky might do it right before Virginia, so VA would be the 3rd state, after DE and KY.