The Story of a Party 2.0
- Thread starter Utgard96
- Start date
- Status
We Need a Map! I love how the CU ticket were both from counter-secessionist states. 
I would forsee either the Democratic or the Constitutional-Unionist party folding up into the other one by the 1872 Presidential election at the latest. For example, 1868 could see a D/CU fusion ticket for the presidential election. Heck, the two parties could merge into a new party... the Democratic Constitutional Union, or DCU to battle with the GOP (though I really hope the term GOP never comes into use). Or maybe the "Democratic Union Party" or some such. There are a number of possibilities.
One final note: although you imply that the Republicans hold the White House for quite a while, in OTL the House of Representatives was Democrat-majority for the great majority of years 1870 - 1900 even during the Grant, Hayes, Harrison, and McKinley administrations. I would suspect ITTL the Republicans may do better than OTL but like OTL never be all-powerful after 1868 or '72.
I would forsee either the Democratic or the Constitutional-Unionist party folding up into the other one by the 1872 Presidential election at the latest. For example, 1868 could see a D/CU fusion ticket for the presidential election. Heck, the two parties could merge into a new party... the Democratic Constitutional Union, or DCU to battle with the GOP (though I really hope the term GOP never comes into use
). Or maybe the "Democratic Union Party" or some such. There are a number of possibilities.One final note: although you imply that the Republicans hold the White House for quite a while, in OTL the House of Representatives was Democrat-majority for the great majority of years 1870 - 1900 even during the Grant, Hayes, Harrison, and McKinley administrations. I would suspect ITTL the Republicans may do better than OTL but like OTL never be all-powerful after 1868 or '72.
Indeed - although the spoiler effect usually does wonders to eliminate third parties, the Constitutional Union does have the support of some apostates of both the Democrats and Republicans, and so it's still floating on the shaky waters of FPTP; at least so far it is.
That's doubtless done in places, but freedmen getting land from ex-Confederate planters is more widespread, and since it caused so bitter racial conflict it gets more attention from TTL's history writers.
Ah, but then I haven't revealed what Seward's presidency will be like. I can say this much; for all his corruption, relatively, the South was blessed with Grant as President.
We Need a Map! I love how the CU ticket were both from counter-secessionist states.
What are you, a prescient oracle of some sort? Stop revealing my plans in advance!
Although, we must remember that the CU consists of former Whigs and some War Democrats, and their economic policy is still alien to the Establisher Democrats. A merger might be a bit trickier than you suggest.
Hm, I actually didn't know that. Indeed, the Republicans will be far from alone on the political scheme - in fact, given what I have in store for it, it might not even last until the present day.
Maybe. I suppose he could be Seward's Secretary of War, although I'm not sure whether he'd want to take up politics ITTL.
I'll admit to similar feelings about Grant, but maybe he could stay as Commanding General of the Army, that should at least get him a feel of politicking, given his position.
Guessing that Sumner may be in an important position, unless he is more useful in the senate/house.
Question: how many people from OTL Lincoln's cabinet were in Fremonts? That could be a good starting point.
Also. IMO, i think you need somemore pictures in your posts.
Well, since Grant isn't as much the "principal war hero who was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the Confederates", and since Halleck actually remained (and still remains) as the Commanding General, I think he would be superseded by either Sherman or McPherson.
Yeah, I think Sumner is more useful as a senator than he would be in the cabinet, at least under Fremont; Seward would probably not want him in his cabinet, as his administration is actively expansionist (oops…).
I'm not sure, but I don't think it'd be many. They're just completely different characters in their style of making appointments. Lincoln wanted to appease the entire party, and so offered cabinet posts to all of his former opponents in the National Convention. Fremont, on the other hand, I think would be more likely to use the cabinet appointments as his own personal patronage system, and so he would fill the posts with friends and noted radicals. I do think Chase would be in there, and so would Seward, and probably also Fessenden. But that's probably the end of it.
I'm not sure; it kind of conflicts against the whole DoD-esque style I'm aiming at. Besides, after a while I won't be able to use pictures from OTL, since things will be fundamentally different.
What happened with southern California? I don't remember reading about it being removed from the state as a territory. Though, it could be beneficial for the state in the long term...
I didn't write it, I'm sorry. Basically, what happened is that IOTL, the residents tried to become a separate territory in mid-1860, but what with the chaos of the election campaign, the bill was ignored. ITTL, Fremont accepts, for basically the same reasons as why Nevada became a state IOTL; he wants the support of the Californians, and although he'd prefer it admitted as a state, territorial status is fine because there will be more Republican states eventually.
\
/QUOTE]
South California.
Well, according to "Lost States True stories of Texlahoma, Transylvania, and other states that never made it" there was a push in 1859 led by Andres Pico to separate the southern half of California.
His proposal for the new state? Colorado.
Perhaps he was successful here, and Seward ok'ed the proposal.
Also, it's good to see Vandalia as a state.
I wonder what other states we will see emerging.
Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor
Last edited:
Emperor of Scandinavia said:
That's the case. Seward wasn't President in 1859, but that is indeed the proposal. The territory, and later the state, will be called Colorado.
Emperor of Scandinavia said:
It is basically West Virginia, only with a new label, and larger.
Emperor of Scandinavia said:
Well, you shall just have to wait and see.
Emperor of Scandinavia said:
Glad you enjoyed it (or, I presume you did). Might I ask, are you from up here?
So I'm guessing that Osage is an original creation, right? Also, I'd like to suggest that southern California be named Pacifica, or even just plain old South California......(yeah, the latter was used in DoD but that's not why I chose it.).....though I guess if your heart is really set on Colorado, then, to quote John Lennon, let it be.
So I'm guessing that Osage is an original creation, right? Also, I'd like to suggest that southern California be named Pacifica, or even just plain old South California......(yeah, the latter was used in DoD but that's not why I chose it.).....though I guess if your heart is really set on Colorado, then, to quote John Lennon, let it be.
Yeah, Osage is an original creation. It's true that wilcoxchar had a "Ozark State Government" in Union and Liberty, but that was a shadow government set up by the Confederates, and didn't last beyond war's end.
As for Colorado, it was Pico's suggested name, and since his proposal gets adopted, that's the name the new territory gets.
On a sidenote, I've decided to add titles to all of my chapters. I've also added quotes to those early updates that didn't have them. So, in summary, here are the beginnings of each of the First Thirteen chapters of SoaP, with titles and quotes:
***
Story of a Party - Chapter I
The Fall of the Old Order
"I think I am a Whig, but others say there are no Whigs."
- Abraham Lincoln
***
Story of a Party - Chapter II
The Seeds of Discord
"Henceforth, the watchword of every uncompromising abolitionist, of every friend of God and liberty, must be, in a religious as well as political sense - 'NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS' "
- William Lloyd Garrison
***
Story of a Party - Chapter III
The House Divides
"A thousand years may scare form a state. An hour may lay it in ruins."
- Lord Byron
***
Story of a Party - Chapter IV
The Dogs Let to Slip
"…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
- Abraham Lincoln
***
Story of a Party - Chapter V
Old Armies, New Battles
"Generals may win campaigns, but people win wars."
- Donald Porter
***
Story of a Party - Chapter VI
Down the Old Miss
"If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal, engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them."
- The Art of War, chapter III
***
Story of a Party - Chapter VII
Nullified Property
"I breathe, and lo! the chattel becomes a man."
- Frederick Douglass
***
Story of a Party - Chapter VIII
Our Flag is Still There
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
- William Tecumseh Sherman
***
Story of a Party - Chapter IX
L'Italia s'è Desta
"I offer neither pay, nor quarters, nor food; I offer only hunger, thirst, forced marches, battles and death. Let him who loves his country with his heart, and not merely with his lips, follow me."
- Giuseppe Garibaldi
***
Story of a Party - Chapter X
Virginia Delenda Est
"Stop quoting laws, we carry weapons!"
- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)
***
Story of a Party - Chapter XI
The Reunited States
"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations."
- The Art of War, chapter II
***
Story of a Party - Chapter XII
Amending Past Wrongs
"I wished that I were the owner of every southern slave, that I might cast off the shackles from their limbs, and witness the rapture which would excite them in the first dance of their freedom."
- Thaddeus Stevens
***
Story of a Party - Chapter XIII
The New Order
"Whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of it. For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct it incessantly."
- William Henry Seward
Last edited:
Here's an update. This one is a bit out of sync with the others; it begins in 1861, as Fremont emancipates the slaves and repeals the Fugitive Slave Law.
***
Story of a Party - Chapter XIV
Borderline Insanity
"What we wanted to do, the reason why we fought, was always to free the Negro. Fremont saw that already then, and I see that now. His freedom, not the mending of the Union, was always our ultimate goal, but then I did not see that. Sometimes I wonder how things would have gone if I had been President in Fremont's stead."
- Abraham Lincoln, in an interview for the Illinois State Journal, 1878
From "The Civil War" by Kenneth Burnside
University of Illinois Press, 1948
"The July Proclamations caused a backlash from the Southern states that had stayed within the Union, and who now feared that their slaves would escape into the North with no one to return them to their masters. The Democrats saw their position strengthened for one final time because of this, and the state governments of all slaveholding states in the Union but Delaware lodged formal protests against the Fugitive Proclamation with the federal government. As a result, Congress was basically coerced into passing a new Fugitive Slave Act, which imposed almost the old measures against runaway slaves from the border states, although all policemen were still forbidden from imprisoning any slaves fleeing the Confederacy (they could be imported, however). The complex nature of this law meant that many errors were made in its enforcement, and many police departments, especially in Tennessee and Kentucky, ignored the laws altogether, arresting any fleeing slaves, regardless of origin.
This caused outrage in the North, as most people there sympathised with, and in some cases even helped, runaway slaves, holding that under the Constitution, all men were equal, and that black men were also men. Northern politicians, especially Republicans, shared these sentiments, and the newspapers of the North loudly decried the "treasonous so-called policemen of the South, who obstruct, rather than uphold, our Union's Laws". The political battle eventually made its way into Congress, with wars of words over slavery almost as bitter as those that had taken place before secession. It was known that with their complete dominance in Congress, the Republicans could block any new laws from being passed. However, many Southerners were convinced that Northerners would sympathise with their cause, which might lead to a Democratic victory in the next election.
This, however, was not to be. The Republican congressional delegations included some of the most brilliant speakers in the nation - Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, among others - and although the Southern cause had the help of John Breckinridge and John Bell, among others, they were always verbally outgunned by the Northern Republicans, who were able to fairly easily decry slavery in a very credible way, using the example of the Confederacy to make all attempts to protect slavery seem treasonous and unpatriotic. Furthermore, the facts on the ground were against the Southerners. The Northern population quite simply lacked any sympathy for their cause, and it wasn't exactly made better when Southerners made lengthy defences of slavery in speeches and newspaper articles.
As a result of the long debate, Congress appointed a bicameral Committee on Rights of Personal Property (in layman's terms, on slavery) to oversee the matter. It delivered its report on September 19, and it stated that efforts at emancipation should be undertaken as soon as possible by all states, but that Congress had no power to coerce them into doing so."
***
From "A History of States' Rights in the United States" by Johannes Krieger
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991
"The state governments in the Border States reacted differently to the events of the summer of 1861. Maryland and Delaware, for their parts, had largely realised that giving up on slavery was a necessity for staying in the Union at the time. Their governments each signed Acts of Abolition before 1862 reached summer, and there was not much quibbles over this.
In Texas, which had always been a land of ranchers and small-time farmers for whom slavery was either unpractical or undesirable, abolition was also carried out fairly quickly, but opposition remained among the planters in the eastern parts of the state, who probably had more in common with the Deep Southerners than with the rest of their state, and now found themselves having to employ, rather than purchase, their work. However, most of the planters soon discovered that they could re-employ their old black slaves on a binding contract, and give payment in kind to them. This amounted, in principle, to slavery, as the workers were forced to work for their employers, and received no monetary payment [1]. The Kinding System, as it was called, earned condemnations from the federal government, which worked to prevent similar systems in the occupied South during Reconstruction, but in Texas it continued well into the twentieth century, since that state had not seceded and so was left to its own affairs after the war. The Civil Rights movement of the thirties [2], as well as the exposing depictions of their life by Thoroughgood Marshal [3] and other writers of the period, eventually led President Porter to take measures against it, and the system was finally and decisively outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1943.
Kentucky and Tennessee were the states which were most critical of, if not to say hostile to, the calls for abolition. Their state governments did not sign acts of abolition, and were the last to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment (save for Texas) when it came around. The planters resisted abolition, leading to violence as the blacks started trying to claim their legal right to leave whenever they wanted. In some cases, the Army was sent in to protect the freedmen, and the whites of all strata resented this preferential treatment, which led to additional racially-motivated violence between the groups. In short, these states were little different from the former Confederate states, only with a smaller army presence. Tennessee, indeed, came close to being put under Union occupation after a particularly bad series of riots in 1869, and was saved only by presidential veto, which the Republicans lacked the numbers necessary to overturn.
Eventually, just as in the South, the violence died down, and when it did, the whites were on top. Unlike much of the Deep South, where local politics were dominated by Establishers, these border states were heavily leaning toward the Constitutional Union politically. Tennessee, in particular, became a stronghold of the New South Creed [4], and the east of the state became something of a centre for industry in the South in the early 20th century."
***
[1] This system is based on the Swedish statare system, whereby workers received payment in kind and were forced to move about along with their employers, in what basically amounted to serfdom.
[2] Hint, hint.
[3] This is not the Thoroughgood Marshall (note the different spelling), later called Thurgood, who IOTL became the first African-American Associate Justice in the Supreme Court. This Thoroughgood Marshal was born in Missouri in 1894, and took interest in the lives of the kinders from early on. He wrote several books, novellas, and articles about them: among the most famous of them are "The Nephews of Uncle Tom" (1933) and "The Ice Men Cometh" (1935). He supported the Porter administration as it battled segregation and racial inequality, and later sharply criticised Sanders for playing on racist sentiment among white Southerners to win two consecutive elections. He retired from public life in 1955, and died peacefully in 1967.
[4] The New South Creed, basically, is the belief held by some Southerners after the Civil War that the old South, reliant as it was upon slavery and cotton exports, could never be equal to the industrialised North, and that the South should establish industry of its own; however, the 'unique Southern way of life' (that is to say, racial inequality) should be maintained in doing so.
***
Story of a Party - Chapter XIV
Borderline Insanity
"What we wanted to do, the reason why we fought, was always to free the Negro. Fremont saw that already then, and I see that now. His freedom, not the mending of the Union, was always our ultimate goal, but then I did not see that. Sometimes I wonder how things would have gone if I had been President in Fremont's stead."
- Abraham Lincoln, in an interview for the Illinois State Journal, 1878
From "The Civil War" by Kenneth Burnside
University of Illinois Press, 1948
"The July Proclamations caused a backlash from the Southern states that had stayed within the Union, and who now feared that their slaves would escape into the North with no one to return them to their masters. The Democrats saw their position strengthened for one final time because of this, and the state governments of all slaveholding states in the Union but Delaware lodged formal protests against the Fugitive Proclamation with the federal government. As a result, Congress was basically coerced into passing a new Fugitive Slave Act, which imposed almost the old measures against runaway slaves from the border states, although all policemen were still forbidden from imprisoning any slaves fleeing the Confederacy (they could be imported, however). The complex nature of this law meant that many errors were made in its enforcement, and many police departments, especially in Tennessee and Kentucky, ignored the laws altogether, arresting any fleeing slaves, regardless of origin.
This caused outrage in the North, as most people there sympathised with, and in some cases even helped, runaway slaves, holding that under the Constitution, all men were equal, and that black men were also men. Northern politicians, especially Republicans, shared these sentiments, and the newspapers of the North loudly decried the "treasonous so-called policemen of the South, who obstruct, rather than uphold, our Union's Laws". The political battle eventually made its way into Congress, with wars of words over slavery almost as bitter as those that had taken place before secession. It was known that with their complete dominance in Congress, the Republicans could block any new laws from being passed. However, many Southerners were convinced that Northerners would sympathise with their cause, which might lead to a Democratic victory in the next election.
This, however, was not to be. The Republican congressional delegations included some of the most brilliant speakers in the nation - Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, among others - and although the Southern cause had the help of John Breckinridge and John Bell, among others, they were always verbally outgunned by the Northern Republicans, who were able to fairly easily decry slavery in a very credible way, using the example of the Confederacy to make all attempts to protect slavery seem treasonous and unpatriotic. Furthermore, the facts on the ground were against the Southerners. The Northern population quite simply lacked any sympathy for their cause, and it wasn't exactly made better when Southerners made lengthy defences of slavery in speeches and newspaper articles.
As a result of the long debate, Congress appointed a bicameral Committee on Rights of Personal Property (in layman's terms, on slavery) to oversee the matter. It delivered its report on September 19, and it stated that efforts at emancipation should be undertaken as soon as possible by all states, but that Congress had no power to coerce them into doing so."
***
From "A History of States' Rights in the United States" by Johannes Krieger
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991
"The state governments in the Border States reacted differently to the events of the summer of 1861. Maryland and Delaware, for their parts, had largely realised that giving up on slavery was a necessity for staying in the Union at the time. Their governments each signed Acts of Abolition before 1862 reached summer, and there was not much quibbles over this.
In Texas, which had always been a land of ranchers and small-time farmers for whom slavery was either unpractical or undesirable, abolition was also carried out fairly quickly, but opposition remained among the planters in the eastern parts of the state, who probably had more in common with the Deep Southerners than with the rest of their state, and now found themselves having to employ, rather than purchase, their work. However, most of the planters soon discovered that they could re-employ their old black slaves on a binding contract, and give payment in kind to them. This amounted, in principle, to slavery, as the workers were forced to work for their employers, and received no monetary payment [1]. The Kinding System, as it was called, earned condemnations from the federal government, which worked to prevent similar systems in the occupied South during Reconstruction, but in Texas it continued well into the twentieth century, since that state had not seceded and so was left to its own affairs after the war. The Civil Rights movement of the thirties [2], as well as the exposing depictions of their life by Thoroughgood Marshal [3] and other writers of the period, eventually led President Porter to take measures against it, and the system was finally and decisively outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1943.
Kentucky and Tennessee were the states which were most critical of, if not to say hostile to, the calls for abolition. Their state governments did not sign acts of abolition, and were the last to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment (save for Texas) when it came around. The planters resisted abolition, leading to violence as the blacks started trying to claim their legal right to leave whenever they wanted. In some cases, the Army was sent in to protect the freedmen, and the whites of all strata resented this preferential treatment, which led to additional racially-motivated violence between the groups. In short, these states were little different from the former Confederate states, only with a smaller army presence. Tennessee, indeed, came close to being put under Union occupation after a particularly bad series of riots in 1869, and was saved only by presidential veto, which the Republicans lacked the numbers necessary to overturn.
Eventually, just as in the South, the violence died down, and when it did, the whites were on top. Unlike much of the Deep South, where local politics were dominated by Establishers, these border states were heavily leaning toward the Constitutional Union politically. Tennessee, in particular, became a stronghold of the New South Creed [4], and the east of the state became something of a centre for industry in the South in the early 20th century."
***
[1] This system is based on the Swedish statare system, whereby workers received payment in kind and were forced to move about along with their employers, in what basically amounted to serfdom.
[2] Hint, hint.
[3] This is not the Thoroughgood Marshall (note the different spelling), later called Thurgood, who IOTL became the first African-American Associate Justice in the Supreme Court. This Thoroughgood Marshal was born in Missouri in 1894, and took interest in the lives of the kinders from early on. He wrote several books, novellas, and articles about them: among the most famous of them are "The Nephews of Uncle Tom" (1933) and "The Ice Men Cometh" (1935). He supported the Porter administration as it battled segregation and racial inequality, and later sharply criticised Sanders for playing on racist sentiment among white Southerners to win two consecutive elections. He retired from public life in 1955, and died peacefully in 1967.
[4] The New South Creed, basically, is the belief held by some Southerners after the Civil War that the old South, reliant as it was upon slavery and cotton exports, could never be equal to the industrialised North, and that the South should establish industry of its own; however, the 'unique Southern way of life' (that is to say, racial inequality) should be maintained in doing so.
He tried, and failed, to get a new commission in the Confederate Army. After the Confederate surrender he was put in charge of a small railroad in Tennessee, which prospered under his direction, much thanks to his background as a civil engineer. He reconciliated with the federal government, and remained close friends with Lee and Sherman until their deaths, in 1884 and 1892, respectively. He died in his sleep in 1895, at the age of 88. In short, much like OTL. I'm actually thinking of doing a "Where Are They Now?" update later on, but that'll have to wait until the TL has progressed further. Maybe in 1885, maybe in 1900, maybe both.
As a sidenote, I've set up a wiki page for TTL.
AStanley
Banned
***
***
Thoughts?
What did you do to my state
Im questioning why the more Unionist part of the state, much less STL is somehow part of the CSA Missouri.
The congressman who represented STL said that STL should secede from Missouri if it were to join the CSA so it could stay in the Union, and the city was heavily garrisoned fairly quickly when talk of secession began, and all of its arms were quickly secured.
And on that topic whats up with California?
Last edited:
- Status