Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

Atun-Shei made a new video, starring a very interesting Radical whose OTL's lack of success in Reconstruction seemed to push him towards having the thing that would actually get him remembered in history was publishing the sort of insanity that would earn him an invitation on to Joe Rogan.


Think we can all agree that having fewer people who believe Atlantis is real or that Francis Bacon was secretly Shakespeare is in the top five of most important outcomes of this TL.
 
Atun-Shei made a new video, starring a very interesting Radical whose OTL's lack of success in Reconstruction seemed to push him towards having the thing that would actually get him remembered in history was publishing the sort of insanity that would earn him an invitation on to Joe Rogan.


Think we can all agree that having fewer people who believe Atlantis is real or that Francis Bacon was secretly Shakespeare is in the top five of most important outcomes of this TL.
@Red_Galiray is now legally obliged to make this guy POTUS. Sorry, I don't make the rules. /s

On a more serious note, he served as Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota IOTL, so it's plausible for him to become a senator or something.
 
I wonder if in the two or three years before the war ends, the some of farmers will get used to not having ironclad division of land rights, and ask to be allowed to own the estate collectively as a farming commune instead of breaking it up into smaller plots of land? Now that would have a unique impact on the cultural landscape of the south! Perhaps more sympthy to the ideals of socialism in the long run too? Imagine Marx hearing about freedmen spontaneously forming collective farms.,...

Would schools even be running while the war is still raging? I am skeptical that existing school systems would be desegregated on the fly while the war has yet to end, and entirely new schools would probably take a while to set up.

Also, given the mentions of both freedmen and white southern loyalists getting attacked by guerillas, I wonder if this creates some feeling of kinship, and perhaps impromptu segregated self-defense militias?

Anyways, hella awesome chapter looking forwards to hearing of what happens in Louisiana!
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. :) although if I feel led to do another of those mini stories... :) but some form of Music could be used to teach concepts.
 
Last edited:
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! :)
 
I just remembered something else, it was mentioned earlier that Longstreet would not be with the Confederates by the end of the war. I wonder if he sees the situation and realizes that the black people have capacity to govern, and realizes that he not only needs to get out in order to reclaim any privileges, he should get out in order to support this Reconstruction.

It will be interesting to see when he ditches the rebels. There is definitely ample reason for him to do so quickly.

Probably not till Richmond is threatened but I suspect that either suit before or after it is taken is when he will do so. There is much more Northern victory along the Mississippi, and the Eastern Front is the only thing which is even remotely successful for the rebels, and that only because they can claim that the union hasn't moved very far into Virginia.

I wonder if partners Lincoln is thinking that there could be a big defection. Does he or someone in his White House suspect that someone like Longstreet might be willing to come back to them?

This is a great update and it will be very interesting to see how things are put together.
 
Last edited:

tikitiki

Banned
Outside of the most conservative Northerners, there was an agreement that the power, land and even citizenship of the Confederate leaders would be permanently taken away.
Exile for confederates and copperheads? Brazil's confederado population might be a lot bigger... and hopefully theyll stay there!
 
Another great update! The seeds of Reconstruction have been sown and I'm eager to see its fruits!
Disillusioned, most returned North by late 1863.
Frankly speaking, good riddance. Those lessees were nothing but opportunists and the lessee system was hardly better than slavery.
The “home farm” system was first instituted by General John Eaton in the Mississippi Valley in early 1863. Instead of leasing the land to Northern factors or loyal planters, the abandoned, and later confiscated, plantations would be turned over to the freemen, who were free to work them as they saw fit.
African-American ownership of land is going to go a long way to achieve prosperity for the newly freedmen. With African-American ownership of land, I suspect that African-Americans will have greater bargaining power with their employers on wages for a long-time. That said, the crop failures of 1866-67 (owing to extreme weather conditions as well as the destruction of levees on the Mississippi, Red and Arkansas Rivers) does a lot of damage to the future of freedmen. On the other hand, the African-American preference to cultivate food over cotton might at least alleviate the near starvation conditions experienced by those in Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama during early Radical Reconstruction IOTL. (Maybe? It didn't really work out for the African-Americans in South Carolina.I'm optimistically assuming that the African-Americans have taken over enough land by the end of the war to at least restore food production to just slightly less than pre-war levels).
Nowhere was this more evident than in Louisiana, whose experience of Reconstruction would profoundly affect and even shape the President’s and the Congress’ intentions and perceptions regarding the future, and result in a struggle between them as they both tried to take charge.
Sounds ominous. I'm guessing that this relates to... very, very resilient prejudices in Louisiana's political leadership. IIRC the Radical Republican candidate finished behind a pro-slavery Unionist during an election for state officials. Given the increased radicalization of the North, I suspect that such news (if it happens) would not be received well. Or maybe some Confederates under Taylor and Cleburne raid Louisiana and cause disruption to the Reconstruction efforts? Either way, I'm interested to see what'll happen next.


I just remembered something else, it was mentioned earlier that Longstreet would not be with the Confederates by the end of the war. I wonder if he sees the situation and realizes that the black people have capacity to govern, and realizes that he not only needs to get out in order to reclaim any privileges, he should get out in order to support this Reconstruction.

It will be interesting to see when he ditches the rebels. There is definitely ample reason for him to do so quickly.

Probably not till Richmond is threatened but I suspect that either suit before or after it is taken is when he will do so. There is much more Northern victory along the Mississippi, and the Eastern Front is the only thing which is even remotely successful for the rebels, and that only because they can claim that the union hasn't moved very far into Virginia.

I wonder if partners Lincoln is thinking that there could be a big defection. Does he or someone in his White House suspect that someone like Longstreet might be willing to come back to them?
I would note that this goes against Longstreet's character. Longstreet was actually among the last officers in the Army of Northern Virginia to accept surrender. During the retreat to Appomattox Court House, Longstreet rebuked William Pendleton, the incompetent artillery commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, for asking Longstreet to approach Lee with the idea of surrendering to Grant. Longstreet said something to the likes of "He was there to back up Lee, and not pull him down." When Grant sent a courier urging surrender, Longstreet shook his head and said "not yet." Finally, before the discussion of surrender at the McLean house, Longstreet assured Lee that Grant would give fair terms, but if not "let us fight it out." Hence, I feel that Longstreet defecting would be highly uncharacteristic for a man with unquestionable loyalty and duty (mind you, he'll tell the truth if he thinks the other is wrong - see Longstreet at Gettysburg).

As for Longstreet's racial views, he's not exactly a racial egalitarian. He felt that as a "conquered people" it was wise for the South to accept the terms and conditions of Reconstruction. This included acceptance of freedmen's legal rights such as voting. However, there is evidence that Longstreet was also motivated by the opportunity to prevent any possible injury to white Southerners caused by black suffrage. Longstreet, like many fellows in his time, was convinced of the African's racial inferiority. In 1867, Longstreet writes:

Since the negro has been given the privilege of voting, it is all important that we should exercise such influence over that vote, as to prevent its being injurious to us, & we can only do that as Republicans. As there is no principle at issue now that should keep us from the Republican party, it seems to me that our duty to ourselves & to all our friends requires that our party South should seek an alliance with the Republican party.
Congress requires reconstruction upon the Republican basis. If the whites won't do this, the thing will be done by the blacks and we shall be set aside, if not expatriated. It then seems plain to me that we should do the work ourselves, & have it white instead of black & have our men in public office..

Still, that isn't to say that Longstreet doesn't deserve credit for espousing and actually fighting for freedmen's rights. He willingly led a bi-racial force of policemen and militia to counter anti-Reconstruction militias in Louisiana. However, I don't think that Longstreet would be motivated to betray the Confederacy out of sympathy to freedmen.
 
Another great update! The seeds of Reconstruction have been sown and I'm eager to see its fruits!

Frankly speaking, good riddance. Those lessees were nothing but opportunists and the lessee system was hardly better than slavery.

African-American ownership of land is going to go a long way to achieve prosperity for the newly freedmen. With African-American ownership of land, I suspect that African-Americans will have greater bargaining power with their employers on wages for a long-time. That said, the crop failures of 1866-67 (owing to extreme weather conditions as well as the destruction of levees on the Mississippi, Red and Arkansas Rivers) does a lot of damage to the future of freedmen. On the other hand, the African-American preference to cultivate food over cotton might at least alleviate the near starvation conditions experienced by those in Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama during early Radical Reconstruction IOTL. (Maybe? It didn't really work out for the African-Americans in South Carolina.I'm optimistically assuming that the African-Americans have taken over enough land by the end of the war to at least restore food production to just slightly less than pre-war levels).

Sounds ominous. I'm guessing that this relates to... very, very resilient prejudices in Louisiana's political leadership. IIRC the Radical Republican candidate finished behind a pro-slavery Unionist during an election for state officials. Given the increased radicalization of the North, I suspect that such news (if it happens) would not be received well. Or maybe some Confederates under Taylor and Cleburne raid Louisiana and cause disruption to the Reconstruction efforts? Either way, I'm interested to see what'll happen next.



I would note that this goes against Longstreet's character. Longstreet was actually among the last officers in the Army of Northern Virginia to accept surrender. During the retreat to Appomattox Court House, Longstreet rebuked William Pendleton, the incompetent artillery commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, for asking Longstreet to approach Lee with the idea of surrendering to Grant. Longstreet said something to the likes of "He was there to back up Lee, and not pull him down." When Grant sent a courier urging surrender, Longstreet shook his head and said "not yet." Finally, before the discussion of surrender at the McLean house, Longstreet assured Lee that Grant would give fair terms, but if not "let us fight it out." Hence, I feel that Longstreet defecting would be highly uncharacteristic for a man with unquestionable loyalty and duty (mind you, he'll tell the truth if he thinks the other is wrong - see Longstreet at Gettysburg).

As for Longstreet's racial views, he's not exactly a racial egalitarian. He felt that as a "conquered people" it was wise for the South to accept the terms and conditions of Reconstruction. This included acceptance of freedmen's legal rights such as voting. However, there is evidence that Longstreet was also motivated by the opportunity to prevent any possible injury to white Southerners caused by black suffrage. Longstreet, like many fellows in his time, was convinced of the African's racial inferiority. In 1867, Longstreet writes:

Since the negro has been given the privilege of voting, it is all important that we should exercise such influence over that vote, as to prevent its being injurious to us, & we can only do that as Republicans. As there is no principle at issue now that should keep us from the Republican party, it seems to me that our duty to ourselves & to all our friends requires that our party South should seek an alliance with the Republican party.
Congress requires reconstruction upon the Republican basis. If the whites won't do this, the thing will be done by the blacks and we shall be set aside, if not expatriated. It then seems plain to me that we should do the work ourselves, & have it white instead of black & have our men in public office..

Still, that isn't to say that Longstreet doesn't deserve credit for espousing and actually fighting for freedmen's rights. He willingly led a bi-racial force of policemen and militia to counter anti-Reconstruction militias in Louisiana. However, I don't think that Longstreet would be motivated to betray the Confederacy out of sympathy to freedmen.

Longstreet wasn't really progressive.

He was like a lot of conservative people who begrudgingly acknoweldge the world was changing, and he had to go along with it.

Sounds ominous. I'm guessing that this relates to... very, very resilient prejudices in Louisiana's political leadership. IIRC the Radical Republican candidate finished behind a pro-slavery Unionist during an election for state officials. Given the increased radicalization of the North, I suspect that such news (if it happens) would not be received well. Or maybe some Confederates under Taylor and Cleburne raid Louisiana and cause disruption to the Reconstruction efforts? Either way, I'm interested to see what'll happen next.

I think the main factor is the large free population of color that existed in Louisiana as a legacy of French rule.

One of them, P.B.S Pinchback, actually got to serve as governor for a shirt time, making him the first black descended governor, ahead of Douglas Wilder.

It would be a creole man who would cause the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, since that man would find himself facing legal discrimination despite being only 1/8th black.
 
Longstreet wasn't really progressive.

He was like a lot of conservative people who begrudgingly acknoweldge the world was changing, and he had to go along with it.
To Longstreet's credit, most of his fellow Southerners sure didn't.

I think the main factor is the large free population of color that existed in Louisiana as a legacy of French rule.

One of them, P.B.S Pinchback, actually got to serve as governor for a shirt time, making him the first black descended governor, ahead of Douglas Wilder.

It would be a creole man who would cause the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, since that man would find himself facing legal discrimination despite being only 1/8th black.
That's actually something I hadn't considered. ITTL Suffrage has become extended to African-Americans “on the basis of military service and intelligence”. Historically, Louisiana provided 24,502 USCT troops, among them P. B. S. Pinchback. Pinchback was a captain in Butler's USCT regiments, but he resigned at some point. With this limited suffrage, those with the privilege to vote might be inclined to have a louder voice to extend suffrage for their communities. Furthermore, Banks, who found black suffrage distasteful, isn't here. Burnside is and I doubt that Burnside would be inclined to get involved with the politics of Reconstruction.

So now the USCT vote definitely goes to the Radical Republican candidates during the state officials election. However, many of the Unionist Louisiana leadership were very conservative, to the point that a few members defended slavery. If given the chance, many white Louisianans would fight to prevent black suffrage. In 1867, several policemen and firefighters attempted to massacre a convention of Radical Republicans and their black supporters. 3 white Radical Republicans and 34 African-Americans were killed while 100 more were injured. Given the acceleration of black suffrage, the local Unionists might attempt a Month of Blood 2.0 while Union troops are busy on a campaign. It was also noted that the New Orleans riot in 1866 had a large role in discrediting Andrew Johnson's Presidential Reconstruction IOTL and maybe it'll have the same effect on the plan of moderate Republicans.
 
That's actually something I hadn't considered. ITTL Suffrage has become extended to African-Americans “on the basis of military service and intelligence”. Historically, Louisiana provided 24,502 USCT troops, among them P. B. S. Pinchback. Pinchback was a captain in Butler's USCT regiments, but he resigned at some point. With this limited suffrage, those with the privilege to vote might be inclined to have a louder voice to extend suffrage for their communities. Furthermore, Banks, who found black suffrage distasteful, isn't here. Burnside is and I doubt that Burnside would be inclined to get involved with the politics of Reconstruction.

So now the USCT vote definitely goes to the Radical Republican candidates during the state officials election. However, many of the Unionist Louisiana leadership were very conservative, to the point that a few members defended slavery. If given the chance, many white Louisianans would fight to prevent black suffrage. In 1867, several policemen and firefighters attempted to massacre a convention of Radical Republicans and their black supporters. 3 white Radical Republicans and 34 African-Americans were killed while 100 more were injured. Given the acceleration of black suffrage, the local Unionists might attempt a Month of Blood 2.0 while Union troops are busy on a campaign. It was also noted that the New Orleans riot in 1866 had a large role in discrediting Andrew Johnson's Presidential Reconstruction IOTL and maybe it'll have the same effect on the plan of moderate Republicans.

TTL, there is definitely less sympathy for the South, so it is unlikely Unionists will be any more inclined to give into Southern sensibilities.

Louisiana's creoles stand a pretty good chance of becoming a strong political class in a Reconstructionist South.
 
TTL, there is definitely less sympathy for the South, so it is unlikely Unionists will be any more inclined to give into Southern sensibilities.

Louisiana's creoles stand a pretty good chance of becoming a strong political class in a Reconstructionist South.

Which is actually a fascinating concept in and of itself. I've long toyed with a timeline where this happens earlier (the long and short of it is LaFayette becomes governor of Louisiana and pushes through gradual emancipation in the aftermath of a *German Coast Uprising) and you end up with French-speaking, largely Catholic, Lousiana creols becoming an upwardly mobile and prestige community amongst the US' African American community, but oh my god, do I need to do so much more research before I even attempt it.

But yet, is Lousiana Creole culture becomes influential amongst the Freedmen as a result of them becoming politically and socially mobile in the South (and they have the far strongest base to do this) its going to have a large influence amongst the US' African-American society. And that's too cool of an idea not to explore!
 
Also now this is The Second American revolution and that was confiscated and collective land was given out I wonder this effects socialist debate and thought. Becasue the revolution is coming through the state not the people
 
Which is actually a fascinating concept in and of itself. I've long toyed with a timeline where this happens earlier (the long and short of it is LaFayette becomes governor of Louisiana and pushes through gradual emancipation in the aftermath of a *German Coast Uprising) and you end up with French-speaking, largely Catholic, Lousiana creols becoming an upwardly mobile and prestige community amongst the US' African American community, but oh my god, do I need to do so much more research before I even attempt it.

But yet, is Lousiana Creole culture becomes influential amongst the Freedmen as a result of them becoming politically and socially mobile in the South (and they have the far strongest base to do this) its going to have a large influence amongst the US' African-American society. And that's too cool of an idea not to explore!

Well, remember that French attitudes toward race have always been really, really bizarre.

One of the most fascinating things I've read is that the leader of Free French Africa in World War II, Felix Eboue, was a Guyanese man. Or that Alexandre Dumas' father was a free man of color who became a prominent Revolutionary French general.

Officially, French society rejects racial classification, but still has a good deal of institutional prejudice and snobbery toward non-French culture.

So in Louisiana, you had a large population of mixed-race plantation owners, which only grew when some of them fled Haiti after the slave revolt. The children of slave-owners and their slaves could often gain freedom, and slaves in Louisiana had rights others didn't, even after Louisiana became an American territory.

Jazz music, as we know it, is a product of the ability of slaves and Europeans to intermingle with one another.

PGT Bureaugard, an ex-Confederate General born on a Louisiana creole planation, had been allowed to play with blacks a a child, and thus spent his post military life advocating for black civil rights.


So yeah, it would be interesting to see Creole society not only avoid social oblivion, but manage to achieve a measure of economic and political power.
 
Im reminded of a part of kropotkin's "Are we good enough"

"Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery. When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all, and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said, and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip, ‘Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’

Well, for some time the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed – and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much trouble now"
 
Im reminded of a part of kropotkin's "Are we good enough"

"Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery. When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all, and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said, and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip, ‘Nonsense, my friend,’ they were told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’

Well, for some time the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed – and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much trouble now"

It's really astonishing that the idea that giving workers a decent wage and some say in how the company operates will make them more productive took so long to be so apparent.
 
It's still kind of an issue today actually.

It's always been an issue.

I mean, it's hilarious to read that the some of the convicts who were sent to Australia on the First Fleet were guily of stealing...napkins!

The American Drug War just feels like the most idiotic example of moral panic, since it only makes junkies want to do drugs more by making them more miserable.
 
Wow that was an amazing chapter.

With former slaves having property African-Americans should have greater economic power than IOTL. This will give former slaves wealth to start out and let them make a stake in society which will allow them to start businesses earlier and not live in constant poverty due to Jim Crow. In turn the South may be more wealthy due to blacks having more purchasing power, thus stimulating the economy. So far the future is looking bright in the US once the war is over.


Also now this is The Second American revolution and that was confiscated and collective land was given out I wonder this effects socialist debate and thought. Becasue the revolution is coming through the state not the people

Socialists ITTL would probably (assuming a successful reconstruction) see the state as a vessel for Revolution. The state they’ll see IMO as a mean to institute workers owning the means of production and a protector of civil rights. They could point to a successful reconstruction as an example of what happens when the people run the government. They’ll probably argue the Revolution “was by the people running the state” as the Republicans were re-elected on this platform ITTL and “we need another reconstruction against capitalism.” Or that’s my thought on what the socialist debate could look like.
 
Socialists ITTL would probably (assuming a successful reconstruction) see the state as a vessel for Revolution. The state they’ll see IMO as a mean to institute workers owning the means of production and a protector of civil rights. They could point to a successful reconstruction as an example of what happens when the people run the government. They’ll probably argue the Revolution “was by the people running the state” as the Republicans were re-elected on this platform ITTL and “we need another reconstruction against capitalism.” Or that’s my thought on what the socialist debate could look like.
It will be interesting once/if the Gilded Age happens here as the North dives into extreme capitalism but the South maintains a more restrained and people-focused approach. Could help blunt how bad it got OTL if there’s an example of how things can be better (wishful thinking at least).
 
Top