A Glorious Union or America: the New Sparta

Ok, my opinions:

Grant, really? Unless you changed your mind, I thought you said in answer to a query of mine that Grant was not going to be President. He is the "Hero of Three Wars" because he is a soldier. That said, if you have changed your mind. Can Grant be Governnor of Ohio?

That said: Hannibal Hamlin surprises me, figured his position would be usurped by Sumner or even Wade, consideing that all three of them a Radicals, and that was a reason that Hamilin was put on the ticket.

Joseph Holt is a placeholder. Its clear that its Kearney at the moment for President. That said, most likely he is the future Attorney-General or something. Or future Chief Justice....

Butler is a radical, but he is kinda an oddity of a radical to most radicals.

Hooker is Kearny's man. He won't usurp.

Can't say anything about Nelson. He is not in my field of knowledge.


A question though. No Fremont to try again? Guy is the ultimate gloryhound and man of destiny. He actually puts Hooker and Jeb Stuart to shame for his flair....

I picked them a little bit a random to see what people thought. Holt now has the air of a permanent fixture at cabinet. Butler is Wade-lite with an added air of spoils/corruption. Hamlin, the former gun toting VP, will be back in TTL. I cannot see Grant being political in TTL and I think you are right about Hooker (and indeed the rest of the army) waiting to see what Kearny does...

Was that how sharecropping started OTL? If so, man the government sucks at managing farmland.
Me sees a more violent Klan, or analogue, in the future of this Merill gets his way. The South is not going to take kindly to racial equality for a while. Coupled with Merill's more... radical sentiments and the Army being more likely to crack down on a Klan, it'd probably be more like the French Resistance than our Klan was. But if it gets them extirpated earlier and more thoroughly, I won't complain.

No sharecropping was organic, sprouting up among the former plantations. It was a killer though as far as the southern economy was concerned for all parties to the transaction.

As for equality it will be hard to fight in areas where the African American community are in the majority. Also, as my own experience in Northern Ireland will attest, you can shut the door on one kind of hatred but it doesn't go away. It does finds either a new outlet or a new target...
 
I could see antisemitism becoming "bigger" in the USA here than OTL, although it was open and out there OTL. On the other hand with proscriptions and involuntary and voluntary emigration by ex-Confederates as well as the death tolls, there is even more "space" for immigrants to fill for the growing USA. You might actually see more Jews ending up in the south than OTL - Jewish immigrants have no particular reason to be hostile to the black population of the south, and many have skills to replace displaced Confederates at many levels. Simply for geographic reasons you would still end up with a large Jewish population in New York, but Atlanta and New Orleans could both see much larger Jewish populations than OTL. Longer term, the Jewish populations in mid to smaller towns could be sustainable on a permanent basis, OTL these populations tended to move to urban areas as they became better educated and with social mobility as the structure in these places did not allow for upward mobility for Jews.

While white/northern preachers might push antisemitism, the reality is that most of the black population has no reason to look unfavorably on Jews, other than that they are white. The reality is that Jews in the antebellum south were generally not slave owners of large numbers, personal servants were more the norm for those who were slave owners. Contrary to some modern tropes, Jews were not particularly involved in the slave trade. Yes there were a few Jews who were involved, a few who might have owned numerous slaves but very much the exception...and yes I know all about Judah Benjamin.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The "Hebrew Church" concept?

I could see antisemitism becoming "bigger" in the USA here than OTL, although it was open and out there OTL. On the other hand with proscriptions and involuntary and voluntary emigration by ex-Confederates as well as the death tolls, there is even more "space" for immigrants to fill for the growing USA. You might actually see more Jews ending up in the south than OTL - Jewish immigrants have no particular reason to be hostile to the black population of the south, and many have skills to replace displaced Confederates at many levels. Simply for geographic reasons you would still end up with a large Jewish population in New York, but Atlanta and New Orleans could both see much larger Jewish populations than OTL. Longer term, the Jewish populations in mid to smaller towns could be sustainable on a permanent basis, OTL these populations tended to move to urban areas as they became better educated and with social mobility as the structure in these places did not allow for upward mobility for Jews.

While white/northern preachers might push antisemitism, the reality is that most of the black population has no reason to look unfavorably on Jews, other than that they are white. The reality is that Jews in the antebellum south were generally not slave owners of large numbers, personal servants were more the norm for those who were slave owners. Contrary to some modern tropes, Jews were not particularly involved in the slave trade. Yes there were a few Jews who were involved, a few who might have owned numerous slaves but very much the exception...and yes I know all about Judah Benjamin.

Judaism in the American South was always in an unusual position; the "Hebrew Church" types on the one side, the kind of mob violence that led to the lynching of Leo Frank on the other...

Best,
 
I can't see Christian agricultural communalists having much in common with urban socialists and communists. The former does not sound very revolutionary in the violent sense whereas the latter often was.
 
I can't see Christian agricultural communalists having much in common with urban socialists and communists. The former does not sound very revolutionary in the violent sense whereas the latter often was.

Well, Farm-Labor movements were a very real thing in the late 19th and early 20th century. Although there were always suspicions between the two groups (many landowning farmers were also 'bosses' after all to their field hands), efforts to bring them together exist as far back as, at least, the 1880s. In the 1890s, Eugene V. Debs was being floated as a possible candidate for President by the Populist Party and, after he eventually went on to help form the Socialist Party, the Socialists actually drew a great deal of support from Western and Southwestern farmers/ranches and rural miners in addition to your typical urban industrial worker. Even the IWW proved popular amongst many of the same sorts.

By point is, there was actually a fair amount of effort put into forming an alliance between these two groups in OTL (or, at least, similar groups in OTL) and I would see no reason why the same factors that lead to that wouldn't exist in the ATL.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
My favorite aspects were one that didn't necessarily deal with the battle of the Civil War as i mostly skimmed them. But the political situation as well as foreign affairs really drew me into this TL. I especially like trying to figure the order of the presidents after Lincoln. So far it seems that Kearney will almost certainly be be President after lincoln and might be a 2-termer.

The politics comes more naturally to me as well, but to my lights the war itself is the more impressive achievement, even if it would not normally be to my taste. It really does an excellent job at capturing and applying the personalities and practicalities of the war. To be honest, tracking cause and effect in this TL compared with our TL helped me understand the nature of pre-modern industrial war to a great degree.
 
Or not. Spent all Sunday at work. I need a personal assistant for AltHistory!!!

Will try to post something at some point this week. Otherwise it may be Bank Holiday Monday...
 
So read all of this over the past week; I'm really liking it but I kinda hope we get into the 20th Century at some point. I'm curious about race relations going forward; Radical Republicans have been championing racial equality pretty heavily, but I don't think a successful Reconstruction, by itself, will be enough to solve issues with conflicts between Anglo and African-American identities.

I also notice that there isn't any Carlotta Press publications after the '60s; something happen there in the 70s or so? :3 I could see, depending on how things go and how heavily America and European nations poke around in L. America, there being national revolutions there at some point that severely reduce Anglo autonomy.
 
Chapter One Hundred and Fifty One Eyes Raised To The Horizon
Chapter One Hundred and Fifty One

Eyes Raised To The Horizon

From “The Rivals – Lincoln and his Cabinet” by Amelia Doggett
Grosvenor 2008


"Seward was firmly in the conservative republican camp. There were still a few who believed he was the puppet master behind Lincoln’s presidency however they were but the embittered remnant of the many who had believed that at the outset of the war. Seward, still very close to the President at the outset of his second term, was a bulwark for the President’s own conservative republican views…"

From "Seward's Follies - A Re-examination of the policies of Secretary William Seward" by Dr. John Hobson
Harvard 2012


"It was noticeable from early 1866 that Seward was increasingly relegated to his foreign affairs brief. His conservatism was too strong and it was painfully clear that he had lost his formally sure touch for both the feelings of Congress and the public. Indeed his muted opposition to the renewed mandate for the Freedmen’s Bureau put him at odds with the President…

Congress frequently viewed Seward’s policy initiatives as a means of distracting the army from its on-going duty to ensure “the permanent pacification of the southern states” (Wade) and his proposed expenditure was often targeted by radicals who opposed his conservative domestic views, particular Secretary Chase (on the subject of Russian America as it then was) and William Fessenden (on the less controversial Caribbean Treaties)…"

From "The Mexican Adventure through American Eyes" by David Hofstedder
LUS 1996


"Mexico was like “a stone in my boot” Seward would observe. It was a constant irritation for a variety of reasons and one Seward could do little about. The military commitment to the garrisoning of the South combined with gradual demobilization meant that while Seward continued to make grand proclamations about the inviolability of the Monroe Doctrine he had not the tools to enforce it. The President too was lukewarm about taking action against either the French or the Imperials in Mexico at first because it served as a useful dumping ground for proscribed rebels. Later, when Napoleon III declared that French objectives had been met with the establishment of the Mexican Crown and the grant of key financial concessions, the drawing down of French troops from all of Mexico save the Tampico “trading and naval” concession largely removed the primary cause of American objections…

The position would have remained difficult for the American government were it not for the death of Benito Juarez, whom the US government had recognized as the legitimate president of Mexico. His death allowed the US government to increasingly turn a blind eye to Mexican domestic politics, particularly after Maximillian announced elections for a new Chamber of Deputies would take place in 1869. There was also of course the hugely distracting American military adventure much further afield which was infinitely more interesting to the American public…"

map_of_the_danish_west_indies_by_regicollis-d622g5z.png

From “The Rivals – Lincoln and his Cabinet” by Amelia Doggett
Grosvenor 2008


"Seward was an ardent expansionist, though many had been confused by his former opposition in the Senate to the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico as well as the half-hearted attempts to purchase Cuba. His opposition to those measures was based solely on his opposition to the expansion of slavery and not to any opposition to expansion of the nation itself…

Seward, along with Secretary Welles, had been of the view that the activities of the Union Navy, particularly in the Caribbean and Mid-Atlantic, had been hampered due to the lack of overseas naval bases. There was also a reasonable argument (in that at least Secretary Chase could see a financial benefit) in the potential purchase of overseas territory in the Caribbean…

On that basis Seward made overtures to the Danish government for the purchase of the Danish West Indies. Upon President Lincoln's recovery it was felt that Secretary Seward's absence for a time would lower tensions within cabinet. Seward availed himself of the opportunity, provided by Welles, to carry out something of an inspection tour of the Caribbean onboard a US naval warship...

Among his ports of call was the port of St. Thomas in the Danish West Indies. Here Seward could naught but notice the large, well appointed harbor. Another stop on his itinerary was at Samana Bay in the Dominican Republic. Here Seward did more than look. He opened formal talks with the Republic's government for some interest in the bay...

When Congress reconvened in December 1866 Seward, working surprisingly close with Thaddeus Stevens, sought an appropriation for more money to expedite the purchase of Samana. Seward's emissary for the task of concluding the negotiations he had begun was his son Frederick. The treaty negotiations with the Dominican Republic were a success only when young Seward negotiated a 199 year lease of the Bay rather than an outright purchase...

Finally the Senate, in the dying days of Lincoln's Second Term ratified the treaty with Denmark for the purchase of its Caribbean possessions. Seward's legacy in the Caribbean owed as much to Stevens' congressional legerdemain as to his own powers of persuasion..."

250px-1860-russian-america.jpg

From "Edwardia - The History of Canada's Last Province" by Colonel David Pole-Carew
Strathcona House Press 1981


"United States Secretary of State, William H. Seward, had been an enthusiast for the whaling trade as a senator. That interest had led him to an unusual knowledge of Russian America. He had as early as 1860 rather grandiosely predicted in a speech to the Republican Party convention that Russian America would one day fall into the hands of the United States. For a man alone in the American government when it came to such enthusiasms he was remarkably determined...

A sale of the Russian colony was rumoured as early as 1864. Seward was one of the first to hear of it and pressed the Russian ambassador to the United States, Baron Eduard de Stoeckl, to name a price. De Stoeckl indeed was advocating a sale even in 1866, fearing that the colony would inevitably fall into the hands of the Americans or the British at some point in the future without the need to remunerate the Tsar. De Stoeckl was indeed given limited discretion to open negotiations...

Upon de Stoeckl's return to the American capitol with this news Seward was overwhelmed with the prospect of achieving his dream. It is believed that Seward offered $5 million without official government sanction. This information quickly reached the press and caused an immediate rift within the cabinet. Several were concerned with the prospect of further substantial government expenditure at a time when Secretary of the Treasury Chase was vacillating on the greenback question and the economy in the southern United States remained stalled. This at a time when Congress had just approved the expenditure for the Samana Bay lease and Seward had responded by seeking a further allocation for the purchase of the Danish West Indies. The military expenditure in the Abyssinian campaign continued to spiral also..."

From “The Rivals – Lincoln and his Cabinet” by Amelia Doggett
Grosvenor 2008


"Chase would not countenance the expenditure under any circumstances. Seward argued the cost was negligible. The President was becoming increasingly frustrated that his cabinet meetings were becoming about an ice-bound barely inhabited Russian colony with no land border with the United States. In truth it was about the old rivalry between Chase and Seward that had flared up during the President's illness eighteen months prior and now seemed to consume both men in cabinet...

Chase was certain the final price the Russians would seek would be higher than the $5 million Seward had already offered, without either presidential or congressional authority. Chase gambled that at a time of economic uncertainty he held more power than Seward and offered the President his resignation. With barely a year left of his tenure in office President Lincoln accepted Chase's resignation. The irony was that Chase was correct. The Russian's sought a further $1.5 million for "immovable Russian government property" in the region and thus the President avoided making Russian Alaska an issue by refusing to support the purchase prior to the election. Seward's endeavors were thwarted and Chase's hopes to ride the crest of opposition to "Seward's folly" dashed..."
 
So, Canada gets Alaska! And we intervene in Ethiopia, which is always, of course, so friendly to outside armies.... And 200 years in Samana Bay! Looks like our Caribbean dickery begins even earlier...
 
Interesting! Certainly not what I was expecting on the foreign policy front, but with foreign imperialists stirring up trouble on the border and presenting a potential future problem the purchase of the lease at Samana Bay and the Danish West Indies seems like sound policy. The death of the Alaska purchase seems quite pragmatic in that light.

A Canadian Alaska is certainly going to cause some butterflies to say the least :biggrin:
 
Interesting. A surviving second Mexican Empire tends to be hard to justify, given the US strategic and political interest in the country- but I actually think you've pulled it off. I think you were clever to have the US never decide against intervention as such, just to delay until it was politically convenient... at which point intervention isn't worth the trouble anymore.
Circle well squared there.
 
Top