Nice to see that Custer's being as humble as ever.
I do enjoy the way TKI changes tone depending on the writer. I like to get the different perspectives on the same event. I hope we see more of Hooker's biographer. He was a biased as hell!
A Glorious Union or America: the New Sparta
- Thread starter TheKnightIrish
- Start date
I do enjoy the way TKI changes tone depending on the writer. I like to get the different perspectives on the same event. I hope we see more of Hooker's biographer. He was a biased as hell!
That seems plausible. Especially if the US becomes Japan's surrogate older brother, helping it into modernity, instead of a 'rapacious' European power. A French holding is classic Imperial overstretch. Plausible but only temporarily until a regional power or better placed major power licks them out.
In the event of an alliance between Tokyo and Washington it's important to remember that Japan doesn't have to 'forgive' them for Commodore Perry. Realpolitik overrides everything else and if the Americans are willing to help kickstart modernization efforts in the country then it behooves the imperial government to try and do it on their own terms before the Americans get their own taste for empire and try nibbling away at the Home Islands. Forgiving, though not forgetting, is a hell of a lot easier when one considers the alternatives in a time period like this.
On the other hand, perhaps if the Taiping are victorious and overthrow the Qing dynasty then the Americans will be more inclined to help out a Christian neighbor in what seems to be a sea of heathenry (we'll ignore how kooky Hong Xiuquan was for a moment). We've got shades of that now with the conflict between the UK, US, and Ethiopia, after all, and TKI has stated that clergymen are going to pose big problems for the US in this TL's future...
France and the British had more importance in this IOTL, well into the Boshin War. The Shogunate forces were mostly armed and trained with French help, and their Imperial opponents by the British, though that proxy fight wasn't really one. Thereafter, both France and the British contributed to the birth of modern Japanese navy in the 1880s; on the army side, the model was Prussian however. in all of this, American influence was minor if ever there was help.
That's not going to change so early; even with a different civil war, butterflies have not reached a point where the US would have enough outreach in Japan. France and the UK would always come first before the US in that regard.
The only serious opening I see is about the army modernization. If Prussians don't live up to their reputation with less successful wars in Europe ITTL, the somewhat more martial TTL US could be more tempting as a model.
That's not going to change so early; even with a different civil war, butterflies have not reached a point where the US would have enough outreach in Japan. France and the UK would always come first before the US in that regard.
The only serious opening I see is about the army modernization. If Prussians don't live up to their reputation with less successful wars in Europe ITTL, the somewhat more martial TTL US could be more tempting as a model.
Bump
This is my favourite AH on this site, have enjoyed it so much that I have actually read it from start to finish twice!
When is the next update, if I may be so bold as to ask?
This is my favourite AH on this site, have enjoyed it so much that I have actually read it from start to finish twice!
When is the next update, if I may be so bold as to ask?
Chapter One Hundred and Fifty Five A Nation United in Foolishness
Chapter One Hundred and Fifty Five
A Nation United in Foolishness
A Nation United in Foolishness
From “America in Abyssinia – a reassessment” by Dr. Luther K. Price
Buffalo 1991
“Had Russell’s diplomatic cable, communicated directly to Secretary Seward by Lord Lyons, been the only notification of British intentions in Abyssinia then perhaps the involvement of the United States would never have advanced beyond purely moral support. However preparations for the expedition were widely reported in the press and privately detailed to a number of leading Americans by their British correspondents, among them Philip Kearny and John Watts de Peyster…
Earlier historians of this period of ‘American Adventurism’ put the pressure brought to bear by the army at the feet of General Kearny. It is much more likely that it was de Peyster influencing Kearny to support his policy, for that is what the Abyssinia Expedition represented – the earliest expression of de Peyster’s ‘Military Policy’. The expedition could be used as a solution to certain domestic embarrassments while increasing the influence of the United States on a global stage...”
"The Reconstruction Era" by Michael Baylor
Grosvenor 2006
“The Nation had, at the prompting of Reverend Crummell, taken up the cause of Hezekiah H. Hunter. That his predicament would gain the attention of the old abolitionist and new negro press was not surprising. What changed the nature of the story was what happened when the national press began reporting on Hunter…
The Nation, successor of William Lloyd Garrison's "The Liberator".
John J. Peck, Oliver O. Howard and Isaac P. Rodman were at the forefront of calls for action to ensure the safe release of Hunter, a veteran of Peck’s Fighting Lambs. Peck tapped into a great seam of national guilt when he wrote “the nation has allowed one Hunter to be martyred for our sins. Let not another be martyred because of our neglect” (a letter from Peck to Frederick Douglass published in part first in The Nation). He of course referred to the national hero General David Hunter, executed during the Civil War by Confederates because of his support for emancipation and the arming of former slaves…
Yet it was not the Republican press that lobbied hardest for military action. To the continued surprise of many it was the Democratic press who rattled their sabres hardest. Scores of headlines and editorials declared Theodore’s actions an insult to national prestige. “The petty despot of Abyssinia needs to be taught the consequences of thumbing his nose at the American people” thundered Wilbur F. Storey of the Chicago Times “just as the Barbary Pirates were in the time of our fathers”…
Wilbur F. Storey of the Chicago Times and perennial opponent of President Lincoln
The louder the Democratic press cried insult, the deeper they buried their former equivocation on American patriotism. Many considered it a cheap remedy to the national suspicion of Democratic loyalty. “It is not as though Lincoln and Seward will waste one cent to recover a negro preacher from the bowels of Africa” as Marcus Pomeroy of the La Crosse Democrat privately noted to a friend. For those more optimistic that action might be taken "every soldier not in the South is one fewer soldier I have to fear" as John Chilton of Savannah Gazette observed when commenting on the constant fear many southerners had of denunciation, followed by de-naturalisation or expatriation. The cries from the Democratic press were so loud John Sedgwick observed "every spinner in Virginia is in favor of the army punishing the one negro they can all publicly hate, Theodore of Abyssinia"..."
From "Seward's Follies - A Re-examination of the policies of Secretary William Seward" by Dr. John Hobson
Harvard 2012
“In the face of pressure from left and right Seward found himself helpless. It was not as though there was an Abyssinian ambassador or consul with whom he could lodge a protest or open negotiations. Britain, with all its interests and experience in the region, itself had no diplomatic options. “What prey do you scribblers expect the government to do?” (Seward to his friend, retired newspaper editor Thurlow Weed)...”
From “The Rivals – Lincoln and his Cabinet” by Amelia Doggett
Grosvenor 2008
“The future policies of John Watts de Peyster ought not to be a subject of this work except that in the final years of the Lincoln administration they were already bleeding into the national debate. Kearny’s memorandum to Lincoln and Stanton on “the consideration of a military contribution to the British Expedition currently planned for Abyssinia” was neither solicited nor initially welcomed. Yet in it were the seeds of its success. The proposition that General Winfield Scott Hancock command any expedition would remove a potential political embarrassment from North Carolina (and Democratic speculation about his potential presidential candidacy) while placing one of the nation’s finest soldiers in a role well suited to his abilities. It had de Peyster’s fingerprints and indeed he was fervently in favour of the military/diplomatic adventure and said so loudly and often within his New York circle (at least according to the memoirs of his friend Robert B. Roosevelt, then National Unionist candidate for congress)…
John Watts de Peyster
A critical figure in the development of US foreign and military policy in the second half of the 19th Century
With pressure from both flanks of the press and Congress, Lincoln began to discuss military action in cabinet seriously. Stanton was pessimistic. Troops, he said, were badly needed to police the South, Indian Country, and the Mexican border. The army did still have ample stocks of war material but he was seriously concerned about the War Office’s ability to supply any troops in Abyssinia. Welles thought the whole concept a “colossal waste of time and money...surely Teddy (as a large portion of the American press had taken to calling Emperor Theodore) would kill all his captives at the first hint of an invasion”. He could easily ship a few thousand troops as far as Alexandria or the Sinai, but private means would have to be found to get them to Annesly Bay via the Red Sea. On the subject of supply he was clear – American agents would have to compete with the British ‘in theatre’ to secure supplies of food and forage where necessary. Seward, barely taking the discussion seriously (at least as far as Holt later observed), believed American consuls in Egypt and India could be trusted to act as agents to secure such supplies as were necessary if the funds were supplied.
Vice President Joseph Holt
Unlike Hannibal Hamblin before him, he regularly attended cabinet
McCullough was horrified that the discussion was even taking place. Though only in office a few weeks at this point he had inherited Chase’s pessimism about the state of the nation’s finances if caution and restraint were not exercised. No one, not even Kearny, seemed able to estimate the likely cost of such an expedition and no one had any idea of the cost of the basic supplies any force would need to secure whether in Egypt, Arabia or India. Holt thought McCulloch need not worry as disease would kill most soldiers in a few weeks and the rest would disappear in the African wilderness never to be heard from again. That said, Holt declared that any such expedition would be, at least initially, hugely popular and unusually placate both Radicals and Democrats…
“Gentlemen,” Lincoln observed “the Radicals want it; the Democrats want it; the Freedmen want it; the Press want it; the Army wants it; and the nation’s clergy want it. Can I, can any government, afford to disappoint so many people?”
“Well if it succeeds it will unite the country” observed Seward “and if it fails it will likely be someone else’s problem by then”…
Thus Seward was authorised to open discussions with the British Government, via Lord Lyons, to discuss the dispatch of a small force, no more than brigade strength, to support the proposed campaign in Abyssinia. Seward had however secured from the President permission to impose a number of preconditions to American involvement. Specifically any nation involved (France had not yet demurred) would not seek territorial concessions from the Abyssinian peoples nor would any financial indemnity be imposed unless the prisoners were killed. As far as Seward was concerned it was still by no means clear that a force would be sent, yet he had not realised that the wheels had inexorably been set in motion...”
Little did the British minister to the United States, Lord Lyons, expect to receive a positive, albeit conditional, response to the invitation to join any Abyssinian military expedition
Last edited:
Imminently!
After all that damn work it was adjourned until February! The trial that is, not the dating.
Those sneaky Dems!
Glad to see an update especially one that has Roosevelts (even tangentially).
De Peyster looks like he's going to be a critical figure.
So who is going with Hancock and how do the English react? Will Napier have command of Hancock? I must check who has seniority. The Americans will have to be a burden on British goodwill as far as supplies go.
Also I appreciate the Barbary Wars reference. America has form for disciplining Africa rulers albeit this is a much more ambitious undertaking. It is interesting that with The cabinet largely against it, with Seward indifferent, Kearny and others can still push such an adventure.
End of random thoughts. Looking forward to the fighting.
Glad to see an update especially one that has Roosevelts (even tangentially).
De Peyster looks like he's going to be a critical figure.
So who is going with Hancock and how do the English react? Will Napier have command of Hancock? I must check who has seniority. The Americans will have to be a burden on British goodwill as far as supplies go.
Also I appreciate the Barbary Wars reference. America has form for disciplining Africa rulers albeit this is a much more ambitious undertaking. It is interesting that with The cabinet largely against it, with Seward indifferent, Kearny and others can still push such an adventure.
End of random thoughts. Looking forward to the fighting.
Curious, has there been any butterflies involving Bismark as of yet or is his MASTER PLAN of German Unification going on schedule?
I'm a bit curious about what the Ethiopia view on Race, alluded to in the previous chapter, is specifically; is it that they are ethnically Semitic and therefore superior to other Subsaharan Africans?
I'm a bit curious about what the Ethiopia view on Race, alluded to in the previous chapter, is specifically; is it that they are ethnically Semitic and therefore superior to other Subsaharan Africans?
I'd would have thought it more tribal/clannish that anything else. Everyone not of the person's own family/clan/tribe/people is suspect and a potential/prop able enemy. It's a bit naive to transfer an African-American sense of solidarity and equality to an Abyssinian King in the 19thC. Did I say a bit? I meant it's totally stupid.
Actually I wonder if any views Theodore might have about race would be solely directed at Turks/Arabs/Europeans?
And now I feel uncomfortable so I'll shut up.
Get used to seeing Roosevelts. Especially ones you weren't expecting.
John Watts de Peyster is going to be a major force behind the first "Imperial Presidency"...
Napier is a Lieutenant-General to Hancock's Brigadier General's rank. The Americans can only be the junior partner. How welcome a partner remains to be seen...
As the British can testify, once you unleash the genie of foreign adventures you can't put it back in the bottle...
Germany will come in a general round up of the world during Lincoln's second term after Abyssinia and the 1868 election posts.
I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as Theodore's views on a black American missionary is concerned. I think you can also confirm that Theodore hates and mistrusts "the Turks" and everyone associated with them. Whenever a European or European power fell out of favour they were often accused of being in league with the 'Turk'.
As ever, Lincoln adroitly manages to placate all sides even after being stuck with the (on the face of it) ludicrous option of sending troops to Abyssinia! Seward's comment that if it fails it will be someone else's problem is great.
I'm quite pleased with how this is shaping up. Especially with Hancock as I've just been doing a little reading about him myself!
I'm quite pleased with how this is shaping up. Especially with Hancock as I've just been doing a little reading about him myself!
I agree that Seward's quote about it being someone else's problem was probably the best part of the chapter.
It seems to me that while the Abyssinian adventure is going to face a lot of stumbling blocks it will ultimately be a successful venture (whatever the Lincoln/Kearny administrations and the American public determine that to be, of course). The fact that de Peyster remains influential enough in the 'Imperial Presidency' suggests that on its surface the British will likely still shove Tewodoros off the throne like OTL and that that will be seen as proof that military adventurism even to far flung places isn't a bad thing. In-universe historiography seems to suggest it will generally reflect this sentiment until we get closer to the modern day as well. Even if the whole thing is a farce it's nice to see that the American public is continuing to hold the place of former slaves in high enough regard that it would be willing enough to shed blood over the matter; I have to admit that the teases for a somewhat more robust focus of policy towards minority rights is one of my favorite bits of the timeline. Hopefully the U.S. will stay committed to that, of course...
One thing I have been wondering, given all the goofy religious stuff we're seeing/have gotten hints about in the near future, is if American troops are going to be bringing Sunni Islam and (Ethiopian) Orthodox Christianity back with them, whether through intermarriages with locals or by personal choice.
It seems to me that while the Abyssinian adventure is going to face a lot of stumbling blocks it will ultimately be a successful venture (whatever the Lincoln/Kearny administrations and the American public determine that to be, of course). The fact that de Peyster remains influential enough in the 'Imperial Presidency' suggests that on its surface the British will likely still shove Tewodoros off the throne like OTL and that that will be seen as proof that military adventurism even to far flung places isn't a bad thing. In-universe historiography seems to suggest it will generally reflect this sentiment until we get closer to the modern day as well. Even if the whole thing is a farce it's nice to see that the American public is continuing to hold the place of former slaves in high enough regard that it would be willing enough to shed blood over the matter; I have to admit that the teases for a somewhat more robust focus of policy towards minority rights is one of my favorite bits of the timeline. Hopefully the U.S. will stay committed to that, of course...
One thing I have been wondering, given all the goofy religious stuff we're seeing/have gotten hints about in the near future, is if American troops are going to be bringing Sunni Islam and (Ethiopian) Orthodox Christianity back with them, whether through intermarriages with locals or by personal choice.
Theoretically you could have some troops who were already Islamic amongst the men going to Abyssinia, as there were slaves in the Old South who were Muslims and managed to retain that portion of their culture amongst the brutality of the slave system. They could though bring back a greater understanding of it, but that seems a tad esoteric for even this much altered TL
I'm more interested by what the British make of American troops - white and black (any native Americans going?), and what the Americans make of the British and Indians.
I can't imagine an expedition to save an black Christian clergyman (and a bunch of white Christians) will have much truck with the local religions regardless of race.
I can't imagine an expedition to save an black Christian clergyman (and a bunch of white Christians) will have much truck with the local religions regardless of race.