A Glorious Union or America: the New Sparta

[TheKnightIrish]

Chapter One Hundred and Sixty Two
​

A New Beginning
Part III​

From "The Uneasy Alliance – The National Union Party 1864 - 1900" by Fergus Glubb and Eleanor Bell-Hamer
Northwestern 2008

"As news of the nomination of Kearny by the National Union party spread out by wire across the country there were spontaneous outbursts of support. The United States Legion was foremost in its early commitment with branches across the country officially endorsing the Kearny/Rousseau ticket within days. Newspapers from San Francisco to Boston trumpeted the nomination with huge enthusiasm for the Kearny the candidate…and all this without Kearny or the party having given any indication of its platform…"

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

To say the leadership of the Republican party was dismayed was an understatement. Their thunder had been stolen mere days before their own nominating convention. A Union war hero. The most popular man in the country save, arguably, President Lincoln himself. It was assumed Kearny would appropriate the Republican platform. Ben Butler observed that “we’ve had the privilege of having our clothes stolen by one of the richest men in the country”…

All anyone wanted to know in Washington was President Lincoln’s view on Kearny’s nomination. While occasionally his interlocutor would receive the ‘My friend Phil’ anecdote that began “I have known Phil Kearny since we first talked horseflesh in Springfield 22 years ago. He was a fine young lieutenant then...” there was also the ‘Service’ speech where Lincoln highlighted that Kearny could have lived a life of comfort and ease with his wealth but instead had dedicated his life to the service of the country. Neither would satisfy the committed Washington politico. The lethal phrase then offered was that “my party could endorse no better candidate”. In a single phrase Lincoln not only endorsed Kearny but specifically aligned himself with the National Union party. Before it had been seen as a label of convenience, now…

Holt immediately followed his chief’s example and endorsed Kearny. In truth he had little appetite himself for the presidency but would have preferred instead a seat on the Supreme Court…

The Kentucky Republican Party, under Bull Nelson, defected en masse to the National Union Party overnight. They were followed, across the nation, by a stampede of Republicans and War Democrats who had served in the Civil War…"

From “The Radicals 1860-1872” by Hugh W. McGrath
New England Press 2001

"While Senator Wade was seething with rage, Chase was desperate. Chase felt that, having been on the cusp of achieving the presidency, it was now about to be stolen. It was an indication of his desperation that he arranged an urgent meeting with his fellow Ohioan, Wade, to discuss what steps could be taken to stem the tide. Though no record of their discussion in Wade’s Washington residence exists it is difficult to see what they could have done together or separately to hamstring the Kearny candidacy…"

Chase had turned down nomination for the Democratic nomination, a decision he was to profoundly regret.​

From “Profoundly Wrong – A Re-assessment of American Historical Criticism by Bertram James
Collingwood-German 1933

"The Republican Convention proceeded in Chicago but the outcome was inevitable. In a surprising turn of fortune it was the Republican Party that endorsed the National Union Party ticket of Kearny and Rousseau. It was not a unanimous vote, indeed there was some acrimony, but Kearny was a hugely popular figure among delegates and had been the party’s first choice for president before he had declined to stand. It would often go ill for any Republican delegates’ future prospects of political office if it was discovered he had voted against the adoption of the Kearny ticket…"

"A worthless goddam article" was how one worthy described his Republican Convention Ticket​

 

[TheKnightIrish]

A short chapter to help get momentum going again!

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

"While Senator Wade was seething with rage, Chase was desperate. Chase felt that, having been on the cusp of achieving the presidency, it was now about to be stolen. It was an indication of his desperation that he arranged an urgent meeting with his fellow Ohioan, Wade, to discuss what steps could be taken to stem the tide. Though no record of their discussion in Wade’s Washington residence exists it is difficult to see what they could have done together or separately to hamstring the Kearny candidacy…"

Chase had turned down nomination for the Democratic nomination, a decision he was to profoundly regret.​

Anything that Keeps Chase away from the Presidency is a good thing.

But Wade....Wade is useful.

 

[tjtaitano]

Great to see a new chapter. Thanks again for your hard work

 

[scifilovr]

​

Before it had been seen as a label of convenience, now…

Holt immediately followed his chief’s example and endorsed Kearny. In truth he had little appetite himself for the presidency but would have preferred instead a seat on the Supreme Court…

The Kentucky Republican Party, under Bull Nelson, defected en masse to the National Union Party overnight. They were followed, across the nation, by a stampede of Republicans and War Democrats who had served in the Civil War…"

​

"The Republican Convention proceeded in Chicago but the outcome was inevitable. In a surprising turn of fortune it was the Republican Party that endorsed the National Union Party ticket of Kearny and Rousseau. It was not a unanimous vote, indeed there was some acrimony, but Kearny was a hugely popular figure among delegates and had been the party’s first choice for president before he had declined to stand. It would often go ill for any Republican delegates’ future prospects of political office if it was discovered he had voted against the adoption of the Kearny ticket…"

​

​

Okay, this is significant. Big tent politics are the norm in the US and clashes between established and rising parties almost always see one absorbed into the other. To me, it's looking like the Republican Party is gonna be killed (or perhaps transformed is a better word) before it can really even get started.

The National Union Party never really had a chance to develop an expansive platform. Its 1864 platform was basically "win the war, free the slaves." I'd imagine that this National Union Party is gonna draw support from two major areas: veterans and freedmen. Therefore, Kearny will likely advocate a strong army (and hopefully Navy) to 1: Occupy the South to maintain order, 2: Protect the freedmen and encourage their civic development, and 3: Provide the US with a sheathed saber for foreign relations. I also anticipate strong support among National Unionists for freedmen's rights: suffrage, keeping former Confederates out of office, educating freedmen and ensuring they can stand on their own (economically and politically). That support could lead to some interesting conflicts. A federal government aggressively pursuing freedmen's rights could see an equally aggressive reactive response. Instead of a gang of thugs and mobsters, the KKK could become a real insurgency.

Outside of support for the freedmen, I don't really know what Kearny would want to pursue in terms of domestic policy. Would the National Union favor big businesses or union workers? Would their support concentrate in urban or rural areas? In terms of foreign policy since this party will likely draw a huge chunk of support from veterans, it's always going to advocate welfare for veterans (a potential avenue for further social welfare?) and a strong national defense. We've had hints at conflicts with Mexico, Korea, and Three Emperors whoever they may be.

Good to see getting mugged doesn't slow you down much. We're all glad to see you're doing well and forging ahead!

 

[Nevermore]

I believe it's been hinted, or even outright said in the past, that at some point during the post-war years the Navy is left to languish in favor of the Army, though it apparently does recover at some point (presumably once the need to defend the U.S. West India or whatever other foreign territory the country picks up in the future is more pressing). So far as whether or not the National Union will support workers or business owners... my gut would say the latter given Kearny's own background, but I am curious whether a still surviving Lincoln will drift further leftward as time goes on, given some of his statements IOTL. If the Republicans are subsumed into the National Union Party and the old power base of the Democrats are left shattered in the wake of the war, it'd be interesting to see how they evolve if they survive. The civil rights that African-Americans and natives seem to be slowly gaining is going to face a backlash; someone will capitalize on that sooner or later.

That said, it'd be interesting to see the U.S. evolve into a multiparty democracy ITTL. We're certainly in an epoch that's significant enough to start moving towards it, at least.

 

[scifilovr]

I have a personal affinity for the Navy and the post Civil War Navy is a favorite era of mine since it is something of a historiographical dead zone. IOTL the Navy did suffer and languish after the Civil War and i was hoping that could be reversed.

IMHO I don’t think it’s likely for a multiparty system to develop. The US first-past-the-post system discriminates against third parties (not consciously, it’s just easier to win 50.1% of the vote when there’s only two options) and as such trends toward “big tent” politics. The new party usually absorbs elements from the one it replaces, the Whigs absorbed the Federalists, the Republicans absorbed the Whigs.

 

[TheKnightIrish]

IMHO I don’t think it’s likely for a multiparty system to develop. The US first-past-the-post system discriminates against third parties (not consciously, it’s just easier to win 50.1% of the vote when there’s only two options) and as such trends toward “big tent” politics. The new party usually absorbs elements from the one it replaces, the Whigs absorbed the Federalists, the Republicans absorbed the Whigs.

​

Okay, this is significant. Big tent politics are the norm in the US and clashes between established and rising parties almost always see one absorbed into the other. To me, it's looking like the Republican Party is gonna be killed (or perhaps transformed is a better word) before it can really even get started.

It may be worth not getting caught in the National election question. As much as the National Union party might oppose it think of the country in sections. Might not a party left of the Democrats in the South remain right of the Republicans in the North. Think about the way the 1860 election broke down. What if that was example of the future sectional/regional party competition which did not reflect any great national trend but rather the fractured national politics...

I believe it's been hinted, or even outright said in the past, that at some point during the post-war years the Navy is left to languish in favor of the Army, though it apparently does recover at some point (presumably once the need to defend the U.S. West India or whatever other foreign territory the country picks up in the future is more pressing). So far as whether or not the National Union will support workers or business owners... my gut would say the latter given Kearny's own background, but I am curious whether a still surviving Lincoln will drift further leftward as time goes on, given some of his statements IOTL. If the Republicans are subsumed into the National Union Party and the old power base of the Democrats are left shattered in the wake of the war, it'd be interesting to see how they evolve if they survive. The civil rights that African-Americans and natives seem to be slowly gaining is going to face a backlash; someone will capitalize on that sooner or later.

That said, it'd be interesting to see the U.S. evolve into a multiparty democracy ITTL. We're certainly in an epoch that's significant enough to start moving towards it, at least.

I have a personal affinity for the Navy and the post Civil War Navy is a favorite era of mine since it is something of a historiographical dead zone. IOTL the Navy did suffer and languish after the Civil War and i was hoping that could be reversed.

IMHO I don’t think it’s likely for a multiparty system to develop. The US first-past-the-post system discriminates against third parties (not consciously, it’s just easier to win 50.1% of the vote when there’s only two options) and as such trends toward “big tent” politics. The new party usually absorbs elements from the one it replaces, the Whigs absorbed the Federalists, the Republicans absorbed the Whigs.

The key question the next President will ask is - what is the Navy for? His answer to that question will effect the development of the Navy...

 

[TheKnightIrish]

BTW does anyone who what Virginia's, Texas' and Mississippi's electoral college votes would have been in OTL if they had participated in the 1868 election. I am struggling to find the figures. 1860 being pre-census reallocation and these states did not participate in 1864 or 1868 and 1872 is after the 1870 census reallocation...

Thanks.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

BTW does anyone who what Virginia's, Texas' and Mississippi's electoral college votes would have been in OTL if they had participated in the 1868 election. I am struggling to find the figures. 1860 being pre-census reallocation and these states did not participate in 1864 or 1868 and 1872 is after the 1870 census reallocation...

Thanks.

Honestly with the casualties from the Civil War and Confederate Diaspora, you would probably be fine leaving them as is until the 1871 census could be taken.

With West Virginia a new state you could simply slice off those 5 electoral votes from 1860 and give Virginia 10.

Being generous to Mississippi, as one of the maybe "emergent" African American majority states they might get 8, but their original 7 may make sense. But if it comes down to it, say 8.

Texas as the last Confederate state to surrender may get the whipping treatment from the Radical establishment and be kept with 4 in this 1868 election.

 

[scifilovr]

It may be worth not getting caught in the National election question. As much as the National Union party might oppose it think of the country in sections. Might not a party left of the Democrats in the South remain right of the Republicans in the North. Think about the way the 1860 election broke down. What if that was example of the future sectional/regional party competition which did not reflect any great national trend but rather the fractured national politics...

The 1860 election though demonstrates why its difficult for third parties to survive. The Democrats split between a Northern and a Southern candidate, which basically ensured the election of Lincoln. On paper, Breckenridge is the most successful challenger to Lincoln because he won the most states. But he actually won far less of the popular vote than Stephen Douglas. And the Republicans rose to power because of those same sectional splits in the Whigs. The Whigs aligned themselves either with the Republicans (in the North) or the Democrats (in the South).

If you have a party that is right of the Republicans in the North and left of the Democrats in the South, what you're going to get is the Democrats winning in the North and the Republicans winning in the South because the third-party splits the vote. Duverger's Law is what demonstrates this propensity in plurality, first-past-the-post systems. The weaker party is typically absorbed by alliance into one of the established parties or the elimination of the weaker party as voters desert them, perceiving that they can't win. That's the strategic and tactical dimension. The purely numerical one is that a national party that is geographically spread thin is inherently at a disadvantage. Like Stephen Douglas or Ross Perot, you can win 29% or 19% of the vote, powerful majorities, but you're barely a contender for the Presidency because you've won barely any (or no) electoral votes. It creates a limit on how a third party can perform. And if you have a geographically concentrated party that can win majorities in a region of states (like Breckenridge) well that just opens up a whole other can of worms about sectarianism and regional conflict.

 

[Mark-ITSOT]

One question no one has asked yet.

If America is the new Sparta, then who are the new Helots?

 

[scifilovr]

Well now I'm uncomfortable

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

One question no one has asked yet.

If America is the new Sparta, then who are the new Helots?

I assume the title refers to a preponderance of military officers in postwar politics, not a recreation of the helot system, comparisons are generally not intended to be 100% analogous.

 

[sloreck]

Also, as we have seen already, the USA post ACW does not retreat from world affairs for the next 30 years, and also does not allow the army, and I expect navy, to become incredibly small and poorly equipped.

 

[Corder]

If the Republicans are subsumed into the National Union Party and it’s dangerous to be a Democrat in the South (belated proscription or a failure to renationalise) is the US at risk of becoming a one party state?

If so might the battles to choose National Union candidates really be where the fight between left and right occurs?

 

[scifilovr]

You know, I’m more worried about the US being a new-Athens. In Classical Greece, it was actually Athens that was aggressively expansionist (a potential for this USA give hints of a future war with Mexico and increased foreign involvement), outspokenly democratic, mercantile, very militaristic actually, and was the rapidly rising up and coming power that made the established power, Sparta, fearful.

Ancient Athens had a direct relationship between the military (it’s navy), democracy, and foreign expansion. Foreign expansion fueled the navy, the navy paid the democracy (the Athenian Navy was purely citizen manned), and thus the democracy demanded expansion. Here in AGUANS, military glory leads to political power, which leads to war for more glory, which leads to a demand that the victorious generals be elected. Suddenly you have a power on the ascendancy that could make the established power very nervous...

 

[TheKnightIrish]

Chapter One Hundred and Sixty Three

The Emperor is Enthroned

Though born in New York, following his appointment as a Brigadier from New Jersey, Kearny would always refer to himself as a Jerseyman
​

From “The Uneasy Alliance – The National Union Party 1864 – 1900” by Fergus Glubb and Eleanor Bell-Hamer
Northwestern 2008

“That Republicans the nation over could happily fall in behind the National Union platform could be seen from a simple parsing of that Platform:

First: We congratulate the country on the assured success of the reconstruction policy of Congress, as evinced by the adoption, in all the States lately in rebellion, of constitutions securing equal civil and political rights to all loyal citizens, and regard it as the duty of the Federal Government to sustain those constitutions, and to prevent the people of such States from being remitted to a state of anarchy or military rule;

Second: The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men of the nation regardless of race or religion was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained;

Third: Of all who were faithful in the trials of the late war, there were none entitled to more especial honor than the brave soldiers and seamen who endured the hardships of campaign and cruise, and imperilled their lives in the service of the country. The bounties and pensions provided by law for these brave defenders of the nation, are obligations never to be forgotten. The widows and orphans of the gallant dead are the wards of the people and constitute a sacred legacy bequeathed to the nation's protecting care;

Fourth: We denounce all forms of debt repudiation as a national dishonour; that honor requires the payment of the public indebtedness in the utmost good faith to all creditors at home and abroad, not only according to the letter, but the spirit of the laws under which it was contracted;

Fifth: The National Debt, contracted as it has been for the preservation of the Union for all time to come, should be extended over a fair period of redemption, and it is the duty of Congress to reduce the rate of interest thereon whenever it can be done honestly;

Sixth: The Government of the United States should be administered with the strictest economy that can be maintained without imperilling the security of the nation;

Seventh: Foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to this nation should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy;

Eighth: This Convention declares its sympathy with all oppressed peoples which struggle for their rights;

Ninth: While we highly commend the spirit of magnanimity and repentance with which many men of the South now frankly and honestly co-operate with us in restoring the peace of the country and reconstructing the Southern State Governments upon the basis of impartial justice, we continue to uphold and support the doctrines of abandonment and exile, and such other restrictions and disqualifications as the Government has imposed, as are consistent with the safety and security of the loyal people of the nation;

Tenth: We recognize the great principles laid down in the immortal Declaration of Independence as the true foundation of Democratic Government; and we hail with gladness every effort toward making these principles a living reality on every inch of American soil and commit ourselves the renewal and maintenance of the spirit of National Union…

These could easily have been Republican planks, though Republicans were more likely to have elaborated on the National Debt…”

The death of the Democratic Party would be predicted many times over the following decades but it remained strong in many states particularly once it embraced the rural farmers' cause​

From “Tammany Ablaze – Democratic Politics from 1864 – 1900” by Otis R. Mayhew
Buffalo 2003

“The Democrats were rather at sea about their planks but had ultimately come out against proscription and the confiscation of private property. They called for the abolition of the Office of Proscription and the Bureau of Collectors as being consistent with this policy. They also called for the abolition of the Freedmen’s Bureau in the interests of “national economy”. While consistent with the small government/states’ rights policy of the Democratic Party these were brave positions to adopt. All three organisations had the support of widespread vested interests. In particular the Bureau of Collectors was an extremely effective tool of the spoils system and many a former Southern Democrat had 'spun' in order to be appointed as an agent. This would further undermine the effectiveness of the Democratic machine…

There were also ugly slogans published in anonymous pamphlets which condemned the "negrofication" of certain southern states like South Carolina and Georgia and saw proscription as the tool “by which our beloved Southern States will be n*****fied”. Where the authors and printers could be identified their names quickly found their way onto a list in the Office of Proscription. This however was a rare occurrence as the propagandists were very careful. Some pamphlets were being smuggled in from Confederate colonies abroad, particularly Havana.

In many cases such slanders were counterproductive. Many Union veterans, including Democrats, had developed a less prejudiced view of the negro during the war. Furthermore few, outside the effected states, had any issue with concentration of freedmen and their families in some Southern States. “Better they be kings in the Carolinas than competing for our jobs in the North” (The Irish News of New York) was the view expressed by one Irish-American newspaper editorial in the north. It was very difficult in deed for Tammany to interest their machine voters in the so called “white flight” from a handful of former Confederate states…”

From “Philip Kearny – The Myth and The Man” by Dr. P. Capaldi
University of Illinois Press 2003

“In towns across the North, and indeed in some Southern ones too, branches of the United States Legion marched on mass to the polls to cast a vote for General Kearny…

It has often been observed that, for a nation historically distrustful of standing armies, in not one election poster or handbill was Philip Kearny jr portrayed out of uniform. No one in their letters, diaries or recollections claimed to support Mr Kearny, or Philip Kearny, or Phil Kearny. The man they were voting for was always “General Kearny”…”

Edward Bragg was a rare thing - a former Union general who rejected National Unionism and remained a committed Democrat. He would be a thorn in the side of the new administration​

From “A Voice in the Wilderness – Edward Bragg and the Democratic party” by Morris Tolliver
PCUP 2001

“I suspect had General Kearny declared his intent to crown himself Emperor of the Americas he would nonetheless have carried a plurality of the states” (Edward Bragg). It cannot have come as much surprise to the nation when the National Union ticket of Phil Kearny and Lovell Rousseau swept the nation. It only failed to carry North Carolina, Alabama and Texas. Not a single Northern State came close to voting Democrat.”

 

[TheKnightIrish]

The Emperor's Coattails to follow with other details of the election, the interregnum and the appointment of Kearny's new cabinet. The we will cover World Events for the last few years.

 

[TheKnightIrish]

Oh and I will also mention what former President Abraham Lincoln gets up to...