Chapter 1

A New Dominion - Virginia under the Readjuster Party​

Chapter 1​


“Whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching.” -Thomas Jefferson

April 2nd, 1865 – Richmond, Virginia

1624378387690.png


The burning of Columbia, South Carolina; A fate Richmond could have shared


Lt. General Richard Ewell was a tired, sickly, and embittered man. He had lost his leg, his field command position, his composure, and his hope of defending Richmond from the advancing Union forces. He was in a makeshift tent on the edge of the city, holding the missive addressed to him from President Jefferson Davis who had only hours earlier fled with the rest of the Confederate cabinet. The letter ordered him to burn the city’s infrastructure and supplies as they retreated, so that they could not be used to further the Yankee war effort.

“Now he stoops to such hopeless measures when defeat is all but assured.” Ewell muttered, remembering that his suggestion to free and arm the slaves in order to defend against the North was rebuked by President Davis. The stump of his wooden leg throbbed with a phantom pain as he hobbled out of the barracks and into the streets of Richmond. All around him the starving and desperate residents of the Confederacy’s former capital scrounged and looted whatever they could, knowing they would be unable to leave the city in time. A sense of anxious resignation hung in the air, as if no one knew quite what would happen when the Yankee invaders inevitably descended upon the city. Small rivers of booze trickled through the gutters, as the Confederates had been ordered to dispose of all the alcohol left in the city. Vagrants and orphans of the war armed with pots and dented tin cups scooped up the amber liquid, some to drink away their sorrows, others to try and trade it for whatever food or other supplies were left in the derelict city. A young but scraggly officer approached Ewell and gave a fatigued yet dutiful salute.

“Lt. General sir, the men have packed up everything we can carry on foot or by horse. What’re your orders?” The young man said. He glanced at the letter, being vaguely aware of its contents through the hushed whispers of the other soldiers. Ewell held the letter in his hands, chewing on his lip. Suddenly, as if seized by some spirit of vengeance, he crumpled the paper into a ball and threw the thing into the gutter to soak in the thrown away liquor.

“If the President wants to burn Richmond he can come back and do it his own damn self. We’re retreating. Tell any civilians left in the city they can either evacuate or try their luck with the Union army. This city belongs to the Yankees now.” Amid the distant sound of cannon-fire, the Confederate army quietly abandoned the former capital.


Richmond’s Power Elite: How The Jefferson Club Re-made Virginia (excerpt)​

The prestigious and enigmatic Jefferson Club began as an informal social circle among the wealthy industrialists and businessmen of Richmond during Reconstruction, with the aim of using the city’s largely untouched commercial base to help rebuild the state of Virginia after the devastation of the Civil War. Some of its earliest members include Joseph R. Anderson, Lewis Ginter, James Read Branch, Albert Royal Brooks, Alexander Cameron, and Thomas Harding Ellis. The name “Jefferson Club” only began to be used in the late 1890s, as the group had begun to meet in Ginter’s Jefferson Hotel. Historians reckon that this was only possible due to the fact that Richmond had been spared much of the destruction and arson that many other southern cities had seen upon the retreat of Confederate forces, despite orders commanding the Richmond garrison to burn supplies and infrastructure before fleeing. An apocryphal tale credits this miraculous turn of fate to Confederate Lt. General Richard Ewell, who, according to legend, tossed the direct order from President Davis into the gutter and ordered his men to leave the city intact. Regardless of this tale’s authenticity, historians are in agreement that this event contributed to Virginia’s rapid economic recovery during Reconstruction. The Jefferson Club would also become an important point of contact for many members of the Readjuster Party, a coalition of populist Democrats and moderate Republicans (of which many of the members of the Jefferson Club were members or patrons) which would go on to have far-reaching political influence across both the south and the nation at large. It is no wonder, then, that the club would go on to host several US Presidents such as Ulysses S. Grant, James A. Garfield, James G. Blaine, and William Jennings Bryan, in addition to many prominent northern investors drawn in by the economic prosperity of the state, including names such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, William Henry Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan.

The origins of the Jefferson Club likely lie with Lewis Ginter, who, upon returning to Richmond after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox in 1865, quickly resumed his profitable tobacco, sugar, and cotton trading businesses. Ginter, like many others, had expected much of the city to be in ruins upon his return, and purportedly planned on moving back to his home state of New York to pursue a career in banking. While Ginter never permanently moved to New York, (not counting his manors and properties in the state) he would nevertheless become involved in banking in 1867. This experience would soon come in handy, when in the spring of 1869, during an event attended by President Ulysses S. Grant, the Richmond financier expressed support for the President’s gold policy in reducing the national debt. When Grant voiced his concerns and suggested that he might end the sale of gold to avoid driving down the price, Ginter dissented, explaining that he believed such a change in policy could trigger a buying frenzy and hinder the recovery of the economy. While Grant was not immediately convinced by Ginter’s argument, it sowed enough doubt in the President’s mind to abstain from changing his gold policy. Later it would be uncovered that the idea to change the gold policy had been fed to Grant by two New York investors named Jay Gould and Jim Fisk, who attempted to corner the gold market by buying large quantities of gold. Instead of triggering a buying frenzy, the two instead only managed to accrue substantial amounts of debt which would eventually lead both to financial ruin and bankruptcy.


June 3rd, 1868 - Russian America (Alaska)

1624378172440.png

the Western Union Telegraph Expedition in British Columbia


It had been a long and dark winter, with brutal snowstorms and barely enough daylight to go around. The men of the Western Union Telegraph Expedition were tired and homesick, but above all they were intensely determined. The expedition was tasked with a nigh impossible mission: to set up a telegraph line from San Francisco, through British Columbia and Russia’s American colony, across the Bering Strait, and finally through Siberia to Moscow. The project had been conceived due to the perceived difficulty of laying cable all across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe; to cross from America to Asia, one only had to lay cable across the short and relatively shallow Bering Strait. As the expedition would soon find out however, this would be easier said than done. The American Naturalist Robert Kennicott had led most of the expeditions to plot a course for the telegraph line through the far north of the American continent, braving rugged mountains, dense forests, and barren tundra - even narrowly avoiding death from a heart attack - and eventually leading the expedition to lay cables all the way from Washington to the Aleutian Islands. This and the somewhat expected complications of the icy, subarctic climate brought the project into jeopardy several times, and a few years prior it had almost been cancelled when the Atlantic Telegraph Company did in fact lay a telegraph cable all across the Atlantic; however, the line soon failed, and after an abortive attempt to recover and repair the cable the company delayed laying another line for at least a year. All of this is to say that while Kennicott huddled in a snow-blanketed cabin, hovering above the telegraph operator, he was intensely nervous. He had received word a few days earlier that the ship laying cable across the Bering strait had arrived in port, however the reports of their success were vague and unclear. He had no real idea whether the line would work or not. Yet, in hope of hopes, Kennicott sent a message. The telegraph operator tapped the key, spelling each letter of the message out one-by-one. Kennicott knew any potential receiver would likely speak Russian, but his knowledge of the language was fairly sub-par. He opted for a simple phrase, one he was not likely to get wrong (he wouldn’t want the first trans-pacific telegraph message to be lost in translation!). Letter by letter, the telegraph operator spelled out:

“Как у вас пого́да?”

And Kennicott waited. The howling winds of the arctic north rattled the walls of the wooden structure. Suddenly, there was a noise! The arctic expeditionaries could scarcely believe their ears, as the sound of long and short buzzing filled the cabin. The telegraph operator carefully but feverishly translated the letters, which he was surprised to find were in English. The message was short; only 5 symbols long. The silence that fell upon the room afterwards felt like an eternity.

“Well, what’d he say?” Kennicott uttered, breaking the deafening silence. The telegraph operator looked up at him and smiled.

“Cold!”


January 19th, 1870 - Alexandria, Virginia

Ulysses S. Grant, 18th president of the United States of America, former commanding general of the Union Army, and hero of the American Civil War, did not much enjoy the lavish celebrations he was often compelled to attend by the station of his current office. Despite the accusations of his opponents he was not one to engage in drunken revelry, abhorred profanity, and did not have much of a taste for music. He was a modest, reserved, and prudish, somewhat indicative of his humble, Methodist upbringing in rural Ohio. Grant’s distinctly quiet and sober personality, then, makes his chance encounter and eventual friendship with one William Mahone such a strange happenstance.

1624378105944.png

A portrait of William Mahone after the war

Mahone was, in many respects, quite the opposite of Grant. Growing up, he was a rowdy Irish-American youth whose father owned a tavern in southeast Virginia, and had become substantially wealthy from the profits of his booming railway business, the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Ohio Railroad. Mahone had served in the Civil War and even been in attendance during Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse - on the side of Lee. Now, Grant held no particular animosity towards Confederate officers. He held General Lee in high esteem, and acted honorably in victory towards his defeated foe. What he did abhor, was many of the ex-Confederates attempts to undo the progress that had been achieved at the cost of countless lives. All across the former Confederacy, former Confederate officers and politicians conspired to resist and roll back the legislation Grant had been tirelessly pushing through to Reconstruct the south; primarily those pertaining to the rights and free labor of the newly freed slaves. However, as Grant would come to know, Mahone was not like those men. In contrast to many of his other compatriots, Mahone did not resist the tides of abolition and emancipation; despite having owned 7 slaves prior to the war, once the war had ended Mahone became dedicated to the fair treatment, education, and overall betterment of freed negro slaves, something Grant could sympathize with greatly.

It is perhaps this strange mix of contradictions and commonalities which drew Grant and Mahone together, and eventually the two struck up a conversation. Their discussion was brief yet courteous, the two quickly finding common ground by sharing war stories and conversing about the state of Reconstruction, particularly the importance of securing voting rights for emancipated blacks and poor whites - something Mahone was especially passionate about. By the end of the night both men went their separate ways, not thinking too much of the encounter. However, unbeknownst to them, this was to be the beginning of a relationship which would shape the political landscape of Virginia - perhaps even the entire nation - for decades to come.
 
Hello! This is my first TL to date, and I have been accumulating research in preparation for writing it since last year. I've had to do a lot of research because I wasn't too knowledgeable on this specific period of history, so I welcome any advice, criticism, or suggestions. I have a lot of plans for this TL, but it will take some time for me to figure out exactly how to get there and how to present it, so stay tuned and enjoy.

Edit: I intend to post a chapter about once a week, so I have a bit of time to stay ahead.
 
Last edited:
Hello! This is my first TL to date, and I have been accumulating research in preparation for writing it since last year. I've had to do a lot of research because I wasn't too knowledgeable on this specific period of history, so I welcome any advice, criticism, or suggestions. I have a lot of plans for this TL, but it will take some time for me to figure out exactly how to get there and how to present it, so stay tuned and enjoy.
I added it to my watched threads; it looks quite interesting.
 
A story where Virginia avoids the oppressive grip of Jim Crow and becomes an example for the rest of the South of how the sky won't fall just because blacks are allowed to vote?

Hell yes!
 

“Как у вас пого́да?”

And Kennicott waited. The howling winds of the arctic north rattled the walls of the wooden structure. Suddenly, there was a noise! The arctic expeditionaries could scarcely believe their ears, as the sound of long and short buzzing filled the cabin. The telegraph operator carefully but feverishly translated the letters, which he was surprised to find were in English. The message was short; only 5 symbols long. The silence that fell upon the room afterwards felt like an eternity.

“Well, what’d he say?” Kennicott uttered, breaking the deafening silence. The telegraph operator looked up at him and smiled.

“Cold!”


Should this not say "Gold"! at the end? Aside from that it looks quite nice, hope you keep going with this.
 
There are a few things that would help - as others have pointed out, keeping Grover Cleveland and other Dems from giving patronage and support to the Conservative wing of the Democratic party will at the least delay the takeover.

One big one: Economics. It's social change 101 that any changes are easier to swallow for Joe Public if the economy is really good. There's a reason why the Civil Rights movement overlapped with the biggest economic boom time of the past century. One of the things that eventually bled support from the Readjusters in OTL - as well as denying them a natural base of support - was that the Virginia economy was pretty stagnant post-war, especially given so much money of the local would-be industrialists went towards rebuilding Richmond instead of setting up factories... there were plans pre-Civil War by several well-to-do Richmonders to set up steel production plants in the Virginia panhandle that would have rivaled those of Pittsburgh, that went up in smoke after Jeff Davis burned down Richmond.

It's one of the great what-ifs of Virginian history - that would have gone a long way towards seeing Virginia become more akin to Maryland instead of the solid south, with the OTL modern Bos-Wash perhaps instead of going all the way to Richmond and Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Virginia Beach.

Thus, an early POD with some massive effects down the road is making the fall of Richmond easier, or at least keep Jefferson Davis from issuing the order to burn the city down to cover his retreat... perhaps when Davis issues the order, the Confederate soldiers utterly refuse to carry them out. You spare Richmond from needing to be rebuilt, and critically, keep Tredegar Ironworks, and it's associated factories and railroads intact.

Thus, post-war, that group of Virginian industrialists like Lewis Ginter, Joseph Anderson and the like instead of rebuilding Richmond from ruins, focus on expanding existing factories and businesses, as well as beautifying the city like many of their northern peers - Tredegar is joined by more steelworks, textile mills, and more, and the OTL Botanical Gardens are joined by a series of museums. More importantly, they remember pre-war plans to start building steel mills in the panhandle, closer to the sources of much of Virginia's coal and iron, and have the money for it - and it turns out, once word gets out, some large investment from several other Northern steel mill owners as well, such as Andrew Carnegie.

Fast forward a decade from the end of the war, and especially by the standards of Reconstruction, Virginia is booming at a shocking pace as industrialization begins to take off. This has a trickle effect in a variety of areas. William and Mary and Virginia Commonwealth University, long declining, are now flush with patrons and revitalize decades earlier, and shockingly, so does the newly founded Virginia Union University. Resort areas like the hot springs of Bath County, Natural Bridge, and even historic Williamsburg get national attention and investment years, in some cases decades in advance, and early favor from Gilden Age icons like JP Morgan and John Rockafellar. By luck, Virginia wine is "discovered" by one such industrialist, resulting in a huge boost in popularity to Virginian wine, and fulfilling Jefferson's long dream that Virginia would become known for its wine grapes as much as it's tobacco. It's even attracted an entirely new breed of carpetbaggers to Virginia - immigrants from Europe seeking factory work, and having some trickle effect - a group of German immigrants found a brewery in Richmond that will explode in popularity in the coming years... it seems Richmond will always be fated to become known for craft brewing. The new immigrants have another effect - serving as newcomers and outsiders to make the poor whites and blacks to realize they may be different, but not as different as these "damned Papists and krauts."

This has earned some protest from some of the old money plantation class, but for most Virginians - especially for the poor whites and black freedman, as well as pretty much the entire western half of the state - the growing Virginia economy is a godsend. Similar to up north, while there is still some dislike aimed towards the black community, the immigrants earn far more loathing from the working class - a common thought among many "less open-minded" Virginians is "At least the n*****s speak English and are baptists like proper Virginians should be". This is perhaps shockingly seen when, rather than Danville's OTL race riots, you see anti-immigrant rallies akin to those in New York or Boston... and there are quite a few black faces among those rallies too.

Feel free to toss in some other things to speed things along - maybe the much-delayed American naval buildup happens years earlier, and with it, the shipyards of Hampton Roads and Norfolk earn federal investment years earlier.

Thus, by the mid-1880s, we have a Virginia where the Readjusters now have a much bigger base of support than the Redeemers, and narrowly manage to hang on... while there are still LOTS of issues to work out, flush with money, the increasingly less poor white base of the party decide not to rock the boat, certainly not for the sake of the old planter class. If it means the n*****s have more money and decent schools too? Well, so be it, better them than the damned Irish.

Thus, we have a Virginia is increasingly having much more in common with other industrializing former slave states of the upper South, like Maryland and Missouri, rather than the Deep South that long ago began the backslide into sharecropping and segregation. When such laws eventually are put in place around the turn of the century, they're more akin to what you see in Missouri, Maryland, Indiana or Pennsylvania - equal access to the ballot box and public schools, but VERY firm Anti-Miscegenation Laws, and lots of unspoken agreements over which parts of town you can live in. There is already a sizable black middle class when it happens too.

You can see this change in turn of the century Virginia nowhere more clearly than with Richmond's newly minted Monument Avenue. Yes, there are still statues of Robert E Lee, JEB Stuart, Stonewall Jackson and Matthew Maury, but there are also statues of the late Governor William Mahone, industrialist Lewis Ginter, Union general George Thomas, black MOH recipient William Carney, newspaper tycoon John Davis, and a shared statue of the Langston Brothers, civil rights pioneer Charles Henry and VSU President and Congressman John Mercer. By 1950, they'll be joined by statues of Booker T. Washington and Maggie Walker, alongside other additions like pioneer Jim Bridger, and WW1 aviator and MOH recipient and polar explorer Richard Byrd. Notably absent: Jefferson Davis - because why would Richmonders ever want a statue of the SOB that wanted to burn the city down?

Here we go, a post about this from elsewhere on the site...

Man, tell me in 2019 Monument Avenue would be gone in a year... off topic.
 
I'll be following this with much anticipation too.

Just to put in one opinion, I hope the idea of resorbing West Virginia is not crucial here, because I think neither the WV politicos, the majority of WV citizens, nor national movers and shakers (even with coming alignments) see any reason whatsoever for such a reunification, nor do I see how it would be helpful in securing the Readjuster/People's Party place in the sun either for that matter. WV and the Tidewater Old Dominion are going their separate ways and both pieces the happier for it (except I suppose, the people in the far western part of what remained Virginia might be tempted to dream of being part of WV too).

Honestly I suspect there is far more scope for shaking up the US party system on a permanent basis with West Virginia remaining separate than with it merged back into old Virginia anyway. Each piece of antebellum VA finds its own way, sometimes toward reaction, hopefully more often now toward progress.

And over time, I do think the relations between the two states would become more cordial and we can easily have a tri-state (four state, with Maryland) bloc--MD, VA, WV, NC--forming a coherent region.

If AA people can retain the vote in SC, even South Carolina might be an ally of sorts--but while Virginia has lots of AA people, it is nothing like the actual majority of the population SC AA people were. OTL that changed within a couple decades, and "white" people came to outnumber even SC and Mississippi's huge numbers of "freedmen." Now it could be that white flight from an African-American majority state, and better fortunes for them and attraction of various AA people from elsewhere in the South might sustain an AA majority in SC for decades to come. With or without that, though, the situation in SC will be quite different than that of the four states to the north; SC with AA people meaningfully free to vote SC would be more like a self-Reconstructed liberated zone of the deep South. So, perhaps it can be politically quite different than OTL, and break the streak of SC being the capital and clearinghouse of national reaction, but it is not part of the more northerly region allied or not allied.
 
I'll be following this with much anticipation too.

Just to put in one opinion, I hope the idea of resorbing West Virginia is not crucial here, because I think neither the WV politicos, the majority of WV citizens, nor national movers and shakers (even with coming alignments) see any reason whatsoever for such a reunification, nor do I see how it would be helpful in securing the Readjuster/People's Party place in the sun either for that matter. WV and the Tidewater Old Dominion are going their separate ways and both pieces the happier for it (except I suppose, the people in the far western part of what remained Virginia might be tempted to dream of being part of WV too).

Honestly I suspect there is far more scope for shaking up the US party system on a permanent basis with West Virginia remaining separate than with it merged back into old Virginia anyway. Each piece of antebellum VA finds its own way, sometimes toward reaction, hopefully more often now toward progress.

And over time, I do think the relations between the two states would become more cordial and we can easily have a tri-state (four state, with Maryland) bloc--MD, VA, WV, NC--forming a coherent region.

If AA people can retain the vote in SC, even South Carolina might be an ally of sorts--but while Virginia has lots of AA people, it is nothing like the actual majority of the population SC AA people were. OTL that changed within a couple decades, and "white" people came to outnumber even SC and Mississippi's huge numbers of "freedmen." Now it could be that white flight from an African-American majority state, and better fortunes for them and attraction of various AA people from elsewhere in the South might sustain an AA majority in SC for decades to come. With or without that, though, the situation in SC will be quite different than that of the four states to the north; SC with AA people meaningfully free to vote SC would be more like a self-Reconstructed liberated zone of the deep South. So, perhaps it can be politically quite different than OTL, and break the streak of SC being the capital and clearinghouse of national reaction, but it is not part of the more northerly region allied or not allied.
Yeah, I abandoned that idea pretty early on because it didn't make much sense. You may see some interesting populist movements in WV, though.
As for the deep south, in OTL they were the bastion of the redeemers so they'll be difficult to crack (but not impossible).
 
Last edited:
Chapter 2
Chapter 2

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson

July 2nd, 1869 - Vauxall Island, Richmond, Virginia
10607_668cfd3a7ccb7b0-scaled.jpg

A poster advertising the Walker Colored Voters' Vauxall island barbecue

It was a beautiful summer day on the banks of the James River. The trees were vibrant and green, and the city of Richmond was abuzz with all kinds of people, black and white. The Walker Colored Voters political club had organized a barbecue on Vauxall Island, and invited speakers of all stripes - white or colored, republican and democrat. The event was intended to drum up support for the coming election, in which Virginia Conservatives would be attempting a new strategy; in order to counter the rapid rise of radical Republicans within the state, they would attempt to organize with moderate Republicans and even seek votes from the black freedmen, to rally behind the moderate Republican Gilbert Walker in his race for governor. This effort was spearheaded by James Read Branch, a Richmond banker and Conservative candidate for the Virginia Senate, who believed that appealing to the negro was bound to be a more sound strategy than simply beating him. Branch himself was attending this barbecue, and was slated to speak to the growing crowd of people on the island. The policemen monitoring the event were slightly on edge, as earlier a crowd had attempted to rush across the temporary bridge to the island, which would have no doubt broken under the unexpected strain and turned the event into a tragedy; luckily, the police were able to bring the situation under control, and disaster was averted.

Branch ruminated on the contents of his intended speech: appealing to the voters’ common sense of civic duty, reinforcing a sense of cultural pride and independence from the meddling of northern carpetbaggers - even if it meant appealing to the negro vote. That was definitely going to be a hard sell, Branch thought to himself. Feeling his stomach rumble, he looked down at his plate of barbecued brisket and cornbread, peas, green beans, corn, and roasted chicken. He stabbed the brisket with his fork, the tender meat practically falling apart, and took a bite. He looked around at the other picnic-goers, loosely organized into small groups, some taking refuge under the shade of the trees and others laying under parasols or tents. Taking note of the colors of their skin, he saw groups of both whites and black - the blacks mostly gathered on the north end of the island, and neither group mixing with the other - yet, the gathering was seemingly peaceful all the same. He chewed on the savory morsel, washing it down with a flask of whiskey he produced from his pocket.

“If only those northern abolitionists knew” Branch said, chuckling to himself, “that all they needed to create harmony between the races was a good old fashioned southern barbecue!”


An Empire of Liberty: A History of American Foreign Policy from 1865-1900 (excerpt)
P-6-018113a.jpg

A map of Santo Domingo shortly before its annexation by the United States

The origins of the particular approach to foreign policy that America undertook following the Civil War (what some historians and activists would later call the “back-road to imperialism”) most likely lie in the 1870 treaty to annex Santo Domingo (known less commonly as the “Dominican Republic'' during the brief period of its independence), drafted by President Grant’s secretary of state, Hamilton Fish. Though Fish personally opposed the annexation, he and Grant came to an agreement that if Fish went along with Grant’s proposal, he would remain neutral in the ongoing Cuban war for independence against Spain. Fish relented, and Grant sent the proposal to Congress. After a lengthy and heated debate, The treaty was narrowly ratified by Congress after Senator Sumner of Massachusetts, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, gave only a vague and lukewarm objection to the proposal. Sumner would later voice his regret for not opposing the treaty more vehemently, and his fears of a potential conflict with the neighboring Republic of Haiti would be realized several years after his death with the 1st Haitian-American War.

The treaty itself established Santo Domingo as a US protectorate and rented the Samaná Bay to the US for 50 years, upon which they would be given the choice to either be granted statehood or given full independence. The Dominicans were allowed to apply for statehood at any time before the 50 - lease expired, the treaty merely established a deadline (the Dominican government would later apply for statehood and be accepted in 1892, only 22 years after the treaty’s ratification). This model of establishing a temporary protectorate with an eventual path to either statehood or independence would be replicated by the United States several times throughout history, although in later circumstances it would often be far less voluntary than in the case of Santo Domingo.

The immediate consequences of the annexation would be felt all throughout the Caribbean and the Americas in general. While the Monroe Doctrine had been in effect for several decades by this time, it had only been enforced halfheartedly until now. From this point on, it would soon become clear the United States would often hold a very liberal and aggressive interpretation of this doctrine. To some, it was a beacon of hope for liberation; for others, an ominous threat of intervention. Another indirect consequence of this event would be the heated negotiations over the Alabama Claims between the United States and the United Kingdom, inflamed by what Britain saw as an encroachment of American influence on European affairs, and the subsequent decline in relations between the two nations over the next century.


Richmond’s Power Elite: How The Jefferson Club Re-made Virginia (excerpt)​

To say that the Jefferson Club and other wealthy urbanites of Virginia supported the growing coalition between populist Conservatives and moderate Republicans built on a biracial coalition of poor whites and freed blacks purely out of the goodness of their hearts would have likely been a lie. That is to say the nascent bourgeoisie of the new south had a clear financial interest in maneuvering between their two primary rivals: northern business and industrial behemoths and the old, aristocratic planter elite. The predatory northern entrepreneurs, eager to profit off of the Reconstruction of the south at the cost of its native investors, would throw their support behind the more radical Republicans; while the reactionary plantation owners, chomping at the bit to round up the freed slaves and stick them right back in the cotton fields would back the Bourbon Democrats. The southern bourgeoisie, the new money, would instead attempt to plot a third course: one which didn’t hand over all of their newly acquired wealth and prosperity to northern interests, but one that also didn’t stifle their growing industries by halting the steady flow of black migrant labor from the countryside to the cities. This isn’t to say they were heartless in the causes they championed; this is disproven by the glaring fact that among them was Albert R. Brooks, a former slave who bought his freedom and had made his fortune before and after the Civil War.

Regardless, it is in this economically motivated self-interest that we can also find the seeds of the Society’s eventual break with the Readjuster coalition once it became explicitly aligned with the greater Populist movement. As the coalition’s focus drifted from state debt negotiation and voting rights to wage increases, railroad and telegraph nationalization, and tax reform, the Richmond business class no longer found it beneficial to ally themselves with the increasingly proletarian movement. By this point the burgeoning southern bourgeoisie had grown to the point that it no longer needed the umbrella of state patronage to compete with northern businesses or the dwindling plantation aristocracy, indicated by the rapid growth of the great metropolises of the new south.


February 29th, 1871 - Suitland, Maryland

Sir John Rose adjusted the collar of his suit, feeling as though it were a rope slowly tightening around his throat. He had been sent by The Right Honourable Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli to “negotiate” a settlement for the contentious Alabama claims, a series of payments demanded by the United States government for attacks upon Union ships by Confederate commerce raiders during the Civil War: ships that just so happen to have been constructed in British shipyards. The Americans had made a patently absurd demand; the British were to pay America 2 billion dollars, or cede them the entire territory of Canada. Disraeli’s advisors had tried to explain to him that the demand was merely a negotiation tactic, and that there was no way the Americans would try to actually impose such a demand; but Disraeli would have none of it. He declared a matter of personal and national integrity - Britain would not pay. So, Sir Rose had been sent all the way to America simply to tell the Americans that Britain was refusing to pay up. He cursed his fortune.

As he entered the negotiating room, he was greeted by a rather scruffy-looking man with dark sunken eyes: President Grant’s shrewd and dutiful Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. Fish stood up and shook the British envoy’s hand.

“Greetings, Sir Rose. Please, have a seat.” Fish said. “I trust we both know the purpose of our meeting here, and that we can get straight down to business, correct?”

“Yes, I am fully informed of the situation, and the... demands made by your government.” Rose said, choosing his words carefully.

“...and?” Fish asked. Sir Rose swallowed the lump in his throat and took a slow, methodical breath.

“His Excellency has decided that no payment will be conferred on account of the insult made against Her Majesty and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland by the grossly inappropriate demands of the injured party.” Sir Rose said, mustering all of his willpower to remain composed. The American dignitary’s expression shifted almost imperceptibly, as to what emotion this could have belied - disappointment, irritation, rage - Sir Rose couldn’t say.

“I see.” Fish said.

Negotiations continued on for hours, both parties levying accusations and past injustices against one another. While Rose was a competent negotiator, Fish was simply better. The astute American statesman outmaneuvered the Scottish politician and cornered him.

“The United States demands $20 million in gold. In exchange, we agree to pay $2 million to the United Kingdom for whatever transgressions you believe we have committed. This is our final offer.” Fish stated.

“Secretary, I-”

“I suggest you think long and hard about this offer, Sir Rose. Answer me this, how much money does the United Kingdom spend on garrisoning its northern territories? How large is that garrison? About 15 thousand men? Do you think such a garrison could deal with a fully armed insurrection of Metis and Fenian rebels?” Fish said, referring to the Red River Rebellion and Fenian Raids which had occurred only a year earlier. His words lashed Sir Rose like a viper’s forked tongue, his face drained of color and his eyes grown wide. The thought of armed rebels burning and looting his adopted home of Canada horrified the man. With this, he knew he could hold his tenuous position no longer. The inflexible British position was a bluff, and the Americans had called it. The Prime Minister would have to take the deal or suffer the consequences.

And take the deal he did. After bloviating over his disappointment and righteous indignation, Disraeli relented and accepted to pay the damages. However, he also sent an extra detachment of soldiers to Canada, just in case the Americans tried anything. What little goodwill remained between the two nations continued to be strained.
 
Sumner would later voice his regret for not opposing the treaty more vehemently, and his fears of a potential conflict with the neighboring Republic of Haiti would be realized several years after his death with the 1st Haitian-American War.​

The treaty itself established Santo Domingo as a US protectorate and rented the Samaná Bay to the US for 50 years, upon which they would be given the choice to either be granted statehood or given full independence. The Dominicans were allowed to apply for statehood at any time before the 50 - lease expired, the treaty merely established a deadline (the Dominican government would later apply for statehood and be accepted in 1892, only 22 years after the treaty’s ratification). This model of establishing a temporary protectorate with an eventual path to either statehood or independence would be replicated by the United States several times throughout history, although in later circumstances it would often be far less voluntary than in the case of Santo Domingo.

The immediate consequences of the annexation would be felt all throughout the Caribbean and the Americas in general. While the Monroe Doctrine had been in effect for several decades by this time, it had only been enforced halfheartedly until now. From this point on, it would soon become clear the United States would often hold a very liberal and aggressive interpretation of this doctrine. To some, it was a beacon of hope for liberation; for others, an ominous threat of intervention. Another indirect consequence of this event would be the heated negotiations over the Alabama Claims between the United States and the United Kingdom, inflamed by what Britain saw as an encroachment of American influence on European affairs, and the subsequent decline in relations between the two nations over the next century.

The butterflies have moved way beyond Virginia. Unfriendly relations with the U.S. will change Britain's whole approach to Europe and the rest of the world, which will affect… everything.

And "1st Haitian-American War"? Yikes. Many, many yikes.
 
Yeah, AA domination of South Carolina or Mississippi is pretty much a long shot; the most plausible version (honestly the only one) I have ever seen is in Jonathan Edelstein's Malê Rising TL, where a charismatic and influential West African person taken as a slave in youth to Brazil, participates in an OTL-historic slave rising there which in the ATL the Portuguese authorities resolved by deporting the ringleaders back to West Africa--but by then Pablo Acabar as he is known to history has read up on French and American radical "rights of man" thought and incorporated it with egalitarian-progressive Islamic thought (which OTL was fostered in a West African sultanate); returned "home" more or less he synthesizes with the existing sultanate to form a spreading Islamic progressive and democratic movement, "Abacarism." The revolutionary inspiration spreads among American slave populations underground and thus the Gullah islanders and other South Carolinian slave populations are more radicalized and have an organizational paradigm to participate preemptively in the US Civil War, forming insurgent partisans who overthrow the South Carolinian government/planter regime in extensive lowland regions and greatly assist the Union invasion of SC. In the ATL Lincoln is not assassinated and being moderate, prevents the full extent of Radical Republicanism that eventually supplanted Andrew Johnson's overly conservative approach; the Reconstruction Amendments are more limited in scope and by and large there are fewer top-down Union imposed barriers to white supremacist restoration in the South--but against this, there is more effective grassroots AA activism in South Carolina, and the demographic majority of the state is thus able to secure its electoral dominance and in effect there is one token African American run state in the Union--later, OTL Oklahoma is also admitted as an AA/Native American allied state of Sequoyah. So--on paper African Americans (and minorities in general) are less protected by paper rights embedded in the Constitution, but in practice they have tenacious centers of grassroots self-assertion, with SC being a sort of moral capital juxtaposed against white supremacist dominance, a place for people to flee to and a moral and pragmatic example. Edelstein is careful to avoid Mary-Sueing the place too much, in fact it has its own undemocratic hierarchies that are later challenged (based on the grassroots "circle" regional organizations of the self-liberated freedmen--by the way, while Abacarist and other Muslims are much more common here and elsewhere in the USA than OTL, they are overall the minority even in South Carolina, with the majority of AA people being more or less Christian--but Abacarist thought and thus Islamic moral and legal concepts seep over into general culture to a notable degree, especially in the AA Southern regions). The overall civil rights struggle persists and avoids the deep nadir centered on the 1920s OTL, and in fact the 1920s and '30s correspond more to the 1950s and '60s of OTL in terms of civil rights outcomes, with the USA ceasing to be an openly and ostensibly white supremacist society nominally and overall by the later 30s though as OTL, presumably quite a lot of unreconstructed resentment carries over for generations.

Now here of course we don't have any of that special layer of resistance and organization in coastal SC, and so I suppose there is no reason to predict AA greater successes there--except of course insofar as better outcomes for AA people in the complex of states north of SC starting with NC (and come to think of it, OTL Tennessee and Kentucky were states where overall voting levels were notably higher than in deep south bastions, closer to US averages, and Republican candidates would sometimes win victories all the way up to post-WWII 1950s when the South generally started shifting toward voting Republican at least in Presidential races--along with MD-VA-WV-NC, KY and TN could well be involved in the general back and forth between Populist-affiliated, Republican and Democratic three way electoral struggles and superior outcomes for grassroots poor "whites" and AA people sometimes in alliance; with such a complex more or less normalized I'd think southern Missouri and Arkansas along with portions of Texas would shift that way too, and with them--even possibly regions of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, despite the systematic state-wide organization of white supremacist Redeemers as well as racially polarized white-supremacist populists. And this could, by shifting national norms about what is and is not acceptable in terms of Jim Crow repression, even open up some small regional refuges for AA local-majority rule locally even in hardcore South Carolina and Georgia and perhaps Florida as well. Louisiana too could enjoy some poor "white" (including distinctively Cajun)/AA alliances more openly than the tacit plausibly-deniable methods Huey Long was known to show some sympathy to AA populations to.

Thus I am rather hoping that in fact we have (despite the advice of some, to put limits on racial-egalitarian radicalism to avoid triggering an assumed reserve of white supremacist resentment) a secular if perhaps only partial erosion of the alleged uniform racial caste lines of the South. Surely conventional attitudes and respectable opinions will remain shockingly bigoted versus modern progressive sensibilities, and bastions of quite brutal and sweeping white supremacy will remain strong for a long time and might even persist as open defiances of egalitarian norms longer and more openly than OTL in some places. But I also think it is entirely plausible that in other places and among wider strata in the South, the potential existed to dilute and indeed shrug off completely racist cant long long before the OTL post-WWII era, that in fact a good start was already made in the OTL later 1860s and just sustaining that and extending instead of withering it in the 1870s and '80s could go a long way toward creating zones on a spectrum from greater and less grudging tolerance to acceptance to actual embrace of inter-"racial" association at all levels.

In short, the "Solid" south might remain a zone where white supremacist extremism is open and strong in many places, and yet eroded and shot through with pores of various degrees of interracial fusion, and this latter throws the electoral politics into a more dynamic and shifting play in many if not all places, and redefines the OTL dominant Redeemer "Lost Causer" narrative with an alternative form of Southern identity, one based on acceptance of African-Americans as authentic, foundational and worthy elements of US national identity and celebration of their contributions to our national distinctiveness, a century before such talk became fashionable OTL.

Now I do think that if this can be done, so that the "Solid South" is only half-solid come 1900 and half the Southern states are in play electorally speaking, then long term, the Redeemer mythology is in fact doomed and still born versus its insane level of dominance OTL. OTL, the major wave of Ante-Bellum nostalgia and raising of Confederate monuments and naming of schools and courthouses and so on after Confederate "heroes" was actually 1910s peaking in the 1920s. Here I would think the heyday of Redeemerism, such as it is, would have to come earlier and be more limited, and by say 1900 be on the ropes and start declining. This decline might be hard fought and bitter, with a Redeemerish identity keeping and tightening a death grip on some states. And just perhaps, instead of a national Civil Rights campaign pledged to bring a complete end to forms of it and demand a national repudiation of white supremacism, in the interim, with AA people having more safe places to go without having to leave the South as a whole, and white supremacists in their bastions getting crazier and crazier in their isolated fanaticism, the oppressed people "vote with their feet" and filter out of the worst zones, leaving "pure white" populations in sole possession of these tracts, concentrating AA people in the accepting-to-embracing zones which prosper. Thus the majority of Southern people live in the latter zones, which are also most integrated into national and world communities and thus set the norm for what "Southern" identity is. Perhaps there never is a national Civil Rights housecleaning because by the time AA people and other minorities have won ideological acceptance as part of the normal (including Southern) national identity, the supremacists bastions are ethnically cleansed and comprise isolated and unusually backward and minority populations deprived of immediate contact with the people their leaders set them against--there is practically no one to liberate left in those zones, the oppressed people having walked away generations ago.

I actually think if there is room for such a dynamic of self-liberation via migration, that many a white supremacist bastion would undergo power shifts. In some, the diehard racists would be politically discredited as the exodus undermines economic viability and brings more moderate "whites" to power who are more conciliatory thus shifting the zone over to moderated normalcy. In others, the diehards fight back hard, attempting by means of terror to keep the racial underclass trapped on the land--which leads to overt outrages where they lack the national ideological political cover to get away with it--national opinion might not favor a resumption of forced Federal Reconstruction to come in, override the local powers that be, and enforce Constitutional racial equality (in your TL unlike Edelstein's, we have the OTL full panoply of Reconstruction amendments embedded in the Constitution after all)--but they might well support a tacit demand that people at any rate must be free to remove themselves as a basic civil right consistent with dominant US liberal ideology (no need for government handouts or favor or support because people are free to carve their own destiny implies an obligation to allow them to be free indeed). Thus such diehard zones must adapt to losing their subjugated underclass and shift to getting "white" people to do the hard and inglorious work--who then have standing politically to resist unfair oppression, unless the Union tolerates a downright repudiation of effective white male democracy in these hellhole zones. Which could happen, provided oppressed "white" folk are free to leave too, which is how these hellhole zones turn into little underpopulated duchies of corrupt oligarchies reigning over depressed and shrinking populations of true believers only, leaving them much in the position of Yertle the Turtle, kind of the mud because that is all he can see.

And in fact I honestly think if such a thing comes to pass, sooner or later these bypassed backwaters of extremism must collapse on themselves too, completely discrediting the whole synthesized Ante-Bellum ideology of OTL, probably I guess totally imploded by the time living memory of the Civil War period is totally extinct, so say by 1960 or so.

Perhaps I underestimate the alleged power of mere irrational fear of the different, though I do think the allegation that racism is somehow "instinctive" is pretty much falsified. And certainly believing as I do that it is a semi-deliberate construct of terroristic power, albeit much shored up with centuries of ideology normalizing it, it follows I do think the cynical and self-interested factors that imposed this mind-forged manacle on the peoples of the USA are very strong and very active, and it is nothing better than Mary-Sueing away a huge force that cannot be subverted so easily, no matter how sanguine I am about the seductive potential of embrace of US diversity in its positive and pleasurable aspects I may be. I may be overly US-patriotic in an idealized sense, too much in love with the positive visions of such people as Rev. King. But I do think there is potential here to set the power of love against the power of invidious hate and even the power of greed and fear. And that when and where examples of benign racial mingling are set, the inherent positives I point to do have power to dilute and discredit the sour effectiveness of fear-mongering reaction and thus the OTL monolith of white supremacism is indeed vulnerable to erosion and negation by positive feedback.

Certainly I do think that a major factor in transforming US anti-African racism from its old foundation in chattel slavery to its modern forms of racist apartheid in US culture is that racial polarization serves a function in a liberal capitalist society with pretensions of full democracy--by setting African Americans in a place apart by informal tacit cultural united fronts in lieu of ostensible state enforcement of discrimination, we have as it were created a sociological buffer. With AA people (and a revolving door of recent immigrants, and shifting of Latinos and other periennial immigrant/US born "minority" groups) kept at the bottom of the socio-economic class ladder, last hired, first hired, reluctantly if at all promoted, the most painful shocks of the inherently cyclic capitalist economy are dumped largely on them. Being a discriminated against minority, they have no recourse, even if allowed quite freely to politically campaign and vote in perfect equality with "white" people, to gaining political power even in proportion to their share of population, which is in any case a minority anyway, so that the commitment of US legal and moral norms to "free enterprise" without extensive regulation to improve prospects for the working classes at expense of the owning classes can be kept up despite the painful shock of the downside of the cycles making life quite problematic for those at the bottom. If those at the bottom are socially isolated from the "white" majority so sympathy for them is limited, then the wheels can keep turning. This is how American racial stratification has been transformed from overt slave exploitation to a nominally free but socially exploited class.

Given this stark reality as I see it, it probably means that to achieve an inclusionist, relaxed non-racist order in America requires the triumph of socialism, or at any rate a very interventionist social democracy committed to prioritizing the welfare of the common masses and imposing whatever costs on centralized capitalist ownership might be required to sustain a decent and rising living standard for all.

But of course I've never hidden that this is my dream and goal, and that I think it is well within the realm of human possibility to achieve it with democratic institutions, given the political will and organization of grassroots democrats.

Populists, if you will.

I think of the eventual People's Party constellation emerging nationally by say 1900 not as a single-party social democratic uniform movement, but part of a larger competitive constellation that definitely would include strong advocates of social stratification and polarization as a virtuous thing--what I conceive of "reaction" as in other words. So I am not looking to a simple Utopia of universal brotherhood, but rather as one side of the political struggle standing forthrightly and openly for that as a goal, checked and opposed by others who frame it quite differently and must do so openly.

The USA as a whole could well have to go through periods where "meritocratic" stratification dominates and various lefty dissidents are divided and in opposition. In such periods white supremacism might make advances, either openly or covertly under a hypocritical cant of "equality of opportunity" ideologically in denial of the power of embedded privilege to tilt the balance of the game board.

The hopeful ideological difference in the ATL might be the development and survival, in their own bastions, of counter-views critically pointing out these imbalances and having substantial if not always dominant or successful numbers of citizens subscribing to their proposed remedies--which to be sure would range all the way from minor and symbolic re-arrangements of the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic to radical revolutionary extremism of various kinds.

I do think if the various more moderate (if firm and far-reaching) reformists have their periods of dominance, either regionally or nationally, their partial reforms can sustain the legitimacy of a muddled middle state of things, not entirely in accord with either reactionary or revolutionary desires, that prevents the most extremist radicals from gaining unchecked power. But also, that it has to emerge as a political norm that no viewpoint can be declared so out of bounds as to be legitimately repressed and silenced. Free speech must prevail and to do so, it has to prevail for all, including whomever any one of us might think is reprehensibly deplorable.

Perhaps such a dynamic balance cannot be sustained. I do think something better approximating it can be than was the case in actual US history from Reconstruction to the present day though.

In this context perhaps it is clear why I am such a wonk for electoral mechanism reforms that guarantee nuanced and diverse representation of even small minority views, having at least roughly proportional representation as a general political norm, as opposed to OTL conventional wisdom arguing that only large consensus views need to be represented formally. With a dynamic multi-party competition setting the norms in the early 20th century, I do think that OTL US history points the way toward a peculiarly American form, leaning on a modified form of Single Transferable Vote. If in the 1910s to 30s we have a South that is politically porous, at least in sectors, rather than "Solid," the Midwest and West in play between liberal-conservatives devoted to capitalist norms versus various kinds of populists affirming the right and ability of grassroots majorities to adjust market mechanisms with government intervention to get superior outcomes for the working majority, and a spectrum of syndicalist to more or less Bolshevik radical working class movements challenging liberal-conservatism in the industrial regions, I suspect the dynamic would favor incremental shifting from FPTP races to quasi-proportional STV outcomes, as various factions that happen to be dominant at the moment foresee the near-inevitable outcome of losing their temporary grip on the majority and agree to forestall their fall into total oblivion on the basis of marginal defeats with adoption of a guarantee of at least partial representation even in places where they fall below 50 percent consistently and forever; in alliance with voters who want to support more marginal movements that can better hope for a somewhat proportional foot in the door, STV systems can spread from rising numbers of city governments to county boards, make the leap to state legislatures and even to state elections of Federal representatives piecemeal, and with the US Congress increasingly elected in this way, a transition toward setting it as the legally mandated norm for electing all of them can happen.

Meanwhile I think STV clearly has limits in terms of proportional representation of smaller minorities, and that in this evolving transition from winner-take-all toward norms of proportional shares of representation, traction might emerge for a consensus to acknowledge a form of party-proportionality correcting the overall outcome of STV elections to be rigorously proportional in party terms. I actually have conceived of a way to largely sidestep the formal power of formally organized political parties to control this and put the power flexibly in the hands of voters, via a concept that holds that what is awarded proportional shares is a set of candidate alliances where the candidates formally identify each other as individual candidates in pledged alliance. In fact most of these alliances would be organized by political parties, but maverick candidates can put themselves forward in competition and it would be up to voters to decide which factions to support--which puts pressure on the organized parties to cater to voter factions and coordinate closely with voter perceptions of how well their peculiar interests are being served.

With this corrective in place, STV will tend to produce outcomes skewed from actual proportionality but somewhat correlated with it, allowing modest multipliers of additional members to make up alliance quotas to bring it into line with proportionality very closely, thus opening up opportunities for mavericks to challenge establishment parties without "spoiler" effects going beyond voter convictions, and this permits all voters of whatever views to believe they can elect representatives who faithfully and intelligently advocate for their peculiar interests. This shifts the arena of political compromise from voters being forced to decide which of two party options is closer to their desires to collective bargaining within the legislatures and other multimember bodies to negotiate majorities item by item for individual actions.

In a context like this, I think the STV/alliance makeup norm can achieve an effective form of republican democracy in which the issues that face the state or nation are dragged onto the table in openly debated form, and the outcomes represent a consciously negotiated series of compromises in aid of democratic consensus. And on such a basis, conceivably, the principle of populist dominance set against the efficiencies of capitalist development can arrive at a negotiated balance of power between public and private interest resulting in balanced and optimal outcomes for all, sustaining general hope and faith in the legitimacy of the system even for most dissidents, who can at the very least put forth their criticisms on the record and be heard, judged--and courted from time to time for support on closely balanced items.

It is prospects like this that excite me about TLs where greater political competition holding out the prospect of widespread grassroots political participation seem to be in order. If I have some faith in the broad decency of people despite their well known flaws, I can have faith that with engaged mass involvement will come superior justice and better prospects for all, in time.
 
From the abstract to the concrete then....

Another indirect consequence of this event would be the heated negotiations over the Alabama Claims between the United States and the United Kingdom, inflamed by what Britain saw as an encroachment of American influence on European affairs, and the subsequent decline in relations between the two nations over the next century.

And take the deal he did. After bloviating over his disappointment and righteous indignation, Disraeli relented and accepted to pay the damages. However, he also sent an extra detachment of soldiers to Canada, just in case the Americans tried anything. What little goodwill remained between the two nations continued to be strained.
I don't know how well I can accept the idea that the USA would be this aggressive, this openly, this early against the mighty British Empire.

Now certainly, having won the Civil War and with several years of Reconstruction resorbing the South back into the Union on Republican terms, the USA is in a far better position, just in terms of war gaming, to face an all out war with the single European power most able to inflict serious harm on the US that if we had been this bull-headed during the ACW or any time before. Certainly the recent CW experience means the USA has one of the more experienced armed forces to call back to the colors in the contemporary world, going from generals and grand strategists right down to buck privates suitable to promote to corporals and sergeants to drill and organize a new crop of youngsters born just too late to participate. Certainly a patriotic war against Britain might serve to reconcile Southerners, of both colors, and thus multiply Union manpower versus the Civil War, and former Confederate veterans, washed free of their treason by service in the Union army, have comparable or nearly so experience to their Union counterparts in the most modern forms of warfare. Certainly the US Navy was raised from its desultory status pre-1861 to a large and modernized one during the ACW and on this basis, a wave of new construction of yet more modern warships in the hands of experienced officers and petty officers with ACW Naval service drilling and seasoning new recruits can put a hell of a challenge to the mighty RN at sea.

But, just in cold blooded war gamer terms, consider the liabilities of the USA against what is still, in the 1870s, the mightiest single industrial power in the world, one with far flung bases literally spanning the globe, a strong and well defended port right north of the US northeastern seaboard (Halifax), bases strewn throughout the Caribbean, a decent sized port/industrial complex just north of Puget Sound, and holding Australia and New Zealand, with far East squadrons based in China and with special relationships with many Latin American republics including Chile, Peru and Colombia. Consider that however well Reconstruction might seem to be going and counting pretty much the entire African-American population of the USA as loyal Unionist assets, there is quite a bit of resentment in the South and if the RN can put the USN on the ropes enough to open the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts up to British landings, the possibility that belated British support for another round of secessionism under British protection can throw quite a monkey wrench into the Union cause. I can't speculate on the magnitude of the risk of a new civil war or the success of southern secession in formal and strong alliance with the UK, whether it is a powder keg almost sure to destroy the Union once and for all (in terms of keeping possession of the South anyway, if not existential threat to destroy the whole Union under British divide and rule after conquest, which is far-fetched I think) or "merely" an irritating diversion of Union resources--either way this is form of interventionist whoop-ass I think US Grant in particular would be leery of.

The subject of whether the USA can really seize all of Canada in a "Matter of Marching" over days or weeks is a tender one on this site. We have Canadian patriots who scorn the concept and firmly believe the Dominion (by this date in thread, in the absence of any special butterflies that have not been provided for, united federally as OTL with only Newfoundland left out) will repel any number of crude Yanks with the power of defending the right. Versus others who shrug off the possibility it could be more than a speed bump.

But the problem with conquering Canada, even if it is a mere "matter of marching" indeed, is that it hands persons in Britain resentful of rising Yankee arrogance the most gold plated excuse in the world to mobilize everything to set things to rights and put the Yanks in their place. And while I think if we just look at the population and production statistics, the day comes, less than halfway through the 20th century probably, where this is too big a burden on the Empire to see through, the late 19th century is not quite that day yet. It might already be late enough in the day that placed on the defensive, the Americans despite liabilities prove too strong to destroy as a rival and the best the British can get is a White Peace amounting to a truce, and a time after it when the USA is rolled back a bit and the British can attempt to fortify their far flung grip against another round more or less sure to come soon.

But in addition to a great big unhealed wound in national unity all too liable to tear loose under the strain of a great war with Britain, at this early date well before 1900, the USA for instance has yet to complete its development of industrial capacity to match Britain one to one in such fields as high quality steels, access to nitrates for explosives, chemical industry and industry in general. During and after the Civil War the Union grew by leaps and bounds toward comprehensive modern industrial autarky, but still at this early date, the USA needs time to grow more and fully establish a comprehensive suite of capabilities that can match the current industrial leader of the world. Now of course Germany is coming along and is set to surpass Britain overall in total capacity, and may already be the single world leader in the highest development of technology; certainly if the USA can enlist the new German Second Reich as an ally in an all out bid for world supremacy, the British might have much to fear. Of course anything aggressive the Germans try to do, the French are right there willing, though at this early date after their recent beating they took from the Germans not so well able, to lend a hand opposing them. Managing to recruit the Germans to the anti-British cause just brings the French in on the British side. At least the USA's traditional cordiality with Tsarist Russia probably means the Germans can maneuver without worrying about the Russians, especially given Bismarck's "Dreikaiserbund" policy of keeping both Romanov Russia and Hapsburg Austria-Hungary on side. But the only other nation besides Britain that maintains really substantial colonial holdings in the Western Hemisphere combined with substantial hitting power is indeed the French Third Republic.

Meanwhile Bismarck is no idiot and there is no reason at this early date for Germany to clash with the British. Pretending a US/German Empire alliance is in the cards is just plain wargaming for the fun of it; in political terms it would be totally out of left field. Without Germany on the US side, there is no reason for the French to be against the USA (aside perhaps from resentment of how Maximillian's bid for empire in Mexico turned out, but that was a mistake of the previous Second Empire regime, not the current Republic) and traditionally the USA and France are more friendly than not--though certainly if the Grant administration wants to make a big bellicose deal out of the British opportunistically aiding the Confederacy cut the USA down a peg, in the context of this petty blow turning out to be struck for the losing side, the French, again under Napoleon II not the current Republican government, committed their own offenses against Yankee interest--notably of course the whole Maximillian misadventure.

Now look at the other side of the ledger. While the British government was certainly a little bit complicit in aiding the losing and morally dubious rebel side, overall they acted with proper neutral restraint, when piling onto the Southern cause full on could have conceivably won them a big victory in the form of a crushing and humiliating body blow against the upstart USA. I happen to be one of those people who think the Union might have rallied and defied the combined power of Britain, France and the Confederates and prevailed, but largely because while petty and plausibly deniable blows against the Union cause such as providing safe harbor for Confederate commerce raiders was the sort of thing a conservative and Yank-resenting government could get away with, the Union cause had considerable popularity and sympathy in the liberal-radical opposition population of the realm, as I believe it did among leftist types in France and all through Europe. Going all in against the USA would have been unpopular and much questioned and left the governments doing it with a hard choice between backing off or having to crack down hard on dissent, either of which would weaken the foolhardy persons jumping into bed with the slaver rebellion. For this reason I think the Union need only stand its ground and fend off conquest, which would be difficult to accomplish given assets on the ground in the North, and wait for the coalition to collapse and come to reasonable terms of status quo ante, allowing the Union after some delay and attrition to get back to defeating the Confederacy in detail.

For the British it would certainly be harder to fight Uncle Sam when not faced with a successful secession in being, the USA having only grown while Britain has slipped relatively farther behind. But for the Americans, it is a foolish and costly struggle to take on gratuitiously.

Meanwhile, on the whole, despite grievances about lost cargoes and lives to Confederate commerce raiders, and other irritations of HMG taking advantage of Yankee discomfiture, British investment in American industry continues to buoy American expansion, whereas the British were hardly in a position to leverage their partial ownership of American assets into political bullying. On the whole, there is no more profitable trading partner for American farmers and ranchers and miners to sell their goods to than Great Britain, whereas British industry is, post 1860, walled out of competition with rising US domestic production by Republican tariffs, but not complaining since they profit from investment in those same US productive firms. The civil relationship between the nations is quite valuable to both and war between them is rather absurd.

So--in this context, perhaps the Grant Administration does feel it can make a mountain out of the molehill of last decade's miscalculated and petty malice against the Union, and bluster its way toward making loud demands for compensation belligerently. But when push comes to shove, does President Grant really think Congress is going to approve an unprovoked and arbitrary violation of Canada and take on the certain consequences of massive interruption not only of the most profitable single trade partner's trade, but the RN surely being able to interdict all commerce between the USA and Europe whatsoever? It may be that gung-ho boosters of US naval yards believe that in a matter of half a year or so, the shipyards can once again churn out another brand new fleet of warships to repel the blockades and fight off the landings and drive away the artillery bombardments of coastal cities and towns, and then engage in some knock-down fight in the middle of the Atlantic to break the greatest navy in the world and come in to liberate Ireland and generally wreck the bondage the Enemy of Mankind has placed on every continent on the globe. But can such a blustery vision of conquering glory really prevail against the common sense, bird in the hand of continuing to prosper in a perfectly comfortable relationship with this same world-spanning imperial power that despite its sun never sets glory, cannot sensibly dream of harming the USA--not without cutting herself off from one of her greatest sources of material supply, and seeing all the profits of her heavy investment terminated with Yankee confiscation, and then indeed risking the captivity of all Her Majesty's loyal subjects in Canada, and who knows, maybe Bermuda, the Bahamas, the rest of the British Caribbean including British Honduras, the harassment and disruption of Britain's trade with Latin America and raising up a general threat on both Atlantic and Pacific to forever after fear?

Peace is only sensible. Either side may bluster for advantage in driving harder bargains, but in the end, neither benefits from a hostile and overbearing attitude toward the other.

I don't know, perhaps OTL Hamilton Fish did utter those very words, plainly and clearly--"comply with our demands for compensation or else we'll take Canada from you." If so I'd like to see it verified, because while the implicit threat is always on the table, among sanely diplomatic persons, such a threat would not be something to say openly. It is childishly bellicose. It would be different if the British had in fact been actively harassing and harming American interests at every turn, but it is my impression that once the tide turned and Union victory seemed pretty well assured, the British largely backed off provocations, and so did the USA, and that after that while wild rhetoric going back to Fourth of Julys since 1776 remained a staple of US Independence Day speeches, and such immigrant groups as the Irish were there to cheer them on with grim seriousness, and Anglophobia in high places remained a serious thing up to 1945 or so--on the whole, any US support of anti-British actions such as those of the Fenians were veiled in plausible deniability and at least pro-forma deploring of lawlessness, and in fact sympathy for the Irish cause for instance was quite limited at best, except among the Irish-Americans themselves of course. (Even fellow Catholic immigrant groups, Poles and Italians and French and so on, who by the way were not so common before the 1880s anyway, had little solidarity with the Irish particularly; the Irish took care of themselves of course with rising control of city machines and the like, but with little love from Protestant Americans--particularly not Republicans, the Irish in particular along with immigrants in general tending to veer to the despised Democratic camp--"Rum, Romanism and Rebellion!")

Unless it turns out that OTL Fish and Grant actually went around saying such provocative things so openly, I find it hard to believe any rational development of the Republican position, or even the keenest ambitions of US imperialists, dared make such outrageous threats, at least not without some immediate and painful irritation from the British side to provoke righteous wrath with HMG more salient than quarrels over indirect help to the defeated Confederacy a decade prior. All very well for Fourth of July calls for vigilance, not so great for persuading young men to flock to the Army and Navy to go fight against the world's greatest imperial power for no better reason than that. Nor would US industry benefit from an absent workforce guarding the shores and cut-off imports of fine capital goods, tropical colonial products, and being blockaded from selling either primary produce such as grain or US industrial products overseas by RN blockade.

A more credible threat might be to impose confiscatory taxes and fees on foreign investment--if in fact US business really wanted to strangle its own access to European capital like that! It might be possible to draft such legislation so as to only target British investors and assure French, German, Dutch etc investors their investments are still safe and profitable--but any such move must surely spook the lot of them, and meanwhile the British investors are the single greatest source of development capital alongside domestic US self-investment.

On the whole I think US imperialism, if taking a more aggressive stand earlier in this ATL, would turn the process around, and focus on getting legislation to build up US military force, particularly naval, and with it subsidize and guarantee technology transfers of the highest tech methods to US factories, and build up strategic reserves of such scarce war material as nitrates for explosives along with force-developing domestic means of synthesizing them (that is, develop advanced forms of the urine processing methods already known in the 18th century, on a scale sufficient to substitute for guano the British would surely blockade--at least enough reserves for a planned surge to break through British pickets and seize control of some of the nearer Pacific guano islands, and then manage to secure the supply line between these and American ports on the Pacific). Just spending the money to build new modern naval vessels with the latest in armor and guns, and train up one cadre after another of sailors and soldiers to stand ready, and similarly build up arsenals of the best new rifle and artillery designs, along with reserves of powder makings, would go a long way toward gratifying imperialist demands--provided no one cried foul that the US taxpayer (via higher tariff rates, the only politically viable mode of taxation to pay for such Federal largesse in times of peace) is being fleeced to benefit some industrial insider cronies of Republican leadership. "The one thing you cannot do with bayonets is sit on them!" said Napoleon Bonaparte; I see the logic of making up an enemy to arm against first and then doing the buildup. I do think it would be foolhardy in the extreme to try to make the British the goat, unless of course in the ATL the British did something outrageous on their own hook.

Being reasonably rational HMG did no such thing OTL, nor did Grant and Fish as far as I know double down on hysterical war-mongering for the hell of it. I honestly think Grant's war time experience would put him off a military venture not demanded compellingly by circumstances beyond his control, which is generally the case with American General-Presidents such as say Dwight Eisenhower--they've seen war, and they'd rather not have more of it if it can be safely and honorably avoided. Maybe if it were some other Republican or Democrat--but of course, the GOP went on nominating one Union ACW officer after another, turning to mere colonels and captains when passing generations had taken away such generals as Grant and Garfield.

Taking control of the Dominican Republic opportunistically is another matter that I think is not so objectionable. Gratuitously threatening to gobble up Canada--that's just crazy. By the time the balance of power shifted so far against Britain and toward Uncle Sam--such loud and bellicose methods of achieving dominance and glory would be superfluous. OTL the path to American glory was the steady tortoise race of plodding domestic industrial development, combined with opportunistic cherry-picking as with the annexations of American Samoa, Hawaii, the Spanish American War and TR's scheming to get control of the Panama Canal Zone. And with a rather minimal basis for secured power projection globally, we quickly went over to the sort of indirect rule that the British had excelled at before, as in Central America and Haiti, and post WWII all of Latin America as well as "our backyard."

So--Dominican Republic annexation, yes! Buildup of a modern naval fleet with the ambition of being "second to none," maybe--it is a matter of coming up with some satisfactory source of funds not too politically objectionable. Schemes involving proxies in Central America for a canal somewhere, yes.

Slapping the British lion with a loutish open threat along the lines of "Nice Dominion you've got up there north of the 48th parallel, be a shame if something happened to it!"?

No no no, I just don't think US domestic politics was ready for that, nor would such a leader as Grant be the ringleader of any loudmouths crude enough to utter such a gangster threat.

Not yet. And by the time the time is ripe--as OTL, by then, not necessary. If Britain and USA were to fall out for some other organic and deep reason, then yes, threatening to annex Canada would be a popular trope, much as it was before 1860 (when were hardly in a position to make good on it). Already though I think it is too gauche and crude to say, not when the British are now playing reasonably nice and conciliatory and investing all that money in American railroads and factories and mines and so on.
 
Top