Answering the Call of Lafayette: America Intervenes in the Franco-Prussian War

I presume Lee died in 1870 in TTL as he did in OTL. Even if he was alive, I guess he would be too old to want to go to Europe and have a field command over there.

Hi. Yes, he died actually in early 1871 in the ATL. And you are right, he would have been old and in ill health anyway by 1870, so it is unlikely he would have returned to military service in any case.
 
Nevertheless, he was one of the major war heroes of the ATL Civil War, having captured most of Tennessee and Mississippi, including Vicksburg, before the end of 1862. I probably should write up, at some point, a sketch of the course of the ATL Civil War. That might make it easier to understand some of the later developments in the timeline.

Probably a good idea to provide the sketch. It would seem to be necessary to understand the nature of the war's settlement and thus the resulting aftermath in TTL Reconstruction.

I decided to do this after consulting the language used in the Northwest Ordinance of 1784, which I am assuming would have been consulted with regard to the ban on slavery in the territories.
Good point. I was also thinking about how else to phrase such a provision; anything that's too vague might allow room for later meddling, so I could see how using the actual word becomes necessary.

I would point out though that your language might have important affects: "those persons held as slaves" makes clear that slaves are considered persons. I'm thinking that one thing that TTL Republicans and Lincoln might consider advocating is some kind of insurance on the treatment of slaves to acknowledge their personhood. It's probably more of a home-grown movement in the South, but this clause might be important in such an attempt.

There actually were concerns raised by some Congressmen from some of the Northern States in OTL as to whether it was a good thing that the right of secession had been rendered null and void by the war. I am thinking that this, along with a desire to throw in a lump of sugar for the South in order to make swallowing the bitter pill that the amendment generally represents to the South somewhat easier, is what motivates Lincoln and his allies to include this measure. For all intents and purposes, secession is effectively a dead issue, even with this provision, since no State can any longer unilaterally secede...2/3 of the representatives of the other States have to approve for it to be permitted. That is VERY unlikely to happen, and I think everybody involved in the passage of the amendment knows that.
Good points. I still think they might use a higher threshold, such as 3/4s. The precedent to make it higher than 2/3 would be the ratification threshold, 9 of 13, which is about 69%. It's probably close enough to 2/3 that your version would fly, though.

I am assuming that they would have had to swear loyalty oaths to regain their citizenship after the war, just as in OTL. The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with that requirement, it was imposed as part of the amnesty issued by President Johnson. However, Lincoln (as in OTL) wants to make the process of Reconstruction as painless as possible, and so there is no provision barring Confederate officials from political involvement (that was insisted upon by the Radicals in Congress who were bent on punishing the South, and does not appear to have been part of Lincoln's plan).
I was actually thinking that the TTL equivalent might establish actually ensure the ability of former officeholders to continue to hold office. However, such a section would be somewhat superfluous if the persons involved had already been pardoned. I'm thinking that the Corwin / Lincoln Amendment is considered also a new Constitution itself, setting down the terms of continued Union. Some scholars argue that the OTL Civil War Amendments did so for "a new birth of freedom."

I have been considering how, exactly, to do that when slavery has now been formally protected under the Constitution. I may add a Section 6 to the amendment, or find another way. One idea I have been tossing around in my head...A Section 6 which states that slaves escaping into States which have abolished slavery do not have to be returned. However, if the State government of whatever State the slave escapes into elects not to return the slave, the State Government must pay fair compensation to the slave's owner. This solution would not make either side completely happy, but seems the fairest and most equitable way to handle the issue.
It is a hard thing to do. I would note, however, that even such a compromise would be susceptible to abuse: Southern states might present demands for every escaped slave to their free neighbors, without bothering to prove into which state the slave had escaped. It also provides a huge incentive for Underground Railroad operations: abolitionists might attempt to smuggle slaves out of the South. Such activities would in turn increase the suspicion against almost any Northerner in the South. Nonetheless, a truly fair-minded Federal judiciary could probably do a lot to solve the problem.

There's also the issue of whether a slave, if transported out of a slave state and into a free one, is still a slave. That issue in turns also depends on the question of citizenship: is the white owner of the slave in question a citizen of the free state or of the slave state and when does the one become the other? This is the Dred Scott issue that OTL Section 1 of the 14th Amendment overturned; I think Lincoln probably wants to solve this one in some way other than rely on the Dred Scott decision.

Such a precedent might also begin to impinge upon the freedom of movement between states which follows from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

All of this means that Lincoln and Grant's Supreme Court nominations will be particularly important. There's not telling how much longer Lincoln might have lived, but I always like to suggest him as a potential Chief Justice of the SCOTUS if he lives past a Civil War. Imagine the prose of his opinions!

Best of luck.
 
I have rewritten the first part of the timeline (up to April 1863), to include a history of the American Civil War as it played out in this timeline.

December 1860--South Carolina secedes from the Union.

January 1861--Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana secede from the Union.

February 1861--Texas secedes from the Union. Representatives of the seceded States meet in Montgomery, Alabama, to discuss the formation of a new government. On February 8, a Constitution is adopted and the Confederate States of America is officially declared in existence. Jefferson Davis is sworn in as President of the Confederacy on February 18, with Alexander H. Stephens as his Vice President.

March 1861--On March 4, Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as President of the United States at Washington, D.C. In his inauguration address, he declares secession illegal, and vows to uphold the Union. He does, however, attempt to conciliate the South by denying he has any plans to interfere with slavery where it already exists.

April 1861--A crisis over the status of Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, turns violent when Confederate forces open fire on the fort in order to force its surrender before the garrison can be augmented and resupplied by a Federal fleet sent by President Lincoln for that purpose. With these shots, the American Civil War begins. Three days later, President Lincoln issues a call or 75,000 volunteers and asks the States to supply their militias for the purpose of suppressing the “insurrection,” as he calls it. On that same day (April 15), Caleb Huse, Confederate Purchasing Agent, sets sail for England. In reaction to President Lincoln’s request for it’s State Militia, Virginia secedes from the Union on April 17. On April 19, President Lincoln declares a blockade of Confederate ports. This is a blunder, as by declaring a blockade, Lincoln has tacitly granted the Confederacy “belligerent” status under international law. Now foreign nations may legally sell arms and equipment to the Confederacy.

April 1861 onward--The Confederacy initially has little difficulty equipping it’s armies. A supply of almost 300,000 military firearms (a majority of which are obsolete, but still serviceable, smoothbore muskets) had been amassed by the various State governments, most of which become available to the Confederate army at the outbreak of war. The Confederates are able to equip their main field armies for campaigning in 1861 and early 1862 with these weapons. However, the Confederacy has little capacity to produce more, and if the war lasts more than a few months, that lack will soon make itself felt on the battlefield. It is vital that reliable supplies of foreign imported arms be established.

May 1861--North Carolina and Arkansas secede from the Union. Britain declares it’s neutrality in the conflict, but states that it will accord both sides their full rights as belligerents. Caleb Huse takes full advantage of this by signing major arms contracts with all the major British arms makers. The Confederate Congress votes to relocate the Confederate capital from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond, Virginia.

June 1861--Tennessee secedes from the Union. Emperor Napoleon III of France openly declares his support of the Union, saying that France will not support a “rebellion against their lawful government by a cadre of detestable slavers.” He orders Confederate envoys and purchasing agents expelled from France. French diplomats communicate Napoleon’s concern over Britain’s neutral stance vis-à-vis the Confederacy.

July 1861--Following intense diplomatic negotiations between France and Britain, including a personal letter from Napoleon III to Queen Victoria, the British government reverses it’s diplomatic stance toward the Confederacy. Confederate diplomats and purchasing agents are expelled from Britain, and the British government forces all British arms makers to abrogate the contracts which have recently been made with Caleb Huse. The Confederacy will have no access to British arsenals during the war. The Battle of First Manassas proceeds as per OTL. The Confederates win a major victory, but are unable to follow it up by pursuing the beaten Union army.

July 1861-Spring 1862--Events of the American Civil War proceed as per OTL, with one major exception…Confederate arms purchasers, having been kicked out of Britain and France, find their sources of supply limited to Belgian firms (who will sell to anybody, for a price), as well as Austria and Prussia. Belgium provides approximately 50,000 copies of the highly regarded British Enfield rifle musket, while Austria sells about 100,000 modern Lorenz rifle muskets, while Prussia empties it’s warehouses of surplus antiquated flintlocks, most of which saw hard service during the Napoleonic Wars over 40 years before. Most of what is bought from Prussia proves to be completely unserviceable and is a complete waste of money, but the Belgian and Austrian rifles are a welcome addition to Confederate stockpiles. However, it is not enough, and by the Spring of 1862, Confederate armies…especially in the Western Theater, are feeling the pinch.

October 1861--Treaty of London. Britain, France and Spain decide to unite their efforts to collect unpaid debts from the Mexican government.

December 1861--Spanish fleet and army arrives at Vera Cruz.

1862--In Prussia, the largest of the German states, a member of the landed aristocracy, Otto von Bismarck, becomes Chancellor. Representing the king, he declares that his government is to rule without parliament.

January 1862--British and French fleets arrive at Vera Cruz.

February 1862--Forts Henry and Donelson fall to Union forces commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant. With the fall of these forts, central Tennessee becomes undefendable, and Confederate forces withdraw southward to Corinth, Mississippi. The Union Army occupies Nashville on February 25.

March 1862--French army lands in Mexico. President Lincoln removed George B. McClellan from his position as General-in-Chief of Union forces and places him in command of the Army of the Potomac, tasked with the capture of Richmond. Clash between the C.S.S. Virginia…a Confederate ironclad constructed on the burned hulk of the former U.S.S. Merrimac…and the U.S.S. Monitor, a new turreted ironclad designed by John Ericsson. The battle is tactically a draw, but strategically a Union victory. The Virginia had destroyed two wooden U.S. warships the previous day, but the Monitor is able to prevent the Confederate ironclad from destroying the rest of the Union blockade fleet in Hampton Roads. The Virginia returns to port, and the two ironclads will never meet again in battle.

April 1862--A convention of the London Treaty powers decides to withdraw from Mexico. Napoleon III, however, does not immediately go along with the other powers, and French troops remain.

In Virginia, Major General George B. McClellan’s Army of the Potomac, having been transported by sea to Fort Monroe, advances west along the Peninsula toward Richmond. On April 5, McClellan lays siege to Confederate forces at Yorktown, Virginia.
At Corinth, Mississippi, General Albert Sidney Johnston had hoped to gather enough troops to make possible an attack on the army of Major General Ulysses S. Grant, which was then encamped at Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee. However, the failure of Confederate agents to secure any English or French arms, and the top priority given to arming the troops defending the Confederate capital in Virginia, means that he has not had the same success which he enjoyed in OTL. As a result, he abandons his planned assault on Grant’s army. On April 6, 1862, Grant is joined by the army of Major General Don Carlos Buell, and together, the combined Union host of over 80,000 advances on Corinth on April 10. Outnumbered almost three-to-one, General Johnston orders the Confederate evacuation of Corinth on April 11. Johnston’s army retreats to Jackson, Mississippi. Meanwhile, on April 8, Island Number 10 surrenders to Union forces under John Pope, opening the Mississippi River to Union forces all the way down to Fort Pillow, Tennessee. And on April 24, Union warships under David G. Farragut run past Forts Jackson and St. Philip on the Mississippi River, the only defenses of New Orleans. New Orleans itself falls on April 25.

May 1862--On May 4, Confederate forces slip away from Yorktown toward Williamsburg, Virginia. General McClellan’s Army of the Potomac follows…slowly. McClellan is operating on delusions that he is vastly outnumbered by Confederate forces, due largely to specious intelligence reports provided by Allan Pinkerton, and is very cautious in his pursuit of the retreating enemy. On May 5, 1862, the Battle of Puebla is fought between Mexican and French forces. French troops suffer a humiliating defeat at the hand of the Mexican forces, although casualties are relatively light. On May 10, the combined Union armies of Ulysses S. Grant and Don Carlos Buell move south from Corinth, Mississippi, toward the Mississippi State capital at Jackson, which is defended by General Albert Sidney Johnston’s Army of Mississippi. Johnston has been reinforced somewhat by refugee troops from New Orleans and from elsewhere, but is still is outnumbered by over two to one. Jackson is the major rail nexus connecting the port of Vicksburg, Mississippi…a vital link between it’s States east and west of the Mississippi River…with the rest of the Confederacy. It must be held. Accordingly, Johnston orders the construction of strong fortifications around the city. His works are repeatedly assaulted by the Union armies over May 27-29, 1862. Although the Confederates fight valiantly, the odds are too great. A Union assault on May 29 pierces the Confederate lines, and Johnston’s army is shattered. Both Johnston and his second in command, General P.G. T. Beauregard, are killed as they brave enemy fire trying to retrieve the situation. Survivors of the Confederate forces retreat toward Vicksburg, where they augment the garrison there, or toward Montgomery, Alabama, where a Confederate relief force is being slowly concentrated. On May 31, Confederate forces under General Joseph E. Johnston launch an assault against an isolated wing of McClellan’s Union Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks). General Johnston is severely wounded and forced to relinquish his command.

June 1862--On June 1, Robert E. Lee is placed in command of the Confederate Army of the Potomac, defending Richmond, which he renames the Army of Northern Virginia. However, on that same day, President Jefferson Davis, faced with the collapsing situation in the West, orders the withdrawal of troops from Virginia and sends them west. Among these is The Army of the Valley, commanded by Major General Thomas Jonathan Jackson, which has, up to now, been bedeviling Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley. Troops from the main Confederate army protecting Richmond are also diverted west, and even Allan Pinkerton cannot fail to notice that there are not as many Confederates around as previously. He reports this to General McClellan, who is emboldened to speed up his advance on Richmond. General Robert E. Lee, who had been planning to again attack the Union Army, finds that with his depleted forces, he is unable to do so. McClellan reaches the Confederate fortifications outside Richmond and begins siege operations on June 15. A frustrated Robert E. Lee can do nothing but watch as his army is encircled by vastly superior Union forces. Meanwhile, on June 6, the Battle of Memphis is fought between Union and Confederate fleets. The Union forces are victorious. Memphis falls to Union troops shortly thereafter. Vicksburg is now the Confederacy’s only remaining link between it’s cis-Mississippi and trans-Mississippi States. Meanwhile in France, upon learning of the disaster at Puebla, Napoleon III decides that Mexico might not be worth the effort it would take to seize it, and orders the withdrawal of French troops.

June 25-August 2, 1862--The Siege of Richmond. McClellan brings up heavy artillery to bombard the Confederate works and the city itself. Several Union assaults are beaten back with heavy losses during June and July, but finally, on August 2, a major Union assault breaks through into the city. President Jefferson Davis, who had stubbornly refused advice from General Lee to evacuate the city, is caught and killed by rampaging Union cavalry commanded by Brigadier General George Armstrong Custer as he attempts to flee the Confederate White House. Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, however, escapes the city, along with most of the rest of the Confederate government. Union forces burn much of the city to the ground. Also killed is another Union cavalry commander, John Buford.

June 1862 onward--Recriminations in France over the defeat at Puebla lead to an earlier reform of the French military. Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon, with the approval of Emperor Napoleon III, closes loopholes in the national conscription regulations, and increases bonuses for reenlistment of veteran troops, both of which greatly increase the strength and quality of the French military.

July 1862--Union Generals Grant and Buell follow up their victory at Jackson with an advance on Vicksburg, to which they lay siege on July 12. In this they are supported by the Union fleet, coming down from Memphis and up from New Orleans, as well as by another Union Army moving north from New Orleans under Major General Benjamin Butler. Butler’s force is stymied by the garrison of Port Hudson, Louisiana, however, and stops to lay siege to that place. Grant and Buell lay siege to Vicksburg. Meanwhile, Major General Thomas Jonathan Jackson, the senior officer available in Montgomery upon his arrival there, takes command of the new Confederate Army of Alabama, which is being formed at that place. Jackson finds himself in command of over 40,000 troops, but nevertheless knows he is still greatly outnumbered by the Union forces in Mississippi. He decides to embark on a bold strategy…strike north, into Tennessee, and threaten Nashville, in the hope that most, if not all, of the Union forces now rampaging through Mississippi will be recalled north to defend their supply lines through Tennessee. Jackson marches north from Montgomery on July 9, 1862. By the end of the month he is into Tennessee, and there renames his army as the Army of Tennessee.

August 1862--Upon learning of Jackson’s move northward on August 1, Major General Don Carlos Buell, with his army, is detached from the force besieging Vicksburg and transported by river to Memphis, where they march to intercept Jackson’s Army of Alabama. As described elsewhere, Richmond falls on August 2, 1862. Confederate General Robert E. Lee manages to extricate most of his army and fall back, along with the Confederate government, to Danville, Virginia, where they can get railroad connections south…the new President, Alexander H. Stephens, has decided to move the Confederate capital back to Montgomery. Union commander McClellan does not vigorously pursue, and the Confederate troops are able to get away by rail. Governor John Letcher vehemently protests this withdrawal, but to no avail. He sets up a State government-in-exile in North Carolina, but his governorship is effectively over. Virginia, abandoned by the Confederate armies, is basically out of the war at this point, and comes under Union occupation. On August 20, the forces of Buell and Jackson meet near Franklin, Tennessee. Jackson inflicts a severe defeat on the Union army, which is forced to retreat back toward Memphis. Jackson pursues, and catches Buell again on August 25. In fighting near the old Union encampment at Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee, the Union defeat turns into a rout. Don Carlos Buell is killed, along with several other officers, including one of his Division commanders, Brigadier General George Henry Thomas.

September 1862--By September 1, Confederate government re-establishes itself in Montgomery. President Alexander H. Stephens, however, is a realist, and he feels that Confederate victory is no longer possible. Nevertheless, he believes that Jackson’s victories in Tennessee have given him some possible bargaining power, and he sends envoys to President Lincoln, asking for peace terms. This is the beginning of what will prove to be seven months of on-again, off-again negotiation between Stephens and Lincoln which will eventually lead to the end of the war. Meanwhile, fighting continues. President Lincoln has placed Major General William S. Rosecrans in charge of the defense of Nashville. Rosecrans works to cobble together another army to defend Tennessee from Stonewall Jackson’s onslaught. Rosecrans competently performs in this role, and after incorporating the survivors of Buell’s army into his force, he successfully withstands a siege by Jackson’s army which goes on until Jackson is forced by events elsewhere to abandon the siege and return to Alabama. One officer who distinguishes himself during this siege is a Confederate cavalry brigadier named Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is released by Jackson to bedevil the Union supply lines into Nashville. He defeats several Union forces which are sent to pursue him, each of them larger than his own, and gains a reputation for his tactical skill.

October 1862--On October 4, 1862, Vicksburg falls to Union forces under Major General Ulysses S. Grant. Meanwhile, at the demand of President Lincoln, Major General George B. McClellan advances south from Richmond and invades North Carolina. His army begins what will be a virtually unopposed march through the Carolinas, culminating in the capture of Charleston, South Carolina, in January 1862. Under McClellan’s leadership, Union foragers molest the local populace of the Carolinas as little as possible during their transit through those States (although, once in South Carolina, he is unable to prevent some pillaging and burning as troops full of hatred for South Carolina as the birthplace of the Confederacy vent their anger against the inhabitants of the State. Nevertheless, compared to the OTL march made by Sherman in 1864, South Carolina is comparatively unscathed by these activities).

November 1862--The Union Army of the Tennessee, under Ulysses S. Grant, begins advancing toward the new Confederate capital at Montgomery. General Robert E. Lee attempts to mount a defense, and orders very strong earthworks dug by his grumbling troops. President Stevens issues an order promoting Stonewall Jackson to Lt. General, while at the same time ordering him to abandon the siege of Nashville and return to Montgomery, to join the forces defending the city. Jackson abandons his siege on November 21, and retires southward. Major General Rosecrans cautiously pursues Jackson southward.

December 1862--Lt. General Jackson arrives back at Montgomery on December 8, 1862. General Robert E. Lee, upon his arrival, reorganizes the Army of Alabama, as the force defending Montgomery is called. Jackson is given command of the First Corps, while James Longstreet commands the Second. Lt. General John C. Breckinridge, one of the few surviving officers from Albert Sidney’s Johnston’s Army of Mississippi, is given command of the Third Corps. On December 19, the Union Army of the Tennessee, commanded by Ulysses S. Grant, arrives outside Montgomery. Major General Rosecrans and the Army of the Cumberland arrive six days later, on Christmas Day, 1862. The two armies lay siege to Montgomery.

December 1862-April 1863--The Siege of Montgomery.

January 1863--Charleston, South Carolina falls to the Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by George B. McClellan. McClellan goes into winter quarters there, and refuses to move, despite President Lincoln’s constant demands that he do so. However, McClellan is so popular, having captured both Richmond and Charleston, and taken the States of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina out of the war, that President Lincoln does not dare to sack him. Lincoln can do nothing but grumble as the Army of the Potomac sits and does nothing.

February 1863--The Siege of Montgomery continues. The Union Army of the Potomac remains in winter quarters at Charleston.

March 1862--With the coming of Spring, Major General McClellan deigns to take his army out of winter slumber, and advances on Savannah, Georgia, capturing it by the end of the month. He then begins marching slowly toward the major Confederate railroad nexus and supply depot at Atlanta, Georgia. A cavalry raid led by George Armstrong Custer, who, following his performance at Richmond, has been promoted to command of a Cavalry Division, captures Augusta, Georgia, and destroys the Confederate powder works which is in the process of construction there.

April 1863...Negotiations between President Stevens and President Lincoln have been continuing. However, the military situation of the Confederacy has continued to deteriorate, and President Stevens no longer has any bargaining power. On April 12, 1863...exactly two years to the day after the war began at Fort Sumter, he sends another message to Lincoln offering the unconditional surrender of all Confederate forces. All he asks in return is amnesty, or if that cannot be had, the promise of a fair trial, for the Confederate leadership, and mercy for the Southern people during the process of Reconstruction which he knows must follow. To his surprise, he finds that his old friend, Abraham Lincoln, is all too willing to agree to these terms in order to immediately end the bloodshed. A ceasefire is declared as of midnight, April 12, 1863. General Robert E. Lee, on behalf of the President, officially surrenders all Confederate forces the next day. The war is over.
 
Last edited:
Probably a good idea to provide the sketch. It would seem to be necessary to understand the nature of the war's settlement and thus the resulting aftermath in TTL Reconstruction.

Done...see above.

Good point. I was also thinking about how else to phrase such a provision; anything that's too vague might allow room for later meddling, so I could see how using the actual word becomes necessary.

That's what I thought as well.

I would point out though that your language might have important affects: "those persons held as slaves" makes clear that slaves are considered persons. I'm thinking that one thing that TTL Republicans and Lincoln might consider advocating is some kind of insurance on the treatment of slaves to acknowledge their personhood. It's probably more of a home-grown movement in the South, but this clause might be important in such an attempt.

Slaves were always considered "persons" under the law. Even the Dred Scott decision did not deprive them of that basic status...it simply stated that black people were not citizens of the United States. So the use of the term in the amendment does not really change anything.

Good points. I still think they might use a higher threshold, such as 3/4s. The precedent to make it higher than 2/3 would be the ratification threshold, 9 of 13, which is about 69%. It's probably close enough to 2/3 that your version would fly, though.

I considered 3/4, but the difference between 2/3 and 3/4 is so marginal that I decided to go with 2/3. I figured Lincoln is trying to appear magnanimous, even as he effectively kills the right of secession.

I was actually thinking that the TTL equivalent might establish actually ensure the ability of former officeholders to continue to hold office. However, such a section would be somewhat superfluous if the persons involved had already been pardoned.

Agreed.

I'm thinking that the Corwin / Lincoln Amendment is considered also a new Constitution itself, setting down the terms of continued Union. Some scholars argue that the OTL Civil War Amendments did so for "a new birth of freedom."

Again, agreed.

It is a hard thing to do. I would note, however, that even such a compromise would be susceptible to abuse: Southern states might present demands for every escaped slave to their free neighbors, without bothering to prove into which state the slave had escaped.

I assume, as with the original fugitive slave clause, that a Federal Fugitive Slave Act would follow to clarify the terms under which such claims could be made. Essentially, the owner would have to provide satisfactory proof to the State Court of the State into which the slave is claimed to have escaped. Of course, if the Northern State in question wanted to, it could simply state that the proof was not satisfactory and refuse to act. At that point, the case would be appealed to the Federal Courts, which would have final jurisdiction. If the State lost the case, it would have to either return the slave, or pay the compensation.

It also provides a huge incentive for Underground Railroad operations: abolitionists might attempt to smuggle slaves out of the South. Such activities would in turn increase the suspicion against almost any Northerner in the South. Nonetheless, a truly fair-minded Federal judiciary could probably do a lot to solve the problem.

However, if the Northern States have to pay compensation for slaves the Underground Railroad smuggles out of the South, they will be more apt to act to suppress such illegal activities. As you say, a fair-minded Federal judiciary is essential in any case.

There's also the issue of whether a slave, if transported out of a slave state and into a free one, is still a slave. That issue in turns also depends on the question of citizenship: is the white owner of the slave in question a citizen of the free state or of the slave state and when does the one become the other? This is the Dred Scott issue that OTL Section 1 of the 14th Amendment overturned; I think Lincoln probably wants to solve this one in some way other than rely on the Dred Scott decision.

Such a precedent might also begin to impinge upon the freedom of movement between states which follows from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I think that Federal legislation clarifying this matter would have to be passed, along with the legislation. Probably something which states that a slaveowner is a citizen of whatever State in which he lives during the majority of the year. Basically it would work somewhat similar to the way auto registration for "snowbirds" works in the U.S. now. If the slaveowner takes up residence in a free state, and lives there for the majority of the year, he would have to abide by the laws of that State and emancipate the slave.


All of this means that Lincoln and Grant's Supreme Court nominations will be particularly important. There's not telling how much longer Lincoln might have lived, but I always like to suggest him as a potential Chief Justice of the SCOTUS if he lives past a Civil War. Imagine the prose of his opinions!

That might be a very good idea. I will have to consider that.
 
Thanks for the update. Very interesting stuff.

I have a couple of questions:

1) I'm surprised you still let Benjamin Butler command the occupation of New Orleans. His actions OTL prompted lots of outrage in America and in Europe -- particularly stealing cash from the Dutch consulate and imprisoning a French champagne magnate. The later probably isn't in formerly Confederate New Orleans due to the ATL policies of Napoleon III. However, he may be somewhat useful: unlike Fremont who attempted to emancipate slaves, Butler declared slaves "contraband," but permitted them significant freedom. This has two effects: 1) Butler's precedent is likely to be followed, as it was OTL, by other Union commanders. 2) By ensuring that slaves are treated as property, there's a greater opening for your solution to the Fugitive Slave Clause: such property can be confiscated with just compensation under due process of law. I do wonder though what happens to the confiscated slaves during Reconstruction -- a potentially very ugly subject.

2) Given McClellan's popularity, and his run in 1864, it seems ever more likely to me that Lincoln will still form a Union Party as he did OTL. Again as per OTL, I'd imagine that Radical Republicans nominate John Fremont as their candidate to protest Lincoln's Reconstruction efforts.

3) I notice that the war will be substantially over before the Union adopts conscription. I wonder if this will limit the USA's later ability to field troops in the Franco-Prussian War. Then again, the CSA is probably still forced to instigate the draft and the Union armies are likely buttressed by more volunteers for each successful victory.

Also, on reflection my previous comment about the potential import of "persons" in your Corwin / Lincoln Amendment is baseless. The original text of the Constitution uses the word "persons" all over the place in reference to slaves, with no redemptive effect on the rhetoric of fire-eaters in the South. [And I see you've quite rightly noted the same above].
 
While this TL is somewhat interesting I am having trouble with things. You mention the "yellow press" but that phenomenon is generally regarded as starting with Pulitzer's purchase of the NY World in 1883. Also the 500,000 is four times what McKinley asked for in the SA War---a conflict in which the USA had a much greater national interest than your European entanglement scenerio which does have more than a whiff of prescience to it. Instead of trying to force 1917 a 1/2 century earlier I would suggest as an alternative that what happens is the initial US contingent is small. The US government wrongly expects France (whose army was considered elite in this period) to win an easy victory and the AEF would march alongside them to glory. Instead when the war bogs down in bloody stalemate generating some domestic grumbling and the operative cliche in DC becomes "in for a penny in for a pound" and only then is there a major ramp up.

Napoleon III was regarded outside of France somewhat like Wilhelm II would become outside of Germany. Victorian England is going to be uneasy over this affair esp. if Napoleon III embarks on a naval race now that the Prussian Menace has been neutralized. The notion of America as a staunch ally of Bonapartism is not going to sit at all well.

Mexico is sort of interesting. With France dumping Max there is less internal struggle and 3-4 more years for Juarez Reform to take root there might be lasting consequences.

Whither Germany is quite interesting. One thing that I think is inevitable is a protracted German intellectual jihad against the United States. The veritable horde of theologians and philosophers that they will unleash in the coming decades will be nearly uniform in disparaging the US and with slavery persisting they are going to have some Krupp quality ammo. Maybe Nietzsche will stand out as the lone defender of the US. Oddly some of this may strike a resonant chord with Yankee Abolitionists. Very likely to have at least a medium sized impact on American Protestantism.
 
While this TL is somewhat interesting I am having trouble with things. You mention the "yellow press" but that phenomenon is generally regarded as starting with Pulitzer's purchase of the NY World in 1883.

True. I didn't check the origin of the term before I used it in the timeline. However, it's not like journalists were "responsible" before Pulitzer and Hearst (if indeed, "responsible journalism" ever existed). The term "yellow press" could easily be deleted without impacting the timeline at all.

Also the 500,000 is four times what McKinley asked for in the SA War---a conflict in which the USA had a much greater national interest than your European entanglement scenerio which does have more than a whiff of prescience to it. Instead of trying to force 1917 a 1/2 century earlier I would suggest as an alternative that what happens is the initial US contingent is small. The US government wrongly expects France (whose army was considered elite in this period) to win an easy victory and the AEF would march alongside them to glory. Instead when the war bogs down in bloody stalemate generating some domestic grumbling and the operative cliche in DC becomes "in for a penny in for a pound" and only then is there a major ramp up.

There are several reasons why I went with such a high number.

1) President Grant knows that both sides are fielding armies of around 1 million. This puts strong pressure on the United States to field a much larger force than would otherwise be the case (nobody in 1898 thought Spain was going to bring a million men to Cuba to fight us).

2) By the time America declares war, the "maneuver phase" of the war has ended and both sides have dug in for trench warfare. This obviously is going to call for a larger contingent than would be necessary otherwise.

3) Grant's experience in the Civil War will have taught him the value of bringing numbers to bear. "More is better" will largely be his credo.

Napoleon III was regarded outside of France somewhat like Wilhelm II would become outside of Germany. Victorian England is going to be uneasy over this affair esp. if Napoleon III embarks on a naval race now that the Prussian Menace has been neutralized. The notion of America as a staunch ally of Bonapartism is not going to sit at all well.

That may be, although the Second Empire and Britain seem to have cooperated a great deal in foreign policy matters. So I am not sure that Nappy was really regarded in the same way that Willie would be later. If Nappy goes for a naval arms race, that could change, of course. But then again, Nappy is not going to live much beyond the end of the war, either, and his son was kind of sweet on Victoria's daughter, Beatrice. So all kinds of things could happen.

Mexico is sort of interesting. With France dumping Max there is less internal struggle and 3-4 more years for Juarez Reform to take root there might be lasting consequences.

Indeed. Events in Mexico will definitely need to be expanded upon. And, as an aside, the fact that Max doesn't go to Mexico creates all sorts of interesting possibilities in itself.

Whither Germany is quite interesting. One thing that I think is inevitable is a protracted German intellectual jihad against the United States. The veritable horde of theologians and philosophers that they will unleash in the coming decades will be nearly uniform in disparaging the US and with slavery persisting they are going to have some Krupp quality ammo. Maybe Nietzsche will stand out as the lone defender of the US. Oddly some of this may strike a resonant chord with Yankee Abolitionists. Very likely to have at least a medium sized impact on American Protestantism.

All quite likely. :)
 
Thanks for the update. Very interesting stuff.

I have a couple of questions:

1) I'm surprised you still let Benjamin Butler command the occupation of New Orleans.

There's nothing really in the ATL which would logically prevent it.

His actions OTL prompted lots of outrage in America and in Europe -- particularly stealing cash from the Dutch consulate and imprisoning a French champagne magnate. The later probably isn't in formerly Confederate New Orleans due to the ATL policies of Napoleon III.

Getting him away from New Orleans and in the command of the army besieging Port Hudson will prevent a lot of that from happening. It will also prevent him from becoming known to Southerners as "Beast Butler" by issuing his infamous general order making the ladies of New Orleans liable to arrest as prostitutes, or even rape, if they are "insulting" to Union soldiers.

However, he may be somewhat useful: unlike Fremont who attempted to emancipate slaves, Butler declared slaves "contraband," but permitted them significant freedom. This has two effects: 1) Butler's precedent is likely to be followed, as it was OTL, by other Union commanders. 2) By ensuring that slaves are treated as property, there's a greater opening for your solution to the Fugitive Slave Clause: such property can be confiscated with just compensation under due process of law.

I agree. And since Butler's "contraband" order came about while he was in command at Fort Monroe in 1861, before the butterflies start taking off and derailing the history of the war, it will have occurred in the ATL as well.

I do wonder though what happens to the confiscated slaves during Reconstruction -- a potentially very ugly subject.

I would think that, having been confiscated by the government, they won't be returned, and will be emancipated. The South will scream about this, but what can they do, short of reopening the war?

2) Given McClellan's popularity, and his run in 1864, it seems ever more likely to me that Lincoln will still form a Union Party as he did OTL. Again as per OTL, I'd imagine that Radical Republicans nominate John Fremont as their candidate to protest Lincoln's Reconstruction efforts.

A 3rd party split such as you describe...or something similar...could explain why Lincoln only narrowly defeated McClellan at the polls.

3) I notice that the war will be substantially over before the Union adopts conscription. I wonder if this will limit the USA's later ability to field troops in the Franco-Prussian War. Then again, the CSA is probably still forced to instigate the draft and the Union armies are likely buttressed by more volunteers for each successful victory.

It's true the Union didn't institute the draft. But the Union really didn't draft all that many people anyway (for that matter, neither did the Confederacy). The main effect of the draft on both sides in OTL was to spur volunteerism, as people didn't want the stigma which was attached to being drafted (draftees were seen as cowards who were forced to serve). However, the effect of a much more successful war effort will be to spur volunteerism as well. The overall effect would be some reduction in the number of Civil War veterans. But even if there are just half as many as in OTL, you still have around 750,000 to 1,000,000 Union veterans and something on the order of 300,000 to 400,000 Confederate veterans. This is a very sizeable pool to draw from in 1870.
 
robertp6165 said:
I would think that, having been confiscated by the government, they won't be returned, and will be emancipated. The South will scream about this, but what can they do, short of reopening the war?

I would imagine they'd be emancipated as well. But I'd also imagine there'd be a substantial number of them. Obviously, not all the slaves in the South, but certainly a good number. Their number may depend on the exact nature of occupation; since you have McClellan commanding the occupation of Virginia and South Carolina, he may confiscate very, very few slaves -- hence the good reputation of the Union occupation there. This may mean that the "contraband" issue is too small to register as a major issue in terms of constitutional ammedments. There will be some concern, though, about where these free Blacks are going to live and how they're going to get there.

About the draft: I agree that the number are probably enough to give you a substantial pool of recruits in 1870. I brought it up because it occured to me that you USA will take a much different path of centralization. You'll still probably have the passage of the income acts in 1861 which marked the first use of income tax and probably on of the larger tax increases in US history -- yet another issue for TTL's Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
A 3rd party split such as you describe...or something similar...could explain why Lincoln only narrowly defeated McClellan at the polls.

So wouldn't a stronger Mcleallan in TTL have a stronger advantage due to the War already being over and effectivley no split between the Democratic Party?(In OTL Lincoln was not only able to rally the Republicans but also the War Democrats to form the "Union" Party). Im just pointing out that in TTL Lincoln with the Radical Republicans deciding to run Freemont against him that would cause a lot of his base to go away.
 
So wouldn't a stronger Mcleallan in TTL have a stronger advantage due to the War already being over and effectivley no split between the Democratic Party?(In OTL Lincoln was not only able to rally the Republicans but also the War Democrats to form the "Union" Party). Im just pointing out that in TTL Lincoln with the Radical Republicans deciding to run Freemont against him that would cause a lot of his base to go away.

That could be true as well. McClellan definitely would have an advantage in TTL over OTL, for the reasons you cite above and also because he is such a great war hero in TTL, which he wasn't nearly so in OTL's 1864. Of course, with Lincoln doing the "moderate Reconstruction" thing, and with McClellan definitely not about to embrace radical Reconstruction, one has to wonder what issue McClellan is using to fuel his campaign against Lincoln? The lack of a good, solid, campaign issue for the Democrats may explain how there can be a 3-way race, with the Republicans split, and McClellan still loses.
 
That could be true as well. McClellan definitely would have an advantage in TTL over OTL, for the reasons you cite above and also because he is such a great war hero in TTL, which he wasn't nearly so in OTL's 1864. Of course, with Lincoln doing the "moderate Reconstruction" thing, and with McClellan definitely not about to embrace radical Reconstruction, one has to wonder what issue McClellan is using to fuel his campaign against Lincoln? The lack of a good, solid, campaign issue for the Democrats may explain how there can be a 3-way race, with the Republicans split, and McClellan still loses.

True...I just think without the coalatio of War Democrats and the resurgance of the former planter class in the south, I think the Dems may be able to squeeze in a win...

So what is the deal, is this the new Timeline of the year or u still trying to your master juggling of tls
 

flaja

Banned
The structure of the American Expeditionary Force is as follows...

THE AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
General William T. Sherman, Army Group Commander

FIRST ARMY--General William Rosecrans
--1st Corps...Lt. General James Longstreet
--2nd Corps...Lt. General John Schofield
--3rd Corps...Lt. General George Meade
--4th Corps...Lt. General Winfield S. Hancock

Second Army--General Thomas Jonathan Jackson
--1st Corps...Lt. General Philip Kearny
--2nd Corps...Lt. General Ambrose Powell Hill
--3rd Corps...Lt. General James Ewell Brown Stuart

Cavalry Corps--Lt. General George Armstrong Custer
--1st Division...Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest
--2nd Division...Major General Judson Kilpatrick

Note that the First Army is composed primarily of brigades formed from Northern regiments. The Second Army (which is significantly smaller than the First Army) is composed primarily of brigades formed from Southern regiments.

You say the Civil War ended in 1863. Is this before or after Gettysburg? If after, then surely General Meade would have had a higher command. He was the only commanding general of the Army of the Potomac that was never removed from his command, although Grant, as General-in-Chief of the U.S. Army assumed effective personal command of the Army of the Potomac with Meade serving as the conduit for Grant’s orders to the corps commanders.

And just had Sherman done by 1863 to warrant the command of the entire U.S. expeditionary force?

Where’s Grant?

Where’s Thomas?

Where’s Sheridan?
 

flaja

Banned
4) I thought Napoleon III's basic policy at the time was: do whatever Britain lets you. Here you have him convincing the British not to act, even though for a good year or more, the British government was dead set on engineering Confederate recognition.

In one of Bruce Catton’s books he pointed out that Great Britain was more dependent on Union grain than it was on rebel cotton. Catton predicted mass social unrest on the part of British factory workers should Great Britain have recognized the Confederate slave power.

BTW: Suppose that Prince Albert had lived. Would he have looked upon an anti-German alliance with France with any kind of favor? And considering her family tree, I wonder how Victoria would have favored a war against Germany.
 

flaja

Banned
Perhaps Britain decides to 'free' Hanover?

I could see this happening. Victoria was the most senior heir to the throne of Great Britain and I would think she would also have been the most senior heir to the Elector of Hanover- except Hanoverian law denied succession to a woman.
 

flaja

Banned
That expeditionary force is utterly huge. The US had a 40,000 man army at around this time, and will struggle to have 50,000 in France, let alone 500,000 (i.e. the combined field armies of the Federals and Confederates!).

The Army of the Potomac had almost 94,000 men at the Battle of Gettysburg. At the same time Grant had an army of 77,000 men laying siege to Vicksburg. So in 1863 the U.S. could easily have deployed 171,000 men without deploying the entire U.S. Army or relying on traitors from the South.
 

flaja

Banned
The biggest obstacle to this scenario is the ethnic make up of the American population.

Even as recently as 1917 the U.S. had such a large number of recent German emigrants that our entry into WWI on Britain’s behalf was not a certainty. Some of the Pennsylvania Dutch National Guard units that we sent to France for WWI spoke their dialect of German as their everyday language. The officers of these units found that they and their French counterparts could communicate more effectively if the Americans spoke their German dialect and the French spoke Hoch Deutsch. One American unit strayed behind the German lines and was about to fired on by the Germans until the Germans heard the Americans using their Pennsylvania Dutch.

Some of my ancestors came from the Rhineland as early as 1730 and eventually settled in NC. English was their everyday language by the time the Civil War started, but my grandmother remembered that her grandparents still used their German dialect in the 1920s and 1930s whenever they didn’t want the children to know what was being talked about.

I seriously doubt that the U.S. would have gone to war with Germany at any time during the 19th century.
 
You say the Civil War ended in 1863. Is this before or after Gettysburg? If after, then surely General Meade would have had a higher command. He was the only commanding general of the Army of the Potomac that was never removed from his command, although Grant, as General-in-Chief of the U.S. Army assumed effective personal command of the Army of the Potomac with Meade serving as the conduit for Grant’s orders to the corps commanders.

Gettysburg was never fought. The war ended in April 1863 and the course of it had completely diverged from OTL in the Spring of 1862, so the events which lead up to the Battle of Gettysburg in OTL never happened, either. Meade never got beyond Corps command during the war (he commanded a Corps in George B. McClellan's Army of the Potomac right up to the end of the war).

And just had Sherman done by 1863 to warrant the command of the entire U.S. expeditionary force?

He was Grant's trusted right hand in the Army of the Tennessee. President Grant simply believes he will do a better job than anyone else, and since Grant has the final say-so, Sherman gets the job.

Where’s Grant?

He's President when the Franco-Prussian War breaks out in 1870. Did you actually read the timeline at all? :eek::confused:

Where’s Thomas?

He was killed at the ATL Battle of Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh), August 25, 1862.

Where’s Sheridan?
He commanded an infantry Division in Don Carlos Buell's Army of the Cumberland, and never got really famous during the war. He is commanding a Division in the Second Corps of the First Army of the A.E.F. during the Franco-Prussian War.
 
Top