Go South, Young Man: President Abraham Lincoln, CSA

I only have 2 small comments.

First: Lincoln's June 1861 speech. I can see the steal from OTL inaugural. But in OTL Lincoln's inaugural was proof-read by Seward, and in many places Seward made it more conciliatory that Lincoln had it to start with. With them being opposing Presidents there is no way this can happen ITTL, so for once a direct word steal is inappropriate, and Lincoln has to say something original.

Second: when one starts nitpicking about stealing OTL speeches, that means the rest of the TL is absolutely amazing! I love this, please keep writing!
 
I only have 2 small comments.

First: Lincoln's June 1861 speech. I can see the steal from OTL inaugural. But in OTL Lincoln's inaugural was proof-read by Seward, and in many places Seward made it more conciliatory that Lincoln had it to start with. With them being opposing Presidents there is no way this can happen ITTL, so for once a direct word steal is inappropriate, and Lincoln has to say something original.

Yes, but half the fun of writing something like this is playing with Lincoln's well-known OTL speeches. It may be slightly less realistic that way,
but it's just too much fun. :D

Second: when one starts nitpicking about stealing OTL speeches, that means the rest of the TL is absolutely amazing! I love this, please keep writing!

Thank you, I'm glad you're enjoying it. :)
 
Excellent timeline, robertp! I'm looking forward to seeing you continue it.

Thank you!:)

I'm probably one of the most pro-Lincoln people on this board and even I know a butterfly when I see one.

Well you can be pro-Lincoln and pro-Union, and that's no problem in and of itself. I respect that I may have a difference of opinion on those issues, but I fully respect your right to your opinion.

But there is a group of people on this board whose sole purpose in life seems to be to 1) idolize Lincoln and viciously attack anyone who differs in their opinion of the man, and 2) pontificate that the Confederacy was the root of all evil and that anyone who says differently is a liar, a racist, or both (AmIndHistoryAuthor has accused me, in various debates, of both, in fact...which is why I have him on Ignore...the only person, indeed, who has been placed on my Ignore List). Those are the "pro-Unionist trolls" of which I spoke. The difference between you and the people I was talking about is that you may be pro-Unionist, but you're not a troll.
 
Thank you!:)



Well you can be pro-Lincoln and pro-Union, and that's no problem in and of itself. I respect that I may have a difference of opinion on those issues, but I fully respect your right to your opinion.

But there is a group of people on this board whose sole purpose in life seems to be to 1) idolize Lincoln and viciously attack anyone who differs in their opinion of the man, and 2) pontificate that the Confederacy was the root of all evil and that anyone who says differently is a liar, a racist, or both (AmIndHistoryAuthor has accused me, in various debates, of both, in fact...which is why I have him on Ignore...the only person, indeed, who has been placed on my Ignore List). Those are the "pro-Unionist trolls" of which I spoke. The difference between you and the people I was talking about is that you may be pro-Unionist, but you're not a troll.

i have to agree, i took a long break from Alt-history due to work and a bit of addiction to World of Warcrack. but even with that i could tell that AmInd was being a jerk and troll, especially when he started posting quotes from Lincoln that were well after your POD and a comment that may or may not be true that Lincoln said about his Father, particularly when he and his father didn't seem to be very close. that could be another reason for Lincoln taking up slavery.

I'm of the opinion that a persons environment, especially friends if one isn't particularly close to their parents, will shape a persons stance on issues. in this case with Thomas Lincoln going to Mississippi he would have had friends that were pro-south pro-slavery and when he went into politics those views would have been what got him elected. (being anti-slavery in the south wouldn't have gotten him anywhere, much less President of the CSA)
 
OTL By the time of Fort Sumter, Railways were still running normal schedules across the Border, Commerce was ongoing, and several newspapers had moved Souterern news to the International page.
Fort Sumter stopped this. and slowed Confederate organisation efforts. By the time of First Bull Run, many Confed Soldiers were still wearing their Union Blue.

ITTL No Fort Sumter, No Bull Run.
Railways and Commerce never stopped. Most papers have started using a CS byline for Southern News, and Most people have accepted the new Status Quo.

And now the US has blundered into a war with Britain. While Steward will try to blame the CSA, Lincoln will try to keep the CS Neutral.
 
i have to agree, i took a long break from Alt-history due to work and a bit of addiction to World of Warcrack. but even with that i could tell that AmInd was being a jerk and troll, especially when he started posting quotes from Lincoln that were well after your POD and a comment that may or may not be true that Lincoln said about his Father, particularly when he and his father didn't seem to be very close. that could be another reason for Lincoln taking up slavery.

I'm of the opinion that a persons environment, especially friends if one isn't particularly close to their parents, will shape a persons stance on issues. in this case with Thomas Lincoln going to Mississippi he would have had friends that were pro-south pro-slavery and when he went into politics those views would have been what got him elected. (being anti-slavery in the south wouldn't have gotten him anywhere, much less President of the CSA)

All very true.
 
OTL By the time of Fort Sumter, Railways were still running normal schedules across the Border, Commerce was ongoing, and several newspapers had moved Souterern news to the International page.
Fort Sumter stopped this. and slowed Confederate organisation efforts. By the time of First Bull Run, many Confed Soldiers were still wearing their Union Blue.

ITTL No Fort Sumter, No Bull Run.
Railways and Commerce never stopped. Most papers have started using a CS byline for Southern News, and Most people have accepted the new Status Quo.

Indeed, Seward would probably encourage most of this continued contact (although he'd probably not be happy about the newspapers treating Southern news as "international news) in pursuit of his policy of allowing time for "reason to be restored."
 
Well you can be pro-Lincoln and pro-Union, and that's no problem in and of itself. I respect that I may have a difference of opinion on those issues, but I fully respect your right to your opinion.

But there is a group of people on this board whose sole purpose in life seems to be to 1) idolize Lincoln and viciously attack anyone who differs in their opinion of the man, and 2) pontificate that the Confederacy was the root of all evil and that anyone who says differently is a liar, a racist, or both (AmIndHistoryAuthor has accused me, in various debates, of both, in fact...which is why I have him on Ignore...the only person, indeed, who has been placed on my Ignore List). Those are the "pro-Unionist trolls" of which I spoke. The difference between you and the people I was talking about is that you may be pro-Unionist, but you're not a troll.

Being a damnyankee myself, I'd say I'm pro-Unionist as well. I'm not very patriotic, though I'm not thrilled when I see people proudly waving Confederate flags. However, I'm not sure why you call yourself a Confederate troll, Robert (unless you mean it sarcastically). I don't see how anything in this TL could be construed as racist. It's simply an alternate history, not an advocation of slavery or an insult to a dead president. I could (and am) writing a TL involving the destruction of Christian European society, but that doesn't mean I want Christian European society destroyed.

When you put someone on your Ignore List, does that just mean they can't send you PMs or does it also mean you can't see their threads and posts?
 
Being a damnyankee myself, I'd say I'm pro-Unionist as well. I'm not very patriotic, though I'm not thrilled when I see people proudly waving Confederate flags. However, I'm not sure why you call yourself a Confederate troll, Robert (unless you mean it sarcastically). I don't see how anything in this TL could be construed as racist. It's simply an alternate history, not an advocation of slavery or an insult to a dead president. I could (and am) writing a TL involving the destruction of Christian European society, but that doesn't mean I want Christian European society destroyed.

The user title "Confederate Troll" is a joke on my part. It refers to the picture I have in my user profile, which is shown at the bottom of this post. And it refers to the fact that, to some of the more extreme Unionists on the board, probably do think I'm a Confederate Troll. :D

When you put someone on your Ignore List, does that just mean they can't send you PMs or does it also mean you can't see their threads and posts?

It also means you can't see their threads and posts. All you see is a message which states, "So and so is on your Ignore List," unless, of course, other people quote portions of their posts...the quoted portions can be seen as it was posted by someone other than the ignored poster.

confederatetroll.jpg
 
The user title "Confederate Troll" is a joke on my part. It refers to the picture I have in my user profile, which is shown at the bottom of this post. And it refers to the fact that, to some of the more extreme Unionists on the board, probably do think I'm a Confederate Troll. :D

I do like your actual Confederate troll. I don't know if the haircut would have flown in the Confederate army, though.
 
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO EARLIER PORTIONS OF THE TIMELINE

March 1861--The Confederate Congress authorizes the use of 100,000 volunteer soldiers for twelve months. It also creates a much smaller regular Confederate Army. The process of recruiting, arming, and training these men begins.

Part Four: January through June 1862​

January 1862--Word of the Anglo-French declaration of war reaches the United States. President Seward asks Congress for a declaration of war on Britain and France. This is granted on January 14, 1862. President Seward calls for 100,000 volunteers to fight the British and French.

President Lincoln of the Confederate States of America declares the neutrality of the Confederate States on January 15, 1862. Both Britain and France, through their ambassadors, attempt to entice the Confederacy to join the war on their side. President Lincoln plays “hard to get,” not refusing outright, but also not agreeing.

Meanwhile, Britain and France begin putting together an expeditionary force to be landed in Canada for operations against the northern U.S. British and French naval vessels begin seizing American merchant vessels at sea.

February 1862--Skirmishes are fought along the Canadian border between U.S. and Canadian militia units. The Anglo-French continue building their expeditionary force. Volunteers are pouring into Union recruiting camps, and beginning to be trained as soldiers.

John Ericsson, a Swedish-American engineer and naval designer, offers a new design for an ironclad warship, called the Monitor, to the U.S. Navy Department. He promises he can build it within 100 days. The design, along with several others, is accepted. Royal Navy squadrons engage the U.S. Navy squadrons outside Charleston, South Carolina and Mobile, Alabama. The outnumbered and outgunned Union warships are either captured, sunk, or forced to flee.

Negotiations continue between the Confederacy and both the United States and the Anglo-French Alliance. President Lincoln refuses to commit to either side. Arkansas secedes from the Union, and is admitted to the Confederacy. Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen Mallory introduces to President Lincoln a design for a casemate ironclad warship submitted by Lieutenants John Porter and John Brooke, CSN. The design is similar to that of the OTL CSS Albemarle, designed to operate primarily in the shallow waters of Southern rivers and harbors and which can be built in the most primitive shipyards. President Lincoln goes to the Confederate Congress and obtains funding for the construction of several of these, at shipyards in Norfolk, Virginia, Wilmington, North Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, Savannah, Georgia, Mobile, Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Galveston, Texas. Engines for these are to be imported from Britain and France.

March 1862--President Seward, knowing that the U.S. Navy has no chance in a general engagement with the Royal Navy, orders the U.S. Navy to abandon it’s stations off southern ports and to disperse, operating as commerce raiders against British and French shipping. Admiral Milne, commanding the British North American and West Indian Squadron, establishes a strict blockade of U.S. ports shortly afterward. Meanwhile, a Royal Navy vessel intercepts the S.S. Athena, a paddle-wheel steamer carrying a load of gold and silver bullion from California to New York, whose Captain was totally unaware of the outbreak of war between the United States and Britain. News of the loss of this shipment of specie throws Union financial markets into chaos, vastly complicating President Seward’s task of arranging financing for the war.

On land, the Anglo-French continue building their expeditionary force and volunteers continue pouring into Union recruiting camps, to be trained as soldiers. A U.S. army of 60,000 men, called the Army of the Hudson, has been assembled at Plattsburg, New York, under the command of Major General Irvin McDowell. Under heavy political pressure, General McDowell advances across the Canadian border on March 19, advancing toward Montreal. The men of the Army of the Hudson are barely trained, and the advance, bedeviled by hit-and-run attacks by mounted units of Canadian militia, proceeds extremely slowly. The invading U.S. army is brought to battle by a British and Canadian force of 40,000 men (the British have been transporting approximately 13,000 men to Canada every 6 weeks since November 1861, and smaller numbers before that since the beginning of the San Jacinto Crisis) near the village of Saint Jean Sur-Richelieu on March 29, 1862. Despite the U.S. army’s heavy advantage in numbers, the superior training and discipline of the British regulars wins out, and the Army of the Hudson is routed. The British pursue quite effectively, and barely half of the Union troops make it back across the border into the United States…about a third of those lost are dead or wounded, and the other two thirds end up sitting in British P.O.W. camps. The British army does not enter the United States, as, until the full Anglo-French expeditionary force is in place, the forces in Canada have been ordered to stand on the defensive.

The Confederate Congress, at President Lincoln’s urging, votes to allow the Confederate Army to accept 100,000 volunteers for a three-year term. Most of the 100,000 1-year volunteers re-enlist.

April 1862--News of the shocking defeat of the U.S. Army of the Hudson at the Battle of Saint Jean Sur-Richelieu sweeps across the Union via telegraph wires, and reaches Britain by fast steamer. In Britain, newspaper editorials loudly trumpet the expectation that the Americans will quickly surrender after this demonstration of British superiority. But instead, something quite different is happening in the Union…a hardening of resolve, and a realization that the war won’t be won quickly or easily. President Seward calls for 500,000 volunteers. Major General McDowell is replaced by one of the few officers in his army to acquit himself well during the ill-fated campaign…Major General William T. Sherman.

The British launch a raid against the U.S. naval base at Sacket’s Harbor, New York. They succeed in severely damaging the shipyards and other military facilities there. The British gain total domination of Lake Ontario.

The Anglo-French Expeditionary Force is almost ready to sail. The new iron steam and sail ocean liner, S.S. Great Eastern, is pressed into duty as a troop ship. She is capable of transporting up to ten thousand men in one trip, and of making the trans-Atlantic crossing in a mere ten days. This greatly increases the capacity of the Anglo-French forces to bring troops from Europe to America.

Word of the outbreak of war between the British Empire and the United States has reached India, where an expeditionary force, intended for an invasion of the American West Coast, is soon being formed.

May 1862--The main Anglo-French Expeditionary Force sails. It lands at Quebec, where it has access to one of Canada’s few rail lines to move troops and supplies quickly to and from the front. Overall command of the expeditionary force is given to British Field Marshall Sir Colin Campbell. The main Anglo-French Field army is to consist of two Corps…one British, commanded by Lieutenant General Sir William Fenwick Williams, and a French Corps commanded by Marshal Patrice de MacMahon, Duc de Magenta.

Meanwhile, new U.S. armies are forming up at Buffalo, New York (commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant), and Detroit (commanded by Major General George B. McClellan).[1]

June 1862--Captain David Glasgow Farragut, in command of the U.S.S. Hartford, has gained a reputation as a highly successful commerce raider, capturing over 30 ships in the three months since March. However, in June 1862, his luck runs out. The Hartford is cornered, low on coal and ammunition, and sunk off Zanzibar by the British steam frigates, H.M.S. Topaze and H.M.S. Euryalus. Farragut goes down with his ship, colors still flying defiantly as the Hartford slips beneath the waves. Meanwhile, the Monitor is launched at New York.

On land, a second, smaller Anglo-French force is landed at Halifax, Nova Scotia. This force will begin moving toward Frederickton, New Brunswick, which will be it’s base of operations against U.S. forces in Maine.

[1] It has been questioned why Grant and McClellan were chosen for the command of the U.S. armies at Buffalo and Detroit. Several other officers, including John C. Fremont, Robert Patterson, Henry Halleck, William S. Harney, Don Carlos Buell, and Nathaniel Banks have been suggested as being more likely. Therefore, I will explain my choices.

--William Seward disliked John C. Fremont, who had defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1856. He also distrusted Fremont and opposed his elevation to the post of Minister to France in OTL because he was afraid that Fremont might have divided loyalties given the secession of Georgia, the State where he had been born. I'm assuming that as President, this distrust leads him to refuse him an important command (why would sympathy for the South matter in the choice of a commander against the British? Because the South might well enter the war on the side of the British, and Seward wants to be sure of the loyalty of his generals in such a case).

--William S. Harney would probably be blocked by the same distrust by Seward because of his Southern origins and pro-Southern views.

--Robert Patterson was an old man, and only got a command in OTL because of his relationship with Winfield Scott, the commanding General of the Union army. Even then, he was given a relatively unimportant command, not command of a major army. It is unlikely he would be considered for a major command in the ATL.

--Henry Halleck was a Democrat and was known to be sympathetic to the South, although he did have a strong belief in the value of the Union. I think Seward will be loathe to trust him for those reasons.

--Don Carlos Buell had originally been assigned as a Division commander with the Army of the Potomac, before being transferred west prior to First Manassas in OTL. In the ATL, he was assigned as a Division commander to the Army of the Hudson, the ATL analog of the Army of the Potomac. Due to butterflies from the election of Seward instead of Lincoln to the Presidency, the transfer to the West never occurred, and he was with the Army of the Hudson at the Battle of Saint Jean Sur-Richelieu , commanding one of the divisions. He was disgraced and assigned to duty away from the main war front as a result.

--Nathaniel Banks is serving as Secretary of State under Seward (In OTL Lincoln was considering him for a cabinet post but gave him a military appointment instead...Seward decided to give him the cabinet post).

Meanwhile...

--George McClellan was, in OTL, widely known in military circles for his knowledge of what was called "big war science" and his railroad experience implied he would excel at military logistics. This placed him in great demand as the Union mobilized. The governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, the three largest states of the Union, actively pursued him to command their states' militia. He also was supported by Salmon P. Chase, a very influential Republican politician and Secretary of the Treasury (he holds the same post in the ATL Seward Administration). Indeed, his political backing was so great in OTL that a month after the war began, he had already been appointed a Major General and was second in rank only to Winfield Scott...without having done anything. So his being appointed, in the ATL, to command of one of the major armies without the West Virginia experience is not at all implausible.

--Ulysses S. Grant also had strong political backing, namely from Congressman Elihu Washburn of Illinois and Governor Yates of Illinois. He did not vote in the 1860 election, so he was not politically tainted like some men were. And in OTL, he was given an important command, that of the Department of Southeast Missouri, within five months of the start of the war...and again, before he had really done anything. So there is no good reason to exclude him from a high command in at this time in the ATL.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting TL. And I think you are the first to pay attention to the West Coast (besides Oregon) in any Anglo-American war. Looking forward to see where you take this to. Things do not look good at all for the US.
 
Mr. Robert,

I was sorry to read about the death of gallant Captain Farragut. In OTL he is one of my favorite Southern heroes.:)
I think you have accurately portrayed Seward's likely response to succession. Despite being considered a "radical" in OTL by some, including many Southerners, I believe he was actually much more pragmatic and much less determined than OTL's Lincoln.
As a devout Unionist (what else would you expect from a Federalist?) , I have no problem with an imaginative timeline in which a Southern raised Lincoln has different views about slavery and states rights. As you point out, these beliefs flow from upbringing and experince, not genetics. However, I also think that much of Lincoln's political skill and determination arose because of his experiences as a farm hand, frontier lawyer and leader of the Whigs, all in a free state.
Therefore your "Lincoln" may not have the same skills and abilites in politics, adminstration and diplomacy as OTL Lincoln did.

Your servant
AH
 
Alright, now I must make a more serious complaint.

But not until after this compliment: a very nice job forwarding Sherman to command the Army of the Hudson - I am supposing that he was a brigade or division commander like in the Army of Virginia (US) in OTL, then as mentioned was one of the very few bright spots in the battle. A well-thought-out choice. As opposed to....

Meanwhile, new U.S. armies are forming up at Buffalo, New York (commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant), and Detroit (commanded by Major General George B. McClellan).

I dislike both of these choices. In OTL Grant got back into the army after a lucky social connection gave him command of a regiment of Illinois volunteers - to become a brigade command after minor victories in the upper Mississippi Valley (this was still summer to autumn 1861). There is no reason to assume that he will even get back into the army, it may be butterflied away. I will readily accept that this does not happen, but then there is no reason to give Grant a high command - - - and if that still happens ITTL, which is quite alright but then needs new justification, then physical geography and the composition of the units already under his command mean that he will command the Detroit Army, the westernmost major Army (ignoring the Pacific).

Meanwhile, in OTL, McClellan only started rising in the first place because of his victories in West Virginia - clearly that does not happen ITTL. Again, he may perform well in some other skirmish ITTL, but that needs new justification - and again geography and troops under his command dictate that he will command the Buffalo Army.

And this is ignoring a number of other high-ranking mainly-political generals: Patterson, Banks, Fremont, Buell, and Halleck, to name a few, who initially would have equal or higher commands than McClellan and Grant. This can be butterflied, of course, but it all needs solid justification. One name conspicuously absent is General Robert Anderson, who without Fort Sumter fame will not get high command in whichever becomes the geographically central theater.

And of course my personal favorite, George Thomas, still fighting for the USA even if Virginia is part of the CSA, an up-and-running country.
 
Interesting take on the ACW Robert.
Look forward to seeing where Abe goes next :D

Thank you. :)

Very interesting TL. And I think you are the first to pay attention to the West Coast (besides Oregon) in any Anglo-American war. Looking forward to see where you take this to. Things do not look good at all for the US.

Yes, I too have noticed that the West Coast seldom gets considered in these things, but it was very strategically important due to the flow of gold from the West into Union coffers. It is unlikely that it would be unmolested during an Anglo-American war.
 
I think you have accurately portrayed Seward's likely response to succession. Despite being considered a "radical" in OTL by some, including many Southerners, I believe he was actually much more pragmatic and much less determined than OTL's Lincoln.

Yes. I think a lot of the reputation for radicalism stems from his anti-slavery statements prior to the war...such as the "higher law" speech...and not from an examination of what he was actually saying and doing during the early part of the war, especially in his policy proposals to Lincoln in 1861.

As a devout Unionist (what else would you expect from a Federalist?) , I have no problem with an imaginative timeline in which a Southern raised Lincoln has different views about slavery and states rights. As you point out, these beliefs flow from upbringing and experince, not genetics. However, I also think that much of Lincoln's political skill and determination arose because of his experiences as a farm hand, frontier lawyer and leader of the Whigs, all in a free state.
Therefore your "Lincoln" may not have the same skills and abilites in politics, adminstration and diplomacy as OTL Lincoln did.

That's quite true, of course. But there is no reason he could not have developed those same skills in the South. He might be better, or worse, at these things than he was in OTL. For the purposes of the timeline I have assumed he is the same or better (he does, in the ATL, for example, have some real military experience...something he really did not get in his brief service in the Black Hawk War in OTL).
 
Top