Go South, Young Man: President Abraham Lincoln, CSA

[Hero of Canton]

Given that Foot was quite old and not in the best health at the time (he died in 1866 in OTL), he's probably not going to be a vigorous, active President.

What of The Marble Man in this ATL? Would he be a contender or did Robert E. Lee stay with the Union army?

HoC

 

[robertp6165]

What of The Marble Man in this ATL? Would he be a contender or did Robert E. Lee stay with the Union army?

HoC

No, Lee would have gone with his State as per OTL. Most likely he was serving as President Lincoln's military advisor during the war (sort of like he was doing for Jeff Davis prior to his appointment to command the ANV in June 1862 in OTL). He never got the chance to command an army because of the sudden Union collapse in 1863. Post-war, he will likely continue to serve as one of the higher ranking officers of the Confederate Regular Army either until his death, or until he decides to retire to Arlington, whichever comes first. He may or may not die in October 1870 as per OTL...quite possibly not, as accounts from the time seems to indicate he died from pneumonia which he got after being drenched by a sudden, cold rain shower while walking from his house to his office one evening in late September 1870. Other theories are that he had a stroke, which may well be true. But given that he won't have suffered from the effects of three years of strenuous campaigning as he did in OTL, he might well live another 20 years.

 

[Herr Frage]

Will we seeing the wider butterflies in any detail? For instance how will French success and this British venture affect Europe? How will Other nations be affected by Americas humbling, the new CSA and a precdent for successful Eurpean intalled governments?

 

[Hero of Canton]

...But given that he won't have suffered from the effects of three years of strenuous campaigning as he did in OTL, he might well live another 20 years.

Yes please it would be a nice touch. I recall that Davis is already the CSA Secretary of War or Lee would be a logical choice.

HoC

 

[stevep]

Well, not sure about that...after all, during this period they also were maintaining control of certain forts in American territory, and high-handedly stopping American ships at sea and kidnapping American seamen. This all points to a rather aggressive policy against the United States during this period, and arming the Indians would have fit right into that.

robertp6165

While they were called forts I think they had been formally dis-armed under a prior treaty and were basically outputs continuing trading. The fact that the Indians wanted guns to fight assorted opponents meant the traders found them a profitable item.

With the sailors this was less an aggressive policy against the US than the desperate need to maintain the RN against Napoleon. A lot of the people seized were British [given the ease with which identities could be changed and the flexibility of national identity at the time] but others were Americans who shouldn't have been. This was largely down to unscrupulous local officers and the desire of people higher up not to muddy the waters by admitting any of the people seized weren't actually British.

Britain wanted peace with America because we had a lot on our plate with Napoleon and because trade was mutually profitable. However they didn't want it enough, given the primary aim of winning against Nappy, to pay attention to how determined the US was, for various reasons, to bring the matter to a head. There was an under-estimation of American strength and determination but not any intent on hostility. Hence I think the arming of Indians that occurred, until war broke out, was more economic by local traders than any intentional operation by government officials.

Steve