Yes, the US would have Alaska. They wouldn't allow the British to buy it.
Yes, the US would have Alaska. They wouldn't allow the British to buy it.
Umm… Why Exactly? It wasn't like there was anything useful there.
Well, no. They could allow the British to have it, there is nothing otherwise to say the British cannot have it.Yes, the US would have Alaska. They wouldn't allow the British to buy it.
But who would replace Seward?
Russia was interested in cold hard cash and political favors. In fact Russia would have liked Britain to try to purchase Alaska since it meant they could jack up the price on America with a bidding war (or vice versa).It was useful, strategically. Russia and America were interested in preventing Britain from having such a large Pacific coastline. That's the only reason Russia chose to sell it to the US in the first place.
Russia was interested in cold hard cash and political favors. In fact Russia would have liked Britain to try to purchase Alaska since it meant they could jack up the price on America with a bidding war (or vice versa).
Tho to be fair, the Russian establishment did inexplicably seem to have a soft spot for the Americans. Perhaps because America was one of the few countries around at that point that hadnt invaded Russia.
I also foresee much greater action taken on by the Federal government to prevent southern states from backsliding on liberties for freedmen once those states finally elect Democrats to the majority. Without the debilitating struggle between Johnson and the Radical Republicans, the public won't be so sick of the issue of Reconstruction, and President Grant will easily continue this support.
Now this has possibilities, especially in South Florida. We know that Lincoln favoured some form of Grand Apartheid for freedmen as the only viable way that Freedmen could retain their liberties. And we know that Lincoln knew by wars end that the British were unenthusiastic about resettling freedmen in British Honduras and British Guiana even though doing so would help develop those colonies. So since Southern Florida IS a large area of land largely unoccupied by white people, I could easily see Lincoln pushing for the Florida Peninsula south of a certain parallel being split off from the State of Florida and made a US territory for African-Americans (which very likely means that South Florida in reality turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy of another Haiti due to not so benign neglect later and rule by an African-American oligarchy allied with Northern corporate interests.Lincoln would still benefit from having survived the assassination. There would be a lot of goodwill towards him, and he'd be able to use Seward's martyrdom to advantage.
Reconstruction under Lincoln is always a popular topic. Lincoln would not be as extreme as the Radical Republicans would like, but he has several advantages in dealing with them that Johnson did not. Lincoln is a Republican and leader of the party, unlike Johnson. Lincoln also has very strong abolitionist credentials. And he is the man who won the war.
I think ultimately Lincoln will continue to pursue a moderate course that integrates the South quickly into the union, but doing much more to protect the liberties and interests of freedmen. Some kind of compromise between Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens will occur.
Another change is that Lincoln, unlike Johnson, also has a vested interest in building up the long term electoral chances of a southern Republican party. I think many decisions will be made on that base. He will do whatever he can to strengthen the alliance between Unionist white Southerners, former Whigs who fought under the Confederacy, and Freedmen.
Because of this, I think some kind of land distribution deal to provide freedman (and perhaps some landless Southern Unionists who fought in the army) a viable economic living will happen. That means most land seized from large plantations by the US government during the war will not be returned to their previous owners, but given to freedmen. IOTL, the Freedman's Bureau had almost one million acres of land that was initially to be given to the freedmen, but Johnson returned it to the previous owners instead. Congress also passed an act which provided three million acres of unoccupied public land in Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas for freedmen homesteading, but which Johnson vetoed. Lincoln won't. So we have about four million acres to be allotted to freedmen, and this amount of land will likely increase over Lincoln's second term (albeit on more marginal land). I don't know if it'll be exactly "forty acres and a mule", but it'll be close.
I also foresee much greater action taken on by the Federal government to prevent southern states from backsliding on liberties for freedmen once those states finally elect Democrats to the majority. Without the debilitating struggle between Johnson and the Radical Republicans, the public won't be so sick of the issue of Reconstruction, and President Grant will easily continue this support.
I think the worst of the Jim Crow laws will be averted in the Deep South, and there is a very good chance the Republican Party will be competitive, or perhaps even control, several southern states, especially in the Upper South (Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina are good prospects) and perhaps Mississippi as a majority black state. If so, there won't be a veto in Congress on discussion of future civil rights acts for eighty years which means national anti-lynching laws and other measures.
"Support" with what?
By the mid 1870s the US Army was down to around 30,000 men, most of whom were needed out west. Only about 3,000 were still available for occupation duties in the South.
Unless you envisage a much larger peacetime army - ASB under any POTUS - I don't see what they use for enforcement.
Bullies thrive when they know the strong won't protect the weak. In an era when they don't have Andrew Johnson to protect them initially [