I have set out in earnest to write an alternate history book. I am 15 books down in what I expect to be 20 to 30 books read for research. I have been lurking around this site for a while but this is my first time posting.
I appreciate your feedback.
The POD is this:
Lincoln survives assassination. For some reason that I have not determined yet, Lincoln (L) turns his head to the left and leans back at the last moment causing the bullet to hit him in the jaw instead of the back of the head. Rathbone makes his attack on Booth and catches the same nasty gash on his arm. Just as Booth is about to leap to the stage, L catches him by the seat of the pants and puts him on the floor of the box. Rathbone puts a boot to his head.
The alarm is raised and Lewis Payne is shot in the back and wounded as he raises his knife to attack William Seward. L and Seward retire to the WH where Stanton and Chief Justice Chase bar Andrew Johnson from the building. L suffers a fever but then makes a full recovery. Seward's wife and daughter survive more than a few years without the strain of the attack. Together with their jaws wired shut, Seward and Lincoln plot the future through notes that are burned in a steady fire over the next few months.
L is magnaminous towards the South, commuting the death sentences of the conspirators against him and allowing Booth to live in an asylum after a visit from Junius Booth. Speaking with a lisp from his injury, L seeks to bind the country back together.
L has earned a tremendous amount of political capital and is lionized for his courage. So what would have been different?
I have chosen two distinct policy courses that I think have ample support in the historical record. It's pretty vast and may make two books but here goes.
Sable Arms
How would Lincoln have dealt with Reconstruction?
Lincoln was an enlightened man of his own times rather than modern times acting within the historical context of his times. At the end of the war, the question was posed What to do with the Negro?
Lincoln's answer was consistently in favor of colonization rather than integration. There is evidence that this view persisted past the issuance of the emancipation proclamation. Congress actually appropriated $600K to pay for transportation. The freedmen showed little enthusiasm for colonization. Frederick Douglas was a persistent critic of Lincoln on this count. Possible locations that were considered for colonization were Liberia, Haiti, British Honduras and the Chiquiri property in central America. The effort ultimately fell apart due to political wrangling and infighting between the secretary of the interior and the chief of the agency that administered the program. One attempt on a Haitian island failed due to corruption.
Looking at an anthology of Lincoln's speeches edited and commented upon by Henry Lewis Gates, Lincoln made clear his opposition to slavery and to its spread. He also made clear that he would free none, some or all of the slaves to save the union. Lincoln acknowledged that it was far from right but his solution to avoiding racial problems at the time was segregation. I found no reason to believe that Lincoln would have abandoned this policy.
The one location that Frederick Douglas (FD) showed interest in that was actually practical was Florida. The federal government owned most of the territory. The population was only about 140K half of which were freedmen. So the reconstruction policy would have been land grants to former Union soldiers in Florida with various incentives to relocate there. FD is named as territorial governor and the capitol is established at Jacksonville.
Reconstruction failed the freedmen miserably. No longer protected as property and with very little protection from the federal government, the beaten southerners unleashed what was nothing less than a reign of terrorism to keep the old order in place. The democrat and former slave owner Andrew Johnson hardly acted to stop them. The establishment of a state dominated by freedmen would have provided a safe haven in the south and in the US where freedmen could have enjoyed political rights that were denied them for a century after the civil war. It would have also reduced the population of freedmen in other states, making labor much more valuable. With an option to remove to the Florida Free State or to another state where freedmen were treated more fairly, each state would have had to make a choice between their own prejudices and their economic concerns. Politically, after statehood Florida would have sat two senators and a number of reps proportional to their part of the population, ensuring a sizable body of freedmen in Congress.
The Green Banner
It's not a new idea to ask what would have happened had Britain or France entered the war in the side of the confederacy. MY POD is after the war but the policy difference rests largely on the diplomatic history of keeping Britain at bay. Britain did everything short of recognition of the confederacy and intervention to prolong the struggle. The CSA navy was built in British shipyards and manned by men and officers on leave from the Royal Navy. The Alabama and Florida and a few other ships decimated American shipping. After the war, the UK paid a large settlement after international arbitration in Geneva. A ship was seized from the Laird ship yard at the last moment that was arguably the most advanced warship in the world after the US ambassador made it plain that its release to the CSA meant war.
The CSA was largely financed by the sale of cotton bonds on the UK market. British blockade runners kept the confederacy well supplied. Bermuda was basically taken over by the CSA as a center for running the blockade. Lincoln commented to Grant at the Hampton Roads peace conference that he had to back down during the Trent affair but thought John Bull could be punished later. Grant found shells minted at Suffolk on the battlefield and sent them to Washington. When Sherman entered Savannah and seized cotton with the British mark, he replied to protests of the British owners that he had seen the British mark all over the battlefield.
In 1866, the Fenian brotherhood, a group of Irish Republicans, invaded Canada in hopes of forcing Britain to give up control of Ireland. The US upheld neutrality and prevented the crossing of a large part of the force at Buffalo. The leaders were also arrested. The small force of about 800 that crossed into Canada won the battle of Ridgeway but then had to withdraw. They had no artillery. The force that met them was large but badly trained and led militia.
The policy difference I believe would have occurred would have been active enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. Certainly, at the end of the war the Union armies were strong enough to sweep over Canada. Seward made no secret of his desire to incorporate Canada into the US. I do not think that Lincoln would have turned his army northward for several reasons. First, Lincoln had promised the northern people peace and rest. Also, about 50K Canadians had served in the Union Army. Lincoln would not have wanted to be so ungracious to these veterans. What I foresee is the equivalent of a proxy war with the US playing by the rule book of Britain. What is good for the goose is good for the gander so to say.
When the Fenians rebelled in Ireland in 1866, the British government refused to allow the US consul to see the naturalized Americans on the grounds that British citizenship was inalienable. This had been something of a point of contention between the two countries before even the War of 1812. By the same reasoning, Britain could hardly complain if Irish-American, British citizens, chose to rebel on the soil of British North America. By the British rule book on neutrality, there could be no problem with financing and supplying an invasion. The US would quickly grant the Fenians belligerent status allowing ships to enter American ports safely. Many Americans would join the IRA.
I have not decided yet on the outcome of the invasion. For now, my thoughts are that New Brunswick would have been an easy conquest. There were preparations in 1865 but by 1866 they felt the threat had subsided. Elections could be held by the invaders (something like Ukraine) to join the US which passed legislation in 1866 to accept the Canadas as new states. The tactic which I believe L and Seward would have chosen would have been political rather than military. There was already talk in parliament of letting Canada go due to the expense. War with America would have brought the full might of the American army to bear with little hope of British success thereafter. I would set the invasion late in 1866, in October and have the invasion force dig in south of Toronto in the west and overtake New Brunswick in the east. Winter campaigning would have been difficult so there would be time for negotiation before the next spring. Ultimately, for now I may have the outcome be an independent Quebec and Ontario, incorporation of New Brunswick into the US, and seizure of the Hudson Bay company property on a pretext, perhaps a skirmish after entry in pursuit of hostile Indians.
Would Britain fight? Yes. I do not see how it could be avoided. But ultimately to keep its fleet at sea in a costly war far away would not have been sustainable. At the beginning of hostilities, L would state a new American policy: To Oppose Tyranny Wherever It May Exist. Noting the brutality with which rebellions in Ireland, India and Jamaica had been put down, lands that were conquered rather than having voluntarily joined in political union, support for those who like Americans had risen against there British rulers would become American policy.
I would expect the Liberal government of Palmerston to fall and to be replaced by the conservatives of Lord Derby.
By coincidence, in October 1866, the Morant Bay Rebellion took place in Jamaica. One American barely escaped its suppression with his life. He could recruit very effectively among the residents of the Florida Free State. Sable Arms Under the Green Banner. And the question of one British officer: What manner of Irishmen be these?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here is a general overview of what I intend to write about. It's ambitious and may be a lousy first book but I feel enthusiastic about it and writing in general so if I write 20 bad books before the first good one I might as well get the first 20 out of the way, no? Thanks for your feedback.
I appreciate your feedback.
The POD is this:
Lincoln survives assassination. For some reason that I have not determined yet, Lincoln (L) turns his head to the left and leans back at the last moment causing the bullet to hit him in the jaw instead of the back of the head. Rathbone makes his attack on Booth and catches the same nasty gash on his arm. Just as Booth is about to leap to the stage, L catches him by the seat of the pants and puts him on the floor of the box. Rathbone puts a boot to his head.
The alarm is raised and Lewis Payne is shot in the back and wounded as he raises his knife to attack William Seward. L and Seward retire to the WH where Stanton and Chief Justice Chase bar Andrew Johnson from the building. L suffers a fever but then makes a full recovery. Seward's wife and daughter survive more than a few years without the strain of the attack. Together with their jaws wired shut, Seward and Lincoln plot the future through notes that are burned in a steady fire over the next few months.
L is magnaminous towards the South, commuting the death sentences of the conspirators against him and allowing Booth to live in an asylum after a visit from Junius Booth. Speaking with a lisp from his injury, L seeks to bind the country back together.
L has earned a tremendous amount of political capital and is lionized for his courage. So what would have been different?
I have chosen two distinct policy courses that I think have ample support in the historical record. It's pretty vast and may make two books but here goes.
Sable Arms
How would Lincoln have dealt with Reconstruction?
Lincoln was an enlightened man of his own times rather than modern times acting within the historical context of his times. At the end of the war, the question was posed What to do with the Negro?
Lincoln's answer was consistently in favor of colonization rather than integration. There is evidence that this view persisted past the issuance of the emancipation proclamation. Congress actually appropriated $600K to pay for transportation. The freedmen showed little enthusiasm for colonization. Frederick Douglas was a persistent critic of Lincoln on this count. Possible locations that were considered for colonization were Liberia, Haiti, British Honduras and the Chiquiri property in central America. The effort ultimately fell apart due to political wrangling and infighting between the secretary of the interior and the chief of the agency that administered the program. One attempt on a Haitian island failed due to corruption.
Looking at an anthology of Lincoln's speeches edited and commented upon by Henry Lewis Gates, Lincoln made clear his opposition to slavery and to its spread. He also made clear that he would free none, some or all of the slaves to save the union. Lincoln acknowledged that it was far from right but his solution to avoiding racial problems at the time was segregation. I found no reason to believe that Lincoln would have abandoned this policy.
The one location that Frederick Douglas (FD) showed interest in that was actually practical was Florida. The federal government owned most of the territory. The population was only about 140K half of which were freedmen. So the reconstruction policy would have been land grants to former Union soldiers in Florida with various incentives to relocate there. FD is named as territorial governor and the capitol is established at Jacksonville.
Reconstruction failed the freedmen miserably. No longer protected as property and with very little protection from the federal government, the beaten southerners unleashed what was nothing less than a reign of terrorism to keep the old order in place. The democrat and former slave owner Andrew Johnson hardly acted to stop them. The establishment of a state dominated by freedmen would have provided a safe haven in the south and in the US where freedmen could have enjoyed political rights that were denied them for a century after the civil war. It would have also reduced the population of freedmen in other states, making labor much more valuable. With an option to remove to the Florida Free State or to another state where freedmen were treated more fairly, each state would have had to make a choice between their own prejudices and their economic concerns. Politically, after statehood Florida would have sat two senators and a number of reps proportional to their part of the population, ensuring a sizable body of freedmen in Congress.
The Green Banner
It's not a new idea to ask what would have happened had Britain or France entered the war in the side of the confederacy. MY POD is after the war but the policy difference rests largely on the diplomatic history of keeping Britain at bay. Britain did everything short of recognition of the confederacy and intervention to prolong the struggle. The CSA navy was built in British shipyards and manned by men and officers on leave from the Royal Navy. The Alabama and Florida and a few other ships decimated American shipping. After the war, the UK paid a large settlement after international arbitration in Geneva. A ship was seized from the Laird ship yard at the last moment that was arguably the most advanced warship in the world after the US ambassador made it plain that its release to the CSA meant war.
The CSA was largely financed by the sale of cotton bonds on the UK market. British blockade runners kept the confederacy well supplied. Bermuda was basically taken over by the CSA as a center for running the blockade. Lincoln commented to Grant at the Hampton Roads peace conference that he had to back down during the Trent affair but thought John Bull could be punished later. Grant found shells minted at Suffolk on the battlefield and sent them to Washington. When Sherman entered Savannah and seized cotton with the British mark, he replied to protests of the British owners that he had seen the British mark all over the battlefield.
In 1866, the Fenian brotherhood, a group of Irish Republicans, invaded Canada in hopes of forcing Britain to give up control of Ireland. The US upheld neutrality and prevented the crossing of a large part of the force at Buffalo. The leaders were also arrested. The small force of about 800 that crossed into Canada won the battle of Ridgeway but then had to withdraw. They had no artillery. The force that met them was large but badly trained and led militia.
The policy difference I believe would have occurred would have been active enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. Certainly, at the end of the war the Union armies were strong enough to sweep over Canada. Seward made no secret of his desire to incorporate Canada into the US. I do not think that Lincoln would have turned his army northward for several reasons. First, Lincoln had promised the northern people peace and rest. Also, about 50K Canadians had served in the Union Army. Lincoln would not have wanted to be so ungracious to these veterans. What I foresee is the equivalent of a proxy war with the US playing by the rule book of Britain. What is good for the goose is good for the gander so to say.
When the Fenians rebelled in Ireland in 1866, the British government refused to allow the US consul to see the naturalized Americans on the grounds that British citizenship was inalienable. This had been something of a point of contention between the two countries before even the War of 1812. By the same reasoning, Britain could hardly complain if Irish-American, British citizens, chose to rebel on the soil of British North America. By the British rule book on neutrality, there could be no problem with financing and supplying an invasion. The US would quickly grant the Fenians belligerent status allowing ships to enter American ports safely. Many Americans would join the IRA.
I have not decided yet on the outcome of the invasion. For now, my thoughts are that New Brunswick would have been an easy conquest. There were preparations in 1865 but by 1866 they felt the threat had subsided. Elections could be held by the invaders (something like Ukraine) to join the US which passed legislation in 1866 to accept the Canadas as new states. The tactic which I believe L and Seward would have chosen would have been political rather than military. There was already talk in parliament of letting Canada go due to the expense. War with America would have brought the full might of the American army to bear with little hope of British success thereafter. I would set the invasion late in 1866, in October and have the invasion force dig in south of Toronto in the west and overtake New Brunswick in the east. Winter campaigning would have been difficult so there would be time for negotiation before the next spring. Ultimately, for now I may have the outcome be an independent Quebec and Ontario, incorporation of New Brunswick into the US, and seizure of the Hudson Bay company property on a pretext, perhaps a skirmish after entry in pursuit of hostile Indians.
Would Britain fight? Yes. I do not see how it could be avoided. But ultimately to keep its fleet at sea in a costly war far away would not have been sustainable. At the beginning of hostilities, L would state a new American policy: To Oppose Tyranny Wherever It May Exist. Noting the brutality with which rebellions in Ireland, India and Jamaica had been put down, lands that were conquered rather than having voluntarily joined in political union, support for those who like Americans had risen against there British rulers would become American policy.
I would expect the Liberal government of Palmerston to fall and to be replaced by the conservatives of Lord Derby.
By coincidence, in October 1866, the Morant Bay Rebellion took place in Jamaica. One American barely escaped its suppression with his life. He could recruit very effectively among the residents of the Florida Free State. Sable Arms Under the Green Banner. And the question of one British officer: What manner of Irishmen be these?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here is a general overview of what I intend to write about. It's ambitious and may be a lousy first book but I feel enthusiastic about it and writing in general so if I write 20 bad books before the first good one I might as well get the first 20 out of the way, no? Thanks for your feedback.
) away from open support of the confederacy (for a similar situation, see 1939-1941 US "neutrality" w.r.t. to Great Britan).