Lion of Washington Discussion Thread

I'm moving the discussion for my thread "The Lion of Washington" here. The main thread will be used solely for updates.
Please tell me if this is the wrong forum to post this in.
The Thread itself-
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=173458

LordVetinari

OK, this is fine for the location. I know a couple of other TLs that do this.

You may want to put a very large sign in the current site so that people know. [Preferably at both top and bottom of the thread. Might need to put it as a footer of any new chapters to do that latter]. Otherwise you're likely to get people posting there because they don't realise. I was in the main thread a couple of minutes ago reading the update and didn't notice anything but that could have just been me being thick. - Just checked and nothing there so suspect a lot of people won't realise. Especially if they have it subscibed and go direct to the thread.

Steve
 
@stevep
Okay, I put it at the end of the main thread so far, and in my sig, so it should be able to differentiate. Also, did you read the latest posts?
 
I find it somewhat implausible that Thomas is able to get Longstreet into his cabinet so easily especially with the attack, the congress electing a Rep majority and Longstreet being one of the most notable CSA generals around.

A Rep majority congress would be wondering if Longstreet would be willing to prosecute a 'war' against the KKK or even if he would be able to since TTL's KKK is much nastier and wouldn't have a qualm about taking hostage or murdering Longstreet's family (heck they'd probably see Longstreet as their Benedict Arnold now).
 
Well, in OTL, Longstreet was already considered one already, since he went and worked for the government again. He was briefly an ambassador to Turkey/Ottomans for a brief time. He was one of a few generals (lee included I think,) who went and decided that there was little point refighting a lost cause, unlike say, N.B.F. who founded the KKK. Yes, it may seem overtly fast, but remember, in OTL, September 11th made congress more willing to get things done, even if they didn't agree fully, and while they (1869 congress) may not be fond of Longstreet they may see him as a necessity for this sort of thing. I mean, the North didn't trust Thomas, and he was not loved in the south for his decision to stay loyal, so the whole thing would be "hard to believe, but not impossible," in my mind. So, Longstreet is Secretary of War. I doubt command of a large army would be better received, but Secretary means he answers to the President a bit more directly. I hope this answers some doubts you may have.
 
Here's a question: Why did Thomas nominate Longstreet for Secretary of War in the first place?

(Close distinction: I buy your argument on why he would be appointed if he was nominated, my concern is the initial nomination)

Appointing anyone from a former CSA state is questionable. Whether rational or not, the public would be greatly concerned regarding their loyalty, there could be a great backlash.

Admittedly, Thomas greatly disliked establishment politicians and their concerns. But in that case why would he care about party lines either - taking a pure ATL viewpoint and not a for-the-sake-of-your-TL viewpoint, he would be more likely to appoint Grant as Secretary of War. He knows the man and that he is a good commander, and not necessarily the best in civilian life, and not very partisan either. All good reasons, plus the whole breaching-party-lines thing; and remember Grant comes from Illinois. Regionally balancing the cabinet was a very big deal at the time (see Team of Rivals for details). Could be a cool spin-off TL......

Or failing that, why not any other of the half-dozen or so good commanders Thomas served with during the war?

Or - assuming that we have established that Thomas wants to appoint someone from the former CSA - still, why Longstreet? He was well-known but not in the highest command echelons, and had little-to-no political experience - plus Thomas only briefly faced him during the war, and would have little personal knowledge of him.

It seems to be he would be more likely to appoint someone like J. Johnston - army commander, pretty much universally liked (except for Davis), had some personal interactions with plus knew him as a skilled opponent.

Or - here's some fun - Robert E. Lee. The two of them were old 2nd Cavalry buddies, Thomas knew his character quite well. Frankly everyone in military circles, on both sides, had nothing bad to say about his character. Lee had administrative experience from serving at West Point. Plus he was darn infamous in the north as "the man who made the war last for 4 years", so Thomas can point out: "if he could do all that while leading half-starved and poorly supplied men during the war, imagine how well he can direct a properly equipped army like ours".

That could be another fun spin-off TL. Of course, I'm a sucker for anything with an interesting professional relationship between Thomas and Lee.
 
Top