Look to the West -- Thread II
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
- Status
Thande
Donor
I'm just fairly good at it, it comes from reading a lot of fiction which likes using punny names and turns of phrases. I admit sometimes I come up with the title pun first and then twist the timeline to fit it
Thande made Ivy cry...
Habsburg sympathies aside, fantastic as always. Radetzky's execution by the Habsburgs is a tragedy for all involved.
Habsburg sympathies aside, fantastic as always. Radetzky's execution by the Habsburgs is a tragedy for all involved.
Thande
Donor
Part #142: A Black Day for Slavery
“Never was the adage ‘the ends justify the means’ so tested as in the Virginia Crisis...”
*
From: “Jack and George Forever: A History of the Empire of North America, 1751-1851” by Victoria Smethwick (1975)—
Slavery, as its defenders long claimed, has been an integral part of American history since the very beginning. Since the original Virginia colonists purchased 30 African slaves in 1619, the institution became as mainstream within the English colonies in America as it had in the Spanish. Many had predicted that it would become a divisive and problematic issue, ever since the colonies were united under one authority (however theoretical to begin with) in 1751. Ultimately the institution’s place as a central political question dates back to 1803, when New York—until then a slaveholding Confederation surrounded by free Pennsylvania and New England—chose to manumit its slaves, albeit in a watered-down law that did not (initially) apply to unincorporated territories and often left the ‘freed’ blacks worse off than before. Nonetheless this move had a major effect. New England and Pennsylvania banning slavery had never been especially controversial, for neither Confederation had had a sizeable black population anyway. New York was different. Her decision changed the balance between free and slave Confederations from 2:3 to 3:2, and for the first time slaveholders in Virginia and Carolina began to pay attention to that fact. New York going down the abolitionist road (however half-heartedly) made some on both sides of the issue believe that the ENA was now sliding down an inevitable path to a national abolition of slavery. Some slaveholders resigned themselves to that idea and began diversifying their wealth and moving into other areas to try and hold on to their important place in society. The majority, however, resolved to fight the tide of abolitionism every step of the way.
However it is worth noting that slavery was never the all-defining issue it later became during the age of the Democratic Experiment.[1] Ideologically-driven defenders of slavery were as few in number, and considered just as hotheaded and weird, as abolitionists. Ultimately this was in part due to to America’s participation in the Jacobin Wars, and in particular the contribution of many Carolinian troops led by aristocratic (and thus slaveholding) officers. Until Eveleigh and The Burden, many American slaveholders were scared of the idea of trying to ideologically justify the institution in case it left them open to charges of Linnaean Racism and thus, ultimately, traitorous Jacobin ideas. The archetypal ideal for southern Americans to aspire to was General John Alexander, the war hero who had killed General Boulanger on the field of Paris with the help of his slave, and saw no contradiction between slaveholding and opposing Linnaeanism. Alexander was not an ideologue. Men of his type generally took the view that opposing slavery was as nonsensical as demanding everyone hop everywhere on one leg (in the words of Carolinian MGA Uriah Adams[2]): it was not that banning it would bring disaster, but it was such an integral, normal part of human society that criticising it brought the sanity of the critic into question.
It was however inevitable that racial ideology would eventually have a part to play in the debate. Reaction to Linnaeanism ultimately came from two directions: the better-known is that of Eveleigh’s Burdenites, who embraced the idea that all other races were equal (which ironically was probably more controversial at the time than their views on blacks) but that blacks were sub-human, animalistic creatures, incapable of ruling themselves, who needed a white, red (or in theory yellow) man to act as their master. From the other direction came the “Manhattan School” which, as the name implies, was based in New York. Stemming from the works on political and social theory of MA David Harper[3] the School was the end result of continued opposition to New York’s manumission of 1803. Reacting against Linnaean Racism, the Manhattanites contended that, as Adams of Carolina had said, slavery was a natural and universal state of human affairs (in this sense they were prescient of Societist notions). The Manhattanites also believed, however, that slavery should not be race-based and should not be permanent. They pointed to old records demonstrating that the colonies had once held white indentured servants and treated them (theoretically at least) equal to blacks. By the late 1820s the Manhattanites had moved on from their original character of a group of grumpy former New York slaveholders and had become an organisation calling for a form of social justice: they suggested that unemployed paupers become indentured servants, employed either directly by the state or by companies ultimately responsible to the state (to ensure lack of mistreatment). Basing their views on the older Biblical and classical conceptions of slavery (which racists often mistakenly used to justify the institution of black slavery) the Manhattanites said this institution should apply equally to any destitute individual regardless of the colour of his skin, and should be a temporary state of affairs in which the individual was supported by the state in return for his work, helping him work his way out of his situation. A five-year indenture was suggested as the default. In this one can see how the Manhattanites were reacting to the social changes wrought by the post-Jacobin Wars economic boom, in which expanded trade led to many people in the ENA becoming very rich—but widening the social divide between them and the poorest. This was visible across the ENA, but particularly noticeable in New York due to its continuing black poor population from the half-hearted manumission of a generation before. The Manhattanites pointed to the slaveholding Confederations, where whatever their other problems, the blacks held in slavery did not have to worry about where their next meal was coming from and turn to crime in response.
The Virginia Crisis was the end result of the debates of the Watchful Peace. A schoolboy version of history would suggest it became possible due to most of the population of Virginia spontaneously deciding to become abolitionists: naturally the reality is not so black and white (no pun intended) and the historical events are ultimately the result of the pro-slave groups being disorganised and prone to division, whereas the abolitionists were less numerous but more organised and united. The crisis can be attributed in many ways to the existence of Andrew Eveleigh as Lord President—and not simply because Eveleigh’s isolationism and anti-royalism led Emperor Frederick II to support the abolitionists in Virginia purely as a means to attack him. Simplistic narratives would imply that Eveleigh in Fourteen Culpeper Road[4] would be the best thing the pro-slavery movement could hope for. In fact many slaveholders viewed him as a disaster. When it was revealed that Eveleigh had written The Burden, many were appalled. Some slaveholders had embraced the book but many others strongly opposed it. In many ways the book was the antithesis of the view expressed by Uriah Adams, where slavery was such a normal thing that anyone mentioning it in every sentence was a fanatical lunatic: a description normally used of abolitionists but applying equally to enthusiasts like Eveleigh. Furthermore Eveleigh’s views were very different from those of most slaveholders on issues like the status of slaves as private property. Like the Manhattanites, Eveleigh believed the state should have a role to play in the institution—and not the Confederate state but the Imperial state, Eveleigh being a staunch Imperial.[5] Whereas most slaveholders believed slaves were their property to treat (or mistreat) however they pleased, Eveleigh had thought through the implications of his view of the Negro as a sort of child in an adult’s body or half-animal-man, and concluded that this meant that the master possessed the same responsibility towards his slave as he would towards any other being lacking adult human intelligence in his household. “It is not that a man might not beat his Negro for an infraction,” Eveleigh wrote, “any more than he might not beat his child or his dog. Yet society and government turn a blind eye to a man who beats his Negro to death in a fit of pique, or commits abomination by laying with a Negress, when if he did the same to a child he should be hanged by a raging mob. This is the hypocrisy of our society, and indeed the burden of responsibility lies with us to maintain our authority as the rightful stewards of the earth. When God gave man authority over all the beasts of the field, did man think he could shirk his responsibilities over one of those beasts merely because he happens to bear a slight resemblance to humanity? This savage mistreatment much end.”
Thus it can be seen that Eveleigh did not so much polarise American politics into pro- and anti-slavery factions as fragment the pro-slavery faction into infighting uselessness. Some slaveholders might agree with Eveleigh’s Racist views but balk at the idea of the government telling them what to do, especially Eveleigh’s notion that there should be harsh punishments for miscegenation—there were not a few plantations with a view suspiciously mulatto-looking children among the pickaninnies. Those slaveholders who approved of the idea of improving the lot of slaves were usually the least racist, and thus equally opposed to Eveleigh. Indeed, it perhaps seems somewhat peculiar that Eveleigh’s government lasted as long as it did. In part this was because a certain number of slaveholders—particularly those who were Whig MCPs—rallied to Eveleigh as their best hope for enshrining the institution on an Imperial level, whatever their other disagreements with him. Ironically this was probably responsible for Eveleigh not being dragged out of the Presidency by his own party before it was too late. Another reason lay behind the fact that Eveleigh, whether through political skill or just luck, tended to keep his motivations ambiguous when pursuing policy goals. The best example of this is the Preventive Occupation Act of 1829. Eveleigh had become Lord President after the death of Benjamin Harrison VII, and Eveleigh’s own personal anti-royal views had only been enhanced by the fact that he blamed the Emperor for Harrison working himself to death in the cause of intervention against Joshua Churchill. Eveleigh was adamant that the ENA would not intervene, for the sake of principle if no other reason. However, Eveleigh was also aware that he had to do something, and saw an opportunity. He proposed that the ENA flex her muscles by occupying British colonies around the world, colonies that now certainly could not expect any help from Joshua Churchill’s tinpot dictatorship of a Great Britain and might otherwise fall victim to other colonial powers moving in. This idea was supported across the Continental Parliament, and grudgingly backed even by the Emperor. At the time Eveleigh’s motivations were speculated to primarily be due to his old-Constitutionalist nationalism, seeking to expand American power behind the veil of helping the mother country.
Thanks to Harrison’s “Proclamation of Independence” in 1828, the American Squadron was now the Imperial Navy, and fresh from having its ships repainted and with smart new flags hoisted, the Navy sailed around the world—though primarily in the Americas—to impose Fredericksburg’s authority on the colonies. The Falklands were no problem, being mainly inhabited by New England whalers anyway. New Kent in Antipodea put up a bit more of a fight, but the few Churchill loyalists were ultimately overwhelmed not only by the militiamen from New Virginia helping the American forces, but also because New Kent was home to many displaced Scots who hated Churchill. After dialogue with the East India Company, the Americans ruled out trying to move into Natal or Guinea, which remained close to Churchill (and in the case of Guinea was strongly influenced by the Freedonia colony and the free blacks’ hatred of men like Eveleigh). Thus while the Old World trading companies continued to stand on their own two feet, all the British colonies in Antipodea and the Americas fell under American control.
Which included Jamaica and the other remaining British West Indian possessions. It soon became clear that Eveleigh’s primary motivation was not to enhance American power, but to ensure those islands became part of Carolina and subject to American slavery. Yet Eveleigh’s ‘crazy-ideologue’ credentials were enhanced on both sides of the issue, for he also began plans to force slaveholders across the ENA to adopt a new slave code based on Louisiana’s Code Noir, improving the rights of slaves and ensuring that slaveholders were not able to do whatever they pleased with their property. Carolina did narrowly vote to adopt a Confederate-level version of the ‘Black Code’ in 1830 as it was the price for their annexation of the former British West Indies, but in part this was due to Eveleigh’s own background as a native son. Many considered the Lord President out of control, his priorities set by his own ideological objectives rather than what would benefit the Empire. It is likely Eveleigh’s government would have fallen early without the coming of the Superior War, which prompted Eveleigh to try and unite the country behind him to squash the rebels.
In Virginia, the Virginia Freedom League and its co-conspirators were cautious about these events. On the one hand, Eveleigh as Lord President had fragmented the pro-slavery people and made defenders of slavery more wary and circumspect in their language, lest they be accused of being as fanatical as Eveleigh. On the other hand, Eveleigh’s attempt to impose a more humane Black Code might well strip away the more moderate supporters of abolition, who would be satisfied with reform within the institution of slavery. In the end it was the Superior War that gave an opportunity for the conspirators to act. Governor James Henry rallied to Eveleigh’s call and said that Virginia would raise new regiments to help put down the Superior uprising (the ENA was rather short on troops after sending many to the West Indies and Antipodea to secure the colonies). In order to pay for equipping these regiments, his supporters in the House of Burgesses proposed a new super tax. This targeted the richest in Virginia (which usually meant slaveholders) and Henry used deliberately inflammatory language stemming from his own democratic views, saying that ‘such gentlemen invariably find ways of avoiding the front lines in service of their country in such conflicts, so let us find another way they may contribute, no matter how reluctantly they may be forced to do so, no matter how much they may despise their flag’.
Needless to say, this prompted angry scenes in the House of Burgesses and the law was voted down, its opponents including many members of Henry’s own Whig party—something that was condemned by both Henry and Eveleigh. The Emperor, who played up a dislike of Henry in public, also criticised it, helping isolate the opponents as an apparent minority. Henry took a measure that was unprecedented, uncharted territory for American Confederate politics, a consequence of the elected Governorship that the Emperor had implemented: he dissolved the House of Burgesses and called a fresh election on the issue of the war tax.
Henry played the patriotism card well, and was unwittingly helped by Eveleigh. The initial counterattack on Superior by New York troops and militiamen was bloodily repulsed at the Battle of Mackinac in April 1830, betraying the fact that the Superior revolutionaries were more numerous and better led than the Americans had suspected. The defeat was largely due to American overconfidence and General Smith not waiting for troops from other Confederations to arrive, but was blamed by Eveleigh and others on the lack of contribution from Virginia. The Confederation was, after all, the most populous in the Empire, the seat of her capital, and had always presented herself as leading the way in any American venture. The scathing criticism hurt Virginian pride, already smarting from Harrison’s death and replacement by the upstart Carolinian Eveleigh. While the attacks led some to vote for the anti-tax slaveholders just because they were on the other side to Eveleigh, the majority voted for the pro-tax candidates, accepting the propaganda claim that the slaveocrats were selfish cowards who had both blackened Virginia’s reputation and undermined American power. It was a curious election, in which party identity was less important: candidates backing the tax stood on the ‘magnolia coupon’ coined by Henry. Some Whigs backed Henry, others remained loyal to the slaveocrats, while the Patriots remained divided between pro-Henry Hamiltonites and anti-Henry Carterites. The Radicals and Neutrals backed the tax as a way of attacking the slaver aristocracy, even though some Radicals sympathised with the Superior Republic.
The election of July 1830 was dramatic. It took two weeks to collect and count the votes, betraying both how large Virginia had become and how Henry had managed to push through legislation lowering the property qualification for voting, meaning the electorate was larger than ever before. The election was a victory for the ‘magnolia coalition’ of pro-Henry Whigs, Hamiltonite Patriots, Radicals and Neutrals. The tax law was immediately pushed through in the face of strident protests from the slaveocrats. Both Eveleigh and Hamilton gave speeches continuing Henry’s rhetoric of calling them traitors for not answering the call when America needed them. The new regiments were created, equipped using the money from the war tax, and sent off to the front lines to fight the Superior revolutionaries. The Virginians joined General Long’s army that moved in in force in October 1830, occupying the town of Susan-Mary as the revolutionaries cleared out to the west. The war clearly had some time still to run, but America now had the upper hand. Eveleigh was pleased. For now.
However, in January 1831, as both revolutionaries and regulars dug in for the bitter winter of the Superior Peninsula, matters changed. In the Virginia House of Burgesses, Clement Clay, leader of Virginia’s small (but now expanded) Radical Party, arose to propose a bill. Clay was a peculiarity, in some ways emblematic of how Eveleigh had shaken up the old political divisions: an aristocrat and former slaveholder who had become a fiery abolitionist.[6] Clay gave a speech. He talked about how now, in this time of war, it had been revealed just how dangerous social divisions between Virginians had become. “There are many living among us who are born into a wretched condition. If given an appropriate upbringing, they might become full members of society, contributing to our great nation’s culture and power. But the system has condemned them to be treated as less than people, forever consumed by their mindless toil. They are the shame of America.”
Clay’s speech was naturally drowned out by jeers and catcalls from the opposition benches, who called him a Leveller and a nigger-lover. But after an interjection for order, Clay continued: “I am here to you today to ask you to free these people from their wretched position. Let them contribute fully to our society. Let it be so I do not have to turn away my face in shame when I pass one in the street.
“But understand me fully. I have not been speaking of the Negro. I have been speaking of his master.”
Clay now held the House spellbound, his opponents confused and uncertain, as he outlined his argument: “I do not say slavery should end for the Negro’s sake. I believe that it should, but I am a Radical. We all know that appealing to high-faluting theories about race will convince no-one to back a political position.” A jab at Eveleigh that provoked chuckles on both sides of the House. “I say that we should all back an end to slavery because of what it does to white men. Slaveholders whose time is consumed by their plantations, who cannot contribute to society like their counterparts can in the north, who become ignorant philistines. My honourable friends, is this not a great Confederation?” (Shouts of ‘yes!’) “Is this not the greatest of all the Confederations, where our colonies began, where our first Emperor dwelt in exile and where we fought with him to restore him to his rightful place? Are we not the natural leaders of the Empire? And yet I tell you that if this state of division continues, Virginia shall fall behind the northerners until we are but a backwater.” (Grumbles of discontent). “While the upper classes in the north become writers and natural philosophers and engineers, ours are fixed to their plantations, as assuredly imprisoned by them as their own slaves.” (Murmurs). “While the lower classes of whites in the north work hard to lift themselves out of their situation and move west to stake new claims, ours are lazy and content, knowing that no matter how bad their lives become, they can still look down on the Negro. So they have no incentive to improve.” Clay was thus the first to invoke Ponsonby Minorism in the slavery question.[7]
“So let us end the institution, if not to free the Negro then to free ourselves. If you do not care for free Negroes, then let us send them to make a new life in Freedonia, and let them work their passage. Let there be compensation for those who possess slaves, though they will already benefit from the fading of all the things I have spoken of. And let us ensure that Virginia never becomes a mere footnote to history. That is all I have to say.” He sat down to thunderous applause: even those who opposed him were impressed by his rhetoric.
A bill was thus proposed to end slavery by similar means to New York, manumitting slaves and compensating their owners, and looking into the possibility of widescale deportation to Freedonia if it proved necessary. Rumours of this were initially dismissed in Fredericksburg by Eveleigh and his supporters. It was not the first time a Radical had proposed an anti-slavery bill in Virginia or Carolina. They did so just on principle, to prove a point, and they were always easily voted down. Thus Eveleigh did not take action until it was too late.
To many ears the news was drowned out by the stories of the winter raids on General Long’s encamped army by Indian forces in the Superior Peninsula. But nonetheless it happened. On January 31st 1831, the House of Burgesses of the Confederation of Virginia voted, by a majority of five, to abolish slavery.
And the Virginia Crisis detonated.
[1] The period between the Popular Wars and the Great American War. The name does not really apply to any social changes in the ENA, it stems from events in Europe—hence, ironically given the events during the period, it still betrays a certain Eurocentric approach to history.
[2] MGA = Member of the General Assembly, Carolina’s Confederate government.
[3] MA = Member of the New York Assembly.
[4] The house in Fredericksburg where the American Lord President has his residence. Note that the term is used metaphorically and anachronistically by the author here because this did not become the fixed residence until much later, and Eveleigh actually lived elsewhere.
[5] I.e. in OTL terms Eveleigh is a federalist who believes the federal government should have more power over the state governments.
[6] Clement Clay is an ATL son of Green Clay, and quite similar to his OTL son Cassius Clay.
[7] The author uses the term anachronistically. “Ponsonby Minorism” is named after the character Ponsonby Minor from Play Up and Play the Game, a popular novel from the 1840s satirising Eton and other British public schools [US: private schools]. Ponsonby Minor is the smallest and one of the youngest boys in the school and is bullied by bigger and older boys, initially making him a sympathetic character. However as soon as an even younger and smaller boy joins the school, Ponsonby Minor promptly joins the others in bullying him. The point is that people in a bad situation can remain content if there is nonetheless someone worse off they can look down on. Related to schadenfreude and tall poppy syndrome.
“Never was the adage ‘the ends justify the means’ so tested as in the Virginia Crisis...”
– Joseph Pattison MCP, 1878
*
From: “Jack and George Forever: A History of the Empire of North America, 1751-1851” by Victoria Smethwick (1975)—
Slavery, as its defenders long claimed, has been an integral part of American history since the very beginning. Since the original Virginia colonists purchased 30 African slaves in 1619, the institution became as mainstream within the English colonies in America as it had in the Spanish. Many had predicted that it would become a divisive and problematic issue, ever since the colonies were united under one authority (however theoretical to begin with) in 1751. Ultimately the institution’s place as a central political question dates back to 1803, when New York—until then a slaveholding Confederation surrounded by free Pennsylvania and New England—chose to manumit its slaves, albeit in a watered-down law that did not (initially) apply to unincorporated territories and often left the ‘freed’ blacks worse off than before. Nonetheless this move had a major effect. New England and Pennsylvania banning slavery had never been especially controversial, for neither Confederation had had a sizeable black population anyway. New York was different. Her decision changed the balance between free and slave Confederations from 2:3 to 3:2, and for the first time slaveholders in Virginia and Carolina began to pay attention to that fact. New York going down the abolitionist road (however half-heartedly) made some on both sides of the issue believe that the ENA was now sliding down an inevitable path to a national abolition of slavery. Some slaveholders resigned themselves to that idea and began diversifying their wealth and moving into other areas to try and hold on to their important place in society. The majority, however, resolved to fight the tide of abolitionism every step of the way.
However it is worth noting that slavery was never the all-defining issue it later became during the age of the Democratic Experiment.[1] Ideologically-driven defenders of slavery were as few in number, and considered just as hotheaded and weird, as abolitionists. Ultimately this was in part due to to America’s participation in the Jacobin Wars, and in particular the contribution of many Carolinian troops led by aristocratic (and thus slaveholding) officers. Until Eveleigh and The Burden, many American slaveholders were scared of the idea of trying to ideologically justify the institution in case it left them open to charges of Linnaean Racism and thus, ultimately, traitorous Jacobin ideas. The archetypal ideal for southern Americans to aspire to was General John Alexander, the war hero who had killed General Boulanger on the field of Paris with the help of his slave, and saw no contradiction between slaveholding and opposing Linnaeanism. Alexander was not an ideologue. Men of his type generally took the view that opposing slavery was as nonsensical as demanding everyone hop everywhere on one leg (in the words of Carolinian MGA Uriah Adams[2]): it was not that banning it would bring disaster, but it was such an integral, normal part of human society that criticising it brought the sanity of the critic into question.
It was however inevitable that racial ideology would eventually have a part to play in the debate. Reaction to Linnaeanism ultimately came from two directions: the better-known is that of Eveleigh’s Burdenites, who embraced the idea that all other races were equal (which ironically was probably more controversial at the time than their views on blacks) but that blacks were sub-human, animalistic creatures, incapable of ruling themselves, who needed a white, red (or in theory yellow) man to act as their master. From the other direction came the “Manhattan School” which, as the name implies, was based in New York. Stemming from the works on political and social theory of MA David Harper[3] the School was the end result of continued opposition to New York’s manumission of 1803. Reacting against Linnaean Racism, the Manhattanites contended that, as Adams of Carolina had said, slavery was a natural and universal state of human affairs (in this sense they were prescient of Societist notions). The Manhattanites also believed, however, that slavery should not be race-based and should not be permanent. They pointed to old records demonstrating that the colonies had once held white indentured servants and treated them (theoretically at least) equal to blacks. By the late 1820s the Manhattanites had moved on from their original character of a group of grumpy former New York slaveholders and had become an organisation calling for a form of social justice: they suggested that unemployed paupers become indentured servants, employed either directly by the state or by companies ultimately responsible to the state (to ensure lack of mistreatment). Basing their views on the older Biblical and classical conceptions of slavery (which racists often mistakenly used to justify the institution of black slavery) the Manhattanites said this institution should apply equally to any destitute individual regardless of the colour of his skin, and should be a temporary state of affairs in which the individual was supported by the state in return for his work, helping him work his way out of his situation. A five-year indenture was suggested as the default. In this one can see how the Manhattanites were reacting to the social changes wrought by the post-Jacobin Wars economic boom, in which expanded trade led to many people in the ENA becoming very rich—but widening the social divide between them and the poorest. This was visible across the ENA, but particularly noticeable in New York due to its continuing black poor population from the half-hearted manumission of a generation before. The Manhattanites pointed to the slaveholding Confederations, where whatever their other problems, the blacks held in slavery did not have to worry about where their next meal was coming from and turn to crime in response.
The Virginia Crisis was the end result of the debates of the Watchful Peace. A schoolboy version of history would suggest it became possible due to most of the population of Virginia spontaneously deciding to become abolitionists: naturally the reality is not so black and white (no pun intended) and the historical events are ultimately the result of the pro-slave groups being disorganised and prone to division, whereas the abolitionists were less numerous but more organised and united. The crisis can be attributed in many ways to the existence of Andrew Eveleigh as Lord President—and not simply because Eveleigh’s isolationism and anti-royalism led Emperor Frederick II to support the abolitionists in Virginia purely as a means to attack him. Simplistic narratives would imply that Eveleigh in Fourteen Culpeper Road[4] would be the best thing the pro-slavery movement could hope for. In fact many slaveholders viewed him as a disaster. When it was revealed that Eveleigh had written The Burden, many were appalled. Some slaveholders had embraced the book but many others strongly opposed it. In many ways the book was the antithesis of the view expressed by Uriah Adams, where slavery was such a normal thing that anyone mentioning it in every sentence was a fanatical lunatic: a description normally used of abolitionists but applying equally to enthusiasts like Eveleigh. Furthermore Eveleigh’s views were very different from those of most slaveholders on issues like the status of slaves as private property. Like the Manhattanites, Eveleigh believed the state should have a role to play in the institution—and not the Confederate state but the Imperial state, Eveleigh being a staunch Imperial.[5] Whereas most slaveholders believed slaves were their property to treat (or mistreat) however they pleased, Eveleigh had thought through the implications of his view of the Negro as a sort of child in an adult’s body or half-animal-man, and concluded that this meant that the master possessed the same responsibility towards his slave as he would towards any other being lacking adult human intelligence in his household. “It is not that a man might not beat his Negro for an infraction,” Eveleigh wrote, “any more than he might not beat his child or his dog. Yet society and government turn a blind eye to a man who beats his Negro to death in a fit of pique, or commits abomination by laying with a Negress, when if he did the same to a child he should be hanged by a raging mob. This is the hypocrisy of our society, and indeed the burden of responsibility lies with us to maintain our authority as the rightful stewards of the earth. When God gave man authority over all the beasts of the field, did man think he could shirk his responsibilities over one of those beasts merely because he happens to bear a slight resemblance to humanity? This savage mistreatment much end.”
Thus it can be seen that Eveleigh did not so much polarise American politics into pro- and anti-slavery factions as fragment the pro-slavery faction into infighting uselessness. Some slaveholders might agree with Eveleigh’s Racist views but balk at the idea of the government telling them what to do, especially Eveleigh’s notion that there should be harsh punishments for miscegenation—there were not a few plantations with a view suspiciously mulatto-looking children among the pickaninnies. Those slaveholders who approved of the idea of improving the lot of slaves were usually the least racist, and thus equally opposed to Eveleigh. Indeed, it perhaps seems somewhat peculiar that Eveleigh’s government lasted as long as it did. In part this was because a certain number of slaveholders—particularly those who were Whig MCPs—rallied to Eveleigh as their best hope for enshrining the institution on an Imperial level, whatever their other disagreements with him. Ironically this was probably responsible for Eveleigh not being dragged out of the Presidency by his own party before it was too late. Another reason lay behind the fact that Eveleigh, whether through political skill or just luck, tended to keep his motivations ambiguous when pursuing policy goals. The best example of this is the Preventive Occupation Act of 1829. Eveleigh had become Lord President after the death of Benjamin Harrison VII, and Eveleigh’s own personal anti-royal views had only been enhanced by the fact that he blamed the Emperor for Harrison working himself to death in the cause of intervention against Joshua Churchill. Eveleigh was adamant that the ENA would not intervene, for the sake of principle if no other reason. However, Eveleigh was also aware that he had to do something, and saw an opportunity. He proposed that the ENA flex her muscles by occupying British colonies around the world, colonies that now certainly could not expect any help from Joshua Churchill’s tinpot dictatorship of a Great Britain and might otherwise fall victim to other colonial powers moving in. This idea was supported across the Continental Parliament, and grudgingly backed even by the Emperor. At the time Eveleigh’s motivations were speculated to primarily be due to his old-Constitutionalist nationalism, seeking to expand American power behind the veil of helping the mother country.
Thanks to Harrison’s “Proclamation of Independence” in 1828, the American Squadron was now the Imperial Navy, and fresh from having its ships repainted and with smart new flags hoisted, the Navy sailed around the world—though primarily in the Americas—to impose Fredericksburg’s authority on the colonies. The Falklands were no problem, being mainly inhabited by New England whalers anyway. New Kent in Antipodea put up a bit more of a fight, but the few Churchill loyalists were ultimately overwhelmed not only by the militiamen from New Virginia helping the American forces, but also because New Kent was home to many displaced Scots who hated Churchill. After dialogue with the East India Company, the Americans ruled out trying to move into Natal or Guinea, which remained close to Churchill (and in the case of Guinea was strongly influenced by the Freedonia colony and the free blacks’ hatred of men like Eveleigh). Thus while the Old World trading companies continued to stand on their own two feet, all the British colonies in Antipodea and the Americas fell under American control.
Which included Jamaica and the other remaining British West Indian possessions. It soon became clear that Eveleigh’s primary motivation was not to enhance American power, but to ensure those islands became part of Carolina and subject to American slavery. Yet Eveleigh’s ‘crazy-ideologue’ credentials were enhanced on both sides of the issue, for he also began plans to force slaveholders across the ENA to adopt a new slave code based on Louisiana’s Code Noir, improving the rights of slaves and ensuring that slaveholders were not able to do whatever they pleased with their property. Carolina did narrowly vote to adopt a Confederate-level version of the ‘Black Code’ in 1830 as it was the price for their annexation of the former British West Indies, but in part this was due to Eveleigh’s own background as a native son. Many considered the Lord President out of control, his priorities set by his own ideological objectives rather than what would benefit the Empire. It is likely Eveleigh’s government would have fallen early without the coming of the Superior War, which prompted Eveleigh to try and unite the country behind him to squash the rebels.
In Virginia, the Virginia Freedom League and its co-conspirators were cautious about these events. On the one hand, Eveleigh as Lord President had fragmented the pro-slavery people and made defenders of slavery more wary and circumspect in their language, lest they be accused of being as fanatical as Eveleigh. On the other hand, Eveleigh’s attempt to impose a more humane Black Code might well strip away the more moderate supporters of abolition, who would be satisfied with reform within the institution of slavery. In the end it was the Superior War that gave an opportunity for the conspirators to act. Governor James Henry rallied to Eveleigh’s call and said that Virginia would raise new regiments to help put down the Superior uprising (the ENA was rather short on troops after sending many to the West Indies and Antipodea to secure the colonies). In order to pay for equipping these regiments, his supporters in the House of Burgesses proposed a new super tax. This targeted the richest in Virginia (which usually meant slaveholders) and Henry used deliberately inflammatory language stemming from his own democratic views, saying that ‘such gentlemen invariably find ways of avoiding the front lines in service of their country in such conflicts, so let us find another way they may contribute, no matter how reluctantly they may be forced to do so, no matter how much they may despise their flag’.
Needless to say, this prompted angry scenes in the House of Burgesses and the law was voted down, its opponents including many members of Henry’s own Whig party—something that was condemned by both Henry and Eveleigh. The Emperor, who played up a dislike of Henry in public, also criticised it, helping isolate the opponents as an apparent minority. Henry took a measure that was unprecedented, uncharted territory for American Confederate politics, a consequence of the elected Governorship that the Emperor had implemented: he dissolved the House of Burgesses and called a fresh election on the issue of the war tax.
Henry played the patriotism card well, and was unwittingly helped by Eveleigh. The initial counterattack on Superior by New York troops and militiamen was bloodily repulsed at the Battle of Mackinac in April 1830, betraying the fact that the Superior revolutionaries were more numerous and better led than the Americans had suspected. The defeat was largely due to American overconfidence and General Smith not waiting for troops from other Confederations to arrive, but was blamed by Eveleigh and others on the lack of contribution from Virginia. The Confederation was, after all, the most populous in the Empire, the seat of her capital, and had always presented herself as leading the way in any American venture. The scathing criticism hurt Virginian pride, already smarting from Harrison’s death and replacement by the upstart Carolinian Eveleigh. While the attacks led some to vote for the anti-tax slaveholders just because they were on the other side to Eveleigh, the majority voted for the pro-tax candidates, accepting the propaganda claim that the slaveocrats were selfish cowards who had both blackened Virginia’s reputation and undermined American power. It was a curious election, in which party identity was less important: candidates backing the tax stood on the ‘magnolia coupon’ coined by Henry. Some Whigs backed Henry, others remained loyal to the slaveocrats, while the Patriots remained divided between pro-Henry Hamiltonites and anti-Henry Carterites. The Radicals and Neutrals backed the tax as a way of attacking the slaver aristocracy, even though some Radicals sympathised with the Superior Republic.
The election of July 1830 was dramatic. It took two weeks to collect and count the votes, betraying both how large Virginia had become and how Henry had managed to push through legislation lowering the property qualification for voting, meaning the electorate was larger than ever before. The election was a victory for the ‘magnolia coalition’ of pro-Henry Whigs, Hamiltonite Patriots, Radicals and Neutrals. The tax law was immediately pushed through in the face of strident protests from the slaveocrats. Both Eveleigh and Hamilton gave speeches continuing Henry’s rhetoric of calling them traitors for not answering the call when America needed them. The new regiments were created, equipped using the money from the war tax, and sent off to the front lines to fight the Superior revolutionaries. The Virginians joined General Long’s army that moved in in force in October 1830, occupying the town of Susan-Mary as the revolutionaries cleared out to the west. The war clearly had some time still to run, but America now had the upper hand. Eveleigh was pleased. For now.
However, in January 1831, as both revolutionaries and regulars dug in for the bitter winter of the Superior Peninsula, matters changed. In the Virginia House of Burgesses, Clement Clay, leader of Virginia’s small (but now expanded) Radical Party, arose to propose a bill. Clay was a peculiarity, in some ways emblematic of how Eveleigh had shaken up the old political divisions: an aristocrat and former slaveholder who had become a fiery abolitionist.[6] Clay gave a speech. He talked about how now, in this time of war, it had been revealed just how dangerous social divisions between Virginians had become. “There are many living among us who are born into a wretched condition. If given an appropriate upbringing, they might become full members of society, contributing to our great nation’s culture and power. But the system has condemned them to be treated as less than people, forever consumed by their mindless toil. They are the shame of America.”
Clay’s speech was naturally drowned out by jeers and catcalls from the opposition benches, who called him a Leveller and a nigger-lover. But after an interjection for order, Clay continued: “I am here to you today to ask you to free these people from their wretched position. Let them contribute fully to our society. Let it be so I do not have to turn away my face in shame when I pass one in the street.
“But understand me fully. I have not been speaking of the Negro. I have been speaking of his master.”
Clay now held the House spellbound, his opponents confused and uncertain, as he outlined his argument: “I do not say slavery should end for the Negro’s sake. I believe that it should, but I am a Radical. We all know that appealing to high-faluting theories about race will convince no-one to back a political position.” A jab at Eveleigh that provoked chuckles on both sides of the House. “I say that we should all back an end to slavery because of what it does to white men. Slaveholders whose time is consumed by their plantations, who cannot contribute to society like their counterparts can in the north, who become ignorant philistines. My honourable friends, is this not a great Confederation?” (Shouts of ‘yes!’) “Is this not the greatest of all the Confederations, where our colonies began, where our first Emperor dwelt in exile and where we fought with him to restore him to his rightful place? Are we not the natural leaders of the Empire? And yet I tell you that if this state of division continues, Virginia shall fall behind the northerners until we are but a backwater.” (Grumbles of discontent). “While the upper classes in the north become writers and natural philosophers and engineers, ours are fixed to their plantations, as assuredly imprisoned by them as their own slaves.” (Murmurs). “While the lower classes of whites in the north work hard to lift themselves out of their situation and move west to stake new claims, ours are lazy and content, knowing that no matter how bad their lives become, they can still look down on the Negro. So they have no incentive to improve.” Clay was thus the first to invoke Ponsonby Minorism in the slavery question.[7]
“So let us end the institution, if not to free the Negro then to free ourselves. If you do not care for free Negroes, then let us send them to make a new life in Freedonia, and let them work their passage. Let there be compensation for those who possess slaves, though they will already benefit from the fading of all the things I have spoken of. And let us ensure that Virginia never becomes a mere footnote to history. That is all I have to say.” He sat down to thunderous applause: even those who opposed him were impressed by his rhetoric.
A bill was thus proposed to end slavery by similar means to New York, manumitting slaves and compensating their owners, and looking into the possibility of widescale deportation to Freedonia if it proved necessary. Rumours of this were initially dismissed in Fredericksburg by Eveleigh and his supporters. It was not the first time a Radical had proposed an anti-slavery bill in Virginia or Carolina. They did so just on principle, to prove a point, and they were always easily voted down. Thus Eveleigh did not take action until it was too late.
To many ears the news was drowned out by the stories of the winter raids on General Long’s encamped army by Indian forces in the Superior Peninsula. But nonetheless it happened. On January 31st 1831, the House of Burgesses of the Confederation of Virginia voted, by a majority of five, to abolish slavery.
And the Virginia Crisis detonated.
[1] The period between the Popular Wars and the Great American War. The name does not really apply to any social changes in the ENA, it stems from events in Europe—hence, ironically given the events during the period, it still betrays a certain Eurocentric approach to history.
[2] MGA = Member of the General Assembly, Carolina’s Confederate government.
[3] MA = Member of the New York Assembly.
[4] The house in Fredericksburg where the American Lord President has his residence. Note that the term is used metaphorically and anachronistically by the author here because this did not become the fixed residence until much later, and Eveleigh actually lived elsewhere.
[5] I.e. in OTL terms Eveleigh is a federalist who believes the federal government should have more power over the state governments.
[6] Clement Clay is an ATL son of Green Clay, and quite similar to his OTL son Cassius Clay.
[7] The author uses the term anachronistically. “Ponsonby Minorism” is named after the character Ponsonby Minor from Play Up and Play the Game, a popular novel from the 1840s satirising Eton and other British public schools [US: private schools]. Ponsonby Minor is the smallest and one of the youngest boys in the school and is bullied by bigger and older boys, initially making him a sympathetic character. However as soon as an even younger and smaller boy joins the school, Ponsonby Minor promptly joins the others in bullying him. The point is that people in a bad situation can remain content if there is nonetheless someone worse off they can look down on. Related to schadenfreude and tall poppy syndrome.
Thande
Donor
It was actually made by some people in the 1820s and 1830s in OTL, but is not widely known.
Well, that's interesting. I look forward to seeing how the Virginia Crisis plays out.
What's the next update going to be about?
What's the next update going to be about?
This is just awesome. Let me count the ways:
1) I have a much stronger feel for how having 5 confederations (as opposed to 13 - 50 states) is affecting *American attitudes about government. 1 Confederation is much more powerful than 1 state. Very cool.
2) Virginia manumits -- very important.
3) But meanwhile the ENA seizes a) the remainder of British North America (though I can't recall how active the HBC has been and seem to remember the Russians are much more prominent in Oregon Country), b) the British West Indies, c) the Falklands (and so one assumes many of the Atlantic islands between the BWI and the Falklands), d) TTL's Western Australia and part of New Zealand. Holy Louisiana Purchase, Batman -- that's quite a land grab. Does it include British Guiana and Honduras/Mosquito Coast?
4) Democracy takes hold. Virigina's snap election takes longer than expected, or long enough to warrant comment, which is partly explained by its size. Rumblings of reordering of the Confederations with any further westward expansion, I wonder? There was some song about confederations stretching from sea to shining sea somewhere in Part I, I think.
5) And last but not least, there's a Great American War brewing. And it's the next major historical focal point after the Popular Wars. Very interesting.
In summary, let me just say -- HUZZAH!
1) I have a much stronger feel for how having 5 confederations (as opposed to 13 - 50 states) is affecting *American attitudes about government. 1 Confederation is much more powerful than 1 state. Very cool.
2) Virginia manumits -- very important.
3) But meanwhile the ENA seizes a) the remainder of British North America (though I can't recall how active the HBC has been and seem to remember the Russians are much more prominent in Oregon Country), b) the British West Indies, c) the Falklands (and so one assumes many of the Atlantic islands between the BWI and the Falklands), d) TTL's Western Australia and part of New Zealand. Holy Louisiana Purchase, Batman -- that's quite a land grab. Does it include British Guiana and Honduras/Mosquito Coast?
4) Democracy takes hold. Virigina's snap election takes longer than expected, or long enough to warrant comment, which is partly explained by its size. Rumblings of reordering of the Confederations with any further westward expansion, I wonder? There was some song about confederations stretching from sea to shining sea somewhere in Part I, I think.
5) And last but not least, there's a Great American War brewing. And it's the next major historical focal point after the Popular Wars. Very interesting.
In summary, let me just say -- HUZZAH!
Interesting. I've heard of the historical argument that poor white defenders of slavery were going against their own self-interest, but not in set in the period where slavery was practiced.
Bravo, sir. I look forward to more excellence from one of the site's best TLs.
Bravo, sir. I look forward to more excellence from one of the site's best TLs.
That was a surprising argument against slavery. That Clay is a devious man. Very devious.
I enjoyed that a lot. Some thoughts, though:
1) An allusion to events in India, where we haven't had an in-depth update since the War of the Ferengi Alliance some thirty years previously. What's going on there?
2) I think, with the annexation of the British Caribbean, Jamaica, British Honduras, the Mosquito Coast, and Guyana (assuming it did annex all that), Carolina has probably become the most populous of the Confederations.
3) The Falklands, inhabited largely by New Englanders. Could we see these remote islands become an exclave of New England? More generally, we haven't heard of what's going on in the Brazilian (Fourth Platinean?) War since the beginning of the Popular Wars. Also, the alt-Mormons in Tierra del Fuego are English-speakers; could they join up with the Falklanders and result in Confederation of New England in South America? That sounds very Thandean.
4) The Great American War fascinates me. The poster above mentioned the concept of a reverse West Virginia; southeastern slaver bits seceding from the Confederation (to join Carolina?) of Virginia. Could this set off an alt-Civil War between a mega-Carolina and the remaining Confederations? On the other hand, you've stated that Lima will come under UPSA domination eventually. If the GAW is between the UPSA and New Spain, it seems likely the UPSA will win. On the other hand, could we see both of these wars occurring and blending over New Englander claims to Mormon South America (Four Free Confederations, New Spain vs. UPSA, Carolina)?
As always, of course, greatly enjoying the extra detail on ENA politics. Clement Clay sounds like a fascinating and very talented figure - could he be an alt-Abraham Lincoln, leading the Four Free Confederations during the GAW?
As always, Thande, keep it coming.
1) An allusion to events in India, where we haven't had an in-depth update since the War of the Ferengi Alliance some thirty years previously. What's going on there?
2) I think, with the annexation of the British Caribbean, Jamaica, British Honduras, the Mosquito Coast, and Guyana (assuming it did annex all that), Carolina has probably become the most populous of the Confederations.
3) The Falklands, inhabited largely by New Englanders. Could we see these remote islands become an exclave of New England? More generally, we haven't heard of what's going on in the Brazilian (Fourth Platinean?) War since the beginning of the Popular Wars. Also, the alt-Mormons in Tierra del Fuego are English-speakers; could they join up with the Falklanders and result in Confederation of New England in South America? That sounds very Thandean.
4) The Great American War fascinates me. The poster above mentioned the concept of a reverse West Virginia; southeastern slaver bits seceding from the Confederation (to join Carolina?) of Virginia. Could this set off an alt-Civil War between a mega-Carolina and the remaining Confederations? On the other hand, you've stated that Lima will come under UPSA domination eventually. If the GAW is between the UPSA and New Spain, it seems likely the UPSA will win. On the other hand, could we see both of these wars occurring and blending over New Englander claims to Mormon South America (Four Free Confederations, New Spain vs. UPSA, Carolina)?
As always, of course, greatly enjoying the extra detail on ENA politics. Clement Clay sounds like a fascinating and very talented figure - could he be an alt-Abraham Lincoln, leading the Four Free Confederations during the GAW?
As always, Thande, keep it coming.
British Honduras and the Miskito Coast were both traded to Spain after one of the Platinean Wars, so New Spain has them now.
Also, the Great American War is going to take place at least a generation after the Superior War and Popular Wars, as titles like "The Democratic Experiment" aren't given to time periods shorter than that. Whatever this enigmatic war will be, we haven't seen enough to speculate about it, especially considering the outcome of the Popular Wars and Superior War will set the stage for whatever happens afterwards.
Also interesting is that the West African and East Indian companies chose not to side with the ENA... But there's nobody else in the Anglo-sphere for them to side with. This implies a degree of independence in both areas, at least until Britain gets its act together. This is very intriguing, to say the least. I predict that the Space-Filling Empire will become a hegemony over the native kingdoms, and the East Indies Company will remain a corporate state ruling over a native underclass, only more so.
ONE more thing: the mention of the Democratic Experiment is alluring. We know that the VRD is no more, so that's not what it references. Other than Germany, I'd say Britain is the most devastated nation after the Popular Wars... Seeing how monarchy didn't work so well for this time, might we see a relatively short-lived British Republic? Tantalizing.
Also, the Great American War is going to take place at least a generation after the Superior War and Popular Wars, as titles like "The Democratic Experiment" aren't given to time periods shorter than that. Whatever this enigmatic war will be, we haven't seen enough to speculate about it, especially considering the outcome of the Popular Wars and Superior War will set the stage for whatever happens afterwards.
Also interesting is that the West African and East Indian companies chose not to side with the ENA... But there's nobody else in the Anglo-sphere for them to side with. This implies a degree of independence in both areas, at least until Britain gets its act together. This is very intriguing, to say the least. I predict that the Space-Filling Empire will become a hegemony over the native kingdoms, and the East Indies Company will remain a corporate state ruling over a native underclass, only more so.
ONE more thing: the mention of the Democratic Experiment is alluring. We know that the VRD is no more, so that's not what it references. Other than Germany, I'd say Britain is the most devastated nation after the Popular Wars... Seeing how monarchy didn't work so well for this time, might we see a relatively short-lived British Republic? Tantalizing.
wolf_brother
Banned
I'm actually thinking France, which is looking to be the only great power left standing on the continent after the Popular Wars.
- Status