NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM: The Wilmot Proviso Passes
- Thread starter TheHedgehog
- Start date
The CSA just needs to hold out until the Union moral gets low enough and the populace gives up on the war. With the extra states, manpower, and industry that is suddenly a lot easier to accomplish than in OTL.
Missouri still has two governments, and the Union still has St. Louis, Jefferson City, and Kansas City. Though there are more Confederates in the state, the Union still occupies the three main cities. Kentucky is also mostly occupied by the Union, and as the next update will show, the union will have gained the initiative in the West.
Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I don't think a TL titled "The New Birth of Freedom" is gonna have the slavers win.
The title doesn't necessary mean that the south has to lose. But since the author said so, I guess it does. That is a shame though, takes a lot of the interest away knowing the outcome of the war already. It's very cliche these days to have a radical Republican like Frémont somehow win the presidency, which triggers a larger secession, and then the Union somehow curbstomps the CSA despite them being more powerful than OTL. *sigh* It would be nice to see some variety on this site rather than the same things pretty much always happening. But oh well, hopefully this TL will be entertaining after this cliche ACW is over.
I can tell you one thing, the Union is not going to curbstomp the Confederates. They'll have some major upsets. However, I just cannot bring myself to write a TL where the CSA wins. Also, the secession is not much larger. The two Texases remain loyal, there is a Unionist Virginia state government, and Kentucky is mostly occupied by the Union. The Union has a major advantage in the west - Brazos gives them a way to attack New Orleans by land.
Also, it makes more sense in TTL for Fremont to win - there is a much earlier and larger polarization between the north and south that allows for Fremont to win. I mean even OTL, Fremont almost won, only needing two states to beat Buchanan. That's not unrealistic.
TTL's civil war may be similar to others, but even with some extra support in Missouri and Kansas, the Confederacy is still at a major disadvantage. They are dependent on cash crops, and the export of those crops - an export business which can easily be cut off by blockade. They have a much smaller population, even with Kentucky seceding (Kentucky still sends lots of men to the Union), and far fewer railroads.
And don't worry, the postbellum period will not be some boilerplate "Radical Reconstructionists fix everything and racism is solved" type thing.
I never said it was unrealistic, just cliche for this site. It is good to hear that you won't go down the "Reconstruction Fixes Everything" route though.
Oh. sorry. I agree, it is rather cliche to have someone more radical than Lincoln elected, though then again it is 1856, where most of the Freedom (or Republican) candidates were more radical. In fact, Fremont was picked OTL for his relative moderatism compared to Seward.
Reconstruction is gonna be one wild ride.
Last edited:
In reality, Seward was more moderate than Frémont. It's just that Frémont's radicalism was not known at the time. Some Democrats even hoped that Frémont would be a "traitor to his party." Of course people later found out that he was a radical under Lincoln's presidency.
Yes, because nothing says "freedom" like an oligarchic state built on chattel slavery.
Yes, because nothing says "freedom" like an oligarchic state built on chattel slavery.
No one ever said that ultra-racist slaveowning plutocrats were rational.
No matter what the planters told themselves to make it rational.
I don't think that it's unreasonable to hope that Reconstruction is at least more effective than OTL.
I can see Viriginia having the Wheeling government take over having a positive effect on the state post-war.
I can see Viriginia having the Wheeling government take over having a positive effect on the state post-war.
Well, Virginia will be treated more like Missouri, so no military occupation.
Gian
Banned
I am a little disappointed @TheHedgehog the you’re still taking the OTL route with regards to Lee (especially given that he opposed secession and everything) but part of me does wonder that with Virginia essentially a border state with Confederate elements, post-war historiography might see him not only as a traitor to the country but to his own state (which would be ironic given that he sided with the Confederates just for that reason)
I mean, Lee could very well still join the CSA, if you look at the example of Sterling Price, he initially strongly supported the Union and opposed the secession of Missouri, but turned to the Confederates when the Union arrested a secessionist militia. Lee could very well see Fremont's decision to reinforce Norfolk and assemble a 100,000-man army in a similar light to how Sterling Price saw the arrest of the militia by Nathaniel Lyon. Since Lee is necessary for two major campaigns I have planned, I am going to say that that is why Lee goes with Virginia.
As a side note, while Virginia is, as you said, essentially a border state, the secessionist state government is much more popular than the Unionist one (which is mostly supported, as OTL, by Appalachian residents).