Reconstruction: The Second American Revolution - The Sequel to Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid

[Ranger Ridiculous]

Hm, you know, I wonder if as a side effect of an improved reconstruction, would there be less pressure for francophone Louisianans to give up their language because their interests will be better represented in government than otl, or would it be about the same or even more pressure in order to "prove" they're American.

I had a similar thought regarding German Americans, especially in Texas.

I think it will depend on the African American/Creole population of Louisiana. Much of the Creole population speak French as their first language. If the francophones of the state can rally to that banner, it may help them. Essentially the argument can then become "Francophones were loyal to the government when anglophones weren't, how dare you try and take from a loyalist population!" which would take the wind out of the sails for that argument (as the Francophones quietly sweep Beauregard under the rug.) A Similar thing might be possible for the Germans if a conflict witht he German empire rolls around. Perhaps we might even see a renaissance in French if the right people decide to use French Language and Culture as a sign of, ironically, their loyalty to America. It's a stretch, but I could see some enterprising Francophones playing that card and seeing French spread to new populations within the state.

It's been a while, but if I recall, the decline of French in Louisiana was tied to Jim Crow to an extent, can anyone confirm or comment?

 

[Jord839]

I had a similar thought regarding German Americans, especially in Texas.

I think it will depend on the African American/Creole population of Louisiana. Much of the Creole population speak French as their first language. If the francophones of the state can rally to that banner, it may help them. Essentially the argument can then become "Francophones were loyal to the government when anglophones weren't, how dare you try and take from a loyalist population!" which would take the wind out of the sails for that argument. A Similar thing might be possible for the Germans if a conflict witht he German empire rolls around. Perhaps we might even see a renaissance in French if the right people decide to use French Language and Culture as a sign of, ironically, their loyalty to America. It's a stretch, but I could see some enterprising Francophones playing that card and seeing French spread to new populations within the state.

It's been a while, but if I recall, the decline of French in Louisiana was tied to Jim Crow to an extent, can anyone confirm or comment?

As far as German-Americans are concerned, I'll point out that a large part of the military leadership with ties to the German community were 1848ers, revolutionaries themselves. Numerous unionist communities IOTL and ITTL were German immigrants fighting for the Union and getting killed for it (see the various OTL massacres of Texan German Unionists or ITTL's St. Louis-driven movement to keep Missouri in the Union which had a ton of German participation). Like, Spiegel was kind of an awful general, but his reputation was a big thing.

Honestly, in comparison to the francophones, there's no question that the German-Americans were loyal. However, their community is mostly people wanting rural farmland and as such will put them in conflict with Native Americans and potentially Black Americans. A big underappreciated aspect of American politics IOTL is that the German-American voting bloc was politically disengaged and when it was it usually backed the Democrats due to WASP Republican pressure and their own fear/bigotry regarding competition with Black workers. If ITTL Reconstruction sees a validation of hyphenated Americans rather than a repudiation and forceful assimilation (or alternatively the northern ethnic whites replace the Chestnuts with their own party that's not interested in the South and fights for different reasons), the Germans will be in a prime place to preserve their culture more

 

[Ranger Ridiculous]

As far as German-Americans are concerned, I'll point out that a large part of the military leadership with ties to the German community were 1848ers, revolutionaries themselves. Numerous unionist communities IOTL and ITTL were German immigrants fighting for the Union and getting killed for it (see the various OTL massacres of Texan German Unionists or ITTL's St. Louis-driven movement to keep Missouri in the Union which had a ton of German participation). Like, Spiegel was kind of an awful general, but his reputation was a big thing.

Honestly, in comparison to the francophones, there's no question that the German-Americans were loyal. However, their community is mostly people wanting rural farmland and as such will put them in conflict with Native Americans and potentially Black Americans. A big underappreciated aspect of American politics IOTL is that the German-American voting bloc was politically disengaged and when it was it usually backed the Democrats due to WASP Republican pressure and their own fear/bigotry regarding competition with Black workers. If ITTL Reconstruction sees a validation of hyphenated Americans rather than a repudiation and forceful assimilation (or alternatively the northern ethnic whites replace the Chestnuts with their own party that's not interested in the South and fights for different reasons), the Germans will be in a prime place to preserve their culture more

I agree more or less across the board. I'll just add that I proposed back in the previous thread the idea of Siegel getting a place in Reconstruction Texas's government and using that as a way to sponsor German immigration and culture in the south.

We agree with German America's place in the post-civil war world, they're a population that can basically claim loyalty at every turn and even suffered for it (see massacres in Texas as you mentioned.) The issue would be similar to our TL, if the USA faces a major conflict with the German Empire, they will have to contend with that suspicion. I like your idea for how they might fit into this TL though.

 

[Jord839]

I agree more or less across the board. I'll just add that I proposed back in the previous thread the idea of Siegel getting a place in Reconstruction Texas's government and using that as a way to sponsor German immigration and culture in the south.

We agree with German America's place in the post-civil war world, they're a population that can basically claim loyalty at every turn and even suffered for it (see massacres in Texas as you mentioned.) The issue would be similar to our TL, if the USA faces a major conflict with the German Empire, they will have to contend with that suspicion. I like your idea for how they might fit into this TL though.

I can't believe I wrote Spiegel instead of Siegel. Damn fingers, guess I'll leave that mistake in.

Anyway, and I'll just clarify this is pure speculation at best, the idea of a German Republican/Chestnut opposition (also with Irish and other white ethnic former Northern Democrat constituencies coming together) forming would be a good way to ensure that while it's a powerful force in the North and certain southern states that is opposed to the Republican Party, it's not one which values the Lost Cause in the way the OTL Democrats did/had to. It also gives a tiny window for the US to be a bit more equitable regarding Native Americans if they're making moves in defiance of the movement of northern Germans and Yankees that really, really want that land and back the Opposition Party.

As far as later conflicts go, I think if you build the idea of Germans In America as a separate concept from Germany, that's not hard to sell a difference. A strong German identity that draws inspiration from both the American Revolution (as well as the Civil War/Second Revolution) but also the 1848 Revolution would be very adamantly against the Kaiser and could be framed instead of potential enemies as allies against the tyrannical monarchists in the way that WASP Americans would be seen vis a vis the British.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I was personally thinking of "Until Every Drop of Blood is Paid II: Electric Boogaloo", but that would just be silly. For one thing, Golan-Globus aren't even a thing in 1865.

Followed by Part 3: Lincoln's Revenge and Part 4: Breckinridge's Return - This Time, It's Personal.

Radiation as in, you know how America is like that because of the Pilgrims, car culture, and the Dixies never being properly punished, and is just something most Americans take for granted? I'm curious as to what the general vibe is without segregation and the southern strategy poisoning modern America

I'm afraid I've never seen that word used that way? May be because I'm not a native English speaker... Anyway, culture is bound to change in big ways, but I hesitate to say exactly how, given that I'm not American, and it's hard to make conclusions when we're just starting. But I imagine a far more "European" US, so to speak, with a more centralized and active State, more national politics and organization, and better defined rights and less hesitance to enforce them.

Oh yeah very petty thing. Will Maryland be granted the entire Delmarva peninsula

No, because Maryland seceded (or better, split itself between a unionist and a confederate government) and there's no way they'd punish Delaware, which remained loyal through and through, by taking away the vast majority of the state and giving it to another whose loyalties were dubious at best.

Yeah, this. Aside from that, however, there was little desire to change state borders or carve new states, especially within Lincoln and other Republican moderates. Their theory held that secession was never a legal fact and that the States had only been hijacked by the disloyal. Remaking the map of the Southern States would run against this. West Virginia was a special case, since it was a grassroots movement, not one from the top.

Hm, you know, I wonder if as a side effect of an improved reconstruction, would there be less pressure for francophone Louisianans to give up their language because their interests will be better represented in government than otl, or would it be about the same or even more pressure in order to "prove" they're American.

I think so! Especially since a lot of the Louisiana francophones are mixed-race creoles, who remained loyal and now can take a new role in a better Reconstruction.

Random thought, but what type of stereotypes will Black Americans have TTL? With all the increased land ownership, hard push on education, and genuine drive to be better, it would be funny if they receive the reputation of OTL Asian Americans. I can already see it: Black mothers become TTL's version of a Tiger Mom 🤣🤣🤣, they demand excellence from their children in all aspects of life. There would probably be talk like: your ancestors were freed from bondage and immediately became officers/lawyers/doctors/etc.

I could see something like that!

Not the OP, but misread the question as its inverse... and would like to ask that
Any chance that Delaware is granted land, even if not the entirety of the Delmarva peninsula?
There's certainly an element of punishing the treacherous and rewarding the loyal, but I'm coming more from the angle of the increased land serving to balance Delaware against its larger neighbors imo

Hm, I don't think so, I'm sorry.

That works. Unfortunately, despite the inelegant look, there does have to be something telling new readers that this is a sequel, and a summary at this point would just confuse them.

Alright, I shall edit the title and add some more info for new readers.

Question @Red_Galiray what is the composition of the Supreme Court? (I know Lincoln judges have a majority but who are they)

Since I'm not a man of details, I didn't mention specific names. However, an important change is that McLean convinced Curtis not to resign, for that would just give Buchanan the chance to appoint another Justice. So, Lincoln got an extra seat. He's likely to appoint more justices later on as well, since some seats were suppressed only because Republicans didn't want Johnson to appoint anyone. Given that Lincoln gave most of the seats OTL to known associates of his, I think, however, that most appointments are the same: Swayne, Davis, Miller, Field. Because of the timing of Taney's death, Chase was passed over and the Chief Justice is Strong instead. As for the extra seat... maybe George P. Fisher? If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to listen to them!

Speaking of which, what became of the Confederate Commerce Raiders ITTL as that wasn't handled in the epilogue?

We'll handle that later when we take a look at the post-war trials.

I've said in these discussions that it'll be quite a while before there's any significant impact on the events in the Old World, as US internal affairs simply weren't considered especially important to the great European powers, but the fact of such a successful and comprehensive left-wing revolution being undertaken from above will definitely have significant effects on how both rulers, revolutionaries and those in between view the universe of the politically possible. Long term that could matter a lot so perhaps it's worthwhile doing an update that quickly whips through the various European powers, societies and agitators to see how they're reacting to events in America, if only to sow useful seeds for much later.

Certainly, I did envision something like that. Less European update and more description of the European reaction. But it's something for later down the line.

OTOH, relatively minimal butterflies outside of America for now would fit with the reality that, prior to the World Wars, the United States was not particularly internationalist in its foreign policy and this should be reflected in the repercussions of American events (and for a Doylist reason, it helps reduce the burden on the author).

This is, of course, a big factor as well.

YES! LETS GO!!!! I read your first TL, Until Every Drop of Blood is Paid, and I loved it enormously! I am certainly gonna enjoy reading this, that's for sure! Continue the absolutely great work, @Red_Galiray !

-LeonardWood6

Thank you so much for your kind words I'm so glad to have you on-board!

I must say: Apart from West Virginia-like situations, I don't think carving out new states during the Civil War or Reconstruction is a great idea, nor do I think expanding existing state borders is. The OTL borders of the states are rather good for having large African-American minorities work alongside southern unionists and scalawags in each state, and changing up the borders (let alone carving out a black-majority state) jeopardizes that.

My thoughts as well.

I had a similar thought regarding German Americans, especially in Texas.

I think it will depend on the African American/Creole population of Louisiana. Much of the Creole population speak French as their first language. If the francophones of the state can rally to that banner, it may help them. Essentially the argument can then become "Francophones were loyal to the government when anglophones weren't, how dare you try and take from a loyalist population!" which would take the wind out of the sails for that argument (as the Francophones quietly sweep Beauregard under the rug.) A Similar thing might be possible for the Germans if a conflict witht he German empire rolls around. Perhaps we might even see a renaissance in French if the right people decide to use French Language and Culture as a sign of, ironically, their loyalty to America. It's a stretch, but I could see some enterprising Francophones playing that card and seeing French spread to new populations within the state.

It's been a while, but if I recall, the decline of French in Louisiana was tied to Jim Crow to an extent, can anyone confirm or comment?

I unfortunately didn't gave Texas Germans their due, but I hope I can correct that here. In general, a more tolerant US can only result in greater tolerance for other languages. Maybe French in Louisiana and German in large swathes of the US could be similar to how Spanish is in areas of the border and Miami nowadays?

As far as German-Americans are concerned, I'll point out that a large part of the military leadership with ties to the German community were 1848ers, revolutionaries themselves. Numerous unionist communities IOTL and ITTL were German immigrants fighting for the Union and getting killed for it (see the various OTL massacres of Texan German Unionists or ITTL's St. Louis-driven movement to keep Missouri in the Union which had a ton of German participation). Like, Spiegel was kind of an awful general, but his reputation was a big thing.

Honestly, in comparison to the francophones, there's no question that the German-Americans were loyal. However, their community is mostly people wanting rural farmland and as such will put them in conflict with Native Americans and potentially Black Americans. A big underappreciated aspect of American politics IOTL is that the German-American voting bloc was politically disengaged and when it was it usually backed the Democrats due to WASP Republican pressure and their own fear/bigotry regarding competition with Black workers. If ITTL Reconstruction sees a validation of hyphenated Americans rather than a repudiation and forceful assimilation (or alternatively the northern ethnic whites replace the Chestnuts with their own party that's not interested in the South and fights for different reasons), the Germans will be in a prime place to preserve their culture more

The Germans are rather unique because they're probably the only immigrant population that could be turned reliably Republican, at least if they reap the benefits of loyalty in the South. Compare with the Irish, where the prospects of them becoming Republicans are rather bleak. At the very least, sanding off the Republicans' nativist edges and preventing the Opposition from becoming the "party of immigrants" could help further secure Reconstruction.

 

[Whiteshore]

This is, of course, a big factor as well.

On that note, my personal take is that the main international impact of this more radical Civil War for now, with American isolationism and all that, will be that the US will take a harder line vis-a-vis stuff like compensation for losses incurred by British-built Commerce Raiders the CSA operated.

 

[A Random Man]

On that note, my personal take is that the main international impact of this more radical Civil War for now, with American isolationism and all that, will be that the US will take a harder line vis-a-vis stuff like compensation for losses incurred by British-built Commerce Raiders the CSA operated.

Can the US possibly get British Columbia and parts of the North-Western Territory? If the US still gets Alaska like OTL, it would be nice to have more land to connect it with.

 

[ZakuType]

It's been a while, but if I recall, the decline of French in Louisiana was tied to Jim Crow to an extent, can anyone confirm or comment?

I'm a Louisianan, so for what its worth, you're generally correct.

Part of it will depend on how the new state constitution is established. The 1845 and 1852 state constitutions required laws to be published in both French and English, and it allowed state legislators to address the legislature in either French or English. Meanwhile, the 1864 constitution not only abandoned the requirement to publish laws in both languages but more importantly, it required that public schools teach in English.

The state waffled quite a bit on what to do with the French language under various new iterations of the state constitution between 1864 and 1921. Sometimes the constitutions were stricter about teaching and publishing laws in English, sometimes they tried carving out exceptions due to the practical reality of quite a few parishes and people still being largely French-speaking, but the 1921 is kinda the final nail in the coffin and firmly banned French language education in public schools while making English the official state language. That ban wasn't undone until the (current) 1974 constitution, which is just... brutal.

The main issue to resolve is that French-speaking and culturally French Louisianans need to have that culture legitimatized and perceived as still being culturally American, as well. Otherwise, you still end up in the same situation as a lot of immigrants do, where their cultural heritage and languages are actively or passively downplayed as a means to be accepted into the broader social structures in the states and nation. You'll still likely see a decline of French speakers overtime in Louisiana even if it all goes right and even if French immigration continues post-war (it was still fairly common up until the Civil War), but you'd likely see New Orleans and surrounding areas preserve significantly more of its French cultural and linguistic heritage instead of it being largely pushed out into the southwest Acadiana parishes.

Hopefully, Louisiana French and Louisiana Creole won't end up as endangered languages as they are OTL.

 

[Arnold d.c]

One thing I will definitely be curious about is how the Republican state governments will handle the fiscal burdens of Reconstruction. IIRC, some of it was definitely lost to corruption, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia being the main examples. Most of it, however, was spent for state aid to railroads construction and the cost of education was considerable - Mississippi's cost about 1 million. In economics, there's never a magic bullet solution and I really don't see one here... Maybe this is again a time where the Federal government has to carry the burden or could the Reconstructed governments be delayed (and thus expenditures are by the Federal government)?

 

[HonestAbe1809]

I’m thinking that Lincoln will still get a memorial after his death. Presiding over the Civil War and starting Reconstruction would surely be enough to be worthy of being memorialized. Just without the martyrdom that came with his assassination.

Hopefully the US will develop proper presidential security practices without needing an assassination.

 

[King(Henry)George]

One thing I will definitely be curious about is how the Republican state governments will handle the fiscal burdens of Reconstruction. IIRC, some of it was definitely lost to corruption, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia being the main examples. Most of it, however, was spent for state aid to railroads construction and the cost of education was considerable - Mississippi's cost about 1 million. In economics, there's never a magic bullet solution and I really don't see one here... Maybe this is again a time where the Federal government has to carry the burden or could the Reconstructed governments be delayed (and thus expenditures are by the Federal government)?

Strong disagree about the existence of magic bullets in economics.

A couple policies that I am comfortable describing as magic bullets:
Congestion pricing to reduce traffic/allocate road space effectively
Land value tax to pay for public goods
Reciprocal free trade and free movement, especially within a country
Abolition
Pollution taxes/cap and trade to deal with pollutants
Land reform

 

[AztecFireGod]

Since I'm not a man of details, I didn't mention specific names. However, an important change is that McLean convinced Curtis not to resign, for that would just give Buchanan the chance to appoint another Justice. So, Lincoln got an extra seat. He's likely to appoint more justices later on as well, since some seats were suppressed only because Republicans didn't want Johnson to appoint anyone. Given that Lincoln gave most of the seats OTL to known associates of his, I think, however, that most appointments are the same: Swayne, Davis, Miller, Field. Because of the timing of Taney's death, Chase was passed over and the Chief Justice is Strong instead. As for the extra seat... maybe George P. Fisher? If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to listen to them!

Hmmmm
so by Lincoln’s election the court was formed by:
Supreme Court 1861 (btw seats are ordered considering the original succession order so AJ 1 comes from the same seat occupied by the first Associate Justice appointed)
Chief Justice: Roger B. Taney (Southern Democrat/Hardliner) appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1836
Associate Justice 1: Samuel Nelson (Northern Democrat/Moderate) appointed by John Tyler in 1845
Associate Justice 2: Benjamin R. Curtis (Northern Whig/Republican) appointed by Millard Fillmore in 1851
Associate Justice 3: Robert C. Grier (Northern Democrat/Moderate) appointed by James Polk on 1846
Associate Justice 4: Peter V. Daniel (Southern Democrat/“made the other justices around him seem moderate in comparison“) appointed by Martin Van Buren in 1841 (died during the 1860 elections)
Associate Justice 5: “Vacant” but just before John McLean (Northern Democrat/Anti-Masonic/Northern Whig/Free Soil/Republican) appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1829
Associate Justice 6: John A. Campbell (Southern Democrat/Fire Eater) appointed by Franklin Pierce in 1853 (resigned in April to join the confederacy)
Associate Justice 7: James M. Wayne (Southern Democrat/Hardliner?/Moderate?) appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1835
Associate Justice 8: John Catron (Southern Democrat/Hardliner) appointed by Martin Van Buren in 1837

ok so Daniel died during the election but because of the lack of majority Buchanan couldn’t fill it (like otl) another thing to keep in mind is that Curtis not resigning is huge as it prevents Nathan Clifford from being appointed by Buchanan who stayed in the court until 1881 (and thus meant that the SC was only without a Democrat from 1881 to 1888) but anyways with Curtis and McLean resigning as soon as Lincoln takes the oath, and Daniel dead, while Campbell goes to the Confederacy this leaves 4 seats open when there were 9 justices, so we have two hardliner Southern democrats (Taney and Catron), two Northern Democrats (Nelson, Grier), the wildcard that is Justice Wayne and 4 Lincoln Republicans (I would say Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, David Davis, problem with Fisher is that his rise to prominence as a judge came later in 1863, hmmmm, oh wait Fields was appointed to appeal to Democrats (which isn’t needed) so Fisher could replace Field as the Justice for the new seat, while Ebenezer R. Hoar the Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court could be appointed instead (Hoar was an anti slavery Whig who helped in the founding of the Free Soil Party in Massachusetts and had been appointed to the court in 1859, he would eventually become Grant’s Attorney General and was considered for the court himself).

Of course after this the court will see more shakeups as Taney dies and William Strong is appointed in his stead, Catron died in May 65 but the stress of the war could have killed him sooner otl his seat was left empty to prevent Johnson from appointing someone, for Lincoln replacing Catron I propose Bland Ballard, to explain why I will put a bit of context on his tenure as District Judge of Kentucky (otl appointed in 1861)

Ballard quickly reorganized the court and insured that the federal court system in Kentucky would continue without disruption. "His district was responsible for more indictments for treason and conspiracy than perhaps any other" and he was "regarded as fair-minded and guided by the law, not prejudice. He was opposed to slavery and strongly supported the Union". The years immediately following the Civil War saw a great increase in cases filed in the district court from questions growing out of the war, especially the internal revenue law and bankruptcy law”

I think he would make a great pick, if you were to go with this then the court should look like this:

Supreme Court 1865 (btw seats are ordered considering the original succession order so AJ 1 comes from the same seat occupied by the first Associate Justice appointed)
Chief Justice: William Strong (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863
Associate Justice 1: Samuel Nelson (Democrat/National Union/National American) appointed by John Tyler in 1845
Associate Justice 2: Ebenezer R. Hoar (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 3: Robert C. Grier ( Democrat/National Union) appointed by James Polk on 1846
Associate Justice 4: Samuel Freeman Miller (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 5: Noah Haynes Swayne (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 6: David Davis (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 7: James M. Wayne (Democrat/National Union) appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1835
Associate Justice 8: Bland Ballard (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1865
Associate Justice 9: George P. Fisher (Unionist/Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863

 

[Name123]

Since I'm not a man of details

I never got that impression. Thought perhaps it is hidden by length of your updates.

 

[Red_Galiray]

On that note, my personal take is that the main international impact of this more radical Civil War for now, with American isolationism and all that, will be that the US will take a harder line vis-a-vis stuff like compensation for losses incurred by British-built Commerce Raiders the CSA operated.

Most likely.

Can the US possibly get British Columbia and parts of the North-Western Territory? If the US still gets Alaska like OTL, it would be nice to have more land to connect it with.

Eh, I don't think so? Like, I don't think Britain would give up territory willingly.

One thing I will definitely be curious about is how the Republican state governments will handle the fiscal burdens of Reconstruction. IIRC, some of it was definitely lost to corruption, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia being the main examples. Most of it, however, was spent for state aid to railroads construction and the cost of education was considerable - Mississippi's cost about 1 million. In economics, there's never a magic bullet solution and I really don't see one here... Maybe this is again a time where the Federal government has to carry the burden or could the Reconstructed governments be delayed (and thus expenditures are by the Federal government)?

I thought of having the Federal government picking up the slack when it comes to education and railroads, at least initially. There were real proposals for Federally funded education, and Republicans were fans of internal improvements. One of the big problems with the Reconstruction regimes when it came to fiscal matters was that their very instability ensured little investment... which in turn assured more instability. To have the Federals fund them until they consolidate should result in better finances.

I’m thinking that Lincoln will still get a memorial after his death. Presiding over the Civil War and starting Reconstruction would surely be enough to be worthy of being memorialized. Just without the martyrdom that came with his assassination.

Hopefully the US will develop proper presidential security practices without needing an assassination.

Yeah, Lincoln will probably be even canonized than IOTL.

Strong disagree about the existence of magic bullets in economics.

A couple policies that I am comfortable describing as magic bullets:
Congestion pricing to reduce traffic/allocate road space effectively
Land value tax to pay for public goods
Reciprocal free trade and free movement, especially within a country
Abolition
Pollution taxes/cap and trade to deal with pollutants
Land reform

A land value tax is probably a given at this point.

I think he would make a great pick, if you were to go with this then the court should look like this:

Supreme Court 1861 (btw seats are ordered considering the original succession order so AJ 1 comes from the same seat occupied by the first Associate Justice appointed)
Chief Justice: William Strong (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863
Associate Justice 1: Samuel Nelson (Democrat/National Union/National American) appointed by John Tyler in 1845
Associate Justice 2: Ebenezer R. Hoar (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 3: Robert C. Grier ( Democrat/National Union) appointed by James Polk on 1846
Associate Justice 4: Samuel Freeman Miller (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 5: Noah Haynes Swayne (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 6: David Davis (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 7: James M. Wayne (Democrat/National Union) appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1835
Associate Justice 8: Bland Ballard (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1865
Associate Justice 9: George P. Fisher (Unionist/Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863

Alright, seems completely good to me! If you don't mind, I'll adopt this and make it canon going forward!

I never got that impression. Thought perhaps it is hidden by length of your updates.

I guess I should say I'm not a man of small details? Or maybe of minutiae? Like, other TLs can tell you the order of battle of every specific campaign whereas I'm rarely bothered to look beyond the corps level. @Arnold d.c knows that, when helping me write military updates, I sometimes got the details of my own TL wrong, such as saying Burnside was moved to the Army of the Susquehanna and then having him suddenly under Thomas. Or this, where I just knew the SCOTUS had more Republicans but didn't bother knowing who exactly was on the bench. Or how I'll often give vague dates - like, when did John McLean exactly die? Dunno, never really thought about it. Or plainly forget about stuff - Douglas in 1860 had no running mate and I only picked one because @AztecFireGod kindly decided to make a Wiki infographic. Those are the details I don't bother with. But on the other hand I'll dedicate a lot of time and research to other kind of details, like political and social aspects. Frankly, I think it's better this way because those details, in my opinion, matter far more than the specific minutiae.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I'm afraid I've never seen that word used that way? May be because I'm not a native English speaker... Anyway, culture is bound to change in big ways, but I hesitate to say exactly how, given that I'm not American, and it's hard to make conclusions when we're just starting. But I imagine a far more "European" US, so to speak, with a more centralized and active State, more national politics and organization, and better defined rights and less hesitance to enforce them.

Not sure what Ecuador is like, but the vast differences between the large cities and rural areas on the plains will mean that there is always going to be some difference between the states and the necessity for things to be not quite so centralized. The United States is huge after all. I think a state like Ohio is perhaps a better comparison, with the states of the United States being like counties in ohio. After all, you have the big industrial Heartland of Cleveland and the like, shipping areas like cincinnati, and then some very rural counties.

In fact, that is going to be one of the big selling points, I believe, for republicans. That what they are doing is not making States any less important but creating a system just like in some of those states where there is a broad difference between regions and even cultures. After all, Ohio has a lot of Amish people in it.
(
Thanks, by the way, @ZakuType , for that description of Louisiana history with French, it was really interesting. It shows some of the differences that occur between different regions as you have so many immigrants coming into the United states. Which will mean that while there will be a more centralized governments there will also be a need to understand what things are needed locally and the differences between regions. This in fact may become the general axis on which the need to rotate between national and local interests emerges. How to balance national interests with local interests where there is more of a need for divergence.

Which may end up helping in the long run to allow these groups to maintain their identity and yet to still be incorporated as American. After all, just because you speak French for the most part doesn't mean you're not American. Indeed my great-grandmother remembered a lot of people speaking French yet in Mount Eaton when she was growing up. In rural Ohio. In the early 1900s. Not that it was the main language, her great-grandmother spoke English. (She lived till 1911, sadly the generation after that all died in the 1910s so my grandmother and her siblings never got to meet them, just like great grandmother's parents. ) But the point being that they were all very much interested in learning English and things and had a great interest in education, but they were still able to keep some of their cultural heritage. Of course, Being Human and Protestant they may have been a little more accepted then the Catholic french, but it was still a different language.

Instead of an either-or thing, such cultural interests ( French versus English, rural versus urban, Etc) can be a both-and thing in this timeline. So centralization does not have to mean vanquishing other languages and so on. Perhaps being bilingual will be something that many Americans are known for. It will certainly be a lot better to see states rights being used to advocate for these interests, then it was in the way states rights was used in our timeline.

Now you have me curious how long my best friend's family spoke Norwegian when they came over and settled in the Northern parts of the Great Plains in the 1880s.

 

[AztecFireGod]

Alright, seems completely good to me! If you don't mind, I'll adopt this and make it canon going forward!

Yeah that’s completely good, just recommend to fix the little mistake I made
it is supposed to say 1865 not 1861 here my bad

Supreme Court 1865 (btw seats are ordered considering the original succession order so AJ 1 comes from the same seat occupied by the first Associate Justice appointed)
Chief Justice: William Strong (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863
Associate Justice 1: Samuel Nelson (Democrat/National Union/National American) appointed by John Tyler in 1845
Associate Justice 2: Ebenezer R. Hoar (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 3: Robert C. Grier ( Democrat/National Union) appointed by James Polk on 1846
Associate Justice 4: Samuel Freeman Miller (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 5: Noah Haynes Swayne (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 6: David Davis (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1861
Associate Justice 7: James M. Wayne (Democrat/National Union) appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1835
Associate Justice 8: Bland Ballard (Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1865
Associate Justice 9: George P. Fisher (Unionist/Republican) appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863

I guess I should say I'm not a man of small details? Or maybe of minutiae? Like, other TLs can tell you the order of battle of every specific campaign whereas I'm rarely bothered to look beyond the corps level. @Arnold d.c knows that, when helping me write military updates, I sometimes got the details of my own TL wrong, such as saying Burnside was moved to the Army of the Susquehanna and then having him suddenly under Thomas. Or this, where I just knew the SCOTUS had more Republicans but didn't bother knowing who exactly was on the bench. Or how I'll often give vague dates - like, when did John McLean exactly die? Dunno, never really thought about it. Or plainly forget about stuff - Douglas in 1860 had no running mate and I only picked one because @AztecFireGod kindly decided to make a Wiki infographic. Those are the details I don't bother with. But on the other hand I'll dedicate a lot of time and research to other kind of details, like political and social aspects. Frankly, I think it's better this way because those details, in my opinion, matter far more than the specific minutiae.

I get that, the main reason I do the wikis is because 1. I like making them it is something I enjoy doing and 2. I think that they can help one visualize how the changes materialize in this world 3. I am completely good with doing the wikis because like I said it is something I enjoy

 

[Arnold d.c]

I thought of having the Federal government picking up the slack when it comes to education and railroads, at least initially. There were real proposals for Federally funded education, and Republicans were fans of internal improvements. One of the big problems with the Reconstruction regimes when it came to fiscal matters was that their very instability ensured little investment... which in turn assured more instability. To have the Federals fund them until they consolidate should result in better finances.

Huh, I had actually forgotten about those proposals. IIRC the push for Federally funded education was strong going into the 1880s and was solid in terms of constitutionality - unfortunately, it was beaten in the House of Representatives. Federal education would also be positive in introducing Federal oversight and preventing any irregularities in education (read: Lost Cause). I could definitely see this one being more sustained if the GAR hears that Southern textbooks are trying to give a different message and campaigns for a more standardized textbook. But you are right that terrorism did ultimately undermine the staying power of the Republican state governments from both a social and fiscal standpoint. I do suspect that the South will remain considerably behind in income level to the North, but a more educated South (both black and white) and greater economic & social mobility in the 1880s could make it a more vibrant and economically dynamic region and catch up earlier than IOTL.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Huh, I had actually forgotten about those proposals. IIRC the push for Federally funded education was strong going into the 1880s and was solid in terms of constitutionality - unfortunately, it was beaten in the House of Representatives. Federal education would also be positive in introducing Federal oversight and preventing any irregularities in education (read: Lost Cause). I could definitely see this one being more sustained if the GAR hears that Southern textbooks are trying to give a different message and campaigns for a more standardized textbook. But you are right that terrorism did ultimately undermine the staying power of the Republican state governments from both a social and fiscal standpoint. I do suspect that the South will remain considerably behind in income level to the North, but a more educated South (both black and white) and greater economic & social mobility in the 1880s could make it a more vibrant and economically dynamic region and catch up earlier than IOTL.

Which in turn can prevent the "dumbing down," so to speak, of Americans in the coming century, if Federal oversight is pushed at a time when there are plenty of rural people and it's deemed important for them to know, for instance, that food doesn't just appear on grocery shelves, it comes from the ground,when seeds are planted and sprout; that food is processed into the bread, etc. we get at the store.

Now, those of us of a certain age recall the Sesame Street filmstrips where you might hear a kid narrating how stuff is done for a few minutes, and that's all ell and good for teaching inner city kids. (In fact, if moving pictures can be invented early enough, that gives me a great iidea for how a Freedman can make some money,s tarting a company that does those.) But if we have Federal oversight at a time when it's deemed more important that all youth know thigns like that, the better off the nation will be. (An example of where having people refuse to change becuase "we've always done it this way" can be good. "We've taught people how to balance a checkbook and the importance of not going into debt for over a century, ever since the Civil War - just because you credit card companies will make more money if we stop teaching high schoolers the dangers of compounding interest is no reason to change.")

 

[Arnold d.c]

I thought of having the Federal government picking up the slack when it comes to education and railroads, at least initially.

Speaking of the railroads, I just had a thought: has the Crédit Mobilier scandal been set in motion yet? It started off in 1864 and I imagine it still happened IOTL. It's plausible that this could be the impetus for a civil service reform movement ITTL. Alternatively, civil service reform could be used as a means for the Senate to try to wrest the patronage power away from the President and into the hands of the Senate.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

I am super excited to read this timeline!