Republicans win the Post-Civil War

Not Red v. Blue, but the original ACW. In most TLs I’ve read, the Republican Party either shorts out after a Confederate victory (Clopton’s Short History) or becomes a dictatorship (No Gettysburg by Stephen Abbott, and the Althist.com one). Is there any way for the Republicans to not lose face after the South win, while not establishing a one-party rule?

The only ATL I’ve read when that happens is the now-defunct Five Nations of North America by Matt Trepal where the U.S. loses California and Utah after the ACW, yet still manages to elect “Union Republicansâ€. Does anyone have an archived copy of it online? The site’s completely gone.

I would guess that it depends on the mood of the nation and the leadership they choose. If the public feel tired of war and want to reestablish good relations with the South, McClellan and the Peace and Reconciliation types win- but they are the Democrats, who this thread isn’t about.

If the U.S. feels cheated, the Radical Republican-types would be in power. However, they are likely to be angry at Lincoln and co. are out for losing miserably. On the other hand, if any competent/noteworthy military leaders run for office, maybe they’ll win. It depends on how the war goes, but looking at OTL’s, most of the generals who shone were pretty apathetic on the subject of slavery. Grant and Sherman were sympathetic towards the South, and I guess Winfield Scott was too (he died in 1866 anyway). However, Fremont was the original Republican presidential candidate, a colorful fellow, and very much the abolitionist. How did he fare in the war?
 
Strategos' Risk said:
Not Red v. Blue, but the original ACW. In most TLs I’ve read, the Republican Party either shorts out after a Confederate victory (Clopton’s Short History) or becomes a dictatorship (No Gettysburg by Stephen Abbott, and the Althist.com one). Is there any way for the Republicans to not lose face after the South win, while not establishing a one-party rule?

In my BLACK AND THE GRAY timeline, the Republicans not only survive but go on to win the Presidency at least half the time. They do so by adopting a "blame the blacks for the war" policy, thus removing blame from themselves, distancing themselves from Lincoln and riding the current of public sentiment in the immediate aftermath of the war; castigating the Democrats for being "soft on the Rebels" and advocating maintaining unfriendly relations with the Confederacy; and standing in favor of the gold standard (Democrats tend to favor free coinage of silver).
 
Lots of the Multi generational free blacks opposed Mass Immigration of the Ex Slaves into the North. If the CS Wins and the Republicans Manage to ride a-- Whe Tried, but Now Good Riddance-- and closing the Border to Blacks.

Then there would only be several % blacks in the population. They would be able to Blend in [in a way] to the Culture. As as the Post ACW mass immigration picks up. they would become even less % wise. They Would have their Black Areas with fully Vertically integrated internal Class Structure. But be almost forgotten in the larger picture. [Think Jamaican Blacks in the US]

Of Course in he CS with a 40% Black Population It would be Different.
 
Actually I think that there is. A game company which produces a product called 'GURPS' has two books of ATL worlds out, and one, known as 'Dixie' shows a large number of blacks fleeing north when the CSA victory is at hand, and the GOP providing them with 40 acres and a mule which thus secures the USA's hold on the Great Plains.

One result? The American Indians are stomped about 20 years earlier.

Another? Black Americans are dominant by population in several western states, resulting in a natural alliance between them and 'grangers' and such, leading to an African-American VP is in 1896!

Another? The US and its allies, Germany/Austria/et al, win both world wars and dominate to this day.

Another? The Democrats are pretty much erased from the USA, and the Populists succeed them.
 
One intriguing POV for this might be if the 1864 Virginia campaign leads to an overwhelming Union victory at Petersburg in mid-1864. The Republicans will win by a landslide that November, and the political consequences would be quite interesting from then on.....
 
One intriguing POV for this might be if the 1864 Virginia campaign leads to an overwhelming Union victory at Petersburg in mid-1864. The Republicans will win by a landslide that November, and the political consequences would be quite interesting from then on.....

Make the victory in Jan or Feb 1865 and you have it. The Republicans lose the election of 1864 but there is serious buyer's remorse about the Democrats when the Union winds up winning the war anyways. The thought would be that "The Democrats were willing to throw in the towel on the threshold of victory".
 
I feel that if Britain had formally recognized the CSA, the Republicans wouldn't necessarily be blamed, and might instead win votes on a revanchist platform.
 
I feel that if Britain had formally recognized the CSA, the Republicans wouldn't necessarily be blamed, and might instead win votes on a revanchist platform.

Recognition by itself would do nothing. Unless GB is willing to actually go to war with the US it won't do much of anything.
 
One intriguing POV for this might be if the 1864 Virginia campaign leads to an overwhelming Union victory at Petersburg in mid-1864. The Republicans will win by a landslide that November, and the political consequences would be quite interesting from then on.....

Um, what the OP was asking was how to keep the Republicans a viable party after a CONFEDERATE victory in the war. How does an early Union victory at Petersburg contribute to overall Confederate victory in the war? :confused:
 
Recognition would mean war. That was pretty much the understanding in the 1860s.
People keep saying that. But would the Union really be so stupid as to open a second front, just over recognition of the CSA? I'm sure it's possible, people do stupid things.

But if someone could point me to a source for this, I'd appreciate it.
 
Seward said so. It is hard to say if he was bluffing or not. He might think it worth the gamble or not. The big question is how much GB would be willing to lose to protect the Confederacy? It wouldn't exactly be a popular war for them. They might get jumped by Russia in Asia in the bargin.
 
Seward said so. It is hard to say if he was bluffing or not. He might think it worth the gamble or not. The big question is how much GB would be willing to lose to protect the Confederacy? It wouldn't exactly be a popular war for them. They might get jumped by Russia in Asia in the bargin.
I'm sure people said things like that. People say lots of things. And Seward was a bit radical, IIRC.

But would the Union really do it? Opening up a second front against a vastly larger foe?

And in this case, Britain wouldn't be 'going to war to protect the Confederacy', they'd be defending themselves against a US that declared war on them.
 
Top