Stonewall Jackson's Way: An Alternate Confederacy Timeline

What Timeline Should I Do Next?

  • Abandon the Alamo!

    Votes: 18 36.0%
  • We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists

    Votes: 26 52.0%
  • Old Cump and Pap

    Votes: 6 12.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Wow. Lets all engage in happy talk, everything, anyone writes gets a gold star, forget about logic, or reason. Glad you enjoyed your road trip. I used to live in Virginia, have visited North Carolina many times, and was stationed in SC for some of the best years of my life. So was your view of the Confederacy formed by movies like "Gone with the Wind"? Have you seen "Birth of a Nation"? President Wilson loved it.

In your visit did you see any plantations, or restoration sites? Do you think the happy slaves in GWTW are representative of the "Peculiar Institution"? Just what do you think the Confederacy was fighting for? What was the Glorious Cause? "Our rights" What right was that? Could it be the institution of Slavery, which was made permanent in the Confederate Constitution? The CSA wasn't some charming place, of grace, and honor. It's economy was based on the breeding, selling, and exploiting of human beings. Its social structure was based on the racial superiority of the Whiteman over the Blackman. The hierarchy was becoming increasingly autocratic, and anti-democratic.

An independent CSA would have been an ugly, repressive nation, dependent on the violent, and brutal repression of almost 40% of it's people. You can have a soft spot for the modern South, but there is nothing to be sentimental about the CSA. It's not worthy of your kind feelings.
Look we get it maybe this isn't the most realistic timeline out there but I don't think that that was ever the point. So can we please just overlook at least most of the historical inaccuracies for just a little bit and just enjoy the damn story. Sure maybe the north just give up and maybe the battles don't make that much sense on a military viewpoint but it's a story about the Confederate States of America winning the war. It was never going to make sense from that viewpoint. We all know this story is levels of improbable that even a ASB would probably not be enough but it's a good story none the less. Lastly, the US wasn't much better to the black race. Hell one could make a case it still isn't. But we are getting better and that's all one can hope for. As somebody with blacks in my family, the fact the worst they have been called is fat is a testament to our progression on race relations as a whole. It could be better but at least none are being killed for merely being black.

So let's just enjoy the story and not rip into at every possible opportunity. I don't mind a few opinions from the chapter itself but no don't need attacking the south for what it was doing to put food on the table. It made good money and nobody north or south will say no to money. It doesn't make it right but it does make it logical.
 
Last edited:
Chapter Thirty-One: The U.S. Election of 1884
Chapter Thirty-One: The U.S. Election of 1884

The supporters of the two factions of the Republican Party fighting outside the convention
The U.S. Election of 1884 would bring around the political division in U.S. elections that had not been seen since the Election of 1860. Four major parties ran candidates, and many thought whether or not a war started hanged in the balance. Incumbent President James A. Garfield would enter into a Republican National Convention he knew was divided, but still expected he could carry the nomination. In reality, it would be much different. By now, the Republicans had split into two seemingly irreconcilable factions over whether or not to go to war with the CSA. On one side was the Peace Republicans, lead by men like Garfield, Blaine, Edmunds, and Sherman, who favored continuing peaceful relations with the South. In the other camp was men like Conkling, and his close political allies Senators Thomas C. Platt and Ulysses S. Grant. They favored going to war with the CSA to restore the Union once and for all. Despite being quite popular with the general public, Garfield struggled to gain renomination. He had many powerful political enemies in the Republican Party, and many of the new political upcomers had rallied around the War Republican faction, meaning that the War Republicans outnumbered the Peace Republicans. In the end, Conkling would manage to clinch the nomination. Following this, the Peace Republicans simply walked out on the party, and vowed to run their own candidate. This cleared the way for a War Republican vice-presidential nomination. Conkling wanted Grant to receive the position, but Grant demurred, stating he would prefer to just maintain his current position of Secretary of War. Following this, Conkling would have preferred for another one of close political allies, like Platt, Chester Arthur, or Levi Morton, to receive the position, but regional balance lead to Missouri Senator Carl Schurz receiving the nomination.
Hon._Roscoe_Conkling,_N.Y_-_NARA_-_527412.jpg

Roscoe Conkling and Carl Schurz
The Peace Republican would organize following their walk-out, and hold their own convention. Their presidential candidate was clear, with James Garfield unanimously receiving the nomination. The vice-presidential candidate, however, was where the debating began. Garfield's current vice-president, Chester Arthur, was firmly in the War Republican camp, making him not an option. Garfield favored running with Secretary of the Navy John A. Logan, but it was decided that a New Englander was necessary on the ticket to shore up support. Thus, Secretary of State James G. Blaine would be nominated as Garfield's running mate.

James A. Garfield and James G. Blaine
The Democrats, meanwhile, were prepared to exploit the divide in the Republican Party. They would decide to focus their candidates own the Midwest, hoping to wrest it from Republican control. Thus, they nominated Supreme Court Justice Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana for president, defeating former Ohio Senator George H. Pendleton and Delaware Senator Thomas F. Bayard for the post, and Leader of the House Democratic Caucus John G. Carlisle of Kentucky for vice-president, defeating former general and California representative William S. Rosecrans.

Thomas A. Hendricks and John G. Carlisle
The Gold and Silver Party also saw the Republican divide as an opportunity. They hoped to make more political gains in the West, particularly in Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado, which they had barely lost to the Republicans in the 1880 election. For their presidential candidate, they turned to the man now synonymous with their party, Grover Cleveland. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats did not renominate Cleveland to be their gubernatorial candidate for New York, so Cleveland moved to where his political party's base was, the far west. He declared California his new home state, and easily gained election as a representative from the state. More and more, the Gold and Silver Party was becoming known as a party not only just for people in favor of hard currency, but people who had fallen out of favor with their party, and were hoping for a fresh start. Some even expected that George H. Pendleton might try for the Gold and Silver Party's presidential nomination, with him ultimately staying with the Democrats. The vice-presidential contest for the Gold and Silver Party found two major candidates. First was Benjamin Butler, their previous vice-presidential nomination. The other was former Democratic Ohio Senator Allen G. Thurman. Cleveland, whose decision were effectively those of the party, disliked Thurman, and despite being no close friend of Butler's, still supported Butler for the nomination. With this in mind, the Gold and Silver Party ticket was decided as Grover Cleveland of California running with Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts.

Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Butler
With the four major parties having the candidates selected, the campaigning began in earnest. Both the Peace and War Republicans fiercely attacked each other, with their campaigns attacking to such a personal level that had not been seen since elections of 1796 and 1800. Conkling's supporters attacked Garfield for rumors of an affair he had during the Civil War, and for secretly planning to sell out the U.S. to the CSA. Garfield's supporters attacked Conkling as secretly being in the pocket of the much dreaded but now rarely heard from corrupt Democratic bosses, and that he planned to send America's young men to their deaths in a pointless war, with the remaining survivors going to return to terrible conditions in a factory job where they will die to make Conkling and his cronies rich. It should be noted that Conkling had an advantage in the campaigning, as most upcoming Republicans who were unfamiliar with the tragedy of the Civil War and viewed Conkling as a strong leader intent on restoring America rallied to the side of Conkling, with such men as Mark Hanna and Henry C. Lodge falling into this category and both campaigning hard for him. Hoping to ride on the war fervor train that seemed to be starting up in the nation, the Gold and Silver Party also came out in favor of war, which both helped gain public support, and minimized War Republican attacks. The Democrats, meanwhile, were generally opposed to war, with some members supporting it, but to not to such a level as to divide their party like the Republicans.

A Thomas Nast cartoon depicting an elephant, a symbol which he helped associate with the Republicans falling, created in response to how the Republicans were tearing each apart, and hurting their election chances
When the election results came in, it was a mess as many people suspected it would be. Garfield would have the most electoral votes at 95, with Conkling coming in second with 85, Hendricks in third with 67, and Cleveland in last with 31. Garfield would win Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Conkling would win New York, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Hendricks secured Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Delaware. Cleveland would win California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas. With no candidate receiving an electoral majority, it was brought to the House of Representatives. In the House, the largest number of members were War Republicans, followed by Peace Republicans, Democrats, and Gold and Silver members respectively. Despite have the largest amount of representatives, the War Republicans again lacked the majority, and it was shown becoming clear that the Peace Republicans and Democrats were making a deal to re-elect Garfield. Acting quickly, the War Republicans promised that they would promote several Gold and Silver members to high rank in the upcoming war, bringing all but 3 members of that party to their side. Combined with a few promises to Democrats and Peace Republicans, the War Republicans had the majority they needed, and were able to elect Roscoe Conkling as the 21st president of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Look we get it maybe this isn't the most realistic timeline out there but I don't think that that was ever the point. So can we please just overlook at least most of the historical inaccuracies for just a little bit and just enjoy the damn story. Sure maybe the north just give up and maybe the battles don't make that much sense on a military viewpoint but it's a story about the Confederate States of America winning the war. It was never going to make sense from that viewpoint. We all know this story is levels of improbable that even a ASB would probably not be enough but it's a good story none the less. Lastly, the US wasn't much better to the black race. Hell one could make a case it still isn't. But we are getting better and that's all one can hope for. As somebody with blacks in my family, the fact the worst they have been called is fat is a testament to our progression on race relations as a whole. It could be better but at least none are being killed for merely being black.

So let's just enjoy the story and not rip into at every possible opportunity. I don't mind a few opinions from the chapter itself but no don't need attacking the south for what it was doing to put food on the table. It made good money and nobody north or south will say no to money. It doesn't make it right but it does make it logical.
I think one could make a few distinctions between how the North and South treated Blacks. The North didn't bred them, buy or sell them, force them to work without wages, lash them, torture them, legally rape their women, or separate their families. The North let Blackmen vote, Blacks could testify in court, have access to the courts, have Constitutional rights, own property, sign contracts, work for a living, travel at will, marry, have freedom of religion, and could learn how to read. Other then that the North didn't treat Blacks much better then the South did. So we shouldn't criticize the South for slavery, because it was profitable? Nobody will say no to money? I must say you have a very low moral opinion of the human race.
 
I think one could make a few distinctions between how the North and South treated Blacks. The North didn't bred them, buy or sell them, force them to work without wages, lash them, torture them, legally rape their women, or separate their families. The North let Blackmen vote, Blacks could testify in court, have access to the courts, have Constitutional rights, own property, sign contracts, work for a living, travel at will, marry, have freedom of religion, and could learn how to read. Other then that the North didn't treat Blacks much better then the South did. So we shouldn't criticize the South for slavery, because it was profitable? Nobody will say no to money? I must say you have a very low moral opinion of the human race.
I have such a low view on our morals because let's face it nobody outlawed its use until the 1800s. For most of human history, the idea of owning another person was seen as normal. Sure maybe some points were better but for the most part nobody cared about ending the institution of slavery. This isn't really a matter that needs saying. Again nobody with any sense will say no to money. Anybody who does is a fool and will soon found himself living in a box asking for food money.

I'm not saying it was right but if I can make good money if I buy a few slaves to work my land I'm not about to turn it down. Anybody who has made a name for themselves understand this fact. It's great that it's over but it took the US about a 100 years to free the slaves. The land of the free was only truely free after 1865.
 
I have such a low view on our morals because let's face it nobody outlawed its use until the 1800s. For most of human history, the idea of owning another person was seen as normal. Sure maybe some points were better but for the most part nobody cared about ending the institution of slavery. This isn't really a matter that needs saying. Again nobody with any sense will say no to money. Anybody who does is a fool and will soon found himself living in a box asking for food money.

I'm not saying it was right but if I can make good money if I buy a few slaves to work my land I'm not about to turn it down. Anybody who has made a name for themselves understand this fact. It's great that it's over but it took the US about a 100 years to free the slaves. The land of the free was only truely free after 1865.
The rise of the abolitionist movement started in the 17th Century, with the European Enlightenment, Quaker, and Evangelical movements. slavery is obviously inconsistent with the idea of human freedom. The humanist Greeks could justify slavery, because it was a class concept, not one of race. One could be born a slave, gain their freedom, and rise in society. Biblical Slavery was limited in term, and severity. A slave was a full human being, not to be killed, or abused. Chattel Slavery was based on race, and deigned human dignity for life, with no hope of redemption. The Northern States began to abolish slavery, and indentured service in the 18th Century, Pennsylvania being founded by Quakers never had it.

Yes your right, money made it so hard to end slavery that the Southerners had to do it themselves, by resorting to force, in an attempt to preserve it. It's hard to say how long it would have lasted, if they hadn't seceded. Secession was one of the greatest miscalculations in history. Politically the South was doing quite well defending slavery, but they could see the writing on the wall. They hated having to defend themselves, so the thought of having the first anti slavery president since John Quincy Adams was too much for them. That's what you call being convicted in your own heart.

I think you should reconsider the notion of doing anything for money. Will you kill someone for me, if I pay you $10,000? Will you sell drugs for a living? Pimps make good money. Would you launder money? Would you sell your body for sex. Would you advise a family member to sell her body for sex. Would you take a bribe to coverup a crime? Would you sell classified information to a foreign power? Would you Blackmail someone for money? If it's legality that troubles you, would you take a job that required you to mislead people? Would you make money if you knew it was hurting people? Pharmaceutical Companies sold opioids, they knew were addictive, after assuring everyone they weren't, would you do that, there was a lot of money in it. There are a lot of ways to make a living, but you have to live with yourself. Man does not live by bread alone.
 
The rise of the abolitionist movement started in the 17th Century, with the European Enlightenment, Quaker, and Evangelical movements. slavery is obviously inconsistent with the idea of human freedom. The humanist Greeks could justify slavery, because it was a class concept, not one of race. One could be born a slave, gain their freedom, and rise in society. Biblical Slavery was limited in term, and severity. A slave was a full human being, not to be killed, or abused. Chattel Slavery was based on race, and deigned human dignity for life, with no hope of redemption. The Northern States began to abolish slavery, and indentured service in the 18th Century, Pennsylvania being founded by Quakers never had it.

Yes your right, money made it so hard to end slavery that the Southerners had to do it themselves, by resorting to force, in an attempt to preserve it. It's hard to say how long it would have lasted if they hadn't seceded. Secession was one of the greatest miscalculations in history. Politically the South was doing quite well-defending slavery, but they could see the writing on the wall. They hated having to defend themselves, so the thought of having the first anti-slavery president since John Quincy Adams was too much for them. That's what you call being convicted in your own heart.

I think you should reconsider the notion of doing anything for money. Will you kill someone for me, if I pay you $10,000? Will you sell drugs for a living? Pimps make good money. Would you launder money? Would you sell your body for sex. Would you advise a family member to sell her body for sex. Would you take a bribe to coverup a crime? Would you sell classified information to a foreign power? Would you Blackmail someone for money? If it's legality that troubles you, would you take a job that required you to mislead people? Would you make money if you knew it was hurting people? Pharmaceutical Companies sold opioids, they knew were addictive, after assuring everyone they weren't, would you do that, there was a lot of money in it. There are a lot of ways to make a living, but you have to live with yourself. Man does not live by bread alone.
I'm not saying movements to end it didn't exist they, of course, did nobody is saying otherwise but even so, you can't deny the obvious fact that people were viewed differently based on their race. Some points in history were better but overall we never did much to end it's use until around the 1800s. It was seen by founding fathers to be on the way out so they likely never saw much point to make it one of the things given to people as it wouldn't likely be around to matter all that much. Sadly it did mostly due to the invention of the cotton gin in 1794. Before that it simply didn't make the money needed to keep all that many slaves. Afterwards, however, it was and we saw the slave population double if not triple.

Moving onto the bible part something I hate having to do but Exodus 21 I believe is clear that should you beat your slave and he or she doesn't die for a few days you shall not be punished for he or she is your property. That sure doesn't sound like God viewed that as murder which it, of course, would be. It also doesn't seem to view the slave as something of any real significance. If anything killing a slave is like a useless tool you just replace it. No real loss here just an inconvenience.

Lastly, onto the money part, it would depend on the individual that you wanted me to kill. I wouldn't kill a child but a rapist sure. Hell, I'll do that shit for free. As for would I sell drugs no I wouldn't. It makes good money if you can do it without the cops getting you but no the risk makes it something I would pass on. Anybody who sells things that you know doesn't work is a criminal and should be punished for their immoral actions.

Look as much fun as this all is this isn't really the place to be having this. So let's end this and return to posts dealing with the story itself. The last few posts have virtually nothing to do with the story itself or the events happening in it so while this could be a nice chat about slaves and how we viewed them this isn't the place for it.
 
Chapter Thirty-Two: The CSA Election of 1885
Chapter Thirty-Two: The CSA Election of 1885

Citizens gathering to hear a Democratic speech in Montgomery, Alabama
With a War Republican elected as president of the United States, the political balance in the CSA had been completely realigned. The Liberty Party had come to be associated with friendly and trusting relationships with the U.S., and many believed that a Liberty Party president who not be able to successfully execute the war that seemed likely to come. The Democrats were finally vindicated in their position, and many were excited and believed that their chance at the Executive Mansion was now. At first, the presidential nomination seemed that it would likely to go to Alabama's new senator Clement C. Clay, but Clay was already in poor health, and he died during the nominating process. With Clay's death, several men who had been positioning to try and receive the vice-presidential nomination, including former Tennessee Senator Isham Harris, South Carolina Governor Milledge Bonham, Virginia Representative Jubal A. Early, and Texas Representative Richard Coke, all now tried for the presidential nomination. Harris had the lead in the beginning, but his defeat in the previous presidential election hurt his chances. Eventually, the Democrats settled on Jubal Early as their candidate, hoping that they could campaign on his past as a successful general. Richard Coke would be Early's running mate to try and bring Texas, the state with the second highest amount of electoral votes after Virginia, into the Democratic camp.

Jubal A. Early and Richard Coke
The Liberty Party, meanwhile, also hoped that the strategy of nominating a successful general from the Civil War would work in the election. Their candidate would be Vice-President Wade Hampton III, who was nominated on the first ballot with minimal opposition. For the vice-presidency, the Liberty Party would again copy the Democratic lead, nominating a Texan, but their candidate would be Texas Senator John H. Reagan. With that ended the shortest convention in Liberty Party history up until that point.

Wade Hampton III and John H. Reagan
With war with the U.S. seeming inevitable, both parties would campaign on their presidential candidates war record. In this, however, the Democrats had an advantage, as Jubal Early ended his army service with the rank of Major General commanding infantry, while Hampton's ended earlier as a Brigadier General commanding cavalry. Then there was the clear point that the Democrats continually brought up, which was that the Liberty Party was the party of working with the U.S., while the Democrats were the party of being prepared for war with the U.S., which caused increased support for the Democrats in states bordering the U.S. Despite the Democratic advantage in this, the Liberty Party was clearly running the more qualified and experienced candidates in terms of political experience, which they campaigned hard on. Midway through the campaigning season, it was leaked that Longstreet had discussed the possible abolition of slavery with his cabinet, and several high-ranking Liberty Party members, which would include Hampton and Reagan. Both men would disavow the story, but it was confirmed later by Longstreet, who by now did not really care who won the election as he had grown tired of most of the Liberty Party leaders. Following this, it took several weeks for the story to get out of the newspapers. Despite this, the Liberty Party managed to effectively control what could have been a public relations disaster. By the time Election Day came around, what previously seemed like a clear Democratic victory was more up in the air. This election would also see the new state of Arizona voting in a presidential election for the first time.

An image of the riot in Charleston, South Carolina when it was revealed that Longstreet was discussing abolition as a possibility. Due to the Liberty Party's effective public relations campaign following the information being released, this would be the lone occurrence of a major riot as a result of the leak
When the results came in, Jubal Early had been elected as president of the CSA. The results had been extremely narrow, however. If Early had lost either Virginia or Texas, both of which he narrowly won, the election would have gone to Hampton. Early won a total of 67 electoral votes and Hampton won 55, with Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Maryland going for Early, and Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arizona voting for Hampton. The Liberty Party, however, did have the consolation that Early did support continuing industrialization, as he had seen how it had succeeded in his home state. Now with both the U.S. and CSA having presidents ready for war, the chances for war between the two nations increased even higher.
 
Chapter Thirty-Two: The CSA Election of 1885

Citizens gathering to hear a Democratic speech in Montgomery, Alabama
With a War Republican elected as president of the United States, the political balance in the CSA had been completely realigned. The Liberty Party had come to be associated with friendly and trusting relationships with the U.S., and many believed that a Liberty Party president who not be able to successfully execute the war that seemed likely to come. The Democrats were finally vindicated in their position, and many were excited and believed that their chance at the Executive Mansion was now. At first, the presidential nomination seemed that it would likely to go to Alabama's new senator Clement C. Clay, but Clay was already in poor health, and he died during the nominating process. With Clay's death, several men who had been positioning to try and receive the vice-presidential nomination, including former Tennessee Senator Isham Harris, South Carolina Governor Milledge Bonham, Virginia Representative Jubal A. Early, and Texas Representative Richard Coke, all now tried for the presidential nomination. Harris had the lead in the beginning, but his defeat in the previous presidential election hurt his chances. Eventually, the Democrats settled on Jubal Early as their candidate, hoping that they could campaign on his past as a successful general. Richard Coke would be Early's running mate to try and bring Texas, the state with the second highest amount of electoral votes after Virginia, into the Democratic camp.

Jubal A. Early and Richard Coke
The Liberty Party, meanwhile, also hoped that the strategy of nominating a successful general from the Civil War would work in the election. Their candidate would be Vice-President Wade Hampton III, who was nominated on the first ballot with minimal opposition. For the vice-presidency, the Liberty Party would again copy the Democratic lead, nominating a Texan, but their candidate would be Texas Senator John H. Reagan. With that ended the shortest convention in Liberty Party history up until that point.

Wade Hampton III and John H. Reagan
With war with the U.S. seeming inevitable, both parties would campaign on their presidential candidates war record. In this, however, the Democrats had an advantage, as Jubal Early ended his army service with the rank of Major General commanding infantry, while Hampton's ended earlier as a Brigadier General commanding cavalry. Then there was the clear point that the Democrats continually brought up, which was that the Liberty Party was the party of working with the U.S., while the Democrats were the party of being prepared for war with the U.S., which caused increased support for the Democrats in states bordering the U.S. Despite the Democratic advantage in this, the Liberty Party was clearly running the more qualified and experienced candidates in terms of political experience, which they campaigned hard on. Midway through the campaigning season, it was leaked that Longstreet had discussed the possible abolition of slavery with his cabinet, and several high-ranking Liberty Party members, which would include Hampton and Reagan. Both men would disavow the story, but it was confirmed later by Longstreet, who by now did not really care who won the election as he had grown tired of most of the Liberty Party leaders. Following this, it took several weeks for the story to get out of the newspapers. Despite this, the Liberty Party managed to effectively control what could have been a public relations disaster. By the time Election Day came around, what previously seemed like a clear Democratic victory was more up in the air. This election would also see the new state of Arizona voting in a presidential election for the first time.

An image of the riot in Charleston, South Carolina when it was revealed that Longstreet was discussing abolition as a possibility. Due to the Liberty Party's effective public relations campaign following the information being released, this would be the lone occurrence of a major riot as a result of the leak
When the results came in, Jubal Early had been elected as president of the CSA. The results had been extremely narrow, however. If Early had lost either Virginia or Texas, both of which he narrowly won, the election would have gone to Hampton. Early won a total of 67 electoral votes and Hampton won 55, with Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Maryland going for Early, and Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arizona voting for Hampton. The Liberty Party, however, did have the consolation that Early did support continuing industrialization, as he had seen how it had succeeded in his home state. Now with both the U.S. and CSA having presidents ready for war, the chances for war between the two nations increased even higher.
Well shit a possible war with the US after only 20 years may not be wise. Sure the south is starting their industrialization but really how much could have been done in only 20 years? Likely not enough to make a war a good idea. It would be nice to see the wider world as well. As it is it feels very much a USA/CSA thing but didn't the other powers of that time take part at least in one way or another. Surely the goings-on could make for a fun chapter to read if nothing else.
 
Chapter Thirty-Three: The Beginning of the Confederate-American War
Chapter Thirty-Three: The Beginning of the Confederate-American War

A depiction of a recruiting station, which often featured cannon from the Civil War and veterans from that war paid large sums of money to tell eager volunteers stories of honor and glory of war
Despite both the U.S. and CSA having presidents hostile to the other nation, war did not break out immediately as both expected. Instead, both sides learned their lessons from the Civil War, and raised and trained their volunteer armies before the declaration of war. This gave time for the Peace Republicans in the United States, and Liberty Party in the Confederate States to try and stop the rapidly approaching war. In the U.S., the Peace Republicans found a base in New England, where many of their most famous members hailed from. Despite voting for Conkling in the election, New England had mixed opinions about war, and now with the Peace Republicans focusing all their efforts on that region, instead of the Midwest like the previous election, they were now becoming more anti-war. Many believed that the true test of New England's feeling would be shown in who Massachusetts would choose to nominate to fill a vacant Senate seat caused by the resignation of George S. Boutwell. Two of the candidates were former Secretary of the Interior and former Postmaster General Henry L. Dawes, who was a Peace Republican, and current Secretary of the Interior Henry C. Lodge, who was War Republican. Ultimately, Massachusetts would choose Dawes, confirming to many that New England was now in Peace Republican hands. Conkling would find that Peace Republican opposition to his goals most strongly concentrated in the Senate, with many of their leaders former members of the Garfield administration, including Garfield himself, now a senator from Ohio, and Senators James Blaine, Hannibal Hamlin, George Edmunds, Henry Dawes, George Hoar, John Sherman, Lyman Trumbull, John Logan, and Benjamin Harrison also among them.
Blaine-standing-left.jpg
486px-Hon._Henry_L._Dawes,_Mass_-_NARA_-_526271.jpg

The Leaders of the Peace Republicans in the Senate: Garfield, Blaine, Hamlin, Edmunds, Dawes, Hoar, Sherman, Trumbull, Logan, and Harrison
In the CSA, meanwhile, the Liberty Party found a harder time finding a base of support. Some states that had traditional supported them, including Tennessee, Virginia, and Maryland were beginning to support the Democrats more and more as they feared invasion, and viewed the Democratic policy of expanding the military as the best defense, instead of diplomacy. This forced the Liberty Party into more of states deeper in the CSA, including the Carolinas, Georgia, and Arizona. Much to their dismay, the Liberty Party's hold on the Legislative Branch of the government was lost shortly after Early's election, with even such long serving and established members such as Robert M.T. Hunter, Zebulon Vance, and John H. Reagan struggling to gain reelection. From this, many newer Democratic politicians who had been held out from national office by Liberty Party dominance began to take seats in the national government, with such men as Benjamin Tillman, Roger Q. Mills, John T. Morgan, Matthew C. Butler fitting this description.

Benjamin Tillman, Roger Q. Mills, John T. Morgan, and Matthew C. Butler
As both countries kicked off recruitment in preparation for war, both sides found themselves lucky in terms of the men who they had as their Secretaries of War to oversee the process. For the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, former General-in-Chief and experienced Secretary of War under three administrations was at the helm. For the Confederacy, eager and bright John Pegram oversaw the preparation for war. The U.S. followed a similar strategy to recruiting soldiers as it had in the Civil War, with the president, in this case Roscoe Conkling, sending out a list of the number of men each state must provide for the army. Several states exceeded their quotas as they had in the Civil War, and the recruited men were formed into same state brigades, which formed the base for multi-state divisions, corps, and armies. The CSA, however, tried a different approach. Early, on the advice of Pegram, would also send at a man requirement from each state, but instead of ordering individual regiments, he ordered that each state furnish a corps, consisting of three divisions, which would be formed into armies. This approach very much reflected on Early's support for states rights, as he allowed each state to chose the officers who would lead their men into battle, and allowed each state to have their own seperate men.

Ulysses S. Grant and John Pegram
Ultimately, the U.S. would form their corps, which were larger than those of the CSA, into 2 armies. One would be the Army of the Susquehanna, under the command of Major General Benjamin Butler, who was appointed as part of the fulfillment of Conkling's promise to put leading Gold and Silver Party members in high positions. The other, the Army of the Cumberland, would be led by General-in-Chief William T. Sherman. Though both armies waited in their positions in Pennsylvania and Kentucky respectively, both commanders had already been given their objectives. Butler was march through Maryland and lay siege to the CSA capital of Washington, and once it was captured, he and his army would march south through Virginia, capturing Richmond before moving south into the Carolinas. Sherman's goals, meanwhile, where to march on Nashville, capturing it before moving on to Knoxville and Chattanooga to secure Tennessee. With that completed, he was to move into Georgia, with Conkling himself telling Sherman that his final objective in the war should be "the salt water of the Atlantic Ocean from Savannah's port."

Major General Benjamin Butler and General-in-Chief William T. Sherman
The Confederacy would similarly divide their forces into two main armies, both under the receiving orders from, but not being under the direct observation of General-in-Chief Joseph Johnston. The first would be the Army of Virginia under General "Stonewall" Jackson, and stationed in Washington's defenses. Their goal was to repulse any invasion from the Army of the Susquehanna before invading into Southern Pennsylvania to capture to U.S. capital of Philadelphia. The other would be the Army of Tennessee under General Edmund Kirby Smith. They were to invade Kentucky, capture its major cities, and hopeful cause it to declare secession and join the CSA. Following this, they were to move north in Indiana and Ohio, and break the morale of the U.S.'s public similar to the Civil War.

Stonewall Jackson and Edmund Kirby Smith
With both armies ready for war, and both publics clamoring for it to start, Conkling would get the jump on Early, and declare war first, giving CSA ambassadors Judah Benjamin and Benjamin H. Helm one hour to vacate their embassy and a week to return to the CSA, and promptly ordering both of his invasions to begin. With that, the Confederate-American Civil War had started.

Conkling and his cabinet:
President: Roscoe Conkling
Vice-President: Carl Schurz
Secretary of State: Thomas C. Platt
Secretary of the Treasury: Chester A. Arthur
Secretary of War: Ulysses S. Grant
Attorney General: Theodore T. Frelinghuysen
Postmaster General: Mark Hanna
Secretary of the Navy: Levi P. Morton
Secretary of the Interior: Henry C. Lodge

Early and his cabinet:
President: Jubal A. Early
Vice-President: Richard Coke
Secretary of State: Thomas Clingman
Secretary of the Treasury: Thomas C. Hindman
Secretary of War: John Pegram
Secretary of the Navy: Stephen Mallory II
Attorney General: Ambrose Wright
Postmaster General: Samuel D. McEnery
 
Last edited:
The CSA and the USA have been separate nations for 20 some years, I don't think the conflict would be called the Second Civil War.
 
The CSA and the USA have been separate nations for 20 some years, I don't think the conflict would be called the Second Civil War.
It wouldn't be a civil war. That is two sides fighting in A nation, not two nations waging war on each other. This is just a normal Non-civil war...war.
 
Chapter Thirty-Three: The Beginning of the 2nd Civil War

A depiction of a recruiting station, which often featured cannon from the 1st Civil War and veterans from that war paid large sums of money to tell eager volunteers stories of honor and glory of war
Despite both the U.S. and CSA having presidents hostile to the other nation, war did not break out immediately as both expected. Instead, both sides learned their lessons from the 1st Civil War, and raised and trained their volunteer armies before the declaration of war. This gave time for the Peace Republicans in the United States, and Liberty Party in the Confederate States to try and stop the rapidly approaching war. In the U.S., the Peace Republicans found a base in New England, where many of their most famous members hailed from. Despite voting for Conkling in the election, New England had mixed opinions about war, and now with the Peace Republicans focusing all their efforts on that region, instead of the Midwest like the previous election, they were now becoming more anti-war. Many believed that the true test of New England's feeling would be shown in who Massachusetts would choose to nominate to fill a vacant Senate seat caused by the resignation of George S. Boutwell. Two of the candidates were former Secretary of the Interior and former Postmaster General Henry L. Dawes, who was a Peace Republican, and current Secretary of the Interior Henry C. Lodge, who was War Republican. Ultimately, Massachusetts would choose Dawes, confirming to many that New England was now in Peace Republican hands. Conkling would find that Peace Republican opposition to his goals most strongly concentrated in the Senate, with many of their leaders former members of the Garfield administration, including Garfield himself, now a senator from Ohio, and Senators James Blaine, George Edmunds, Henry Dawes, George Hoar, John Sherman, and John Logan also among them.
View attachment 519134
View attachment 519135

The Leaders of the Peace Republicans in the Senate: Garfield, Blaine, Edmunds, Dawes, Hoar, Sherman, and Logan
In the CSA, meanwhile, the Liberty Party found a harder time finding a base of support. Some states that had traditional supported them, including Tennessee, Virginia, and Maryland were beginning to support the Democrats more and more as they feared invasion, and viewed the Democratic policy of expanding the military as the best defense, instead of diplomacy. This forced the Liberty Party into more of states deeper in the CSA, including the Carolinas, Georgia, and Arizona. Much to their dismay, the Liberty Party's hold on the Legislative Branch of the government was lost shortly after Early's election, with even such long serving and established members such as Robert M.T. Hunter, Zebulon Vance, and John H. Reagan struggling to gain reelection. From this, many newer Democratic politicians who had been held out from national office by Liberty Party dominance began to take seats in the national government, with such men as Benjamin Tillman, Roger Q. Mills, John T. Morgan, Matthew C. Butler fitting this description.
View attachment 519137

Benjamin Tillman, Roger Q. Mills, John T. Morgan, and Matthew C. Butler
As both countries kicked off recruitment in preparation for war, both sides found themselves lucky in terms of the men who they had as their Secretaries of War to oversee the process. For the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, former General-in-Chief and experienced Secretary of War under three administrations was at the helm. For the Confederacy, eager and bright John Pegram oversaw the preparation for war. The U.S. followed a similar strategy to recruiting soldiers as it had in the 1st Civil War, with the president, in this case Roscoe Conkling, sending out a list of the number of men each state must provide for the army. Several states exceeded their quotas as they had in the 1st Civil War, and the recruited men were formed into same state brigades, which formed the base for multi-state divisions, corps, and armies. The CSA, however, tried a different approach. Early, on the advice of Pegram, would also send at a man requirement from each state, but instead of ordering individual regiments, he ordered that each state furnish a corps, consisting of three divisions, which would be formed into armies. This approach very much reflected on Early's support for states rights, as he allowed each state to chose the officers who would lead their men into battle, and allowed each state to have their own seperate men.

Ulysses S. Grant and John Pegram
Ultimately, the U.S. would form their corps, which were larger than those of the CSA, into 2 armies. One would be the Army of the Susquehanna, under the command of Major General Benjamin Butler, who was appointed as part of the fulfillment of Conkling's promise to put leading Gold and Silver Party members in high positions. The other, the Army of the Cumberland, would be led by General-in-Chief William T. Sherman. Though both armies waited in their positions in Pennsylvania and Kentucky respectively, both commanders had already been given their objectives. Butler was march through Maryland and lay siege to the CSA capital of Washington, and once it was captured, he and his army would march south through Virginia, capturing Richmond before moving south into the Carolinas. Sherman's goals, meanwhile, where to march on Nashville, capturing it before moving on to Knoxville and Chattanooga to secure Tennessee. With that completed, he was to move into Georgia, with Conkling himself telling Sherman that his final objective in the war should be "the salt water of the Atlantic Ocean from Savannah's port."

Major General Benjamin Butler and General-in-Chief William T. Sherman
The Confederacy would similarly divide their forces into two main armies, both under the receiving orders from, but not being under the direct observation of General-in-Chief Joseph Johnston. The first would be the Army of Virginia under General "Stonewall" Jackson, and stationed in Washington's defenses. Their goal was to repulse any invasion from the Army of the Susquehanna before invading into Southern Pennsylvania to capture to U.S. capital of Philadelphia. The other would be the Army of Tennessee under General Edmund Kirby Smith. They were to invade Kentucky, capture its major cities, and hopeful cause it to declare secession and join the CSA. Following this, they were to move north in Indiana and Ohio, and break the morale of the U.S.'s public similar to the 1st Civil War.

Stonewall Jackson and Edmund Kirby Smith
With both armies ready for war, and both publics clamoring for it to start, Conkling would get the jump on Early, and declare war first, and promptly ordering both of his invasions to begin. With that, the 2nd American Civil War had started.
A few observation. Senators weren't elected by popular vote, but by state legislatures. The point you were making about how Massachusetts was changing it's views wouldn't be shown that way, only the views of the governor, and legislatures. If you want to demonstrate a change in public mood you'd have show it in state elections, or for the House of Representatives.

A state mobilization system with state Corps is a terrible idea. It takes the appointment of senior officers out of the hands of army commanders, and even the President of the CSA. Can an army commander fire a state Corps, or division commander? If he can who picks his replacement? If he can't how does the army commander assert his authority? Lee could never have worked with this system, you might want to rethink this idea.

It would add to the realism of your story if you stated some numbers for the initial armies being mobilized. That maybe in your next chapter. I'd suggest something on the order of 300,000 men for the CSA, and 500,000 for the USA, with the understanding that each side will need many tens of thousands of more men for second line duty over the next few months. Both sides need many, many ships, with the CSA being better off then in the first war, but still at a big disadvantage.

Your strategy seems unbalanced, both sides main armies are starting in central Tennessee/Kentucky eastward. The USA's objective is Washington, and Savannah, while the CSA is aiming for the Ohio River, Indiana, and Philadelphia. What are the western states doing, and why is the Mississippi not a major theater of operation for both sides? I suspect your trying to set Sherman on the campaign he didn't get to run in your timeline, but it's putting the cart before the horse. The USA can't win the war by just taking the CSA east coast. The naval war will be different this time around, with many technological advances. The USN should still hold most of the advantages, but the CSN would have more blue water capacity this time around. Good luck with your next chapter.
 
The unionist in me wants to see the confederacy captured but the title of the TL is stonewall Jackson’s way so I doubtthat

But cool battle scenes !
 
I think one could make a few distinctions between how the North and South treated Blacks. The North didn't bred them, buy or sell them, force them to work without wages, lash them, torture them, legally rape their women, or separate their families. The North let Blackmen vote, Blacks could testify in court, have access to the courts, have Constitutional rights, own property, sign contracts, work for a living, travel at will, marry, have freedom of religion, and could learn how to read. Other then that the North didn't treat Blacks much better then the South did. So we shouldn't criticize the South for slavery, because it was profitable? Nobody will say no to money? I must say you have a very low moral opinion of the human race.
I try not to get too involved but I feel like this glamorizes the North a bit much. Did the South do all those bad things, yes. But slavery was not really a Southern thing until after the Revolution. So you can say that northern slaveholders were guilty of all those things too. And even after abolition, blacks had little to no rights in the North until after the Civil War, especially from the 1830s following Nat Turner's rebellion. Free blacks were highly restricted with their voting rights, what jobs could hold, what education they could pursue, etc. Flash forward to after the Civil War, blacks and whites were still not treated equally anywhere. Not in the North, not in the South, nowhere. Now the South royally loses points for undoing much of the progress granted to African Americans during the Reconstruction era. But Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) made segregation legal throughout the nation. It may not legally have been on the books in much of the North but it wasn't forbidden either and there was much de facto segregation (i.e. redlining) and white superiority held true everywhere. During the 1920s, Indiana was as powerful for the KKK as anywhere in the South. Overall, feel free to disagree if you must but I'm trying to be balanced with racial views in the North and South and that it wasn't "one side treats them good while the other doesn't."
 
I try not to get too involved but I feel like this glamorizes the North a bit much. Did the South do all those bad things, yes. But slavery was not really a Southern thing until after the Revolution. So you can say that northern slaveholders were guilty of all those things too. And even after abolition, blacks had little to no rights in the North until after the Civil War, especially from the 1830s following Nat Turner's rebellion. Free blacks were highly restricted with their voting rights, what jobs could hold, what education they could pursue, etc. Flash forward to after the Civil War, blacks and whites were still not treated equally anywhere. Not in the North, not in the South, nowhere. Now the South royally loses points for undoing much of the progress granted to African Americans during the Reconstruction era. But Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) made segregation legal throughout the nation. It may not legally have been on the books in much of the North but it wasn't forbidden either and there was much de facto segregation (i.e. redlining) and white superiority held true everywhere. During the 1920s, Indiana was as powerful for the KKK as anywhere in the South. Overall, feel free to disagree if you must but I'm trying to be balanced with racial views in the North and South and that it wasn't "one side treats them good while the other doesn't."
My comments speak for themselves. You are suggesting a form of moral relativism that is used to blur distinctions, so that everything is equal. I had a Black Communist professor who argued there was no moral difference between the U.S. and Nazi Germany, because it made no difference to Black Americans who won the war. Supporters of the Soviets made relativistic arguments all through the Cold War. Slave holders claimed they treated their slaves better then Northern industrial workers were treated by their employers. These kind of arguments invariably compare Apples & Oranges. An injustice in one society is no better, or worse then one in another.

Human beings make subjective moral judgements everyday. There is a huge moral difference between the North, that was slowly making progress on racial equality, and the South which was willing to fight a war to make slavery permanent. Post war the South was clearly the part of the country most resistant to advancing racial equality. The governor of NY didn't stand in the doorway of a school, and shout "Segregation now, segregation forever." Other parts of the country have had terrible racial violence, but the South was the center of the resistance movement against the Civil Rights Movement.

None of this is to say the people of the North have any moral superiority over the people of the South. Slavery, and race became a particular moral blind spot, for people who should have known better.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now from that you get men with black, or brown skin have no God given rights, and can be breed, bought, sold, and work under the lash, like animals. It would be hard to argue the failure to live up to the promise of racial equality after the Civil War is morally equivalent to slavery. Not many African Americans would trade the discrimination they may have faced in their lives for a life in slavery.
 
Last edited:
Top