Let's not derail the thread here fellas. If you guys want to go back and forth, kindly do so in PM so the rest of us can just enjoy the TL. Thanks.
This is stupid. There's no reason for Gettysburg--much less the freak death of Reynolds, to happen in an ATL.Chapter Four: Gettysburg, Day 1As what began a skirmish began heating up into a full fledged battle, both sides began requesting reinforcements, with the Confederates managing to bring more sooner, with Trimble bringing up the rest of his division to help in the battle. This help drive back Buford's cavalry, but Buford still had one last trick up his sleeve. While he and his men had been putting up their brave and valiant stand, they had been buying time for John Reynolds and his I Corps to come to their support, which would shift the battle back into their favor. By trading lives for time, Buford was able to hold out long enough for Reynolds to arrive. With his arrival, the battle now shifted into the favor of the Union. Buford and Reynolds planned to exploit this by pushing their troops forward and breaking the Confederate lines. Just prior to the plan being put in motion, however, a sniper would fatally shoot John Buford through the heart, with his limp body falling into the arms of Reynolds. Reynolds would then turn to Myles Keogh of Buford's staff, and reportedly say "I fear the same will befall me today." before removing a necklace with a cross attached and handing to him, asking that it be returned to his fiancee Katherine Hewitt after his death. Despite his fatalistic beliefs, Reynolds would still order the attack, and ride at the front lines with the men of the Iron Brigade as they advanced. Before the attack could truly commence, however, Reynolds would be proven correct, and would be fatally shot from his horse, with some believing he was killed by the same man who killed Buford. Unfortunately for Reynolds' hope of his necklace returning to his fiancee, Keogh would also be killed in these opening actions, still clasping the necklace in his hand.
Union Generals John Buford and John Reynolds observe their lines, and plan their assault on Confederate lines.
With Reynolds' death, command of the I Corps, and of the field would devolve to Abner Doubleday. While by no means a terrible or incompetent general, Doubleday would lose his nerve after Reynolds' fall, and put a halt to the advance of the I Corps, pulling back to their former position, and would await the VI Corps' arrival, bringing a battle to a temporarily lull. By the time the XI Corps arrived and joined the Doubleday's defensive position, more Confederate troops also arrived on the field, with D.H. Hill's division coming in from the west, and A.P. Hill's division coming in from the north, with Early's and Rodes' divisions not far behind him. The fighting would begin once more, with all the Confederate forces on the field beginning an assault all along the Union line. Initially, the Union line was able to hold out against the attacks from Trimble's and D.H. Hill's divisions in the west, and A.P. Hill's division in the north, but the tables soon turned. Lee arrived on the field with Hood's division from the west, superseding Longstreet in command of the Confederate forces, with Jackson arriving on the field soon after with Early's and Rodes' divisions in such a way that they would be able to crush the Union right. With two whole corps on the field, Lee ordered Jackson to use Early's and Rodes' divisions to crush the Union right, while the rest of his men on the field tied down the Union line. The order was enacted, and Jackson led yet another brutal flank on the VI Corps, once again crushing it, and sending it, along with the rest of the Union line, into utter rout. While riding near the front lines of the action with General Early, Jackson would point out how many of the senior Union officers on the field were abolitionists, including Howard, Doubleday, Wadsworth, Robinson, Schurz, and Barlow. Early's response was simple, "All the more reason to crush them!" This they did, and the Union line fell back through Gettysburg itself towards the hills south of the town.
A romanticized and inaccurate depiction of Reynolds' death
Hearing of Reynolds' death, and the disastrous rout of the Union lines, Meade would send General Winfield S. Hancock in advance to assume command of the battlefield to try and stabilize the Union lines. Upon arriving on the field, Hancock would find Union troops streaming back in disarray towards the south. Seeing how great a defensive position the hills south of Gettysburg were, Hancock tried to organize a stand of the routing troops there. He had two things going against him though. First, the Confederates were continuing to push their advance, and second, General Howard was refusing to acknowledging that Hancock, who was his junior in rank, had been given command of the field. Ultimately, the dispute would be settled when Hancock rode forward towards the Confederate lines, trying desperately to rally the Union forces on the hills, only to have a Confederate cannon shot come and behead him. Major Willie Pegram, commander of the artillery battalion who fired the fatal shot, would comment following the news of Hancock's death, "If only he would have waited. The shot that killed him was the last of our ammunition." With Hancock's death, any hope of stablizing the Union lines was shattered. Jackson would seize command of the hills south of Gettysburg, and would soon be joined by Longstreet's men, and finally Thomas' men at the end of day. Howard moved the remaining Union troops to the east of these hills, and waited for the rest of the Army of the Potomac to arrive. During the night, the rest of the Army of the Potomac and George Meade would arrive, and Lee would organize his forces so that Longstreet's corps held Benner's, Culp's, and Cemetery Hill, Thomas held Cemetery Ridge, and Jackson held Round Top and Little Round Top. Both forces could only nervously await the action that was sure to arrive with the next day.
Confederate troops pushing back the Union soldiers through Gettysburg
General Winfield S. Hancock and Major Willie Pegram
Chattel slavery based on race existed for about 300 years, with a few exceptions Spartan Helots for eg. Not the whole of human history., and whatever its fauklts the Roman model was different than the Plantation model. The 2 should NOT be conflated as if they were identical.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.
I don't recall ever saying they were. But the point still remains that for over 4,000 years people were owned by others and made to work. A slave in Rome may be able to go buy wine but I'm fairly sure if said slave made a go at jumping onto the nearest ship he or she wouldn't be happy if they were returned. This, of course, has next to nothing to do with the timeline so I'll leave it at that. We don't need this flooding with this nonsense anymore then we already have.Chattel slavery based on race existed for about 300 years, with a few exceptions Spartan Helots for eg. Not the whole of human history., and whatever its faults the Roman model was different than the Plantation model. The two should NOT be conflated as if they were identical.
Chapter Thirty-Three: The Beginning of the Confederate-American WarDespite 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, and John Logan also among them.
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
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 519134View attachment 519135
The Leaders of the Peace Republicans in the Senate: Garfield, Blaine, Hamlin, Edmunds, Dawes, Hoar, Sherman, Trumbull, and Logan
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.
Benjamin Tillman, Roger Q. Mills, John T. Morgan, and Matthew C. Butler
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."
Ulysses S. Grant and John Pegram
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.
Major General Benjamin Butler and General-in-Chief William T. Sherman
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.
Stonewall Jackson and Edmund Kirby Smith
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
Because the ANV was too dispersed. Lee feared his army could be destroyed piecemeal by the Army of the Potomac. At the time Baldly Ewell's Corps was approaching Harrisburg, Lee believed the Army of the Potomac was still near the Rappahannock, in Virginia. In fact they were nearing the Pennsylvania line. Lee had no choice but to order a concentration of the army to confront the head of the advancing Union Army, which he hoped to destroy piecemeal. Gettysburg was a good point for the concentration, because it was a road hub for his troops coming from the East, North, and West. Jackson's Corps was too weak to do what you suggest, and would been put at great risk if it confronted half of the Union Army, by it's self. Taking Harrisburg would be a difficult, time consuming operation, because it's on the other side of the wide Susquehanna River, with the crossings guarded by the Pennsylvania Militia, armed with a good deal of artillery.Why didn't Lee march on Harrisburg while having Jackson feint towards Washington?
After 1854 the British made no effort to gain control of Hawaii. Hawaii was under sold American domination, by the 1870's. By the 1850's the U.S. already considered the British holding Hawaii a threat to the West Coast, and wanted to lease Pearl Harbor. Your falling into a fallacy that if a president isn't thinking about something it loses it's importance to the country. American interests in Hawaii had a strong influence in Congress, which wouldn't accept a British Invasion of the Islands. Again the British long ago gave up on the idea of taking Hawaii, and didn't think it was worth a major confrontation with the United States, which considered Hawaii a dependency for decades. This is just something coming out of Left Field, it's not plausable.Chapter Thirty-Four: HawaiiEver since the discovery of Hawaii by Captain James Cook in 1778, the island nation had the attention of Europe and the Western World due to the high value of its sugar exports. Despite this, Hawaii would maintain self-governance by the natives. This was to change in the 1800s. Three main countries were interested in bringing Hawaii under their sphere of influence: Great Britain, the United States, and the Confederacy. Of these three nations, the Confederates would be the first to abandon the dream. Originally interested due to their island's large sugar plantations, their interest was lost due to several factors. First, the party interested in expanding the CSA's plantation system, the Democrats, failed to gain control over the executive branch, leaving it in the hands of the Liberty Party, who were not interested in giving the plantation system they were trying to stop a new home. Secondly, the CSA had quite the limited navy, with almost all of it be concentrated in the defense of their trade with Central and South America. The U.S. would be the second nation to abandon the idea. Originally, it seemed that they might indeed by the nation to make Hawaii their puppet, as President Sickles was very pro-expansion. Their were even rumors that Sickles was making plans to militarily invade and claim Hawaii during his last year in office. The fall of Sickles and the Democratic Party from power, however, would see Republicans taking control of the country, with Presidents Hazen and Garfield showing little interest, and Conkling having to focus on the Confederate-American War. This left Britain to come in and try to take control. They, however, would bid their time and wait for the best opportunity. This opportunity would arrive with the death of Hawaii's current king, William Charles Lunalilo. He failed to choose an heir before his death, which would leave it to Hawaii's legislature to elect their next monarch. The two main candidates were politician and member of the late king's staff, David Kalākaua, and the woman many thought Lunalilo wanted to be his heir, Queen Dowager Emma. Britain would approach Kalākaua, offering him their support if he would create a board of advisers consisting of men of their choosing. Seeing this as necessary to securing his victory, Kalākaua agreed, and he was subsquently elected the new king of Hawaii.
Honolulu in 1888
Following his agreement, Kalākaua would create a board of advisers consisting of men who had immigrated to Hawaii from Western powers, particularly the United States, or who were viewed as potentially interested in annexation as selected by Great Britain. Among the members were Charles R. Bishop, Lorrin Thurston, Sanford Dole, Charles B. Wilson, Peter C. Jones, Arthur P. Peterson, and Robert W. Wilcox. Unfortunately for Kalākaua and the native Hawaiian, this board often gave advice that would be favorable to the Western powers. Often times, Kalākaua wanted to ignore the advice and dissolve the board altogether, but he feared retribution from the British. Soon, the natives of the island grew to hate the board which seemed to control the nation, and talks of rebellion began to rise.
Kings William Charles Lunalilo and David Kalākaua
Eventually, in 1884, the rebellion long suspected occurred. Lead by Liliʻuokalani and her husband John Owen Dominis, an American immigrant, they wanted to dissolve the board of advisers, depose Kalākaua, appoint Liliʻuokalani as their island's new ruler, and expel all foreign influence from the island. The rebellion had much popular support, and at first, it seemed like it might topple Kalākaua's monarchy, but then the British forces arrived. Bringing gunboats and well-trained soldiers, the rebellion stood no chance. Roughly one year after their rebellion started, both Liliʻuokalani and Dominis were apprehended and executed. Despite the execution of the main leaders of the rebellion, small pockets of rebels still fought on, but not with the same effect as before. The British, however, would cite the continuing rebellion and instability as proof of Kalākaua inability as leader, causing them to force his resignation from the throne in 1886, with them appointing Thurston as the new governor of the islands, with him allowing them to formally annexed into the British Empire shortly there after. Some European powers thought that the United States or Confederacy would oppose this due to the Monroe Doctrine, but both of the major powers of the Western Hempshire were too distracted by the Confederate-American War to intervene.View attachment 520741View attachment 520742
Charles R. Bishop, Lorrin Thurston, Sanford Dole, Charles B. Wilson, Peter C. Jones, Arthur P. Peterson, and Robert W. Wilcox
Photographs taken of Liliʻuokalani and John Owen Dominis in their finest dress, with the pictures being shot just before their execution
While that may be true if OTL maybe a chapter covering how or why they may want it could make it more plausible. I'm not saying what you said is wrong but I feel that having the CSA exist may make them rethink their views on the small kingdom, if only a little.After 1854 the British made no effort to gain control of Hawaii. Hawaii was under American domination, by the 1870s. By the 1850's the U.S. already considered the British holding Hawaii a threat to the West Coast, and wanted to lease Pearl Harbor. Your falling into a fallacy that if a president isn't thinking about something it loses it's importance to the country. American interests in Hawaii had a strong influence in Congress, which wouldn't accept a British Invasion of the Islands. Again the British long ago gave up on the idea of taking Hawaii and didn't think it was worth a major confrontation with the United States, which considered Hawaii a dependency for decades. This is just something coming out of Left Field, it's not plausible.
With all do respect why would the CSA make a difference? The CSA wouldn't have significant Pacific interests. If the British didn't want to confront the U.S. in 1854 over Hawaii why would they suddenly decide 30 years later it was worth it? In that time U.S. investment increased many fold, and far out weighed that of the British. American planters were politicly dominant in the Islands, and the U.S. considered them strategically important. The British didn't, and were only interested in upholding their commercial, and trading interests. The U.S. was far more powerful in 1884, then in 1854. Anglo/American mutual trade, and investment is far greater in 1884 then during the Civil War, which goes a long way to explain why Britain wouldn't want a needless confrontation in 1884, or be pro Confederacy in 1885. Gladstone was interested in defending the trade route to India, and confronting the Russians in Asia, not provoking a conflict with the USA in the North Pacific.While that may be true if OTL maybe a chapter covering how or why they may want it could make it more plausible. I'm not saying what you said is wrong but I feel that having the CSA exist may make them rethink their views on the small kingdom, if only a little.
For the basic fact that the CSA wanted it for themselves. You seem to be viewing this in our world's history but again this is 1885 ITTL. Also as we all know the British loved their empire making and gaining Hawaii could be useful for their Pacific interests. I'm sure they had a few and if not Hawaii could act as a naval base/supply depo and post world war 1 an airbase. So Maybe the fact that both the US and the CSA tried to gain the small kingdom may...MAY make them rethink their views on it. Was the queen still around or had she dead by this point?With all due respect, why would the CSA make a difference? The CSA wouldn't have significant Pacific interests. If the British didn't want to confront the U.S. in 1854 over Hawaii why would they suddenly decide 30 years later it was worth it? In that time U.S. investment increased many fold and far outweighed that of the British. American planters were politicly dominant in the Islands, and the U.S. considered them strategically important. The British didn't and were only interested in upholding their commercial, and trading interests. The U.S. was far more powerful in 1884, then in 1854. Anglo/American mutual trade, and investment is far greater in 1884 than during the Civil War, which goes a long way to explain why Britain wouldn't want a needless confrontation in 1884 or be pro-Confederacy in 1885. Gladstone was interested in defending the trade route to India, and confronting the Russians in Asia, not provoking a conflict with the USA in the North Pacific.
boy if Jackson is older than Lee was in 1965 that is quite amazing (on both counts)Butler had a poor record in the Civil War, and in 1885 he's 66 years old. There are many more competent, younger generals to chose from. Sherman is also too old for a field command, at 65. He'd retired as commanding general of the army the year before. A field command would be a step down for him, and a more demanding job for a man his age. He might have recommended general McPherson, for the job. Both Grant, and Sherman considered him the best general they had, and wanted him as a replacement if ether of them were killed. At 57 he could still be fit to command a field army. In 1885 Phil Sheridan was the Commanding General of the U.S. Army, but since the war was cut short he didn't get to show his talents in high command.
On the Confederate side Jackson is a bit long in the tooth at 61, to command a field army. He'd be older then Lee was in 1965. Kirby Smith is also 61. Joe Johnston is 78 which is just beyond the pale. He'd be older then Winfield Scott was in 1861. Scott was an exceptional general, one of the best in American history, but he was well past his prime. I understand you want to use familiar personalities but it's long over due for both sides to turn their armies over to the next generation of soldiers. The generals in this war should be men who were captains in the Civil War. Commanding a field army in a pre Meccanized age is extremely taxing on the mind, and body. Remember what Napoleon said, "We have but a short time for war."
Ok in this timeline the Civil War still ended in 1865. The United States was already the dominate power in the Islands. The CSA has no Pacific coast, or bases on the pacific. The only way the CSA can have any influence in the Islands would be if the USA allowed it, and there would be no sane reason to do that. After 1875 the U.S. had a virtual monopoly on the sugar trade, which was the economic life blood of the Islands. The USN had the rights to Pearl Harbor, and the North Pacific Squadron patrolled the Islands, guarded Alaska, Midway Island, which was also developed as a base, and the trade routes to Asia.For the basic fact that the CSA wanted it for themselves. You seem to be viewing this in our world's history but again this is 1885 ITTL. Also as we all know the British loved their empire making and gaining Hawaii could be useful for their Pacific interests. I'm sure they had a few and if not Hawaii could act as a naval base/supply depo and post world war 1 an airbase. So Maybe the fact that both the US and the CSA tried to gain the small kingdom may...MAY make them rethink their views on it. Was the queen still around or had she dead by this point?
True I can't see an 83-year-old man in the field of battle yelling out orders no matter who he was. A younger man should have been used in his place. But that is a small nitpick on what is an otherwise nice story.Just to bring up a point Isaac Trimble would be 83yrs old in 1885. George H. Steuart would have made a better choice. I do enjoy what I have read so far.