39. The Killing Fields
  • 39. The Killing Fields

    “Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the wealthiest men in the south, growing rich not only from the Mississippi plantations he owned, but also the slave trading business he founded in Memphis. The civil war interfered with his slave trading endeavors, and the fact that Mississippi and Tennessee were on opposite sides of the war didn’t help his finances. After the war, Forrest sold his trading business and moved south to Vicksburg, where he had purchased land next to Jefferson Davis’s Hurricane Plantation [1].

    Forrest’s fortunes recovered as his network of plantations returned to profitability, and he took to improving his Vicksburg plantation, named Carnation. The main house was expanded into a mansion that Jefferson Davis once described in a letter as a “Moorish monstrosity”, and two guest houses were constructed. Forrest read journals on “scientific racism”, becoming particularly interested in the made-up condition of “drapetomania” that Samuel Cartwright claimed was a mental disorder that caused slaves to escape [2]. In 1877, Forrest decided that if he rebuilt his slave quarters at Carnation to model his idea of an “African village,” it would make his slaves feel at home and induce them to stay. This consisted of mud-brick huts with thatched roofs that were generally poorer shelter than even the previous wooden shacks [3]. Jefferson Davis found the endeavour “amusing” and replaced his own slave quarters with similar “African huts,” and the trend quickly spread throughout the plantations of the Mississippi delta.

    The decision by Maryland to abolish slavery, as well as Virginia’s constitution that not only abolished slavery but sought to dismantle as thoroughly as possible the old plantocracy, troubled Forrest. “If even the Old Dominion and other noble southern states have moved towards radicalism, this bodes ill for our southern way of life in Mississippi,” he wrote to a friend. “I have no doubt that the negroes here will become restless – even if word doesn’t spread, the abolition up in Richmond will be a miasma, the stench of blacks rampaging about in the Tidewater will subconsciously infect the blacks here.”

    This was the backdrop for the Red Delta.

    On June 3rd, 1879, a warm and unusually dry day, one of the guest houses at Carnation caught fire and burned down, killing one of Forrest’s friends. Forrest, described as “generally mild-mannered unless provoked, flew into a rage when he heard of the fire. “His face was red with fury,” his son wrote. “He paced about in a frenzy.” The next day, Forrest assembled a posse of several dozen armed men and rode into the slave quarters. Each hut was ruthlessly searched as the confused and worried slaves looked on. “It was like a small army had invaded the village,” Forrest’s son recalled in his memoirs. “Negroes old and young milled about while the militiamen searched for weapons and evidence. There was a preponderance of it.” His son was lying, however – though Forrest loudly proclaimed from horseback that “kegs of powder, dozens of rifles, hundreds of bullets, all the trappings of a slave insurrection” were discovered, there is no evidence that any such plot or weapons cache existed.

    Forrest and his men seized the male occupants of the hut where the weapons were discovered, as well as the male occupants of two neighbouring huts. “Here are the arsonists, the murders, the savage barbarians who seek to kill every last white man in the union,” Forrest declared, gesturing at the bound men with his sabre. Forrest decided that erecting gallows would take too long and, dragging the captives to a cotton barn, proceeded to hold a kangaroo court [4]. The “evidence” was presented and, without hearing from the defendants, Forrest sentenced them to death by firing squad. Before the slaves could properly protest, the militiamen were already dragging them outside. Forrest ordered their heads placed on pikes near the African village, saying “let this be a warning to all would-be insurrectionists: failure death is your only fate. We will not be replaced, our superior position cannot and will not be usurped.”

    After the horrid display of violence, things seemed to have calmed down and Forrest’s son relates that he “had calmed considerably since that apoplectic fury.” Then, a week after the executions, an overseer at Jefferson Davis’s Hurricane plantation was found dead in the cotton fields. While his death was likely due to heatstroke, Davis claimed that it was clear evidence of a percolating slave insurrection. He quickly rode to Carnation with his family and three guards to warn Forrest. This time, Forrest did not fly into a rage. “His face was full of grim determination, and he was calm as he informed us: ‘it is us or them now.’” He sent out a call for volunteers for a “militia to restore tranquillity,” and hundreds answered the call. The militia that Forrest assembled was little more than a mob, hungering for violence. Forrest and his posse started at Hurricane plantation, where they surrounded the slave quarters [5]. From his horse, Forrest accused them of harboring insurrectionists, the killers of the overseer, and demanded that they be handed over. The confused and terrified slaves began to murmur among themselves. The murmur rose into a panic as some slaves pleaded for mercy while others ran around trying to find an avenue of escape.

    Deciding that enough time had been wasted, one of Forrest’s men shot and killed a young man and wounded his wife and father. As some slaves tried to make a run for it, Forrest declared that they were “if not insurrectionists, sympathizers to the black barbarians and just as guilty.” He ordered them all seized, and his frenzied mob surged forward. One enslaved man attempting to flee was shot in the back, and then Forrest’s men opened fire, shooting their weapons indiscriminately. Some, worried about friendly fire, started hacking about with knives and axes. As the killing reached a crescendo, slaves sought refuge inside the huts. In response, Forrest ordered them burned down, with the slaves still inside. While a few managed to escape, most of the survivors were put through a kangaroo court and shot. Over 315 enslaved people were killed in the Hurricane massacre, but amid the chaos, rumors spread of a slave insurrection and other white mobs formed, going from plantation to plantation and killing innocent men, women, and children. By the end of June, nearly 800 enslaved people had been killed, their rotting bodies piled up beside the roads.

    News of the massacres was broken in the north by the New-York Tribune, which published reports of “vicious murders of negroes in the Delta Country of Mississippi,” based on the account of a northern businessman who had stopped at the Vicksburg railway station. Further evidence was furnished by the Pennsylvanian Advocate, which relied upon the eyewitness testimony of two slaves at Hurricane. Isaiah Montgomery [6], and Benjamin T. Green. Montgomery, the only literate one of the pair, relayed to the Advocate the harrowing tale of the indiscriminate killings at Hurricane and throughout the Delta, and how he and Green managed to just barely elude Forrest’s posse. The article closed with the lines “this orgy of race-killing has drenched the delta in the blood of the innocent. Col. Forrest is little more than a barbarian blinded by bloodlust.” Days later, the Advocate also published photographs of Forrest and his mob standing by the burned slave quarters and corpses that were taken by a northern amateur photographer.

    The north was outraged by the month-long killing spree. In the Senate, James Blaine furiously condemned slavery, claiming that “the pretension that the white man is superior to, and entitled to ownership of, the negro is a corrosive one. It reduces men to the level of beasts. Just as the bodies of the slain putrefy the wells of the Mississippi delta, the vitriol in their killers putrefy the values, the moral fiber, of our Republic. It is more than a crime; it is a stain on what we hold dear as Americans.” Others were even more blunt, with James Garfield calling Forrest “one of the worst, most savage bloodletters in civilization.” President Hendricks remained largely silent except to condemn the “unbecoming brutality” of Forrest’s mob. In a startling breach of decorum, Whig senators loudly booed Senator Edmund Pettus when he rose to defend Forrest as “acting swiftly and decisively to crush a real slave plot.” Roscoe Conkling yelled out “you lie! The blood of the slain is on your hands just as much as it is on theirs’!”

    The prospect of abolishing slavery had seemed radical to many northerners before news of the Red Delta broke. But after, abolition was increasingly seen as the only way to end the violence and human rights abuses of black southerners. If only it were that simple…”

    From CHAINS BROKEN, CHAINS SHACKLED by Edward Northam, published 2011

    “And to those who say that the Red Delta massacre is who we are as a nation, that all of our sacred values and lofty ideals can be distilled down to the base, thuggish, contemptible savagery of a bunch of racists. To those who tar the entire country, your country, and my country, as no better than a vile tragedy from a hundred and fifty years ago, who claim that tragedy as grounds to erase every good thing that’s ever happened here, let me say this: regardless of the past, regardless of the suffering of generations past, we as a nation have taken great strides towards equality, towards justice, towards freedom. Perhaps the greatest testament to the greatness of this nation is that all that came before us is not who we are now [7].”

    -Senator Thad Marshall (W-Neb.) delivering the keynote address at the 2020 WNC, July 14th, 2020

    [1] OTL it belonged to his brother, TTL Jefferson inherits it after his brother’s death.
    [2] This is both insane and 100% real. I couldn’t make this stuff up.
    [3] This just seems like, amid lots of revivalist architecture, what slavers with too much ill-gotten money would do.
    [4] Funnily enough, the term kangaroo court was mentioned in American newspapers as early as either 1853 or 1841.
    [5] Similar to the opening of OTL’s Fort Pillow Massacre, where Forrest led troops in massacring Union POWs, many of whom were black.
    [6] The son of Benjamin Montgomery, a slave of Joseph Davis who Davis taught to read and write and made him a trusted overseer/manager of the plantation. His son Isaiah was also taught to read and write.
    [7] Taken from the (great) song this chapter’s title is taken from, The Killing Fields by Rosanne Cash.
     
    40. Geopolitical Shifts
  • 40. Geopolitical Shifts

    “While Mazzini had long desired to incorporate the Two Sicilies into the Republic, the Liberals were less keen on the idea. They still wanted to annex Lombardy and Venice, but those were mercantile, industrial regions. The Two Sicilies was seen as a backwards agrarian country (it had a literacy rate of 13%, compared to the Republic’s literacy rate of 49%), and while the Liberals made noises about fully unifying the peninsula, they viewed incorporating a “barbaric” land like the Two Sicilies as a difficult task that wasn’t worth the effort.

    The Two Sicilies, meanwhile, was in a period of upheaval. The global economic downturn that began in 1877 hit the country’s agrarian economy hard. The peasantry, already saddled with much of the tax burden and high rent, were forced further into poverty. As agricultural exports dried up and taxes raised to keep the government solvent, peasant strikes broke out in eastern Sicily. Peasants formed associations known as Fasci to coordinate their protests, following the example of urban trade unions. In June of 1878, a peasant conference issued a series of demands to the landowners in the form of a contract. When the landowners refused to negotiate, the peasants went on strike and also refused to pay their onerous tax burden. The Fasci also petitioned King Francis II, with the understanding that these injustices were only happening because the King did not know about them, and he would rectify them upon learning of them. In reality, Francis refused to act and demanded that the payment of taxes resume. The next month, miners in Agrigento went on strike.

    The Sicilian ruling elite became terrified that the much-feared “upheaval” had arrived. King Francis II ordered troops to suppress the strikes and force the strikers back to work. This only intensified the struggle and by the end of August, much of Sicily was in rebellion. Into the chaos stepped Menotti Garibaldi, who was almost as talented as his illustrious father, and equally as ardent a believer in Italian nationalism. Garibaldi assembled a force of some 750 in Genoa and departed for Marsala with a tacit French escort. On September 24th, Garibaldi captured the town of Salemi and declared himself the provisional leader of Sicily in the name of Rome’s Mazzinist consul Giovanni Nicotera. Nicotera was aware of Garibaldi’s expedition and had tacitly supplied him with arms and ships for the undertaking. Garibaldi also received support from the government of the Piedmontese Republic [1].

    After defeating a company of Sicilian troops at Calatafimi, Garibaldi proceeded east quickly, as the greatest unrest was in the east. His plan was to take much of the restive countryside and then besiege Palermo. His proclamations promising land reform and the easement of the tax burden won his army thousands of volunteers from the Fasci. The defending garrison of Palermo was weakened from troops being reassigned to suppressing the peasant revolts, leaving just 6,000 men to hold the city. Over the course of four days, Garibaldi steadily advanced through the city, forcing its defenders into a steady retreat. By October 11th, much of Palermo was taken and Garibaldi declared the King’s authority deposed. Sicilian troops were hastily moved from the east to Palermo to try and retake it, but this only allowed the Fasci to seize control of the countryside. Garibaldi recruited brigands with promises of land reform, further growing his army.

    As the government in Naples lost control of Sicily, Consul Nicotera, with the approval of the nationalist-majority Assembly, demanded that Francis II accept Sicilian independence. Francis II refused, confident that the United Kingdom would support him against the radical nationalists. Nicotera, meanwhile, was confident that President Ollivier of France would support him. Thus, on June 2nd, 1879, Roman troops crossed the border into the Two Sicilies. The weakened border guards were quickly overwhelmed as the invaders bore down on Naples.

    The Roman intervention sparked an international crisis. The United Kingdom had positioned itself as the Two Sicilies’ main ally [2], and Prime Minister Gladstone dispatched the Royal Navy to blockade Palermo and warn the Republic against further advances. Austria too mobilized its forces along the border with the Republic. President Ollivier intervened on behalf of the Roman Republic, warning Austria against invading. Amid the crisis, King Frederick III of Prussia offered to mediate a peaceful resolution in Berlin, with the conference set for June 17th.

    Britain and Austria demanded that the Republic cease its invasion and that Garibaldi retreat from Sicily. This was rebuffed by the Republic, who insisted that Garibaldi was simply helping end “gross abuses” of the Sicilian peasantry. As tensions mounted, France began to waver in their support for Rome, and Ollivier attempted to persuade Nicotera to back down. After another failed round of negotiation on the 20th, Nicotera met privately with Ollivier with a proposed compromise: Rome would end its intervention in the Two Sicilies in exchange for being allowed to annex the Piedmontese Republic. To secure French support, Nicotera promised to cede Savoy to France. Sicily would be run by a joint Sicilian-Roman council of eight men, with Garibaldi as Rome’s chief delegate to said council. The land reform promises made by Garibaldi would be carried out, but not in the rest of the Kingdom. The German Confederation would provide a neutral security apparatus and act as a tiebreaker, while all Sicilian ports would be completely demilitarized. Britain and France could each send observer delegates to the Sicilian council. When this compromise was proposed to the conference, it was reluctantly accepted, and the Treaty of Berlin made the agreement official.

    Garibaldi, using his volunteer army, quickly carried out the promised land reform, with only occasional violence. He was popular with many peasants and loathed as a conquering radical by the now-diminished landowner class. Despite the land reform, rule by international council proved ineffectual, and brigandage remained a festering problem. The chaos left by the Roman invasion of Neapolitan Sicily, meanwhile, caused brigandage to surge and plunge much of the countryside into violence. As a result, a massive wave of emigration began, with most of the 1.2 million emigrants going to Argentina [3]. Thus, King Francis was left with little control of his kingdom outside of the large mainland cities, while the enlarged Roman Republic, renaming itself the Italian Republic, stood as the dominant power on the peninsula…”

    -From THE GRAND CONSENSUS: EUROPE 1815-1898 by Rebecca Gardner, published 2001

    “The long streak of moderate governance in France had generated enormous economic growth, but the expanding industrial working class began to chafe under the pro-business outlook of both the Moderate Republicans and the Party of Order. The global recession had collapsed the French railroad bubble, leading to a general stock market crash in the summer of 1878 and the failure of L’Union Generale bank. The depression left thousands unemployed, and industrial concerns began to cut wages to stay open. While the unemployed protested a lack of government assistance, workers protested wage cuts. These protests often deteriorated into riots, such as when Paris and Lyon were rocked by three days of labor unrest in August.

    By 1880, the poor economy had yet to let up, and the strikes and riots continued sporadically. Fed up with the inaction of his party, Moderate Republican deputy Leon Gambetta formed a splinter party in 1879, the Radical Union. Joined by supporters from within the Moderates as well as the socialist and radical minor parties, Gambetta formed a formidable left-wing coalition with which to contest the 1880 elections. The weakened Moderate Republicans selected Charles de Freycinet, the able prime minister. However, Freycinet’s moderate politics did little to appeal to the departed Radicals. The Party of Order was in decline due to the rightward shift of the Moderates, and nominated the aged monarchist Frederic de Falloux, a supporter of religious education.

    Gambetta ran on a sweeping platform: the legalization of trade unions, a ten-hour workday, a national pension scheme and workplace injury fund, and the direct election of mayors and some civil servants. Against two uninspiring, conservative opponents, Gambetta won a strong victory in December, defeating Freycinet and Falloux 51-34-11. In the legislative elections, the Radical Union won a majority of 378 seats out of 705. Operating under Gambetta’s Belleville Program, the new government set about implementing its far-reaching agenda. The legalization of trade unions, the implementation of a ten-hour workday, and the passage of the National Pension Program set France at the fore of the European nations.”

    -From THE REPUBLIC: A HISTORY OF MODERN FRANCE by Eric Young, published 2003

    “Under Frederick III, Prussian society continued to gradually modernize. The Landtag took on greater influence in crafting the budget, including a string of military budgets that greatly modernized the army [4] and funded an expansion of the Prussian Baltic fleet [5]. Dominated by the German Progress Party during the 1860s, the House of Representatives generally got along with Minister-President Karl Anton von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (who returned to the office in 1863). As the country industrialized, the old, landowner-dominated Conservative Party lost ground. Though it often formed the single largest party, the Conservatives were frequently outvoted by broad coalitions of the more numerous liberal and left-wing parties. In 1870, National Liberal Party, led by Max von Forckenbeck, secured 124 seats to the Conservatives’ 94. The left-wing German Progress Party won 51 seats, while the Conservatives bled votes to the industrialist-conservative Free Conservatives, who sided with the Liberals on matters of free trade and industrial development.

    The new House had a nearly two-thirds majority of liberal parties, and shortly after the new Landtag convened, Minister-President von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen announced his retirement from the position that he had held for a decade.

    Frederick, who harbored his own liberal inclinations, appointed the moderate Liberal leader Max von Forckenbeck as Minister-President. The former mayor of Breslau, Forckenbeck had worked to improve the education system and develop local infrastructure. His ascension to Minister-President was welcomed by many of his colleagues, and he sought to strengthen Prussian industry, and Prussian influence in the Zollverein customs union. One of the first acts of his ministry was the consolidation of Prussia’s myriad Notenbanken (Note Banks) into a central Reichsbank, which issued a single national currency, the Goldmark. He also implemented another crucial element of German monetary policy when, in 1874, he successfully renegotiated the 1857 Vienna Coinage Treaty. Forckenbeck secured the assent of Austria and the other minor states of the German Confederation to tying the three currencies within the Zollverein to the gold standard. This eased currency exchanges and provided greater monetary stability. He also negotiated the entry of Hamburg and Bremen into the Zollverein, placing all of the German states within the customs union.

    During the depression of the late 1870s, the Liberals refused to implement tariffs, temporarily harming their popularity. However, as the European economy recovered during the mid-1880s, Prussia used its surviving free-trade agreements to flood newly eager European markets with Prussian-made industrial goods, establishing Prussia and the Zollverein as a whole as economic titans, rivalling Britain, and France. By the time Forckenbeck retired in 1886, Prussia was rising as the dominant power within the Confederation and the Zollverein, as the increasingly intertwined German economy drew the disparate states within closer together, and closer to Prussia…”

    -From THE PRUSSIAN MODEL by John Harper, published 1998

    “…prevalent anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States often focused in on the Irish. As a result, Argentine recruiters were able to steer many Irish seeking to emigrate towards Argentina. Irish community leaders helped by encouraging Argentina as an emigration destination. Under President Roca, immigration fueled a large economic boom that was slowed but not halted by the worldwide downturn [6]. Between 1830 and 1890, over 750,000 Irish immigrated to Argentina [7], helping fuel its eventual rise as a leading regional power…”

    -From ARGENTINA: A MODERN HISTORY by Jessica Harvey, published 2011

    “…the 1876 arrest and execution of 57 American citizens aboard the Habana [8], a fast merchant ship hired by Cuban rebels. The Habana had been stopped and searched by a Spanish corvette and, upon discovering a hold full of weapons bound for the rebels, seized the ship, and charged its crew with piracy. 57 of the crewmen were executed amid growing international outrage. Many newspapers in the United States called for war with Spain, while the Hendricks administration tried to find a diplomatic solution. Secretary of State Rosecrans [9] was highly inexperienced and demanded the return of the ship and surviving crew, $10,000 in reparations per executed crewman, a salute from Spain of the American flag, and “harsh punishment” for the perpetrators. Negotiations grew heated and Spain refused to budge. The Spanish government found that the American ambassador to Spain, Daniel Sickles, was equally belligerent.

    Amid public frenzy in both the United States and Spain, President Hendricks, on the recommendation of Rosecrans, ordered the Spanish legation in Washington closed until American demands were met [10]. Finally, after almost a month of growing tension, Hendricks dismissed Sickles and replaced him with Thomas Bayard, who proved a much better negotiator. Bayard dropped the demands for a salute and the return of the Habana but reiterated that the surviving crew had to be returned. He was willing to accept $6,000 per executed crewman in place of $10,000, however. This proved acceptable to the Spanish, and the crisis ended a month after it began. But public anger in both countries did not dissipate entirely, and the United States and Spain would clash again two decades later…”

    -From TO THE BRINK: AMERICA AND SPAIN by Llewellyn Carroll, published 2003

    [1] As mentioned in chapter 22, the kingdom was overthrown.
    [2] OTL, Britain backed the Italians because the Two Sicilies were too friendly to Russia. TTL, without a war with Russia and with time, the Two Sicilies come under British influence.
    [3] More on this once we get to the late 1880s and early 1890s.
    [4] The Landtag wasn’t opposed to the reforms that Wilhelm I proposed, but the fact that they hadn’t been consulted. Here, having a role in the process makes them more supportive of military modernization.
    [5] After getting shown up by the Danes, the Prussians want a proper navy.
    [6] Without many of the causes of the OTL Long Depression, TTL’s depression is bad but less severe, especially in less industrialized countries.
    [7] TTL, most Irish immigrants stay in Argentina rather than go back home or continue to the United States.
    [8] OTL the Confederate commerce raider CSS Sumter
    [9] OTL, Hamilton Fish was SecState and brokered a quicker end to the standoff.
    [10] OTL, President Grant and his cabinet agreed to do this if there was no reparation. Here, with a more drawn-out crisis, Hendricks goes forward with it.
     
    Map of Europe in 1880
  • The American System Europe 1880.png
     
    Last edited:
    41. The Better Angels
  • 41. The Better Angels

    “…with the ongoing recession showing no signs of letting up. President Hendricks’s administration had become widely unpopular, and whoever his party nominated in his stead would be vulnerable to the Whigs. The convention was expected to have a crowded field of candidates, and so James Blaine, now on his third run for the presidency, sought to clear the field early on. His largest threats were Speaker John Sherman, Vermont Senator George F. Edmunds, and Indiana Senator Benjamin Harrison. Sherman threatened to pull away Blaine’s closest allies – James Garfield and Rutherford B. Hayes – and compete with him among the critical Ohio and Pennsylvania delegations. Via Garfield, Blaine promised to appoint Sherman as Secretary of State if he did not run and Sherman, eager at the opportunity of such a prestigious post, accepted.

    When approached by Blaine’s intermediaries, Edmunds refused a deal. Edmunds, a stubborn, conservative, and prickly man, took special joy in goading southern Democrats into embarrassing themselves during Senate debates over slavery. The stodgy Edmunds had strong support from railroad interests and many New York Whigs, so he felt confident he could take the nomination. The other main rival Blaine faced was Benjamin Harrison, a prominent Indiana lawyer, staunch abolitionist, and strong supporter of protective tariffs. He had supported Blaine against Cox in 1876 but was widely rumored to be planning his own campaign. Blaine offered him the post of Attorney General in exchange for his support, telling Harrison he needed “a fighter for the rights of men” in the push for an abolition amendment. Harrison agreed.

    The convention was thus set up as a battle between Blaine and Edmunds, with Blaine the heavy favorite.

    James Garfield gave a spirited address nominating Blaine, declaring that “on all the great issues of our day, both moral and practical, Senator James Blaine has stood on the right side. On the tariff, which protects our domestic industry and funds vital internal improvements, James Blaine has supported a strong protective tariff. On the economy, James Blaine has stood by the guarantor of stability, the National Bank. And on the contemptible practice of slavery, James Blaine has called for an end to bondage and for every negro held in chains to be set free… it is time for the Whig party to get out of the shadow of decades of inaction and stride forthrightly into the bright sunshine of liberty and freedom. For such a monumental task I can think of but one man to lead our party in November – not as a better Whig or a better man than thousands, but because he has the integrity, intelligence, and compassion mandated by the present moment – James Blaine. It is my honor to nominate for President of the United States, Senator James G. Blaine of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania!”

    As Garfield stepped back from the podium, the convention erupted in cheering. John Davis Long’s rather boring nominating speech of George Edmunds seemed even more boring in comparison to Garfield’s. “It was clear at that moment,” recalled William Chandler, “that we would take the nomination.”

    Blaine took a strong lead on the first ballot, sweeping much of the Midwest and west, while, thanks to the support of William Mahone, splitting the south with Edmunds. The Vermont Senator’s only strongholds were New England, Maryland, and half of the New York delegations. A number of regional bosses, chiefly Elihu Washburn of Illinois, Henry Wilson of Massachusetts [1], and Thomas Fletcher of Missouri [2], endorsed Blaine, who was represented on the convention floor by an army of surrogates. Derisively referred to as “Blainiacs” by rivals, the moniker would come to be worn as a badge of honor by the Senator’s supporters. Having amassed a solid lead on the first ballot, Blaine had sufficient momentum to capture the nomination, which he did with ease on the second ballot as the southern delegates swung towards him. Benjamin Harrison of Indiana then moved that the nomination be officially entered into the record as unanimous. Despite the objections of Edmunds and his remaining supporters, the motion was carried by an overwhelming majority, a strong show of support for Blaine.

    Many convention delegates believed that Blaine’s running mate should be from the northeast, ideally New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut, to shore up support there. Thus, on the first vice-presidential ballot, the two leading candidates, William Wheeler, and Marshall Jewell, where from that region. However, the industrializing upper south was looking vulnerable, and Blaine sought an ideologically as well as geographically balanced ticket. Thus, he urged his supporters to select Governor John M. Harlan of Kentucky. Harlan had begun his career as a conservative Whig before shifting during the 1870s to support gradual emancipation and had presided over the approval of such an amendment in 1879, at the close of his term. The delegates were skeptical, and Wheeler led on the next two ballots before Blaine’s lobbying won out and Harlan was nominated on the fourth ballot. Harlan was reportedly surprised at his nomination, but reluctantly accepted it.


    Presidential vote12Vice-Presidential vote124
    J. Blaine359603J. Harlan0109382
    G. Edmunds337128W. Wheeler339306200
    M. Jewell307305173
    Other5924Other109350



    The party platform was the first time any major American party called for the abolition of slavery: “Resolved, That the principles of Republican government, justice, and American liberty demand the utter and complete extirpation of Slavery from the soil of the Republic: and that we are in favor of an amendment to the Constitution that shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of the evil of Slavery within the limits or the jurisdiction of the United States.” The resolution, read aloud to the convention by P. B. S. Pinchback, a prominent black lawyer from Cincinnati, was met with “tremendous applause,” and a standing ovation. It was the perfect encapsulation of the 1880 Whig convention, and transmitted with finality that the Whigs were prepared and determined to move the country forward…”

    -From CHAINS BROKEN, CHAINS SHACKLED by Edward Northam, published 2011

    “Facing declining health, Hendricks had announced in his 1880 message to congress that he would not seek a second term as President. However, the ongoing economic depression meant that few Democrats wanted to seek the presidency, and the strongest Democratic candidates – Samuel Tilden, John Carlisle, and Winfield Hancock – all declined to contest the convention. Instead, Secretary of State William Rosecrans, Congressman Jubal Early, Senator George Pendleton, and Congressman William R. Morrison. Rosecrans had famously bungled negotiations with Spain during the Habana affair and nearly caused a war. Early was most famous for defending Robert E. Lee before the Supreme Court and arguing that Wesley Norris was not a free man, rendering him unpalatable to many northerners, especially in the aftermath of the Red Delta. Pendleton had a reputation as an archconservative, and Morrison, while well-liked among his colleagues in the House, was a total unknown to most voters.

    On the first ballot Early assumed the lead, having the full backing of the south while Rosecrans secured the west and fought over the Midwest with Morrison and Pendleton. Carlisle, it seemed, was premature – he would not have the success he enjoyed eight years later, coming in a disappointing fifth. On successive ballots, Early’s lead dropped as Rosecrans and Pendleton gained over the floundering Morrison. However, there was doubt among the delegates that Rosecrans, a devout Catholic with a brusque personality, could win the general election. On the sixth ballot, Morrison withdrew and endorsed Pendleton, who he praised for his support of free trade. With this, Pendleton consolidated his midwestern support and entered into negotiations with Early, offering him the post of Attorney General. Early accepted, and on the eighth ballot, George Pendleton secured the Democratic nomination for President.

    The platform was intended to counter the overtly abolitionist one the Whigs had ratified the previous month. Pendleton’s campaign spearheaded the successful effort to declare in the platform that the official Democratic slogan would be “This is a white man’s country; let white men rule [3].” Other resolutions supported the continued legality of slavery, with one reading “Resolved, that it is the right of each state to determine for itself the legality of Slavery, and the government of the Union lacks the constitutional authority to impose on said right.” This was met with raucous applause from the southern delegations, while northern free-soil delegates, led by Nathaniel Banks, staged a walkout in protest. This walkout largely overshadowed many of the platform proceedings.


    Presidential vote1238Vice-Presidential vote12
    G. Pendleton165171204553T. Watts307731
    W. Rosecrans126156173136J. Carlisle3950
    J. Early21922519517
    J. Carlisle61493824
    W. Morrison10981680
    Other75737725Other5324



    The remaining delegates were in little mood to appease the bolting free-soilers, and in the vice-presidential balloting, divided themselves between the incumbent vice president Thomas Watts and Congressman Carlisle. Initially, Carlisle was nominated but he declined to join the ticket, not wanting to be associated with the unpopular Pendleton. Thus, Vice President Watts was nominated for a second term in office, and he accepted the offer. The convention had been rocky, with heckling of speakers, a high-profile walkout, and a divisive Presidential nominee and platform. And the Whigs immediately went on the attack…”

    -From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012

    “Blaine and the Whigs pursued an ambitious strategy: they would campaign in the moderate upper south on improving the industrial economy, in the Midwest on issues of education and abolition, and in New York, make a direct play for Irish Catholic votes.

    William Mahone marshalled powerful resources in Virginia, but Whigs lacked the infrastructure in Missouri and Kentucky to end the long-standing Democratic domination of those states, and by the end of the campaign all southern resources were concentrated on Virginia and Delaware. Meanwhile, the platform of tariffs played well with midwestern audiences. It was the New York tactic that was truly experimental. Blaine leaned on his history of opposing closer ties with Britain and his Catholic mother [4], and received the support of Frederick Seward, son of the noted anti-nativist former President William Seward. In one of his few personal campaign appearances, Blaine visited New York City, where he called for “a constitutional amendment that would mean a change the like of which has not been known in modern times.”

    Pendleton campaigned personally, in a break from long-standing tradition. In his speeches, he accused the Whigs of “trampling on the sacred rights of states” and declared that “it is no business of the Federal government whether Mississippi permits slavery or New York prohibits it – it is a state issue, and a state issue alone.” These declarations earned him few new supporters, while alienating moderates.

    The Whigs, meanwhile, used graphic accounts of the Red Delta massacres to illustrate their argument that slavery was inherently incompatible with civil society and had to go. It didn’t help that Pendleton abandoned a long-standing Democratic campaign strategy of acknowledging the necessity of tariffs for “revenue purposes alone,” which helped assuage industrial workers’ concerns about free trade. While campaigning in Pennsylvania, Pendleton declared that “it is just one example, although perhaps the most egregious, of Whiggish overreach is the so-called ‘protective tariff’ that is little more than the unconstitutional stifling of trade.”

    While the Whigs used Blaine’s Catholic background to appeal to the Irish bloc via pamphlets, the Wide Awakes [5] that had propelled Mahone to victory in Virginia were mobilized all across the north to turn out voters. The Wide Awakes had a particular affect in New York City, where they made a deliberate effort to register Irish Catholics to vote and persuade them of the benefits of the Whig platform. This concerted effort, combined with the Democrats’ seeming blindness to this threat to a once unshakably loyal demographic, all but assured Whig victory in New York…


    James BlaineGeorge Pendleton
    Electoral Vote246121
    Popular Vote3,824,5193,353,864
    Percentage52.546.1



    James Blaine won a decisive victory, sweeping every state north of the Mason-Dixon line and carrying Delaware and Virginia south of it as well. This marked the first time ever that Virginia voted for a Whig in a presidential election, and only the second since the civil war that Delaware did so. More importantly, he was the first overtly abolitionist candidate of a major party, and his victory, combined with a wave of Whig victories in the house and senate elections, promised that slavery was at the end of its rope…”

    -From THE END OF THE STATUS QUO: PRELUDE TO ABOLITION by Michelle Watts, published 2017

    [1] TTL, Wilson doesn’t have his 1873 stroke.
    [2] Missouri and Kentucky abolished slavery in 1879, which I didn’t mention as I’m juggling a ton of plotlines as is. I promised to cover the Mormons in the 1850s and that’s going in the next chapter.
    [3] The Democrats’ slogan in 1868 OTL.
    [4] Blaine used these strategies during his 1884 campaign, only to be undercut by “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” as well as the Mulligan Letters, neither of which happen TTL.
    [5] The Wide Awakes TTL are evolving from militaristic youth group to a more peaceful, outreach-focused youth group.
     
    Last edited:
    42. The Onward March
  • 42. The Onward March

    “…We cannot overestimate the fervent love of liberty, the intelligent courage, and the sum of common sense with which our fathers made the great experiment of self-government. When they found, after a short trial, that the confederacy of States, was too weak to meet the necessities of a vigorous and expanding republic, they boldly set it aside, and in its stead established a National Union, founded directly upon the will of the people, endowed with full power of self-preservation and ample authority for the accomplishment of its great object.

    Under this Constitution the boundaries of freedom have been enlarged, the foundations of order and peace have been strengthened, and the growth of our people in all the better elements of national life has indicated the wisdom of the founders and given new hope to their descendants. Under this Constitution our people long ago made themselves safe against danger from without and secured for their mariners and flag equality of rights on all the seas. Under this Constitution twenty-five States have been added to the Union, with constitutions and laws, framed and enforced by their own citizens, to secure the manifold blessings of local self-government [1].

    It is now time to extend the protections of our Constitution, to enlarge the boundaries of freedom it enshrines, to the multitudes held in bondage that hitherto these have been denied to. It is now time to do as the rest of the civilized nations have done, as the French and even the Britons have done, and make sure that never again shall the rivers of the Mississippi Delta run red with the blood of the innocent. It is now time for us to, after over one hundred years as an independent nation, share the fruits of liberty with the negro race. This is not a question of regional loyalty – the conflict that arose nearly two decades ago put those sectional divisions to rest. It is not a question of party affiliation either, the question of abolition is a moral one alone.

    The elevation of the negro race from slavery to liberty is the most important political change we can hope to accomplish this century. Of the many great achievements since the year 1800, from the Louisiana Purchase to the formation of a National Bank and the completion of a mighty transcontinental railroad, none makes a fitting comparison to the beneficent effect emancipation shall have upon our institutions and people. Our Republic was founded upon the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet these rights have been withheld from some 12 percent of the population [2]. The remarkable growth of industry and prosperity in free states is a testament to the uplifting effects of abolition and adherence to our sacred foundational ideals.

    …It is manifest that the nation is facing the great issues and challenges of our day with determination and optimism, resolved to employ its best energies in realizing the wondrous possibilities of the future. We do not seek to disturb the autonomy of the states, nor interfere with any of their necessary rights of local government, but we do affirm the constitutional supremacy of the Union. We must strive to finish the work we are in, the work begun by the Free Soilers and William Seward twenty years ago, the work that is still unfinished today. With firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, it will be my sincerest endeavor to continue the efforts of my predecessors in forging a more perfect union…”

    -From BLAINE’S FIRST INAUGURAL on LibraryofCongress.gov, published 2016

    Presidential Cabinet of James Blaine:
    Vice President:
    John M. Harlan
    Secretary of State: John Sherman
    Secretary of the Treasury: William H. Robertson
    Secretary of War: William Chandler
    Attorney General: Benjamin Harrison
    Postmaster General: Leonidas C. Houk
    Secretary of the Interior: Campbell Slemp
    Secretary of the Navy: William A. Smith

    “After his inauguration, in which he delivered a rousing call for abolition and advocated for a ban on government funds for religious schools [3], President Blaine set about filling his cabinet. While James Garfield had been elevated to the Speakership, Blaine appointed his other main campaign manager, William Chandler, as Secretary of War. Chandler was an able administrator, as shown during a stint in the Treasury Department under Seward, so despite his lack of a military background, he was confirmed easily. Sherman was also easily confirmed as Secretary of State, where he would become Blaine’s close ally when dealing with a multitude of crises, including a standoff with Britain during the War of the Pacific, as well as peaceful endeavors like the reciprocity treaty with Mexico and the Hemispheric Amphictyony [4], the 1886 conference of the nations of the western hemisphere [5].

    Benjamin Harrison, the nominee for Attorney General, was opposed by many southerners for his staunch abolitionism, and some conservative Whigs expressed reservations that Harrison favored equal rights for blacks. This was denied, and Harrison was comfortably confirmed. On the recommendation of William D. Kelley, Blaine’s successor in the Senate, Blaine nominated Tennessee Congressman and Whig boss Leonidas Houk to serve as Postmaster General. An ally of pro-patronage Whigs, Houk used the post office to expand the patronage of Tennessee Whigs within the confines of the new civil service rules. To lead the Interior Department, formerly the center of political patronage, Blaine selected the former Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Campbell Slemp [6], a supporter of civil service reform.”

    -From CHAINS BROKEN, CHAINS SHACKLED by Edward Northam, published 2011

    “The murder of Joseph Smith in a Carthage jail cell threw the young Mormon church into a power struggle. Sidney Rigdon, the First Counselor of the church, arrived in Nauvoo first, on August 3rd, and quickly announced that he had received a revelation declaring him “Guardian of the Church.” He was supported in this claim by William Marks, the head of the central stake. Marks called for a meeting to be held on the 8th to determine the succession. By the 8th, all of the Quorum of Twelve save for Brigham Young had returned to Nauvoo for the conference [7].

    Rigdon diligently persuaded the rest of the Quorum that he should be made Smith’s successor, arguing that, as the only surviving member of the First Presidency, he was uniquely suited to be Smith’s heir. The assembled members of the church then voted overwhelmingly to declare Rigdon the new leader of the church. Rigdon was not without his opponents – he and Marks were both staunch opponents of polygamy, which was one of the last revelations of Joseph Smith. James Strang was outraged that an anti-polygamist was now the head of the church, viewing it as an attack on the veracity of Joseph Smith’s revelation.

    From his stake in Wisconsin, Strang publicly declared himself the true leader of the Mormon church three weeks after Rigdon’s ascension. In particular, Strang produced a letter purportedly stating that Smith had appointed him his successor. Many church members agreed with him, and Strang led some 12,000 Mormons in a splinter faction, officially known as the Church of Christ, but also called the Strangites. The Quorum of Twelve swiftly excommunicated Strang, and Strang’s church excommunicated Rigdon. Initially, it seemed that Strang’s claims that he received revelations from angels would split the church in two, but in 1849, Strang abruptly embraced polygamy. While it attracted some of Rigdon’s followers, it alienated many more of Strang’s existing followers, most of whom returned to the mainline Mormon church.

    Strang attempted to move his sect to Beaver Island in Michigan, but the land purchase was shut down by the state government and Strang led his followers west to Champoeg Territory in 1852, where the Strangite practice of polygamy brought them into conflict with other settlers, the territorial government, and the federal government. The mainline Mormon church, on the other hand, would remain in the Midwest and denounce polygamy.

    Rigdon’s vision of the “Guardian of the Church” was a regent of sorts, to hold power until a new church president could be properly chosen. However, this regency would end up lasting until 1860, when Joseph Smith III was officially designated as Prophet-President of the Mormon church. The younger Smith had previously declined to assume church leadership from Rigdon unless he were called upon by God to do so. In April 1860, he apparently received such inspiration, and Rigdon quickly stepped aside, and Smith was confirmed as the leader of the reconstituted First Presidency. Smith continued the church’s practice of denying that his father ever taught polygamy, while he also began downplaying other controversial teachings, namely baptism of the dead. On August 6th, 1867, Smith laid the cornerstone of the new Independence Temple, on the site of the original 1831 Temple Lot chosen by Smith’s father. A grand mixture of Federalist and Gothic revival styles [8], the Independence Temple was a symbol of the gradual acceptance the Mormon church enjoyed in the Midwest, especially in comparison to the Strangites’ constant warring with the government…”

    -From A HISTORY OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS by Wallace Meacham, published 2001

    “Lynchburg grew exponentially during the 1870s, as the 1873 completion of the Richmond & Allegheny railroad and the 1879 completion of the Norfolk & Western turned the growing canal city into an industrial center [9]. In 1875, amid the city’s expansion, Tredegar established a steel factory. Soon after, dozens of businesses emerged in Lynchburg, including the Appalachian Steel Company, which built a large industrial complex with a blast furnace, foundry, canal harbor, and railroad depot. The growth of steelmaking concerns like the ASC fueled a large boom in Lynchburg’s population, attracting not only Serbian and Bulgarian immigrants who tended to prefer Virginia as their destination, but also large numbers of Germans, Poles, and Russians.

    This explosion in population led the Whig-dominated municipal government to implement in 1878 a public school system, providing free public education to students from poor families. Previously, the only free education was provided by a local church. By the city’s centennial in 1886, its population had increased ten-fold over its 1860 size, which was attributed by many to the demise of slavery. The importance of local industry meant Lynchburg was a Whig stronghold, contributing to their retaking of the governorship in 1881 with Harrison Riddleberger, one of the architects of abolition, as their nominee. Virginia was modernizing at a swift rate and so, too, was the nation…”

    -From ALL AMERICAN MADE by Thurgood Nickle, published 2001

    [1] Taken from James Garfield’s OTL inaugural address. I felt it was a perfect lead-in for what I planned Blaine to say.
    [2] As of the 1860 census, 17% of the population was enslaved. With immigration and the abolition of slavery in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky (constituting together 2.8% of slaves in the Union in 1860), that number is by my rough guesstimation about 12%.
    [3] The Blaine Amendment will be a thing TTL…
    [4] I just like this word. It’s an ancient Greek term for an alliance of neighbors, so it’s perfect for America’s regional alliance.
    [5] Spoilers…
    [6] Thanks to @Odinson for the suggestion!
    [7] Maybe his carriage breaks down or something, he just doesn’t make it back in time.
    [8] An interesting combination, but early Mormon temples were built in this exact style.
    [9] OTL, the residents of Lynchburg thought the city was too crowded and opposed the N&W, so it became the nucleus of Roanoke.
     
    Last edited:
    43. Liberty Throughout the Land
  • 43. Liberty Throughout the Land

    “President Blaine’s paramount objective was securing the approval and ratification of the proposed thirteenth amendment, which would abolish slavery in the United States. After Seward was able to strike a death blow against slavery during the Civil War by banning slavery in the territories, it had grown weaker and weaker. Five southern states had passed constitutional amendments gradually abolishing slavery, and the Red Delta massacres had inflamed northern opinion against it. Shortly after his inauguration, Blaine called a special session of Congress for the purpose of drafting such an amendment.

    In crafting such an amendment, first its proponents had to consolidate their various visions into a single proposal that was moderate enough to secure ratification. Initial drafts written by radicals such as Minnesota Congressman James Hinds [1] called for an immediate end to slavery without compensation, and guaranteed citizenship to all Americans regardless of race. However, backroom discussions with moderate Whigs and northern Democrats revealed that such an amendment would assuredly fail to even be approved by Congress, let alone ratified by the requisite 27 states. Instead, many Whigs united behind the draft written by Senator James Wilson of Iowa, which proposed that slavery be abolished over a 10-year period, with “just compensation” paid to each slaveholder.

    As slavery was increasingly untenable, most northern Democrats emerged strongly in support of Wilson’s proposal, while they resisted the “radicalism” of Hinds’s version. While Whig Congressman Samuel Randall called Hinds a “race agitator,” New York Senator Samuel Tilden expressed his opinion that blacks were “not ready for the burden of citizenship and civic duty.” Hinds and his fellow radicals, on the other hand, criticized Wilson’s draft as a “half measure.” They were right, but as Wilson, himself a strong supporter of equal rights, explained, “even tiny steps forward still count as stepping forward – we must take what we can get and not abandon the fight because it cannot be won in a single blow.”

    Still, intraparty negotiations dragged on throughout May and June. Finally, President Blaine and Speaker Garfield, who had kept themselves removed from negotiations, felt compelled to intervene. Blaine met personally with Hinds and implored him to “put aside [his] grievances” to secure the compromise. Garfield, meanwhile, alternately met with other radicals to persuade them to support the Wilson draft and threatened to remove them from top committees. Blaine’s occasional rival Roscoe Conkling, a strong supporter of abolition and king of New York patronage, was enlisted to use the promise of patronage positions to get northern Democrats on board. He was even given tacit approval to bribe the most recalcitrant ones.

    Finally, through this combination of persuasion, bribery, and threats, Blaine, Garfield, and Conkling assembled enough of a House majority to guarantee the Wilson amendment’s passage. On July 6th, the House voted 207-88 to approve the 13th amendment, and the Senate was to vote the next week. Ahead of the vote, Senators Tilden and du Pont [2] announced their support for the amendment, but Blaine, Conkling, and William Mahone estimated that they were still two votes shy. With every northern Senator [3] aligned in support, the focus fell on Thomas Bramlette of Kentucky [4] and Joseph W. McClurg of Missouri [5]. Bramlette was a conservative Whig who believed slavery was in a “terminal decline” but was worried that the Kentucky state house would deny him reelection. McClurg, a moderate Democrat, had similar fears. Blaine promised to appoint Bramlette to the next Supreme Court opening should he lose reelection, while promising McClurg to provide federal funds for a plethora of Missouri canals and railroads that McClurg could sell to his allies back home.

    With these final two votes secured, the stage was set for the Senate vote on July 14th. Every Senator from a confederate state voted against, while every Senator from a northern state voted in favor. The outcome was determined by the upper south, with six Senators from those five states voting in favor, and four voting against. Just one Senator changing his vote would have defeated the amendment. As it was, the 13th amendment was approved by the Senate by the barest of majorities: 48-24, exactly two thirds of the chamber. Now, the amendment went to the states for ratification, where 27 of the 36 states were required.

    …Illinois was the first state to ratify the 13th amendment, doing so on September 5th, 1882. The next day, Rhode Island and Michigan followed suit and by the end of October, every northern state had voted for ratification. It hinged upon Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and either Tennessee or North Carolina to ratify the amendment. Delaware was the first southern state to ratify, doing so on February 9th, 1883. Virginia did so a week later, after a heavy lobbying campaign from Governor Riddleberger. Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky all ratified the amendment on the same day, February 23rd. Just a single slave state was needed to ratify the amendment for it to be added to the constitution.

    With North Carolina’s rejection of the amendment, it all hinged on Tennessee, where President Blaine was mobilizing every resource that he had at his disposal to induce the state legislature to ratify…”

    -From CHAINS BROKEN, CHAINS SHACKLED by Edward Northam, published 2011

    “Tennessee was in the midst of a transition from an agrarian, plantation-based economy to one fueled by railroads, commerce, and mining. Eastern Tennessee became prosperous during the 1870s from expanded coal and iron mining, turning an already Whig-friendly region into a stronghold of the party, where Whig candidates routinely won elections with upwards of 60% of the vote. The rise of east Tennessee’s industrial economy pulled Nashville in the same direction, as railroads headed west from Chattanooga used Nashville to send ore to western markets, while goods headed east to Georgia or Alabama stopped at Nashville en route to Atlanta or Elyton [6].

    Meanwhile, western Tennessee remained rooted in the old plantation economy. Nathan Bedford Forrest had made Memphis his slave trading headquarters, and eleven slaves were killed in the region during a spillover of the Red Delta massacres in 1879. The state was heavily divided between east and west, with Nashville and the center caught in the middle. Postmaster-General Leonidas C. Houk was, before entering President Blaine’s cabinet, a powerful Whig congressman from eastern Tennessee who dominated the state Whig party with his ally, Governor Jacob Thornburgh [7]. Thornburgh supported the 13th amendment but faced a Democratic-controlled state house. Within the Democratic majority, there existed divisions between conservative planters and modernizing businessmen from central Tennessee and Memphis. Blaine, Houk, and Thornburgh sought to exploit these divisions and force ratification through the state house.

    Blaine authorized Houk to promise patronage positions and large sums of federal internal improvements money to state legislators if they voted for ratification, and Governor Thornburgh held dozens of meetings with lawmakers, urging them to support ratification. In mid-March, President Blaine undertook a speaking tour in support of the amendment through central Tennessee, with a stop at Memphis. While Blaine gave a speech in Memphis, the second son of a local planter pulled out a pistol and attempted to shoot him. Both shots missed, one grazing Congressman William Moore’s hat. Blaine continued his speech, closing by imploring the audience to “write [their] duly elected representative to the esteemed General Assembly of Tennessee and urge them” to vote for ratification.

    The assassination attempt helped increase support for ratification within the legislature, and Thornburgh estimated that they had a bare majority to ratify the amendment with. Finally, after a lengthy battle, the state of Tennessee ratified the 13th amendment by a margin of just three votes on April 18th, 1883. Within ten years, every man, woman, and child still in bondage in the United States would be set free. But the struggle for equal rights was only just beginning…”

    -From THE NEW SOUTH by Edgar Brent, published 1989

    “The long-overdue emancipation of enslaved Americans was yet another instance of a half measure that merely pretended to solve the problem. Did every slave go free by the time 1893 rolled around? Yes, it was constitutionally mandated. But each slaver, each person who claimed the ‘right’ to own their fellow human beings, was paid by the government for giving up their so-called property. American taxpayers were put on the hook for bribing racists to part with their human chattel. This was, shamefully, necessary to secure the amendment’s ratification and I would rather evil men receive a small reward if there is a much greater good deed being accomplished at the same time.

    The other problem with the 13th Amendment, the much more severe problem, is that it contains no protections for the newly freed people. James Hinds proposed enshrining their citizenship in the amendment, but he was shouted down by moderates in congress who were too preoccupied with expediency to concern themselves with human rights. We know that Blaine had authorized the dispensation of patronage jobs and even bribe money to win support for the amendment. If he had these resources at his disposal, why not use them to force through a more radical version? Blaine’s own memoirs mention that he preferred Hinds’s version, but that he, like many of his moderate allies, was obsessed with expediting the process and avoiding a long legislative battle. This is cowardice.

    So, rather than fight hard and use underhanded tactics, Blaine and his allies put forward something that only addressed the surface level problem but didn’t even touch the deep roots of systemic racism in the United States. Then, when there was ample evidence that abolition wouldn’t be enough and that southern states would preserve a form of slavery in everything-but-name, Blaine and Garfield could have gotten something through congress, but they valued their congressional majorities more than human rights. The door was open for every slave state and quite a few free states to pass a slew of laws preventing black Americans from ever becoming truly free.”

    -From THE REAL HISTORY OF AMERICA by Thaddeus Flagg, published 2020

    “News of the 13th amendment’s ratification was met with widespread celebration in the north, with triumphant newspaper editorials and impromptu street gatherings in more abolitionist areas. The Pennsylvanian Advocate, once owned by President Blaine, devoted its entire front page to declaring “SLAVE POWER BROKEN FOREVER” and covering in detail the amendment’s journey to ratification. Numerous northern politicians both Democrat and Whig gave interviews and speeches celebrating the outcome.

    In a speech at the dedication of the Mount Vernon National Cemetery [8], President Blaine joined in the celebrations. “A great victory has been won for the cause of liberty. New inspiration has been given to the powers of self-help in both races, and the influence of this force will grow greater and bear richer fruit with the coming years. The work begun by General Washington and the multitudes of brave soldiers buried here over the generations has been advanced once more. The will of the nation, speaking with the voice of battle and through the amended constitution, has fulfilled the great promise of 1776 by proclaiming ‘liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof.’”

    The south was decidedly less excited. Senator Wade Hampton III of South Carolina, long a proponent of white supremacy, called the 13th amendment “an affront to the natural order,” and accused President Blaine of “seeking to destroy the system so beneficial to the negro race, the system of slavery, and foment a slave insurrection like the one suppressed in 1879.” In Louisiana, Francis T. Nicholls, a congressman, was arrested by the National Guard for attempting to organize a secessionist militia. Some planters vowed never to free their slaves, with one declaring in a letter to the Southern Recorder that “they will have to send the whole of the army to my plantation if they want to steal my lawful property. This is a vile perversion of the constitution.”

    Governor John M. Stone of Mississippi lamented the amendment but vowed that “we may be forced to adhere to the letter, but I will find every way to break its spirit.” Under Stone, the Mississippi legislature convened a constitutional convention that approved a host of new and restrictive amendments. Poll taxes and literacy tests were required for prospective voters, but exemptions were granted to all those eligible to vote before April 18th, the date of the amendment’s ratification, and all of their descendants. This conveniently excluded all of the soon-to-be-free blacks. Unemployment, debt, and petty crimes like theft were made felonies in a series of 1884 laws, but blacks almost always were the only ones charged with felonies. Felonies were also made punishable by penal labor, and these convict laborers could be leased out by the state to private businesses. A law was also passed allowing planters to hold each slave accountable for the cost of their food and shelter, effectively rendering most freedmen debtors. Stone was heralded by many of his southern peers as “the savior of the south” and many other southern states moved to follow the ‘Mississippi model.’

    These efforts to undermine the 13th amendment did not go unnoticed in the north. President Blaine and Speaker Garfield met with Whig lawmakers to gauge their support for civil rights laws protecting the freedmen from discrimination. However, the Whig majorities in the House and Senate had been much reduced in the 1882 elections [9], and while a majority of the House was supportive of federal civil rights protections, any such bill was all but guaranteed to die in the Senate at the hands of Democrats and conservative Whigs. Blaine and Garfield decided that even attempting to pass such a law would sacrifice too many Whig congressmen and Senators, so they backed off from their efforts. The 13th amendment may have been ratified, but nothing had been done to stop southern elites from rushing to codify the previously de-facto white supremacy they had come to take for granted…”

    -From SLAVER'S LEGACY: AMERICA'S RACIAL FAILINGS by Rachel Philips, published 2018

    [1] Hinds, famous OTL for being elected to Congress from Arkansas and then assassinated in 1868 by the Klan, settled in Minnesota for a time. TTL, he stays there.
    [2] Henry du Pont, OTL a commander in the Delaware state militia who rounded up supposedly pro-secession militiamen and leaders, including future Senator Thomas Bayard Sr.
    [3] Pendleton was defeated in 1880, and first elected in 1874.
    [4] Though he opposed many reconstruction measures, OTL Bramlette believed slavery was doomed and supported the 13th amendment.
    [5] OTL, McClurg ended his career as a Radical Republican but up until just before the Emancipation Proclamation, he owned slaves.
    [6] OTL Birmingham.
    [7] OTL, the two fought a bitter primary battle for Congress. TTL, that doesn’t happen, and they become allies instead.
    [8] TTL, Mount Vernon is preserved as a national cemetery, as Arlington isn’t confiscated because Virginia is a Union state.
    [9] 177-152 in the House, 41-31 in the Senate.
     
    Last edited:
    44. Self-Interest in War and Politics
  • 44. Self-Interest in War and Politics

    “Simon Cameron’s Democratic machine that strongly influenced Pennsylvanian politics largely collapsed after his 1863 Senate defeat by then-congressman James Blaine. Without Cameron to steer patronage from the Senate, his machine lost steam and not even his appointment as McClellan’s postmaster general could restore his statewide influence [1]. In the wake of the Cameron Machine’s decline, Philadelphia came under the sway of a new Whig machine. While previously the city had been dominated by merchants like Nicholas Biddle, these mercantile powerbrokers had lost favor with the postwar public for their southern sympathies.

    Instead, it was a new generation of Whigs who prioritized northern interests and opposed slavery who emerged to run the new machine. Led by the Irish-born School Director James McManes, councilman William Stokely and State Treasurer Matthew Quay [2], Philadelphia’s Whig machine established a tight grip on municipal politics. Every election board and local court was under Whig control, allowing the party to determine who was registered to vote [3]. During elections, Whigs flooded the polls with repeat voters and ineligible voters, some of whom were entirely fictitious people. Though the volunteer fire departments, previously centers of graft and corruption, had been professionalized, Stokely transformed the city police department into a ruthlessly efficient force that crushed local gangs. These policemen were occasionally deployed to “escort” immigrants to the polls and remove opposition political literature.

    At the time, Philadelphia had the largest population of blacks of any northern city, numbering by 1876 some 20,000. While many Philadelphians were in no hurry to extend the franchise to black voters, Quay, recognizing an opportunity to create an unshakably loyal voting bloc, forced through the city council a bill guaranteeing the right to vote to all men regardless of race [4]. The machine also appointed a number of prominent black community members to positions on the school board and infamous Gas Trust. Initially, there was a backlash against these progressive stances, but this calmed after several months, and the machine remained as powerful as ever [5].

    By 1880, Stokely was Mayor and Quay was both State Treasurer and chair of the state Whig party. The Philadelphia Machine was by this point run in conjunction with the statewide Whig machine, using the allure of state jobs and contracts to consolidate the party’s control over state and city politics. A system of political favors and state contracts were used to reward the loyal, while “ward heelers” kept immigrant residents in line with threats of dismissal from their jobs for failing to vote Whig. The formidable Stokely-Quay machine had an uneasy relationship with President Blaine, who supported civil service reform but was warily respectful of the machine’s power in his home state. The machine largely supported Blaine’s nomination for president to remove him from state politics, but worked with him on issues such as abolition, tariffs, and Blaine’s 1884 naval expansion program.

    While the Democrats were infamous for their New York City, Chicago, and Boston machines that were supported by local Irish communities moving in lockstep, the Whig machines of Pennsylvania, Saint Louis, Richmond, and Cincinnati were propelled by multi-ethnic and occasionally multi-racial machines devoted to inconspicuously consolidating as much power as they could. Perhaps it is because of these dueling dynamics that the Democratic Boston machine emerged as one of the most conservative, segregationist machines in the north [6] while the Philadelphia and Cincinnati machines were some of the strongest supporters of civil rights…”

    -From A DIFFERENT KIND OF ENGINEERING: AMERICA’S POLITICAL MACHINES by Irene Mueller, published 2016

    “…began over a tax dispute between the Bolivian government and a Chilean sodium nitrate mining company. After rejecting a Bolivian law conditioning a mining license on payment of a tax, the mining company appealed to the Chilean government. Bolivia, counting on its secret alliances with Peru and Argentina, refused to suspend the tax and declined Chilean proposals for mediation. The Bolivian position was that the issue of the tax’s legality should be settled in a Bolivian court, and when the company once again failed to pay the tax, the Bolivian government confiscated its property and sold it.

    On the day of the auction, a force of 200 Chilean forces seized the city of Antofagasta, which was 94% Chilean, after a bloody fight with the Bolivian garrison. The Peruvian government attempted to mediate before the crisis escalated into warfare, but these efforts failed. On March 11th, 1879, Bolivia declared war on Chile after they refused to leave Antofagasta. On March 21st, Peru reluctantly entered the war while Argentina continued to profess its neutrality.

    The war was primarily fought in the arid Atacama Desert, which lacked railroads or roads. Naval support was critical, and both the respectable Peruvian and Chilean fleets were mobilized to gain control of the coast and deny naval supply to the enemy. At the decisive battle of Angamos, the Chilean fleet was crippled, despite the presence of two British-built ironclad warships [7], both of which were captured by Peruvian marines. From then on, Peru was able to move its troops through the Atacama with impunity, and to provide fire support for land operations. The Peruvian navy also began a blockade of Chilean ports, threatening to choke off its export-driven economy.

    With the Peru-Bolivia alliance advancing through the Atacama Desert and capturing not only Atacama but the important Chilean mining city of Copiapo, Chile looked wounded. President Julio Roca of Argentina decided to, instead of engaging in negotiations with Chile over their border in Patagonia, invade. While General Andres Caceres and the Peruvian army advanced south from Copiapo towards Valparaiso, Argentinian forces seized interior outposts and trails, effectively placing much of the disputed territory under their de facto control. The prospect of Argentinian regional hegemony greatly worried the Brazilians and as Chile’s position grew weaker by the day, Emperor Pedro II knew he had to intervene.

    On June 8th, 1881, Brazil demanded that Argentina agree to a mediated resolution to the dispute or face military intervention. To back up this threat, Pedro II dispatched the army to the border with Argentina. With the conflict threatening to escalate, the United States stepped in to mediate. President Blaine sought to extend American commercial interests into the Bolivian and Peruvian mining and railroad industries and at the same time cultivate strong diplomatic ties with the two nations [8]. Using the allure of mining concessions, Blaine, the Bolivian minister in Washington, and Secretary of State Sherman secured the backing of several prominent investors to guarantee Bolivia’s border with Chile. On July 23rd, as war loomed between Brazil and Argentina and Peruvian and Bolivian troops placed Valparaiso under siege, the United States proclaimed its support for preserving Bolivian territorial integrity and called for all sides to agree to American mediation. Blaine called Peru and Bolivia “young sisters of this government” and warned that European intervention in the conflict would not be tolerated. He specifically mentioned Britain’s sale of ironclads to Chile [9], declaring that further supply of arms from European nations, in violation of the long-standing Monroe Doctrine, would be “met with sharp disapproval.”

    Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil all agreed to the American offer of mediation. Sherman proposed to the Peruvian delegations a deal similar to the one he had concluded with Bolivia: American companies would gain extensive nitrate and guano concessions, including mining concessions in Tarapaca, and the United States would push for a settlement advantaging Peru. This was agreed to, but news leaked to the international press that, not only was the United States concluding these deals with Peru and Bolivia, but that one American negotiator, Isaac P. Christiancy, would personally profit from these concessions [10] and Whig congressman Levi Morton had formed a company that stood to acquire a lucrative Peruvian mining concession. Hartington, the British Prime Minister, was angered and unsettled by Blaine’s rhetoric, viewing American conduct as both hostile and exclusionary, as British investors had invested heavily in the Tarapaca region and viewed continued Peruvian control as harmful, and were terrified of what an exclusive deal with American companies would bring. Having sold Chile two warships and with a large section of the financial industry that stood to profit from Chilean control of the nitrate regions, Hartington’s foreign office took a pro-Chilean line [11].

    Hartington insisted that, to protect free international trade, Britain jointly mediate peace with the United States and that Blaine drop his exclusionary trade deals with Peru and Bolivia. This “Open Door Policy” that Hartington proposed was designed to allow continued European investment into South America. Secretary Sherman protested to the British in a note, citing the Monroe Doctrine and warning that Blaine viewed British trade with South American nations as interfering with the American sphere of influence. Hartington sent a reply to Sherman in which he challenged the Monroe Doctrine, writing “[t]he Government of the United States is not entitled to affirm as a universal proposition, with reference to a number of independent States for whose conduct it assumes no responsibility, that its interests are necessarily concerned in whatever may befall those States, simply because they are situated in the Western Hemisphere [12].”

    Blaine openly refused to allow British diplomats into the negotiations. In the peace talks, Argentina acquired the section of Chile between the 24th and 27th parallels in accordance with a prewar agreement with Bolivia and Peru, while also annexing the entirety of the Tierra del Fuego. This threatened Chile’s ability to trade with Europe, and despite Argentina promising freedom of navigation, the prospect of closing Chilean access to European markets remained. The growing British trade relationship with Chile was therefore directly threatened and Hartington once again protested. Sherman responded by reminding the British that Blaine feared increased British trade with South America interfered with the Monroe Doctrine and urged Hartington to drop his protests. Blaine dispatched much of the Pacific fleet, including the ironclad steam frigates Auraria and Pennsylvania, and five steam-powered sloops-of-war to Lima as a warning to Britain. The continued refusal of Blaine and Sherman to treat with Britain, combined with the signing of a finalized Treaty of Lima on September 29th, largely ended the crisis.

    Despite the ultimate American victory, the months of high tensions left Blaine worried about a potential conflict with Britain. While an American army capable of going toe-to-toe with the British could be mustered within a matter of months, the American navy was woefully unprepared to counter the Royal Navy. In his 1882 message to Congress, Blaine, along with urging states to ratify the 13th Amendment, called on Congress to provide funding for “a significant expansion and modernization of the United States navy” that would “transform a force unable to operate very far beyond our shores into a true oceanic fleet, the envy of the hemisphere.” Congress finally acted in 1884, and Blaine signed the Navy Act of 1884 in June of that year. Within a year, the first American battleships were laid down, the Louisiana, Ohio, and New Jersey. These three ships were each armed with 2x2 13.5-inch turrets and 4x2 8-inch turrets, placing the United States at the fore of naval technology.”

    -From A HISTORY OF AMERICAN POWER AT SEA by Edgar Willis, published 1974

    [1] OTL it was Cameron’s machine that was the Republican machine. TTL, Cameron stays a Democrat and loses his power as Pennsylvania shifts towards the Whigs.
    [2] OTL, McMane and Stokely were Philadelphia bosses, which was detached from the statewide machine that was run by Quay. TTL, the two machines are essentially joined at the hip.
    [3] All OTL.
    [4] Quay was a strong supporter of civil rights when he was in the Senate, including supporting the Lodge Force Bill.
    [5] OTL, there were riots over blacks attempting to vote.
    [6] This will be important when we get to the 1900s…
    [7] OTL, Britain delayed the delivery of these ships. TTL, wary of Blaine’s Anglophobia, they deliver them.
    [8] Blaine attempted this during his tenure as SecState OTL, but he left after Garfield was assassinated and his successor abandoned the initiative.
    [9] Without an Alabama Claims situation, Britain is less wary of the US reaction. Combine that with Gladstone’s inept foreign policy during the 1880s…
    [10] Also OTL and led to accusations that Blaine was corrupt himself.
    [11] Based on the paper Foreign Interests in the War of the Pacific by V. G. Kiernan.
    [12] OTL sent by British diplomats during the 1895 Venezuelan crisis.
     
    Last edited:
    45. Four More Years!
  • 45. Four More Years!

    “After a wildly successful first term, President Blaine expected an easy renomination. During his first four years, he had overseen not only a favorable tariff, but the flexing of American commercial and diplomatic muscles in South America and the abolition, at long last, of slavery by constitutional amendment. A coalition of party leaders, including even the Stokely-Quay machine in Pennsylvania, closed ranks to ward off any potential challengers in the interest of party unity. James Garfield gave the nominating speech for Blaine, while William Mahone provided a second. Garfield, who’s 1880 speech had greatly energized the delegates, gave a long and eloquent address in which he described Blaine as an honest man who had “triumphed without patronage, and without emissaries [1], and has demonstrated nothing but courageous persistence in any course he has adopted.” The delegates cheered, and then Mahone took the stage.

    President Blaine was a “man of iron,” Mahone declared, and “under his leadership we have advanced on every frontier. Civilization has been spread to more of the west. American companies have more foreign contracts than ever before. Under James Blaine, the literacy rate has never been higher. And it would be an incomplete summary of a long and story career if I did not mention that, under the able presidency of James Blaine, the morally repugnant practice of slavery was ended.” It was a brief speech, but Mahone’s energetic delivery excited the delegates. As he stepped back, the convention took up the chant “Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!” The convention proceeded to unanimously renominate President Blaine, the first time since Henry Clay that the party had done so.

    The platform was primarily a defense of Blaine’s policies, especially abolition. However, two resolutions proposed further policies: the continued expansion of the navy for “the proper defense of American interests in the western hemisphere” and the ratification of an amendment prohibiting the use of government funds for supporting private religious schools. Blaine had long championed such an amendment and, despite opposition from a few delegates, it was adopted by a wide margin.”

    - From CHAINS BROKEN, CHAINS SHACKLED by Edward Northam, published 2011

    “…victory, party luminaries like Samuel Tilden, Thomas Bayard, and John G. Carlisle declined to mount campaigns. Even so, a number of Democrats contested the convention, most notably the reformist Governor of Ohio Richard Bishop, the conservative Indiana Congressman William English, and New York Congressman and former general Daniel Sickles. Bishop, who had served as Cincinnati Mayor before the Civil War, had served in corporate roles in various railroads before winning election as Governor of Ohio in 1876 and served a single term. As governor, he had attempted to remove the corrupt city government of Cincinnati and frequently disregarded party leaders when making appointments. He had not been renominated due to intraparty opposition, and his candidacy for president was opposed by Tammany Hall and other Democratic political machines that viewed Bishop as a threat to their power.

    English began his career as a conservative ally of Jesse Bright in the Indiana legislature, before emerging as a staunch Unionist during the Civil War. He was elected to congress in 1862, though he retired just six years later. After spending a decade in private business in Indiana, he reentered politics to serve as Treasury Secretary under President Hendricks, a fellow Indianan. When English’s preferred candidate Thomas Bayard of Delaware declined to run for president, he stepped in instead. Finally, Daniel Sickles was a New York congressman who had served in congress briefly before the war. During the Civil War, he served as a general and commanded a corps under General Sherman before his disobedience of orders led to his dismissal from field command. Shortly after, Sickles resigned his commission and entered private law practice in New York City. In 1876, he reentered politics and was elected to the House with the secret backing of Tammany Hall.

    Bishop, with the support of reformists like Thomas Hendricks and Samuel Tilden, narrowly led on the first ballot. Sickles, despite his poor service record in the army, was able to leverage his military past and support from the New York delegation to emerge with a close second. The conservative English lacked any notable supporters and came in a disappointing third. Subsequent ballots saw Bishop sink slowly, as his lack of momentum or new supporters caused several of his delegates to desert. Sickles and English became the two frontrunners, trading the lead on the next five ballots. With Bishop’s campaign collapsing, Tilden and Hendricks looked elsewhere, both endorsing English. However, Tilden was still viewed with some suspicion for leading a walkout of reformists in 1880. The impasse remained until the 12th ballot, when Sickles secured a deal with the southern delegations who had previously been either neutral or for English. Sickles promised them significant patronage opportunities and federal non-interference in the Black Codes being passed by southern governments.


    Presidential vote12313Vice-Presidential vote1
    D. Sickles212221232381J. Daniel739
    W. English217223241203
    R. Bishop24522519357
    Other81868914Other16s



    This was enough and on the 13th ballot, Daniel Sickles received the Democratic nomination for President. For vice president, the convention nominated Senator John W. Daniel of Virginia, a leading southern conservative and statewide rival to William Mahone.”

    -From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012

    “President Blaine and the Whigs largely ran an above-the-fray and restrained campaign. Blaine campaigned little, making occasional speeches in New York and Indiana. Whig surrogates largely emphasized Blaine’s accomplishments and touted the strong economic recovery. “America is more respected among her peers than ever before on the world stage, and more prosperous than ever before at home,” declared the young mayor of Lynchburg, Coleman B. Elkins [2]. “To stray from the present course would be a poor decision indeed.”

    However, some Whig campaigners did make limited attacks on Sickles. His disobedience under Sherman was emphasized in their speeches. As one declared, “so-called ‘General’ Sickles is a duplicitous man, utterly without morals. He abandoned his duty on the field of battle to go and chase glory and was justly punished upon his failure, a failure which unnecessarily jeopardized his commander’s army against the foe.” The Democrats had little to attack Blaine with on policy and they could not effectively counter even the limited character attacks made on Sickles. Mostly, they criticized the raising of the tariff and attacked the proposed religious education amendment as anti-Catholic. While this was true in practice, the supposedly secular intent of the amendment and Blaine’s recent standoff with the United Kingdom combined to assuage some Irish voters, while the Wide Awakes once more took to the streets to persuade voters of the benefits of the Whig platform.


    James BlaineDaniel Sickles
    Electoral Vote288130
    Popular Vote4,233,5193,485,563
    Percentage54.344.7

    President Blaine was reelected by a decisive margin [3], sweeping the entire north (including Indiana, which had narrowly gone for Pendleton in 1880) and making gains in the upper south, winning Missouri. However, he narrowly lost Delaware, which he had won in 1880, and lost Jefferson and Shasta, as the Democrats had played on anti-Chinese sentiments and accused Blaine of favoring Chinese immigrants over citizens. Despite these losses, the Whigs expanded their congressional majorities and Blaine still increased his margin over 1880, defeating Sickles by over 10 percentage points and 125 electoral votes, the closest thing to a landslide in that era of politics.”

    -From THE EVOLUTION OF THE WHIGS by James Welter, published 1997

    [1] Roscoe Conkling said this about Ulysses Grant during the OTL 1880 RNC.
    [2] Fictional – he’ll be important later.
    [3] I know this is kind of a short chapter, but the 1884 election just isn’t that interesting and I wanted to get it out of the way quickly.
     
    Last edited:
    46. Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion
  • 46. Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion

    “As slaveowners across the south gradually acknowledged reality and manumitted their slaves, southern politics underwent a noticeable shift. Rather than depend on slavery to maintain the agrarian, white supremacist system that had governed the south since before the Revolution, now the states had to find a way to codify their unspoken system into actual law. Mississippi took the first steps, passing a series of laws and constitutional amendments known collectively as the Black Codes. These were also more euphemistically referred to by South Carolina Governor Martin Gary [1] as the “New Racial Understanding” during his state’s passage of a package of similar laws.

    The policy of convict leasing first pioneered in Mississippi was supplemented by Gary with the extensive use of so-called “Gypsy Laws [2]” that severely restricted the ability of blacks to move between counties, with such travel without the necessary (and very hard to acquire) state-issued paperwork often punished by arrest for vagrancy and subsequent sentencing to convict labor. Within four years of the nationwide ratification of the thirteenth amendment, convict leasing was common practice in southern states, and thousands of freedmen found themselves charged with phony crimes and sentenced to chain gangs. The emerging Democratic political machines, especially the powerful South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi ones, used their grip on power in their state legislatures to control the convict leasing system. Convict leasing became a key patronage tool used by these machines. Political cronies received discounts on lease rates and political bosses skimmed off of the considerable revenue generated by convict leasing to fund campaign war chests and pay bribes [3].

    Convicts were leased out not only to their former masters, but to industrialists. The growing steel mills and coal mines of Alabama, for example, became lucrative off the unpaid toil of armies of black convicts. Much of Mississippi’s highway system was built by leased convict labor, and most of Tennessee’s hydroelectric dams were built at least partially by convicts. The cruel system, which frequently saw convicts beaten and whipped by overseers in scenes reminiscent of slavery, grew to be incredibly pervasive in the southern economy. The “New Slavery” formed the bedrock of the post-abolition south, fueling not only the brutal and flamboyantly corrupt southern political machines that fueled the rise of the infamous W. Carlyle Sale in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as much of the public works built in the south between 1883 and 1973, when the Civil Rights Act severely restricted the practice of convict labor [4].”

    -From SLAVER'S LEGACY: AMERICA'S RACIAL FAILINGS by Rachel Philips, published 2018

    “Almost immediately after convening in December of 1885, the 49th Congress took up discussion of the proposed “Blaine Amendment” that had been a key Whig policy since 1880 and advocated by Blaine since his freshman Senate term. Concerned with the growing number of religious private schools, predominantly Catholic ones, seeking state financial assistance, Blaine and other proponents of the amendment sought to prohibit such schools from receiving taxpayer money. On its face, such an amendment appears neutral and simply clarifies the first amendment. However, at the time it was proposed in the 1880s, most public schools used protestant prayer and protestant bibles, while the only Catholic education was via a private Catholic school, usually operated by the Roman Catholic Church. Concern was also driven by Tammany Hall, New York City’s notorious Democratic machine, obtaining $1.5 million in state funds for Catholic schools in 1869 [5].

    On January 19th, 1886, the Fourteenth Amendment was introduced into the House of Representatives, reading “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

    In the House, the amendment was met with strong opposition from most Democrats, with the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee denouncing it and arguing that it contradicted the first amendment in an “egregious way” as one Congressman put it. Nevertheless, the Whig-dominated committee approved the amendment with the added provision that prohibited all public money, not merely taxpayer money. The broader House approved the amendment by a vote of 187-85, with 63 congressmen, almost all of them Democrats, abstaining in protest.

    The Whigs enjoyed a favourable landscape in the Senate, as many southern Democrats were amenable to supporting the amendment, seeing it as a way for their entrenched political machines to tightly control education. Many midwestern Whigs, seeing an opportunity to win the support of anti-Catholic German Americans, also supported the amendment. In fact, the only Whig to oppose the amendment was Virginia’s William Mahone, whose entire political machine relied on the support of non-protestant immigrant groups, especially the Eastern Orthodox Serb and Bulgarian communities in Richmond and Lynchburg. Despite the opposition of the Democrats (and Mahone), the Whigs received enough support from southern Democrats that the fourteenth amendment was passed by a vote of 64-12, with six abstentions (all southern Democrats concerned about the optics of voting for against an amendment that would reduce state expenditures.) It then fell to the states to ratify it, with 31 of the 41 states required to approve.

    The Whig-dominated midwestern state legislatures easily ratified the amendment, while New Jersey, Maryland, and Louisiana unsurprisingly rejected it. Missouri’s rejection of the amendment came as something of a surprise to the Whigs, but Mormons allied with Catholics to oppose what they saw as an attempt to suppress sectarian education. Rhode Island was another surprising rejection, but the state Whig party only held a narrow majority in the state house and there were enough defections that the ratification bid fell just short. There was another battle in New York, where Whigs held a similarly narrow majority of the state assembly. Several Whigs from areas with significant Catholic populations were wary of the political risk inherent in voting for ratification, while the state and national Whig parties were leaning heavily on them. After intense negotiations, the fence-sitters agreed to become yes-votes, New York voted to ratify the fourteenth amendment on June 21st, 1886.

    Southern legislatures were eager to reduce state spending on religious schools (which would allow them to underfund the public education system and give even more power to the plantocratic elite and their emergent political machines), and Alabama was the first southern state to ratify the fourteenth amendment, which it did on November 10th. The rest of the south save for Louisiana (with its politically influential catholic Creole community leading the opposition) ratified the amendment over September and October with Georgia, the tipping-point state, ratifying on October 14th. Georgia was the 31st state to ratify, and in so doing officially made the fourteenth amendment a part of the United States constitution. With Georgia’s vote, ratification came just in time for the 1886 midterms…”

    -From A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES by Hubert Johnson, published 1972

    “…not the Peru Crisis. Perhaps the only true folly of Blaine’s presidency was the immense push to ratify the amendment that frequently bears his name. After winning his two terms partially due to unusually strong support from Catholic voters, Blaine decided to pivot and appease the Nativist wing of his party, which had gotten steadily louder in its opposition to Catholicism and its support for English-only education.

    The strong economy should have ensured that the Whigs would, despite the inevitable losses of a midterm election, retain control of both chambers of Congress. It was not to be, however, as a result of an entirely different voter backlash – that of Catholics and German Americans. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment alienated Catholic voters by threatening their access to a Catholic education while ignoring the overtly Protestant nature of public schools. This alone would not have sentenced the Whigs to a humiliating defeat in 1886, but a number of states, namely Illinois and Wisconsin, passed laws requiring that all lessons in both public and private schools be taught in English only, enraging German-speaking communities [6]. While Catholics largely voted for Democratic candidates already, their turnout increased greatly while German Americans deserted the Whigs in outraged droves.

    Ohio narrowly rejected a similar law, and indeed bilingualism would catch on in that state first [7]. Community backlash from such ethnic and religious groups drove not only Democratic landslides in New York’s gubernatorial and congressional elections, seeing David B. Hill elected as Governor and eleven Whig congressmen lose their seats, but also staggering losses in the swing state of Illinois and traditional Whig states like Ohio and Wisconsin as a result of backlash from German American voters. In these states, protestant and Catholic Germans alike rallied against the Whigs in defense of their language and faith.

    Out of eight Whig representatives from Wisconsin, just two returned to Washington with the 50th Congress. Out of fifteen Whig-held districts in Illinois, just six (less than half) returned Whig representatives in 1890. Ohio, which had failed to pass an English-only law, saw less of a bloodbath, but Whigs still lost seven of their 16 districts in the state, sending a Democratic-majority delegation to the 50th Congress. Similar disappointments were seen in Indiana (3 out of 6) and Iowa (6 0ut of 11), leading President Blaine to privately remark that “it was an ignominious shellacking.” Of the major industrial states, only Virginia returned a majority-Whig delegation, 8 seats to 7 Democratic ones. While the Whigs held the Senate 43-39, the Democratic House majority, the first one since 1864, meant that little else was accomplished during President Blaine’s otherwise-momentous presidency. Nevertheless, Blaine contented himself with overseeing the speedy ratification of two constitutional amendments and the first of several major naval expansions [8] in U.S. history…”

    -From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986

    [1] OTL, Gary was one of the most hardline segregationists in postbellum South Carolina.
    [2] Because the laws restrict “itinerant people,” that is, people without the paperwork that requires literacy tests and a journey to the state capitol to apply in person.
    [3] As if neo-slavery wasn’t bad enough already…
    [4] Spoilers…
    [5] All OTL.
    [6] OTL, this drove the Democratic landslide in the 1890 House elections.
    [7] More spoilers…
    [8] More on this later.
     
    Last edited:
    47. A Shot of Bourbon
  • 47. A Shot of Bourbon

    “Following the long-standing precedent, President Blaine declined to seek a third term in 1888. Up until the disastrous 1886 midterms, Speaker Garfield had been viewed as the prohibitive frontrunner. However, with the Democratic landslide majority, Garfield’s political stock had sunk, and he announced early on that he would not seek the presidency. Both President Blaine and Secretary of State Sherman had quietly supported Garfield’s candidacy, but with him out of the picture Blaine moved to put forward Sherman as his successor. Throughout Blaine’s presidency, the two had worked well together, from the Peru crisis with Britain to the underwhelming First Hemispheric Amphictyony (which would in turn lead to a more forceful version under the presidencies of Elkins and McGovern.)

    Sherman was opposed by Russell Alger of Michigan, a millionaire lumber and railroad merchant who later won election to the Governorship. However, despite Alger’s wealth and statewide influence, he lacked the institutional support Sherman had. With Garfield, Blaine, and other high-ranking Whigs pushing for Sherman from behind the scenes, Alger stood little chance. Sherman took the nomination on the first ballot, with Alger winning the support of only Michigan and Indiana. His strong ties to the Blaine administration carried a lot of weight with delegates, and the convention nominated another Blaine administration insider, Postmaster General and patronage king Leonidas C. Houk, for vice-president. There was some opposition to Houk from ref0rm-minded Whigs, who rallied behind Attorney General Harrison, but Harrison declined to contest the nomination, all but handing Houk the nomination.


    Presidential vote1Vice-Presidential vote1
    J. Sherman537L. Houk706
    R. Alger211B. Harrison27
    Other17Other32


    The Whig platform doubled down on the policies of Blaine’s presidency, endorsing the continued expansion of the fleet, greater diplomacy with the other nations of the western hemisphere, and, most controversially, the 14th amendment. This resolution sparked heated debate among the delegates and, as one reporter noted, “the convention hall, already hot from the Philadelphia summer, grew even more heated once the plank was put forth.” Many delegates, led by Virginia Congressman Coleman B. Elkins [1], viewed doubling down on the amendment that many blamed for the landslide defeat in 1886 as political suicide, but the view that to downplay the amendment was cowardly and weak took the majority…”

    -From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986

    “After winning a surprisingly large majority in the 1886 House elections, the Democrats had a large coalition of disaffected German Americans that they had to retain. Just four years after President Blaine’s sweeping reelection, the Whig majorities had either dissipated or been thinned significantly, and the 1888 Democratic Convention hoped to extend these successes to retaking the Presidency after eight years. Held in Cincinnati as a direct appeal to German American voters, the convention was designed to showcase a “new Democratic party” that was no longer defined as the party of southern slaveholders.

    Among the men who sought the nomination, Arthur Gorman, John G. Carlisle, and David B. Hill were widely viewed as the most likely to win the nomination. Of these three, Gorman and Hill were known as machine men with a tight grip on their respective states’ Democratic parties. Gorman, a young and popular Senator from Maryland, was also the undisputed leader of the Maryland Democratic Party, with full control over patronage. His conservative, pro-business policies made him popular with industrialists, while his service as a key surrogate during Thomas Hendricks’s successful 1876 presidential campaign raised Gorman’s profile within the national Democratic party. He also had cordial relations with the powerful courthouse cliques of the south, and at the convention he had the tacit endorsements of Texas boss Richard Coke and South Carolina Governor Martin Gary.

    Hill, the Governor of New York, was another powerful boss. His Albany Machine operated in tacit alliance with the much more famous Tammany Hall in New York City but dominated statewide Democratic politics. Hill had become governor in 1883 [2] after narrowly defeating the pro-reform William Whitney at the state convention and had used his tenure to ruthlessly consolidate power into his machine, placing allies at the helm of regulatory bodies and powerful statewide agencies such as the Public Works Department. Even before Senator Tilden’s retirement due to ill health in 1886, Hill had been able to secure assembly support for one of his own, state assemblyman Alton Parker. Hill had close ties with several northern machine bosses, especially Illinois Congressman Adlai E. Stevenson.

    Then, there was the reformist John G. Carlisle. A Senator from Kentucky, Carlisle was a prominent leader of the reformist, pro-business faction of the Democratic party. He had been a soft unionist during the Civil War [3] and won election to the House in 1864. After a stint as the leader of House Democrats from 1869 to 1872, he had won election to the Senate in 1872. There, he established himself as a staunch supporter of free trade and, in contrast to the older echelons of Jacksonian Democrats, a supporter of the National Bank. He was enormously popular in his home state and had a reputation for honesty and integrity.

    The convention was likely to be a contest between the neo-Jacksonian boss Hill [4], pro-business boss Gorman, and pro-business reformist Carlisle.

    …because of Hill’s Tammany connections. Hill took a lead on the first ballot, followed closely by Carlisle and Gorman. A slew of minor candidates, including Virginia Congressman William Wilson and Texas Congressman William Silas Weldon [5], captured the rest of the delegates. By the third ballot, Wilson had endorsed Carlisle and Weldon Gorman, winnowing the field down further. The split between Gorman and Hill increasingly alienated business interests, who began to coalesce behind the cleaner Carlisle. On the fifth ballot, Martin Gary broke from Gorman and endorsed Carlisle, calling him the party’s “best chance” to win. This provoked a general shift of the southern delegates towards Carlisle, who took the nomination on the seventh ballot. Hill, who had come in a narrow second place, was angered at his defeat and not even the selection of his ally Adlai Stevenson as Carlisle’s running mate assuaged his disappointment.


    Presidential vote1237Vice-Presidential vote1
    J. Carlisle211223237401A. Stevens759
    D. Hill233241252234
    A. Gorman208215205127
    Other11386713Other6


    The Democratic platform sought to continue the theme of a “New Democratic Party” that had dominated the convention’s speeches and decision-making. The “excessive spending” of the Blaine administration was criticized, a resolution demanded the repeal of the 1883 and 1886 tariffs approved by the Whigs, and “affirming the right of states to determine their respective franchises,” in effect supporting southern Democrats in their efforts to impose neo-slavery after abolition. In most respects, the platform reflected the envisioned “rejuvenated” Democratic party…”

    -From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012

    “The general election campaign was a rather boring affair, save for one major scandal. A Philadelphia lawyer of unsavory reputation and with ties to the Quay Machine was alleged by the Democrats to have schemed in buying votes for Sherman and the Whigs. Though the scandal had little effect electorally in Pennsylvania, it helped mobilize Democrats nationwide to counteract any supposed Whig fraud. This, combined with Democratic use of canvassers and youth groups to generate Catholic turnout, posed a great threat to the Whigs.

    However, the Democrats were hampered in New York by David Hill, who directed his considerable patronage network not to support Carlisle. Meanwhile, the Whigs mobilized their network of supporters and Wide Awakes to try and hold on to the key swing state. Despite the platform endorsing the 14th Amendment (and the Democrats brought that up frequently), Sherman and the Whigs downplayed that in the general. In fact, almost no mention was made of the amendment or any of the English-only laws passed in 1886. Instead, the party focused on fostering the continued industrialization of the country…


    John CarlisleJohn Sherman
    Electoral Vote232186
    Popular Vote4,233,5193,485,563
    Percentage48.347.8


    Despite holding on to New York by a narrow margin, Sherman performed poorly elsewhere, even losing his home state of Ohio to Carlisle by less than 2,000 votes. Carlisle was able to ride the lingering anger of German Americans to victories in nine of Wisconsin’s eleven congressional districts, as well as the statewide vote [6]. He also won support from the Mormons of Missouri and Illinois, who were angry that the Whigs had prevented their schools from receiving state aid.

    After eight years out of the White House, the Democrats returned, this time with a large House majority and a 40-40 tied Senate. It was hoped to be a new era for the Democratic party, although the events of the next four years would dampen that enthusiasm…”

    -From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003

    [1] Next chapter, I’ll go into a bit more about this guy who I’ve mentioned twice in this TL so far.
    [2] TTL New York has its state elections on the same quadrennial off-year schedule as Virginia and New Jersey do OTL.
    [3] OTL, Carlisle supported Kentucky’s neutrality. TTL, with less secessionism in the Upper South, he’s more unionist.
    [4] Hill strikes me as a political chameleon of sorts, so TTL he adopts the trappings of Jackson and Douglas and positions himself as a sort of pseudo-populist.
    [5] Fictional. I will also discuss him in more depth later on…
    [6] The Democratic-controlled Wisconsin state government distributed the state’s electoral votes via congressional district, similar to Michigan in OTL 1892.
     
    Last edited:
    48. Good Government
  • 48. Good Government

    “President Carlisle would have preferred to fill his cabinet with reformist allies. However, the Democratic party was as much the party of Hill and Gorman as it was the party of reform. With an evenly divided Senate, he had to select a cabinet to appease all factions. To Treasury, he appointed his fellow reformist William C. Whitney, despite Whitney’s rivalry with the powerful Hill. The venerable conservative Senator Thomas Bayard of Delaware was appointed as Secretary of State, and another of Hill’s intrastate rivals, Stephen G. Cleveland, was made Attorney General.

    However, a number of bosses, or allies of bosses, did receive cabinet posts. John Bratton, ally of Martin Gary and a South Carolina congressman, was appointed as just the second ever Secretary of Agriculture. Richard Coke, who had an iron grip on the Texas Democratic party, was stepping down as governor and President Carlisle appointed him Postmaster General, from which post he could purge the Whigs installed by Houk and give favor to Democrats. This selection met with opposition from many Whigs, but he was confirmed 41-40, with Stevenson stepping in to break the tie.

    His fractious cabinet was a sign of the quiet but fierce divisions within the Democratic party, and President Carlisle, aside from overseeing the repeal of the Blaine tariffs, battled with the Jacksonian wing of the party over his refusal to fire Whigs from their civil service jobs without cause. His veto of the Interstate Commerce Act in January 1890, which would have regulated railroads and the rates they charged, proved enormously unpopular and sparked a wave of protests in the west. Then, in February 1890, the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad, already in difficult financial straits, filed for bankruptcy. This resulted in the company’s stocks plummeting, which soon affected other railroad stocks. Meanwhile, a revolution in Argentina that deposed the ruling National Autonomists [1] brought a sudden end to foreign investments, affecting both American and British speculators. This, along with a global decline in the price of various commodities, combined to cause not only a series of failures of railroads, but a general run on the banks. As people began exchanging their paper money for gold, banks started to run out.

    By the time Theodore Roosevelt, the President of the National Bank, stepped in to reign in the bank runs, nearly 350 banks [2] had run out of specie and gone under. Though further bleeding was staunched by the Bank, 12,000 businesses failed, and the unemployment rate rose sharply. Amid the worst recession since 1877, the Whigs narrowly retook the House, reversing many of their losses in 1886, and regained a slim majority in the Senate. Just when it looked like the Democrats had returned, a poor economy had swept away their new majorities…”

    -From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003

    Presidential Cabinet of John Carlisle:
    Vice President:
    Adlai E. Stevenson I
    Secretary of State: Thomas F. Bayard
    Secretary of the Treasury: William C. Whitney
    Secretary of War: William H. Barnum
    Attorney General: Stephen G. Cleveland
    Postmaster General: Richard Coke
    Secretary of the Interior: James E. Campbell
    Secretary of Agriculture: John Bratton
    Secretary of the Navy: John F. Andrew

    “In a wide-ranging interview on ABC, one exchange in particular between interviewer Jim Heller and President Charlie Breathitt has received the most attention. When questioned about the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives that would make voter IDs tax-free, Breathitt declined to state his opinion. “I’d have to see the specifics before I decide whether to sign it or not,” he said, prompting Heller to press him. “Respectfully, Mr. President, the bill has been discussed both in Congress and in the media for the past three days. You don’t have any opinion of it, you haven’t seen even an early draft of it?”

    The President responded, saying “I have, Jim. And I still have to talk with my advisors about it, but I do have reservations. I mean, states do have the right to oversee their elections. I don’t think, speaking as a conservative, that the federal government should be stepping in here. It isn’t a poll tax, it’s just voter IDs [3], and if people have to pay two dollars fifty to get one at the post office, I just don’t see why that’s grounds for federal intervention.”

    The President’s remarks earned him swift condemnation from many Whigs. Speaker Anna Weitzel (Whig-Wisc.) said in a statement that “A tax on a voter ID required to vote is an indirect poll tax. While I respect President Breathitt, his lack of understanding of this simple fact is deeply concerning. It is vital to our democracy that all Americans have an equal opportunity to vote. The President is, whether knowingly or unknowingly, standing in opposition to this principle.” Speaker Weitzel’s statement was echoed by Senate Majority Leader Heleringer (Whig-Kans.), along with dozens of other Whigs.

    President Breathitt’s press secretary, James MacDonald, responded to the uproar during the daily press briefing. “Look, the President believes, strongly believes, that banning states from this policy of taxing voter IDs constitutes federal overreach. I mean, the state has to pay for them somehow. Car taxes pay for people’s drivers licenses, after all. It’s clear that the Whig party doesn’t believe in leaving any issue to the states or to individuals. Just look at the recent Ogallala Aquifer battle – why couldn’t the state of Kansas or the state of Nebraska build the canals themselves? Why did Whig congressional leadership have to threaten a government shutdown in order to secure funding for a boondoggle that the federal government has no business funding? To the President, this voter ID bill is just another instance of the Whig party needlessly expanding the purview of the federal government.”

    Senator Thad Marshall (Whig-Neb.) castigated the President during an exchange with reporters on the steps of the capitol. “If the President doesn’t think that taxing voter IDs constitutes a poll tax, then he doesn’t have goddamned clue what a poll tax is. Historically, poll taxes were put in place by Democrat state governments all over the south so that all the poor black people couldn’t vote, if they even made it to the polling station alive. They were used and I guess are still being used, as a method of voter suppression to keep blacks and poor people from voting [4]. Taxing the act of voting hurts poor people way worse than it does the rich, and guess what? Most poor people in this country vote for Whigs, so it’s no wonder why all these Democrat lawmakers support poll taxes.” When asked by a reporter from Century Television, a pro-Democratic news outlet, why he thought a tax on voter IDs was a poll tax, Marshall said “this shouldn’t be so complicated for you people to understand. You need the ID to vote, right? So, if you put a tax on the ID, you need to pay a tax in order to vote. It’s an indirect poll tax, and it’s wrong.”

    President Breathitt is no stranger to gaffes and missteps, describing urban Whig voters as “living in crime central” during his 2016 campaign and referring to a Black audience as “you people [5]” during a town hall event in Richmond about his proposed Pan-American Free Trade Agreement (PAFTA) in 2018. This latest incident…”

    -From BREATHITT UNDER FIRE OVER POLL TAX GAFFE by Kenny Yates, published on The National Report, June 3rd, 2022

    “Coleman Bryant Elkins was born in Ravenna, Ohio, on August 17th, 1842, to Henry Elkins and his wife Elizabeth Pickett. His father was a local attorney who was active in the county Whig party, giving Coleman political exposure from an early age. Ravenna is located in the Western Reserve region of Ohio, one of the most abolitionist regions of the country at the time, and the Elkins family were active in local anti-slavery groups. Coleman attended the Western Reserve College, where he studied law, but interrupted his education to serve in the Ohio state militia during the civil war. Upon returning to Western Reserve, Elkins graduated in 1864 with his law degree. After working in his father’s office for three years, Elkins moved to Morgantown, Virginia, which was beginning to undergo an economic boom.

    Elkins joined the firm Waitman T. Willey, a prominent local lawyer and Whig politician. By 1874, records indicate that Elkins had established himself sufficiently as a lawyer that he formed his own practice in Lynchburg, a rapidly growing industrial hub for the steel and coal industries and a city of some 15,000 people. In Lynchburg, Elkins immersed himself in Whig politics and quickly established himself as a well-regarded attorney. His investments in the Appalachian Steel Company and local railroads made him both wealthy and a community leader. He served as a delegate to the 1877 Virginia constitutional convention, where he eloquently argued in favor of abolition. His profile in Lynchburg politics raised, he was selected as the Whig party’s mayoral candidate by acclamation in 1880 and was elected in a landslide.

    As Mayor of Lynchburg, Elkins focused on improving the school system and building a streetcar system to reduce street traffic and enable the city’s expansion. The public school system, established in 1878, had low attendance from German American children, as their parents protested the English-only curriculum and chose to send their children to private schools. Seeking to remedy this situation, Elkins proposed introducing select classes taught in both English and German to preserve the language and also learn English. This was narrowly adopted by the city council and proved enormously popular with the city’s German community – their attendance in the public schools skyrocketed. This law introducing bilingualism into public schools was the first of its kind in the country, and would inspire not only municipal laws in Milwaukee, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Louisville, but also statewide laws in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio. His other major accomplishment was chartering the city’s first streetcar company [6], which connected the neighborhoods of the city to the downtown and allowed for the construction of early suburbs. The streetcars eroded the insular nature of Lynchburg’s ethnic neighborhoods, fostering a greater sense of community and civic pride.

    While in office, Elkins served as a delegate to the 1884 and 1888 Whig national conventions and argued against the party’s support of English-only laws at the latter. He nevertheless campaigned for Sherman in 1888 and supported the 14th amendment. In 1890, amid the nationwide recession, Elkins was elected to Congress from Lynchburg’s seat by an overwhelming margin. In Congress, he established himself as a supporter of tariffs and naval expansion, frequently echoing Blaine’s view that British investments in central and south America posed a threat to American geopolitical interests in the same regions. By the time 1892 rolled around, he was viewed by some within the party as a potential presidential candidate…”

    -From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986

    [1] More on Argentina in the next chapter.
    [2] OTL, it was more like 500. TTL, the National Bank’s restraining influence on speculation prevents more banks from collapsing, but the recession is still pretty bad.
    [3] Some things don’t change in ATLs, I guess.
    [4] Another big way that the southern courthouse cliques cling to power is their ruthless suppression of the vote. If the opposition can’t vote, then there isn’t much of an opposition.
    [5] In full Ross Perot cosplay.
    [6] Lynchburg got streetcars right around this time IOTL, too.
     
    49. Revolution and Recession
  • 49. Revolution and Recession

    “After emerging victorious from the Atacama War in 1881, Argentina entered a period of great prosperity, helped by the arrival of large numbers of Sicilian and Irish immigrants. Under the rule of the corrupt and oligarchic National Autonomist Party and fueled by a deluge of foreign investments, the country shifted towards industrial agriculture, though the industrialization of later decades had yet to happen. Amid the economic boom, the NAP instituted universal, free, secular education to all children in 1884, and entered into a naval arms race with Brazil [1].

    This era of economic expansion came to an end as a series of large corporations went bankrupt towards the end of 1888, causing foreign investment to slow. This, combined with the rise of inflation, caused the speculative bubble in Argentina to burst, and the country entered a deep recession by mid-1889 (that helped cause a global economic slowdown the following year). The working class (many of its members having arrived during the boom years of the 1880s) had begun to organize before the Depression of 1889, and as businesses closed and companies made cutbacks, waves of strikes rocked the cities. President Miguel Celman was incredibly unpopular, and the Civic Union, led by Leandro Alem and Aristobulo del Valle, plotted to oust him. They counted on the indirect support of former President Bartolome Mitre.

    The Civic Union secured the support of several army units in Buenos Aires, and Leandro Alem was able to secure the support of most of the expanded navy, as well. Manuel Campos, the leader of the rebel forces, planned to first seize the Artillery Park and establish a revolutionary junta, then secure key government buildings and capture the President and his cabinet, as well as Julio Roca, the President of the Senate and powerful former President. Meanwhile, the navy would simultaneously bombard the Casa Rosada barracks to cripple the ability of government troops to respond. After narrowly evading arrest by the government [2], Campos initiated the coup d’état on July 26th, as planned.

    The rebel forces quickly secured Artillery Park, while the fleet bombarded the barracks and caught the government troops unawares [3]. Campo, following the plan [4], moved his well-armed [5] troops out of the park and towards the key objectives. Within six hours of the coup’s beginning, militiamen had arrested President Celman, Vice President Pellegrini, War Minister Levalle, and Senate President Roca. Meanwhile, after fighting their way through the streets, other rebel forces captured the barracks, which had been heavily bombarded by the navy. The remaining government troops surrendered after a brief battle. With much of the executive branch captured and the government troops in the city either captured or in disarray, the remaining resistance to the Civic Union (mostly Buenos Aires police officers) dissipated by the end of the 27th.

    From the junta’s provisional headquarters on the Artillery Park, Alem issued the August Declaration, a manifesto of the Civic Union’s aims for the revolution. They had acted to “avoid the ruin of the country” by deposing a “corrupt government that represents illegality and corruption.” The junta condemned the “credo of the government that forces the people to live without voice or vote, witness the disappearance of rules, the trampling of principles and guarantees, tolerate the usurpation of our political rights, and maintaining those in power who have wrought the disgrace of the republic [6].”

    There was some resistance from the provinces, but the swift decapitation of the central government and the beginning of insurrections in Corrientes and Tucuman pressured the other provinces to fall in line behind the new Revolutionary Junta, with Leandro Alem as its provisional president. By the end of August, the situation had calmed and Alem called for general elections to take place in April the following year, with secret ballots and universal male suffrage. It was here that the Civic Union split, between Alem’s more radical followers and Mitre’s more conservative followers. Julio Roca, disappointed that the entire system of patronage he had built had been swept away, nevertheless attempted to hold together the NAP and put forth the moderate Roque Saenz Pena as the party’s candidate.

    The election was held in April under the terms of Alem’s August Declaration, though the electoral college remained in place. Alem received the unanimous nomination of the Radical Civic Union, and Mitre and Saenz Pena were also unanimously nominated by their respective parties. While Mitre’s National Civic Union was a cohesive party, the National Autonomists splintered into regionalist factions, with the Cordoba faction forming its own party and running Governor Manuel Pizarro, and the Corrientes faction running former Governor Juan Ramon Vidal. The Socialists nominated their leader Juan Justo, but the party was still weak nationally, and most workers gravitated towards the Radical Civic Union.

    On election day Alem won a slim plurality of the popular vote, edging out Mitre by 6 percentage points. The National Autonomists completely collapsed, as Saenz Pena, despite his moderation, was unable to overcome his ties to the deposed Celman presidency or win back the Cordoba and Corrientes splinter tickets. When the electoral college met in July, just under a year since the Revolution of the Park, Leandro Alem was elected President with 120 electoral votes out of 232, with Mitre in a distant second with 52 and Saenz Pena third with 49. Regionalist parties and faithless electors comprised the rest. In the concurrent legislative elections, the entire Chamber of Deputies was put up for election. Ordinarily, half of the chamber stood for election every two years, but Alem, Mitre, and the Revolutionary Junta agreed that a truly fresh start mandated fresh elections for the entire chamber. The Radical Civic Union won a plurality of seats, with 44 out of 120. The National Autonomists came in second with 33, and the National Civic Union was the third-largest party with 25 seats. The two Civic Unions formed a cautious coalition to ward off the conservative parties.

    President Alem and his allies quickly cemented the promised reforms, passing labor protections, legalizing trade unions, and working to diversify the national economy away from agriculture and towards other forms of industry. Argentina began its first steps towards the powerful liberal democracy it is today…”

    -From ARGENTINA: A MODERN HISTORY by Jessica Harvey, published 2011

    “Amid the devastating recession, there was a resultant reduction in purchases of consumer goods and raw materials. Therefore, rail traffic declined, and railroad companies began laying off workers and cutting wages. In Saint Louis, wage cuts at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad depot without cuts in prices at the company store sparked protests, and the (un-unionized) workers called for a strike, which began on April 17th, 1891.

    With the strike underway, many workers at the depot joined the Federation of Trade Unions [7], which supported the strike by launching sympathy strikes at railroad stations where workers refused to handle B&O rolling stock or service B&O locomotives. Within days, rail traffic at not only the Saint Louis B&O depot, but the Saint Louis Union Station and freight depots in Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Richmond, and Philadelphia had shut down. The B&O and other railroads affected by the work stoppages began hiring strikebreakers, who were in ample supply due to the high unemployment rate. The strikers often shouted insults and threw rocks as the strikebreakers headed to work, and finally, on May 3rd, violence broke out as strikers began beating strikebreakers in order to prevent them from entering the B&O depot. The brawl escalated into a riot as strikers destroyed locomotives and rolling stock and set fire to nearby buildings.

    …strike threatened economic pandemonium if it became a protracted affair. President Carlisle agreed with his cabinet that the strike had to be ended swiftly, and he directed Attorney General Cleveland to obtain an injunction ordering the end of the strikes. This was duly granted by the local circuit court, and Cleveland warned the FTU that they were prohibited from “compelling or encouraging any impacted railroad employee to refuse to perform or hinder the performance of any of their duties.” This was ignored by the FTU, which was determined to make a strong statement and demonstrate its power and dedication to the railroad executives. An attempt by a more radical union, the Brotherhood of International Workers [8], to start a nationwide general strike, was opposed by the FTU and the tension ratcheted. Finally, on May 23rd, federal army troops and the Missouri National Guard moved in to suppress the strike. While the more moderate FTU stood down and urged the preservation of peace, the BIW-affiliated workers were often belligerent, leading to the deaths of 31 railroad workers nationwide. Property damage exceeded $90 million.

    Carlisle claimed that his actions were constitutionally required because the railroad stoppages threatened the transport of mail, and the public generally agreed. However, while he won praise for his firm, decisive response to the railroad strikes, it did little to salvage his popularity as the country remained mired in the worst recession since 1837.”

    -From LONG VIOLENT HISTORY: THE STRUGGLE OF AMERICA’S UNIONS by Jennifer White, published 2018

    “It is difficult to argue that Carlisle was unaware of his crippling unpopularity, but perhaps he simply wouldn’t let himself believe it. The President decided to visit his hometown of Covington in June of 1891, partly to escape from the tension in Washington and partly to campaign for John Y. Brown, the Democratic nominee for Governor of Kentucky. His reception was cool, even in his hometown, and the President was dejected as he walked to his home after being booed at a speech [9].

    When a young man called out to him and exclaimed “Mr. President! What an honor would be to shake your hand, sir,” Carlisle turned toward him and smiled, extending his hand. However, Henry Jennings did not intend to shake the President’s hand – he had been laid off from his job at the Stewart Iron Works due to the depression and blamed the President for it. Having already struggled with mental problems and alcoholism, the loss of his job untethered Jennings and sent him into a spiral, and when he heard that Carlisle was coming to visit Covington, he resolved to assassinate him.

    Thus, when Carlisle turned to shake hands with Jennings, he was instead met with the barrel of a pistol. Jennings fired three times at close range, striking the President in the lung once and stomach twice. The wounded president was carried by his escorts back to his residence as Jennings was subdued and arrested by a policeman who had come running at the sound of gunfire. Despite the attention of doctors, President John Carlisle contracted sepsis within days and died on June 19th, six days after being shot. Upon being told of the President’s death, Vice President Stevenson ordered a national period of mourning and declared himself the President, not acting-President as some in his cabinet urged him to do [10]. Many Whigs resisted Stevenson’s full assumption of the Presidency, and within weeks the Whig majority in Congress began debating legislation to refer to Stevenson strictly as Vice President-acting President. It seemed that not only was the United States mired in an economic crisis, but it was also mired in a constitutional crisis as well…”

    -From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003


    [1] OTL, the arms race was with Chile. TTL, with a weaker Chile and greater tensions with Brazil, that’s who Argentina has the arms race with.
    [2] This happened OTL, and it may have led to Campo turning traitor and collaborating with Roca instead.
    [3] TTL, the government doesn’t find out about the coup and so their troops aren’t prepared. Meanwhile, the rebel takeover of the fleet goes a lot smoother.
    [4] OTL, Campo refused to leave the park, ceding the initiative to the government. It is unknown why he did it.
    [5] From the Civic Union’s OTL 1890 manifesto.
    [6] OTL, the rebels found they had half as much ammunition as they thought. TTL, they double check and are properly armed.
    [7] Basically a more successful and cohesive AFL.
    [8] Basically a more isolated and radical ARU.
    [9] This happened to Carlisle in 1896 IOTL. Not the assassination attempt, obviously.
    [10] Remember that ITTL, Carlisle is the first president to die in office. The exact role of the Vice President is still unsure.
     
    Last edited:
    50. Gathering Clouds
  • 50. Gathering Clouds

    “…determined to establish himself as the legitimate President, not merely the acting-President. However, not only did Vice President Stevenson face opposition from members of his cabinet such as Attorney General Cleveland, but he also faced the ire of the Whig congressional majorities. Speaker George D. Robinson and Senate leader James Garfield regarded Stevenson as merely acting-president and were outraged at the Vice President’s efforts to assume the full presidency. The Whigs viewed this as a usurpation and introduced legislation to require that Stevenson be referred to as “acting President” in favor of “President [1].” Stevenson continued to insist that he was the full president and not merely executing the duties of the presidency, and indeed was preparing to take the oath of office when he received word on July 9th that Congress had acted.

    By narrow, party-line votes in the House and Senate, the Whigs had forced through a resolution declaring Stevenson acting-President, with one of the resolution’s sponsors, Congressman Coleman Elkins of Virginia, cautioning that “to ignore or disregard this is to usurp the authority of the vacant Presidency and overstep the boundaries set forth by the Constitution.” Faced with Whig opposition and dissent from much of his cabinet, Stevenson reluctantly backed down from assuming the Presidency. Whigs celebrated the victory, but Stevenson’s definition of acting-President was very different from the passive role envisioned by the Whigs and the reformist wing of the cabinet. After settling the succession crisis, he ordered Postmaster General Coke to fire hundreds of Whig employees and replaced them with loyal Democrats [2]. He also demanded the resignation of Attorney General Cleveland and Treasury Secretary Whitney, viewing them as insufficiently loyal to the party.

    The “August Massacres” saw thousands of Whigs fired from civil service positions and the cabinet purged of the reformists the slain President Carlisle had surrounded himself with. Stevenson’s firings were decried by the Whigs as overstepping the authority of the acting-President, but, if he could not be President, was determined to be President in everything but name. These bloodless purges came at a cost, however. The Whigs lost any interest in compromising with Stevenson, and his efforts to confirm David B. Hill as Treasury Secretary were flat-out rejected by Garfield, Mahone, and the rest of the Whigs’ Senate leadership. As the economy showed little indication of improvement and the Whigs made “Adlai the Usurper” almost a persona non grata in Washington, both parties looked to 1892 as a chance to finally chart a new direction for the country. Of course, it was far more likely that it would be the Whigs who would have such an opportunity…”

    -From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003

    “President Alem was able to cobble together something of a reunion of the Radical and National wings of the Civic Union to vote the bulk of his agenda through the legislature. An income tax was introduced, a Central Bank was established, agricultural reforms were passed, and industrialization was encouraged [3]. The continued immigration boom fueled the exploitation of coal deposits in Santa Cruz Province, while the beginnings of a domestic processed food industry emerged, taking advantage of the already-existing cattle and grain industries. During the first half of the 1890s, a domestic steel industry also emerged, helped by favorable government policies and the opening of large iron ore mines [4]. A boom occurred in the construction sector as the pace of railroad construction increased considerably.

    …Along with the industrial growth and continued flood of Irish and Sicilian immigrants, the naval arms race with Brazil continued unabated. In 1890, the Celman administration contracted with American shipbuilders to custom-build three state-of-the-art battleships of the Rivadavia class, armed with four 12-inch guns in two twin turrets, along with eight 9.2-inch guns in four twin turrets, two on each side of the ship, and President Alem declined to cancel the order upon his election. This was in reaction to the Brazilian government ordering two modern battleships from Armstrong in the United Kingdom. Though Emperor Pedro II attempted to persuade the Argentines that the new battleships were not intended as a challenge, this message was not received, and Buenos Aires would place further orders in 1892 for a class of four fast armored cruisers from companies in the United States, who had expanded capacity as a result of the Americans’ own rapid pace of naval expansion.”

    -From ARGENTINA: A MODERN HISTORY by Jessica Harvey, published 2011

    “…crown prince, now the young Emperor of Brazil. Pedro III ascended to the throne on February 9th, 1893, three months after the death of his father, the beloved Pedro II. Unlike the parliamentarian Pedro II, the new Emperor was an ultramontane Catholic, which alienated many of the liberals who had so strongly supported his father. however, Pedro III was also a staunch abolitionist, which earned him the fierce opposition of the conservative landowners [5].

    To unify the nation and distract from his unpopular combination of beliefs, Pedro III decided to stoke the rivalry with Argentina that had been quietly simmering since the Atacama War in 1881. The army was greatly expanded and supplied with British-made materiel, although the army command retained its suspicion of the Emperor and its Republican leanings continued to fester [6]. Worse, the expansion of the army left Argentina feeling encircled, driving them to approve a modest army reform and expansion protocol of their own. Meanwhile, enormous sums were poured into the Brazilian navy, which quickly became the pride of the nation. Aside from the two Riachuelo class battleships, two more modern Minas Geraes class battleships were also purchased, in response to the 1895 delivery of the first two of Argentina’s three Rivadavia class battleships, which were significantly more powerful than the existing fleet of Brazilian capital warships.

    The profligate spending on warships alienated the increasingly populous and powerful Argentina, while placing great strain on Brazilian finances. The export-driven Brazilian economy could sustain such a rate of expansion during prosperous times such as the 1890s, but should international trade be as disrupted as it was at the close of the decade, it would have disastrous effects on Brazil’s ability to finance not only further military expansion, but the upkeep of the army and ships it already had…”

    -From ARGENTINA: A MODERN HISTORY by Jessica Harvey, published 2011

    “Following the 1885 Panjdeh incident, relations between Great Britain and the Russian Empire soured further. Russia had seized a border fort in Afghanistan, which was tentatively within the British sphere of influence. Sensing a threat to India and obligated by treaty to aid Afghanistan, the British dispatched an expeditionary force that dislodged the Russian occupiers after a brief battle. The affair nearly led to war, but cooler heads prevailed and while Russia backed down, Czar Alexander II was left embarrassed. It didn’t help that the Russo-Afghan border remained poorly defined, and tensions with Britain continued to rise, especially after the death of Alexander II from tuberculosis in 1889…

    …the reluctance of Frederick III and Minister-President Leo von Caprivi to seek an accord with Russia served to further convince Czar Nicholas II [7] of Russia’s isolation. He was especially concerned that, rather than tussle over influence in the German Confederation, Prussia and Austria-Hungary had instead drawn closer together due to the economic unity promoted by the Zollverein and the landmark Coinage Treaty. The role of Prussia and Austria-Hungary in brokering peace between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which had resulted in Russia failing to achieve any of its significant war aims had embittered elements of the Russian political class and the growing closeness between the two powers seemed to bode ill for Russian ambitions in the Balkans. It also didn’t help that, after the Compromise of 1867, Austria-Hungary had reformed itself and federalized [8], helping calm the diverse Empire’s internal divisions.

    The Republic of Italy was another nation that was increasingly wary of the Austro-Prussian axis. Rome continued to claim the Italian-majority provinces of Austria-Hungary (Lombardy and Venetia) and saw the growing unity of the German Confederation as a threat to the completion of Risorgimento. As a result, Consul Giuseppe Zandarelli drew his country even closer to its traditional ally of France. French President Emile Combes, a member of the Radical Left [9], had inherited upon his election growing tensions with Prussia over the two countries’ conflicting claims in Cameroon. Both French and Prussian entrepreneurs had established trading posts in the region, the French along the east coast of the Gulf of Guinea in Brazzaville and Libreville, and the Prussians in Duala on the Cameroon coast. As the two powers explored and claimed the African interior via patchworks of local protectorates, they ran into conflict in the lands north of Duala. The French had expanded their holdings rapidly between 1880 and 1890, while the Prussians and other German firms focused on establishing a handful of profitable plantations in the vicinity of Duala. In 1891, however, the Deutsches Kamerunische Gesellschaft (German Cameroon Corporation) began to take a more aggressive course. The commander of the Prussian troops in the area, Hermann Wissmann, began expanding into the interior and concluding treaties with native chieftains. His signing of a treaty with the local Yaunde people to establish a trading post and military garrison, named Jaunde Station.

    The French in Brazzaville remained unworried by the DKG, until they began expanding towards the Congo River, seeking greater access to the river for ease of commerce [10]. One of Wissmann’s expeditions took the Prussians along the Ubangi River to Bangi, just south of rapids that marked the end of navigable river. This land was unclaimed by the French, but Wissmann’s establishment of a DKG trading outpost and garrison threatened their ambitions of dominating trade in the region, and French imperialists worried that Prussians in Bangi posed a military threat to French outposts downriver. Tensions were heightened when a French expedition, unaware of the DKG outpost, stumbled upon it. Although this misunderstanding was settled quickly, it was inflated into a diplomatic crisis in Berlin and Paris, not helped by Combes’ Foreign Minister, Theophile Delcasse. Caprivi protested that the DKG had a right to free trade and that Wissmann had gotten there first and refused to recall him.

    The French refused to withdraw, and as a result conference of the Great Powers was called in London. The London Congress established the Congo and Ubangi Rivers as free navigation zones, after which the Prussians and the rest of the Confederation agreed to withdraw and cede Bangi to the French [11]. Though it had ended in a partial victory for Paris, a significant number of politicians were angry with Prussia for standing in the way of French expansion, and many imperialists were furious that Prussian intransigence had meant that the Congo River was now a free trade zone, no longer dominated by French outposts [12]. As a result, Delcasse pursued closer relations with Russia, itself facing tension with the member-states of the German Confederation. In 1892, France established a military alliance with Russia, known as the Dual Entente. Just nine months prior, Arthur Balfour, the British Prime Minister who had helped broker the London Congress, was defeated by Lord Rosebery [13] and a resurgent Liberal Party. Rosebery, after a colonial dispute with the French over suzerainty over the Sokoto Caliphate, was disinclined to continue Balfour’s attempts at rapprochement. The alliance with Russia was added cause for concern, as tensions still existed between London and Petrograd over Afghanistan and the still poorly defined central Asian borders.”

    -From THE GRAND CONSENSUS: EUROPE 1815-1898 by Rebecca Gardner, published 2001

    “…muted criticism from the Democrats, neither Carlisle nor House Democrats had taken any steps to reign in naval spending, and despite the economic downturn, Stevenson approved another round of naval expansion in late 1891. The Whigs, especially those from states and districts where shipbuilding was an important sector of the local economy, saw a second round of ship construction as an opportunity to provide jobs for workers left unemployed by the Panic of 1890. While the Blaine administration had seen six battleships of two classes laid down, these six ships of the Louisiana and New York classes were already lagging behind the new battleships of the British navy. When Argentina placed orders at Cramp & Sons for three modern battleships, even many Democrats agreed that the United States had to catch up.

    Part of the reason that even many fiscally conservative Democrats came to support increased naval spending was that Blaine, a Whig, had essentially outflanked the Democrats in his Anglophobia, and the Democrats felt that they had to match this in order to win back Irish Catholic voters. Thus, a bipartisan group of Congressmen led by Coleman B. Elkins proposed the Navy Act of 1891, which funded the construction of two Illinois class and three Jefferson class battleships, along with seven New Orleans class protected cruisers and a dozen modern destroyers. These two classes were broadly similar, with four 13.5-inch [14] guns in two twin turrets, but these guns were more advanced than the previous 13.5-inch guns that were mounted in the preceding Louisianas and New Yorks, having a higher shell velocity. 16-inch guns had been proposed, but the US lacked the manufacturing capability to make such barrels. The Illinois class was notable for a top speed of 18 knots, reachable due to thinner armor than the slower but better-protected Jefferson class. Ships such as these began to worry the British government and it was only under the second Balfour ministry in 1895 that the admiralty would begin to respond…”

    -From A HISTORY OF AMERICAN POWER AT SEA by Edgar Willis, published 1974

    [1] The Whigs attempted this OTL after W.H. Harrison died.
    [2] Stevenson did this himself OTL when he was Cleveland’s Postmaster General.
    [3] All reforms that were attempted but failed under Yrigoyen OTL, are here approved decades ahead of schedule. The agricultural reforms in particular will help Argentina remain prosperous even when demand for beef/grain/wool declines.
    [4] This will also help Argentina diversify and industrialize, without the issues of Peronism.
    [5] This describes Pedro II’s OTL daughter Isabel.
    [6] Foreshadowing…
    [7] Alexander’s son Nicholas, who died in 1865 IOTL of some sort of meningitis.
    [8] All in all, a more centralized A-H. With Maximilian I as Emperor, a federa system is adopted to give representation to all ethnic groups, not just the big two. There are a few Hungarian noble rebellions, but nothing major.
    [9] Comparatively speaking, as they are not socialists, though they do often work with the Socialist groupings in parliament.
    [10] One reason for Germany getting New Kamerun during the Agadir Crisis OTL. TTL, with no Berlin conference and a slower French colonial expansion, the DKG goes for it.
    [11] Similar to OTL, except without any Congo Free State to go with it, for better or worse.
    [12] Do I smell rising tensions? I think I do.
    [13] Rosebery doesn’t have the best go of it, and he resigns in 1895 after failing to secure funding for more battleships to keep Britain ahead of the rapidly expanding American fleet.
    [14] OTL, the USN stuck to 12-inch guns after building the first nine of their modern battleships. TTL, after making improvements to the 13.5-inch design (just slightly bigger than the OTL 13-inch guns), the USN sticks with the larger caliber.
     
    Last edited:
    51. The Dark Horse
  • 51. The Dark Horse

    “It was a busy convention for the Whigs, as the depression dragged on, and the acting-President was bogged down in fighting over patronage. Held in Richmond, the Whig convention was intended to portray the return to normalcy and prosperity the party was promising. A number of powerful candidates stepped forward, namely former Attorney General Benjamin Harrison, Ohio Governor William McKinley [1], New York Governor Warner Miller, and former Secretary of State (and 1888 nominee) John Sherman.

    Harrison was popular within the party and had an informal endorsement from the ailing former President Blaine. McKinley was young and popular, but his ties with Ohio Whig boss Mark Hanna were off-putting to many delegates, who worried McKinley would be a puppet of business interests. Miller had strong reformist credentials and was supported by Senator Levi P. Morton, but he was held in suspicion by the bossist wing of the party. Finally, there was Sherman, who sought to make a political comeback. However, he was viewed as a failed candidate by many, and in his second bid for the nomination he lacked the support of Blaine, only receiving the tepid endorsement of his fellow Ohioan, Senate leader Garfield.

    Among the attendees of the convention were William Mahone and his ally and protégé, Congressman Coleman B. Elkins…

    …On the first ballot, Harrison emerged with a comfortable lead over McKinley, but he fell over a hundred delegates short of a majority. Senator Miller established himself as a viable candidate with a respectable third-place finish, while Sherman’s comeback attempt faltered at the gate with a disappointing 81 delegates. The remaining delegates aligned themselves with various minor candidates and favorite sons. On the second and third ballots, Sherman gained strength while his main rivals held steady, but he was still stuck in fourth place. Ten more ballots were held with little movement, and by the fourteenth ballot it was very late, and the delegates were growing restless. As the roll call loomed, talk increased of a “dark horse nominee,” someone in attendance who had not been considered. McKinley and Sherman approached Garfield with an offer to withdraw and unite behind the Senator, but Garfield declined. Meanwhile, Senator William Mahone of Virginia gave a brief speech nominating one of his closest allies, Congressman Coleman B. Elkins, and Virginia’s delegation quickly abandoned McKinley to support the favorite son.

    Once the balloting commenced, there was little change in the delegations until Pennsylvania was called, where eleven out of 64 total delegates shifted from Harrison and McKinley to Congressman Elkins. The news provoked murmurs among the delegates – Elkins wasn’t a total unknown, but neither was he discussed as a potential candidate (except, it appeared, among the leaders of the Virginia delegation). With the Virginia delegation’s unanimous support, Elkins finished on the fourteenth ballot with 41 delegates, establishing himself as a legitimate contender. His support increased on the fifteenth ballot with defections from the other four candidates in New York, Ohio, and Illinois. He also secured the full support of the Alabama, Missouri, and Wisconsin delegations through Mahone’s negotiations. This placed him at 46 delegates, still behind even Sherman but a sharp uptick in support.

    On the seventeenth ballot, Elkins surged into third place with the defections of much of New England and the support of many southern delegates. Meanwhile, Miller and Sherman lost momentum, with Sherman sinking to just 65 delegates. There was now serious talk in some camps of making Elkins the compromise nominee. Seeing their avenues to the nomination narrowing, McKinley and Sherman instructed their delegates to shift to Elkins. On the eighteenth and final ballot, there was an enormous shift to Elkins, and the Virginia congressman won 411 votes, more than enough to take the nomination. While the reaction of many reporters to the convention results was a bemused “who?”, the delegates were swept up in a wave of excitement. For vice president, the convention selected Connecticut Senator Morgan Bulkely.


    Presidential vote12314151617Vice-Presidential vote1
    C. Elkins0004162153411M. Bulkely509
    B. Harrison276278273261253241173H. Evans232
    W. McKinley221226223221217198129
    J. Sherman8110310583816538
    W. Miller1391351341351249714
    Other4823302428110Other24


    The party platform directly challenged the conservative policies of the Carlisle and Stevenson years, calling for the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Anti-Trust Act, once progressive ideals that had become mainstream even before President Carlisle vetoed them both. Other resolutions seemed minor at the time but would dominate much of Elkins’s second term, namely the construction of a Nicaraguan inter-oceanic canal and a condemnation of Spain’s treatment of Cuban revolutionaries…”

    -From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986

    “Acting-President Adlai Stevenson, despite causing deep divisions within his party, still announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination at the convention in Saint Louis [2]. However, despite his efforts to establish himself as the incumbent president, the Reform faction of the party refused to see him as such and united behind William C. Whitney, the former Navy Secretary, as their preferred challenger to the acting-President. Stevenson still had one advantage that the reformists sorely lacked: he could count on an array of powerful machines both northern and southern to support his campaign at the convention.

    Stevenson also faced a challenge from the boss of Maryland, Arthur P. Gorman. Gorman, who had run for President in 1888, once again sought the office, decrying Stevenson as an attempted usurper. The Maryland Senator marshalled his own network of political machines, including William Weldon’s [3], who had managed to wrest control of much of Richard Coke’s Texas machine during the latter’s time as Postmaster General. Weldon, a ruthless operator, viewed the Stevenson “administration” as a chaotic disaster and, after David B. Hill declined to mount a challenge, endorsed Gorman. Stevenson had attempted to ward off Gorman’s challenge by promising him control of a good deal of government patronage. Gorman had refused and marshalled his allies to challenge the acting-President.

    Stevenson led on the first ballot, but Gorman’s alliance with the southern courthouse cliques and Whitney’s support from New England reformists (as this was decades before the rise of the Scanlon machine in Boston) denied him a majority. Whitney’s campaign had little ability to persuade either of his rivals to endorse him, while Gorman held out for Hill’s endorsement. For his part, Hill was closely monitoring the convention and remained neutral. After Stevenson held the lead on the fourth ballot without a majority, Hill decided that Gorman stood no chance and instructed his surrogates to support the acting-President. With the support of the powerful Hill behind him, Stevenson secured barely enough support on the fifth ballot to take the nomination.


    Presidential vote125Vice-Presidential vote1
    A. Stevenson325324389L. Wiltz349
    A. Gorman251253209W. Whitney294
    W. Whitney183182164
    Other663Other32


    For vice president, the convention selected Louis A. Wiltz, the Governor of Louisiana and a powerful political boss who used his control of the convict leasing system and state lottery to ensure his faction’s hold on power [4]. By selecting Wiltz, the delegates balanced the northerner Stevenson with a southerner, while sending a message to the reformists that their voice no longer mattered in the Democratic party. Enraged by the nomination of two machine men, Whitney, Cleveland, and over half of the reformists walked out of the convention. While some wanted Whitney or Cleveland to run as an independent, the two refused and instead, the reformist walkout organized as the Honest Democratic Party and nominated Coleman B. Elkins for President.”

    -From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012

    “Stevenson chose to adopt a ‘Residential’ strategy for campaigning – that is, he returned to his Illinois residence and attempted to use the legitimacy conferred by the Presidency to bolster his campaign. However, unlike past candidates like James Blaine, Stevenson could not rely on presidential legitimacy, as many Americans did not consider him a legitimate President. The bitter convention battle he had faced left his party divided, and the Honest Democrats who had endorsed Elkins weakened his strength in key swing states.

    Elkins, meanwhile, made several high-profile speeches during the campaign. Most notably, he gave a speech to several thousand spectators in the ‘Over-the-Rhine’ neighborhood of Cincinnati. Elkins sought to recapture the German American voters who had defected to the Democrats in 1886 and 1888, and who had only slowly returned to the Whigs since then. In his Cincinnati speech, Elkins, speaking in halting German, declared “ich bin ein Amerikaner, und sie alle auch Amerikaner” (I am an American and you are all Americans as well), the first time that a major American political figure gave a speech in a language other than English. It would not be the last.

    …The slow economy further hampered Stevenson’s campaign. His efforts to use the White House to give his candidacy gravitas fell flat not only because of his acting-Presidency, but also because the economic depression had yet to let up. Whenever Stevenson attempted to lean on the weight conferred by his acting-Presidency, Whig operatives would simply point to the still-high unemployment rate and the hundreds of businesses that had closed due to the poor economy. Stevenson’s campaign managers privately estimated that he wouldn’t win a single northern electoral vote, and Elkins threatened to win any number of upper southern states.


    Coleman ElkinsAdlai Stevenson
    Electoral Vote267181
    Popular Vote6,583,8095,824,576
    Percentage52.546.4


    Adlai Stevenson was dealt a humiliating defeat, dragged down by the economy and a divided Democratic party. Coleman B. Elkins swept the north save for Indiana (by just 1,300 votes) and won his home state of Virginia by a comfortable margin. Stevenson only managed to flip the west coast by the barest of margins, mainly thanks to a race-baiting campaign painting Elkins as too friendly to Chinese and Japanese immigrants. Nevertheless, the Whigs had won a resounding victory, as not only had Elkins swept into the Presidency, but the party secured strong majorities in Congress, ensuring at least two years of smooth sailing for President-elect Elkins. And while the Virginia congressman had campaigned and been elected as a pro-business conservative, his presidency would herald a new era, the Progressive Era of McGovern [5] …”

    -From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003

    [1] Elected as Governor in 1889.
    [2] With the Whig convention in Richmond, this is the first time since 1852 that both conventions have been held in the south.
    [3] From chapter 47.
    [4] Wiltz and his allies did the same IOTL.
    [5] More on him in the next chapter…
     
    Last edited:
    52. End of the Beginning…
  • 52. End of the Beginning…

    “Two major priorities of President Elkins were the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Anti-Trust Act, both of which had been vetoed by John Carlisle before his assassination. The Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) sought to curb the excessive rates charged by most major railroads for shipment of freight. These rates were frequently protested by the farmers’ movements, and the state governments of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Lakota had all passed laws regulating these rates. In 1889, the Supreme Court had struck down parts of these laws on the grounds that only the federal government had the ability to regulate interstate commerce as per the Commerce Clause of the constitution. This put increased pressure on congress to act but the resultant bill, the ICA, had been vetoed by the conservative Carlisle.

    Now, there was a president friendly to what he described as “reasonable regulations” in the Presidential mansion. In his inaugural address, Elkins declared “our system of commerce needs some revision, the odious burdens placed upon the farmers of our Republic by certain railroad concerns are unfair and discriminatory. It is an imperative that the Interstate Commerce Act, which has been debated by the august members of Congress for some years now be made law.” He called a special session of Congress to pass the two laws. The ICA enjoyed bipartisan support and passed the House and Senate easily, despite opposition from within both parties. Elkins signed the act into law on May 5th, the first triumph of his administration. The ICA was a major step forward in American business regulation, but it did not empower the government to fix specific rates that railroads could charge, and this grievance would be one of many rectified under McGovern…

    …Congress also approved the Anti-Trust Act, spearheaded by James Garfield. Widely known as the Garfield Anti-Trust Act, this law was the first effort by the US government to restrict monopolistic and generally unfair business practices. It had, along with the ICA, been vetoed by John Carlisle when it was first passed. The Anti-Trust Act prohibited anticompetitive agreements between corporations and monopolistic actions by corporations. Both actual anticompetitive conduct and anticompetitive consequences were prohibited to prevent corporations from violating the spirit of the law while adhering to its letter. The act also authorized the Department of Justice [1] to bring suits to prohibit conduct in violation of the provisions, and victims of the practices outlawed were entitled to damaged triple what the violation had cost them.

    In his first year alone, President Elkins had advanced more progressive legislation since Jacob Cox. Though later administrations would shift the Whigs ever further from their roots in eastern business, it was under Elkins that the first tentative steps in a more progressive direction were taken…”

    -From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986

    “William Claude McGovern was born in Rockingham [2], Iowa, on August 17th, 1852. His parents, John McGovern and Henrietta Johnston, were of English and Scottish descent, his father being the son of a Scottish immigrant. John McGovern owned a small farm outside of Rockingham and worked as the stationmaster for the city’s railroad station. Before the civil war, the McGovern family was involved in local free-soil activities and the city Whig party. While John McGovern lost a leg serving in the civil war, William McGovern attended the University of Iowa and then went to law school at New York Central, graduating in 1874. Upon returning to Iowa, McGovern clerked with a prominent Whig politician, former Congressman William B. Allison, in Dubuque.

    After Allison was elected to the Senate in 1877, McGovern returned to Rockingham and established his own modest practice while beginning to involve himself in local politics. As his legal career took off, McGovern also found himself frequently campaigning for local Whig candidates. It was through his stumping that McGovern, an eloquent orator, became well-known within the state Whig party, and he was invited to serve as a delegate to the 1884, 1888, and 1892 conventions. It was at the latter where he proved instrumental in securing the Iowa delegation for Coleman B. Elkins. His political star rising, he was elected in 1886 as the County Judge for his native Scott County, where he made long-lasting alliances with the local German community and a wealthy landowner and former Governor, William Larrabee.

    With the Whig party facing headwinds even in a stronghold like Iowa, McGovern declined to run for higher office in 1888. When he did run in 1890, he was elected with minimal Democratic opposition and strong support from the German American community that had helped deliver the Democrats their victories in 1886 and 1888. In congress, McGovern was a strong supporter of the proposed Interstate Commerce Act and Anti-Trust Act and was dismayed when President Carlisle vetoed both bills. Though these votes hurt his standing with the more conservative party leaders both nationally and in Iowa, McGovern was very popular with his constituents for a personality described by friend and foe alike as “boundlessly energetic” and “driven.” Congressman McGovern campaigned heavily for Coleman B. Elkins in 1892 and took his growing alienation from party leadership in stride. “These men cannot hold power forever,” he told a group of constituents in 1893. “Sooner or later a new, more reform-minded and driven generation will have to take the reins.” It was clear to all who knew him that McGovern intended to lead this new generation…”

    -From PARADIGM SHIFT: THE AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE ERA by Olivia DiMarco, published 2015

    “After the overthrow of the unpopular Queen Isabella II in 1868, a period of democratic rule was inaugurated with the liberal Constitution of 1869. Under Prime Minister Juan Prim [3] and his successor Francesco Serrano, Spain navigated rule by an unstable coalition of moderates, liberals, and republicans. In this, they were aided by the coronation of Amadeo I of Savoy, the younger son of the deposed King of Sardinia, as King of Spain. Slowly, stability returned as Prim and Serrano suppressed a Carlist rebellion and a Cuban insurrection while Amadeo I provided a stabilizing influence on the country, calming conservatives upset about the revolution, while republican riots subsided. Though he often contemplated abdicating in the early years of his reign, Amadeo was each time persuaded to stay as King by Juan Prim, the King’s biggest supporter in the government.

    The economy recovered and the navy modernized to better protect Cuba and the Philippines, with five British-built armored cruisers delivered between 1887 and 1892 and two British-built battleships in 1893 and 1894. While Spain prospered, its colonies were restless, instability bubbled beneath the seemingly calm domestic political landscape, and the United States looked unfavorably upon the expanding Spanish Caribbean fleet…”

    -From TO THE BRINK: AMERICA AND SPAIN by Llewellyn Carroll, published 2003

    “…most controversial was Caprivi’s turn away from the agrarian protectionism supported by the powerful landed aristocracy in favor of securing cheaper food for the urban working class [4]. This shift in thinking resulted in the signing of the Second Vienna Agreement, which established an agricultural free trade zone within the Zollverein and empowered the German Confederation to negotiate tariff agreements with foreign countries. This bound the economies of the various states of the Confederation closer together. While food prices dropped after Caprivi’s trade treaty, the conservative Junkers were enraged and the Conservative Party nearly toppled Caprivi’s government. Only the support of Frederick III and the lay Catholic Zentrum sustained his Minister-Presidency [5].

    Caprivi oversaw the passage of a series of progressive reforms in 1889-1891. Among these were an 11-hour workday for adults, a ban on child labor for children under 13, and a maximum of a 10-hour day for those aged 13-18. Working was forbidden on Sundays, and a minimum wage instituted. Perhaps most importantly, Caprivi oversaw the creation of Industrial Tribunals, which mediated labor disputes with representatives of trade unions allowed to sit in on proceedings. In addition, the revenue lost from the free-trade policies that were driving the Prussian industrial boom was offset by the enactment of a progressive taxation system, which reduced the tax burden on the lower classes while raising it on wealthy industrialists and landowners [6].

    Along with domestic struggles, Frederick III and Caprivi also had to face growing international tensions. Relations with France were increasingly frayed after the Bangi Crisis and ensuing London Congress, but Caprivi’s efforts to resolve the issue failed. A rapprochement with Britain bore fruit, as Prussia ceded its claims to the Zanzibar coast in exchange for the cession of the British-controlled island of Heligoland. Caprivi’s predecessor as Minister-President, Karl Heinrich von Boetticher, had entered into tentative negotiations for an alliance with Russia before his dismissal in 1888. Upon entering office, Caprivi broke off these negotiations, preferring to strengthen the unity of the German Confederation [7] and seek accommodation with Britain. After this, Czar Nicholas II saw Prussia and Austria-Hungary as Russia’s greatest European threat. Caprivi’s successful efforts to overhaul and expand the previously lackluster Prussian army left the Russians worried that this new army would be used to invade them. Prussia, meanwhile, felt threatened by Russian efforts to expand its Baltic fleet and Prussian shipbuilders soon found themselves with contracts for a brand-new fleet of ten battleships and sixteen armored cruisers.

    The Russo-Prussian arms race was just another step on the march towards the Great European War…”

    -From THE GRAND CONSENSUS: EUROPE 1815-1898 by Rebecca Gardner, published 2001

    [1] The Justice Department as we know it was never created TTL without Reconstruction. TTL, there is the Justice Department that has the lawyers, and the Department of Enforcement has the US Marshals, ATF, DEA, Immigration Enforcement, and the Bureau of Prisons. The DoJ investigates white-collar crimes and represents the US government in legal matters, while the DoE prosecutes criminals. Also, I know I didn’t post a cabinet list, but so many of the people in politics are fictional by now that it would just be a meaningless list of random names. Going forward, I’ll only mention cabinet members when it’s pertinent to the story.
    [2] OTL Davenport became the county seat of Scott County in 1840 by two votes and later annexed Rockingham. TTL, it’s the other way around.
    [3] OTL, Prim was assassinated, and the instability increased.
    [4] Part of why Caprivi was forced out of office OTL.
    [5] Just wanted to mention that without a Kulturkampf, the Zentrum establishes itself as a secular party with a broader appeal earlier in order to grow the party beyond Catholics. As a result, the Zentrum is about as powerful here TTL as it was OTL.
    [6] All enacted by the German Empire under Caprivi OTL.
    [7] Caprivi did the same thing OTL. Hopefully it’ll work out better TTL…
     
    Last edited:
    53. Inequality of Opportunity
  • 53. Inequality of Opportunity

    “As the economy continued its recovery throughout 1894, investors regained their confidence and businesses across the country began to grow once more. The industrial sector had the fastest recovery as a combination of high tariffs, falling unemployment, and heavy investment increased demand and enabled greater production. However, while small manufacturers enjoyed a massive boom, farmers and rural businessmen struggled to secure the same investment opportunities. In order to ensure that its funds were readily available to the Treasury, the National Bank frequently called on local banks to settle the amounts of the checks and notes that local banks deposited in the National Bank. Since these checks and notes were settled in specie (gold and silver coins), banks could not lend out too much money or they wouldn’t have enough specie left to pay back the National Bank [1].

    The National Bank came under increased criticism from farmers for its restrictions on the capacity of local banks to lend money. Larger eastern banks had more funds to loan out safely, while smaller western and rural banks were more constrained under the National Bank’s regulations. When Alonzo B. Hepburn [2], the President of the Bank, refused a petition signed by 3,000 farmers in Hidatsa and Lakota to ease the restraints on local banks, state politicians appealed to Congress. However, a bill to compel the bank to change its lending regulations introduced by Hidatsa congressman Niels Johnson was defeated in committee due to a longstanding precedent that Congress shouldn’t pass any laws to compel the National Bank to follow one policy or another. Angered by the refusal of the Whigs to act, Johnson became an independent in August 1894. Shortly after, he founded the People’s Party with Senator Alvin Wright, a fellow Hidatsan. They were joined soon after by six other western congressmen and four Senators, expanded to 10 congressmen and 5 Senators after the 1894-1895 elections.

    The Populist movement had begun, and whichever party managed to win over these disaffected farmers would have a chokehold on the west for a generation…”

    -From PARADIGM SHIFT: THE AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE ERA by Olivia DiMarco, published 2015

    “The end of slavery in the south created a large population of unemployed, destitute freedmen. While many found a semblance of “employment” as tenant farmers on the plantation of their former master, many others sought new opportunities. The growing cities of both the south and the north seemed to promise boundless opportunity, shining beacons of freedom from servitude. While northern cities like Cincinnati and Philadelphia were more welcoming of black migration, most cities both north and south disliked the newcomers. Northern cities like Boston and Chicago mostly reacted to black migration by instituting segregated residential zoning, cramming black newcomers into tenement housing, even as white immigrants were moved into safer apartments. Richmond and Saint Louis enacted similar policies [3].

    As racist as housing policy in the north was, it was a hundred times worse in the south. Elyton and Atlanta are two prime examples of the new southern system of white supremacy. Elyton, Alabama, was undergoing extraordinary growth at the close of the 19th century due to the city’s booming steel industry. This naturally attracted many rural migrants to seek employment at the mines, mills, and foundries, and many of them were black freedmen. Under the pass system implemented by the Alabama legislature, however, it was difficult for freedmen to move around. To get around this and also obtain cheap labor, Sloss Industries, the main steel company in Elyton, built several corporate dormitories (of dubious safety, and indeed one northern journalist declared it “worse than a tenement house”) where the employees would reside, and they could send their wages home to their families.

    While white workers at the steel mills could move their families to Elyton and get housing, black workers lived apart from their families and could only return home on certain occasions, because their passbooks were held by their employers [4]. Worse, black employees were given the most menial jobs available, and paid substantially less than what a white worker earned doing a comparable task (sometimes as low as 15% of a white man’s wages). What limited safety regulations existed were ignored for black workers, and unionization efforts by black workers were met with threats to charge organizers and strikers with vagrancy and sentence them into the convict labor gangs. Along with terrible working conditions, the dormitories these workers lived in were of shoddy quality and often burned down or collapsed. As Elyton grew, white residents complained that their homes were too close to the dormitories and demanded they be moved. The city council established a zoning board headed by the notoriously segregationist attorney Garrett Nash. Nash and the zoning board left the white residential areas where they were, but moved the dormitories downwind of the industrial sector, essentially dividing Elyton in three: the white area, the industrial area, and the black area [5].

    The black employees of the steel mills were unceremoniously evicted almost immediately after the new zoning ordinances were drawn and moved to the empty fields downwind of the steel mills. “The air was laden with smoke and ash,” explained The Advocate, “and the land was laden with tents and lean-tos.” Sloss Industries was loath to pay for even the construction of cheap dormitories and instead sought to create a different form of the company towns that were popular with northern corporations. The land was parceled out and rented to the workers, many of whom could not afford the fees. The workers would then build their own housing. Sloss knew this and offered to loan the money to the workers and even provide discounted building materials. The workers were also bound to remain employed at Sloss until they paid off their debt. Of course, most of them were unable to save enough money to escape the contract. What resulted was a confused sea of wooden shanties with no streetlights and unpaved roads. There was only one rudimentary school run by the local church, which had only four bibles and no other books. Law enforcement was negligible, and fires were frequent.

    Elyton imposed its own local form of passbooks, where workers were forbidden from entering the white section of the city and could only travel from what passed for their home to the factory and back [6]. Instead, they were consigned to inhabit shacks with no electricity (which was becoming commonplace in cities across the country) and no running water, forcing them to rely on wells of dubious quality. Other steel and mining companies in Elyton followed similar plans, and these slums grew ever denser and more unhygienic as time wore on. Worse, other growing southern cities like Nashville, Atlanta, and Louisville adopted similar zoning codes that effectively consigned every black person in the city to a life little better than that of a slave.”

    -From DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN: THE BUILDING OF AMERICA'S BLACK SLUMS by Evan Summers, published 2013

    “It seems Texas just can’t escape controversy. First, the city of Dallas tried to run a highway through a Black neighborhood and were thwarted by the Supreme Court. Then Governor Henry Armistead (Dem-Tex) went on a rant and called for Dallas to ignore the ruling.

    First, some background. The Supreme Court recently ruled in Dallas v. Morris that the Dallas zoning board had illegally approved a highway to run through the Black-majority neighborhood of West Trinity. The court battle had dragged on for the past five years as a stay on the highway persisted. Last week, in a 7-2 ruling authored by Chief Justice Scott, the Court ordered the zoning board to re-route the highway in a way that didn’t disrupt the neighborhood.

    As Justice Scott explained, “the Constitution enshrines the right to life, liberty, and property. The fifth amendment prohibits any individual from being deprived of their property rights by the government, and the seventeenth amendment [7] guarantees all Americans regardless of race to equal treatment under the law… West Trinity is 65% Black and the Dallas Zoning Board elected to circuitously route Interstate 20 through West Trinity rather than a more direct route through the White-majority Oak Hill neighborhood.” According to Scott and the six justices who joined her on the opinion, while it is not illegal for governments to seize property via eminent domain, the construction of the proposed highway would “needlessly disrupt” West Trinity and “serve to isolate West Trinity from other areas of Dallas, chiefly the central business district.” The Court ultimately held that the detrimental effects of the highway’s proposed location were racially motivated and ordered the zoning board to find a less disruptive path for Interstate 20.

    Howard Morris, the attorney and West Trinity homeowner who led the suit, celebrated the ruling. “It’s a great victory, it means my neighbors, my family, and I won’t have to live with the noise and pollution of heavy, 24/7 traffic,” he told reporters on the steps of the Supreme Court building. “And it means, above all, that America is a place of opportunity and freedom, and that Black people are just as entitled to that opportunity and freedom as anyone else here.” President Claire Huntington called Morris to congratulate him and said at a later press conference that “I welcome this ruling, it’s a tremendous step forward for equal rights in this country. There were many other ways that the city of Dallas could have routed that highway without disrupting any neighborhood, white or Black. Instead, they tried to destroy a prosperous Black neighborhood. I thank the Justices of the Supreme Court, and I thank Mr. Morris and his hard work for putting a stop to this injustice.”

    The Dallas Zoning Board’s chairman, Jacob Orman, criticize the court’s ruling as “discrimination against the White families that’ll have an interstate running through their front yards,” but acknowledged that “the court’s ruling may be erroneous, but its authority is final, and we have to respect it.” Meanwhile, Texas Governor Henry Armistead used a press conference at the unveiling of a renovated Nicaraguan War memorial to furiously denounce the court. “This is judicial activism of the worst kind,” Armistead fumed. “What do seven out-of-touch Whigs know about Dallas zoning? What do they know about our highway system or electrical grid or port authorities? They’re legislating from the bench and I’m sick of it. If you ask me, Jake Orman and Mayor Daniels should just ignore the court. Like Jackson said, ‘the court’s made its ruling, let ‘em enforce it.’ Can a bunch of old Harvard hacks in robes stop a fleet of bulldozers? I don’t think so.”

    Armistead’s comments were immediately met with outrage. Texas Attorney General Phil Lambert, a Whig, called the incident “shameful and disturbing.” He went on to say that “the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and they have made a ruling. Unlike a banana republic, in the United States we obey court rulings. If Governor Armistead tries to ignore the ruling in Dallas v. Morris, I will fight him every step of the way. What the Governor is proposing is un-American.” When reached for comment, Howard Morris simply said “yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. Hank Armistead always seems to wish that Texas was still an independent republic.” President Huntington issued a brief statement read by her Press Secretary, Mike Vanderburg that said “I am disappointed in the rhetoric of Governor Armistead. The United States is a nation of laws, not men and his comments fly in the face of what the United States of America was founded upon.”

    It's sadly not surprising that Governor Armistead made these comments – he has a history of defending segregationist actions during his three terms in office. During his first campaign in 1998, he called William Weldon, a Texan who served as President from 1901-1905, “a hero for states-rights.” Weldon was a notorious white supremacist who helped design the state’s convict leasing system and Black Codes that kept Blacks trapped in poverty and illiteracy. Then in 2002, Armistead referred to his opponent, Tom Davis, who is Black, as “macaca” during a debate [8]. Macaca is a racial slur derived from the Portuguese for “monkey.” He won anyway. And a series of statements during his 2006 reelection campaign in which he seemed to advocate for Texan secession, called President Huntington a “real bitch” and cited the 1972 election, in which the pro-civil rights Warren Burke was elected, as “when America started to lose its greatness.” He nearly lost his primary that time, defeating Congressman Weldon Samuels in a runoff by less than 5,000 votes.

    In all of his controversies, Governor Armistead has refused to apologize, instead insisting he was either misquoted or taken out of context. In none of these controversies have his excuses ever made sense. He is a disgrace to our state, and we all deserve better than a racist, sexist caricature of W. Carlyle Sale.”

    -From OPINION: TEXAS DESERVES BETTER by Hannah Wheeler, published in The Chicago Tribune, June 24th, 2009

    “The discovery of vast oil reserves in the north and east of the country spurred a scramble to exploit this natural bounty. While many Mexican entrepreneurs were able to set up oil companies in the oil fields of Veracruz, American companies snapped up thousands of acres of land in the western Permian Basin and Alta California. The dominant cientifico [9] faction of the ruling Liberal Party was all too willing to allow American concerns to exploit the oil deposits in the northern provinces. The cientificos were ardent modernizers and saw the tax revenue from oil companies, regardless of whether they were foreign or domestic, as an excellent source of revenue. Mexico, despite its strong economy, suffered from significant income inequality and the technocratic policies of the Liberals had thus far failed to provide the remedy.

    By 1895, 75% of Mexico’s northern oil fields were owned by American companies, primarily the Hearst Corporation and Ezra Archbold’s Columbia Oil Company. Meanwhile, British and American companies together owned 50% of the Veracruz oil fields. The American and British companies negotiated steeply discounted taxes for their Mexican operations. The system worked for several years, but by 1895 food prices in Mexico were rising sharply and the people chafed under the authoritarian, oligarchic, and elitist attitudes held by the Liberals. Under President Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, the Liberals had established a tight grip on power, using bribery and patronage to ensure continued control of the government. After Lerdo’s National faction had been eclipsed by the cientificos, Manuel Romero Rubio had used the nationwide patronage network to maintain the Liberal’s reign while “preparing” the country for proper democracy.

    Oil tax revenues were used to fund public education programs and new railroads, but by the 1895 inauguration of Rubio’s fellow cientifico Jose M. Y. Limantour, public discontent with the American oil companies was growing. Despite the rising cost of food, the foreign oil companies paid low wages and demanded long hours. Oil workers complained of their poor conditions and demanded that Limantour implement workplace safety laws and force the foreign oil companies to obey them. Meanwhile, domestic oil producers complained that they paid substantially more in taxes than the much larger foreign operations, and nationalists fumed that foreign companies were stealing oil revenue from the Mexican people. However, the government ignored these complaints. The situation became more serious in 1896, however, when a group of Mexican oil workers in the Permian Basin went on strike to protest low wages and Columbia Oil’s refusal to address unsafe conditions that had led to five fatalities over a three-month span. The strike quickly spread to nearby American-owned oil fields, and within two weeks much of the Permian Basin oil industry was shut down by the strikes. Representatives from Hearst and Columbia, as well as the Eagle and Acme oil companies, met hastily in an El Paso hotel room. The “Big Four” oil companies agreed to coordinate their response, and within a week, private security forces from the American Detective Service had arrived to disperse the strikers. While many workers agreed to return to work without concessions, at a number of oil wells, the workers were armed and resisted the security forces.

    After several weeks of skirmishing, the security forces pulled back from the resistant wells after one was set on fire during a gunfight. Instead, the Big Four called on President Limantour to send the Mexican army in to restore order. President Coleman B. Elkins of the United States also pressured Mexico to intervene on behalf of the oil companies. Worried about angering the Americans and about allowing the violence to spread, Limantour ordered the strikes suppressed. After a month and 175 dead, the Permian oil fields were pacified, although five further wells and one storage tank had been set on fire in the fighting. Although the American companies were placated, workers and nationalists were enraged. Here was the President of Mexico obeying every command of the foreign businesses!

    It was in this atmosphere of worker unrest and nationalist fervor that Victoriano Madero, one of the few Mexican oilmen of the north [10], and wealthy landowner Jose Carranza founded the Popular Reform Party with the intention of returning all the oilfields and their revenues, as well as control of the government, to Mexican hands.”

    -From A CONCISE HISTORY OF MEXICO by Herman Wheeler, published 2002

    [1] What the 2nd Bank did OTL, which I can imagine would have been unpopular with farmers.
    [2] A real guy, of Hepburn Commission fame. He helped kick the railroad regulation movement into gear.
    [3] Which is, comparatively, better than what the rest of the south is doing TTL.
    [4] Worse (and this is rather important to put in a footnote) the employers knew where these guys’ families lived and if there was any union stuff or the like, the company could have the families harassed.
    [5] And God knows what kinds of health problems will pop up from that…
    [6] Any violators were charged with vagrancy and sent off to the chain gangs. The shantytowns had their own businesses and shops, though of dubious standards.
    [7] Has many of the same provisions as the OTL 14th and 15th amendments.
    [8] Based off of what George Allen said during the 2006 Virginia Senate election.
    [9] OTL, the cientificos were allies of Porfirio Diaz. TTL, they’re a ruling faction in their own right.
    [10] Fictional son of Evarista Madero Elizondo, OTL grandfather of Francisco I. Madero, of Mexican Revolution fame. OTL, Francisco Madero was a northern landowner. TTL, Victoriano Madero (based off of Francisco) is also a northern landowner but gets in early on the oil game.
     
    Last edited:
    54. End of a Party System
  • 54. End of a Party System

    “President Elkins enjoyed enormous popularity within his party. Under his leadership the economy had come back stronger than before, with more jobs and larger growth. With the Populists splintering off, there were no challengers to Elkins for renomination, and the convention was largely a coronation and celebration of the achievements of the past four years. His nomination speech was given by William McKinley, one of Elkins’ main rivals for the nomination in 1892. McKinley praised the economic recovery and declared that “it is because of one man, President Elkins, that we the United States are well-positioned to claim our national place in the sun. The economic conditions have never been more favorable. American industry is the envy of the world, and our magnificent fleet is a mighty Aegis for the American people. To safeguard the advances of the last four years and to secure the prosperity of the next four, I hereby nominate Coleman Bryant Elkins for President of the United States of America!”

    McKinley’s speech excited the delegates, and they eagerly gave Elkins the nomination unanimously on the first ballot. Elkins made a brief appearance after his nomination was announced, shaking hands with a few delegates, and waving to the crowd from the convention floor before departing to thunderous cheers. Vice President Morgan Bulkely was also unanimously renominated, though this predictably inspired considerably less excitement than the President’s. The platform was largely similar to the 1892 platform, echoing its calls for aid to the Cuban rebels, construction of a Nicaraguan canal, and the continued strengthening of the fleet. One additional resolution proposed a National Labor Arbitration Board [1] to resolve labor disputes without the need for strikes, but it would take a different president to implement this…”

    -From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986

    “The Democrats were divided on how to approach the 1896 election. On one hand, Elkins was the overwhelming favorite to win, so some argued that the party should seek to minimize its losses and nominate a second-rate candidate who could stem the bleeding. Others argued that the Populist split afforded Democrats an opening that could hand the party a win. The former camp was primarily composed of reformists, as Cleveland and Whitney preferred that the party nominate a machinist who would lose, leaving the reformists as the more viable faction. They were joined by Arthur Gorman in not contesting the convention. The other camp was led by former Governor David B. Hill of New York and Texas Governor William S. Weldon.

    Weldon was the principal advocate of targeting farmers and the Populists and had persuaded Hill to seek the nomination. As Weldon declared in an interview shortly after the convention, “Are Democrats not the party of Jackson? We are Jacksonian to the core… and the Jacksonian ideal is that the people should rule. It is skepticism of the National Bank, of eastern finance, and corrupt railroads. And the Populists are of the same tradition.” Hill was convinced by Weldon’s rhetoric and was the only truly nationally prominent candidate to contest the convention, which he had ensured was held in New York City.

    The only opposition to Hill came from Richard P. Bland of Auraria [2], a congressman with Populist sympathies and noted for his opposition to every single naval expansion bill. However, Bland’s Catholic wife and their decision to raise all of their children in the Catholic church hurt his standing, as Democratic party leaders viewed this as a major weakness. Despite the distaste that many in the party had for Hill, he was the only viable candidate and took the nomination on the first ballot, though Bland enjoyed more support than expected. While Bland had hoped to receive the vice-presidential nomination, the delegates instead selected the aged Joseph C. S. Blackburn of Kentucky, who had ties to both the Populist sympathizers and the reformists.”

    -From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012

    “Governor Francis M. Drake’s decision not to seek a third term in 1896 left the Iowa Whigs unsure of how to hold the governor’s mansion. Drake had only barely scraped by to re-election in 1894, and with the rise of the Populists in western Iowa, the Whig grip on state politics seemed to be slipping. Several candidates ran to succeed Drake, including Senator William B. Allison and congressman William P. Hepburn. In an ordinary state convention, either of these men would have easily taken the nomination. However, both Allison and Hepburn were conservatives and strong supporters of the National Bank, which was increasingly unpopular in the state.

    The third major candidate was congressman William McGovern, who had attempted to challenge Drake for renomination in 1894. McGovern was a member of the progressive wing of the party and was sympathetic to Populist concerns over the Bank’s lending policies. His attempt to unseat Governor Drake failed largely because Allison, his one-time mentor, viewed McGovern’s rhetoric over the Bank as “fiscally irresponsible.” McGovern had spent the intervening two years assembling his own network of allies to counter Allison and Hepburn [3], including securing the backing of his old ally from Rockingham, William Larrabee. Larrabee, while he had been out of office for over a decade by 1896, was a wealthy landowner and attorney, and retained significant influence in state Whig politics.

    Even with the backing of Larrabee and Tom Cummins, McGovern still faced an uphill battle at the convention. He framed himself as the most electable candidate, pointing out that he had been endorsed by the Populist Party in his 1894 house race. According to McGovern, “without at least some appeal to potential People’s Party voters, predominantly farmers, we will lose to the Democrats.” McGovern argued that unless the Whigs adopted key Populist planks like railroad regulation, forming a state-owned mill and grain elevator company to reduce corporate exploitation [4], and calling for revising the National Bank’s charter to allow rural banks to lend more money. Allison and Hepburn, meanwhile, claimed that McGovern would alienate the Whigs’ traditional allies in the business community and consign the Whigs to defeat in Iowa.

    Fearing that he would be defeated at the convention, McGovern went on a tour of Iowa’s political and business establishment. He assured Senator Allison that he would support Allison’s re-election to the Senate and pledged to businessmen and railroad interests that he sought “only fairness, not vengeance” in his tax and regulation policies. Allison withdrew from his gubernatorial campaign on June 3rd, and while he made no endorsement his exit only strengthened McGovern. McGovern’s momentum grew with high-profile endorsements from local politicians and businessmen, and his campaign swept a series of caucuses held in late June. By the eve of the convention, McGovern was the prohibitive frontrunner and secured the nomination on the first ballot, despite Hepburn’s efforts to rally conservatives to his side.

    Having secured the Whig nomination, McGovern turned his attention to the Populists. James B. Weaver had announced he would seek the Populist nomination for Governor but promised to withdraw if McGovern should be the Whig candidate. Fulfilling his promise, Weaver ended his campaign just days after the Whig convention and endorsed McGovern. With no other candidates in the running, the Populists endorsed McGovern unanimously, though they did nominate Weaver for lieutenant Governor.

    With the Populists and Whigs united, the Democrats’ hopes of winning a narrow plurality evaporated. McGovern, despite his heavy advantage, campaigned heavily, criss-crossing Iowa by train to speak to large crowds and shake as many hands as he could. In November, McGovern won a landslide victory and his first term as Governor of Iowa, with over 60% of the vote. Down ballot, McGovern’s coattails resulted in the Whigs regaining a narrow majority of the state house, but the Populists gained seats as well, giving the new Governor a strong mandate to govern…”

    -From PARADIGM SHIFT: THE AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE ERA by Olivia DiMarco, published 2015

    “The Populist Party convened in Minnehapolis, Minnesota, to select a Presidential nominee and draft a platform. Said platform simply republished the party’s founding manifesto, calling for expanded anti-trust legislation, direct election of Senators, reforming the National Bank to allow more rural lending, expanding railroad regulations, and extending legal protections to labor unions. For President, the party nominated its founding member, the congressman for Hidatsa’s at-large district, Niels Johnson. For Vice President, the party selected Justin Pettigrew, the Mayor of Sioux Falls, Lakota.”

    -From THE PEOPLE’S CONSTANT: POPULISM THROUGHOUT HISTORY by Francis Smith, published 1987

    “The general election campaign was a rather nondescript affair. Elkins campaigned little, and in the few speeches he did make, he focused on the economy and the successes of his administration rather than attacking his opponents. Whig surrogates did attack David Hill for the corruption of his political machine and Niels Johnson for the “radicalism” of the Populist platform. By and large, however, the Whigs stuck to a positive campaign emphasizing their strengths rather than the deficits of their opponents. A campaign plan circulated to all the state Whig parties read in part “The economy is strong. The navy is strong. Jobs are plentiful and prosperity widespread. Focus on these and the election is ours.”

    Hill struggled to run an active campaign, as his ambitious train journey through the Midwest proved exhausting. After collapsing at a speech in Columbus, Ohio, Hill was forced to stop campaigning for a week to rest, while concerns over his health mounted. Though he was back on the campaign trail quickly, his campaign was dogged by questions of whether Hill was physically fit enough to serve as President. While President Elkins never raised these questions himself and Whig surrogates hinted at it, the Populists were under no such self-imposed restrictions. Niels Johnson bluntly declared at a speech in Omaha that “it is an affront to the American people to keep them in the dark about Governor Hill’s health. While I certainly hope he is fit and able to serve, I can’t say anything with certainty and therein lies the problem.”

    While Hill engaged in blatant pandering towards potential Populist voters by regularly attacking the National Bank, this backfired. Farmers were unconvinced by Hill’s Jacksonian rhetoric, while the criticism of the National Bank alienated the northern businessmen who had previously been major donors. Worse, the bickering between the Populists and Democrats only served to highlight Elkins as a calm and stable leader, above petty partisan squabbling.

    Coleman ElkinsDavid HillNiels Johnson
    Electoral Vote29711239
    Popular Vote6,642,3575,028,8691,033,751
    Percentage51.942.48.1
    President Elkins cruised to a second term in office, but while his raw number of votes increased, his share of the vote decreased from 52.5% to 51.9% of the vote. This mostly came from decisive losses in the west, which had previously been won by Whig candidates in landslides but became competitive due to the sudden emergence of the Populist Party. The Whigs partially made up for this with narrow wins in southern states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee, but this wasn’t enough to prevent their vote share from dropping slightly. Despite winning a landslide victory in the presidential election, the Whigs had an underwhelming result in the House elections, picking up just eight seats due to Populist gains in western Whig districts. They broke even in the Senate.

    Meanwhile, David B. Hill led the Democrats to a beating at the polls. The Democratic vote share sank from a respectable 46.4% in 1892 to just 39.3% four years later. Down ballot, the party fared only slightly better, losing a single Senate seat but a disappointing loss of 16 House seats. Embarrassed, Hill would retire from politics after his term as Governor expired and return to private practice. The mantle of his neo-Jacksonian brand of politics would, with some modifications to increase its authenticity and appeal, be picked up and carried much farther by William S. Weldon…

    The Populists, meanwhile, enjoyed great success. They gained eight seats in the House, nearly doubling the size of their caucus, and one Senate seat. More impressively, Niels Johnson swept nearly the entire west, even narrowly winning Whig bastions like Kansas and Nebraska. “Mr. Johnson’s campaign,” the Chicago Tribune noted humorously shortly after the election, “has demonstrated the potency of rural outrage. Perhaps the only other thing besides a woman scorned outpacing the fury not even hell hath is an indebted farmer.”

    While President Elkins was re-elected and it seemed as though politics as usual would carry on, beneath his dress shoes, the American political system was undergoing a truly seismic shift…”

    -From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003

    [1] Proposed by the Republicans at the 1896 convention IOTL.
    [2] OTL, Bland worked as a miner and teacher in Utah Territory, TTL part of the state of Auraria (the Mormons repudiating polygamy and staying in the Midwest means that statehood comes quicker for Auraria).
    [3] During Robert La Follette Sr.’s successful 1900 bid for Governor of Wisconsin, he used this strategy.
    [4] A similar proposal to the OTL North Dakota Non-Partisan League.
     
    55. Dimmed Lamps
  • 55. Dimmed Lamps

    “Despite the flourishing of democracy in the metropole (albeit a temporary one), Spain continued to view Cuba as equally an integral part of their remaining empire and a rebellious province in need of pacification. It was the Ten Years War of 1868-1878 that first plunged the island into instability, but the 1894 uprising of Jose Marti resulted in the appointment of Valeriano Weyler, an administrator with experience in suppressing insurgencies, as Governor-General of Cuba. Weyler’s strategy was ruthlessly successful, starving the insurgents of arms and aid from the Cuban people. However, these harsh measures earned the ire of many Americans, including President Coleman B. Elkins…

    …American interest in Cuba had only grown since the Habana crisis of 1876, as American merchants monopolized the Cuban sugar markets, and in fact Cuba exported over 10 times more to the United States than it did to Spain. Jose Marti [1] had established offices in Florida and New Orleans and lobbied extensively in the United States for aid in his revolution. Many Democrats and churches urged intervention, but business interests wanted to avoid the disruptions to trade that a war would bring and urged a peaceful negotiated settlement. For the most part, the American public sided with the revolutionaries, as evidenced by the tens of thousands of dollars raised in American cities by Marti’s organization.

    While Elkins sympathized with the revolutionaries and the mistreatment of the Cuban people by Weyler, he wanted his second term to be a continuance of the peace and prosperity in his first, and he was loath to instigate a war, no matter how low the cost of victory. Thus, he didn’t pay close attention to the situation until Spanish Prime Minister Praxedes Mateo Sagasta ordered the most modern ships of the Spanish navy, totaling two modern battleships and three armored cruisers, as well as two new protected cruisers and six destroyers, into the Caribbean. The arrival of these reinforcements in Havana alarmed Elkins, who secretly directed Herbert Parkinson, his Secretary of the Navy, to place the Atlantic and Gulf fleets on high alert. Even as Spanish-American relations cooled, peace held.

    Peace held, that is, until the arrest of Elliott Roosevelt, son of the late former director of the National Bank Theodore Roosevelt Sr., and James R. Roosevelt, a cousin and business partner of Elliot’s. The two were arrested in Guantanamo on charges of aiding rebels camped in the nearby mountains. The Roosevelts protested that they were in Cuba on business and to collect some animal and insect specimens for Elliott’s older brother Ted, the director of zoology at the National Museum of Natural History [2]. The Spanish authorities refused to release the men. Ted Roosevelt, who had an exuberant, big personality that was rather incongruous with his line of work, wrote a series of furious editorials in both the Whiggish New-York Tribune and the Democratic-leaning Brooklyn Sun-Herald, demanding action against Spain unless his brother and cousin were released and “given a profuse apology as befits the grave injustice.”

    Elkins found the Spanish government unwilling to negotiate – Weyler was insistent that Elliott and James Roosevelt had been aiding the revolutionaries and refused to release them, proclaiming that they would stand trial in Cuba. After several weeks with no resolution, Elkins dispatched the armored cruiser Rochester and the protected cruiser Bowling Green to Guantanamo harbor. Little did anyone know, but the situation would soon escalate dramatically [3]…”

    -From TO THE BRINK: AMERICA AND SPAIN by Llewellyn Carroll, published 2003

    “President Alem had enjoyed a wildly successful term in office, overseeing the beginning of Argentina’s emergence as a regional power. The economy was surging, fueled by a massive immigration wave primarily from Sicily and a strong middle class. The old National Autonomist Party had largely collapsed, succeeded by several regional parties and the Conservative Party, which soon merged with the National Civic Union to form the Progressive-Conservatives Party.

    The revolutionary movement that had propelled Alem to power had fractured once victory was achieved, with Alem and the Radicals forming the more radical, laborist faction and the Progressive-Conservatives became the party of industrialists and the middle class. All of the progressive reforms undertaken by Alem and the Radicals were immensely popular with workers and immigrants, but less so with the wealthier elements of society, who gravitated towards the PCs.

    After six years of Alem, Argentina faced a choice: six more years of ambitious reform, or a more conservative, pro-business approach. Alem’s efforts to give the state a partial stake in the coal mining companies in 1896 had failed and soured the PCs on continuing to support the Radicals in the legislature. For the 1897 Presidential elections, the PCs initially struggled to select a candidate. The aged Bartolome Mitre expressed some interest in running, but he was very old and ultimately declined to seek the presidency. Lisandro de la Torre, one of the founders of the PCs, was a strong contender, but the party ultimately selected Buenos Aires Senator Carlos Pellegrini. Pellegrini was a former member of the NAP who had led their merger with the National Civic Union. He was a prominent moderate with strong ties to the mercantile community, and even had a friendly relationship with President Alem [4].

    The Radicals, meanwhile, selected Alem’s nephew Hipolito Yrigoygen as their candidate. Yrigoyen was an avowed radical and strongly favorable to labor and the burgeoning student reform movement. He was also a strong personality, and his selection was met with protest from the more moderate wing of the Radicals. One such moderate, Fernando Lehmann, formed the Moderate Radical Civic Union and won election to the governorship of Santa Fe. Lehmann and his splinter MRCU refused to endorse Yrigoyen, and there was a rumor that the MRCU would instead endorse Pellegrini, but this never happened during the campaign.

    After a contentious campaign in which Yrigoyen and Pellegrini regularly attacked each other as a dangerous radical and a scion of the old, corrupt regime respectively, election day came. Yrigoyen was widely expected to be the victor, especially given the successes of his uncle’s presidency. When the ballots were tallied, however, Pellegrini finished with a narrow plurality, just under 4,000 votes ahead of Yrigoyen. The dropping poverty rate and growing middle class helped fuel Pellegrini’s surprising victory. When the electoral college met, no candidate had a majority. Pellegrini had 136 electors, Yrigoyen 123, and the MRCU had 29. 10 electors went to various regional parties and faithless electors. Yrigoyen lobbied the faithless electors and the MRCU to give him their electors, arguing that the narrowness of the popular vote meant that no candidate had a proper mandate.

    This angered Lehmann and the MRCU so much that not only did he shift his electors to Pellegrini, but he issued an open letter denouncing Yrigoyen as a demagogue and a “Caesar.” The MRCU’s electors were enough to give Pellegrini the majority, and President Alem ensured that he was confirmed as the rightful winner of Argentina’s second fully democratic elections. In the legislative elections, the Progressive-Conservatives secured 57 seats, just shy of an outright majority. In conjunction with the Liberal Party of Corrientes and the National Conservative Party (the rump NAP), the PCs secured a working majority. Pellegrini promised to bring a new kind of centrist conservatism to Argentina.

    His first major action consisted of resuming the foreign debt payments that had been suspended by Alem under a consolidation plan that merged all Argentinian loans into a single one [5]. This plan was initially unpopular but after a wave of protests subsided, and the Senate and Chamber of Deputies approved Pellegrini’s debt consolidation proposal. With this accomplished, Pellegrini also expanded the sale of publicly owned farmland as part of the Argentinian homestead program. The economy remained strong and the peso stable, and Pellegrini oversaw the implementation of a 5% tax on the profits and dividends of private financial institutions even as he cut taxes by 3% on canned meat factories and other industrial sectors.

    After almost two years of relative stability, Pellegrini was confronted with a crisis in Uruguay. The long-standing rivalry between the country’s two major parties, the conservative Blancos in the countryside and the liberal Colorados in the cities, once again boiled over into civil war in late 1898. Aparicio Saravia, a general and the leader of the Blancos, rose up in rebellion against the Colorado government after orchestrating the assassination of President Juan Idiarte Borda. The ensuing governmental crisis allowed Saravia to consolidate his position until Juan Lindolfo Cuestas seized power in a bloodless coup. Saravia advanced on Montevideo and while he did not manage to capture the city, his forces took key cities like Rivera and Salto. Embattled, Cuestas appealed to Pellegrini for aid in April 1899.

    Pellegrini accepted, viewing a Blanco-ruled Uruguay as ripe for Brazilian domination. However, Brazilian Emperor Pedro III and his cabinet viewed Argentinian aid to the Colorados as an unacceptable intervention, declaring it was “tantamount to an invasion of Uruguay.” Pedro III demanded that President Pellegrini break off his support of Cuestas. Angered these demands, Pellegrini refused and spread nationalist fervor in the Argentinian public by denouncing Brazilian “Imperial arrogance and bellicosity.” Pedro III’s foreign minister responded by threatening war unless the demand was met, giving Argentina three days to give in. Rather than respond to the Brazilian ultimatum, Pellegrini prepared a declaration of siege and proclaimed a general mobilization of the army and navy. Three days came and went. The only response Brazil received was Argentinian troops marching north and the Argentinian fleet steaming out of Buenos Aires, and so on July 17th, 1899, Pedro III declared that a state of war existed between the Empire of Brazil and the Republic of Argentina. The Second Platine War had begun.”

    -From ARGENTINA: A MODERN HISTORY by Jessica Harvey, published 2011

    [1] TTL, Marti doesn’t die in 1895.
    [2] Not the same Theodore Roosevelt, but very similar to the OTL one.
    [3] This won’t be what you’d expect would happen in a Cuban harbor to start a war.
    [4] This was OTL, until the Revolution of the Park soured their friendship.
    [5] Pellegrini attempted to negotiate this IOTL during his post-presidency time in the Senate, but it was nixed by Roca.
     
    Top