The Iron President: The US in the Age of Bismarck

On the note of Bismarck being more hands on than Lincoln, I'm reminded of a story I read about Lincoln pestering McClellan for a status update so much that George finally sent Lincoln a letter about finding some cows and wanted to know what Lincoln wanted done with them. Lincoln replied back with "Milk them, George."

Of course, something tells me that Bismarck is more apt to send letters along the lines of "If you're not going to use my army, I should like to borrow it for a while." when dealing with generals who are dragging their feet.
 
Bismarck's earlier writings show that he would like black Americans to head west or to what American territories are conquered in the upcoming years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive great migration to the west rather than the north through a combination of the Freedman's Bureau and Homestead Act, which will likely calm racial relations by getting blacks out of the South and to Western territories (we could see Wyoming or Idaho with black-majority populations), while a new flood of immigrants settle in the south to make up for it.
Causing a new headache, remeber how the otl south viewd carpet baggers, how would they like a massive wave of oppurtunists from the north or foreign nations coming to settle down in the south. It will result in a huge amount of sectarian strife, similar to Northern Irleand today.
 
Causing a new headache, remeber how the otl south viewd carpet baggers, how would they like a massive wave of oppurtunists from the north or foreign nations coming to settle down in the south. It will result in a huge amount of sectarian strife, similar to Northern Irleand today.
If something like that does occur, why couldn't Bismarck milk it for his benefit?
 
great info.
Bismarck's earlier writings show that he would like black Americans to head west or to what American territories are conquered in the upcoming years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive great migration to the west rather than the north through a combination of the Freedman's Bureau and Homestead Act, which will likely calm racial relations by getting blacks out of the South and to Western territories (we could see Wyoming or Idaho with black-majority populations), while a new flood of immigrants settle in the south to make up for it.

This happened, to an extent, in Kansas in OTL. There were a group called the Exodusters - several thousand freedmen, mostly from Kentucky and Tennessee - who came to Western Kansas during this time. They founded the town of Nicodemus, which was meant to be a model community, until the railroad decided to bypass it. If you're interested in following up a larger Exoduster movement, I'd suggest looking into this guy: https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/benjamin-pap-singleton/12205
 
Causing a new headache, remeber how the otl south viewd carpet baggers, how would they like a massive wave of oppurtunists from the north or foreign nations coming to settle down in the south. It will result in a huge amount of sectarian strife, similar to Northern Irleand today.
This could be something that doggs Bismarck at the end of his presidency, convincing him not to run for another term.
This happened, to an extent, in Kansas in OTL. There were a group called the Exodusters - several thousand freedmen, mostly from Kentucky and Tennessee - who came to Western Kansas during this time. They founded the town of Nicodemus, which was meant to be a model community, until the railroad decided to bypass it. If you're interested in following up a larger Exoduster movement, I'd suggest looking into this guy: https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/benjamin-pap-singleton/12205
I would think Bismarck would see this and make it national policy, along with an expansion of the Buffalo soldiers
 
Kind of wonder what the long term consequences of having such an autocratic, yet effective president will cause; After all FDR grew powerful enough in OTL that after he passed away they passed an amendment to ensure no one else ever ran for more than 2 terms.

I mean, 6 terms? Probably means the other party will be defined in opposing "the autocratic emperor who subverts our proud democratic republic that our founders built yadda yadda etc"

Will someone else try to go further one day and declare themselves President for life in order to restore the glory of America as it was under the Iron President? After all, a potential 100 or more years of divergence mean anything can eventually be put on the table.
 
Kind of wonder what the long term consequences of having such an autocratic, yet effective president will cause; After all FDR grew powerful enough in OTL that after he passed away they passed an amendment to ensure no one else ever ran for more than 2 terms.

I mean, 6 terms? Probably means the other party will be defined in opposing "the autocratic emperor who subverts our proud democratic republic that our founders built yadda yadda etc"

Will someone else try to go further one day and declare themselves President for life in order to restore the glory of America as it was under the Iron President? After all, a potential 100 or more years of divergence mean anything can eventually be put on the table.

I would love for him to end his 6 terms, by losing the Republican nomination, after even they had enough of him. In my opinion, president Bismarck would remain in power as he did in OTL, by forging and breaking alliances in his advantage. I would imagine that for him to remain in power he would at least have to appeal to the Upper South, as not to antagonize the former Confederacy. I can see the Democrats as maintaining the Deep South and as being in this TTL the advocates of state's rights, of limited government, of socially conservatism and fiscally liberalism and of limited foreign entanglements, while the Republicans under the "Iron President" would be the big government, Progessivist, strong foreign policy and fiscally conservative party.
However, the political establishment would be such fed up with him, that they would surely in the first 4 years pass a 2 terms limitation amendment.
Also, nobody would allow a "President-for-life". It's simply too un-American.
 
Also, nobody would allow a "President-for-life". It's simply too un-American.

Who knows, maybe their is a civil war in the alt-tl's 1960s due to a power-mad President wanting to emulate the Iron President? Just because most wouldn't accept it doesn't mean someone might be crazy enough to try; Mexico had their civil war with Diaz otl because their President kept being reelected again and again and...

Of course, in all likelihood the second Bismarck is out they are passing an amendment for Term limits, which makes that idea moot. I am sure there is plenty of way more plausible negative consequences that could occur from this, but I was just brainstorming a worst case scenario that I imagine Bismark's Opponents would be yelling about.
 
To throw in my two bits, I definitely think a two term limit is in the cards once Bismarck is gone. Heck they more force him to sign it into law during his own administration and he is just grandfather claused into as many terms as he can win.
 
To throw in my two bits, I definitely think a two term limit is in the cards once Bismarck is gone. Heck they more force him to sign it into law during his own administration and he is just grandfather claused into as many terms as he can win.

When OTL's 2 term limit was implemented, it took effect with the next president, not the sitting one. I can see a 2 or perhaps 3 term limit coming into effect after Bismarck is done.

I wonder if there will be a mighty Bismarck class battleship in future years?
 
Last edited:
another possiblity is that america is just more accepting of autocratic presidents and we have an age of Autocracy and mabye even a bit of Authortiarian Democracy from Crown Atomic
 
When OTL's 2 term limit was implemented, it took effect with the next president, not the sitting one. I can see a 2 or perhaps 3 term limit coming into effect after Bismarck is done.

I wonder if there will be a mighty Bismarck class battleship in future years?
Or a Bismarck Torpedo bomber that sinks the nightly battleship HMS Swordfish x'D
 

Whatever happened to Kentucky and West Virginia?



The time period from 1861-1862 was a divisive time for many, but none more than Kentucky and Missouri. Kentucky, was a border slave state and was deeply divided. Whilst many Unionist Kentuckians had no problem with slavery, they did not share the violent defense of it more common in the deep south. When war broke out, Kentucky pursued a course of neutrality, as many in the state still believed that a compromise could happen. Negotiations were held between Pro and Anti Union Kentuckians at the highest levels of governance involving Breckinridge and others. However, the state’s militias had divided loyalties. Simon Bolivar Buckner led the State Guard whom were sympathetic to the Confederacy while a rival “Home” guard was largely pro Union.


Confederate Leaders, upon agreement on their plan to seize Kentucky,allowing them to attack Missouri and even the Midwest at large , began planning for laying the seeds of revolt. Buckner’s Troops were bolstered by arms, artillery, and skilled officers. The timetable for the Kentucky Campaign was that in early 1863 Buckner and his troops would march on Frankfort, force the Unionist assembly as Bayonet point to allow Confederate Troops to march through, and eventually take over. However, as with many things in the war, it didn't turn out the way they expected.


Western Virginia unlike Virginia at-large, Voted almost entirely against secession and upon Virginia’s Entry into the Confederacy, sent members to the US congress petitioning for annexation. While Congress was perfectly fine with an Independent West Virginia, Bismarck disagreed, believing that the Government should instead function as an “government-in-exile” and wanted to give the confederacy not even a single whiff of legitimacy. While that was a bitter pill to swallow, the West Virginians accepted and created the State of Virginia, acting as a continuing government. before secession.
 
Last edited:
BTW on the western settlement. Bismarck is seeking to Pretty much end Native American tribes and make the West firmly theirs. So I'm thinking of a massive movement of Freedmen to go to the west for land that's given out them for pennies on the dollar. I'm also thinking that he could offer Confederate and Union Veterans a cheaper price on land than for foreign immigrants.

does anyone want any specific update on things after war. like the development of Tammany Hall, Rise of a Prusso-American Alliance, or other such things?
 
Again no. There would have been no civil war in Kentucky. If things really got bad enough for pro-Union and pro-CSA forces to form their own militias than shooting would had started prior to 1863. There is no way to slip CSA units into Kentucky without someone noticing them.

I don't know what the hell you have plan but I'm finding this civil war fairly unbelievable.
 
Again no. There would have been no civil war in Kentucky. If things really got bad enough for pro-Union and pro-CSA forces to form their own militias than shooting would had started prior to 1863. There is no way to slip CSA units into Kentucky without someone noticing them.

I don't know what the hell you have plan but I'm finding this civil war fairly unbelievable.

what I have planned out is Buckner leading a force to take Frankfort, getting out numbered and defeated, this leads the Confederates to Panic and Launch the Invasion immediately. Kentucky Declares for the Union and The Army of the Ohio marches in to defend Kentucky. There's a short and brutal campaign as both sides begin clashing in northern Kentucky. The Confederate manage to Push the Union back and cross the Ohio River but they fall short of their Objectives as they are halted and defeated at what is the Most brutal Battle of the War.
 
what I have planned out is Buckner leading a force to take Frankfort, getting out numbered and defeated, this leads the Confederates to Panic and Launch the Invasion immediately. Kentucky Declares for the Union and The Army of the Ohio marches in to defend Kentucky. There's a short and brutal campaign as both sides begin clashing in northern Kentucky. The Confederate manage to Push the Union back and cross the Ohio River but they fall short of their Objectives as they are halted and defeated at what is the Most brutal Battle of the War.
Nope wouldn't work that way. Like I said in my last post if Kentucky did have pro Union and pro CSA militias forming there is no way in hell they stay peaceful for two years. Six months would be pushing it. There would be no way for the CSA to get more units into Kentucky even under the idea of "immigrants" coming to Kentucky. That would have gotten out before hand.

Also I'm highly doubtful that the CSA could even reach the Ohio River. Most likely the Union Navy has a sizable riverboat fleet there.

But that really doesn't matter, this just wouldn't happen like this.
 
The thing with Kentucky is:

The CSA already tried to invade, right when the war started. Once they invaded, the legislature pretty much begged the Union to help them, and the Governor may have tried to profess neutrality, but he was powerless in that respect. Kentucky could NOT remain neutral. It was integral to winning the war. The CSA reached the Ohio river twice with troops, and failed to get across both times. I would recommend watching this video:
 
The thing with Kentucky is:

The CSA already tried to invade, right when the war started. Once they invaded, the legislature pretty much begged the Union to help them, and the Governor may have tried to profess neutrality, but he was powerless in that respect. Kentucky could NOT remain neutral. It was integral to winning the war. The CSA reached the Ohio river twice with troops, and failed to get across both times. I would recommend watching this video:


yeah, I now see that my position was wrong, retcon in order?
 
Top