The Rise and Fall of the CSA, 1861-1881
- Thread starter TheRockofChickamauga
- Start date
Sorry about how updates have been less frequent. I have more work to handle now, and inboxes take a lot of time and dedication to make. For all of you loyal viewers still out there waiting for a new update, then I will try my best to get it out to you as soon as possible.
Nathan B. Forrest
Nathan B. Forrest (July 13, 1821 - November 7, 1881) was the fourth and final president of the Confederate States of America, as well serving in the Confederate States Army, enlisting as a private and leading a career that culminated with his appointment as the General-in-Chief prior to his election to the presidency. Born in Chapel Hill, Tennessee, Forrest entered into an impoverished life, and eventually had to serve as the family figure head at the tender age of 16 following his father's death in 1837. Despite his lowly circumstances, Forrest would eventually acquire wealth through involvement in the slave trade, as well as several other successful business ventures.
With the coming of the American Civil War, Forrest would side with the Confederacy, using his vast wealth to recruit and arm a regiment of Tennessee cavalrymen. In the brief war, Forrest would distinguish himself as a fierce and aggressive cavalry commander, often leading reckless charges in person. He also became known for his intemperate personality, which he often unleashed without regards to who it was towards, be it subordinate or commander. With the conclusion of the war, Forrest remained in the army, and he soon became a favorite of the Toombs administration, who appreciated his support for his policies and fervent loyalty, as well as his effective work in putting down the Four Horsemen Rebellion. It would be this that would result both in Forrest's promotion to General-in-Chief of the Confederate States Army, as well as Toombs' endorsement to run for the Confederate presidency in 1879, which he, running with Alabama Senator John T. Morgan, won in landslide victory of Clement C. Clay, although the election was notorious for how fraudulent it was.
Upon assuming office, Forrest took many actions that antagonized the Confederacy's northern neighbor, the United States of America, who were already beginning to consider a war of reconquest against the Confederacy due to the country's severe instability. Thus, when President James A. Garfield took office on March 4, 1881, he rapidly pushed through Congress a declaration of war against the CSA. Not cowed by this, Forrest would gather together the regular Confederate States Army, as well as call for recruits and militias to defend the nation. Due to the failing state of his nation, however, most of these efforts were in vain, as thus the amount of soldiers he requested fell very short and were insufficient to truly defend the nation. Remaining in the capital of Richmond despite the advance of U.S. forces under William T. Sherman, Forrest would help organize the defenses and rally the men in the trench line. He even continued doing this after the arrival of U.S. troops and their establishment of a siege. Ultimately, on November 7, 1881, while speaking to several young recruits, a lucky shot by Indiana Private John J. Williams felled Forrest by drilling through his heart. Following this, Confederate resistance, which already had been weak, collapsed, with them eventually being readmitted as territories into the United States on December 17, 1881.
Well, that was anticlimactic. I was expecting a more drawn-out war. Will we get more details in the next post?
Yes, there will be details in the posts to come, whenever that may be.
I was honestly expecting Forrest to die while leading a futile charge into the teeth of the Union army in desperate attempt to break the siege.
Interestingly, how will France and Great Britain react to the fact of the annexation of the Confederation? Something tells me that they will not be happy with the elimination of their cotton appendage.
At this point, due to internal instability in the Confederacy, as well as their continued usage of the practice of slavery, Great Britain and France have looked to other sources for cotton, such as Egypt or India.
So Napoleon was not embarrassed by the fact that he was helping slave owners. In addition, France lost significant possessions in India and Egypt.
I'd say there is a big difference between 1800s Napoleonic Europe (where slavery was not outlawed in any major European country) and 1880s Victorian Europe (where no major European country allowed slavery anymore) in terms of opinions of slavery.
After much thought, I think it has come to this. For right now, I am going to be placing this timeline on hiatus. As the circumstances of my life has changed, I have found I have had less free time than previously to work on alternate history, and when I do have the time, I find myself often struggling to find the motivation to the wikiboxes necessary for this timeline. I'll also admit that I have somewhat lost interest in this for the moment, and that I'm struggling to come up with any new or interesting ideas for the moment. Thus, I am going to be leaving this timeline on hiatus for now until I can make a decision about what to do next with it. For any readers of this timeline, I thank you for your understanding and your diligent patience in waiting for updates, and do hope that I will eventually return to this timeline at some later date. Once again, thank you to all the readers of this timeline.
Well, I imagine a Cobb presidency would probably be one of the best options for the Confederacy based on their OTL supply of politicians. He was one of the few that I think might actually be able to work alongside the United States to achieve at least some semblance of peace between the two nations, alongside others like the ever-popular successor in ACW ATLs John C. Breckinridge, as well as William A. Graham or Robert M.T. Hunter, both being pre-war moderates. As for Toombs, as is probably made clear with my depiction of him ITTL, I do not think he is in anyway suitable for the presidency of the Confederacy if the goal is longevity and stability. Is he plausible, yes, but would he make a good candidate, no. The man was too attached to petty grudges, vainglorious pursuits of honor, and booze to be successful.
This is the one issue relating to slavery where the Confederacy might be on the right side of history, in that they didn't reopen the Transatlantic Slave Trade (although you can hardly give them any brownie points for doing so considering they were acting in a self-serving manner). By the time of the American Civil War, the Transatlantic Slave Trade was thoroughly dead. In fact, many of the world's superpowers at the time worked in cooperation to prevent the illegal restarting of the trade by sending ships to watch for slave-trader ships. Only the die-hardest of Fire-Eaters would ever even dream of restarting it, and even then, he would be overwhelming rejected by the planter class, as bringing in new slaves would only serve to undermine the market for their own slaves by increasing the supply, thus lowering the demand.
I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say here (clarification would be nice), but I think the gist of it is that a probable route to bring about the end of slavery in the Confederacy, if gradually, was industrialization, especially spurred on by foreign investors. And to that I say you are correct. The only spit in the soup with that solution is that for it to work, the Confederacy has to accept industrialization, which is far from guaranteed. Politicians from the Upper South and Georgia, who featured a degree of industrialization, could probably get behind the idea. Likewise with the returning generals and soldiers who had to go through depredations and shortages due to their CSA's lack of industrialization would also likely support the idea. Those from the ever vocal Deep South, however, with their dependence on agriculture, would be likely to reject the notion, as seeing in their eyes, the South has prospered with agriculture, so why change horses now, especially if it is reliant on getting funds from the recently repulsed Yankees. Investment from Europeans, at first at least, would be highly implausible in my eyes. No European with their head on straight would invest in an declining agriculture economy reliant on slavery in a newly formed country with a hostile neighbor to the north, or at least until they can stabilize themselves as a country and prove that they won't immediately be reconquered.
Once again, (and I'm sorry if this is coming off as rude), I'm not quite sure what you are asking me to do. Do you just want me to look at, or do you want me to read it critically and then provide feedback/my thoughts of the plausibility? I think you mean the latter, but I also don't want to flood you with my own thoughts if all you want me to do is to look at your TL.
I’d like to thank @Odinson for nominating this TL for a Turtledove! Still looking for a second though.
Is there a specific graphic which was nominated? I was thinking this would be in Flash Timelines, or a specific graphic from the timeline nominated.
I just nominatednit for best graphics timeline in general, I think it's too long for a flash timeline anyway