The Story of a Party 2.0

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Utgard96, Nov 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    Thanks.

    Of course. Send me the link afterwards (or post it here), would you?

    Tell me about it. The problem is that since the Prussians are breaking through (I don't think I'm spoiling it, since anyone can tell that's about to happen), the war will be more traditional from this point on, and actual battles are what I'm worst at writing. I rather enjoyed writing about the Civil War because there were several different fronts, and different armies, interacting and each playing a part, but here we don't see much of that; like the OTL Franco-Prussian War, this is going to be kind of a Napoleonic-style campaign, but with fancier equipment.
     
  2. CaliBoy1990 A bright future is still possible! =) Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Location:
    El Pueblo, East Texas
    I'm still stuck on the Indian Wars with Stars & Stripes......and nobody's really come to my aid, either, which sucks(eh, can't blame anybody, though, it happens.). :(
     
  3. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Absolutely! I will keep you posted!
     
  4. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    I'm currently working on the contingent election, which means I've got to put together a list of congressmen, so if any of you know who might have been in the House ITTL, I'd be grateful to hear some suggestions.
     
  5. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Which of the Southern states are having elections?

    I pressume GOP will gain seats or no?
     
  6. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    Virginia isn't, for one (the readmitted parts of the Confederacy, at this point, only include the countersecessionist states and Missouri), and even if they did, they wouldn't vote Republican. Much of the Upper South (the parts that vote, anyway) is either solidly Unionist or contested between the Unionists and Democrats. And lastly, the Republicans lost seats in Congress in this election, but that hardly matters for my purposes, since it's the lame-duck Congress (the one elected in the 1866 midterms) that takes part in the contingent election.
     
  7. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Well, I'm not sure about the Unioniats, but I have a few GOP candiates that I looked up for my Communist Confederacy TL if you need them.

    Also, good rule of themb is to look up Civil War officers, a lot of them got involved in politics in OTL, and a few could have. Lew Wallace might be worth a look, and did you have... bigger plans for Mark Twain now that he's a Civil War hero?
     
  8. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    That'd be interesting, yeah. I'm planning on a second phase of Reconstruction, similar to OTL around the early 1870s, where the state governments are run by the Republican coalitions, so that'd be hugely helpful.

    Wallace seems interesting. He might be a congressman from Indiana ITTL; the state, along with Ohio and to some extent Illinois, is divided between the Republicans and Unionists in Congress, and Wallace might play some part. Do you know how radical a Republican he was?

    As for Clemens, suffice it to say that as far as he got during the war was brevet Commander, with his permanent rank remaining at Ensign throughout. However, with the war over, the US is in need of skilled officers for the growing Navy, and so the promotions to permanent Lieutenant and maybe Lieutenant Commander are likely to have come within a couple of months of war's end. Still, he didn't get far enough to be particularly famous, and the only reason there's a book about a naval commander in the Civil War is that this isn't the war he's going to rise to fame in.
     
  9. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Some people that could prove useful:
    -Benjamen Butler
    -Salmon P Chase
    -Hannibal Hamlin
    -Charles Sumner
    -Benjamen Wade
    -Thadeus Stevens
    -Thomas Custer (A genuine war-hero all too aften overshadowed by brother George, he's one of the few men to have recieved the Medal of Honor twice)
    -Hiram Revels
    -Joseph Rainey
    -John Mercer Langston
    I can suggest more if you need them.

    As for Lew Wallance, he wasn't a radical Republican, but he was a firm supporter of racial equality and territorial expansion, so it would be a possible for him to be a national figure, especially if he still writes Ben-Hur, which made him a huge celebrity in the era.

    As long as Sam Clemons still writes at least some of his OTL Mark Twain bibliography, I'm satisfied - the man is one of my heroes :D.
     
  10. Darth_Kiryan The Númenorean Sith

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Location:
    AUS
    Good idea. But is Tom old enough to fight in TTL Civil War. He was born in 1845, so unless he lied about his age....
     
  11. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Where did you think he got both medals from :p
     
  12. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    Story of a Party - Chapter XXII
    Contingency Plans

    "Neither current events nor history show that the majority rule, or ever did rule."
    - Jefferson Davis

    ***

    From "A History of America through its Presidents"
    John Bachmann & Son, Bluefields, Nicaragua, 1945

    "Contingent election of 1869

    The presidential election of November, 1868, ended inconclusively, with Seward falling short of a majority by a single vote. The Constitution, as it then was, provided for the House to elect a president from the three highest-polling candidates, while the Senate would choose the Vice President from the two most popular candidates. The method of electing a Vice President was straightforward enough: all the senators would vote for one candidate, and whichever one got the most votes would win. The method of electing a President (called a House contingent election), however, was much more complicated.

    The most important difference from the straightforward vote of the Senate contingent was that in the House contingent, state delegations voted, instead of individual congressmen. This was not altogether dissimilar from how the Electoral College worked, except for the fact that in the House contingents, each delegation gets one, and only one, vote. As such, the members of the state delegations must reach a majority decision on whom to vote for; if the delegation doesn't reach an agreement, the entire state abstains. As one might understand, this caused significant trouble in the strained political situation at the onset of the Second Republic [1].

    [​IMG]
    Chief Justice Abraham Lincoln.

    To begin with, not everyone was even sure that a contingent election should be held. The Republicans, and particularly Seward's radical supporters, were convinced that their man had won, since with the electoral votes of the South not in play, Seward had won a majority of about twenty votes. However, the Unionists and Democrats, along with some moderate Republican dissenters, held that the Southern states had not technically left the Union, since it was constitutionally indissoluble [2], and that their votes should therefore count as invalid. This eventually led to a Supreme Court case, Stevens v. United States (so named for Thaddeus Stevens, House Speaker and noted radical, who represented the Seward supporters in court). After a long debate, the Supreme Court decided, on December 22, that the Southern states' votes were to be counted as invalid. Radical newspapers and speakers would later claim that the decision was a result of Chief Justice Lincoln's personal friendship with many moderates and Southern Unionists, including Johnson himself, as well as Alexander Stephens [3], Lyman Trumbull, and others. However, their complaints came to naught, and come January, the contingent election was on.

    After the Electoral College counts, only a formality here, Seward looked sure to win. In total, there were fourteen Republican states, six Unionist [4] states, three Democratic ones, and five abstaining (meaning divided) states. The Republicans had solid majorities in New York, all New England states but Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and California. Of those, Rhode Island, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and California were not dominated by radicals. Curtin held Delaware, Vandalia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Osage, and Texas, and Democratic supporters held Missouri, Oregon and English's home state of Connecticut. Maryland was split between Unionists and Democrats, Indiana and New Jersey were split between Unionists and Republicans, and Ohio and Pennsylvania was represented by men of all three parties. Consequently, in a mirror of the situation in November, Seward lacked only one state's votes to win.

    [​IMG]
    Thaddeus Stevens, addressing the House during the contingent election.

    The first ballot was a party-line vote, and in the Senate, Hamlin was easily elected as Vice President two days later [5]. After the first ballot, the Democrats quickly dropped their support of English, since his candidacy was the least likely to carry through. Most of them supported Curtin by the second ballot, but a few, mostly Pennsylvanians, moved over to Seward. This made the second ballot, and the two following ones, look as follows:

    Seward: 14
    Curtin: 10
    Abstaining: 4

    [​IMG]
    George Washington Julian.

    After the second ballot, something happened that would change American history forever. George Washington Julian of Indiana [6] stood up in the House chamber and, reading from a joint appeal drafted by himself, Charles Francis Adams, Jacob Cox [7] and others, called upon his fellow Republicans to break ranks and vote for Curtin, citing the "grievous Crimes and Misdemeanours committed by the President and his Affiliates during the Course of his Administration", including most prominently the brutal occupation of the Southern states, which was still going on, and the expropriation of ex-Confederates. This call, while first regarded as foolish, and decried by Stevens, who was one of Seward's greatest supporters, received support from Adams' fellow New Englander Charles Sumner, who expressed his sentiments in a letter which was read to the House, and as the Convention dragged on, first Indiana, then Kansas and Nebraska, and finally Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Rhode Island, voted for Curtin, making the sixth ballot appear as follows:

    Seward: 11
    Curtin: 16
    Abstaining: 1

    Curtin was now to be President. Much like Adams' upset victory in 1824, this was unexpected by most of American society, who had expected Seward to be easily elected. However, Hamlin was to be his Vice President, and Congress remained Republican-dominated, although not by as much as before the elections, thus creating the first ever example of the gridlock which so plagued the Second Republic, as well as its infamous compromise solution: the first bipartisan cohabitation government."

    ***

    [​IMG]
    Andrew Gregg Curtin, 17th President of the United States.

    From "Deconstruction and Reconstruction: A History of the Postbellum United States, 1862-1924" by Walker Smith
    Abrams Publishing, Philadelphia, 1956

    "Curtin's administration was markedly different from nearly all previous ones in that it was bipartisan, as an attempt to appease the Republicans and gain a higher level of Congressional support. Despite maintaining a majority in Congress being far from necessary to govern in the First and Second Republics, Curtin was well aware that the radicals could, and probably would, move for impeachment if he didn't watch his steps [8]. As such, two of his cabinet appointments were Republican: the moderate Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was made Attorney General, and the even more moderate Montgomery Blair of Missouri became Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Navy, David D. Porter, was an independent professional, and along with General Lee's appointment as Secretary of War (although Lee was a Unionist in name), this set the precedent of the War and Naval Departments as technocratic appointments [9].

    [​IMG]
    Lyman Trumbull, Curtin's Attorney General, had been a Senator from Illinois, and one of the authors of the 13th Amendment.

    With Curtin in office, Reconstruction would take a markedly different course. Republican dominance in Congress ensured that the military forces in the South would stay in place for now, but the occupation was significantly lighter under Curtin than it had been under Seward. The ex-Confederates were returned to their former properties, although not given the vote until they had sworn the Ironclad Oath, and army units stopped protecting freedmen going to vote. As a result, while freedmen's rights were infringed, violence started to die down across the occupied South. That is, until the spark came…"

    ***

    [1] In TTL's historiography, American history, much like French history, is usually grouped into different governments. The antebellum period is known as the First Republic (some count everything up to Jefferson as separate), Reconstruction and the Not-so-Progressive Era the Second Republic (although the two aren't technically different systems of government, they're generally seen as different enough to warrant separation), and from roughly the early '30s to the present day (I shan't go into detail about this, obviously, but suffice it to say that what I said about the difference between the First and Second Republics doesn't hold completely true for the Third) is the Third Republic.
    [2] This position was taken by President Johnson IOTL, and used to justify his very mild take on Reconstruction.
    [3] Of whom we will be seeing more.
    [4] The full name (Constitutional Unionist) being something of a mouthful, it's very commonly abbreviated.
    [5] This is fateful, since it means that if Seward wins, we'll see four more years of complete Radical dominance, and if Curtin wins, with a Radical Vice President, calls for impeachment are likely to rise, especially with Congress remaining Republican-majority.
    [6] IOTL, Julian was a candidate for Vice President under Greeley in 1872, losing out to Benjamin Gratz Brown.
    [7] IOTL, Jacob D. Cox, Jr., was a Union General who ran for Governor of Ohio post-war, winning, and holding office until 1868, when he was ousted by the radicals in that state in favour of Rutherford B. Hayes. He subsequently served as Secretary of the Interior under Grant. ITTL, he runs for the House instead, and is still there by 1869.
    [8] Curtin also wants, like Lincoln (and FDR) IOTL, to unify the nation behind his efforts, and this plays a part in why he decides to appoint a bipartisan cabinet.
    [9] In full, Curtin's cabinet looks as follows:
    Secretary of State: John Bell
    Attorney General: Lyman Trumbull
    Secretary of the Treasury: Alexander Stephens
    Secretary of the Interior: Montgomery Blair
    Postmaster General: James Sidney Rollins
    Secretary of War: Robert E. Lee
    Secretary of the Navy: David Dixon Porter
     
  13. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Huzzah, an update!

    Also, my TL showcase should be up early next month!
     
  14. Nanwe Left-Macronista

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Location:
    Brussels, BE || Madrid, ES
    Umm this tiny line seems to imply that the not-so-Progressive Era intellectuals and politicians (like Wilson wanted OTL) move to a parliamentary or semi-presidential system. But well we'll have to wait and see.
     
  15. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    I'll be looking forward to it (and dearly hoping you don't misrepresent the TL)!

    Indeed we will. It wouldn't be in Wilson's time, though - and for that matter, were it to take place, TTL's Woodrow Wilson would have no part in this supposed transition.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  16. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    Update time! This time, to the annoyance of those of you waiting for further news on the war and/or Curtin's presidency, this one is a retrospective one, focusing on TTL's Utah War, and with the California bit tacked on for good measure. Also, landscapes! And, twenty footnotes! I believe this is a new record.
     
  17. Utgard96 basically a load of twaddle about freedom

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Location:
    Up yonder
    Story of a Party - Chapter XXIII
    From Valley to Valley

    "True independence and freedom can only exist in doing what's right."
    - Brigham Young

    ***

    From "The Birth of States" by Millard Donelson
    Fremont Press, Albany, New York, 1939

    "The state of Colorado is the first and, to date, only [1] state to have seceded from an existing state, in this case California, without that state having seceded first. The state of California, formed as part of the "Great Compromise" of 1850, was made a single state largely in order to placate the northerners who feared the extension of slavery to the part of the territory south of the Missouri Compromise line [2]; this fear was largely ungrounded, as the land there was completely unsuitable to plantation agriculture. The state remained divided in all but name; as such, the proposals to split the state were numerous throughout the 1850s.

    In 1854, the State Assembly of California passed a bill to divide the state in three. The first state created would be an extended Colorado including Monterrey, Merced and Mariposa Counties and everything south of them. The second would be Shasta, consisting of the far north - this area, while quite populous at the time thanks to the Gold Rush of '49, was depopulated, and today has barely 300,000 inhabitants - and the third was the rump California in the middle. This bill failed to gain traction in the Senate, and was consequently abandoned; however, separatism remains in the far north of the state [3].

    [​IMG]
    Andrés Pico, State Assemblyman from Los Angeles County.

    It was five years later, however, that the movement gained traction. Andrés Pico, a rancher in the San Fernando Valley who had fought for the Mexicans against the US, was elected to the State Assembly in 1851, and campaigned for the division bill of 1854; although that bill failed, he continued to campaign for Coloradan separation. In 1859, he wrote a bill to split off the parts of the state south of the 6th Standard Parallel [4] as the Colorado Territory, since the area was not technically populous enough to be a state at the time [5]. This gained traction, and on April 18, Governor Stanford [6] signed the bill, it having passed both houses of the legislature. However, state secessions needed the support of Congress even before the Fifteenth Amendment [7], and thanks to the secession crisis, the bill proposed to Congress was ignored until September of the year after, when it was brought forth by Senator David C. Broderick [8]. It passed the House two weeks after, and the Senate by mid-October. Fremont signed it into law, formally creating the Territory of Colorado with Los Angeles as its capital, and Stephen C. Foster, long-time mayor of Los Angeles, was appointed as the first governor."

    ***

    From "The Mountain Beehive: A History of the Second Mormon Exodus" by Noah Templeton
    Borah Press, Lewiston, Spokane, 1998

    "Since the creation of the Utah Territory in 1850, tensions had been on the rise between the LDS settlers of the area and the federal government; the election of church officials to most positions of power within the territory, despite the democratic nature of the elections, did much to convince Washington that Utah was turning into a theocracy; the appointment of Church President Brigham Young as the first territorial governor, although made by President Fillmore in Washington and ratified by the Senate, did little to alleviate these fears. It was believed that the tremendous influence the Church had on the everyday lives of its members was incompatible with the secular republican tradition of the United States, and although many in the LDS were unabashedly patriotic and supportive of their nation, they were not generally fond of the people who ran the federal government - President Young himself summed up the sentiments well when he quipped: "I love the government and the Constitution of the United States, but I do not love the damned rascals that administer the government."

    [​IMG]
    Brigham Young, President of the Church and, until 1857, Governor of Utah.

    Beginning in 1851, and greatly adding to the concerns of Washington, several federal officials, some fearing for their lives, left their positions within the Utah government and returned to the East. The stories of these "Runaway Officials" were recounted in the press and in Washington society, and led many in government to suspect that the Mormons were mounting open rebellion against federal authority. The stories, to quote a letter sent in 1858 by then-Congressman Banks to a friend in Boston, "left unclear whether they habitually kicked their dogs; otherwise their calendar of infamy in Utah was complete." [9]

    With Fremont in office, tensions came to a head. Among the points of the Republican platform for 1856 had been a promise to move against the institution of plural marriage among the LDS settlers [10]; when Fremont was finally elected, most Saints, including President Young, saw measures against them coming. Indeed, their fears would he answered in the spring of 1857, when Fremont removed Young from the governorship and replaced him with Stephen Selwyn Harding [11]; Young was not notified of his removal from office, but the news soon reached Salt Lake City, whereupon Young, still acting as governor, declared martial law throughout the territory. Daniel H. Wells, Second Counselor of the First Presidency of the Church, organised the Nauvoo Legion as a kind of settlers' militia, and where they were unavailable, weapons were crafted from farming equipment; scythes were turned into bayonets, and were sharpened into spears. The Utahns made it clear from the start that they would resist the presence of federal troops tooth-and-nail.

    In September, the Legion, camped out in Echo Canyon, met federal troops for the first time. A scouting party, surveying the route ahead, was attacked and captured by Legion forces on September 18; three days later, an army supply caravan was captured and burned by Legion militiamen. Due to this, along with some propagandic statements presumably emanating from Young and the LDS Church directly, Colonel Alexander, the temporary army commander, decided not to take the Echo Canyon route, which was by far the closest one, into Utah, instead resolving to move north and descend on Utah along the Bear River, outflanking the Legion; however, as luck would have it, a heavy blizzard in early October derailed his plans. The standoff between the two forces thus created lasted until year's end, with William S. Harney [12] arriving to take personal command of the expedition in mid-November.

    [​IMG]
    Echo Canyon in 1869.

    In the winter, Young developed what he called the Sevastopol Plan, a resolution to evacuate the territory rather than face the Army openly, just like in Nauvoo twelve years before. For their new home, Young suggested Bitterroot Valley, in what was then Washington Territory. The land, or so Young believed, was good enough for the frugal Saints to make a living, but not good enough for anyone else to want it [13]. As the winter raged on, the move was continually stalled, and negotiations even took place between the Church and the Army, with Thomas L. Kane as mediator. Young proved willing to step down in Harding's favour, but would not let the Army into Utah, and as several other discontentments sprang up, the negotiations were stalled [14].

    As March gave way to April, long wagon trains made their way through the Bear River valley, carrying thousands upon thousands of Saints, with their families, livestock, and farming equipment. The Salt Lake Temple had been torn down along with much of the city around it, and many people actually brought with them their homes in pieces [15]. However, President Young had not been entirely successful in enforcing Sevastopol, and a large faction of the Church, led by Wells, remained in Utah, swearing to defend "the Place" until their last breath. Additional, much smaller groups, most of them loyal to Young and the Church leadership, established themselves around Las Vegas, New Mexico (as it then was) and San Bernardino, Colorado [16]. Thus began a great schism within the LDS Church, one that would last unabated until the 1960s.

    This effort proved a dismal failure, and in May, as the first Mormon settlers poured across the Bitterroots, the Army pushed through the fortifications at Echo Canyon, arriving in Salt Lake City on May 21. Harding took the oath of office three days later, and as martial law was already in effect, the Army proceeded to occupy the territory. Wells, and other Mormon leaders who had stayed behind in Utah, decried the troop presence, stating that "these heinous practices are a threat to Utah's people, and an egregious stain on American democracy that will surely take a long time to wipe off".

    [​IMG]
    Blodgett Canyon, Spokane, is adjacent to the larger Bitterroot Valley.

    Young's faction, as mentioned, arrived in the Bitterroot Valley in May, and founded the cities of New Zion [17] and Fillmore [18]. The new temple was built in New Zion between 1860 and 1889, rivalling the original designs for the Salt Lake Temple in size and grandeur. The Salt Lake Temple itself was dug out by Wells' men, and construction resumed, finishing in 1884. This temple wasn't nearly as large as the original plans, and until the mending of the Church schism called for the expansion of the Temple, it was generally viewed as too plain and small to serve the city adequately, and many calls were made for its renovation, all falling on deaf ears due to lack of funds.

    With the crisis seemingly over, Fremont recalled the troops in mid-August [19], and upon getting word, Governor Harding rescinded Young's martial law declaration. The territorial elections were held on schedule in November, and with much of the Mormon populace having left (although Church members were still a sizeable majority of the population), the results were a narrow victory for the Liberals [20]; however, the People's Party retained much clout in the Territory, and as such, although the troops were gone from the streets of Salt Lake City, tensions continued to simmer."

    ***

    [1] This is not to say that there won't be more before TTL's present day.
    [2] ITTL, what with the state splitting so quickly, this view becomes common among historians, and indeed, it predominates both academic and popular history by the present day (ITTL, 'California' = the Central Valley and the Bay Area, and Colorado is seen as culturally separate, so it does make sense).
    [3] The bill is OTL, and so is the rest of the paragraph; IOTL, the separatists advocate creating a new State of Jefferson along with south-western Oregon.
    [4] The Sixth Standard Parallel, used as the surveying baseline in California, is defined by Mount Diablo, and runs about 13.8 miles south of the 36th parallel north.
    [5] The area had something like 30,000 people in it in 1860, and nearly half of them were in Los Angeles County, and about a third in San Diego.
    [6] IOTL, Leland Stanford lost the gubernatorial election of 1859 to John B. Weller, a Lecompton Democrat. ITTL, with the Republicans doing better generally in the state, Stanford wins the election.
    [7] The Fifteenth Amendment, also known as the 'Perfect Union' amendment, made it significantly harder for states to secede. For more information, see Chapter XII.
    [8] This is the first divergence (apart from Stanford being governor two years earlier); IOTL, the bill was never even discussed in Congress due to the secession crisis being later. As for Broderick, IOTL he got killed in a duel with David Terry, the former state chief justice, in 1859; ITTL, it's Terry who's killed, further damaging the Lecompton Democrat cause in California.
    [9] This quote, which comes from Norman Furniss' book "The Mormon Conflict: 1850-1859", felt too good to be left out of TTL's history.
    [10] This is OTL; the passage from the party program read "Resolved that the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy, and slavery." Actually, both major parties made this a point of their campaign (although the Republicans felt more strongly about it), which made the position of the LDS Church slightly awkward.
    [11] IOTL, Harding was a Hoosier abolitionist who was appointed by Lincoln after John Dawson's record-setting three weeks of not pissing off the Mormons enough to be removed from office. His term, in turn, lasted barely two years before he too pissed off the Mormons (by criticising plural marriage) and was replaced by President Lincoln after the Mormon settlers signed a petition to that effect.
    [12] Harney was a career cavalry officer, who served with distinction in the Mexican War and, IOTL, was in charge of the Department of the West when the Civil War broke out. He was instrumental in foiling Governor Claiborne Jackson's attempts to secede, and secured Missouri for the Union.
    [13] This plan existed IOTL; however, Indian raids against a fort on their route blocked the way of the escape, and the Mormons moved south instead. They were originally supposed to head to somewhere on the Utah-New Mexico border (as it stood), but ended up moving only a bit south of the Salt Lake Valley, founding cities like Provo and Fillmore in the new area.
    [14] IOTL, Kane succeeded in letting the new governor in, but the Mexican Standoff in Echo Canyon between the Army and the Legion went on. ITTL, he doesn't even get that far.
    [15] IOTL, the Mormons began moving south in much the same way, but when Buchanan agreed to pull out (pressured as he was by much of Congress), Young aborted the move, and only some of the Mormons spread south from the Place.
    [16] These cities were settled by Mormons IOTL, but when the Utah War came, they were recalled by Young to Utah. ITTL, the order gets lost along the way, and the LDS communities stay where they are. Thus, for instance, the Old Mormon Fort in Las Vegas continues to be used, the area around it eventually becoming an important waystation and base of operations for couriers and other travellers of the desert wastes.
    [17] OTL Lolo, Montana. The name symbolises the new Zion (a name Joseph Smith used for the destined Mormon homeland in the West) Young's followers found in the Bitterroot Valley.
    [18] OTL Hamilton, Montana. The city is named for President Fillmore, who gave the Mormons power in Utah by organising the territorial government and appointing Young as governor.
    [19] IOTL, Buchanan had to back down in April, after being scolded by Congress for escalating the crisis; this allowed the Mormons to move back to Salt Lake City. Fremont is less lenient in light of the Republican platform, and so the Utah War lasts considerably longer.
    [20] The Republican and Democratic parties didn't set up shop in Utah until statehood. Before that, there was a distinct two-party system in place: there was the People's Party, whose candidates were generally Mormons with Church support, and who were usually the majority party, especially in the legislature. Then there was the Liberal Party, composed of Gentiles and secular-minded Mormons, who were against Church power, and polled well in Gentile-dominated areas. The governor, who was appointed by Washington, tended to be either neutral or a moderate Liberal.
     
  18. Iserlohn Amateur Cartographer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Location:
    County of Mark
    A more wide-spread and divided Latter Days' Saints Church?! Fascinating! Also more California stuff, including a good explanation of Colorado, I like it!

    Overall VERY interesting update.
     
  19. Unknown Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Interesting update.

    Glad to see you back, Ares96.

    Can't wait for your update on the First European War (when it comes).
     
  20. Ephraim Ben Raphael Super Writer Extraordinaire

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Khazar Empire
    A good update.:)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.