The Union Forever: A TL

Mac,

Out of curiosity how many Union troops are being held down occupying Virginia?

I am unsure what the exact number would be, but it is needless to say considerable. The Union has over 150,000 troops scattered throughout the State. Most of the state is under Union control with the exception of the area surrounding and west of Danville. Confederate Guerrillas are also active in several spots.
 
Cool stuff. I like how you are putting little known commanders in the spotlight for the Union side. It makes the TL seem that much more unique and authentic.

Something tells me there will be one last battle in Virginia, a Petersburg of sorts maybe?
 
Cool stuff. I like how you are putting little known commanders in the spotlight for the Union side. It makes the TL seem that much more unique and authentic.

Something tells me there will be one last battle in Virginia, a Petersburg of sorts maybe?

One last battle in Virginia? There is a distinct possibility.
 
Autumn, 1862
Autumn, 1862


U.S. Midterm Elections


With Richmond captured and Nashville successfully defended, the Republicans went into the November congressional elections rightfully confident of victory. To be sure, setbacks such as Lynchburg and uneasiness regarding P.E.R.U. caused some concern but weren't enough to aid the Democrats. When the votes were finally tallied the Republican majority in the House of Representatives grew from 108 to 121. The Democrats were increasingly discredited losing 13 of their 45 seats. The Constitutional Unionists increased slightly from 28 to 30 seats. In the Senate, Republicans also faired well picking up 32 seats compared to the Democrats' 8 and Constitutional Unionists' 7.


Invasion of Eastern Tennessee

Meanwhile in the Western Theater, the Union was on the verge of accomplishing one of its goals since the start of the war, the liberation of eastern Tennessee. The largely non-slave holding citizens of east Tennessee had overwhelmingly voted against succession in 1861 and continued to be a bastion of Unionism. Lincoln initially wished to liberate this mountainous region and possibly bring it into the Union as a separate state. However, by this point in the war most of western Tennessee was liberated and if the eastern part of the state could be redeemed Tennessee stood a good chance becoming the first southern state to return to the Union.

C14aLo7.jpg

Lieutenant General Edmund Kirby Smith
Army of Tennessee, Commander

On November 9, 1862, after leaving a sizable garrison in Nashville, the Army of the Ohio moved towards Knoxville. Major General Henry Halleck maintained operational control of Union forces after Buell’s poor performance during the early stages of the Siege of Nashville. Jefferson Davis relieved Bragg as commander of the Army of Tennessee after his failure at Nashville and appointed Lieutenant General Edmund Kirby Smith to replace him. The Army of Tennessee was stationed in the increasingly fortified city of Chattanooga in the southern part of the state. Although Jefferson Davis urged Smith to move northeast and intercept Halleck, Smith convinced the Confederate president that it would be unwise for his battered force to move into a Unionist part of the state, with winter approaching, to engage a larger Yankee force. Therefore, most of Smith’s army remained behind its works in Chattanooga.

Advancing south towards Knoxville was relatively easy for the Union as they already had control over the Cumberland Gap since their victory there in June. The only major battle of the Knoxville Campaign occurred near Rutledge, Tennessee in late November. Despite some initial success under Confederate commander Major General Carter L. Stevenson, superior Union numbers carried the day. Nashville was liberated on December 11, 1862 after a short siege in brutally cold conditions. With Nashville captured, eastern Tennessee finally returned to Union control. Indeed the only part of the state that was still in Confederate hands was Chattanooga. As both armies finally settled into winter quarters, Unionist elements in Tennessee were making plans on their state’s return to the Union.

Investment of Vicksburg

jMLBktB.png

Major General Ulysses S. Grant
Army of the Tennessee, Commander


In Mississippi, the Army of the Tennessee under Major General Ulysses S. Grant made steady progress towards the Confederate strongpoint of Vicksburg. Located on high ground overlooking a bend in the river, Vicksburg was vital for controlling the Mississippi. Grant began his campaign in November, moving south from Memphis, Tennessee. Grant had a difficult time securing his supply lines from Confederate raiders such as Brigadier General Nathan Bedford Forest which slowed his progress considerably. Fortunately for the North, on December 9, 1862 Forest was killed during a failed raid on the Union supply depot at Holly Springs, Mississippi. Grant scored a hard fought victory at Grenada, an important junction of the Mississippi Central Railroad, against Confederate Major General Earl Van Dorn's forces restyled as the Army of Mississippi. Although defeated, Van Dorn managed to safely withdraw to the state capital of Jackson.

dEW971q.png

Battle Flag used by Van Dorn


While Grant took the overland route, his chief subordinate Major General William Tecumseh Sherman and his XV Corps made an amphibious landing directly north of Vicksburg. On December 21, at the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou, also known as the Battle of Walnut Hills, Sherman attempted to push directly through the swamp and capture Vicksburg. The Confederate defenders, led by Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton a Pennsylvanian who sided with the South, repulsed Sherman's attacks. Following this setback, Sherman and his 32,000 men established siege lines on Vicksburg's landward side and awaited Grant's reinforcements.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your support and bringing up these excellent points. Indeed this is a relatively military focused TL, but your points mentioned above do need to be addressed and will be in future installments. May I be so bold as to ask your opinion on what you think would happen with the points mentioned above?

I'd be glad to give my opinion!

Delaware: In OTL 1862, Lincoln offered to purchase all of Delaware's slaves, and the legislature voted against it. In November, the Democrats recaptured the House and held the Senate, even though the Union Party (War Democrats and Republicans in coalition) won the Governorship. ITTL, I'd expect the slave-owners to be MUCH more receptive to a buy-out. My guess is, the legislature votes no, but the no-voters get crushed at the polls, leading to a moderate Republican house and a Unionist Senate and Governor. On the first Tuesday of January 1863, they speed through a bill accepting the Federal offer and abolishing slavery immediately after the compensation is doled out. Instead of sending James A. Bayard, Jr. back to the Senate, they send moderate Republican James Riddle of Kentmere, a cotton mill owner (who in OTL lost the 1866 Governor's election).

West Virginia: This one is entirely up to you, because it involves an executive decision of the highest order for Lincoln: should he continue offering statehood to West Virginia, now that the Union Army has recaptured most of Virginia? In OTL, several southern counties in WV were still in Confederate hands when the state was admitted. But at heart, it comes down to this: if WV is offered statehood, it will pass gradual abolition; if not, it will continue to be a source of chaos until the status of Virginia is settled.

40 Acres and a Mule cannot happen as legislation unless and until there's a Republican wave election, because it would irrevocably turn slaves into landowning citizens. If this is sold as "let's put the Negros far, far away from the North," then Unionists might be OK with it. After all, it tends to keep the freedmen in segregated rural areas in the South (if plantations are confiscated) or Frontier (if they're homesteaded), where they are less likely to offend white sensibilities. If it's sold on any other reasoning, like Civil Rights, then there will be a huge, huge backlash, and Democrats will sweep up poor white votes with slogans like "Where's My Mule?" But there's a reason why the Union Army did it without legislative backing in OTL: it's smart policy. Slaves, by and large, know how to farm. Until factory jobs start picking up in the decades to come, small-plot farming is the dream job of the 99% of slaves who are illiterate.

The first Homestead Act could happen in 1862 before the election, or it could wait until 1863 or even longer, where it might get tied up with 40 Acres and a Mule or it might get abandoned. In peacetime, the Homestead Act's only opponents were the factory-owners, who feared that they'd have to improve working conditions to keep workers from alighting for the territories. During a war, though, one might not want men of fighting age disappearing to the frontier, and of course if Homesteading gets caught up in racial politics, then who knows.

The Railroad Acts, the Land-Grant Colleges Act, and the creation of the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service are the sort of bills that I'd expect Congress to pass right now, before they go home for the 1862 elections. The first three are extremely popular, and the IRS is necessary for the war effort.

The 1862 Elections will go favorably for the Unionists, but I don't expect the Radicals to get nominated in extreme numbers, and I don't expect the Democrats to get eliminated. One of the hidden factors of the elections was that several state courts (I know of PA and NY; there may be others) ruled it unconstitutional for people out of state (that is, Union soldiers) to cast ballots, while by 1864 most states had amended their constitutions to allow it, and Conscription meant that Democrats were fighting for the Union, too. So even in the best of circumstances, the 1862 elections won't be a shutout.

In New York, the OTL elections were extremely close. There was a 64-64 tie in the State Assembly (the State Senate was not up, and remained 2/3 Republican), and the Democrats swept all 5 executive offices by almost identical 50.8%-49.2% margins. I'd say the changes are enough to turn those razor-thin Democratic wins into Republican wins, and a small (say, 66-62) Assembly win. The Alternate appointment to the Senate remains the same, with Edwin Morgan just winning the assembly vote by a better margin. The most noticeable difference is that James S. Wadsworth beats Horatio Seymour for governor. In OTL Gov. Seymour parlayed his victory into being the 1868 Democratic nominee for president. Wadsworth is a Union General, so unless Lincoln has a reason to relieve him from command, Lt. Gov. Lyman Tremain takes his place as governor.

Other than New York, I would estimate that there would be a few US Rep elections being swung, and plenty of low-level offices changing hands, but I can't see any other shifts that would be nearly as big. I admit, however, that there are several states that I couldn't find good information on, especially the Midwestern states, so they might have had closer elections than I'm realizing.
 
I'd be glad to give my opinion!

Delaware: In OTL 1862, Lincoln offered to purchase all of Delaware's slaves, and the legislature voted against it. In November, the Democrats recaptured the House and held the Senate, even though the Union Party (War Democrats and Republicans in coalition) won the Governorship. ITTL, I'd expect the slave-owners to be MUCH more receptive to a buy-out. My guess is, the legislature votes no, but the no-voters get crushed at the polls, leading to a moderate Republican house and a Unionist Senate and Governor. On the first Tuesday of January 1863, they speed through a bill accepting the Federal offer and abolishing slavery immediately after the compensation is doled out. Instead of sending James A. Bayard, Jr. back to the Senate, they send moderate Republican James Riddle of Kentmere, a cotton mill owner (who in OTL lost the 1866 Governor's election).

West Virginia: This one is entirely up to you, because it involves an executive decision of the highest order for Lincoln: should he continue offering statehood to West Virginia, now that the Union Army has recaptured most of Virginia? In OTL, several southern counties in WV were still in Confederate hands when the state was admitted. But at heart, it comes down to this: if WV is offered statehood, it will pass gradual abolition; if not, it will continue to be a source of chaos until the status of Virginia is settled.

40 Acres and a Mule cannot happen as legislation unless and until there's a Republican wave election, because it would irrevocably turn slaves into landowning citizens. If this is sold as "let's put the Negros far, far away from the North," then Unionists might be OK with it. After all, it tends to keep the freedmen in segregated rural areas in the South (if plantations are confiscated) or Frontier (if they're homesteaded), where they are less likely to offend white sensibilities. If it's sold on any other reasoning, like Civil Rights, then there will be a huge, huge backlash, and Democrats will sweep up poor white votes with slogans like "Where's My Mule?" But there's a reason why the Union Army did it without legislative backing in OTL: it's smart policy. Slaves, by and large, know how to farm. Until factory jobs start picking up in the decades to come, small-plot farming is the dream job of the 99% of slaves who are illiterate.

The first Homestead Act could happen in 1862 before the election, or it could wait until 1863 or even longer, where it might get tied up with 40 Acres and a Mule or it might get abandoned. In peacetime, the Homestead Act's only opponents were the factory-owners, who feared that they'd have to improve working conditions to keep workers from alighting for the territories. During a war, though, one might not want men of fighting age disappearing to the frontier, and of course if Homesteading gets caught up in racial politics, then who knows.

The Railroad Acts, the Land-Grant Colleges Act, and the creation of the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service are the sort of bills that I'd expect Congress to pass right now, before they go home for the 1862 elections. The first three are extremely popular, and the IRS is necessary for the war effort.

The 1862 Elections will go favorably for the Unionists, but I don't expect the Radicals to get nominated in extreme numbers, and I don't expect the Democrats to get eliminated. One of the hidden factors of the elections was that several state courts (I know of PA and NY; there may be others) ruled it unconstitutional for people out of state (that is, Union soldiers) to cast ballots, while by 1864 most states had amended their constitutions to allow it, and Conscription meant that Democrats were fighting for the Union, too. So even in the best of circumstances, the 1862 elections won't be a shutout.

In New York, the OTL elections were extremely close. There was a 64-64 tie in the State Assembly (the State Senate was not up, and remained 2/3 Republican), and the Democrats swept all 5 executive offices by almost identical 50.8%-49.2% margins. I'd say the changes are enough to turn those razor-thin Democratic wins into Republican wins, and a small (say, 66-62) Assembly win. The Alternate appointment to the Senate remains the same, with Edwin Morgan just winning the assembly vote by a better margin. The most noticeable difference is that James S. Wadsworth beats Horatio Seymour for governor. In OTL Gov. Seymour parlayed his victory into being the 1868 Democratic nominee for president. Wadsworth is a Union General, so unless Lincoln has a reason to relieve him from command, Lt. Gov. Lyman Tremain takes his place as governor.

Other than New York, I would estimate that there would be a few US Rep elections being swung, and plenty of low-level offices changing hands, but I can't see any other shifts that would be nearly as big. I admit, however, that there are several states that I couldn't find good information on, especially the Midwestern states, so they might have had closer elections than I'm realizing.

hmm very interesting. So would you say it is probably more likely that West Virginia gets folded back in Virginia, maybe even forming the core of the new unionist state government?
 

Spengler

Banned
Love your time line Macgregor refreshing to see a early Union victory one. BTW could you give us relative sizes of the armies in the major battles?
 
hmm very interesting. So would you say it is probably more likely that West Virginia gets folded back in Virginia, maybe even forming the core of the new unionist state government?

I'm reluctant to say "more likely." I'd need to read a whole lot more about West Virginia to have such a high degree of confidence about any predictions. But I can say that it's plausible for WV to go either way.
 
Love your time line Macgregor refreshing to see a early Union victory one. BTW could you give us relative sizes of the armies in the major battles?

Glad you like the TL and thanks for the support. I have been reluctant to list the size of the armies and battle casualties in this TL due to what I believe to be inevitable disagreements along the lines of "that army is to big" or "that army should have lost more men". Indeed, this is nothing new to students of the American Civil War. If one reads Gen. Grants memoirs he argues that at the time the North and South both counted their forces in different ways. Grant claimed that the North counted every man in the army whether a combatant or not, while the South only counted combatants. Grant stated that this led to the impression that a much smaller Confederate force was routinely defeating vastly larger Union forces.

Anyways I digress; I will in the future endeavor to start posting numbers. As far as this TL is concerned the Union's armies' strength is a little bit better than in OTL due to its victories. The Confederates are moderately worse off than in OTL due to defeats but more especially desertions due to demoralization. Cheers!
 
The South’s Winter of Discontent
The South’s Winter of Discontent

umjS8Qe.jpg

Tennessee Returns to the Union

As the wintering armies made their preparations for the upcoming military offensives, Tennessee politicians were busy negotiating a return to the Union. On December 23, 1862 unionist politicians held a convention in Nashville to discuss their state’s future. Most of the Confederate Tennessee state legislature boycotted the convention and remained in Chattanooga under the protection of Smith’s Army of Tennessee. However, enough of the population, mostly citizens from eastern Tennessee, had sworn allegiance to form a new state government.

As all present were Republicans, Constitutional Unionists, or Unionist Democrats the main discussion was not whether to return to the Union, but whether to return to it as a slave or free state. The debate raged for two days until finally a compromise was struck. Tennessee would petition to return as a slave state, but with a provision in the state’s new proposed constitution that would abolish slavery by January 1st, 1865. Slave-owners who took the oath of allegiance to the United States and the new state government could receive financial compensation when they emancipated their slaves. The State of Delaware had adopted a similar gradual compensated emancipation plan by a slim margin a few months earlier. Andrew Johnson the current military governor of Tennessee and the only Southern senator to have remained loyal to the United States was elected provisional governor by the assembly. William Gannaway Brownlow, a former Whig newspaper man and pastor turned radical Republican was named Speaker of the Senate, a position arguably more powerful than the governor.

c6jbjsa.png

Andrew Johnson
Provisional Governor of Tennessee

When Tennessee’s petition reached Congress in a special session, there was a serious chance that the Republican dominated body might reject it because it would be tantamount to readmitting a slave state. However moderate Republicans, Democrats, and support from the Lincoln administration was able to secure its passage. Therefore on December 26, 1862 Tennessee became the first Confederate state to rejoin the Union. When news reached Jefferson Davis, he lambasted it, as did many in the Deep South, as an “illegitimate attempt by abolitionists and rabble-rousers to subvert a Southern state to Northern tyranny.” However, in other parts of the Upper South, such as Virginia and Arkansas, moderates saw it as a practical compromise and continued to make their own plans for their states’ restoration to the Union.

n7RhAkb.png

Flag of the State of Tennessee
Adopted in 1909

The Winter Conferences

As the War entered its second winter the political situation in the Confederate States of America was deteriorating at an alarming pace. The South had introduced conscription in 1862 to shore up its manpower shortage. As Confederate fortunes declined in the second half of 1862 the central government ever increasingly drew men and supplies form the various Southern states. Jefferson Davis’s heavy handed approach coupled with his apparently disastrous handling of the war so far began to form fissures in the Confederate political establishment. Those that opposed Davis’s centralizing policies include several Southern state governors who resented their men and supplies being sent out of state. The most prominent of which were Joseph Brown, Zebulon Vance, and Pendleton Murrah the governors of Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas respectively. Another prominent Southern dissenter against the Davis administration was none other than Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens of Georgia.

In early January 1863, Jefferson Davis called a series of meetings with prominent Confederate leaders in the Southern capital of Lynchburg, Virginia. Those present included Davis’s cabinet, Alexander Stephens, Confederate congressional leadership, representatives from certain state governments, and military leaders including General Robert E. Lee. At these meetings, now known to historians as the Winter Conferences, Davis was deeply disturbed by the defeatist attitudes of many of the political leaders. Davis believed that although the South had suffered alarming setbacks in the past months the cause was not lost. If the full might of the South’s resources could be effectively pooled, the Confederate President continued to maintain, the Confederacy could reverse its recent defeats and grind the North down until the Union was forced to recognize Southern independence.

Therefore at the end of these Winter Conferences, in order to shore up the depleted Confederate ranks, Davis and the Confederate Secretary for War James Seddon lobbied for what became known as the Davis-Seddon Act which called for increased conscription, allowed for the suppression of seditious talk and media, and granted the Confederate government increased powers in procuring supplies from the various Southern states. Although ultimately enacted, this proposal sparked enormously hostile debate in the Confederate Congress and the various state governments as many politicians balked at the idea of rendering more men and supplies to the central government while their own states appeared to be on the verge of invasion. Indeed it seemed to challenge the very notion of state’s rights that the Confederacy was supposedly founded upon.

Lincoln's Plan for Victory

As Confederate leaders made their plans during these quieter winter months so did the Union government. In January, 1863 President Lincoln helped devise the North’s plan to win the war with advise from, General in Chief Sumner, Secretary or War Stanton, Secretary of the Navy Welles, and Major General Sedgwick who was called up from Petersburg. With reports of Southern political turmoil over conscription and Davis’s handling of the war, Lincoln believed that as soon as possible all of the Union’s armies should move against their Confederate counterparts. This simultaneous pressure all along the borders of the Confederacy would, Lincoln hoped, make the best use of the North’s superiority in numbers and not allow the Confederacy to use its interior lines to shuffle troops from front to front.

Lincoln’s intentions were to try and peel off the states of the Upper South, and Texas if possible, and bring them back into the Union first as they had the largest numbers of Unionist citizens. The decision to move into Texas an Arkansas however was not very popular with many in the Union military. Sumner and Stanton argued that with Vicksburg likely to fall soon, Arkansas and Texas would be cut off and could be left to wither on the vine. Lincoln however believed that with these states cut off from the Confederacy they would be more likely to rejoin the Union. Lincoln was also adamant about establishing a presence in Texas to send a signal to the French troops in Mexico that, as Lincoln put it to an aide, “they ain’t welcome in this hemisphere.”

The North's plan involved a number of coordinated movements. Major General Benjamin Butler’s Army of the Gulf would push north, taking Port Hudson on the Mississippi and liberate the rest of Louisiana. Following this Butler would turn west and push into Texas. Major General Grant’s Army of the Tennessee, after taking Vicksburg some time in the winter, would split up. Two Corps under the command of Major General William T. Sherman, later known as the Army of the Mississippi, would move into Arkansas where unionist sympathies were believed to be on the rise. Grant aided by reinforcements from the north would head east and take central Mississippi. Meanwhile, Halleck would take his Army of the Ohio liberate Chattanooga, and then push on and capture the key railroad junction of the City of Atlanta. Sedgwick with the Army of the Potomac, the Union’s largest formation, would move against Lee at Lynchburg capturing the Confederate capital. Together, so it was thought, these offensives would finish liberating the states of Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, take most of Texas and Arkansas, and for the second time capture the Confederate capital. In short, if successful the war could be over in a matter of months
 
Last edited:
Any critiques or questions about the Union's 1863 strategy? Also would people prefer fewer but longer updates or the current many short updates? Thanks for the feedback.
 
Many, short.

Re West Virginia: the west virginians are not going to want to be dominated by the tidewater aristocracy traitors. If a separate state isn't formed, expect them to vociferously oppose reconstruction measures, at least in Virginia.
 
Any critiques or questions about the Union's 1863 strategy? Also would people prefer fewer but longer updates or the current many short updates? Thanks for the feedback.

I think it has some potential, but it could end up being a lark wasting nothing but time and resources better spent on crushing the core of the Confederacy. Still it does make some kind of sense from a politician's point-of-view.

As for updates I prefer they come in relevant sizes. If a small update is warranted that's fine, but if a longer one is in order then I'd rather wait.
 
Many, short.

Re West Virginia: the west virginians are not going to want to be dominated by the tidewater aristocracy traitors. If a separate state isn't formed, expect them to vociferously oppose reconstruction measures, at least in Virginia.

hmm.. good point. I am still wondering what to do about Virginia/West Virginia. Anyone else got any input?
 
hmm.. good point. I am still wondering what to do about Virginia/West Virginia. Anyone else got any input?

Well, next up on my reading list is West Virginia: A History. As best as I can tell, the far west, along the banks of the Ohio River, is going to go into open revolt if Lincoln tries to readmit all of Virginia as a slave state. But then again, the southeast will go into open revolt if Lincoln tries to readmit Virginia as a free state. But it also seems like the rest of Virginia was genuinely distraught over the state of affairs, and unsure themselves about what to do.
 
As all present were Republicans or Unionist Democrats the main discussion was not whether to return to the Union, but whether to return to it as a Slave or Free State. The debate raged for three days until finally a compromise was struck. Tennessee would petition to return as a slave state, but with a provision in the state’s new proposed constitution that would abolish slavery by January 1st, 1865. Slave-owners who took the oath of allegiance to the United States and the new state government could receive finical compensation from the Federal Government. The State of Delaware had adopted a similar gradual compensated emancipation plan by a slim margin a few months earlier. Andrew Johnson (D) the current military governor of Tennessee and the only southern senator to have remained loyal to the United States was, in a surprising move, elected provisional governor by the Republican controlled assembly. This was probably an effort to win back wayward Tennessee Democrats.

Hm...does that mean Johnson is never going to be President? (Well, it wouldn't surprise me, given that, you know, the Union is soundly whipping the South).
 
Top