The Union Forever: A TL
- Thread starter Mac Gregor
- Start date
The backwoods of the Confederacy were largely full of pro-Union people with few slaves.
While I'm generally liking TTL, I'm having a very hard time wrapping my brain around the idea of Halleck hotly pursuing anything.
While I'm generally liking TTL, I'm having a very hard time wrapping my brain around the idea of Halleck hotly pursuing anything.
Likely to have been more of a case of George Henry Thomas doing all the work while Halleck took the credit.
Excellent posts, as always. Some thoughts on the near future:
Sec. 2: Congress, in conjunction with the states, shall have power to enforce earlier emancipation, or to provide recompense for empancipation, prior to January 1, 1870, upon due consideration of the subject's participation in rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.
- I would expect black homesteaders to flood Kansas; they did in OTL even without official backing. I doubt many blacks could afford to resettle in or beyond the Rockies, though. Those who prefer not to farm will go wherever the railroad and telegraph companies are hiring black construction workers.
- If the City of Alexandria is going to return to the District of Columbia, it's now or never.
- I propose the following text for the Thirteenth Amendment:
Sec. 2: Congress, in conjunction with the states, shall have power to enforce earlier emancipation, or to provide recompense for empancipation, prior to January 1, 1870, upon due consideration of the subject's participation in rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.
The Sandman
Banned
One idea on the issue of stripping the Southern aristocracy of their voting rights: they can regain their voting rights regardless of loyalty oath, but only if they surrender the bulk of their property and financial holdings to the US government as compensation for the war. One little sweetener would be that the US government would also assume the debts associated with said property, since most of the major Southern landholders were heavily in debt.
The land would then be redistributed to the newly freed slaves and to poor whites who previously had no chance of being able to afford that land. The reasons are stated to be compensation for the enslavement of the former and repayment for the relative loyalty of the latter. It also, of course, would help produce a solidly Republican-voting bloc in the South to go along with the Republican-voting soldiers in the North.
The land would then be redistributed to the newly freed slaves and to poor whites who previously had no chance of being able to afford that land. The reasons are stated to be compensation for the enslavement of the former and repayment for the relative loyalty of the latter. It also, of course, would help produce a solidly Republican-voting bloc in the South to go along with the Republican-voting soldiers in the North.
Not a bad idea in theory, but I think it would be viewed as to radical a solution in the TL. Also who exactly would constitute “aristocracy”? If this was done I can imagine it would create even worse bitter and lingering hostility in the South.
*SPOILERS*
To be discussed in detail later, Maximilian will not be taking the Mexican throne. As far as what will become of him I am not sure. Any ideas? how would he keep Italy part of Austria?
No objections; whatever date makes the most sense with the other political considerations that you're juggling.
Hey everyone, as you know the 1864 elections are approaching. A few questions I have are
1) Will the Republicans keep Hannibal Hamlin as the VP nominee or pick someone else and if so who?
2) Who will the Democratic nominees be?
3) What will be the central issues?
1) Will the Republicans keep Hannibal Hamlin as the VP nominee or pick someone else and if so who?
2) Who will the Democratic nominees be?
3) What will be the central issues?
Been lurking for a while, great TL! Glad to see a Civil War TL making it through the post-war transition; that's where most Civil War TLs seem to lose steam, unfortunately.
This era isn't really my forte but I'll take a stab:
1) I would think Lincoln might have the political capital at this point to choose whomever he wants as a running mate. Don't know who that would be, but he's The Man right now in the eyes of the people, or at least he should be.
2) How about the new governor of the first successful state to reintegrate into the Union, Andrew Johnson? You can't question his loyalty or his credentials, and the Democrats need a tail-between-their-legs candidate right now.
3) Resettlement and westward expansion will be big issues. Not sure how quickly you're planning on resolving the Mexico issue but that could play a big part. Efforts to rebuild the south and get it economically viable without a labor-intensive crop would be important. Perhaps even a return to the decades-old debate about financing infrastructure improvements? You seem to be going for less post-bellum animosity, but resentment, banditry and terrorism could still be an issue. Oh and the status of Freedmen of course.
You're going to have a lot more runaways in the next few years. Why stay put in South Carolina when the slaves have been freed in North Carolina? And why would (for instance) a deputy in North Carolina care about sending slaves back over the border when they'll just be freed again in a year? Especially if all the escaped slaves want to do is head west.
This era isn't really my forte but I'll take a stab:
1) I would think Lincoln might have the political capital at this point to choose whomever he wants as a running mate. Don't know who that would be, but he's The Man right now in the eyes of the people, or at least he should be.
2) How about the new governor of the first successful state to reintegrate into the Union, Andrew Johnson? You can't question his loyalty or his credentials, and the Democrats need a tail-between-their-legs candidate right now.
3) Resettlement and westward expansion will be big issues. Not sure how quickly you're planning on resolving the Mexico issue but that could play a big part. Efforts to rebuild the south and get it economically viable without a labor-intensive crop would be important. Perhaps even a return to the decades-old debate about financing infrastructure improvements? You seem to be going for less post-bellum animosity, but resentment, banditry and terrorism could still be an issue. Oh and the status of Freedmen of course.
You're going to have a lot more runaways in the next few years. Why stay put in South Carolina when the slaves have been freed in North Carolina? And why would (for instance) a deputy in North Carolina care about sending slaves back over the border when they'll just be freed again in a year? Especially if all the escaped slaves want to do is head west.
This point is an exquisite combination of insightful and obvious -- I'm angry you thought of it first.
My guess is that Congress will establish the Freedmen's Bureau and pass the 13th Amendment before the 1864 elections in the hopes of dealing with these questions, but the early implementation will prove inadequate for the reasons you've laid out. So one of the big election issues will be how to run the Freedmen's Bureau.Personally, I would vote for the candidate who proposes Sandman's idea:
But Sandman's idea might be a little too Communist to win the day. So perhaps the moderate solution is: (1) government subsidizes anyone, white or black, who takes to the frontier in a civilized manner, with certain free supplies (fruit tree seedlings, mules, a town hall), (2) fugitive slaves get "assumed manumission": if they state who their owner was, they are allowed to alight for the territories and their owner gets recompense, (3) the government auctions railroad rights to fund the project. My moderate solution has its own quirks, most principally that it will encourage a denser, less wild-west style expansion, so it's certainly not the only answer.
Thanks for the support and your comments Expat. However, I'm not sure if I follow your last paragraph as all slaves in the Deep South have been freed under the P.E.R.U (except for LA which was exempt). The states that still have slavery will all be ending it in a few years time.
French Withdrawal from Mexico
French Withdrawal from Mexico
October 1863-January 1864
October 1863-January 1864
Emperor of the French, Napoleon III
The French, along with the British and Spanish, had invaded Mexico in early 1862 with the stated intention to force Mexico to pay debts owed to the European Powers. It soon became apparent to the British and Spaniards though that the Second French Empire under Emperor Napoleon III was actually intent on conquering the Latin American country. Accordingly, Britain and Spain withdrew from Mexico a few months later. Unfortunately for the reformist government of Mexican President Benito Juarez, the French stayed and were able to successful capture the Mexican capital in June of 1863.
With the Civil War now won, President Lincoln was adamant that France’s violation of the Monroe Doctrine would not stand. Lincoln, having already moved thousands of Federal troops to the Mexican border, ordered a naval blockade in October of 1863 to block the arrival of French reinforcements. This blockade, coupled with Austrian Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian’s earlier rejection of an offer to be made Emperor of Mexico, forced the French Emperor to rethink his intentions. Bereft of British and Spanish assistance Napoleon III realized that he could not risk a war with the United States whose army and navy were still swollen from the Civil War.
In light of what was widely viewed to be a situation that would only deteriorate for the French, Napoleon III made the decision to get out while he was ahead. In a deal mediated by the United States in January of 1864, it was agreed that French troops would be withdrawn if President Benito Juarez would promise to honor Mexico’s debts to France. With French forces occupying Mexico City, and therefore little room to maneuver politically, President Juarez reluctantly accepted.
This agreement allowed all sides to claim victory. France had achieved it stated war aim, although it was far short of Napoleon III’s real desire to build a an empire in the New World, and showed that Napoleonic France was a major world power able to project itself anywhere in the world. Lincoln successfully upheld the Monroe doctrine and earned himself additional political capital as he moved towards reelection. In the end Mexico was liberated and President Juarez was able to consolidate his power from the conservatives who had backed the French.
Despite all sides apparently achieving their goals, this near-conflict caused considerable tension between the United States and France. Historians would often point to this as the beginning of a Franco-American hostility that would last well into the twentieth century. Mexican-American relations however were improved by Lincoln’s stand against the French, furthering the United States’ reputation as, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin once said, the “Defender of the Hemisphere.”
Last edited:
I think Expat got his states mixed up, but that his point is valid. The states in the Deep South have already ended slavery, and by now the slaves in the gradual emancipation states like Virginia have surely heard that they will eventually be freed. Well, what's to stop a brave black Virginian from freeing himself a little bit early? He can run not only north, but also south or west, and no one is going to be returning fugitives these days.
Indeed, I agree that fugitive slaves will be an issue and if anything will speed up emancipation in the remaining slave states as holding on to their remaining slaves will be very difficult.
1. Could see a General being picked as the VP candidate. Or going with someone from the South in Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, or Tennessee. Maybe General Lee or Longstreet if they are rehabilitated politically.
2. Might be Andrew Johnson or some other person from the pro union south. Alternatively could be Northern Democrat Presidential nominee with a Southern Democrat VP. Both balance the Northern wings with the southern wings.
3. Settlement in the west. Freedmen in south and their movement in the US. The trancontinental RR linking California to the east. Canadian/UK relations, Fenians would be involved in this. Latin American relations.
Trade with Europe and Asia. The Indian question.