Under the Eagle Flag 2.0: An Alternate History of the World, 1821-2010

Sorry about the lack of updates, it's been a rough month.

This one is a fairly standard update to get us caught back up. Next I plan on doing a mini-update filling everyone in on goings-on in Canada and Mexico and Central America, the antics of William Walker, and (maybe) an alternate Italian unification. Also some maps.

Chapter 33: The New President
Seward’s assassination stunned the Americas. The immediate effect of the assassination was to rally the Northern public behind the new president, David Wilmot, and the war effort. This upswing in support for the war helped Wilmot win a crushing victory in the election, held just weeks after his inauguration; while the popular vote was closer, Wilmot won an electoral landslide as his Democratic opponent James Pearce managed to carry only Maryland (his home state), Delaware, New Jersey, Indiana, and Missouri—although, of course, it is arguable that Pearce only lost Kentucky because militiamen loyal to General Butler, the de facto military dictator of the state, committed massive vote fraud.

Wilmot’s margin of victory in the election was a shiny object that distracted from an administration in serious turmoil, though. Wilmot had been added to the ticket in 1856 because he was a moderate who balanced out Seward’s well-known abolitionist and unionist beliefs. As such, he fit in poorly with a Cabinet largely composed of abolitionists and hard-line unionists. Wilmot was not personally an abolitionist; he had consistently advised Seward to follow a moderate course and remain open to compromise with the South, and he had been marginalized for that. He did not get along especially well with Thaddeus Stephens, the Secretary of War and Seward’s closest adviser, and Wilmot’s former colleague in the Pennsylvania congressional delegation. Seward and Stephens had worked together closely in the conduct of the war, and Wilmot was never a party to their most important conversations. Now that Wilmot was president, Stephens was reluctant to accept him; he thought Wilmot was insufficiently committed to the unionist cause and likely to go soft on the South.

The first falling-out between Wilmot and Stephens concerned the continuation of Ethan Allen Hitchcock’s position as commander of the army in Virginia. Hitchcock had been about to resign at the time of Seward’s death, but upon receiving the news he resolved to await the new president’s orders. Stephens wanted Hitchcock fired, while Wilmot was inclined to leave him in place. During the weeks before and right after the election, while Wilmot struggled to get his bearings as commander-in-chief and Stephens argued strenuously and openly for Hitchcock’s sacking, the Union army lost valuable time to uncertainty. But in the end the president got his way; Hitchcock stayed on into 1861.

If Stephens and the other radicals couldn’t control military appointments, they concluded there was another way to affect the balance of power within the executive branch. The Electoral College had to vote for a Vice President too, when they met to formalize the election results in January, and with Wilmot now at the top of the ticket that space was open. Nothing like this had ever happened before, and both Stephens and Senator Charles Sumner, the radicals’ leader in Congress, realized they could turn it to their advantage. Several names were floated for Vice President, but the Liberty Party leadership aligned behind the man who was something of an elder statesman in their party—New Hampshire Senator John Hale, the man who almost became president in 1852. His abolitionist and unionist credentials were impeccable, so he would strengthen the radical faction within the executive branch. Wilmot (perhaps not fully aware of what he was agreeing to) signaled that he would be satisfied with Hale’s election. So it was that John Hale joined David Wilmot in taking the oath of office on March 4, 1861.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
good update

One thing though, how is it that the entire union army lost valuable time because of the uncertainty of Hitchcock’s position?

Would it not be just the the forces in Virginia who would lose time and not the western forces who know what they should be doing?



 
Painful. It seems like Wilmot is going to be a good president, as long as Hale doesn't try to assert his "power." How is the army doing in the field, especially out west? I agree that it wouldn't be totally stopped.
 
Just rediscovered this timeline; I like it as much as I did the first time around. When are you getting back to it? I'm writing this in March of 2012.
 
Yeah. I especially liked the most recent update with president Seward being assassinated and shaking up the political scene and war effort. ;)
 
Top