Union and Liberty: An American TL
- Thread starter wilcoxchar
- Start date
The assassination of the President by a hot headed state rights, pro-slave expansion person or group may actually save the union, avert a civil war.
The mainstream South was very civil, very honor bound. An act like this may cause a reaction in the South for the moderates and the Unionists to dissassociate themselves with the fire eaters as much as possible and keep their states in the Union. Similar to the reaction to the Freedom party after the assassination of a presidential candidate in Turtledove's series. The freedom party lost popularity until the great depression hit.
On the other hand, I can see where the North might use this assassination as their Ft. Sumter. The next President, if a northerner on the other extreme of the spectrum, could call up the reserves as Lincoln did after Ft. Sumter and the South would circle the wagons to form the Confederacy to protect themselves from the northern hordes.
Or the South could not liek who the next candidate is and seceede after that.
Being rather affectionate of the Ameriwank thread genre, I hope that the first scenerio happens, that the assassination of Sam Houston prevents the civil war, or limits the number of states that do secede. If it buys a few more years, Virginia's and Maryland's economy will become more linked to the industrialised Northeast and less linked to the agrarian South.
What makes this thread interesting and capturing to the audiance is that it is not 100% certain if this is going to be an outright Ameriwank or a Balkanised America thread. It has elements of both
The mainstream South was very civil, very honor bound. An act like this may cause a reaction in the South for the moderates and the Unionists to dissassociate themselves with the fire eaters as much as possible and keep their states in the Union. Similar to the reaction to the Freedom party after the assassination of a presidential candidate in Turtledove's series. The freedom party lost popularity until the great depression hit.
On the other hand, I can see where the North might use this assassination as their Ft. Sumter. The next President, if a northerner on the other extreme of the spectrum, could call up the reserves as Lincoln did after Ft. Sumter and the South would circle the wagons to form the Confederacy to protect themselves from the northern hordes.
Or the South could not liek who the next candidate is and seceede after that.
Being rather affectionate of the Ameriwank thread genre, I hope that the first scenerio happens, that the assassination of Sam Houston prevents the civil war, or limits the number of states that do secede. If it buys a few more years, Virginia's and Maryland's economy will become more linked to the industrialised Northeast and less linked to the agrarian South.
What makes this thread interesting and capturing to the audiance is that it is not 100% certain if this is going to be an outright Ameriwank or a Balkanised America thread. It has elements of both
Poor Joshua Norton exiled from his Empire prematurely
I really like the timeline so far. To Ameriwank, or not to Ameriwank, that is the question. I am worried about Ameriwank basically because it tends to narrow the story. You have already used many interesting butterflys to show us the whole world, this is good. But the problems with Ameriwanks is that they tend to focus on the one nation at the expense of others and their development.
Like with the Netherlands, what does their stronger european and possible industrial position mean for the Prussians and the French? How does England treat this possible new rival? After all with both Coal and extra population mean that England feel anything towards them of interest? After all Belgium was a real power in industry, because of its coal mines. Will this industry translate to the Netherlands?
I really like the timeline so far. To Ameriwank, or not to Ameriwank, that is the question. I am worried about Ameriwank basically because it tends to narrow the story. You have already used many interesting butterflys to show us the whole world, this is good. But the problems with Ameriwanks is that they tend to focus on the one nation at the expense of others and their development.
Like with the Netherlands, what does their stronger european and possible industrial position mean for the Prussians and the French? How does England treat this possible new rival? After all with both Coal and extra population mean that England feel anything towards them of interest? After all Belgium was a real power in industry, because of its coal mines. Will this industry translate to the Netherlands?
Poor Joshua Norton exiled from his Empire prematurely
I really like the timeline so far. To Ameriwank, or not to Ameriwank, that is the question. I am worried about Ameriwank basically because it tends to narrow the story. You have already used many interesting butterflys to show us the whole world, this is good. But the problems with Ameriwanks is that they tend to focus on the one nation at the expense of others and their development.
Like with the Netherlands, what does their stronger european and possible industrial position mean for the Prussians and the French? How does England treat this possible new rival? After all with both Coal and extra population mean that England feel anything towards them of interest? After all Belgium was a real power in industry, because of its coal mines. Will this industry translate to the Netherlands?
All Hail Norton I, Emperor of South Africa!
Part Twenty-Nine: A House Divided
Next update done. Another short one, and I have no clue if this makes sense or not. Things probably moved too fast than would be realistic, but I wanted to have the limitation that if no president was chosen by March 4th, the usual inauguration day, the president pro tempore of the Senate would become the next President.
I'll probably post a few alt. speeches surrounding this event if I can come up with some good ones.
Part Twenty-Nine: A House Divided
A House Divided: After a week of discussion, the Emergency Presidential Selection Committee narrowed the candidates down to three men: President pro tempore of the Senate David R. Atchison, Andrew Johnson, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State William Seward. As the committee debated and drew ballots, speculation on who would be the new President of the United States spread across the nation. A rumor quickly grew in the southern states that Lincoln would veto the appointment if Seward did not get the presidency. Of course, this infuriated many southern slave-owners as Seward was a well known Republican and abolitionist. After the second week of debate, Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina, a member of the committee, walked out and refused to participate, and was quoted as calling the committee 'undemocratic' and 'and affront to the ideals of our republic'. It is not known what cause this outburst, but up until that moment the committee had met in secret, with the only news reaching the public being a statement at the end of each day's proceedings.
Two days after Pickens walked out, the situation escalated. A convention in South Carolina issued a declaration of secession similar to Declaration of Independence, listing the grievances the state held with the federal government. Georgia followed soon after. Upon news of the secession reaching Washington, the committee chastised the leaders of the secession movements for what was termed their hotheaded and rash action. That days ballot count saw a plummet in the support for Atchison, but still no majority had been reached. With the bid to maintain slavery in the United States and his own presidential bid closing fast, Atchison issued an executive order to allow slavery on the basis of the right to property. With many New England states now threatening to secede, this order was quickly challenged in the Supreme Court, and in a decision that took only two days of deliberation Chief Justice Lincoln published the decision declaring the order unconstitutional on the grounds that Atchison did not have the authority as he did not hold the office of President of the United States.
This decision by the Supreme Court tipped many other states over the edge. Mississippi and North Carolina seceded on the day after the decision was issued, with Florida following the next day. Reacting to the news that more states had seceded, the committee was prepared to vote Seward as President. However, still a majority could not be gained for Seward as some members of the committee from southern states still in the Union had abstained from that day's vote. As papers reported this, many people in the south assumed that Seward would become the President in a few days time. Violence soon erupted in many southern states and Louisiana, Alabama, and Virginia became the next states to secede. On the 26th of February, 1862, the independent states formed a loose federation, the Confederate States of America. Three days later, on March 1st, the committee confirmed Andrew Johnson as the next president of the United States. The day after, Arkansaw had defected to the CSA. On the 3rd, Virginian troops in Alexandria proclaimed that Alexandria was part of the state of Virginia and thus part of the CSA. One of the officers fired a shot across the Potomac to signify Virginia's sovereignty. This became known as the shot that broke the Union.
Things probably moved too fast than would be realistic, but I wanted to have the limitation that if no president was chosen by March 4th, the usual inauguration day, the president pro tempore of the Senate would become the next President.I'll probably post a few alt. speeches surrounding this event if I can come up with some good ones.
Part Twenty-Nine: A House Divided
A House Divided: After a week of discussion, the Emergency Presidential Selection Committee narrowed the candidates down to three men: President pro tempore of the Senate David R. Atchison, Andrew Johnson, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State William Seward. As the committee debated and drew ballots, speculation on who would be the new President of the United States spread across the nation. A rumor quickly grew in the southern states that Lincoln would veto the appointment if Seward did not get the presidency. Of course, this infuriated many southern slave-owners as Seward was a well known Republican and abolitionist. After the second week of debate, Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina, a member of the committee, walked out and refused to participate, and was quoted as calling the committee 'undemocratic' and 'and affront to the ideals of our republic'. It is not known what cause this outburst, but up until that moment the committee had met in secret, with the only news reaching the public being a statement at the end of each day's proceedings.
Two days after Pickens walked out, the situation escalated. A convention in South Carolina issued a declaration of secession similar to Declaration of Independence, listing the grievances the state held with the federal government. Georgia followed soon after. Upon news of the secession reaching Washington, the committee chastised the leaders of the secession movements for what was termed their hotheaded and rash action. That days ballot count saw a plummet in the support for Atchison, but still no majority had been reached. With the bid to maintain slavery in the United States and his own presidential bid closing fast, Atchison issued an executive order to allow slavery on the basis of the right to property. With many New England states now threatening to secede, this order was quickly challenged in the Supreme Court, and in a decision that took only two days of deliberation Chief Justice Lincoln published the decision declaring the order unconstitutional on the grounds that Atchison did not have the authority as he did not hold the office of President of the United States.
This decision by the Supreme Court tipped many other states over the edge. Mississippi and North Carolina seceded on the day after the decision was issued, with Florida following the next day. Reacting to the news that more states had seceded, the committee was prepared to vote Seward as President. However, still a majority could not be gained for Seward as some members of the committee from southern states still in the Union had abstained from that day's vote. As papers reported this, many people in the south assumed that Seward would become the President in a few days time. Violence soon erupted in many southern states and Louisiana, Alabama, and Virginia became the next states to secede. On the 26th of February, 1862, the independent states formed a loose federation, the Confederate States of America. Three days later, on March 1st, the committee confirmed Andrew Johnson as the next president of the United States. The day after, Arkansaw had defected to the CSA. On the 3rd, Virginian troops in Alexandria proclaimed that Alexandria was part of the state of Virginia and thus part of the CSA. One of the officers fired a shot across the Potomac to signify Virginia's sovereignty. This became known as the shot that broke the Union.
Last edited:
Oh, phooey. I was hoping for a President Seward.
But this actually makes our Civil War more interesting. With a southerner and non-abolitionist in the White House, I wonder how Johnson will prosecute the war effort itself. He was always a 'War Democrat', and will likely take the same actions as Lincoln OTL, but Reconstruction is going to be mightily different. No 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments unless he gets knocked out of office in 1864 in favor of a more aggressive Republican.
But this actually makes our Civil War more interesting. With a southerner and non-abolitionist in the White House, I wonder how Johnson will prosecute the war effort itself. He was always a 'War Democrat', and will likely take the same actions as Lincoln OTL, but Reconstruction is going to be mightily different. No 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments unless he gets knocked out of office in 1864 in favor of a more aggressive Republican.
Ooh very interesting, and it sounds plausible enough. Such situation never existed in OTL so anything can happen.
Johnson as President is great, but for some reason I don't see him being president for too long. I also like the fact that the four year rotation has shifted years.
You do have North Carolina twice though. And what about Cuba? Did it go Confederate? There is also no mention of Tennessee, Arkansaw and Calhoun. Are they going to be loyal, so the CSA is smaller ITTL?
Johnson as President is great, but for some reason I don't see him being president for too long. I also like the fact that the four year rotation has shifted years.
You do have North Carolina twice though. And what about Cuba? Did it go Confederate? There is also no mention of Tennessee, Arkansaw and Calhoun. Are they going to be loyal, so the CSA is smaller ITTL?
Oops! I'll fix that.In that last paragraph, you have North Carolina seceding twice
It makes sense to me. Granted, I'm new here, so that may not mean much.
Yeah. I've always thought that Johnson would be a good war president. 'Tis a shame that in OTL Congress had to screw him over.Oh, phooey. I was hoping for a President Seward.
But this actually makes our Civil War more interesting. With a southerner and non-abolitionist in the White House, I wonder how Johnson will prosecute the war effort itself. He was always a 'War Democrat', and will likely take the same actions as Lincoln OTL, but Reconstruction is going to be mightily different. No 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments unless he gets knocked out of office in 1864 in favor of a more aggressive Republican.
Tennessee probably won't be since Johnson is from that state, but Arkansaw and Calhoun might join the CSA. Not sure about Cuba, though.
And I also haven't decided if the presidential rotation will change, having it on inauguration day of 1862 was mostly a coincidence.
And I'm not sure many would want Johnson in for a full four years with the circumstances and controversy that he was elected under.I'm kinda confused. I could understand the South jumping boat if Seward becomes President, but Johnson? Seems to me he'd be a good compromise for both the North and South.
Though South Carolina was always the nest of Southern hotheads. Definitely could see that Supreme Court ruling pushing the others into the Confedercy's fold.
Oddly enough Tejas and Houston haven't jumped ship yet, nor has Jackson or Tennessee. Kentucky and Missouri would still be toss ups to go either way too I'd think.
Still, looking forward to the rest.
Though South Carolina was always the nest of Southern hotheads. Definitely could see that Supreme Court ruling pushing the others into the Confedercy's fold.
Oddly enough Tejas and Houston haven't jumped ship yet, nor has Jackson or Tennessee. Kentucky and Missouri would still be toss ups to go either way too I'd think.
Still, looking forward to the rest.
I doubt California will be too involved in the war. It will definitely avoid supporting either side official, as whatever the outcome it will get a much larger enemy. And even though it's values are probably for the Union cause, politically it would be a benefitting to see the US split. California's position would be very similar to Britain's.
Also so far it seems the Mormons and Catholic Hispanics, don't mind each other that much. So as long as the status quo doesn't change there is no reason for a Mormon revolt to occur. (This does not mean I don't want to see one).
Is there a state of Jackson yet?¿ I am confused.
And yes I am surprised Tejas and Houston have not been mentioned. Even if they don't join the Confederacy, like Cuba, their role will be crucial. If they stay loyal but Calhoun and Missouri join the CSA you are going to have a very oddly shaped CSA, which can be a huge disadvantage to its cause.
I'm thinking of keeping it the CSA because I can't think of a better name.Do you have a name for this TL's Confederacy? Also, i think it would be funny if the South wins the Civil War and Cuba stays part of the Union.
And Democratic Republic of America sounds too socialist from an OTL prespective. That is correct.
Well, by the time Johnson was named president it was too late. The dominoes of the war had already started toppling, and by that point there wasn't much that could be done about it. And in OTL, Tennessee's vote on secession was pretty divided. I'd imagine the vote in TTL would be even more so.I'm kinda confused. I could understand the South jumping boat if Seward becomes President, but Johnson? Seems to me he'd be a good compromise for both the North and South.
Though South Carolina was always the nest of Southern hotheads. Definitely could see that Supreme Court ruling pushing the others into the Confedercy's fold.
Oddly enough Tejas and Houston haven't jumped ship yet, nor has Jackson or Tennessee. Kentucky and Missouri would still be toss ups to go either way too I'd think.
Still, looking forward to the rest.
Not sure what California's involvement in the war will be, but I'm pretty sure they'll stay neutral. And don't worry, Tejas and Houston will be mentioned soon enough.
After all, their reaction to Houston's assassination and which way they go will probably have a large effect on the war.If the Union is able to supply and defend Pensacola or some of the other coastal towns in Jackson, there will definitely be a lot of fighting there.
As for who shot President Houston, I haven't mentioned it yet partially because I'm not exactly sure.
I'm leaning toward your run-of-the-mill crazy chap though, and of course there will be conspiracy theories. The details will probably be revealed in the Great Men section on Houston.I know this is kinda older stuff but, regarding the balkanization of Mexico, what do the new governments look like and what are the relations of one towards the other? I am assuming most of them are some type of military dictatorship but these probably vary from one country to the other. And that once the borders have settled the relationships are somewhat peaceful. But does Oaxaca gain anything from having people like Jaurez and Diaz in its government (it might be a bit early for Diaz though)? Has or will Tlaxcala turn into a kind of theocracy? (Due to the Bishop's presence). Is Sonora somewhat more democratic do to its proximity to California? And has the central Mexican government become somewhat more democratic and stable now that the both the major liberal and major conservative forces are disattached from it?