Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

Some Northerners may be more willing to join John Brown now.



I hadn't considered that Grant could get involved in politics as a result of the POD. As far as I knew, he was mostly apolitical. Could you expand on this please?

It's not that Grant was overtly political himself, but his dad was a big deal in the abolitionist movement and, despite his in-laws, Grant seems to have inherited those predilictions. IIRC he was a semi-active Republican in Galena before the war, but could see him radicalized as a result of these changes.

The primary benefit is that he could come to Lincoln's attention sooner. There's only so much even a canny politician like Lincoln could do to push Grant forward militarily, but as Grant's natural abilities bring him through the ranks, a strong pre-war relationship between the two would inoculate Grant from some of the back-stabbing he experienced early in the war from men like Hallick [of which Grant himself seems to be largely unaware; the man had many gifts, but sniffing out the bad actions of others was not really one of them].

I'll also be curious to see if Stanton jumps ship to the Republicans sooner in this scenario. If the Democrats get smashed in 58, that seems like it would be a logical move for a savvy political figure like him.
 
Not AJNolte, but I am a student of Ulysses S. Grant's history. Even before the ACW, Grant's life was shaped by sectionalism and slavery. Grant was raised by his father was an avowed abolitionist, and traveled through northwest Virginia and Kentucky, although his thoughts about slavery and the South were not recorded. In West Point, Grant made a number of Southern friends, though he engaged in heated discussions and nearly came to blows with his roommate Frederick Dent, son of a slave owner, over slavery. Grant's experience in the Mexican-American War reinforced his distaste for slavery, blaming Polk for the "wicked" war driven by Southern "slave power".

Still, Grant distinguished between Southerners and slavery. Grant made more Southern friends in Mexico and married Julia Dent, the sister of his West Point roommate. Although Julia's father was a proud proponent of slavery, it did not matter much to Grant. After some trying times, Grant stayed in Missouri, surrounded by slavery. He worked with slaves, including four young servants owned by Julia. However, they were more trouble than help to Grant, he was too kindhearted to enforce unpaid and reluctant labor with severity. For free black workers Grant paid them more than anyone else, causing his white neighbors and white workers to complain about it. In Grant's letters to his family, there is a hint of shame in that Grant never referred to the blacks around him as slaves, but only as "negro men" or "servants," as if to conceal the fact that they were slaves. Neighbors recorded that Grant objected to the institution of slavery on principle and opposed its expansion. However, he assailed abolitionists as agitators who, in advocating immediate abolition, imperiled the Union.

Grant was a staunch supporter of the Whig party and its leader, Henry Clay, but drifted about politically in 1850s. At one point, Grant joined a Know-Nothing lodge, but stopped attending meetings after being offended by the secrecy and ceremony of the nativist order. He eventually became a Democrat by default. The new Republican party, with its agitation of the slavery issue, worried him. In the 1856 presidential election, Grant voted for Democrat Buchanan over Republican John C. Fremont out of fear that the Union would break if Fremont won. After the Dred Scott case, Grant seemed to be "thoroughly informed" on political issues, reading accounts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 and wondering "who got the best of the argument." By this point, it is fairly certain that Grant was an Unionist at the core; he "could not endure the thought of the Union separating."

When Grant returned to Illinois, he tried to stay out of politics but could not help but observe that Lincoln had a good chance at capturing the presidency. However, Grant confessed to not "quite like the position of either party" and was relieved to know that he had not satisfied the residency requirement for voter registration. Still, Grant may have been more of a Republican than admitted; he declined to help his friend John A. Rawlins drill a march company supporting Douglas while occasionally dropping by the meeting of Republican marching clubs (the "Wide-Awakes") and helping out with formations and drilling. Eventually, Grant's prediction that the nation would be split asunder came true on the morning of April 12, 1861.

The problem with radicalizing Grant would be his marriage with Julia Dent, a member of a slave-owning family. Though Grant's opinions were respected by his neighbors, he could not simply proclaim his beliefs in abolition without being kicked out by the people of Missouri. Not to mention the fact that his association with the Dent family marked him as a Democrat in the eyes of many Republicans. Above all, Grant cherished the unity of his country more than he did abolitionism. Should the country's unity be preserved by slavery the choice was fairly obvious for Grant.

Heh: I got ninjaed. :p

I'd say radicalizing Grant in Missouri is a non-starter, but it could happen in Galena. If the admission of Kansas as a slave state convinces Grant that a "slave conspiracy" was bent on preserving the institution even at the cost of the union, then his anti-slavery and pro-union sentiments would be unified.

Anyway, he doesn't need to be overly political; just enough to be on friendly terms with Lincoln before 1860.
 
well I imagine there could be a Haitian diplomat, oops points extra points if he is taken off a British or French ship
The United States didn't recognize Haiti as a country diplomatically until 1862 iOTL. Not sure if the Haitian diplomats assigned to France or the UK would have stopped in the US.
 
The United States didn't recognize Haiti as a country diplomatically until 1862 iOTL. Not sure if the Haitian diplomats assigned to France or the UK would have stopped in the US.
Simple, ship's enroute from Haiti to say, I dunno, Bermuda, storm brews up, ship diverts, ends up running aground on the Outer Banks, he comes ashore with the rest, is assumed to be a slave due to his clothes being FUBAR from weather, gets put on auction in Raleigh, where a passing British businessman rescues him....


In meridie est destrui!
 
The United States didn't recognize Haiti as a country diplomatically until 1862 iOTL. Not sure if the Haitian diplomats assigned to France or the UK would have stopped in the US.
Simple, ship's enroute from Haiti to say, I dunno, Bermuda, storm brews up, ship diverts, ends up running aground on the Outer Banks, he comes ashore with the rest, is assumed to be a slave due to his clothes being FUBAR from weather, gets put on auction in Raleigh, where a passing British businessman rescues him....


In meridie est destrui!
Simple, ship's enroute from Haiti to say, I dunno, Bermuda, storm brews up, ship diverts, ends up running aground on the Outer Banks, he comes ashore with the rest, is assumed to be a slave due to his clothes being FUBAR from weather, gets put on auction in Raleigh, where a passing British businessman rescues him....


In meridie est destrui!
Actually perhaps it would be even better if he was put on sale despite having his clothes in order and diplomatic credentials (after all its not as if free people with the documents to prove it weren't sold otl) That would really go down well with Britain and France when it comes out as it could not be passed off as any type of mistake..
 
Actually perhaps it would be even better if he was put on sale despite having his clothes in order and diplomatic credentials (after all its not as if free people with the documents to prove it weren't sold otl) That would really go down well with Britain and France when it comes out as it could not be passed off as any type of mistake..
Problem is, it'd require them knowingly doing that, and literally nobody along the way thinking that maybe they're legit.

In meridie est destrui!
 
A couple comments.

1) iOTL Civil War, Lincoln would not wanted to have the British or French as true allies, having Foreign troops in the war would have probably been worse for the Union.

2) If this does happen, (Let's say this is a British ship) the British will pressure the Buchanan administration. How *that* goes largely depends on whether the Republicans end up in complete control (as opposed to Minority control) of the House of Representatives. (I'm presuming the Republicans do not take the Senate in 1858, that seems a bridge too far)

3) Don't know what the British do if Buchanan completely refuses to negotiate...

4) If either Britain or France comes out with a significantly more anti-slavery position prior to the Civil War, that might affect some of the close votes for secession, especially in a state like Virginia (which the Author has said they want to have go as OTL).

5) If the Republicans do better in the 1858 elections, it could affect two key Ohioans who were re-elected in close races.
a) George H. Pendleton, who was re-elected by 1.4% iOTL
b) Clement L. Vallandigham, who was re-elected by 3.0% iOTL.
 
While I'm thinking of it: here's a list of "war Democrats" whose fates could be different from OTL:

-Edwin Stanton. He's the big fish in the pond. Though starting out as a Democrat, Stanton would, over the course of the war, move to a very radical position, such that he actually became a bulwark of opposition to Andrew Johnson's "soft" reconstruction policy.

-Daniel Sickles. The mad-cap war Democrat turned corps commander was an aggressive soldier but a poor tactician. Part of the NY Democratic machine, he's IMO unlikely to survive if the Seward faction takes over New York.

-Benjamin "beast" Butler. Like Stanton and Sickles, Butler was a war Democrat. Also like Stanton, he became a radical later, and perhaps somewhat opportunistically. Due to the need to keep war Democrats happy before the 1864 campaign, Butler was given command of the Army of the James for the Petersburg campaign, a decision which likely extended the war in the end. Probably butterflied here.

And a few radical Republicans:

-Joe Hooker. "Fighting Joe" was definitely one of the union's more colorful commanders. At times a brilliant corps commander, he was also flamboyant, and suspected of plotting a coup as late as 1863. ITTL he could replace McClellan earlier in '62, though it's an open question as to whether that would be good.

-Oliver Otis Howard: few men have a reputation more different in the war as he gained out of it, as did Howard. Widely considered one of the Army of the Potomac's worst corps commanders, he later became a radical and head of the Freedman's Bureau, and the namesake of Howard University. Honestly, finding a way to get Howard into politics and out of the military is probably a win-win.

-General David Hunter. He's probably the best-known of the radicals, due to his early emancipation order. Interestingly, IOTL he was stationed at Levenworth pre-ACW. An average to below average commander otherwise.

Finally, a few southern unionists:

-William G. Brownlow. "Parson" Brownlow is one of the most interesting cats in southern unionism. At first a rabbid slavery defender--as late as the mid-1850s--he later flipped to being an equally rabbid slavery-opponent by the mid-1860s. Also a staunch Whig and opponent of war Democrats like Andrew Johnson.

-George Thomas. Probably the best of the southern unionist generals, Thomas was both distrusted by his own side and disowned by his family due to his unionism. Nevertheless, he was a loyal union man, who fought effectively in the western theater and eventually rose to command the Army of the Tennessee. With the intensification of sectionalism, his fate could be different.
 
George Thomas. Probably the best of the southern unionist generals, Thomas was both distrusted by his own side and disowned by his family due to his unionism. Nevertheless, he was a loyal union man, who fought effectively in the western theater and eventually rose to command the Army of the Tennessee. With the intensification of sectionalism, his fate could be different.
Ack! Tell that to the men in the Army of the Cumberland, and you’ll have the world’s largest lynch mob for saying that!
 
William Temchush Shermann can we make him more radically? Also attempted the assassination of Lincoln that failed in the earlier stage of the war would make the north even angrier. Also instead of some foreign diplomat why not have a well known black man be captured by sothern slavers while they were in the north or lured to dc and then captured. Brought to Richmond then were about to be sold and then recognized by someone and the sales stop and even though he free with an insane amount of evidenced supporting him they still sell him into slavery creating a uproar everywhere
 
Ack! Tell that to the men in the Army of the Cumberland, and you’ll have the world’s largest lynch mob for saying that!
I always thought George Thomas did not get the accolades he deserved because he was from the south and his command style was too defensive
 
William Temchush Shermann can we make him more radically? Also attempted the assassination of Lincoln that failed in the earlier stage of the war would make the north even angrier. Also instead of some foreign diplomat why not have a well known black man be captured by sothern slavers while they were in the north or lured to dc and then captured. Brought to Richmond then were about to be sold and then recognized by someone and the sales stop and even though he free with an insane amount of evidenced supporting him they still sell him into slavery creating a uproar everywhere
Like the idea I can think of a way of making it more dangerous have that happen to someone from England or from morocco we had good relations with morocco so that would be cataclysmically bad.
 
Last edited:
William Temchush Shermann can we make him more radically? Also attempted the assassination of Lincoln that failed in the earlier stage of the war would make the north even angrier. Also instead of some foreign diplomat why not have a well known black man be captured by sothern slavers while they were in the north or lured to dc and then captured. Brought to Richmond then were about to be sold and then recognized by someone and the sales stop and even though he free with an insane amount of evidenced supporting him they still sell him into slavery creating a uproar everywhere
Frederick Douglass. If they try and do it to him, someone who is among if not the most well known free black in the era is kidnapped and tried to be sold into slavery the uproar in the north would be loud enough to be heard from Pluto.
 
[QUOTE="TC9078, post: 17747163, member: 84226"@Red_Galiray fucking do it.] Fredrick Douglas would take the first attempt to escape and if he did it durning the civil war guerilla warfare then where ever he escapes or he is bought by a northern to release him
 
John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

We'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree
And then we'll hang Stephens and Lee
And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed they mean to do
For his soul is marching on.

What flag is this you carry
Along the sea and shore?
The same our grandsires lifted up,–
The same our fathers bore
In many a battle’s tempest
It shed the crimson rain,–
What God has woven in his loom
Let no man rend in twain!

To Canaan, to Canaan
The Lord has led us forth,
To plant upon the rebel towers
The banners of the North!
 
Frederick Douglass. If they try and do it to him, someone who is among if not the most well known free black in the era is kidnapped and tried to be sold into slavery the uproar in the north would be loud enough to be heard from Pluto.
Oh man,if that happens,the south is going to be in flames during the civil war.But nobody would be that stupid.But now I want it to happen.
 
Top