Until every drop of blood is paid - A more radical American Civil War

speaking of what happens after the war this qoute provides some food for thought "Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."-Abraham Lincoln

If we can avoid Johnson and Grant the direction the Republican party can be quite interesting
 
speaking of what happens after the war this qoute provides some food for thought "Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."-Abraham Lincoln

If we can avoid Johnson and Grant the direction the Republican party can be quite interesting
That's just a quote. Jefferson once said that, every now and then, the tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Besides, this is the dawn of the Gilded Age. I doubt any potential labour regulations would be given enough support by either house of Congress.
 
I would love a less corrupt Grant Administration. The real issue is Grant trusting people he shouldn't have and being Neophyte to civilian politics.
Grant is a very tragic figure. his problem is that he is way to loyal for his own good, and blind by his own faults and the faults of others.

My own personal view is that you have Grant still be the winner of the Civil war, and that it be Lincon 1861-1869. Grant 1869-1877 and then Garfield 1877-1885.
 
That's just a quote. Jefferson once said that, every now and then, the tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Besides, this is the dawn of the Gilded Age. I doubt any potential labour regulations would be given enough support by either house of Congress.
and you know what Jefferson did? He rebelled against the most powerful country because he wasn't being represented all the while owning slaves. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they can't be right.

It is the dawn of the gilded age but it is also going to be the height of the Radical Republican movement after a worse civil war so maybe there can be different directions and if you can avoid Grant's administration corruption the liberal republicans might not be so anti-reconstruction.
 
Last edited:
and you know what Jefferson? did he rebelled against the most powerful country because he wasn't being represented all the while owning slaves. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they can't be right.

It is the dawn of the gilded age but it is also going to be the height of the Radical Republican movement after a worse civil war so maybe there can be different directions and if you can avoid Grant's administration corruption the liberal republicans might not be so anti-reconstruction.
I meant that a person can say one thing and then act in a completely different manner. A Grant/Stanton administration that doesn't suffer from corruption scandals would be pretty interesting, and would definitely be able to better tackle Reconstruction.

Speaking of Reconstruction, do you have any plans for Adelbert Ames, @Red_Galiray ? He was governor of Mississippi, and his wiki page makes him look like one of the better governors of that period, being unquestionably honest in a region whose administrators were infamous for their corruption.
 
One other thing might be that labor gets a lot more militant much earlier. Quite a few workers will probably be veterans, after all, and if they start to see a startling lack of difference between a Southern plantation owner and a Northern factory owner . . .
 
One other thing might be that labor gets a lot more militant much earlier. Quite a few workers will probably be veterans, after all, and if they start to see a startling lack of difference between a Southern plantation owner and a Northern factory owner . . .
Maybe Republicans can be more Labor friendly and start to cut into Democratic city machines.
 
One other thing might be that labor gets a lot more militant much earlier. Quite a few workers will probably be veterans, after all, and if they start to see a startling lack of difference between a Southern plantation owner and a Northern factory owner . . .
You think so?

I could see that sort of culture catching on with a longer reconstruction and more active occupation. But it's not like a soldier is any less primed to just submit to factory abuse. Their entire profession is based around submission to and following the direction of authority.

@Red_Galiray is there at all any chance of soldier's unions forming during reconstruction?
 
You think so?

I could see that sort of culture catching on with a longer reconstruction and more active occupation. But it's not like a soldier is any less primed to just submit to factory abuse. Their entire profession is based around submission to and following the direction of authority.

@Red_Galiray is there at all any chance of soldier's unions forming during reconstruction?
well they could see how slaves were treated and start notice some uncomfortable similarities.
 
Interesting. In OTL Smalls became the captain when in December 1863 the white captain went and hid in the storage after the Planter came under fire and Smalls piloted her to safety. Maybe that can happen earlier? Are there any confederate forts that he could've tangled with during the peninsular campaign? I don't know how likely it would be for the union to just make him commander straight away (instead of just keeping him as a pilot), I doubt it but I know little about how the Civil War union navy worked.

On that note, I know the USS Planter's crew had some blacks, but i can't find any source saying that everyone except the captain was black. Do we know if there were any other white on the crew, and if so how they felt serving a Black acting captain?
I don't think making him a commander immediately is possible either, but it surely will help along.

Speaking of Reconstruction, do you have any plans for Adelbert Ames, @Red_Galiray ? He was governor of Mississippi, and his wiki page makes him look like one of the better governors of that period, being unquestionably honest in a region whose administrators were infamous for their corruption.
I really admire Ames. Unlike other Reconstruction Governors he stayed true to his principles, fighting against the Lost Cause and never wavering on his belief that "caste is the curse of the world". Men like Ames are needed in the South.

You think so?

I could see that sort of culture catching on with a longer reconstruction and more active occupation. But it's not like a soldier is any less primed to just submit to factory abuse. Their entire profession is based around submission to and following the direction of authority.

@Red_Galiray is there at all any chance of soldier's unions forming during reconstruction?
I simply don't think the military getting overly political is good for any country. Coming from a region plagued by pronunciamientos and purges, it's better for the military to be apolitical and the soldiers to return to civilian life. That said, I can envision a nation where the soldiers and their associations are much more influential. But I'd rather it be former soldiers taking part in labor movements than active soldiers forming a labor union for soldiers.
 
Last edited:
I simply don't think the military getting overly political is good for any country. Coming from a region plagued by pronunciamientos and purges, it's better for the military to be apolitical and the soldiers to return to civilian life. That said, I can envision a nation where the soldiers and their associations are much more influential. But I'd rather it be former soldiers taking part in labor movements than active soldiers forming a labor union for soldiers.
yeah no soldiers' unions but defiantly former soldiers in unions. they would add level of origination to unions and maybe make them more acceptable to Americans.
 
I really admire Ames. Unlike other Reconstruction Governors he stayed true to his principles, fighting against the Lost Cause and never wavering on his belief that "caste is the curse of the world". Men like Ames are needed in the South.
A potential war hero depending on how the war is handled, as well as perhaps a very successful state governor who has unquestionable personal integrity to boot? Seems like possible POTUS material to me.
 
Btw, I'm now considering some generals for the Army of the Susquehanna. The options are Meade, Pope, Reynold, Hancock s and Burnside. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Meade is capable if not spectacular in my estimation, and I'd rather have someone different from OTL. Pope is... well, Pope. Burnside is in New Orleans, though I guess he could be called back to the East if absolutely necessary. Hancock is a National Unionist and I'd rather have an apolitical man, and besides, I think there would be some problems regarding seniority. Reynolds is the front runner, but I have had some trouble finding good sources on him, especially regarding his political opinions. I know he was a Democrat OTL, but it seems to me that he was in fact rather apolitical. My main concern is whether Reynolds would be willing to execute the policies of hard war to their fullest conclusion, meaning destruction of Southern resources, hanging partisans without trial, exiling populations that aid the rebels, the government's policies regarding slavery, etc. His opposition to political considerations within the Army worry me in special, since at this level they cannot be separated. Take into account that right now Confederates are terrorizing and murdering Unionists and Blacks, and Lee's Pennsylvania Campaign promises to bring some terror to the North. So, for the members who know more than me, any information regarding Reynolds is welcome.

yeah no soldiers' unions but defiantly former soldiers in unions. they would add level of origination to unions and maybe make them more acceptable to Americans.
That's more like it. The position of the Republican party regarding labor is rather complex. They are more of a middle class and rich industrialist party, and in the ante bellum and during Reconstruction they expressed rather exaggerated contempt for labor and were friends of industry. The Democrats, by contrast, were seen as the friends of the people (White people, that is). Though, apparently, many conservatives went as far as equating Benjamin Butler and Karl Marx, with "Butlerism" being something of populist anarchy to them, and many Republicans too expressed pro-labor positions. The fact that a more successful Reconstruction entails having a large population of largely impoverished rural voters as core members of the Party is bound to make the Republicans go left as well. I do think that, once the issues of Reconstruction start to go away, the Party is bound to split due to the labor question.

A potential war hero depending on how the war is handled, as well as perhaps a very successful state governor who has unquestionable personal integrity to boot? Seems like possible POTUS material to me.
Interesting idea.
 
Last edited:
The main thing I know about Reynolds' politics is that he was offered command of the Army of the Potomac after Chancellorsville, but refused to accept it unless he was given a free hand and allowed to ignore political influences from Washington. Lincoln was unwilling to countenance what amounted to a suspension of the military's subordination to civilian authority, so he gave the job to Meade, who had no such quibbles. In my opinion, the main sticking point was that Reynolds had seen the Army of the Potomac relegated to political generals (McClellan and Burnside primarily, and Hooker to an extent) with such disastrous results that he just wanted the politicians to butt out and let the soldiers get on with the war. Which simply wasn't feasible, because the Army of the Potomac was unavoidably a political army, if only by virtue of it's proximity to Washington. In addition to which, I wouldn't be surprised if Reynolds had a consummate professional's impatience with amateurs, which would doubtless inform his request to be cut loose of any armchair strategists in Washington.
 
Since you wanna avoid Hancock becoming a political figure post war why not have him take command but die during what I hope is the armys pursuit of a defeated Lee?
 
Reynolds is the front runner, but I have had some trouble finding good sources on him, especially regarding his political opinions. I know he was a Democrat OTL, but it seems to me that he was in fact rather apolitical. My main concern is whether Reynolds would be willing to execute the policies of hard war to their fullest conclusion, meaning destruction of Southern resources, hanging partisans without trial, exiling populations that aid the rebels, the government's policies regarding slavery, etc.
1. Your assessmentthat Reynolds was a basically apolitical Democrat lines up with everything I have read about him.
2. I do think your concern is well founded, and I have the suspicion he would turn down the job if those requirements were imposed.

An interesting remark Reynolds made after the Harper's Ferry Raid:

Reynolds quote.png

Source: Wilmer L Jones, Generals in Blue and Gray: Lincoln's generals, p. 275

All this notwithstanding, I think Reynolds was the best senior officer the Army of the Potomac ever produced.
 
Hancock is a National Unionist and I'd rather have an apolitical man, and besides, I think there would be some problems regarding seniority.
As you say, Hancock is pretty junior to most of his fellow officers. He was undoubtedly the most skilled corps commander in the Army of the Potomac, but a lot of high-level commanders in the Army of the Potomac will be upset and may even resign or request a transfer in protest. As for his politics, Hancock thought that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with a domestic institution such as slavery. As a conservative Democrat, Hancock was not for black suffrage or the remaking of Southern society after the war was won.
Reynolds is the front runner, but I have had some trouble finding good sources on him, especially regarding his political opinions.
Reynolds was definitely a Democrat, but like many officers was apolitical. I believe he thought of abolitionists as agitators. I would also note that his distaste of political interference with military authorities started as long as the Mexican-American War. Reynolds was disgusted with being transferred from Zachary Taylor's Army in Northern Mexico to Winfield Scott's Army invading Veracruz because of the obvious political machinations behind the change in strategy.

All this notwithstanding, I think Reynolds was the best senior officer the Army of the Potomac ever produced.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. As his track record goes, his time as a corps commander was mixed. He is quite aggressive, but I think he has a tendency to micromanage, which is noted in Charles Wainwright's diary. At Fredericksburg, Meade's messenger, who was asking for reinforcements to support Meade's breakthrough, couldn't find Reynolds because Reynolds was helping artillerymen fire on the enemy. At Chancellorsville, he was not really engaged. At Gettysburg, he showed great attention to detail, but his riding with the Iron Brigade into action was beneath his responsibility. As a wing commander, he shouldn't have been charging with the boys when he could have been calling for reinforcements and selecting new positions as new units arrived. Had he survived, he could have used his authority to order Sickles and Slocum to move to Gettysburg early. In fact, he did order Sickles to go to Gettysburg, but the latter hesitated when he heard no further instructions.
 
Top