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

[SenatorChickpea]

I can see a Second Civil War, but I don't think Socialists Versus Capitalists gets you to your goal of a more racially progressive United States.

First of all- I'm sorry, but late nineteenth century progressivism was incredibly racist. The attempts by the American Populists to build cross-racial solidarity failed because even most people on the left preferred racial to class solidarity. Furthermore, so much of the great racial fears of the period were about non-whites taking 'white' jobs- hence the hostility to African-American migration northwards, skilled Japanese migrants, Chinese laborers and so on. In America, Australia and Canada the political allies of the non-white poor were often the wealthy landowners,* because they were the ones who benefited from cheap labor. Much of the Democrat success in mobilising working class voters in the cities was by playing to the fears of white ethnic minorities like the Irish and Italians who didn't want African-Americans to be treated the same way as them, because that meant treating them the same way as African-Americans. Any broad working class revolutionary coalition needs those communities. Even if that coalition also includes poor non-whites, at some point their interests will clash- and the revolutionaries will absolutely pick the people who look the same as them, live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same community halls or places of worship and so on.

Secondly, even if this hypothetical racially tolerant Socialist coalition overthrows the existing government, why would their racial tolerance amount to anything in practice? The UK Labour party talked a very good game about anti-imperialism and conservative racism ,and then double downed on Empire in power. The Soviets invited all manner of minority thinkers to conferences in Moscow to denounce imperialism, then proceeded to shred the rights and traditions of their colonised peoples. The American left had five successive terms of total political dominance from 1932 to 1952, and barely gestured towards civil rights until the end.**

Don't get me wrong: Socialist parties were absolutely vital to the development of anti-imperialist and anti-racist movements. I just think that the factors that made that possible would not be present if those parties made the jump to actually trying to maintain power.


A violent struggle that ends in gains for civil rights is far more likely to take the form of a US version of the Northern Irish 'Troubles,' where decades of low-intensity civil war between populations in the South finally ends in some form of negotiated accord. It's a bleak thought, I can picture a timeline where gerrymandering is actually seen as a progressive force, by effectively allocating so many seats that will go to an African-American, so many that will go to a white candidate and so on. Actually, you might see Segregation evolving into something like the 'Pillarisation' of the low countries- where a combination of increased economic power (and force of arms) leads to a more muscular version of Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise. So Southern states end up being something slightly (slightly!) closer to the old lie of 'separate but equal,' where reconstruction ends with black communities achieving a limited amount of institutional power- but just as the Netherlands pretended it had tamed sectarianism by dividing its institutions between Catholics and Protestants, you could end up with some states (Louisiana?) thinking that they had 'solved' their racial problems by making sure that there was always one or two black councilors in New Orleans, one or two black judges to hear particular cases, one black congressional representative and so on.

It would be papering over the problems and still lead to a lot of entrenched injustice, but there'd be some interesting differences.


*The South is somewhat different, obviously, with the transition from slavery to sharecropping/debt peonage benefiting the ruling white classes.

** Yes, yes, I know, the Dixiecrats. My point is that there are always reasons to shove the rights of minorities down the priority list.

 

[Drunkrobot]

@SenatorChickpea You state the conditions of things on the American Left IOTL, however it doesn't account for things that would be different. While the environment of the North adopting more of a stance of explicit racial equality is important, I'd argue that even more important is that the South, the place that has significant daily relations between white and black people, won't be practically and intellectually smothered in a racial caste system. The entire spiritual grounding of the South, the supposedly Heaven-ordained hierarchy of Master and Slave, is exposed as a delusion, or even a deliberate lie by the powerful to divide the weak. Unionist Southerners, white and black, also have experience weathering the confederates together while the Fed was still too distant to help. Like I suggested before, when the next generation grows up it's a good bet that they'll fragment into various ideologies in an attempt to replace the vacuum left behind by the Antebellum mythos of Dixie, and I'm willing to bet some would be attracted or inspired by the racial solidarity exhibited by the Southern Unionists. A radical left that grows in the South rather than in the North could see a boost in Anarchism, which doesn't suffer from the American (particularly Southern American) suspicion of industrial discipline or state control as seen by the Marxists as the way forward.

 

[naraht]

@SenatorChickpea You state the conditions of things on the American Left IOTL, however it doesn't account for things that would be different. While the environment of the North adopting more of a stance of explicit racial equality is important, I'd argue that even more important is that the South, the place that has significant daily relations between white and black people, won't be practically and intellectually smothered in a racial caste system. The entire spiritual grounding of the South, the supposedly Heaven-ordained hierarchy of Master and Slave, is exposed as a delusion, or even a deliberate lie by the powerful to divide the weak. Unionist Southerners, white and black, also have experience weathering the confederates together while the Fed was still too distant to help. Like I suggested before, when the next generation grows up it's a good bet that they'll fragment into various ideologies in an attempt to replace the vacuum left behind by the Antebellum mythos of Dixie, and I'm willing to bet some would be attracted or inspired by the racial solidarity exhibited by the Southern Unionists. A radical left that grows in the South rather than in the North could see a boost in Anarchism, which doesn't suffer from the American (particularly Southern American) suspicion of industrial discipline or state control as seen by the Marxists as the way forward.

Remember that for Marx, basically the gate to Communism was through the factories, with Germany, the UK and the Northern USA being closest to the Revolution. As long as the North (Midwest & Northeast) is more industralized than the South, traditional Communism would be viewed as more likely.

 

[Drunkrobot]

@naraht Marx and his followers are free to think that way, but everyone else can have different ideas. Anarchists like Tolstoy and Kropotkin gained traction in places Marx deemed "not ready", like India, Southeast Asia, China, and Japan.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Having found this definition in Goodle, "Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful. ," I would say that is a plausible way to go if the NOrth seems tyrannical and the South downright despotic in how the hierarchy evolved. Certainly better than a powerful state, which is what Socialism espouses. (Clearly different from thenormal English definition which is "total chaos.") Although it's still not easy to see how that could develop, I can imagine perhaps some utopian societies trying to form which would promote such a thing.

Especially becasue if this South comes even remotely close to pulling a Paraguay, there are going to be a whole lot of leaderless homes, given the traditional patriarchal structure...

....hmmm, which also means more woman leaders, perhaps much ealier suffrage, etc..

But, for now, it's all stuff to put on the back burner. I want to get this war over with.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

@SenatorChickpea You state the conditions of things on the American Left IOTL, however it doesn't account for things that would be different. While the environment of the North adopting more of a stance of explicit racial equality is important, I'd argue that even more important is that the South, the place that has significant daily relations between white and black people, won't be practically and intellectually smothered in a racial caste system. The entire spiritual grounding of the South, the supposedly Heaven-ordained hierarchy of Master and Slave, is exposed as a delusion, or even a deliberate lie by the powerful to divide the weak. Unionist Southerners, white and black, also have experience weathering the confederates together while the Fed was still too distant to help. Like I suggested before, when the next generation grows up it's a good bet that they'll fragment into various ideologies in an attempt to replace the vacuum left behind by the Antebellum mythos of Dixie, and I'm willing to bet some would be attracted or inspired by the racial solidarity exhibited by the Southern Unionists. A radical left that grows in the South rather than in the North could see a boost in Anarchism, which doesn't suffer from the American (particularly Southern American) suspicion of industrial discipline or state control as seen by the Marxists as the way forward.

These are good points, but I think you underplay the power of reaction. Yes, the war will expose the Master/Slave hierarchy as a delusion. But the French Revolution, and the English one before it, exposed the connection between King and Subject to be just as fragile- and yet the Bourbons and Stuarts returned.

Now, it returned in weaker forms. I absolutely don't think that you'll see a simple revival of the old pre-war ideology, because ideology changes to fit a society's needs. But I think that to some extent the war itself will be a high-water mark for anti racism, and the tide will naturally recede somewhat.

You are absolutely right, however, to point out the interesting possibilities of a Leftism that evolves in the South.* Personally, I don't think that that could become the dominant national strand- it doesn't speak enough to the poor urban communities of the North, the farmers of the mid-west, the racially exclusionary western states and so on- but it could become a powerful force in the old Confederacy. I certainly don't think it will speak to the intellectual bourgeoisie of those regions.** Thinkers who are still connected to the multi-lingual, trans Atlantic intellectual world are going to be much more exposed to the ideas coming out of Britain, Germany, Russia and so on. That's not just in terms of the left, let's be clear. Scientific Racism was an incredibly powerful movement that transcended ideologies, and I think it will be just as influential in this timeline as in ours- for one thing, much of its development took place outside the US and before the POD, and secondly, it flatters its audience.

However changed these circumstances, I don't think that enough has changed or will change within the next few decades to convert people to racial equality. Opposition to slavery? Of course, that's already happened and very plausibly. Opposition to overt racial violence, that is to say lynching, paramilitaries and so on? Yes. A belief that African-Americans should have constitutional rights? Yes. But I have seen nothing in this timeline to suggest that anything has happened to make Northerners- of any political or economic stripe- comfortable with social equality. They will not want their children marrying African-Americans. They will not want to compete for jobs on fair terms with African Americans. They will not want to share tenements with African-Americans. They will be happy with African-Americans having the right to vote, but they will not themselves want to vote for African-American candidates.

These are very serious questions of racial inequality that go right to the heart of people's identity, and they are not directly linked to or solved by the abolition of slavery.



* Actually, there's a thought: the South as Catalonia, both in terms of sense of thwarted national destiny but also a powerful local leftism that doesn't take the form it does in the rest of the country.

** I'm not actually a Marxist, but the term seemed appropriate here.

 

[Red_Galiray]

It would make a much more unique set of circumstances.

The idea of Christian democracy does interest me. In fact, my other TL features something similar, though in its strict Catholicism it is mostly a Latin American/Southern European movement. Though, given the centrality of the Church to the Black community, something similar could indeed appear.

That would definitely work. To paraphrase Tite Kubo, "As a fan, your role is to decide to read what I write or not. Your role is not to try to change me or my work." , so I'll stop trying to change your story after this suggestion: maybe have Hill or especially Jackson be at 100%, so the victory does belong to the Union. Like someone who replied to me said, in battle everyone makes mistakes and most battles are won by external factors, but with a healthy Jackson it is a legitimate error, not something the South can try to explain away ("well if he wasn't so tired he would have smashed those negroes!" or such).

Now to something else, I'm really looking forward to how you handle Lee's reaction to this defeat. He basically got McClelland'd, and if he tried to resign after Gettysburg he might actually just walk out of the army for this one. I think it would be interesting if he either goes Petesburg from the get-go (full defense with trenches and all), which prompts the Union to just raze the entire South to win, or tries to salvage the war with another gamble and gets defeated and humiliated by getting captured, which would ruin his reputation as someone "who only lost because the North had more men and material" into someone "who only won by luck, and when it ran out he just kept getting defeated".

I still think feedback is valuable and necessary. Kubo, though I respect him, did kind of go off the rails... Also, like I said, I wanted to improve the chapter just did not see how. I don't see it as changing the story, but giving it a more cohesive and dramatic execution. I will retain Hill as he is, mostly because it's based on OTL performance, but will allow Jackson to rest and be at 100% during the third day of Union Mills, when the assault takes place.

I think the South can only go "full Petersburg" now. Even if they "rob the cradle and the grave", they simply won't have enough men unless they use trenches and terrain to negate the Union's manpower advantage. As for further offensives, Breckinridge would simply never approve of them, especially now that both Bragg and Lee failed so disastrously. Btw, it's petty but I really like that McClellan would be, ITTL, basically a by-word for a General who somehow manages to achieve success, is rewarded with autonomy and then fails disastrously.

Butler, Wade, Sumner or Seward (Seward's pro-immigrant stance would make the GOP less nativist and more competitive in taking migrant votes) a good choice if you want to drag Republicans to the left. You can also pick James Garfield and Benjamin Bristow as well as Ebenezer and George Frisbie Hoar.

Besides, Carl Schurz would also be very valuable once the Reconstruction finishes - he lived until the late 1890s IOTL - even though he was not eligible to run.

Nathaniel Banks was an inept general but a good progressive liberal politician. He was not a Radical Republican but with this war going so brutal, you could easily radicalize him.

Overall, creating a Second Era of Good Feeling and then splitting the GOP into a 2 new parties would be better than keeping the Democrats around.

Seward is a curious case, especially in light of his support for Johnson. Many, it seems, thought of him as an opportunist who only supported him and his policies because it was the best thing for his career. He apparently tried to remain as Secretary of State under Grant, which gives credence to this view. Yet, he did support moderate Congressional action on Reconstruction and was one of Lincoln's most staunch supporters. The riddle is harder because Seward had been considered extremely radical before the war, and also because his "political alter-ego" Weed was a bitter enemy of Lincoln.

Schurz I have in mind for the future, though I (rather pettily) resent how he seemingly betrayed Reconstruction and became a leader of the Liberal Republicans. At least he returned to the Republican fold instead of becoming a Democrat again, like Trumbull or Doolittle did. Banks for his part was humiliated in the Valley and at Bull Run, so his military shine lacks luster. Then again, he was not exactly successful IOTL either, but his OTL position in Louisiana is filled with Burnside, who is not as corrupt as Butler.

The Democrats, for all intents and purposes, have gone the way of the Whigs. They survive in feeling and loyalty, but they are so associated with the South, Buchanan and rebellion that no one dares call himself a Democrat anymore. The National Union has been unable to really become a replacement, being unable to claim the same loyalty and feeling many felt for the Democracy. Moreover, they are badly divided between Copperhead and War factions. The Republicans will probably end as the only viable political party due to this, but Second Era of Good Feelings would be a bitterly ironical name because they would preside over the turbulent period of Reconstruction.

Garfield was a good man and IMO would've been a good President. Arguably Grant would be too were he to fall in with the right crowd post-war.

(Grant-Garfield ticket? The war hero and the clean kid?)

Garfield is already one of the "front-runners", so to speak. I think I will make him President, that's for sure, but whether it's as Lincoln's successor or later is to be decided.

I guess the GOP will really be the Grand Old Party in this timeline. How did they get the nickname IOTL, since the Democrats are more than twenty years older?

This doesn't have much to do with the war, but will James G. Blaine have a prominent role in this TL? The guy was infamously corrupt, even by Gilded Age standards.

A result of the war, I'd imagine. As for Blaine... eh... I don't want him to play a role, to be honest, as a result of his corruption.

There is definitely a tradition for this in western politics, but it's mostly Catholic.

Which may be related to why it never became a major phenomenon in the United States.

The nativist undercurrent is still strong, though the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Democratic city machines would probably allow the Republicans to snatch some of the immigrant vote.

Continuing on that subject, could Henry George become mayor of NYC in 1886 (more than 20 years after the war, I know) and hopefully smash Tammany Hall's stranglehold over city politics to bits? He was supported by a labor party IOTL, and was only defeated in that race because of fraud.

Tammany Hall is already on life support. Remember, Douglas actually created his own party because the Lecompton constitution passed, and that only intensified the Buchanan/Douglas split. Now completely Southern, the Democratic Party used all its power to politically destroy Douglas and his allies. Since Tammany Hall is in Southern-sympathizing New York and relies on patronage, the result was that they mostly sided with Buchanan. Which is a problem since Buchanan is probably the most hated man next to Johnny Breckenridge himself. The National Union accuses them of being "Danites" who sided with the doughface Buchanan against the North. Of course, both groups oppose the Republicans, but since both the New York government and the Federal government are Republican, Tammany Hall has been weakened considerably and is unable to find a coherent policy vis à vis the Copperhead/War Unionist debate. The machine is barely afloat, and that's thanks to how anti-Republican the Irish vote is, but they are no longer the strongest voice in New York politics. Republicans like Seward and Weed see in this an opportunity to expand the Republican base, but they are opposed by radicals who maintain a somewhat nativist stance and are suspicious of the Irish.

These are very serious questions of racial inequality that go right to the heart of people's identity, and they are not directly linked to or solved by the abolition of slavery.

Regarding this, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. @Drunkrobot, I think, it's right when he points out that a reckoning is coming for the next generations of Southerners regarding the brutality of slavery and as a result an opposition to overt and violent White Supremacy will rise. But you raise good points regarding that this does not mean social equality in any way or form, and that many generations more will have to pass before it becomes a legitimate idea. Of course, much of the post-war order depends on the conditions on which the war ends and the results of Reconstruction, but it's true that the South will probably always retain an alien identity compared with the rest of the country and with it different ideas and ideologies. I could see something similar to Latin American egalitarianism developing, in that racial minorities, de jure free and equal, would still be seen as inferior and would remain de facto segregated and disadvantaged. Of course, the situation is different because one of the premises of this Latin American ideology is that "inferior" races can eventually be assimilated into the mainstream, while race mixing would still be an enormous taboo even for the most progressive Southerners.

Altogether, I'm afraid, some sort of segregation and disadvantage, most likely de facto, will probably emerge. Certainly, Federal gerrymanders to assure Black people political representation would not be ideal, but, as @Drunkrobot himself stated in a previous post, would help maintain racial peace because Blacks would have guaranteed political representation and Whites wouldn't feel like they are forced to be represented by Black people. This they would always see as politically illegitimate, and would be more willing to overthrew through force.

But, for now, it's all stuff to put on the back burner. I want to get this war over with.

This cruel war is approaching its end, and with it we enter Reconstruction. Making peace is harder than making war. The real challenge commences there.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

If you really want to eliminate Blaine, you can always have an assassination attempt where he is killed like Mayor Cermak in the attempt on FDR. You would just have to make it so it doesn't seem too obvious.

Looking at his age, you could almost have him drafted. I would presume that members of Congress are exempt from the draft though.

 

[Thomas1195]

If you really want to eliminate Blaine, you can always have an assassination attempt where he is killed like Mayor Cermak in the attempt on FDR. You would just have to make it so it doesn't seem too obvious.

Looking at his age, you could almost have him drafted. I would presume that members of Congress are exempt from the draft though.

Or have Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain overshadowing him in Maine politics.

 

[generalurist]

OK I'm angry. Somehow I never got a notification about this update, so I've only heard of it NOW five days later. Anyways, time to try catching up on the discussion.

That battle was quite epic, and cathartic. With this, the South has probably shot it's bolt. They've burnt through their good resources, perhaps a little earlier than OTL, and won't be able to go on the offensive gain. Meanwhile, the Union knows not to fear the Lee, and knows the south's tricks. I expect things will start to fall apart hard in 1964.

I don't sympathize with most other poster's concern about this Union victory not feeling 'earned', but then again I only could read the update AFTER Red made those edits of his. It's true that 54'th aside the Union feels relatively passive in this battle before the pursuit. But IMO a battle won through choosing superior terrain and fortification is just as fairly won as one won through a double-somersault into the enemy's rear. Lee didn't have other options to get rid of that formidable Union army. The whole Pennsylvania invasion was a bad strategy for the CSA from the start.

On a brighter note, Hurray for the USCT and Doubleday, hurray for the 54th Massachusets, and Bobby Shaw! That sure struck some fear into the CSA. I hope to see future updates showing the mental anguish of some slavers as they desperately try to explain how they lose those battles.

Shame for Shaw to die, but he did so in better circumstances as OTL. The 54th will continue to fight on at full power! As for Doubleday, I expect the hero of Fort Saratoga and Pipe Creek to go on to do great things in this war!

Man, I need to watch Glory.

I wonder, what would be the highest ranks blacks could regularly achieve in the Union army at this time?

Some members of the cabinet argued for sending troops to stop Thomas’ advance. Longstreet said that it would be possible to push Thomas back to the Ohio that way. This could even force Grant to abandon Vicksburg and go to Thomas’ aid. But General Lee was opposed to the idea, and instead proposed a bold plan for invading the North. Such an invasion, Lee insisted, would embolden Northern Copperheads and give the coup de grace to the Lincoln Administration. It would also convince Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy, which would be enough to force Lincoln’s hand if he did not surrender first. Lee also hoped to feed his soldiers on the enemy’s country, showing both the weakness of the Yankees and relieving Virginia’s tired farms.

You fucked up, Lee.

Had you gone to the West to somersault over the slow-to-move Thomas you would probably have won a crushing victory, crushing union morale achieving most of those other goals in the process anyway. Instead, you charged off into Pennsylvania, into a logistical mess surrounded by the angriest of the Union army.

Sort of reminds me of Rommel.... hmm, I wonder how far the similarity between Lee and Rommel extends? Both have undeserved myths of cleanliness.

A final charge by General Pickett was unable to carry the hills again.

At least Picket didn't have as much of a bad time as OTL.

Both armies suffered from 35,000 to 40,000 casualties, each. Lee would return to Virginia with less than half of the number of men who crossed into the North with him.

HAW. LEE. SHIT. That's at minimum 50% higher losses than OTL Gettysburg. The secesh army isn't going to recover from this entirely.

The myth that Black men won't stand and fight like white men has, I think, been comprehensively exploded, where virtually every major media source in the country could see it happen, and with it one of the main props knocked out from under the racist assumption of Black inferiority. I can imagine Jackson or some other Confederate officer who was at Union Mills saying something along the lines of Richard Ewell's admission in @TheKnightIrish's TL after the Battle of Liberty:

Perhaps black troops having a greater fighting reputation will mean that something like the Battle of the Crater, if it happens in this TL, will go much better from the union. In OTL the black soldiers specifically trained for the attack were withdrawn at the 11th hour out of fear that it would look like they were being used as cannon fodder. TTL, some parts of the USCT will be seen as the well-tested elites of the Union army, and the best people for the job. Man, I hope something like that happens, in TTL, Take that Lee!

Maybe have a Stalingrad where confederates are surrounded and starved till one of their generals surrenders.

Vicksburg already had foot shortages in OTL before it surrendered. It's a promising candidate for something of the intensity you're hoping for. Probably can't get quite as bad as OTL Stalingrad though.

I agree, it is kind of a cliche. There is also the Civil War in that one I forget the name of where Jefferson puts in the anti-slavery clause in 1776 and 1912 leads to real problems.

@HeX 's A More Perfect Union

I can also see some Confederates voluntarily abandoning states where the Republicans are especially strong due to large Black populations as a way of escaping "Black rule".

IIRC A More Perfect Union had Confederates fleeing on mass to the Midwest after the civil war, resulting in that being one of the more racist regions rather than the properly-reconstructed south.

 

[Arthur Marston]

That battle was quite epic, and cathartic. With this, the South has probably shot it's bolt. They've burnt through their good resources, perhaps a little earlier than OTL, and won't be able to go on the offensive gain. Meanwhile, the Union knows not to fear the Lee, and knows the south's tricks. I expect things will start to fall apart hard in 1964.

Somehow I don't see the CSA lasting another century.

 

[Ficboy]

Red_Galiray, given that this is an extensive timeline with it's cover I think it would be nice to have the story get it's own TV Tropes page like some of the other timelines.

 

[Red_Galiray]

If you really want to eliminate Blaine, you can always have an assassination attempt where he is killed like Mayor Cermak in the attempt on FDR. You would just have to make it so it doesn't seem too obvious.

Looking at his age, you could almost have him drafted. I would presume that members of Congress are exempt from the draft though.

I don't to kill him, just make him politically irrelevant. And yes, the draft exempts public officials. Which of course led to Chesnuts doing their best to appoint as many public officials as they can to allow them to avoid the draft.

Or have Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain overshadowing him in Maine politics.

Something like that, yeah. Chamberlain performed heroically at the Peninsula and Bull Run, and though space constraints kept me from talking about him, he also did well at Union Mills.

OK I'm angry. Somehow I never got a notification about this update, so I've only heard of it NOW five days later. Anyways, time to try catching up on the discussion.

That battle was quite epic, and cathartic. With this, the South has probably shot it's bolt. They've burnt through their good resources, perhaps a little earlier than OTL, and won't be able to go on the offensive gain. Meanwhile, the Union knows not to fear the Lee, and knows the south's tricks. I expect things will start to fall apart hard in 1964.

I don't sympathize with most other poster's concern about this Union victory not feeling 'earned', but then again I only could read the update AFTER Red made those edits of his. It's true that 54'th aside the Union feels relatively passive in this battle before the pursuit. But IMO a battle won through choosing superior terrain and fortification is just as fairly won as one won through a double-somersault into the enemy's rear. Lee didn't have other options to get rid of that formidable Union army. The whole Pennsylvania invasion was a bad strategy for the CSA from the start.

On a brighter note, Hurray for the USCT and Doubleday, hurray for the 54th Massachusets, and Bobby Shaw! That sure struck some fear into the CSA. I hope to see future updates showing the mental anguish of some slavers as they desperately try to explain how they lose those battles.

Shame for Shaw to die, but he did so in better circumstances as OTL. The 54th will continue to fight on at full power! As for Doubleday, I expect the hero of Fort Saratoga and Pipe Creek to go on to do great things in this war!

Man, I need to watch Glory.

I wonder, what would be the highest ranks blacks could regularly achieve in the Union army at this time?

Yeah I wonder what's up with that. I did wonder why you hadn't show up, and I thank you for your support Though it's true that the Union must be doing really bad for the war to last a century.

The 54th Massachusetts and the Heroes of Fort Saratoga and Union Mills will go down in history. I envision a future where their statues pepper the nation, instead of the statues of traitors. And yes, watch Glory. It's great.

As for Black promotion, I think we could even see some commissioned officers towards the end of the war. Perhaps not a General, and no one will endorse allowing mixed regiments or for Black officers to command White troops since racism is still strong, but they certainly have more than earned the right.

Red_Galiray, given that this is an extensive timeline with it's cover I think it would be nice to have the story get it's own TV Tropes page like some of the other timelines.

I would really like that. I'd do it myself, but I'm busy and never quite managed to create a TvTropes account for some reason.

 

[Ficboy]

I don't to kill him, just make him politically irrelevant. And yes, the draft exempts public officials. Which of course led to Chesnuts doing their best to appoint as many public officials as they can to allow them to avoid the draft.



Something like that, yeah. Chamberlain performed heroically at the Peninsula and Bull Run, and though space constraints kept me from talking about him, he also did well at Union Mills.



Yeah I wonder what's up with that. I did wonder why you hadn't show up, and I thank you for your support Though it's true that the Union must be doing really bad for the war to last a century.

The 54th Massachusetts and the Heroes of Fort Saratoga and Union Mills will go down in history. I envision a future where their statues pepper the nation, instead of the statues of traitors. And yes, watch Glory. It's great.

As for Black promotion, I think we could even see some commissioned officers towards the end of the war. Perhaps not a General, and no one will endorse allowing mixed regiments or for Black officers to command White troops since racism is still strong, but they certainly have more than earned the right.



I would really like that. I'd do it myself, but I'm busy and never quite managed to create a TvTropes account for some reason.

I'm curious where did you get that idea. Also I have a Civil War timeline myself that has a different beginning and end. I'm in Chapter 11 and it has 110+ pages so far. If you're interested, I can send it to you.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I'm curious where did you get that idea. Also I have a Civil War timeline myself that has a different beginning and end. I'm in Chapter 11 and it has 110+ pages so far. If you're interested, I can send it to you.

I'm sorry, but what idea? And sure, send me the link.

 

[Ficboy]

I'm sorry, but what idea? And sure, send me the link.

As in the timeline you're working on. Also, I need your Gmail so I can share the link with you and I'm more than open to collaborators for my timeline.

 

[Red_Galiray]

As in the timeline you're working on. Also, I need your Gmail so I can share the link with you and I'm more than open to collaborators for my timeline.

Just PM me. I'm not comfortable sharing my Gmail publicly. And I can help you if you'd like.

The idea from the TL appeared due to my fascination with the Civil War, which started when I read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. The question of Reconstruction was especially interesting to me, and that interest grew when I read Foner's Reconstruction. I started to think of ways to change the lamentable OTL outcome. My first choice was, of course, a simple Lincoln lives TL. I also even briefly considered a semi-comedic TL where Lincoln's family stayed in Kentucky and Jefferson Davis' moved to the North. Ultimately, I settled for killing Trumbull as a way to "radicalize" Lincoln. And that's where all started.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Great work, really enjoable read. I absolutely adored some of the changes that have occured ITTL in the Union Army, caused by the increased Confederate successes so far.

First is the decision to have existing regiments reinforced, instead of constantly raising new units, and it is likely one of the most important ones. This will really have some positive efdects later on, since new soldiers will benefit from experienced troops, and there is less chance of same mistakes being made over and over again, and having to learn the same lessons which have already been learned by somebody else.

Secondly, Black troops proving their worth, not just to their commanders or the White Union troops, but to the Union public at large. When they are credited as the "Saviours of the Union", and when you have 54th Mass and others to point out, even the die hard Dixiecrats will be forced to pay attention.

Lastly, we have mentions of some more emphasis being put on skirmishing. This is also a welcome development, since there is a chance this reduces the chance of pointless head-on attacks on dug in enemy positions, or at least provides some chance of them succeding. Who knows, maybe Union/Confederacy do come up with something along the lines of Austrian Stoßtaktik on their own, with its emphasis on heavy use of skirmishers to screen assault columns, and importance of holding or taking the valuable geographical features to emplace artillery, things like that.

Once again, great work, @Red_Galiray.

 

[Red_Galiray]

Great work, really enjoable read. I absolutely adored some of the changes that have occured ITTL in the Union Army, caused by the increased Confederate successes so far.

Once again, great work, @Red_Galiray.

Thank you very much! I'm really glad you enjoyed my work, and are especially thankful that you took the time to say so.

I do think the changes thus far could result in permanent reforms and changes within the American military. I'd like to see regiments that maintain their identity, similar to the British model. And finally, I want some kind of fully American doctrine in regards to skirmishing to appear, and I think that once the war devolves into trench warfare it should appear.

 

[Tjakari]

New rule: Check thread every day. I don't even get notified of replies anymore.

Red_Galiray, given that this is an extensive timeline with it's cover I think it would be nice to have the story get it's own TV Tropes page like some of the other timelines.

Funny that I assumed it had already been made. This is way overdue.