While the Red River's water levels are low, nothing actually precludes a raid. The low water levels mean that the U.S. navy escorts had to stop at Alexandria out of fear of being stranded. From there, Sherman could march on Shrevesport. Historically, General Banks could have raided Shrevesport if he was willing to accept that the U.S. navy could not accompany him. Banks made it to Alexandria and a few miles beyond before turning back to Port Hudson. At the time, Taylor only had a division at most to check Banks' Army of the Gulf. Even with low levels, U.S. gunboats and transports were able to navigate the Red River beyond Alexandria as seen in the OTL Red River expedition.
It's 113 miles (in a straight line) from Alexandria to Shreveport and that's after going down the Mississippi a good distance and back up the red river just to get to Alexandria. I'm not sure the schedule works for them to be back for Grant's offensive, especially as contraband seizing and living off the land is not conductive to moving fast. Could be wrong, but seems like an overly daring plan...
It's 113 miles (in a straight line) from Alexandria to Shreveport and that's after going down the Mississippi a good distance and back up the red river just to get to Alexandria. I'm not sure the schedule works for them to be back for Grant's offensive, especially as contraband seizing and living off the land is not conductive to moving fast. Could be wrong, but seems like an overly daring plan...
Sherman accomplished the Meridian Campaign of 150 miles and back in a month (start of February to start of March). The whole Red River raid took place from May to June while Rosecrans' Corps was being transferred to Port Hudson. The second primary objective of the operation is to convince Johnston that Grant is indeed shifting south and is not attempting a southern approach on Vicksburg. By inflicting grievous damages onto the Trans-Mississippi Department and sending Rosecrans to Port Hudson, Grant gives the appearance that he no longer cares about Vicksburg.
Now you might say, couldn't Johnston use that month to transfer against Port Hudson? Well, yes, Johnston did try that ITTL. But the problem with transferring to Port Hudson is the lamentable state of Confederate logistics. Historically, it took an entire week to transfer Gregg's 3,000 men from Port Hudson to Jackson, Mississippi, and that's without the need to gather supplies for the movement and to resupply the beleaguered garrison.
Although Lyon is in command, I assume that there will be pressure to mount an offensive to finish off the Trans-Mississippi Theater. IOTL, Frederick Steele, a trusted subordinate of Grant and Sherman, outmaneuvered Sterling Price out of Little Rock, Arkansas, with ease. However, invading Texas was the hard part. Historically, the invasions of Texas fell apart due to a lack of focus and considerable distance involved.
I think I will stick to Kirby Smith then. I definitely want to dedicate a mini-update to his Confederacy... As for Texas, I also want to prominently feature a Texas campaign. Unionist activity has grown there as well, a fact that I've referenced a few times. I already made a reference to France invading Mexico so that's canon now I guess, so a political campaign against Texas is something that will happen. I think that perhaps a large-scale Rio Grande Campaign could take place, as Taylor would probably be focused in simply surviving rather than going on the attack.
That reminds me, who will become president in 1868? The Radical Republicans seemed to favor either Salmon P. Chase or Benjamin Wade. Moderate Republicans favored Grant, but Grant, as I mentioned in a previous post, disliked the idea of being president. He hated the idea of having to face vicious criticism from his political opponents and did not trust politicians for their supposed short-sighted maneuvering that led to the civil war. Grant allowed himself to be talked into running for President because he feared losing the fruits of more than seven years' hard work on his part and the sacrifices of the Union soldiers if Copperhead Horatio Seymour won the Presidency.
The key failure was the Jay Cooke & Company, the biggest bank in New York. It had invested a lot of money in the railroads, and when the railroads started having problems, Jay Cooke & Company went bankrupt. Thus began, the panic that spread to banks in Washington, DC, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, Georgia and the Midwest. Without a Federal Reserve, the U.S. President doesn't really have the economic tools of today's presidents. Moreover, many financial leaders believed the market would regulate itself and was thus distrustful of any government intervention. Can Reconstruction survive such a great economic crisis?
The main candidates, so to speak, are Grant, Garfield, Stanton and Wade. To be completely honest, I'm leaning towards Grant, not only because of my personal attraction towards his figure, but also because he was a stalwart defender of Black civil rights. I can't see someone like Garfield intervening as decisively as Grant for example. With Radicalism on the rise I think it's a given that they will to primary Lincoln in 1864, either because they believe the war has already been won and it's better to have a true Radical overseeing Reconstruction or because he's not been able to bring the war to a close. Though it's true that Grant served mostly because he felt it was his duty, it seems there is a strong element of conceiled but real ambition behind his actions. At least that's the impression Chernow's biography has given me.
I have to agree with you and say that the Panic is not completely preventable. At best, one could delay it a little and thus save Republicans' congressional majorities. The result is that I'm working against a clock, as the Depression would greatly imperil Reconstruction. Even if the new states are strong enough to survive terrorism without Northern aid, economic trumps most matters and could lead to the Democratic equivalent winning under a "fiscal responsibility, honest government" platform. It's a rather worrying prospect. I think that Reconstruction could survive in a few states, allowing Republicans/Populists to retake power after a few years, but in other states it's most likely doomed, and the best we could get it's a basic guarantee of civil rights for African-Americans and Federal protections that would prevent Redeemers from reversing the fruits of Reconstruction (for example, keeping Redeemer governments from taking land already given to freedmen). It's not ideal, but even preventing Jim Crow is an important first step in the long road towards a truly egalitarian United States.
Not super familiar with the period, but could the government stabilize the railroads by contracting them to build new rail lines in the south? iirc, the southern rail road infrastructure was pretty under developed
If John Rawlins lived longer he might have been able to temper some of Grant's worse impulses. The man was Grant's confidant for years and a strong pillar of advice, and could probably have sniffed out and quashed some of Grant's more problematic subordinates. Even absent that, he was a great fixer and would probably have been invaluable in the administration.
Than again, IIRC he was an advocate for Cuban independence and he probably would have wanted Grant to go to war over the Virginius Affair so maybe not as great...
I do think Rawlins is key to a more successful Grant presidency. He was probably the man Grant trusted the most. At the same time, my allergy to any and all American imperialism means he's suspect under my eyes due to all those Cuban schemes.
Unfortunately, since the Long Depression took place in the late 19th century, there are not a lot of studies on the subject. It's a shame, especially since the Great Financial Crisis had a good resemblance to this depression.
Ultimately these international factors, which are unlikely if not impossible to change through events ITTL, are probably what made the crisis so bad. Even better financial management would only delay or mitigate the crisis.
It's 113 miles (in a straight line) from Alexandria to Shreveport and that's after going down the Mississippi a good distance and back up the red river just to get to Alexandria. I'm not sure the schedule works for them to be back for Grant's offensive, especially as contraband seizing and living off the land is not conductive to moving fast. Could be wrong, but seems like an overly daring plan...
It's overly daring, and that's why it worked. The March to the Sea was overly daring as well, and it involved marching twice the distance in less time. I don't think it's unrealistic.
The main candidates, so to speak, are Grant, Garfield, Stanton and Wade. To be completely honest, I'm leaning towards Grant, not only because of my personal attraction towards his figure, but also because he was a stalwart defender of Black civil rights. I can't see someone like Garfield intervening as decisively as Grant for example. With Radicalism on the rise I think it's a given that they will to primary Lincoln in 1864, either because they believe the war has already been won and it's better to have a true Radical overseeing Reconstruction or because he's not been able to bring the war to a close. Though it's true that Grant served mostly because he felt it was his duty, it seems there is a strong element of conceiled but real ambition behind his actions. At least that's the impression Chernow's biography has given me.
Anyone is better than Colfax and Wilson and their blatant corruption. And yes, they were not the only ones, but it also heigntned Grants attachment to favorites.
Needs to be either Wade or Stanton as VP, they could temper him somewhat (but you would have to butterfly away Stanton's death in 1869).
Being a Grant man myself, I have 5 biographies of him on the shelf I always thought he needed to be less loyal to those whom he owed favors especially when it came to his cabinet. Needs a strong hand to guide him there. Plus there is also his relationships with his army colleagues after the war. Him and Sherman pretty much became pseudo-enemies so to speak because of the President/SecWar/General-in-Cheif positions and how to handle the army.
Not too sure on his relationship with Sheridan but Meade and Thomas got screwed over.
Anyone is better than Colfax and Wilson and their blatant corruption. And yes, they were not the only ones, but it also heigntned Grants attachment to favorites.
Needs to be either Wade or Stanton as VP, they could temper him somewhat (but you would have to butterfly away Stanton's death in 1869).
Being a Grant man myself, I have 5 biographies of him on the shelf I always thought he needed to be less loyal to those whom he owed favors especially when it came to his cabinet. Needs a strong hand to guide him there. Plus there is also his relationships with his army colleagues after the war. Him and Sherman pretty much became pseudo-enemies so to speak because of the President/SecWar/General-in-Cheif positions and how to handle the army.
Not too sure on his relationship with Sheridan but Meade and Thomas got screwed over.
I think Grant really took a shine to Sheridan in the OTL due to his willingness to pursue during the night after Missionary Ridge. In Grant's view, compared to aloof-seeming Thomas and Gordon 'I love cannon' Granger, Sheridan was the only one with the aggression he really liked in his subordinates. Relating to General Thomas, I just finished Brian Willis's bio of Thomas, As True as Steel, Willis does a good job of deconstructing the personality conflicts of Grant and Thomas. The main thrust of his view was that due to Thomas's aloof demeanor, combined with Grant's natural shy nature made communications between the two men very difficult by itself.
I agree in part, but with Grant's star rising in the OTL, it attracted as you put Darth, certain favorites that weren't as honest as Grant believed. Gen. Sherman was willing to say just about anything to keep in his friend's good graces after Chattanooga and Grant's departure east, during the Atlanta campaign he would often lay the troubles of the campaign at the feet of Thomas knowing Grant would believe him due to Grant's distaste for Gen. Thomas's deliberate nature.
As for Meade, I haven't studied his career anywhere enough as I should, so I don't have an opinion on Grant's relationship with the OTL AoP commander.
I think Grant really took a shine to Sheridan in the OTL due to his willingness to pursue during the night after Missionary Ridge. In Grant's view, compared to aloof-seeming Thomas and Gordon 'I love cannon' Granger, Sheridan was the only one with the aggression he really liked in his subordinates. Relating to General Thomas, I just finished Brian Willis's bio of Thomas, As True as Steel, Willis does a good job of deconstructing the personality conflicts of Grant and Thomas. The main thrust of his view was that due to Thomas's aloof demeanor, combined with Grant's natural shy nature made communications between the two men very difficult by itself.
I agree in part, but with Grant's star rising in the OTL, it attracted as you put Darth, certain favorites that weren't as honest as Grant believed. Gen. Sherman was willing to say just about anything to keep in his friend's good graces after Chattanooga and Grant's departure east, during the Atlanta campaign he would often lay the troubles of the campaign at the feet of Thomas knowing Grant would believe him due to Grant's distaste for Gen. Thomas's deliberate nature.
As for Meade, I haven't studied his career anywhere enough as I should, so I don't have an opinion on Grant's relationship with the OTL AoP commander.
Grant and Meade got along well personally, thanks in part to Meade's offering his resignation upon the farmer's arrival in favor of whoever Grant wanted to put in his place. It charmed Grant, and did a lot to put Meade in his good graces. That said, it was often difficult, since while technically the Army of the Potomac was Meade's, functionally it went where and did what Grant wanted. It was essentially Grant in strategic command and Meade looking after the tactics, and it did not always work. Cold Harbor is the best example of it, though that was more than just Meade; the attack that gets so much attention (7,000 casualties in however many minutes) was supposed to have occurred much sooner, before the Rebels were fully dug-in and deployed. However, failures at virtually every level of command meant it was unable to happen in time. Meade's part was trying to carry out the assault beyond the point where it should have been clear that it was going to fail. It is noteworthy that Grant actually had to order him to stop attacking; certainly not something that those who subscribe to the Grant Butcher myth like to hear.
Eventually while Grant liked and respected Meade personally he did much in the end to circumnavigate him. See Sheridan's "detachment" at Five Forks that grew to 1/5 of the army. It came down to the fact that Grant was often frustrated with what he perceived as a caution and lack of drive endemic within the Army of the Potomac's high command.
Grant, Garfield, Stanton and Wade, all Radical Republicans.... I'm beginning to understand why you would choose Grant to be president. Of all the candidates, I think that Grant is the only man with the popularity to actually win the election. Given that Grant ran on a seemingly moderate Republican platform and the Democrat presidential candidate Horatio Seymour still won a majority of the white votes, I can't see the other Radical Republicans winning enough votes.
James Garfield, a rising star among Radical Republicans post-war, probably did not have the popularity to carry the white vote. Benjamin Wade was hated by moderates for his high tariff, soft-money, pro-labour views (aside from his radical stance on Reconstruction). Edwin Stanton's illness and his relatively poor finances probably prevented him from becoming president.
Plus, if Grant didn't run for election, we wouldn't have gotten this political cartoon of Grant beheading Seymour!
I have to agree with you and say that the Panic is not completely preventable. At best, one could delay it a little and thus save Republicans' congressional majorities. The result is that I'm working against a clock, as the Depression would greatly imperil Reconstruction. Even if the new states are strong enough to survive terrorism without Northern aid, economic trumps most matters and could lead to the Democratic equivalent winning under a "fiscal responsibility, honest government" platform. It's a rather worrying prospect. I think that Reconstruction could survive in a few states, allowing Republicans/Populists to retake power after a few years, but in other states it's most likely doomed, and the best we could get it's a basic guarantee of civil rights for African-Americans and Federal protections that would prevent Redeemers from reversing the fruits of Reconstruction (for example, keeping Redeemer governments from taking land already given to freedmen). It's not ideal, but even preventing Jim Crow is an important first step in the long road towards a truly egalitarian United States.
True enough, I think (and hope) that the absence of a President Andrew Johnson would ensure the Republicans aren't distracted from the crucial reforms necessary to secure civil and political equality for African Americans in the South. One thing that I hadn't previously considered is that Lincoln could provide advice for Grant to pursue a more consistent policy of conciliation and coercion to solidify the civil rights of African-Americans in several Southern states. Another issue to consider is the endemic corruption in the U.S. government, which seriously embarrassed the Republican governments. Is there anyway to fix this problem? An early expose of the Credit Mobilier scandal?
On a side note, the only real idea I have to alter the international factors affecting the Panic of 1873 is to have France win the Franco-Prussian war. I figured that the absence of the gold indemnities from France that fueled the price boom and later crash in property in Germany and Austria would prevent the collapse in demand of U.S. railroad bonds... but I don't really see how the changes ITTL result in France winning the Franco-Prussian war.
So something that might help prevent the Panic of 73 is if you can stop Jay Cooke from going bankrupt and the Credit Mobiler scandal from happening. IIRC those two were the main triggers for it happening.
So, can we use reverse psychology here? Is there a way to have the Democrats blamed for the Panic of 1873?
Okay, the Democrats won't really exist in this timeline as of 1873, but by this time there will be the start of a backlash against civil rights, so what if in some of these new States, some Democrats - I don't know what the new party will be called so I'm going to call them that - when a few midterms and so on and then the Panic is worst in those areas?
As for the presidency, I guess Chamberlain is out? He does seem to need time to grow politically, maybe it could be Grant then Garfield than Chamberlain. The spoils system has been around since Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren but it was really bad with Grant. Is there a way to try to get civil service reform passed?
I suppose there might be, if you have Freedman hired as Civil Service workers. You could make the argument that they could be trained and then Civil Service tests given because then it won't seem like they are just being promoted because they are black without any prior training. At least they will have had the benefit of some education toward that goal.
Yes, Stanton would make a good vice president. It certainly wasn't unusual for the vice presidency to be vacant in the 19th century. You would then have Wade helping Grant in the Senate as President Pro Tem and Stanton could still live another year or two. Then Grant gets another vice president in 1873. Maybe that is Chamberlain after some time as governor, and then Chamberlain goes to the House or Senate because Garfield runs for president.
Alternatively, Wade could be vice president because if he is disliked in certain areas, that could be a way for him to be silenced. It would not be unusual in this time to send someone off to be vice president figuring he will never be heard from again.
Having some time with Lincoln after the war is over may help him to avoid political problems as well. Because Lincoln has championed his promotion, he would probably feel a lot of loyalty to Lincoln as well. So just having Lincoln survive maybe a benefit, though keepting some of the other people out of his hair will really help.
What about having the Republicans lose in 1874 to...a Liberal Republican running on an anti-coruption platform and with less collusion with Democrats than IOTL.
So something that might help prevent the Panic of 73 is if you can stop Jay Cooke from going bankrupt and the Credit Mobiler scandal from happening. IIRC those two were the main triggers for it happening.
Not quite. The Credit Mobilier Scandal was a political embarrassment, but it was just that and nothing more. Grant's government was badly embarrassed by the expose, but the economy was still fine. Saving Jay Cooke from bankruptcy saves a lot of banks and thus saves a lot of companies. However, it doesn't fix the problem of overbuilding and overcapacity as well as the collapse in the demand for American railroad securities from Europe (which represented most of the demand at the time). At the time, U.S. railroads were becoming unable to pay the fixed interest on their bonds and the supply of capital from Europe was drying up. If these railroad companies go bankrupt, manufacturing companies get throttled because a large source of their customers' demand are gone. The only way to truly avert the Panic of 1873 would be to somehow improve corporate governance in railroad companies and prevent the property bubble in Germany and Austria.
So, can we use reverse psychology here? Is there a way to have the Democrats blamed for the Panic of 1873?
Okay, the Democrats won't really exist in this timeline as of 1873, but by this time there will be the start of a backlash against civil rights, so what if in some of these new States, some Democrats - I don't know what the new party will be called so I'm going to call them that - when a few midterms and so on and then the Panic is worst in those areas?
I think that would be rather difficult. There is statistical truth in the idea that the people will always blame the economic crises on the parties in power. The Republicans paid dearly less for the crisis itself than for their inability to take positive action to remedy either the economic crisis or the situation that had triggered it. They lost key mid-western states such as Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and losing all but South Carolina in the South. Contemporary party leaders suggest that the key to their defeat was "the [temperance] ‘crusade’ and the inflation nonsense".
At the time, economic issues boiled down to money - hard money vs soft money. While the OTL Republicans and Democrats were divided in their stance for Reconstruction, the issue of hard-money vs soft-money was not politically structured along party lines, but along sectional lines. The Midwest states identified themselves to be soft money and the Northeast as hard-money. This can be seen as far back as 1866 when Ohio Democrats advocated the continued use of paper money while New York Democrats maneuvered their hard-money candidate Horatio Seymour to run as their presidential candidate.
During the Panic of 1873, Congress passed a bill known as the "Inflation Bill" by its adversaries. It planned to inject 64 million dollars to the currency volume already in circulation. Midwesterners and southerners voted for it; members from the Northeast and the West Coast against it. Both parties were openly divided. Grant ultimately chose to veto the bill because he didn't believe in it and this was an untested theory. Regardless, Democrats in the Midwest states and the South used it bludgeon the Republicans and the Republicans of the Midwest states nearly did rebel against the Republican party. If Grant had passed the bill, the Democrats in the Northeast states would have used it instead to bludgeon the Republicans in those states, but Grant would most likely carry the Midwest and possibly the south.
As for the economic impact of the bill, I am conflicted as to whether or not Grant was right to veto it. Grant is pretty much in Ben Bernanke's position in 2008. On one hand, an increase in money supply would have (theoretically) helped encourage private consumption, decrease interest rates, which encourages lending and investment. On the other hand, the long-term impact of an increase in the money supply is more difficult to predict. Easy money policies can cause bubbles (for example, the dot com bubble), which in this case was exceptionally risky because of considerable speculation in the U.S. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the U.S. dollar will not be regarded as the symbol of financial stability that it was by the end of the 19th century.
As for the presidency, I guess Chamberlain is out? He does seem to need time to grow politically, maybe it could be Grant then Garfield than Chamberlain. The spoils system has been around since Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren but it was really bad with Grant. Is there a way to try to get civil service reform passed?
Civil service reform was a really contentious issue of the times. James Garfield was a strong proponent of civil service reform but Grant did not seem to believe in civil service reform and thought that patronage was a necessary evil in a democratic system. Grant did, however, make a push for civil service reform in 1870 after Secretary of the Interior Jacob D. Cox resigned when Grant failed to support him during the conflict between the party bosses and Cox over civil service reform. Grant did create the first Civil Service Commission, but Congressmen did not want to give up their most potent source of power - patronage.
Wow, thanks! I actually understood all of that. Economics is indeed a very complex subject.
I wonder if Grant could decide to run for only one term Tama or maybe we get Stanton for 1 and then he dies in the office and an opposition candidate can win in 1872. Who would be the safest person to put in opposition who could still somewhat support reconstruction? If the Republican Party divides the long economic lines that could be the way to go. Then a Republican wins in 1876 and you can have two 8 year Republican terms. Say, Garfield and Chamberlain. Or Grant and Garfield if it is Stanton in 1868.
Charles Sumner, from his Wikipedia article at least, looks like a good candidate to either replace Stanton as president if Stanton dies (he was long ailing according to the article and so could have appeared ill at just the right time to lose in 1872) or to challenge Grant and maybe split the party enough to win in 1872. His Northeasterners could be blamed them for the economic problem and Grant and the midwesterners could then come back in 1876. Sumner would die in office but you could just have a vice president that would stay the course with reconstruction with Grant perhaps back as general enforcing it. He ran in 1880 in our timeline so this timeline could have Grant instead of Cleveland as the president who served non-consecutive terms. Or he retires and its Garfield in 1876. There are a lot of ways to go here. I'll bet Red is glad that he plans to end this first part in 1870.
I had watched this years and years ago, little over a decade. It was a really nicly put together animation on President Lincoln. Reading this timeline makes me think of it alot, really.
I had watched this years and years ago, little over a decade. It was a really nicly put together animation on President Lincoln. Reading this timeline makes me think of it alot, really.
I remember watching this series when I was younger. The only two things I remember from it though is that one scene in the Lincoln episode where a guy is yelling about how thousands of people have become causalities in so and so battle, and thinking to myself "Wow, I recognize the names of all those battles!" (This was when I was younger and first started getting interested in history) and how in the George Washington episode when good old George is talking to his generals, in one scene one of his generals (I think Knox maybe?) has brown hair, and when they cut back to same view a few moments later, he has gray hair. I remembering quipping to a family member I was watching it with after pointing that out "Wow, I didn't know Washington's speeches were so boring and long that it turned his general's hair gray!"
Something I'm wondering is gonna be the post-war mindset when it pertains to the South. While I mostly read up on the French Revolution, I think I can hazard a guess that, when the firing ended, people weren't super gung-ho about demanding great changes to the South and offering the black population a chance to be their equal, it seemed more that they were super glad the war was over and they were more happy to get their old states back instead of wanting to punish them. Ordinarily, that's a good thing, justice is better than vengeance and all that, but when the defeated side believes that dehumanizing a certain type of people, reconciliation and nice words probably aren't gonna be appropriate.
Would be interesting to see how the people become actually dedicated to making some deep societal change instead of just saying, "There, we did the absolute minimum and abolished a system that the whole world was already starting to see as very immoral."
Anyone is better than Colfax and Wilson and their blatant corruption. And yes, they were not the only ones, but it also heigntned Grants attachment to favorites.
Needs to be either Wade or Stanton as VP, they could temper him somewhat (but you would have to butterfly away Stanton's death in 1869).
Being a Grant man myself, I have 5 biographies of him on the shelf I always thought he needed to be less loyal to those whom he owed favors especially when it came to his cabinet. Needs a strong hand to guide him there. Plus there is also his relationships with his army colleagues after the war. Him and Sherman pretty much became pseudo-enemies so to speak because of the President/SecWar/General-in-Cheif positions and how to handle the army.
Not too sure on his relationship with Sheridan but Meade and Thomas got screwed over.
I think Stanton could survive a few more years if he doesn't have to deal with Johnson and his policies. The stress was surely not good for him... I myself am leaning towards Stanton as a particularly powerful VP. I think he would be a good political tutor and someone who could smoother the transition from Lincoln to Grant. Some may even see him as a way for Lincoln to retain influence in the new administration.
Sherman's aptitude has always been curious to me. It's rather lamentable, truly, that he turned so bitterly against Grant all due to political differences. A less trusting man would have never spoken to Sherman again, but Grant still retained so much affection towards Sherman that he was willing to accept him back as a friend as soon as Sherman wanted. In fact, I think Grant may have never been aware of Sherman's true opinions regarding his policies as President.
The main thrust of his view was that due to Thomas's aloof demeanor, combined with Grant's natural shy nature made communications between the two men very difficult by itself.
Grant, Garfield, Stanton and Wade, all Radical Republicans.... I'm beginning to understand why you would choose Grant to be president. Of all the candidates, I think that Grant is the only man with the popularity to actually win the election. Given that Grant ran on a seemingly moderate Republican platform and the Democrat presidential candidate Horatio Seymour still won a majority of the white votes, I can't see the other Radical Republicans winning enough votes.
James Garfield, a rising star among Radical Republicans post-war, probably did not have the popularity to carry the white vote. Benjamin Wade was hated by moderates for his high tariff, soft-money, pro-labour views (aside from his radical stance on Reconstruction). Edwin Stanton's illness and his relatively poor finances probably prevented him from becoming president.
Plus, if Grant didn't run for election, we wouldn't have gotten this political cartoon of Grant beheading Seymour!
The opposition is so beaten and disorganized that I can't see them putting up a credible performance in 1868, though just a year is an eternity in politics and we don't know what the situation will be like in that year (and that includes me since I have only a rough outline of where I want to go). Still, war fever and vengeful sentiments are bound to ebb with time and result in less willingness for direct intervention. That's why it's so important to strike while the iron is hot, and why Johnson becoming president was such a tragedy. Still, Grant is probably the safest bet and the most courageous when it comes to defending Reconstruction.
(Seymour's career is probably dead ITTL since he instigated the much bloodier New York Riots and had to flee the country, so we won't get that cartoon here either. It's a really awesome one tho.)
True enough, I think (and hope) that the absence of a President Andrew Johnson would ensure the Republicans aren't distracted from the crucial reforms necessary to secure civil and political equality for African Americans in the South. One thing that I hadn't previously considered is that Lincoln could provide advice for Grant to pursue a more consistent policy of conciliation and coercion to solidify the civil rights of African-Americans in several Southern states. Another issue to consider is the endemic corruption in the U.S. government, which seriously embarrassed the Republican governments. Is there anyway to fix this problem? An early expose of the Credit Mobilier scandal?
On a side note, the only real idea I have to alter the international factors affecting the Panic of 1873 is to have France win the Franco-Prussian war. I figured that the absence of the gold indemnities from France that fueled the price boom and later crash in property in Germany and Austria would prevent the collapse in demand of U.S. railroad bonds... but I don't really see how the changes ITTL result in France winning the Franco-Prussian war.
Johnson was such a disaster because it meant that for one year after the end of the war the government did nothing to advance the cause of equality and instead the South seemingly regressed. Then, for at least two years the Republicans were focused on fighting Johnson and cleaning his mess. A very important factor that many don't seem to consider is the fact that many of the measures of Radical Reconstruction were compromises, and as such less radical than they could have been. This was necessity, since Republicans had to maintain a cohesive 2/3rds majority for every single action in order to override Johnson's vetoes; with Lincoln, that is not needed. Lincoln, to be sure, would probably intervene to moderate some policies - I can even see Congress overriding a veto or two if Presidential and Congressional policy really clash. But by and large I assume Lincoln would sign most Republican bills, passed by a Radical majority without needing to conciliate the moderates.
A French victory is something of a pet issue of mine, but every time I've brought that up the consensus seems to be that it's unrealistic to make the French win since nothing in the TL could really affect the European situation.
As for the presidency, I guess Chamberlain is out? He does seem to need time to grow politically, maybe it could be Grant then Garfield than Chamberlain. The spoils system has been around since Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren but it was really bad with Grant. Is there a way to try to get civil service reform passed?
I suppose there might be, if you have Freedman hired as Civil Service workers. You could make the argument that they could be trained and then Civil Service tests given because then it won't seem like they are just being promoted because they are black without any prior training. At least they will have had the benefit of some education toward that goal.
One of the main problems regarding patronage is that Southern Republicans absolutely needed it to survive. In some areas the only way a Republican could make a living was by securing a patronage job, which explains the bitterness of partisan conflicts. Patronage was also one of the main ways for African Americans to advance economically and politically. As one Black man complained after seeing a Liberal Republican proposal for a civil service exam, most African Americans had been forced to spend the best of their lives doing back-breaking work instead of learning and improving themselves. The result is that civil service reform as envisioned by the Liberals would prevent the great majority of Black Americans from securing any job.
What about having the Republicans lose in 1874 to...a Liberal Republican running on an anti-coruption platform and with less collusion with Democrats than IOTL.
I am moving towards something like that... Liberal Republicans who only focus on corruption and see Reconstruction as a fait accompli and have no desire to colude with Democrats, or their equivalents, to overturn the new Southern order.
Oh, the second part of this TL will be such a headache... writing about socio-politic developments is my favorite part, but, as someone once said, building a lasting peace is more difficult than wagging a devastating war.
I had watched this years and years ago, little over a decade. It was a really nicly put together animation on President Lincoln. Reading this timeline makes me think of it alot, really.
Something I'm wondering is gonna be the post-war mindset when it pertains to the South. While I mostly read up on the French Revolution, I think I can hazard a guess that, when the firing ended, people weren't super gung-ho about demanding great changes to the South and offering the black population a chance to be their equal, it seemed more that they were super glad the war was over and they were more happy to get their old states back instead of wanting to punish them. Ordinarily, that's a good thing, justice is better than vengeance and all that, but when the defeated side believes that dehumanizing a certain type of people, reconciliation and nice words probably aren't gonna be appropriate.
Would be interesting to see how the people become actually dedicated to making some deep societal change instead of just saying, "There, we did the absolute minimum and abolished a system that the whole world was already starting to see as very immoral."
Radical Republicans did regard the Civil War and its aftermath as a unique opportunity to transform the United States and make of it a "perfect republic of equality". I think many Republicans will share this feeling, that now that the war has ended it's time to enact far-reaching changes that will secure its fruits and made sure that such a catastrophe will never happen again. I think vengeful feelings will quickly give way to "charity for all", but in general I believe most Republicans will consider that ensuring equality and civil rights for African Americans in the South is needed to build a lasting peace. The main issue is that, for the South, something as small as ensuring a minimum of civil rights to African Americans is already a violent, unimaginable and degrading punishment. Seriously, these guys talked of Reconstruction as if it were a cruel tyranny instead of a just revolution.
My apologies @Red_Galiray for not offering comments on your latest installment to this outstanding TL. It was a stellar addition as always, and I eagerly await more. I do wonder of Grant's future (military and political). Is a future General in Chief position open to him? Or to any Union general for that matter?
