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

[Red_Galiray]

Well this is a pleasant surprise. There was mention of an update and I hadn't seen it, but I just went back and realized I missed it 2 weeks ago.

A lot have commented about the battle of the bulge or post stalingrad scenario, and I echo that. It does seem like the union is closer to Atlanta now than they were at this time before.

I guess Lee does not have his angina from our timeline? I guess Richmond was never totally threatened and that was a huge defeat at Gettysburg where he thought he was going to win the war with one battle so I can see why in this situation he is less anxious.

The fact that confederate soldier talks about how awful the carnage was in that war shows there might be some who realize the need to be at least someone more civil in the post-war South, at least to the point where they realize that their brethren are really awful and should not be copied.

Red took my joke about Lincoln being a tough guy hero even more than Jackson, and having the added benefit of not being a piece of dung like Jackson was. For my money, I believe Reynolds is the one who is killed and Grant brought in to replace him. Grant has to get there somehow.

The president pro tem of the Senate would be next in line, if it is the same as in our timeline it is a nondescript man from New Hampshire. I had at least heard of Solomon Foot but he leaves in April of 1864 in our timeline.

Which reminds me, Lincoln is going to need another vice president. Wouldn't that be weird of my joking meme about not needing one comes true? And that's why Grant accepts?

I didn't realize that Stanton wanted to be a justice. That would let Grant become Secretary of War. And as long as Stanton survived he would have the ability to Mentor him once Grant becomes president.

With Lincoln looking not quite as radical as the harshest radicals, you might feel a need to appoint a radical in the wake of this assassination attempt. I wonder if Fremont would accept the vice president position. Although he seems a little too proud to take that slot.

Then again, it would be ironic if Hannibal Hamlin became vice president during Lincoln's second term here.

Ah, I was wondering why you didn't comment on the update! It's always nice to read your comments and opinions

The Union is closer to Atlanta, Richmond and Mobile. It's more an impression that the Confederacy can still hold up and that they are not advancing than a reality. But in a democracy an impression may be enough.

I haven't focused on Lee's health problems due to a combination of lack of knowledge on my part, and that I don't feel it to be too relevant. I don't think it ever caused enough problems to impair his performance in battle?

I think a scramble could take place as Republicans, mainly Radicals, realize that the President pro-Tempore would be next in line.

The only thing I'm sure about regarding the Vice-President is that Andrew Johnson won't be drafted. Mainly because his conservativism has shown itself in angry tirades against the Bureaus in Tennessee and constant opposition to land redistribution and Black suffrage. So it's known he's opposed to Republican principles and in the wake of this people probably would be more aware of the dangers of an unsuitable man ascending to the office. Then about candidates? I don't think Grant would allow himself to be drafted to such an insignificant post. The two main concerns would be either a Southern Unionist to show the "National" character of the Party, or a Northern Radical, to balance the ticket and show committment to the cause.

 

[BrockSampson]

Then about candidates? I don't think Grant would allow himself to be drafted to such an insignificant post. The two main concerns would be either a Southern Unionist to show the "National" character of the Party, or a Northern Radical, to balance the ticket and show committment to the cause.

I would go with the latter. If Lincoln survives this assassination attempt then it would likely scare many in the party into realizing that having someone who could be more amenable to southern interests as VP means they could well take over if another, more successful assassination were to occur and undermine all the sacrifices made to ensure victory on the battlefield. This would make the election more difficult in the Upper South and may spur on the Confederates to keep fighting longer (“They placed another firebrand abolitionist from the north as VP so they have no interest in letting even ‘Unionist’ southerners have a say in the government. They have shown their hand in seeking to truly destroy our style of life and our very identity!”).

 

[DanMcCollum]

I would go with the latter. If Lincoln survives this assassination attempt then it would likely scare many in the party into realizing that having someone who could be more amenable to southern interests as VP means they could well take over if another, more successful assassination were to occur and undermine all the sacrifices made to ensure victory on the battlefield. This would make the election more difficult in the Upper South and may spur on the Confederates to keep fighting longer (“They placed another firebrand abolitionist from the north as VP so they have no interest in letting even ‘Unionist’ southerners have a say in the government. They have shown their hand in seeking to truly destroy our style of life and our very identity!”).

You might find a Southern Unionist who could pass the mustard with the more radical wing of the Party. As I've suggested in another thread, Joseph Holt (depending what he's been up to in this timeline) might be a good choice. In OTL his efforts helped the Unionist position in Kentucky, he was in favor of abolition (even if h still held many views about freedmen which would be considered less than enlightened today), had an even stronger hatred of the planter class than Johnson and was passionately loyal to Lincoln. in OTL, following the assassination, he came to truly believe that the assassination had been played by Jeff Davis and others in the Confederate government and wanted them to hang. I could see a longer, harder, and more brutal war, radicalizing him further and coming out in favor of greater rights to freedmen - especially if it let him undermine the planter class that started this damned war and make them suffer.

If not him, which northern politician would be a good choice? Part of me would love to see Thaddeus Stevens - jsut to watch the Confederacy have a collective bad case of the vapors at the thought. But the rumors of his relationship with his African-American housekeeper are likely enough to keep him from the office.

Hamlin would be a good choice, of course. But if we want to go out of left field: How about Alexander Randall. Former governor of Wisconsin (of whom Camp Randall and later the stadium were named after), staunch abolitionist. In OTL, Lincoln named hims envoy to the Papal States and later Assistant Postmaster General (he would become full Postmaster General under Johnson). Considering he did a good job early in the war of organizing Wisonsin's contribution to the war effort (it exeeded the quota by almost 3.5 thousand men), I could see him having gotten another posting besides the Papal States, which would put him in a decent position.

There is also his OTL successor Lious P. Harvey who was a dynamic Civil War governor, but who is best known as being the only governor to lose his life while carrying out his duties as Commander in Chief of the state militia (he was overseeing the delivering of supplies to Wisconsin units, when he fell off the ship and was drowned in the Tennessee river). Assuming Randall still is appointed to a position in '61, and butterflying away Harvey's rather surprising death, I could see him running the state well enough to garner the nomination. He was also only in his early 40s at his death - so he's young and dynamic, in case people start getting worried about Lincoln's health.

 

[BrockSampson]

You might find a Southern Unionist who could pass the mustard with the more radical wing of the Party. As I've suggested in another thread, Joseph Holt (depending what he's been up to in this timeline) might be a good choice. In OTL his efforts helped the Unionist position in Kentucky, he was in favor of abolition (even if h still held many views about freedmen which would be considered less than enlightened today), had an even stronger hatred of the planter class than Johnson and was passionately loyal to Lincoln. in OTL, following the assassination, he came to truly believe that the assassination had been played by Jeff Davis and others in the Confederate government and wanted them to hang. I could see a longer, harder, and more brutal war, radicalizing him further and coming out in favor of greater rights to freedmen - especially if it let him undermine the planter class that started this damned war and make them suffer.

If not him, which northern politician would be a good choice? Part of me would love to see Thaddeus Stevens - jsut to watch the Confederacy have a collective bad case of the vapors at the thought. But the rumors of his relationship with his African-American housekeeper are likely enough to keep him from the office.

Hamlin would be a good choice, of course. But if we want to go out of left field: How about Alexander Randall. Former governor of Wisconsin (of whom Camp Randall and later the stadium were named after), staunch abolitionist. In OTL, Lincoln named hims envoy to the Papal States and later Assistant Postmaster General (he would become full Postmaster General under Johnson). Considering he did a good job early in the war of organizing Wisonsin's contribution to the war effort (it exeeded the quota by almost 3.5 thousand men), I could see him having gotten another posting besides the Papal States, which would put him in a decent position.

There is also his OTL successor Lious P. Harvey who was a dynamic Civil War governor, but who is best known as being the only governor to lose his life while carrying out his duties as Commander in Chief of the state militia (he was overseeing the delivering of supplies to Wisconsin units, when he fell off the ship and was drowned in the Tennessee river). Assuming Randall still is appointed to a position in '61, and butterflying away Harvey's rather surprising death, I could see him running the state well enough to garner the nomination. He was also only in his early 40s at his death - so he's young and dynamic, in case people start getting worried about Lincoln's health.

Those are great suggestions. Out of the lot, Holt sounds like a good pick for VP in regards to likely maintaining Lincoln’s ideals should the worst happen, as well as to “balance the ticket” as it were.

 

[NedStark]

I wonder, instead of Grant, could you get a professional civilian politician, preferrably with a New England background/root (even if they moved to other places later on), to succeed Lincoln? Because frankly, it seems to me that Grant's flaws just could not be waived away with mentoring.

It is quite obvious that many radicals/reformers/abolitionists of the 1850s-1860s had New England background.

 

[Timthehuman]

I do wonder how the more radical war will affect demographics in the post-war South. Obviously both blacks and whites will be ravaged by famine, but it seems that if the South goes full Paraguay the Deep South may end up being all majority black.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I wonder, instead of Grant, could you get a professional civilian politician, preferrably with a New England background/root (even if they moved to other places later on), to succeed Lincoln? Because frankly, it seems to me that Grant's flaws just could not be waived away with mentoring.

It is quite obvious that many radicals/reformers/abolitionists of the 1850s-1860s had New England background.

New England was the craddle of Radical Republicanism. Maybe one of them would be good... but after @DanMcCollum's post Holt seems like a very attractive choice. A Southerner who not only remained loyal to the Union but became a Radical? Good example of what you all rebels should have done.

I do wonder how the more radical war will affect demographics in the post-war South. Obviously both blacks and whites will be ravaged by famine, but it seems that if the South goes full Paraguay the Deep South may end up being all majority black.

We have discussed that in the past. My estimates, which may be subject to future change, were the following:

Military casualties:

1. Union: 650k to 750k dead, at least 2/3rds of disease. A further 700k to 1 million wounded.
2. Confederacy: 400k to 500k dead, at least 2/3rds of disease. A further 600k to 800k wounded.

Civilian casualties:

1. Union: 150k-200k dead, almost all of them in the Border States due to forced displacement which in turn resulted in disease and hunger. The majority of these casualties are Contrabands. Scarlet Fever epidemic in Pennsylvania and the Lower North, due to displacement and the moving of armies, causes the great majority of White casualties.
2. Confederacy: 700k to 800k dead, due to famine and epidemics in the last year of the war and during its aftermath.

This means that when all its counted, the casualties of the Civil War would be 1,8 million at the lowest and 2,2 million at the highest. Using the highest estimate, we would have the following:

Casualties of the Civil War

1. Total Dead: 2,2 million people, or 7,3% of the US population.
2. Total White dead: 1,75 million people, 5,8% of the US population and around 7% of the US White population.
3. Total Black dead: 450k people, 1,5% of the US population, and 9% of the US Black population.

Union Casualties

1. Union Dead: 1 million people, or 4,8% of the Union population.
2. Union White dead: 950k people, or 4,6% of the Union White population.
3. Union White males of military age dead: 800k people, or 15,6% of the Union White males of military age.
4. Union Black dead: 50k people, or 10% of the Black Union population (probably inaccurate since the Union estimates take into account Black Union soldiers, a lot of whom would actually be Southerners).

Confederate Casualties

1. Confederacy Dead: 1,2 million people, or 12,6% of the Confederate population.
2. Confederacy White dead: 800k people, or 15% of the Confederate White population.
3. Confederacy White males of military age dead: 600k people, or 45% of Confederate White males of military age.
4. Confederacy Black dead: 400k people, or 12% of the Confederate Black population.

At the end of the war, the states of the Southern Confederacy would have 7,9 million people left, of whom 3,1 million would be Black freedmen and 4,8 million would be White people. But the war would have had a disproportionate impact on White males - while the 3,1 million freedmen would still be almost 50% male and 50% female, with perhaps a slightly greater number of women, there would only be 700k males of military age left in the South. The rest of that 4,8 million are women, elderly men, and children. My best estimate would be 2,550 millon women to 2,150 millon men (55% female to 45% male), 1,450 of them elderly or children. There would be a disparity of 1,2 million young women to 700k young men (63% female to 37% male). It will be hard to find a good husband in Dixie.

Keep in mind, these are very rough and preliminary estimates. The dead toll could go even higher.

 

[BrockSampson]

We have discussed that in the past. My estimates, which may be subject to future change, were the following:

Military casualties:

1. Union: 650k to 750k dead, at least 2/3rds of disease. A further 700k to 1 million wounded.
2. Confederacy: 400k to 500k dead, at least 2/3rds of disease. A further 600k to 800k wounded.

Civilian casualties:

1. Union: 150k-200k dead, almost all of them in the Border States due to forced displacement which in turn resulted in disease and hunger. The majority of these casualties are Contrabands. Scarlet Fever epidemic in Pennsylvania and the Lower North, due to displacement and the moving of armies, causes the great majority of White casualties.
2. Confederacy: 700k to 800k dead, due to famine and epidemics in the last year of the war.

This means that when all its counted, the casualties of the Civil War would be 1,6 million at the lowest and 2 million at the highest. Using the highest estimate, we would have the following: Altogether, the North would have lost 800k to 900k people, overwhelmingly young White males. That's "just" 4% of the North's population, and 15% of its military age males. The South would have lost 800k to 1 million people, which, when broken down using the lowest estimate, means 600k white casualties, 400k of which are White males, and 200k Black casualties, more evenly balanced between male and female (Black Union soldiers are counted in the Union military dead). That's a devastating 15% of the South's White population, and over half of its White males of military age. That's also a terrible 10% of the Black population. Summed up, 20% of the South is dead by the end of the war. In total, the US would have lost 7,5% of its total population.

Casualties of the Civil War

1. Total Dead: 2,2 million people, or 7,3% of the US population.
2. Total White dead: 1,75 million people, 5,8% of the US population and around 7% of the US White population.
3. Total Black dead: 450k people, 1,5% of the US population, and 9% of the US Black population.

Union Casualties

1. Union Dead: 1 million people, or 4,8% of the Union population.
2. Union White dead: 950k people, or 4,6% of the Union White population.
3. Union White males of military age dead: 800k people, or 15,6% of the Union White males of military age.
4. Union Black dead: 50k people, or 10% of the Black Union population (probably inaccurate since the Union estimates take into account Black Union soldiers, a lot of whom would actually be Southerners).

Confederate Casualties

1. Confederacy Dead: 1,2 million people, or 12,6% of the Confederate population.
2. Confederacy White dead: 800k people, or 15% of the Confederate White population.
3. Confederacy White males of military age dead: 600k people, or 45% of Confederate White males of military age.
4. Confederacy Black dead: 400k people, or 12% of the Confederate Black population.

At the end of the war, the states of the Southern Confederacy would have 7,9 million people left, of whom 3,1 million would be Black freedmen and 4,8 million would be White people. But the war would have had a disproportionate impact on White males - while the 3,1 million freedmen would still be almost 50% male and 50% female, with perhaps a slightly greater number of women, there would only be 700k males of military age left in the South. The rest of that 4,8 million are women, elderly men, and children. My best estimate would be 2,550 millon women to 2,150 millon men (55% female to 45% male), 1,450 of them elderly or children. There would be a disparity of 1,2 million young women to 700k young men (63% female to 37% male). It will be hard to find a good husband in Dixie.

Keep in mind, these are very rough and preliminary estimates. The dead toll could go even higher.

I hate to ask but does that total also account for losses sustained in the first couple years after the war’s conclusion? If the South is devastated and much of the male population killed off, then famine, exposure, and disease are likely to be inevitable without massive support from federal and state governments. The loss of so many men, coupled with blacks who may decide to leave the plantations that held them in slavery, would by itself reduce crop yields and herded animals as there’s less people to tend to them.

Not to disparage the women who had to keep their homes up and running either. Given the era though, I would think they wouldn’t have as much expertise as their husbands/fathers/etc. simply due to what was expected of them at the time, namely raising kids and dealing with normal household duties. All that would take time away from being in the fields and learning the best practices.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I hate to ask but does that total also account for losses sustained in the first couple years after the war’s conclusion? If the South is devastated and much of the male population killed off, then famine, exposure, and disease are likely to be inevitable without massive support from federal and state governments. The loss of so many men, coupled with blacks who may decide to leave the plantations that held them in slavery, would by itself reduce crop yields and herded animals as there’s less people to tend to them.

Not to disparage the women who had to keep their homes up and running either. Given the era though, I would think they wouldn’t have as much expertise as their husbands/fathers/etc. simply due to what was expected of them at the time, namely raising kids and dealing with normal household duties. All that would take time away from being in the fields and learning the best practices.

Yes of course. I meant to write famines and epidemics during the last year of the war and its aftermath. After the war ends, as you say, the devastation will remain and claim more lives. Massive Federal support will be there in the form of the stronger and more interventionist Bureaus. But there's only so much they can do especially with guerrillas and outlaws still flooding the countryside.

 

[Arnold d.c]

A Southerner who not only remained loyal to the Union but became a Radical? Good example of what you all rebels should have done.

I guess there's Andrew J. Hamilton and Edmund J. Davis from Texas. Both were Texan Unionists who were forced to flee Texas due to the growing hostility of Texan Confederates. Hamilton was a former Congressman who IOTL was appointed as the military governor of Texas by Lincoln, a mostly empty role, and became the 11th Governor of Texas. That said, IIRC Hamilton was a moderate and possibly leaned on the conservative side. Davis was an ex-lawyer who commanded a regiment of Unionist Texan cavalry and later became the 14th Governor of Texas. Davis became a Radical Republican and organized the Texas State Police to tackle racial-based crimes and lawlessness in Texas.

Civilian casualties:

Come to think of it, civilian casualties during the OTL American Civil War really seems like a study that hasn't received too much attention. Unlike OTL, the ratio of civilian casualties to military casualties is more comparable to that of large-scale European wars. Perhaps given the greater brutality of the war ITTL, a greater amount of historical memory is dedicated to uncovering the losses.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Yes of course. I meant to write famines and epidemics during the last year of the war and its aftermath. After the war ends, as you say, the devastation will remain and claim more lives. Massive Federal support will be there in the form of the stronger and more interventionist Bureaus. But there's only so much they can do especially with guerrillas and outlaws still flooding the countryside.

Along with a Freedmens' Bureau which is more widespread, then, there needs to be a Womens' Bureau which aids the women to take control and "raise their children to accept the new way of equality in the South." Education will be crucial for htem, too, in farming and other thigns.

I'm not sure who would be best to lead this; it would be a man I'm sure, although it is a nice idea that the First Lady would be one of the kehy cogs I don''t think this would be the time yet. (Plus I think Mary Todd Lincoln suffered from some mental health issues even before Lincoln's assassination.) I did thnk of Julia Ward Howe, and her husbnad Samuel Gridley Howe was big in Reconstruction helping Freedmen and others anyway, so the two of them might be a good tandem to work with the women and children of the South. After all, it would make lots of sense to ensure that the most was made of this opportunity to educate them, too, and not just the former slaves.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Along with a Freedmens' Bureau which is more widespread, then, there needs to be a Womens' Bureau which aids the women to take control and "raise their children to accept the new way of equality in the South." Education will be crucial for htem, too, in farming and other thigns.

I'm not sure who would be best to lead this; it would be a man I'm sure, although it is a nice idea that the First Lady would be one of the kehy cogs I don''t think this would be the time yet. (Plus I think Mary Todd Lincoln suffered from some mental health issues even before Lincoln's assassination.) I did thnk of Julia Ward Howe, and her husbnad Samuel Gridley Howe was big in Reconstruction helping Freedmen and others anyway, so the two of them might be a good tandem to work with the women and children of the South. After all, it would make lots of sense to ensure that the most was made of this opportunity to educate them, too, and not just the former slaves.

I could see Harriet Beecher Stowe getting the nod - staunch abolitionist (I mean, obviously), literary, comes from an established and prominent family, and after the war in OTL she helped to found an art school. I don't know how successful she'd be, honestly - but if there is a Women's Bureau, she'd be one of the first names brought forth.

 

[Windows95]

Could worker owned cooperatives spring up in the South, along with agricultural cooperatives?

What about the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (the Grange) and the Knights of Labour (a trade union and worker cooperative advocate), will we see a more radical/labour republican movement popularized?

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Stowe would be an excellent choice. I wasn't sure how well a woman running such a bureau would be received in this time. However, it might also be argued that "they are only dealing with womens' matters" and so a woman leading them would be seen as appropriate.

Being deeply religious, Stowe would also likely point to Proverbs 31 and the fact that the "ideal woman" of Proverbs not only raises children but runs a household, controls money, and buys land.

It would be a great step forward for the Suffrage movement, too. And the fact someone who is not as well-known for that would probably not raise the concerns that would be if, say, Susan B. Anthony was put in charge. Even though the increasing education of women would probbly lead to earlier womens' suffrage.

 

[NedStark]

@Red_Galiray I think one way for the Republicans to outflank the Democrats on Civil Service Reforms is to rally state-level and local-level Republicans to form
state/local reforms movements to crush often Democratic political machines.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I guess there's Andrew J. Hamilton and Edmund J. Davis from Texas. Both were Texan Unionists who were forced to flee Texas due to the growing hostility of Texan Confederates. Hamilton was a former Congressman who IOTL was appointed as the military governor of Texas by Lincoln, a mostly empty role, and became the 11th Governor of Texas. That said, IIRC Hamilton was a moderate and possibly leaned on the conservative side. Davis was an ex-lawyer who commanded a regiment of Unionist Texan cavalry and later became the 14th Governor of Texas. Davis became a Radical Republican and organized the Texas State Police to tackle racial-based crimes and lawlessness in Texas.


Come to think of it, civilian casualties during the OTL American Civil War really seems like a study that hasn't received too much attention. Unlike OTL, the ratio of civilian casualties to military casualties is more comparable to that of large-scale European wars. Perhaps given the greater brutality of the war ITTL, a greater amount of historical memory is dedicated to uncovering the losses.

I'd rather have both of them still in Texas. That state is, unfortunately, probably one of those where Reconstruction is simply doomed to eventually end given demographics, but land redistribution and the defense of rights by men like Davis could result in a strong Black yeomanry that would prevent a complete "Redemption".

Yeah it's curious how understudied the civilian casualties of the war are. At the same time, it's impressive that they were so low, given that hundreds of thousands were dying in European wars, and literally millions in China.

Along with a Freedmens' Bureau which is more widespread, then, there needs to be a Womens' Bureau which aids the women to take control and "raise their children to accept the new way of equality in the South." Education will be crucial for htem, too, in farming and other thigns.

I'm not sure who would be best to lead this; it would be a man I'm sure, although it is a nice idea that the First Lady would be one of the kehy cogs I don''t think this would be the time yet. (Plus I think Mary Todd Lincoln suffered from some mental health issues even before Lincoln's assassination.) I did thnk of Julia Ward Howe, and her husbnad Samuel Gridley Howe was big in Reconstruction helping Freedmen and others anyway, so the two of them might be a good tandem to work with the women and children of the South. After all, it would make lots of sense to ensure that the most was made of this opportunity to educate them, too, and not just the former slaves.

I'm not sure how realistic an official "Women's Bureau" is, for the simple fact that sexism is widespread still. I mean, even though women and the Sanitary played a key, vital role, the offices created by their lobbying were still entrusted to men. But this is a very, very cool idea that I really like. Maybe a more informal organization, with government support, that informally becomes known as the "Women's Bureau" because, like the other Bureaus, it's working to reconstruct the South, only socially instead of economically or politically. The causes of this Bureau, such as education and good morals, were the causes that motivated a lot of female societies. And it could have a great effect on education, which, although officially tasked to the Freedmen's Bureau, could be deeply influenced by this nationalist moralism.

Could worker owned cooperatives spring up in the South, along with agricultural cooperatives?

What about the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (the Grange) and the Knights of Labour (a trade union and worker cooperative advocate), will we see a more radical/labour republican movement popularized?

The logic of Radical Republicanism, especially ITTL, will lead many Republicans to believe that Wage Slavery is the next great evil to overthrow, and that will probably result in rural organization. I mean, to some these Republicans might seem socialist revolutionaries, what with the commitment to destroy a hated aristocracy and radically transform a society by taking the property of those bigwigs and giving it to their former servants. Some Northern Radicals might very well conclude that they have to finish the job by enacting such wealth redistribution in the North as well.

Stowe would be an excellent choice. I wasn't sure how well a woman running such a bureau would be received in this time. However, it might also be argued that "they are only dealing with womens' matters" and so a woman leading them would be seen as appropriate.

Being deeply religious, Stowe would also likely point to Proverbs 31 and the fact that the "ideal woman" of Proverbs not only raises children but runs a household, controls money, and buys land.

It would be a great step forward for the Suffrage movement, too. And the fact someone who is not as well-known for that would probably not raise the concerns that would be if, say, Susan B. Anthony was put in charge. Even though the increasing education of women would probbly lead to earlier womens' suffrage.

Interestingly enough, something like this could lead to an earlier prohibition, given how involved women were in the temperance movement. And I don't like Prohibition.

@Red_Galiray I think one way for the Republicans to outflank the Democrats on Civil Service Reforms is to rally state-level and local-level Republicans to form
state/local reforms movements to crush often Democratic political machines.

I don't think the Republican machines were substantially more honest than their Democratic counterparts, except in the matter that they served Republican principles, often due to pragmatism or partisanship rather than genuine allegiance.

 

[NedStark]

I don't think the Republican machines were substantially more honest than their Democratic counterparts, except in the matter that they served Republican principles, often due to pragmatism or partisanship rather than genuine allegiance

I mean, often in Northeastern big cities, especially New York and Boston, the urban political machines were controlled by and gave support to the Democrats, with the Tammany Hall (which had been destroyed ITTL though) being the most infamous.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I mean, often in Northeastern big cities, especially New York and Boston, the urban political machines were controlled by and gave support to the Democrats, with the Tammany Hall (which had been destroyed ITTL though) being the most infamous.

This is true - but it would be a mistake to think that all political machines were 1) urban or 2) Democratic. During the postwar years, the Republicans got very good at creating machines themselves - the Wisconsin Stalwarts come to mind as a classic example, or the McKenzie Machine in North Dakota for instance. They were no less omnipresent, stiffling and blunt as their Democratic counterparts.

 

[dmg86]

Yeah. both parties had machines. That was the nature of politics in the US until the mid- 20th century. The machines usually controlled who got nominated and often it was one of their own.

 

[naraht]

I'd rather have both of them still in Texas. That state is, unfortunately, probably one of those where Reconstruction is simply doomed to eventually end given demographics, but land redistribution and the defense of rights by men like Davis could result in a strong Black yeomanry that would prevent a complete "Redemption".

Yeah it's curious how understudied the civilian casualties of the war are. At the same time, it's impressive that they were so low, given that hundreds of thousands were dying in European wars, and literally millions in China.


I'm not sure how realistic an official "Women's Bureau" is, for the simple fact that sexism is widespread still. I mean, even though women and the Sanitary played a key, vital role, the offices created by their lobbying were still entrusted to men. But this is a very, very cool idea that I really like. Maybe a more informal organization, with government support, that informally becomes known as the "Women's Bureau" because, like the other Bureaus, it's working to reconstruct the South, only socially instead of economically or politically. The causes of this Bureau, such as education and good morals, were the causes that motivated a lot of female societies. And it could have a great effect on education, which, although officially tasked to the Freedmen's Bureau, could be deeply influenced by this nationalist moralism.


The logic of Radical Republicanism, especially ITTL, will lead many Republicans to believe that Wage Slavery is the next great evil to overthrow, and that will probably result in rural organization. I mean, to some these Republicans might seem socialist revolutionaries, what with the commitment to destroy a hated aristocracy and radically transform a society by taking the property of those bigwigs and giving it to their former servants. Some Northern Radicals might very well conclude that they have to finish the job by enacting such wealth redistribution in the North as well.


Interestingly enough, something like this could lead to an earlier prohibition, given how involved women were in the temperance movement. And I don't like Prohibition.


I don't think the Republican machines were substantially more honest than their Democratic counterparts, except in the matter that they served Republican principles, often due to pragmatism or partisanship rather than genuine allegiance.

I commented in another Civil War thread (that included UK participation). The US Civil War simply *couldn't* rise to the level of death of the Taiping Rebellion in China. The entire population of the United States in 1860 was 31 Million (9 M in the CSA of which 3.5M were slaves), the estimates for deaths in the Taiping Rebellion generally run from 20-30 Million. Even at the low end, that means killing *every* person in the Confederacy and half the population of the North. That's beyond Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance levels. I appreciate that this TL will end up with a higher death count than OTL, but I'm not sure that killing 30 Million people in a North American war is even *feasible* in a war more than 15 years prior to Nuclear Weapons (You'd need a Nazi-USSR view on warfare in a USA-Mexican war, a fascist USA attacking Canada in 1930 would probably still not kill 30M)