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

[Drunkrobot]

I've thought about the possibilities of a second constitutional convention, for the second part of the TL. I don't think it could happen during the Civil War itself, when defending the Constitution and the legacy of the Founders became a big part of the rhetoric of the Union cause. But after the war I could see a Convention being called to propose reforms and, like the first, it ends up just rewriting the whole thing. I do believe certain changes are needed for the short-term success of reconstruction and long-term success of the nation. Among those I was thinking of was direct election of the President and Senators by a top-two run-off, changes in how the Supreme Courts works (term limits, different ways to appoint them, clarifying their powers), a line item veto for the President, term limits for the President, a clearer succession line, etc.

Lincoln did innovate in turning the focus of the Republican Party's source of claims of political legitimacy from the Constitution to the Declaration, in seeing within that earlier document a high moral standard of equality that even the Constitution as it was currently implemented had to yield to.

ITTL that has already changed since with the radical 13th amendment a future Congress can just declare gay marriage a right of the American people, and given that the amendment says quite clearly that the rights recognized in the laws of Congress cannot be denied, the power to force each and every State to recognize and perform gay marriages is there. So we already have a very important change in the history of American constitutionalism.


I think the biggest change is that Congress will be more willing to assert itself and its authority, especially with a friendly President. Though we now have a "Reconstructed Court" with a majority of Lincoln appointees, I can easily see Republicans arguing that they don't have to obey Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutionality of its laws because then the SC is merely creating legislation - and only the sovereign will of the people represented in Congress may do that. The result may be a much weaker Supreme Court, at least for a few decades. Indeed, ITTL they may be remembered as merely pawns of Lincoln and Congress, because they are unlikely to try to oppose the President and Congress may just strip their jurisdiction if they step out of line.

I'm sure some Brits in this time would write some very smug articles about the Yankees finally appreciating the wisdom of parliamentary supremacy.

But yeah, I could see the Supreme Court as the first turkey on the chopping block if the nation reached the point of a constitutional convention. Dredd Scott freaked Northerners out as an unelected body, armed with powers that itgavd itself rather than receiving from the Constitution, seemed to threaten to basically invalidate a state's right to not have slavery. ITTL Americans may find judicial review an idea too useful to give up, but might create a new body, a constitutional court, to take over from what the old Supreme Court did in that capacity.

A form of class conscience that I hope to exploit more in the upcoming chapters is that often Northern soldiers took pride in being actual working men and denigrated planters as being inherently bad as a class. There are countless accounts of them being gleeful at the miseries of the slavocracy or boasting of the radical changes the war brought - a soldier for example wrote with joy of a slaveholder that tried to reenslave a person, only for them, "Northern mudsills" to throw him up in the air. Joined with the resentment of the Confederate poor this could become a crusade that seeks to destroy planters as a class before the South can be remade in the image of the free labor North. It could also lead to greater racial solidarity, as these White workers feel identified with Black workers as fellow victims of the aristocrats.

An obstacle to that North-South class consciousness of course was the different reactions of working class whites to the growth and encroachment of the industrial and capitalist free market system. As McPherson said in Battle Cry of Freedom, Whig and Republican support came strongest from those who felt they benefitted from the market economy, like socially mobile white collar labour and farmers near transport hubs who appreciated things like banks and railways and mines and factories. Even if you were a blue-collar man, this system could give you the skills and opportunity to rise in your station, with the Western frontier a recourse for people to save up money and head out to establish themselves. Meanwhile, Democrats found support among the outsiders of an increasingly commercialised and industrialised nation - artisans who resented being pushed to waged labour, or yeomen farmers who might be worried about larger markets driving up the prices of their needs and down the prices of their produce.

I like that idea, as the American Marseillaise. For that I actually found modified lyrics from a 1904 performance that I think fit better as a national anthem. Maybe, similarly to how the Philippines has a war flag and a peace flag, the US could have a war anthem and a peace anthem.

Yes we'll rally round - the flag, boys, we'll rally once again.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom
We'll rally from the hillside, we'll gather, from the plain
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus.
The Union forever, hurrah boys, hurrah.
Bright in its glory shines ev'ry star.
While we rally round the flag boys, rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

We are springing to the call of our brothers gone before
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
And we'll fill the vacant ranks with a million patriots more.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus.

Oh, then rally round the flag boys wherever it may wave,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom;
From the Northland,, tried and true, from the Southland ever brave,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus.

So we're springing to the call from the East and from the West,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
And if need be we will die for the land we love best.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Hmm, the "boys" part may also require a change to be more inclusive.

How's this for a more gender-neutral version for the chorus and a verse, that keeps closer to at least how I would pronounce the syllables?

Out of many we are one, from the Mountains to the Main,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
None of us wear a crown, and neither will carry chains,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

The Union forever, unbroken and ours,
Hail to the banner, the Stripes and the Stars!
While we rally round the flag, oh rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

 

[Workable Goblin]

I don't think I would be too concerned about gender-neutral language in the national anthem, because if one is getting adopted in the late 19th or early 20th centuries no one will care, and by the time anyone does care it will be so entrenched that, well, no one will care (again). Just look at the Star-Spangled Banner; the criticism it faces is mostly about the difficulty of singing it, not about lines such as the hireling and the slave or about how it mentions freemen (admittedly in both cases in verses that no one sings...but there's likely to be unsung verses for any national anthem).

 

[Red_Galiray]

This talk of Labor Republicans is why I think you should consider the idea that it could be conservatives that split off from the Republican Party instead while supporting the spoil system. A much more labor friendly Republican is elected in 1868, conservatives push Grant in 1872 who supports the spoil system but still fights to integrate the South, and then the more liberal ones go back to Garfield.

I like that modified Battle Cry of Freedom. "Boys" could easily become "all." Perhaps with some politician making the sarcastic comment that "We'll throw those Southerners a bone. We'll turn that into y'all."

What I actually was envisioning was the Republicans going the way of the Whigs and simply disappearing once the divisions between the Socialists Workingmen and the Conservative and Liberal Republicans become two much. You can hardly have people who say “Property is not equally divided, and a more equal distribution of capital must be wrought out", and people who say that socialism was confiscation that would place the States "at the mercy of a majority composed of half-barbarous laborers" in the same party. But that would be in the future. I want as united a Republican party as possible for the Reconstruction years.

with

Dixie has such good tune it has to be emancipated from supporting slavery

National Anthem should probably be Battle cry of Freedom and the Under God in pledge of Allegiance was only added in the 20th century same with in god we trust (fucking red scares). Battle Hym of the Republic feeds into my up bringing of growing up in America and Christianity and being taught that were good and I should love them, my up bringing succeeded in that, but it left horribly disillusioned once I actually learned reality about what both actually do and are. So Battle Hym of the Republic allows a tiny escapism for me.

yes y'all is the most inclusive hahahahaha

Lincoln did love Dixie after all. Maybe the Union version could become the most well known one ITTL lol.

Lincoln did innovate in turning the focus of the Republican Party's source of claims of political legitimacy from the Constitution to the Declaration, in seeing within that earlier document a high moral standard of equality that even the Constitution as it was currently implemented had to yield to.

There's some of that here as well, in how the new amendment incorporates language from the Declaration.

Out of many we are one, from the Mountains to the Main,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
None of us wear a crown, and neither will carry chains,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

The Union forever, unbroken and ours,
Hail to the banner, the Stripes and the Stars!
While we rally round the flag, oh rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

Not ball at all!

I don't think I would be too concerned about gender-neutral language in the national anthem, because if one is getting adopted in the late 19th or early 20th centuries no one will care, and by the time anyone does care it will be so entrenched that, well, no one will care (again). Just look at the Star-Spangled Banner; the criticism it faces is mostly about the difficulty of singing it, not about lines such as the hireling and the slave or about how it mentions freemen (admittedly in both cases in verses that no one sings...but there's likely to be unsung verses for any national anthem).

Of course not, I was talking more about my sensibilities than anything. But, I am sure Victoria Woodhull and her crew would care about the anthem seemingly only talking about American boys. I could see a symbolic version that says "We'll rally round the flag, girls, we'll rally once again", similar to how they made a "Declaration of Sentiments".

 

[President Earl Warren]

One possibility is that the Republican Party would go full on PRI, Party Boss politics across the entire Union. I mean theyd have the majorities to do it, and Politics at this time was a very very dirty buissness. Even Lincoln was highly involved in Spoils politics. Create a sustainable coaliton based around Blacks, Protestant Northerners and Big Buissness, and hand everyone involved big wins while the opposition is divided. Really, I can see it lasting all the way into the second half of the 20th century.

 

[Drunkrobot]

There's some of that here as well, in how the new amendment incorporates language from the Declaration.

Should a new constitution be deliberated on, I can foresee some tension between people who want to stick to the even by then increasingly archaic language of the founding documents, and people who want a constitution written in more modern plain English.

Not ball at all!

I'm afraid I don't know what this means.

One possibility is that the Republican Party would go full on PRI

What is the PRI? Is it a political party?

But I see your point, some Republicans might want to maximise the effect of them seeming to command the numerically largest coalition across the nation, by institing on more majoritarian systems with powerful executives. Of course, some of their colleagues may be quick to point out how easily this might backfire on them should their currently-smote opponents one day topple the Republican-leaning party system.

 

[LelouchOfTheBarBrawl]

What is the PRI? Is it a political party?

Institutional Revolutionary Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[xt828]

Should a new constitution be deliberated on, I can foresee some tension between people who want to stick to the even by then increasingly archaic language of the founding documents, and people who want a constitution written in more modern plain English.

I think at this point it would be relatively uncontroversial to update the language, if the constitution was being revised, as those doing so are only a couple of generations removed from the authors of the original and the language is old fashioned rather than archaic. If you look at the confederate constitution as a comparative example, they did update the language to reflect mid-19th century standard, and it's quite interesting.

 

[NedStark]

One interesting candidate is Oliver Morton, Governor of Indiana. IOTL, he was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights, and he was so sqeaky clean that none of his critics could make corruption accusations stick.

 

[Red_Galiray]

One possibility is that the Republican Party would go full on PRI, Party Boss politics across the entire Union. I mean theyd have the majorities to do it, and Politics at this time was a very very dirty buissness. Even Lincoln was highly involved in Spoils politics. Create a sustainable coaliton based around Blacks, Protestant Northerners and Big Buissness, and hand everyone involved big wins while the opposition is divided. Really, I can see it lasting all the way into the second half of the 20th century.

That's possible, but I believe some political dissent is inevitable. A party can't last if it tries to represent both the interests of the downtrodden and the rich, which at some point will come to a head. I think some sort of populist wave will come.

Should a new constitution be deliberated on, I can foresee some tension between people who want to stick to the even by then increasingly archaic language of the founding documents, and people who want a constitution written in more modern plain English.


I'm afraid I don't know what this means.


What is the PRI? Is it a political party?

But I see your point, some Republicans might want to maximise the effect of them seeming to command the numerically largest coalition across the nation, by institing on more majoritarian systems with powerful executives. Of course, some of their colleagues may be quick to point out how easily this might backfire on them should their currently-smote opponents one day topple the Republican-leaning party system.

I meant "not bad at all". It was a typo.

That's why I think some reforms, especially electing the president and senators by a top-two runoff, could be on the table. Republicans believe themselves to be a clear majority, so without the electoral college they would win every election no matter if the opposition is a majority in one state or another. This, incidentally, motivates them to get out every vote, including the African American vote, whereas OTL they could write off those states as lost if they can't carry them. With the reform it wouldn't matter if, say, Mississippi had an opposition majority, every Republican vote there would still count for the nationwide total. Skipping the legislatures may also earn some reform adherents.

I think at this point it would be relatively uncontroversial to update the language, if the constitution was being revised, as those doing so are only a couple of generations removed from the authors of the original and the language is old fashioned rather than archaic. If you look at the confederate constitution as a comparative example, they did update the language to reflect mid-19th century standard, and it's quite interesting.

What would you say are the most interesting differences, purely from a language standpoint?

One interesting candidate is Oliver Morton, Governor of Indiana. IOTL, he was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights, and he was so sqeaky clean that none of his critics could make corruption accusations stick.

Hm, he might be an interesting choice indeed.

 

[President Earl Warren]

That's possible, but I believe some political dissent is inevitable. A party can't last if it tries to represent both the interests of the downtrodden and the rich, which at some point will come to a head. I think some sort of populist wave will come.

Yes dissent is inevitable. It can also be ballot stuffed away. This is the age of Tammany hall, blatant Party handouts (Lincoln got in on this too, with lots of shoddy civil service appointments) and the like. So long as you maintain a good servicible base, you can manage to keep in power with these methods. The Republicans couldn’t do this OTL because the Democrats had been an organized political force against them. Now with the Democrats gone? There’s nothing to stop abunch of party machines to pop up and do their thing across the country and keep doing thing until they are forced from power by a catastrophe.

 

[xt828]

What would you say are the most interesting differences, purely from a language standpoint?

I suppose there's a fine line between adding clarifications and updating language. I should qualify that I am in no way a constitutional scholar, nor am I an American, so there may be nuance that I miss. Setting aside the slavery elements, and breezing over the interstate commerce and improvements weirdness, I think these are some of the more interesting changes between the two, using the numbering from the CSA document.

The Preamble adds God, which is potentially interesting in the sense of the same not being threaded through the document, such as in the presidential oath.
Article 1 II.1 adds specific qualifications excluding a person from being eligible to vote, which if incorporated could later be used to challenge exclusion from voting on any other basis.
II.5 adds the ability for states to launch impeachment against federal officers solely operating within the confines of a state, which suggests that oversight was seen as an issue, and also would likely lead to federal institutions being deliberately cross-border in approach.
IV.1 specifying that the process and timing of elections in each state is explicitly subject to to the provisions of the constitution potentially gives grounds for congressional or federal involvement in districting.
VI.1 merges the US VI.1 and VI.2, but also adds a semi-parliamentary ability to have heads of departments be required to attend either House and respond to questioning.
VII.2 adds a line item veto for the president, and coupled with later items there is a distinct push for bills to be very focused and specific.
Section VIII.4 specifies that debts cannot be discharged by laws regarding bankruptcies being passed, which is interesting
IX.6 appears to allow for internal tariffs by 2/3 vote, which is part of a push in the confederate document to allow for regulated internal commerce, and to limit the intervention of the federal government in such
IX.9 and 10 are very interesting in that they add substantial financial oversight to bills and appear aimed at preventing cost overruns
The integration of the Bill of Rights and other amendments directly only makes sense to me.
IX.13 (the Second Amendment) removes some of those debated commas and is fairly explicit that the right to bear arms is directly linked to the need for a well regulated militia, which could lead to a different gun control debate.
Article II I.1 adds a term limit to the presidency, though not the vice, and also extends the duration in office.
I.3 fixes up the vice presidency from the original by adding the 12th amendment, and also clarifying a bit
II.3 adds detail about dismissing staff, and specifies that Congress is to be informed of the dismissal and the reason, which is potentially a significant increase in transparency for the federal government
II.4 specifies that recess appointments can't be people previously rejected, which seems fair
Article 4, II.2 specifies that the person must have committed crimes against the laws of that state in order to be returned to it. I can't put my finger on how, but I feel like there's room for clashes between states with differing laws here.
III.1 specifies the requirements around admitting new states
III.2 removes the limitation that Congress's power to make rules and regulations concerning federal property and land does not prejudice the claims of the states. This is interesting as it suggests the states are cut out of land use conversations at the will of congress, and could potentially empower agencies like the EPA, while also making state regulations able to be overridden.
Article 5 significantly lowers the barrier to proposing, agreeing and ratifying amendments to the constitution

 

[Drunkrobot]

That's why I think some reforms, especially electing the president and senators by a top-two runoff, could be on the table. Republicans believe themselves to be a clear majority, so without the electoral college they would win every election no matter if the opposition is a majority in one state or another. This, incidentally, motivates them to get out every vote, including the African American vote, whereas OTL they could write off those states as lost if they can't carry them. With the reform it wouldn't matter if, say, Mississippi had an opposition majority, every Republican vote there would still count for the nationwide total. Skipping the legislatures may also earn some reform adherents.

It would be one of the ironies of history if Lincoln pushes or enables an amendment that changes the rules for how to become president to a set that he himself likely never would have been able to win if they were in place in 1860.

But speaking of the African-American vote, white civil rights republicans that support such majoritarian measures to keep the South down might be a bit blindsided by the speed at which the freed population politically organise; within only a few years of the Civil Rights Amendments previously enslaved blacks were organising mass protests against segregationist policies in the south, much like their descendants would 90 years later. Some of those now politically-active blacks might ask their white colleagues questions about what majoritarian measures like the spoils system might mean for those black people in Southern states where they are the definite minority, and where it may be possible for enough white southerners to unite into a bloc that implicitly enables white supremacy, even if unable to put it into formal law. It's reasonable to think there will be friction between black organisations, some new and some pre-war that swell extraordinarily in their ranks thanks to the new large and money-earning population now free to join them, and white Republicans, even some radicals, who are used to having whatever good they do for black Americans being accepted by most black leaders as the most that they could do. Some might appreciate it as a group's newfound ability to bargain and choose their allies, but others might see it as treacherous ungratefulness.

 

[Ironshark]

did ya'll hear about Gen Grants' new promotion?







He's going to be general of Armies with Pershing and Washington

 

[Blackroot38]

did ya'll hear about Gen Grants' new promotion?







He's going to be general of Armies with Pershing and Washington

About time, all that needs to be said.

 

[Worffan101]

did ya'll hear about Gen Grants' new promotion?







He's going to be general of Armies with Pershing and Washington

About time for one of the greatest men to ever lead America in war or in peace.

 

[Mayukh]

About time for one of the greatest men to ever lead America in war or in peace.

Uh.... About the peace part,umm... wasn't hi cabinet a bit corrupt?

 

[Worffan101]

Uh.... About the peace part,umm... wasn't hi cabinet a bit corrupt?

He wasn't the best President, but his military leadership was outstanding in the extreme. I'd put him up there with FDR and Washington for his military achievements alone.

 

[PragmaticAntithesis]

One possibility is that the Republican Party would go full on PRI, Party Boss politics across the entire Union. I mean theyd have the majorities to do it, and Politics at this time was a very very dirty buissness. Even Lincoln was highly involved in Spoils politics. Create a sustainable coaliton based around Blacks, Protestant Northerners and Big Buissness, and hand everyone involved big wins while the opposition is divided. Really, I can see it lasting all the way into the second half of the 20th century.

This kind of cursed alliance could well be fertile ground for Georgism (an anti-land-ownership ideology that was lambasted from all sides IOTL for being too moderate for socialists but too radical for everyone else).
Blacks will associate land ownership with their old masters; protestant northerners would balk at the assertion of landowners making money without working while also possibly having religious justifications like "do not claim God's work as your own"; and big business will see it as a much better alternative to the workers rising in rebellion.

 

[Worffan101]

Uh.... About the peace part,umm... wasn't hi cabinet a bit corrupt?

Sorry, I've been really sick and I realized that my wording in my first post was unclear as hell.

My meaning is, Grant's war performance was an exceptional deed, and he as a person was IMO quite admirable, considering the era he lived in. His leadership as President was not great, but his wartime deeds are worthy IMO of similar praise to the peacetime deeds of Washington and FDR.

He 100% deserves the posthumous honor/

 

[diestormlie]

Have recently finished reading this TL, and I can only say that I am hungry for more.

Something interesting that I would like to raise (which may have been raised already, I haven't trawled through every comment.) The far firmer commitments to securing Civil Rights, the far more vigorous program of land redistribution and the success of the Home Farm system could well have interesting effect on post Civil-War demography.

I believe that it was expected, post OTL Civil War, that at least one state (Mississippi?) Was soon to become African-American majority. It didn't happen, as far as I remember, due to the 'great migration' of African Americans to the more northern states.

I would posit that African Americans, ITTL, would be far less prone to migrating northwards. They have (compared to OTL, it seems to me) wider ranging and more vigorously defended political and civil rights. Perhaps more importantly, I can't imagine that the newly created 'Black Yeomanry' would be much inclined to give up their newly won lands and livelihoods in exchange the uncertain future of industrial jobs in the north.

All that, combined with the earlier and deeper usage of the USCT, thus producing a large population of Black (African American) men with land and rights to defend, familiar with war and weapons? The KKK is going to have one HELL of a fight on its hands.