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

Honestly I imagine that the republican troops will be trying to aliviate the famine issue, at least a little bit so they don't get their barracks overrun with starved and most likely diseased refugees, Freedman will have a better time since they'll have their own land they'll most likely have some crops that are enough that they can avoid starving,. wouldn't surprise me if guerrillas or just desperate whites started attacking their farms both because of food and because they're outraged at the idea of blacks having their own land, which will lead to either Federal troops or black militias driving them back and will lead to the myth of "abolitionist troops firing at starving women and children!" Among particularly bitter southerners. Although I can also see some callous Northerners saying that the southerners "deserve" to starve because of them continuing the war or simply as God's punishment, either way, it'll be a tragedy that will be a part of the national southern conscience, both white and black, as a sort of Biblical Apocalypse as famine, war, disease and death come from a unstoppable force, but while blacks will see it in the same way the apocalypse ends with them being freed of a evil world by the forces of good and getting their New Jerusalem, the whites will see it as the triumph of the antichrist over the forces of good, there will be a lot of conflict between them for sure
The issue is more of the transportation crisis towards the war's end. IOTL the Tennessee River Valley, Georgia and Northern Alabama had reached near-starvation level in late '64-65. It also seems like Union commanders underestimated the needed supplies for humanitarian efforts - Thomas was surprised at the disbursement of 45,000 pounds of meat per week to civilians in Atlanta and surrounding areas, which was responded with a note that relief efforts actually needed 30,000 pounds of meat per day (210,000 pounds per week). Relief efforts were hampered by the damage done to the Western & Atlantic RR.
Isn't the guy just placed under Grant the same one whose last words were quote they can't hit an elephant at this- AAAAAAHHHH!" That needs to be someone's last words before this is over. :)
While Sedgwick has the most famous last words, there are actually quite a few good last words:
  • "A bullet has not been molded that will kill me!" - during the Siege of Vicksburg, CSA general Martin E. Green picked up a musket and declared this as he stood up to dish one out to a Yankee sharpshooter. He died.
  • "Young man, you are exposing yourself unnecessarily, and had better get to cover." - General Polk, CSA, before getting torn apart by a Union shell
  • "You are firing on our own men!" - General JKF Mansfield, USA, trying to stop his vanguard from firing. They were, in fact, not friends and fired on him.
  • "Hurrah, boys! We've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station." - Custer's Last Stand - ok, I'm cheating here but Custer was a general in the American Civil War and had his 'first last stand' as some historians call it at the Battle of Trevilian Station in 1864.
There were also several quotes from Grant and Sherman that would have made for good ironic last words:
  • An exasperated Sherman at Bull Run chided his men for ducking each time a loud bang happened and said something along the lines of 'no use in ducking shells, for by the time the sound could be heard, it's already passed or gone off' - Sherman then proceeded to duck when a rebel shell exploded next to him. Thusly chided, Sherman joked, “Well, boys, you may dodge the big ones!"
  • Grant has a similar experience at the start of the Third Vicksburg Campaign at Port Gibson. Governor Richard Yates of Illinois was getting jittery as stray and some aimed bullets came at Grant and the governor, so the governor began riding to and fro. Rather annoyed by the visiting politician, Grant remarked, "Governor, it's too late to dodge after the bullet has passed."
  • Another one from Grant - “Well, I suppose I ought not to have gone down there.” During the Sixth Petersburg Offensive, Grant rode up to the front to see for himself if the offensive should be aborted early. His horse's legs got entangled in fallen telegraph wire all the while the general was exposed to sharpshooter and artillery fire from the opposite bank. Instead of getting off the horse and getting to cover, Grant was instead admonishing an aide for hurting his horse as the aide worked to untangle the horse.
Keep him from wanting the silver standard and I'm sold.
It really depends on how US monetary policy goes ITTL. The US government flirted with a bimetallic standard in mid-1870s and agrarian debtors in the South and Midwest were pro-silver because they (correctly) assessed that the ongoing deflation meant a rising real debt burden to them. That said, the international market was shifting towards a gold standard so I'm not sure if that much could be changed.
 
I wonder if a Populist coalition between poor blacks and poor whites would mean fairly generous support for family farms throughout much of the south. Something analogous to France, where things are less urbanized than a similarly industrialized neon (outside of Paris, at least) and the countryside is still strongly idealized.
 
Dear Lord, great for Sherman but things are not looking good for the North.
It is merely the darkness before the dawn. I realize it's frustrating but believe me, it's necessary for the war to last a little longer for my future purposes.

Sherman do it again! (The Marching to the sea. Not so much the callousness towards the Freedmen.)
Soon he will be marching through Georgia ;) After all, marching through Alabama just doesn't have the same ring.

I wonder if Sherman's behavior will balance out his postwar popularity in areas not named the South.
A more radical Reconstruction would probably result in a more critical view of Sherman. More similar to, say, Patton or McArthur, where some praise his ruthless patriotism but don't forget his racism.

Hopefully Atlanta is taken in time (or some other major union victory occurs like in OTL)
The pieces are all set, but I'll leave you in suspense for a little while longer ;)


Great update! It'll be interesting to see the civilian reaction and situation in these months. With regards to the backlash to Radical Republican measures, I think that it won't be limited to just votes in the retaken slave states. Maryland, Louisiana, Kentucky and Missouri are all hotspots for another uprising or riots against Republican policies. There's also the Southern food situation - a post-war famine is going to happen and one of the breadbaskets of the South (Black Prairie) has been set ablaze or taken over by freedmen. The maps of the campaign are below:
As always, thank you for your maps and my sincere gratitude for your invaluable help! Yes, the situation in Kentucky especially is reaching critical levels, as we'll see soon. And lamentably some areas of the South are near famine level already.

Man, this Yankee generals are a bunch of indecisive cowards. They are just cosplayers with great egos. Only Sherman and some others seems to know their job.
Lincoln surely shares your sentiments. I will be honest and admit that the poor performance of some generals, such as Hancock and Schofield, is based on me disliking them due to their racist and reactionary OTL beliefs. Both were commanders under Johnson who did little to protect the freedmen during Presidential Reconstruction, and I would rather not have such men in high esteem. At the same time, I do base their performances in their OTL records and flaws. Hancock, in this case, was in truth disliked by Grant IOTL - those quotes calling him vain and weak are all real. I believe it's plausible for Hancock's flaws to be magnified by getting overall command. Unfortunately, that has led to disaster.

Honestly I imagine that the republican troops will be trying to aliviate the famine issue, at least a little bit so they don't get their barracks overrun with starved and most likely diseased refugees, Freedman will have a better time since they'll have their own land they'll most likely have some crops that are enough that they can avoid starving,. wouldn't surprise me if guerrillas or just desperate whites started attacking their farms both because of food and because they're outraged at the idea of blacks having their own land, which will lead to either Federal troops or black militias driving them back and will lead to the myth of "abolitionist troops firing at starving women and children!" Among particularly bitter southerners. Although I can also see some callous Northerners saying that the southerners "deserve" to starve because of them continuing the war or simply as God's punishment, either way, it'll be a tragedy that will be a part of the national southern conscience, both white and black, as a sort of Biblical Apocalypse as famine, war, disease and death come from a unstoppable force, but while blacks will see it in the same way the apocalypse ends with them being freed of a evil world by the forces of good and getting their New Jerusalem, the whites will see it as the triumph of the antichrist over the forces of good, there will be a lot of conflict between them for sure
Basically all you describe is on point. The Federals are trying to bring relief to many areas, but their efforts are obstructed by several factors. First, the Southern transportation network is collapsed. Military supplies have priority and need to be moved under heavy guard. Food is often stolen, and if it reaches its target it may be stolen there by guerrillas. Northerners are also ideologically opposed to long-term relief, so they often just straight up abandon the freedmen or the refugees, who struggle to raise enough food. All these factors also contributed to massive displacement, resulting in refugees moving through the country and concentrating in a few areas, which in turn leads to disease spreading.


I don't remember who the Democrats chose for their candidate. Is it Hancock? I don't think it could be mcclellan, Hancock is in the position McClellan was in our timeline, having done really poorly but not... well almost treason-like the way McClellan looks in this timeline. So I suppose they could nominate Hancock.
I actually haven't said yet! We will explore all that in the next update.

God damnit, for once I want a TL where the Union troops go around the damn crater in the Battle of the Crater.
Me too, but the war can't end yet. I do wonder, however, what the effects of a successful Crater would be.

So if McPherson exists in this world, does that mean most OTL historical figures will still be born? It'd be interesting seeing what careers later US history figures have in this version of the US
This is one of those things I just have to ask you to suspend your disbelief for. Every time a historians is mentioned, they are a real-life individual and I'm quoting from real books. The list is in the first post. With this I don't mean to imply anything about the historians or how the TL deals with butterflies. It's just me trying to be honest by not plagiarizing. I find it highly interesting when TL's are written with in-story historians and books - for example, see @EnglishCanuck's TL which does it in a very charming way. But that's not my style, so the reader can only accept that James McPherson and Eric Foner and others somehow were still born, still became historians, and still wrote books that are largely the same as in OTL. I do think that most OTL people until, like, the 1930's should still be born unless something ought to have affected them directly.

Woodrow Wilson could be so scarred by This more horrific Civil War that if he survives he might well become a real life Edith Keeler. Using a position in education to become an extreme pacifist who seeks to avoid war at any cost. His writings could be very interesting in this time linecome though he might still be racist he would be much more focused on the butchery of just everyone. And his vision of a league of nations Or even a more central world government being much more focused on preventing war than even in our timeline.
You're right, I haven't considered that Wilson is right now just a child in wartime Georgia. But man, I despise Woodrow Wilson. Maybe he could cameo later as an intelectual.

Aww man, big shame TTL's battle of the crater was bungled same as OTL. A lost opportunity to have a very cool battle. At least Grant is finally in direct command of the army. Time to plow ahead!

Fall of '64 and we're already seeing Paraguay-esque mobilizations of boys. The CSA is going down in flames.

And it seems we're actually getting "forty acres and a mule" rolled out on a large scale! Oh yeah. Glad the Northern authorities could get Sherman in shape. I noticed that a lot of the things done to improve the lot of freed slaves is done out of pragmatism by otherwise-racist Northerners looking for a way to maintain order in the countryside or lessen their logistical burdens. Seems there's a moral here, about how acting on racism rather than proper logic is fundamentally deleterious to everyone.

The coming battle of Atlanta seems it will be decisive.
Things are only going to get worse for the Rebs.

I believe it's more believable if Northerners are still racist but willing to take the right measures out of pragmatism. It would be unrealistic and naive to simply say the racism is all gone and they are all egalitarians now.


Young man, you are exposing yourself unnecessarily, and had better get to cover." - General Polk, CSA, before getting torn apart by a Union shell
Huh, I actually could have totally used this one.

Red!


[I have to admit it I giggled for a couple of minutes]
My God, that is such a godawful pun - I hope that merchant's wares are among the first to burn at the end of the siege.
To be fair, the OTL quote also was a pun, just with Hood's name: Richards said Hood was trying to "Hood-wink" the enemy. Naturally I have to make a pun of my own, and I do think it's quite terrible. Sorry not sorry.

I wonder if a Populist coalition between poor blacks and poor whites would mean fairly generous support for family farms throughout much of the south. Something analogous to France, where things are less urbanized than a similarly industrialized neon (outside of Paris, at least) and the countryside is still strongly idealized.
I believe the city and industry is still likely to be seen as the thing to aspire to, especially by later generations of Black youth who will grow up in freedom and with more economic stability than their OTL counterparts. But some kind of agrarian populism is a given.

Ww1 still goes on like otl?
I didn't mean to imply that WW1 as we know it happens ITTL. I was intentionally vague, mentioning merely some unknown early 20th century wars, because it's almost certain that there will be wars in Europe with technology and conditions similar to our WW1. But it won't be like WW1. What countries will take part, for what reason, in which alliances? I don't know! I haven't planned that far ahead and I prefer to focus on the US before thinking of butterflies in Europe.

Even if WWI doesn't go like OTL in the particulars, if a major war happens at that time, assuming no major tech divergences, trenches warfare Ala WWI is still nearly inevitable.
Yes, exactly.
 
It is merely the darkness before the dawn. I realize it's frustrating but believe me, it's necessary for the war to last a little longer for my future purposes.
I trust you and i cannot wait to see the north basking in the glow of Victory as the south plunders to the dephts of utter defeat and despair.
 
You're right, I haven't considered that Wilson is right now just a child in wartime Georgia. But man, I despise Woodrow Wilson. Maybe he could cameo later as an intelectual.
It's a tough call because in one way you could easily have Wilson die around age 7 or so in the famine, he was sickly as a child. But that would also increase sympathy for him and I don't know if you'd want to do that.

As for the historian , Someone in my family has the same name as a famous broadcaster who would be about the same age, though he is not a broadcaster himself or even related, so maybe it's easier for me but it seems like it should be pretty obvious that a historian could have the same name but not be the same person or even right in the same decade. It's not like the names you're using are that uncommon.
 
Hope that our Union boys would get a proper cinematic epic ITTL, instead of the atrocity known as Birth of a Nation.
If birth of a nation was made ITTL with the way the war has went, I'd say it would be basically wrecked by anyone not a southern fanatic and basically banned all across the north and even some southern states
 
Yes, the situation in Kentucky especially is reaching critical levels, as we'll see soon.
It's been a while since Kentucky was in the spotlight. I assume that Federal commanders Burbridge and Paine are enacting their "reign of terror" on Kentucky's guerrilla problem? Breckinridge's higher status and a more radical war should have interesting impacts on Kentucky's elite, which seemed tentatively pro-Union at best or neutral IOTL. Would it be possible that pro-Confederate officials aid the guerrillas in someway?
Hancock, in this case, was in truth disliked by Grant IOTL - those quotes calling him vain and weak are all real. I believe it's plausible for Hancock's flaws to be magnified by getting overall command. Unfortunately, that has led to disaster.
From previous discussions, Hancock's flaws are as follows:
  • Hancock could pass off the blame/failure to someone else - particularly Hunt at Gettysburg and Gibbon at Wilderness. In the former, Hunt had ordered his artillery batteries to cease firing one by one to give the impression that Lee's bombardment prior to Pickett's Charge was successful. Hancock, on the other hand, insisted that the artillery batteries under II Corps keep firing, wasting long-range ammunition that could have been better used as the rebel infantry approached. Hunt and Hancock never reconciled over the matter, fighting over it post-war. In the latter, Hancock falsely claimed that Gibbon had failed to reinforce Hancock's flank from Longstreet's flank attack; the problem is that Gibbon actually did so, sending a brigade exactly as Hancock requested. This spiraled out into an ugly fight between the II Corps commander and the II Corps' star division commander.
  • Hancock was rather passive and inexperienced at a strategic level - Grant handed Hancock an independent command for the Deep Bottom expedition and privately admitted that the results were greatly disappointing. It is possibly due to his wound in contrast to his energy at Gettysburg. Hancock had caused a major traffic jam and squandered the surprise Grant's move had achieved. Following initial success, Hancock then made no serious attempt to achieve the operation's primary objectives and constantly sought to suggestions from the higher ups. At the same time, the weak substance of his unseemly public beratings of soon to be ex-friend Gibbon cast further doubt on his judgment.
Huh, I actually could have totally used this one.
The whole episode was pretty stupid. It sounds absolutely convenient that Johnson, Hardee and Polk would be all mounted on horses atop the mountain, silhouetted against the horizon in front of a Union artillery battery and Sherman just happened to be there to override previous orders to conserve ammunition . If all three had died then, Hood would have been put in command and all historians would have been talking about how this was the death knell of the Confederacy.
To be fair, the OTL quote also was a pun, just with Hood's name: Richards said Hood was trying to "Hood-wink" the enemy. Naturally I have to make a pun of my own, and I do think it's quite terrible. Sorry not sorry.
Ugh, reading his diary it appears that his wares made it out just fine. Still, his diary made for an interesting read. The man apparently left Atlanta and managed to reach to New York. The man continued to support the Confederacy and was apparently nearly conscripted into the Union Army.
I didn't mean to imply that WW1 as we know it happens ITTL. I was intentionally vague, mentioning merely some unknown early 20th century wars, because it's almost certain that there will be wars in Europe with technology and conditions similar to our WW1. But it won't be like WW1. What countries will take part, for what reason, in which alliances? I don't know! I haven't planned that far ahead and I prefer to focus on the US before thinking of butterflies in Europe.
Conceptually, there is one way to avoid the utter nightmare of WW1 trench warfare/make it less bad - a quick war a la Seven Weeks War/Franco-Prussian War. Early trenches were simply nice straight and narrow ditches that were rarely continuous and barely capable of covering a standing man. There were no traverses, were severely overcrowded, and were extremely vulnerable to artillery fire. Many of these early trenches were the graves of many soldiers as nearby exploding artillery fire collapsed the walls and buried the men alive as they knelt for protection. In the next war, technology ought to have changed enough that trench warfare doesn't happen again... unless both sides believed that copying the winners' elan/superior tactics/marksmanship skills is good enough and ignoring motorization/tanks to restore mobility.
 
Conceptually, there is one way to avoid the utter nightmare of WW1 trench warfare/make it less bad - a quick war a la Seven Weeks War/Franco-Prussian War. Early trenches were simply nice straight and narrow ditches that were rarely continuous and barely capable of covering a standing man. There were no traverses, were severely overcrowded, and were extremely vulnerable to artillery fire. Many of these early trenches were the graves of many soldiers as nearby exploding artillery fire collapsed the walls and buried the men alive as they knelt for protection. In the next war, technology ought to have changed enough that trench warfare doesn't happen again... unless both sides believed that copying the winners' elan/superior tactics/marksmanship skills is good enough and ignoring motorization/tanks to restore mobility.
Ehhh, I...doubt that. While everyone planned for a quick war, I really can't conceive of a way for that to happen. Belgium's fortification were poorly designed and, being built in the 1890s were at best obsolescent by 1914. This was not helped by Germany specifically planning for having to deal with them, and designed, what, 21? 42? centimeter artillery whose sole purpose was to pulverise those Belgian forts. Despite all of that, Belgium held out longer than anticipated, blew bridges and tore up its rail lines, which bought precious time for the BEF and French army, who used it well, and ultimately managed to halt Germany's advance, and completely ruin their plan (deal with France while Russia mobilizes, then deal with Russia, and avoid fighting a 2-front war). Which was also ruined by Russia mobilizing significantly faster than expected (though considering the Russian Army's performance, I wonder how much good that actually did).

Even if something butterflies such that someone manages to quickly beat the other, August 1914 was the bloodiest month of the war. (At least for France.) The Western Front saw trench warfare because dirt is actually pretty good at resisting artillery fire, and advances in both small arms and artillery was such that it was basically suicide to fight in an open field without cover. People dug trenches for the same reasons they did in the Russo-Japanese war, the American Civil War, Franco-Prussian: to protect themselves. Even if the war is over by Christmas you'd still see trenches. They just would be what you saw at first and not the far more sophisticated ones such as the Hindenburg Line that came later.
 
The real reason the FPW was over so fast was twofold--far superior Prussian/German war planning and logistics, and French diplomatic isolation successfully engineered by Bismarck.

With the rapid French defeat, British political calculus fundamentally changed, lasting well past the invasion literature craze Wells skewered in War of the Worlds. France wasn't ever going to fight round 2 alone. And with the far less diplomatically adept Kaiser Wilhelm in charge (I have a soft spot for the guy because he was clearly ADHD like me, but grabbing the king of Romania's butt in public, when you seriously need his oil, then refusing to apologize, is just plain stupid), Germany now had to deal with a France that was actively prepared and backed up by the world's premier naval power, rather than a complacent dictatorship run by a man of middling competence.

Basically, Germany winning round 2 quickly is nearly impossible and requires immense amounts of good fortune. Germany winning round 2 either outright or in a "France negotiates a surrender after 6 years of exhaustion and Britain peaces out before the economy implodes" situation is surely possible but requires a far more friendly USA (see previous arguments I and the now-banned Faeelin have made about the misconceptions prevalent in HTD's Southern Victory *WW1 and how Britain was heavily reliant on US food exports in the 1910s--a pro-Germany USA even if they don't get in militarily effectively ensures a CP victory in Europe (the Ottomans are still gonna be dicey though, and depending on how badly hoetzendorff screws it up AH is gonna be in for a rough couple decades).
 
The real reason the FPW was over so fast was twofold--far superior Prussian/German war planning and logistics, and French diplomatic isolation successfully engineered by Bismarck.

With the rapid French defeat, British political calculus fundamentally changed, lasting well past the invasion literature craze Wells skewered in War of the Worlds. France wasn't ever going to fight round 2 alone. And with the far less diplomatically adept Kaiser Wilhelm in charge (I have a soft spot for the guy because he was clearly ADHD like me, but grabbing the king of Romania's butt in public, when you seriously need his oil, then refusing to apologize, is just plain stupid), Germany now had to deal with a France that was actively prepared and backed up by the world's premier naval power, rather than a complacent dictatorship run by a man of middling competence.

Basically, Germany winning round 2 quickly is nearly impossible and requires immense amounts of good fortune. Germany winning round 2 either outright or in a "France negotiates a surrender after 6 years of exhaustion and Britain peaces out before the economy implodes" situation is surely possible but requires a far more friendly USA (see previous arguments I and the now-banned Faeelin have made about the misconceptions prevalent in HTD's Southern Victory *WW1 and how Britain was heavily reliant on US food exports in the 1910s--a pro-Germany USA even if they don't get in militarily effectively ensures a CP victory in Europe (the Ottomans are still gonna be dicey though, and depending on how badly hoetzendorff screws it up AH is gonna be in for a rough couple decades).
There is a Nicholas II Self Insert that has been active within the last year and at one point there was a discussion on whether with Neutral Ottomans whether you need the US to lean in favor of the Entente or not. Ukrainian Wheat being able to sold on the World Market (even if the RN has to escort it past the Adriatic and even if it doesn't all get sold to the UK) *really* tilts things in favor of the Entente.

I'm pretty sure that the UK can survive on a combination of Canadian, Argentinian and Ukrainian Wheat...
 
There is a Nicholas II Self Insert that has been active within the last year and at one point there was a discussion on whether with Neutral Ottomans whether you need the US to lean in favor of the Entente or not. Ukrainian Wheat being able to sold on the World Market (even if the RN has to escort it past the Adriatic and even if it doesn't all get sold to the UK) *really* tilts things in favor of the Entente.

I'm pretty sure that the UK can survive on a combination of Canadian, Argentinian and Ukrainian Wheat...
Theoretically, but iotl in the 1910s something like 50+% of Brits' calories came from the USA. And Ukraine was not exactly a conflict free breadbasket in WWI.


Fundamentally the US by the 1910s was such a massive economic player that whoever got us on their side was going to win.
 
Theoretically, but iotl in the 1910s something like 50+% of Brits' calories came from the USA. And Ukraine was not exactly a conflict free breadbasket in WWI.


Fundamentally the US by the 1910s was such a massive economic player that whoever got us on their side was going to win.
True, I think that UK/FR/RU vs. GE/AH is a three year war at most even with a completely neutral USA.
 
True, I think that UK/FR/RU vs. GE/AH is a three year war at most even with a completely neutral USA.
It should also be noticed there was a split in the US during WW1 where the government gave loans to everyone but had a slightly better preference for the entente and many immigrants and their children supported certain powers(Irish and german americans supported Germany for different reasons), depending on how well the Black community does ITTL, there could be fewer immigrants since black people would want to fill in those roles themselves given they could pay high enough wages and because there's those who's farm life ain't for them, so moving out West into the empty lands as well as California and Washington would create a block of americans who's opinion could sway American's decision to enter on which side of the war.

Given the fact black people are already doing better than OTL here, I don't see Woodrow Wilson becoming president here(thank fucking God) and someone else, maybe Teddy if he ever gets into politics? But a president who decides intervening on the War in Europe is likely.
 
Ehhh, I...doubt that. While everyone planned for a quick war, I really can't conceive of a way for that to happen. Belgium's fortification were poorly designed and, being built in the 1890s were at best obsolescent by 1914. This was not helped by Germany specifically planning for having to deal with them, and designed, what, 21? 42? centimeter artillery whose sole purpose was to pulverise those Belgian forts. Despite all of that, Belgium held out longer than anticipated, blew bridges and tore up its rail lines, which bought precious time for the BEF and French army, who used it well, and ultimately managed to halt Germany's advance, and completely ruin their plan (deal with France while Russia mobilizes, then deal with Russia, and avoid fighting a 2-front war). Which was also ruined by Russia mobilizing significantly faster than expected (though considering the Russian Army's performance, I wonder how much good that actually did).

Even if something butterflies such that someone manages to quickly beat the other, August 1914 was the bloodiest month of the war. (At least for France.) The Western Front saw trench warfare because dirt is actually pretty good at resisting artillery fire, and advances in both small arms and artillery was such that it was basically suicide to fight in an open field without cover. People dug trenches for the same reasons they did in the Russo-Japanese war, the American Civil War, Franco-Prussian: to protect themselves. Even if the war is over by Christmas you'd still see trenches. They just would be what you saw at first and not the far more sophisticated ones such as the Hindenburg Line that came later.
I don't disagree that it will still be very bloody and I do think that a quick war is exceptionally unlikely save for collapse of political will due to vastly different pre-war circumstances . But what I am trying to argue is that a quick war will decrease the image of static trench warfare at a strategic level. We also saw trenches during the Franco-Prussian War and the German armies made costly frontal attacks against French trenches, but the image of the Franco-Prussian war is not that of trench combat but a battle of movement. We still saw battle of movement in 1914 and early 1915, the Schlieffen Plan, the Race to the Sea, Tannenberg, the Battle of Galicia and Garlice-Tarnow Offensive being good examples of maneuver. If the war was rapidly brought to an end by a sweeping offensive as in Schlieffen and Garlice-Tarnow, rapid maneuver would dominate the strategic thinking of the next war and historical memory, not the absolute gridlock in the Western Theater of 1915-18.

French diplomatic isolation successfully engineered by Bismarck.
It does appear that Denmark, Austria-Hungary and Italy to some extent considered joining the war against the Germans. But Denmark seemed discouraged by lack of initial French success, the Austrians bungled their partial mobilization all the while scared that the Russians would intervene for the Germans and the Italians would only consider intervention if Rome, Nice and Corsica were given to them.
 
I trust you and i cannot wait to see the north basking in the glow of Victory as the south plunders to the dephts of utter defeat and despair.
The day is soon to come.

It's a tough call because in one way you could easily have Wilson die around age 7 or so in the famine, he was sickly as a child. But that would also increase sympathy for him and I don't know if you'd want to do that.

As for the historian , Someone in my family has the same name as a famous broadcaster who would be about the same age, though he is not a broadcaster himself or even related, so maybe it's easier for me but it seems like it should be pretty obvious that a historian could have the same name but not be the same person or even right in the same decade. It's not like the names you're using are that uncommon.
If Wilson were to die as a child he would become just a statistic. I suspect most people in this forum aren't very fond of him. I think I could use him to represent those intellectuals who retain racist prejudices.

Hope that our Union boys would get a proper cinematic epic ITTL, instead of the atrocity known as Birth of a Nation.
It'd be great to have the first modern movie be about the Union Army or John Brown, and have that shown in the White House before a Black and White audiencie.

If birth of a nation was made ITTL with the way the war has went, I'd say it would be basically wrecked by anyone not a southern fanatic and basically banned all across the north and even some southern states
We could even see some States outright ban the glorification of the Confederacy and the Klan.

It's been a while since Kentucky was in the spotlight. I assume that Federal commanders Burbridge and Paine are enacting their "reign of terror" on Kentucky's guerrilla problem? Breckinridge's higher status and a more radical war should have interesting impacts on Kentucky's elite, which seemed tentatively pro-Union at best or neutral IOTL. Would it be possible that pro-Confederate officials aid the guerrillas in someway?
Anti-guerrilla tactics are the same as in other areas, namely expelling civilians, confiscating land and hanging on sight. The reign of terror the Kentuckians dread the most is simply the presence of the Bureaus and other Federal authorities that pressure them on the question of slavery and Black rights. You will find more bitter complains because a Federal commander forced a planter to recognize the freedom of the family of a Black Union soldier than because he hanged a guerrilla.

The whole episode was pretty stupid. It sounds absolutely convenient that Johnson, Hardee and Polk would be all mounted on horses atop the mountain, silhouetted against the horizon in front of a Union artillery battery and Sherman just happened to be there to override previous orders to conserve ammunition . If all three had died then, Hood would have been put in command and all historians would have been talking about how this was the death knell of the Confederacy.
The kind of thing that would be lambasted as contrived nonsense if written in a timeline here but that could have realistically happened.


And with the far less diplomatically adept Kaiser Wilhelm in charge (I have a soft spot for the guy because he was clearly ADHD like me, but grabbing the king of Romania's butt in public, when you seriously need his oil, then refusing to apologize, is just plain stupid),
Wait, what.

I have a soft spot for Wilhelm too. I don't know, people like him seem to gather some sympathy because their motives were merely proving themselves and earning the appreciation of those around them. It's something easy to empathize with.


Given the fact black people are already doing better than OTL here, I don't see Woodrow Wilson becoming president here(thank fucking God) and someone else, maybe Teddy if he ever gets into politics? But a president who decides intervening on the War in Europe is likely.
Be assured Wilson is never getting close to the Presidency. He is, alongside the bastard Andrew Johnson, one of the American Presidents that I hate the most. Arguably, he also did a lot of damage to the world with his doctrine, which codified the role of the US as world police.
 
If Wilson were to die as a child he would become just a statistic. I suspect most people in this forum aren't very fond of him. I think I could use him to represent those intellectuals who retain racist prejudices.
It would also be mean spirited tbh. "Hahaha! look we killed Woodrow Wilson when he was a child! Hahaha!"

We could even see some States outright ban the glorification of the Confederacy and the Klan.
That would be highly iffy on constitutional grounds, although if its upheld that probably leads to a much different view of Goverment in society and her role in maintaing social health. Everything from Flag Burning to Obscene Materials, if this were upheld, would be well within the Governments prerogative to ban.

Anti-guerrilla tactics are the same as in other areas, namely expelling civilians, confiscating land and hanging on sight. The reign of terror the Kentuckians dread the most is simply the presence of the Bureaus and other Federal authorities that pressure them on the question of slavery and Black rights. You will find more bitter complains because a Federal commander forced a planter to recognize the freedom of the family of a Black Union soldier than because he hanged a guerrilla.
Well, I dont think they appreciate the expulsions. Or just how open to abuse the "Hang Gurellias on sight" rule is. This is going to come to become the problem with any wealth exchange plan. The Union can talk all it wants about "Dirty Rich Planters" being the main people at fault and all, but its not going to erase the experiences of a family who was forced off their farm because of Anti guerrilla policies or had their innocent son or brother hanged because some Union commander was just convinced he was a guerilla.
 
Last edited:
Top