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

[Red_Galiray]

So we know they won’t eat Stephens , the man’s got no meat on his bones 🤷‍♂️

I’m intrigued with your mentions of Kentucky and Georgia. Having a couple Southern states potentially have a differing narrative /experience with the rest of the Confederacy will be interesting. The “your state betrayed us!” And “you killed our favorite son/we died for your state while ours burned” is just so juicy

Georgia is basically the cockpit of "State's rights" in the wartime Confederacy. They did the most to oppose all centralized "despotism". In fact, some of their most egregious incidents took place near the end. The Junta is basically their dream government led by one of the most stalwart advocates of State's rights. But that'll only lead them to collapse.

Perhaps to spite France if it intervened in Mexico (and maybe collaborates with Confederate exiles), it’ll support Haiti and demand France fuck off. Would love to see that.

I don't know if something like that could happen based on spite alone, especially when they could spite France more easily and productively by helping Juarez.

Not sure if you have addressed them in a previous post but , what are August Willich and Ivan Turchin up too?

There's kind of a deleted scene in an earlier chapter that depicted Willich taking charge of home farms and trying to organize them collectivelly. That may still be true or not. I have plans for him but for later.

Of all places, I figured that Kentucky will be the most awkward to handle for Reconstruction - technically on the same side but at this point a good chunk of the state might as well be hostile. Makes me wonder how the Orphan Brigade will be treated post-war given that they got a hero's welcome IOTL. Speaking of the Orphan Brigade, with the death of Breckinridge, there's the question of their reaction. At first I assumed that most would just give it up and go home, but now I suspect that they might be plotting revenge by assassination. As for Georgia, I assume it relates to the famine and an actual implementation of 40 acres and a mule. Or possibly refers to an insurgency by Georgian deserters and militia? I guess I'll have to wait and see.


As for this, I've always wondered what the impact of a last stand by the remnant Confederate armies would have. A lack of a surrender might prolong things in the Trans-Mississippi (no Appomattox terms being presented). Moreover, the soldiers who got away might end up doing as Lee feared in his objection to E.P. Alexander's suggestion to disperse the army into squads to regroup in North Carolina (not become guerrillas as popularly suggested) - the squads would end up looting from their own people on the trek. Given that the Armies of the Potomac and James foraged successfully during their pursuit of Lee to Appomattox, the squads could feed themselves well... possibly driving a wedge between the Southern soldiers and civilians post-war.

Wait and see indeed

No surrender probably means that a more direct line is traced between the Confederate Army and the Klan, at the very least.

Speaking of which, what of the Confederate leaders would be most willing to order their troops to move to guerilla warfare when they realize victory is impossible?

Texas would be another area which would be messy with how the Trans-Mississippi was the last more or less intact CSA formation IOTL and the same probably holds true ITTL.

Men like Wade Hampton and Forrest probably.

Like I said earlier, I have plans for Kirby Smith.

It is precisely because it is distasteful that it must be shown. Whether America treats its own Blacks better will not change the fact that it’s a Great Power that loves throwing its muscle around. The blacks will just join the whites in doing that and it will be status quo America. They might not be racist, they’ll just make you economically and politically vassalized to them simply out of geopolitical interest. Avoiding this is unrealistic and saps the plausibility of an otherwise great timeline.

I am aware. After all I haven't shied from attrocities and slavery, which I also find more than distasteful. My issue is rather with the idea that American imperialism could improve those places. The idea that an American Haití would be better strikes me as too colonialist. So if we want to have a better Haiti, I wouldn't achieve it through imperialism. If we want realistic imperialism, we won't achieve a better Haiti.

In other words, of course there will be imperialism. There's also the specific issue I have with Dominican Republic, for the debates over its annexation actually somewhat legitimized racism among many "Liberals" who opposed including a population of "Spanish Catholic Negroes".

 

[Nevermore]

It is precisely because it is distasteful that it must be shown. Whether America treats its own Blacks better will not change the fact that it’s a Great Power that loves throwing its muscle around. The blacks will just join the whites in doing that and it will be status quo America. They might not be racist, they’ll just make you economically and politically vassalized to them simply out of geopolitical interest. Avoiding this is unrealistic and saps the plausibility of an otherwise great timeline.

I was thinking about ways that the U.S. might plausibly be 'better' in this regard, and I simply can't see it. As you say, their prejudices may lessen (slightly) but they're still a country in the 19th century that will nakedly try to impose their will on others for no other reason than "the strong do what they can - and the weak suffer what they must." I was initially wondering if maybe we could see an earlier attempt by the U.S., somehow, to try supporting native powers against encroaching Europeans but there are a lot of factors going against it (money will be needed at home for internal colonialism against the natives/Reconstruction/famine relief soon, the navy is still not up to snuff enough to ferry Americans that far, not to mention that even if this more radical civil war leads to a more politically progressive United States in the long term in the short term they're going to prefer Europe, even if they otherwise despise them, to other places). That said, a failed colonial venture (or a highly controversial annexation) is certainly an interesting idea; at the very least I could see that effecting debates on what to do regarding the tribes that haven't quite been crushed under American boots yet.

Or, I dunno, even if anti-colonialism isn't readily accepted by Washington as a government policy then perhaps men radicalized by the Civil War do lend their military services abroad to places that want to get rid of their own reactionaries. Some sort of literary movement ITTL by Americans that's primarily military adventurism set in exotic locales, perhaps? I think this generally would gel with the ethos of the story.

 

[HueyLongsUnderwear]

Georgia is basically the cockpit of "State's rights" in the wartime Confederacy. They did the most to oppose all centralized "despotism". In fact, some of their most egregious incidents took place near the end. The Junta is basically their dream government led by one of the most stalwart advocates of State's rights. But that'll only lead them to collapse.


I don't know if something like that could happen based on spite alone, especially when they could spite France more easily and productively by helping Juarez.


There's kind of a deleted scene in an earlier chapter that depicted Willich taking charge of home farms and trying to organize them collectivelly. That may still be true or not. I have plans for him but for later.


Wait and see indeed

No surrender probably means that a more direct line is traced between the Confederate Army and the Klan, at the very least.


Men like Wade Hampton and Forrest probably.

Like I said earlier, I have plans for Kirby Smith.


I am aware. After all I haven't shied from attrocities and slavery, which I also find more than distasteful. My issue is rather with the idea that American imperialism could improve those places. The idea that an American Haití would be better strikes me as too colonialist. So if we want to have a better Haiti, I wouldn't achieve it through imperialism. If we want realistic imperialism, we won't achieve a better Haiti.

In other words, of course there will be imperialism. There's also the specific issue I have with Dominican Republic, for the debates over its annexation actually somewhat legitimized racism among many "Liberals" who opposed including a population of "Spanish Catholic Negroes".

all the 48ers are incredibly fascinating , hope you keep Willich doing something “in character” for him, I mean the man formed his troops into infantry squares to repel cavalry! Badass

Oof. Make a desert and call it Georgia.

And on the subject of Hampton and Forrest: if I’m a Union commander / politician , they are at the top of my kill list. We see how good their organizational abilities were OTL and Hampton press-ganged people into his forces near the end of the war sooooo yeah , a scary bastard

 

[AceOfSpades]

Quick tip: When posting picture for the next chapters, maybe try rehosting them using Imgur.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

I don't know if something like that could happen based on spite alone, especially when they could spite France more easily and productively by helping Juarez.

And support Haiti, which could extend its influence there.

 

[Name123]

@Red_Galiray
I mean, he still held some racist beliefs, but someone who opposes the terrorists and can accept Black rights and fight for them is pretty much the best we can hope for.

It does describe northern abolitionists, including Lincoln, too. Perhaps except for really radical types like Brown or Stevens. So yeah, that is the best we can hope for anybody.

 

[diestormlie]

It does describe northern abolitionists, including Lincoln, too. Perhaps except for really radical types like Brown or Stevens. So yeah, that is the best we can hope for anybody.

I think we can still, quite reasonably, praise and admire those historical figures who were able to shake off the prevailing moral strictures of their time and align themselves with, well, the side of right.

Even if they didn't find their own views exactly where we might, personally, think they should have been, we can still find much to admire in just how far they walked.

 

[Name123]

I think we can still, quite reasonably, praise and admire those historical figures who were able to shake off the prevailing moral strictures of their time and align themselves with, well, the side of right.

Even if they didn't find their own views exactly where we might, personally, think they should have been, we can still find much to admire in just how far they walked.

Pretty much.

 

[Whiteshore]

Georgia is basically the cockpit of "State's rights" in the wartime Confederacy. They did the most to oppose all centralized "despotism". In fact, some of their most egregious incidents took place near the end. The Junta is basically their dream government led by one of the most stalwart advocates of State's rights. But that'll only lead them to collapse.

Especially as the junta is bound to try and indulge the fantasies of the State's Rights fanatics in terms of how they'll try to run a war without what are obviously signs of tyranny like the draft and all that. Also, any details on these "egregious incidents" that took place near the end in our TL for us to "behold"?

Men like Wade Hampton and Forrest probably.

No surrender probably means that a more direct line is traced between the Confederate Army and the Klan, at the very least.

And on that note, I wouldn't be surprised if members of the junta who flee set up a Confederate government-in-exile these Southern fanatics nominally pledge allegiance to.

 

[Knightmare]

Especially as the junta is bound to try and indulge the fantasies of the State's Rights fanatics in terms of how they'll try to run a war without what are obviously signs of tyranny like the draft and all that. Also, any details on these "egregious incidents" that took place near the end in our TL for us to "behold"?

Especially given well, to quote a Mitch and Webb sketch "here's the analysis of our military situation, summed up in one rude word".

And now they launched a coup, which I'm sure is gonna go down swimmingly with the rank and file who just learned "Oh yeah, we're not gonna give up until every last prole is dead, so keep fighting, despite a lack of literally everything".

 

[Tertius711]

I am aware. After all I haven't shied from attrocities and slavery, which I also find more than distasteful. My issue is rather with the idea that American imperialism could improve those places. The idea that an American Haití would be better strikes me as too colonialist. So if we want to have a better Haiti, I wouldn't achieve it through imperialism. If we want realistic imperialism, we won't achieve a better Haiti.

In other words, of course there will be imperialism. There's also the specific issue I have with Dominican Republic, for the debates over its annexation actually somewhat legitimized racism among many "Liberals" who opposed including a population of "Spanish Catholic Negroes".

Oh lmao they won't improve it. The Phillippines prove as much. Arguably you can say the US improved Hawaii and other places but they did by erasing the locals. Not that the US is particularly guilty of this though, it's just a fact of history that conquerors destroy local cultures and impose their own.

In any case I am not sure the US is really all that interested in annexing more lands in the Caribbean except maybe Puerto Rico. They were just fine with banana republics. Plus the Confederate plans to move into Mexico and the Carribbean and create some great Slave Empire will deffo drum up anti-annexation sentiments in the US.

The US was always a half-hearted imperialist because their ideals wouldn't let them admit to themselves that what they were doing was colonialism as bad as Britain and the others they decried. So they never went as far as they could have in annexing lands.

I was thinking about ways that the U.S. might plausibly be 'better' in this regard, and I simply can't see it. As you say, their prejudices may lessen (slightly) but they're still a country in the 19th century that will nakedly try to impose their will on others for no other reason than "the strong do what they can - and the weak suffer what they must." I was initially wondering if maybe we could see an earlier attempt by the U.S., somehow, to try supporting native powers against encroaching Europeans but there are a lot of factors going against it (money will be needed at home for internal colonialism against the natives/Reconstruction/famine relief soon, the navy is still not up to snuff enough to ferry Americans that far, not to mention that even if this more radical civil war leads to a more politically progressive United States in the long term in the short term they're going to prefer Europe, even if they otherwise despise them, to other places). That said, a failed colonial venture (or a highly controversial annexation) is certainly an interesting idea; at the very least I could see that effecting debates on what to do regarding the tribes that haven't quite been crushed under American boots yet.

Or, I dunno, even if anti-colonialism isn't readily accepted by Washington as a government policy then perhaps men radicalized by the Civil War do lend their military services abroad to places that want to get rid of their own reactionaries. Some sort of literary movement ITTL by Americans that's primarily military adventurism set in exotic locales, perhaps? I think this generally would gel with the ethos of the story.

Absolutely no way the US CBA in this era to support natives against Europeans. Really none. It's just entirely against their interests given their trade is mostly with the Europeans and the raw resources from the colonies helped drive their and by extension, American econonomies. Let's be real the only reason the US supported decolonisation IRL was because Europe was unable to hold onto the colonies after WWII and the US wanted to get in on the influence game before the Soviets funded the rebels and made Communist states all over Africa and Asia.

 

[CountDVB]

We'll see. My distaste for American imperialism is no secret, and I want to avoid the mess in the Dominican Republic. Any ideas of what to do with it? I'm not sure myself.

Yeah understandable, though things could still be better and improve.

As someone from Latam this hurts lol.

Joking, I get what you mean. My other TL actually has a fair bit about Haiti, but in fact the presence of the Dominican Republic hurt it too due to racism and conflict.

Oof, I know what you mean regarding the imperialism. My family is from Mexico after all. Wonder what is going on over with your other timelime. May need to check it out (and that now reminds me of an idea where some of the South American countries were renamed: Gran Colombia -> Gran Bolivia, Bolivia -> Argentina, and Argentina -> Patagonia. )

Though also speaking of Haiti, am wondering how things could improve more there with this different US.

You know, that's a possibility. Lincoln was the first American president to recognize Haiti as a sovereign nation, which was celebrated by abolitionists. There may also be some bad blood with France over the whole invading Mexico thing.

That could help out a bit if more is done.

 

[cmakk1012]

In this era America is still busy viciously stamping out the last vestiges of native nations in its own territory, there’s no way they’d be interested in supporting native peoples anywhere else. The best you could hope for is the butterfly effect leading to positive outcomes in other places.

 

[Knightmare]

The US was always a half-hearted imperialist because their ideals wouldn't let them admit to themselves that what they were doing was colonialism as bad as Britain and the others they decried. So they never went as far as they could have in annexing lands.

Also could be argued most of the general drives for colonies, raw resources or land or wealth, didn't apply as we had them in spades.

And by the time we got big enough to consider it, a fair chunk of the spots we'd want had been snapped up or were too close to already existing colonies to be worth the headache.

 

[Tertius711]

Also could be argued most of the general drives for colonies, raw resources or land or wealth, didn't apply as we had them in spades.

And by the time we got big enough to consider it, a fair chunk of the spots we'd want had been snapped up or were too close to already existing colonies to be worth the headache.

Yep, good points.

 

[HueyLongsUnderwear]

Especially as the junta is bound to try and indulge the fantasies of the State's Rights fanatics in terms of how they'll try to run a war without what are obviously signs of tyranny like the draft and all that. Also, any details on these "egregious incidents" that took place near the end in our TL for us to "behold"?


And on that note, I wouldn't be surprised if members of the junta who flee set up a Confederate government-in-exile these Southern fanatics nominally pledge allegiance to.

oh god I just had a thought … what if one of these “egregious incidents” involves Andersonville

 

[wilji1090]

I am aware. After all I haven't shied from attrocities and slavery, which I also find more than distasteful. My issue is rather with the idea that American imperialism could improve those places. The idea that an American Haití would be better strikes me as too colonialist. So if we want to have a better Haiti, I wouldn't achieve it through imperialism. If we want realistic imperialism, we won't achieve a better Haiti.

In other words, of course there will be imperialism. There's also the specific issue I have with Dominican Republic, for the debates over its annexation actually somewhat legitimized racism among many "Liberals" who opposed including a population of "Spanish Catholic Negroes".

I might be mistaken but isn't it generally believed that Portguese Imperialism was "better" in the sense that they co-opted the natives and came bearing gifts and trinkets? For some reason, I see TTL's American Imperialism being in a similar vein. The sense in TTL America's case is that "We're going to manage your affairs for a bit but ultimately we're going to get you on the road to self-sufficiency." It's still somewhat condescending in the sense of "Our way is best" but it's also "better" than what was practiced OTL.

I can't say that I see American participating in the Scramble for Africa but I can see them avoiding a lot of the general nastiness of things like the American-Filipino War. Who knows? I could be vastly off-mark on this and would welcome the correction if I am.

 

[Enzo]

I might be mistaken but isn't it generally believed that Portguese Imperialism was "better" in the sense that they co-opted the natives and came bearing gifts and trinkets? For some reason, I see TTL's American Imperialism being in a similar vein. The sense in TTL America's case is that "We're going to manage your affairs for a bit but ultimately we're going to get you on the road to self-sufficiency." It's still somewhat condescending in the sense of "Our way is best" but it's also "better" than what was practiced OTL.

I am sorry, but this is completely untrue and is very reductionist. Portuguese colonization and Imperialism was as bad as any kind of imperialism, they enslaved hundred of thousands of black people that were sold in all of the American continent, to a point that a Kongo christian king send a letter to the Portuguese King informing him of how slavery is depopulating his land in an alarming way.
Their Imperialism wasn't "we came bearing gift and trinkets" to "co-opt natives, it was "surender your land and leave or we will kill you and enslave you". And this is the same that the US did in North America. How do you think that the US came to be so big? They committed genocide on the native tribes, steal their land and the survivors were sent to small and unproductive plot of land were they had to live in poverty. The trail of tears is an example of American imperialism. It isn't in any way "we take care of your affairs but ultimately we are going to get you on the road of self sufficiency". It is baffling to me that you think this is what was done in any colonial project and it reproduce a lot of racist and positivist ideas and the myth of the "white men burden". (I am not saying you are racist, just that you are reproducing this ideas)
The colonization of the Congo was done under that pretense, that the Belgian king Leopold wanted to create the Free State of the Congo as a philanthropic project, but it ended with a genocide that in the expanse of 23 years (1885-1908) killed around 10 million people approximately and harmed the nature of the land irreparably, all for the harvest of rubber.
The people of the time knew that no such thing as helping the people of the Congo was going to happen, all of the European countries with colonies knew what a State wants from a colony and helping anyone is not one of them. A fun fact: During the congress of Berlin where Leopold was awarded a "piece of of the African cake", as he liked to call it, Bismarck made notes in the project that Leopold precented in all the parts that talked about bringing education, creating hospital and helping to civilize the people of those land calling it bullshit.
By the way, the first county that recognized the Free State of the Congo, way before the Congress of Berlin, was the US. Go figure. It so happened that Leopold sent his agents to talk with some congressmen from Alabama that found very appealing the idea of sending back the Africa all the black people that now theorically had the same rights as white people. They helped to get the US government to recognize his colonial State.

 

[wilji1090]

I am sorry, but this is completely untrue and is very reductionist. Portuguese colonization and Imperialism was as bad as any kind of imperialism, they enslaved hundred of thousands of black people that were sold in all of the American continent, to a point that a Kongo christian king send a letter to the Portuguese King informing him of how slavery is depopulating his land in an alarming way.
Their Imperialism wasn't "we came bearing gift and trinkets" to "co-opt natives, it was "surender your land and leave or we will kill you and enslave you". And this is the same that the US did in North America. How do you think that the US came to be so big? They committed genocide on the native tribes, steal their land and the survivors were sent to small and unproductive plot of land were they had to live in poverty. The trail of tears is an example of American imperialism. It isn't in any way "we take care of your affairs but ultimately we are going to get you on the road of self sufficiency". It is baffling to me that you think this is what was done in any colonial project and it reproduce a lot of racist and positivist ideas and the myth of the "white men burden". (I am not saying you are racist, just that you are reproducing this ideas)
The colonization of the Congo was done under that pretense, that the Belgian king Leopold wanted to create the Free State of the Congo as a philanthropic project, but it ended with a genocide that in the expanse of 23 years (1885-1908) killed around 10 million people approximately and harmed the nature of the land irreparably, all for the harvest of rubber.
The people of the time knew that no such thing as helping the people of the Congo was going to happen, all of the European countries with colonies knew what a State wants from a colony and helping anyone is not one of them. A fun fact: During the congress of Berlin where Leopold was awarded a "piece of of the African cake", as he liked to call it, Bismarck made notes in the project that Leopold precented in all the parts that talked about bringing education, creating hospital and helping to civilize the people of those land calling it bullshit.
By the way, the first county that recognized the Free State of the Congo, way before the Congress of Berlin, was the US. Go figure. It so happened that Leopold sent his agents to talk with some congressmen from Alabama that found very appealing the idea of sending back the Africa all the black people that now theorically had the same rights as white people. They helped to get the US government to recognize his colonial State.

Do take note that I said I was operating from the outset that I was mistaken. So I was fully well aware of the fact that I was approaching a topic I wasn't confident on. I was suggesting a method in which TTL USA could perhaps use, a writer more talented than I could go about making it sound less "white man's burden" and describe the situation for what it truly is.

 

[Steelers94]

I do wanna point out that given how things are going a Spanish-American war TTL will likely end with recognizing the independence of the Philippines and a perpetual lease of Subic Bay or something along that lines. At worst I can see something along the lines of "look we're gonna occupy you to help out with your transition to Democracy. Here's the agreement and we leave in X number of years. We'll also have some bases leased in perpetuity here but we'll pay the following rate with negotiation for the rates to be increased or decreased every x years". Which as I also point out is given how US Imperialism was that's it really fucking weird it didn't do that from the get go.