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

patrick cleburn i believe. I read a comic about him

Interesting. That would be a surprise to me, honestly, because the only thing I've ever read of him saying about Brown was pretty negative. It was in his controversial 1863 memorandum to his fellow general officers in the Army of Tennessee to immediately emancipate all slaves in the CSA: "The measure we propose will strike dead all John Brown fanaticism, and will compel the enemy to draw off altogether or in the eyes of the world to swallow the Declaration of Independence without the sauce and disguise of philanthropy. "

I think the memorandum might be the basis for some folks understanding him as an abolitionist. But he wasn't, really. Until that memo, he seems to have been at best a man who acted indifferent to slavery or its abolition; by his own account, he proposed emancipation as a strategic move to help win the war, which at that point he quite rightly sensed had turned heavily against the South. The reaction of many of his fellow generals - and certain politicians in Richmond - was to see him as an abolitionist just the same, and as a result, his military career (which had been one of rapid promotion until then) ceased to prosper.

Best division commander of the entire war on either side. One of the most interesting men to fight in it!
 
One problem is that the GOP cannot be a Robber Baron party and at the same time empower labor/working class/socialist movement in the South.

That's why you would need someone else instead of Ulysses Grant as President. Apart from Charles Sumner and Benjamin Wade who were too radical, Henry Wilson is your best bet here given his pro-social reform outlook IOTL.

Well you can get some weird big tents. For example Democrats were the party of both northern urban workers and the southern planter elite.
 
Well you can get some weird big tents. For example Democrats were the party of both northern urban workers and the southern planter elite.
Mostly they were the party of "everyone the Republicans didn't Like", really. It wasn't until FDR that that really changed, Arguably.
 
Well you can get some weird big tents. For example Democrats were the party of both northern urban workers and the southern planter elite.
The problem is that the southern planter elite did get a permanent beating - so that left the Democratic northern interests, which eventually came to advocate progressive positions (especially after absorbing the Populists), in a stronger position.
 
As a treat, while I write the next update, I have decided to slightly expand on previous updates. This is due to two reasons: I know have access to more information about topics already covered, and two, we're approaching the end and there are some areas that could use some further detail. I'm loath to admit that some details have ended up deleted because of space reasons - I didn't want the updates to get too long. But they have growth in size anyway, culminating in the almost 8k words last update. It's probable that the rest will also be of similar length. As a result, I have lost my scruples about the length of chapters and will probably expand several previous chapters. Don't worry, no change will alter the story, only offer further detail and contextualization that, nonetheless, I believe will make the story stronger at the end. Don't hesitate to say if you find any update could use some expansion in order to clear up things. First, here's what has been added to Chapters 39 and 42. As a reminder, the chapters deal with politics on the South, Reconstruction in Maryland, and elections in North and South.

After describing the work of the Second Constitutional Convention

Despite widespread disenfranchisement, the new constitution was not sure to pass, because many loyal voters were opposed to “nigger government.” But the ballot was not their only weapon. Armed groups of whites attacked the polling stations where veteran soldiers were casting their first votes, murdering several. Veterans of Union Mills, “the gallant braves who saved our state from rebel rule”, were among those slain. White Unionists were also intimidated, and in a preview of things to come a group of pro-Confederate men started a riot in Frederick that had to be gorily put down by the Federal Army. But this attempt to prevent the Reconstruction of Maryland only resulted in a stronger commitment to its realization on the part of the Union authorities. Lincoln thus suspended the writ of habeas corpus, decreed that those found under arms should be tried as guerrillas, and allowed several Union Leagues to pay the rebels with the same coin. The result was that many people sympathetic to the Confederacy, or suspected of being so, were intimidated or even murdered. Unionists accepted this, saying that “even the most worthless negro is more deserving than a reb", of both the ballot and life itself.

The new constitution was thus approved early in 1864, aided by new disenfranchising provisions and the campaign of intimidation led by the Union Army, and the Union Leagues, by then basically the paramilitaries of the Republican Party. Black veterans, who despite hurdles and danger, came out and voted in great numbers, a fact that, a conservative delegate said, “had raised the spirit of old Roger Taney and made his howls heard all over the land.” At the end, the controversial constitution passed by a mere 589 votes, a victory owed to the Black voters who had so enthusiastically endorsed it. But it was also owed to violent repression, leading to never-ending debates over the legitimacy of the referendum and whether the ends justified the noble means. For Republicans, the answer was an unambiguous yes. Nonetheless, the fact that even after employing all these methods the victory was a close one underscored the inherent weakness of the new Republican regime and the resistance of White Southerners to these astounding changes. But these apprehensions were lost among the chorus of jubilant celebrations. Lincoln himself extended his congratulations to “Maryland, and the nation, and the world, upon the event”, and said that “it gratifies me that those who have served gallantly in our ranks are free to vote”.

When discussing disaffection in the Confederacy

Further aggravating the situation, and the dangerous alienation of yeomen families, was the policy of "impressment" the Confederacy had been forced to adopt. The temporary seizing of property, which included foodstuffs, wagons and even slaves, was often necessary due to the sorry state of Southern logistics. But the process was "arbitrary and insufficient" during the first two years of the war, when Confederate commanders impressed goods at their own discretion, generally under the authority of state laws, and often without leaving any kind of receipt or note. By middle 1863, the Congress sought to regulate the process and correct its worst abuses through a comprehensive law. The resulting legislation was meant to repay the property owners, but it also tried to "suppress attempts to evade or resist it" and "still worse, payment would be made in Confederate currency", whose value continued to plummet, the fall becoming even more precipitous after the disaster of the summer of 1863.

To be sure, Breckinridge, both for political advantage and genuine concern, sought to prevent the impressment of the property of the poor yeomen who already had very little. This was oftentimes honored on the breach, meaning that desperate, almost starving citizens could have their last supplies seized by the Confederate soldiers meant to protect them. A desperate Mississippi woman told the tale of how Grant's soldiers had taken almost all of her flour - and then Cleburne's came and took the rest. Even in areas away from the main theaters of war, impressment could push people to the brink. A resident of Calhoun County, Florida, for instance complained to his Governor of how "there are soldiers' families in my neighborhood that the last head of cattle have been taken from them and drove off, and they left to starve." Breckinridge's herculean efforts at Food Relief did not amount to much when, as one woman complained, "what one soldier gives a miserable thief of the same regiment then takes".

By late 1863, the Richmond Enquirer was reporting that "We often hear persons say, 'The Yankees cannot do us any more harm than our own soldiers have done.'" Assistant Secretary of War James A. Seddon admitted that impressment was "a harsh, unequal and odious mode of supply", made all the more distasteful because of how singularly devastating it was against poor families. Infighting did not help matters, as some state governments denounced impressment with every bit as much bitterness as they had denounced conscription and taxes. Governor Brown was undoubtedly acting nobly when he took actions to protect Georgia's poor, from the distribution of salt and corn to ordering his militia to seize the supplies the Army had already seized. But this defiance brought him into conflict with the Breckinridge regime, which believed his actions to be self-aggrandizing political maneuvers and thought that, as despised as impressment was, it had to continue lest the Army collapse.

Brown's defiance, in this case, probably angered Breckinridge less than the widespread resistance of the planter class did. Believing that the central government had no constitutional authority to take their property, the planter aristocracy was the most bitterly opposed to the measure, even as they were also less affected by it. They candidly declared that "they will allow their fodder to rot in the field" rather than allow the Army to seize it, and, without a single shred of irony, planter James H. Hammond said that heeding a request for his maize would be "branding on my forehead 'slave'". A furious Alabaman observed how, at the start of the war, "every man was ready & willing, nay, anxious, to make every sacrifice for the good of the cause" but "now Selfishness & greed of gain has taken possession of a large portion of our people".

Part of this resistance came from the fact that in addition to grain and cattle the Army could also impress "a species of property . . . the confiscation of which is more injurious to pride, right and law than any other" - that is, enslaved people. Requisitions of slaves by the Army had been going on before the Congress enacted the Impressment law, which, labeling slaves as just another kind of property, permitted officers to impress them as well. But planters categorically refused. General Pillow found this when he asked Huntsville planters to rent him slaves. The General reminded the slaveholders that by heeding his call they would be "advancing your own interest by preserving your property and aiding the army to protect the homes and property of the owner", instead of leaving all at the mercy of the Yankee invaders. But planters still refused, such as Catherine Edmondston, who likened the impressment of slaves with abolition, or a Texan who swore that the impressment of slaves "would not be obeyed except at the point of the bayonet."

Such recalcitrance infuriated Breckinridge and his men, who frankly saw this plain refusal to aid the war effort as unpatriotic, short-sighted and unfair. When Robert Toombs loudly proclaimed that he would never bow to the "miscreants" who tried to impress his slaves, Breckinridge fired off an acrid admonition. "It is not possible for us to ask the poor man to give up everything in the name of a rich man who has not given up anything", the President said, not mincing words. A Georgia Congressman agreed, criticizing those who "give up their sons, husbands, brothers & friends, and often without murmuring, to the army; but let one of their negroes be taken, and what a houl you will hear." Responding to these criticisms, a furious Toombs argued that he and all planters would gladly lend their property as long as it was voluntarily. Their refusal was because the government was trying to force them, injuring their pride and violating their rights. "The solution", Bruce Levine summarizes, "lay not in making greater demands on masters but in making fewer", never mind that the planter aristocracy had never responded to softer measures and gentle requests before.

When discussing North Carolina's situation

Western North Carolina had in special become one of the centers of resistance to the Confederacy through brutal guerrilla warfare. As a desire for peace and resentment against the slaveholders who started and kept up the war increased, so did the strength of the Heroes of America, a group whose force was "augmenting their number every day". Attempts to root out these insurgents proved unsuccessful, for they intimidated or commanded the respect of many militiamen. One such cowed officer told Vance that "officers are sometimes shot by them and the community kept in terror". Forced to appeal to Breckinridge, Vance received two Army regiments and started a campaign of terror to try and destroy these bands. Confederate soldiers and militia made "hostages of women and children until husbands and fathers turned themselves in", or later even resorted to outright torture. But no method was capable of completely stamping out this armed insurgency, "the popular sentiments" that sustained it remaining "as strong
and widespread as ever". A forlorn Vance wrote to Joseph E. Brown that among North Carolina Confederates a "general despondency and gloom . . . prevails.”

Will the tl have butterflues outside of USA apart from Paraguay and possibly Mexico?
I really wanted some butterflies in France but users who know way more than me about Europe have convinced me that my proposals have been unrealistic.

It’s more complicated than that. Yes you have people who wave confederate flags but if you asked them if they loved America, than the answer is going to be a bombastic Yes. In this TL, with much more bad blood going round over the war, That answer could very well be diffrent, especially if the Union up north is more inclined to say “Absolutely not”, which to be blunt, I can very well see. Civil Wars are very ugly like that, creating lasting wounds that sear societies apart
That, in my estimation, is because love for the Confederacy is not based on loving the secession movement and the country it created, but its ideology of White supremacy.

Someone mentioned that the South won't need much immigration for industrialization due to enough rural black and white southerners for a labor force. Will that affect immigration to the North and West from Europe, Asia, and Latin America? There could be a dynamic of various immigrant groups coming into conflict with each other but also regarding both black and white southerners with scorn (much like black southern and Appalachian transplants otl).

I also think the various coalitions that would be made would be interesting as well.
I don't see why immigration to other regions would be affected. But a better off South could receive more immigrants, and in turn lose less people, mainly Black people, who wouldn't leave the South as in OTL.

Wonder what TTL Checkmate Lincolnites would be like
Probably stuff like "if Breckinridge hadn't told Beauregard to attack Doubleday Lee would have concentrated his force and destroyed Reynolds", and "Breckinridge was a far better leader than Lincoln, who knew nothing of the military and cared nothing for his people".

I think there might have been some WOG about Longstreet becoming a Republican after the war, and supporting black civil rights. I'm not certain where that is...
I'm pretty sure that I did say, somewhere (perhaps after Chapter 39?) that Longstreet wouldn't be on the Confederate side come the end of the war and that he would become a Republican.

I mean, look, if in the postwar South the attitude is 'this was horrible, which is why we're pretending our loved ones weren't directly involved with it' thats a really fucking good place to be. If the idea that all poor whites were just as oppressed as slaves by the evil elites and were not complicit in slavery is the white lie needed to bind the Union back together as a society ready to move towards racial equality, then three cheers for the clean Confederate Army myth. The history books can problematize it after integration is achieved; for now we can be happy if the average southerner views fighting for slavery as something they need to absolve grandpa for, rather than defend him for.

Edit: it does, actually, remind me of a bit from the History of US textbooks by Joy Hakim (idk if anyone else read those as a kid) but basically to get them to be accepted in Southern schools they had to throw the Lost Cause a bone. The books take the tack that slavery was horrific, blacks were absolutely not happy in slavery, and that the civil war was about slavery, but that Robert E. Lee was a good man who was simply misled about the evil he was fighting for. I think at one point it even said (paraphrasing) "Robert E. Lee, brave and heroic as he was, could not comprehend the true depth of the evil of slavery". And you know what? I grew up knowing that slavery was vile, that there was no happiness in slavery, and the South fought for slavery, and if the price I had to pay for that was that Robert E. Lee was the one good apple then I'm glad for it. I was able to learn later that Robert E. Lee was as bad as the rest; the South can learn later that it wasn't all the planter elites. The South will hopefully already know all the important parts.
This is actually what I'm aiming for. They need something to rationalize their defeat if the Union is going to be cobbled back together. A false belief that they fought honorably for a bad cause because the planters lied to them would be a good outcome in the short run, because it weakens the chances of Redemption, acknowledges that the Confederacy was about slavery and that that was a bad cause, and fully condemms the rebel leaders, even if it's more for what they did to Whites than what they did to Blacks. A full recknoning can come by later.

Hello,

Can it be said that the next chapter is now in development? There is no rush to see it as soon as possible on my part.
It is in development.
 
Last edited:
This is actually what I'm aiming for. They need something to rationalize their defeat if the Union is going to be cobbled back together. A false belief that they fought honorably for a bad cause because the planters lied to them would be a good outcome in the short run, because it weakens the chances of Redemption, acknowledges that the Confederacy was about slavery and that that was a bad cause, and fully condemms the rebel leaders, even if it's more for what they did to Whites than what they did to Blacks. A full recknoning can come by later.
For once in Americas history, lying can actually be very, very useful.

Why hate the blacks? They were victims like us! Forced to do a planters bidding!
 
Here's another expansion, now on Chapter 43. That chapter dealt with the humanitarian crisis in Mississippi as one of the causes of land redistribution. This actually was going to be part of the new update, but I realized it fit better in that previous chapter. Furthermore, trying to cram so much into the new update, especially about topics that I have already visited, resulted in an unwieldy, bloated update that jumped around a lot between topics. So that's why I'm doing some clean-up by expanding previous chapters before I finish the next update. I also wish to expand chapter 41 with information regarding Texas, Arkansas and the Trans-Mississippi, and chapter 44 will receive further context and will now also deal with Arkansas reconstruction. The new update then will be able to focus on three main topics: Grant's campaign against Mobile, the Texas expedition, and solving the cliffhanger.

These desperate requests for protection could not be fulfilled by an Army overwhelmed by the degree of savage violence in a territory as large as France or the Iberian Peninsula. With such a large area, Union control could only be tenuous. “A standing Army of a million men . . . with a soldier posted at every house and at every farm”, would have been necessary, according to a Yankee colonel, to ensure complete Union control and to prevent every violent act. Grant, obviously, did not have a million men. In the territory nominally under his control “a system of anarchy reigned” instead, a distraught Confederate admitted. Outside of fortified spots, where the presence of the American flag and blue troops dissuaded the foe, noncombatants found themselves at the non-tender mercies of both rebel and Jayhawker guerrillas. The utter collapse of civilian authority, and the failure of both the Confederate and Union armies of imposing military control, rendered entire areas into a no man’s land where continuous raids and counterraids caused untold suffering and devastation.

The degree of brutality and destruction increased after the Fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson, for the weakened Confederate regular forces had to rely in raids, unable to directly face Grant. But maneuvers meant to strain logistics or slow down the enemy had an appalling tendency to degenerate into indiscriminate and disorganized campaigns of looting, arson and murder. Direct casualties, to be sure, remained relatively low, but the continuous chaos impeded commerce, disrupted agriculture and made thousands of fearful citizens flee. Tens of thousands of people were displaced by the war, fleeing either the Union Armies or the bloody guerrilla war. However, the quite brutal policy of forcibly expelling civilians also a tool of the Yankees, who issued decrees that forced civilians out, seized their produce and cattle, and confiscated their homes in reprisal for their aid to the guerrillas. "It is harsh and cruel," a soldier admitted, "but whatever we don't take a marauder will".

However, it wasn't only the Federals that engaged in such policies. To prevent Southern resources from falling into the hands of the enemy, rebel armies and guerrillas ordered that all loyal Confederates should leave their homes from the interior, taking everything they could and turning everything they could not over to their armies. But Confederate citizens didn't want to give their mules and cattle to the graybacks anymore than they wanted to give them to the bluejackets. Of special contention was the "refugeeing" of the enslaved, an expensive practice that wealthy masters engaged in, forcing their human property deeper into the interior or to far away areas such as Texas. But other masters refused, leaving slaves behind who, they believed, would remain loyal to them. Even in the face of the Union's growing commitment to emancipation, which meant that slaves left behind would just become the enemy's laborers and soldiers, many masters still insisted that the government had no right to move or use their property. When Breckinridge ordered commanders "to remove from any district exposed to . . . or overrun by the enemy the effective male slaves", a Virginia legislator lectured the President, telling him he should "refrain . . . from exercising a power . . . seriously objectionable and prejudicial" to the interests of planters.

While people in Richmond debated constitutional niceties, the situation grew desperate in Mississippi and other areas where the Yankees were directly assaulting slavery. When planters and plantation owners refused to move to the interior, the Army and the guerrillas would forcibly expel them, abducting the enslaved to serve as laborers and taking all the foodstuffs and produce for themselves. The Army at least maintained a facade of legality, justifying their actions and issuing receipts. But guerrillas just plundered plantations, saying it was necessary to do so lest their resources fall into Yankee hands, and murdered several farmers or planters who tried to resist. The situation made it necessary for many to escape, which resulted in the spectacle of once wealthy and proud planters fleeing through swamps with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Naturally, the crisis caused slavery to crumble, as abandoned slaves then flooded Union strongholds or happily welcomed the Federals into their plantations. Many a fleeing master discovered that their expectations of loyalty had been sorely mistaken. The young Katherine Stone was "hurt and perplexed" when she learned that her family's butler, instead of defending their plantation, had invited the Yankees in and become the leader of the home farm they established. It was this show of loyalty to the National cause rather than the rebel authorities that inspired Grant and other Union commanders to arm Black refugees, often giving them whatever surplus arms were available and formally organizing them as USCT regiments only later. Consequently, wherever the Union Army marched, they liberated and armed the enslaved, a fulfillment of "the worst nightmares of the planter class".

Appallingly, these actions only inspired further violence on the part of guerrillas, which often decided to just massacre Black laborers who refused to be "refugeed", or attacked those who had already been settled on plantations, murdering the Northern lessee or Southern Tory that was in charge. The Confederates too destroyed boats and impeded river commerce, and routinely razed the land behind Union lines to prevent the enemy from using it. In response, Grant ordered a series of anti-guerrilla sweeps, declaring that all rebels found under arms should be immediately executed. Union guerrillas, not to be outdone by their rebel counterparts, took to enforcing these terrible decrees, plundering farms and plantations, and coldly butchering those who didn't flee or take the loyalty oath. These bloody actions were taken without the direct orders of the Yankee commanders, but often with their tacit approval.

The collapse of civilian authority was complete, and only shows of strength could impose some sort of order. Guerrilla chieftains and individual commanders became warlords over large swathes of territory, where their men were the real power. Illustrative of this situation is the fact that in a Mississippi county, the selling of a house was completed not by an appearance before a judge or notary, but before the local guerrilla chief, who was given a large amount of cotton and beef in exchange of recognizing the sell and protecting the new owner. It was clear that such a situation could not be allowed to continue, so Grant pursued his plans despite their brutality and human cost, organizing cavalry sweeps to rot out the guerrillas, and authorizing an expansion of the areas under Union control by expelling secesh civilians, confiscating land, and organizing Black militias to protect the newly established fortified home farms.

For once in Americas history, lying can actually be very, very useful.

Why hate the blacks? They were victims like us! Forced to do a planters bidding!
Yeah. A simple recognition of planters as the real enemy would do wonders. Even if they still don't like Black people, if a good portion of Southerners could be convinced to support their rights just to spite the elites that would be great.
 
Speculation: if the local whites can be persuaded to see the guerillas as a common enemy with the black militias, then an integrated militia might in the long run be possible - later legitimized as some sort of "Civil Guard" that might even take over policing duties from... well... the police.

Imagine this "Civil Guard" doing the work of an ordinary peace officer, while the job of a police detective is done by a "(Insert state name here ) State Investigative Service," whose agents are refered to as a "State Investigator," or SI for short. Sort of like how detectives in the UK are referred to as "Detective Inspector" or "DI."

Imagine a TV drama in this TL of a small town along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that is rocked when the body of an 11-year-old boy is found on the beach, and an SI sent in by Jackson to investigate clashes with local Civil Guard, all the while haunted by a previous failure a year ago where he was unable to find two missing girls in time to save them. Yes this is basically Broadchurch, what of it?
 
Last edited:
Speculation: if the local whites can be persuaded to see the guerillas as a common enemy with the black militias, then an integrated militia might in the long run be possible - later legitimized as some sort of "Civil Guard" that might even take over policing duties from... well... the police.
Interesting knock on effect to that speculation, they could use the ambiguous wording of the 2nd amendment to justify that it means forming a militia instead of gun ownership. Guerrilla actions may make folks distrustful of anyone with a large stock of weapons if they’re not part of the militia.
 
It took quite a while for people to forget the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment, so that is believable as hell, yeah.
 
Speculation: if the local whites can be persuaded to see the guerillas as a common enemy with the black militias, then an integrated militia might in the long run be possible - later legitimized as some sort of "Civil Guard" that might even take over policing duties from... well... the police.

Imagine this "Civil Guard" doing the work of an ordinary peace officer, while the job of a police detective is done by a "(Insert state name here ) State Investigative Service," whose agents are refered to as a "State Investigator," or SI for short. Sort of like how detectives in the UK are referred to as "Detective Inspector" or "DI."

Imagine a TV drama in this TL of a small town along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that is rocked when the body of an 11-year-old boy is found on the beach, and an SI sent in by Jackson to investigate clashes with local Civil Guard, all the while haunted by a previous failure a year ago where he was unable to find two missing girls in time to save them. Yes this is basically Broadchurch, what of it?
I actually alluded to such an outcome briefly when discussing the occupation and pacification of Tennessee

Still, national factors such as the Battle of Union Mills and regional ones like the continuous activities of the guerrillas helped to change the opinions and soften the prejudices of many. Of note is the fact that Black militias would often go into battle alongside White militias, and in the midst of combat they often ended up working as integrated regiments de facto, even if racial segregation in militia units was still required. Some Unionists were even willing to admit the bravery and value of Black troops, and by the end of the year as a policy for Reconstruction started to crystallize at both the state and national level, some had started to push for extending the suffrage to Black veterans.
So yeah, I'm getting towards an, at least informal at first, organization of mixed race militias and to get the civilian population, mostly the pro-Union or rather anti-Confederate population, to accept Black men fighting against guerrillas. Because this means that they and the Republican governments will be more willing to use predominantly Black, maybe even mixed, militias to fight against the Klan and other terrorists.

I also, after a previous discussion, became quite taken to the idea of a national gendarmerie forming as a result of the war. I am going to include it in the next update, which I can now do thanks to this clean-up. Basically, my idea was that in several areas of the North the Union Leagues basically become deputized through a law that creates a National Guard or something like that, a body of guardsmen working for the Federal government to enforce law and order throughout the nation. As other wartime expedients, it is meant to be temporary, but you know how nothing's more permanent than a temporal solution, so in the face of continuous violence the Guard becomes a permanent police body. The system then is extended to the South following the end of the war.

Hmmm, that could result in a Federal National Guard, a State Civil Guard, and a State Investigative Service that's actually under the oversight of a Federal Investigative Service.

Interesting knock on effect to that speculation, they could use the ambiguous wording of the 2nd amendment to justify that it means forming a militia instead of gun ownership. Guerrilla actions may make folks distrustful of anyone with a large stock of weapons if they’re not part of the militia.
Yeah, like, the guerrillas were certainly a militia but not a well-regulated one. So the only people allowed to keep guns are groups with Federal approval and oversight. Especially the wave of counterrevolutionary terror that will follow the war could solidify the stance that the government can regulate and take away guns from individuals who are not "a well-regulated militia". The 2nd amendment as we know it may never come into being.

Reconstruction resulting in a Federal gendarmerie would be another interesting outcome.
And a necessary one for future enforcement.

A reformation of the state militias into a National Guard with more policing duties than iotl is an interesting idea.
Maybe State Militias will disappear, since by now a lot of them in the South have degenerated into guerrillas while in the North most have basically become a Federal appendix.
 
Yeah, like, the guerrillas were certainly a militia but not a well-regulated one. So the only people allowed to keep guns are groups with Federal approval and oversight. Especially the wave of counterrevolutionary terror that will follow the war could solidify the stance that the government can regulate and take away guns from individuals who are not "a well-regulated militia". The 2nd amendment as we know it may never come into being.
I believe you may want to look at the system that Switzerland uses in regards to gun ownership if you want some kind of template of where to go for that. Much more highly regulated and training required, as a result of military service. It could be applied here as part of the militia.
 
Top