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

They could just give the lands to the black people as much as I hate it...

Basically, this. Nothing has happened in this TL - save (possibly) a less severe Dakota War - which is going to soften attitudes of white Americans towards Native Americans. It sucks - badly - but its the reality of what's been described. If anything, things could get a bit roughter for the tribes in this situation: it effectively creates a unified front (kind of) of Northern whites and freedmen against Natives when Freedmen begin to migrate into the Western territories - which IS going to happen (and I suspect that black slaves being held by in the Indian Territory are going to be given tribal land; meaning there will be prosperous black communities on the Plains to start as the base and inspiration of such a migration).

In an ironic turn, the one group which may empathise with Natives (in a sickening, self-serving, and patriarchial sort of way, of course) are going to be Southron whites and, esspecially, the planter elite who are going to read into the Native struggless to retain their land, a very nice metaphor for their own doomed rebellion.

I just don't think there's reasonable way that the western tribes are going to get any more of a fair shake in this TL than in our OWN - at least not prior to the 1880s and 1890s. Perhapse we can get an earlier Indian Citizenship Act or Indian New Deal; but such things wouldn't be feasible until the frontier has already been 'closed.' So, it could well be during the *Progressive Movement. But until that time, there's a lot of land in the West, and the white and black American settlers are going to want it and, not only that, see it as their duty to take it.
 
The American Civil War did not begin as a Revolution. While Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party promised in 1860 that their election would dislodge the Slave Power and place slavery on the path of ultimate extinction, they never advocated for revolutionary means to do so. Theirs was a gradual emancipation, one that would allow slavery to live for decades more, dying slowly but painlessly. This, the Slavocracy rejected. They wished for their peculiar institution to be perpetual, and to maintain their world, the one in which they lived as the unquestioned political, social, and economic leaders. Lincoln may not destroy slavery at once, but he dared to interfere with their prerogatives and speak of slavery as an evil that ought to be exterminated. Knowing that slavery would be for the first time on the defensive with the anti-slavery Republicans at the helm of the nation, Southerners tried to destroy that nation, unable to countenance even the slightest infringement on their power and honor.

The North accepted the war the South had started to maintain the integrity of the nation. For the Northern people, secession was chiefly a threat because a successful separation would eviscerate the unity and stability of the United States. What they believed to be the best government on earth, the source and guardian of their happiness and prosperity, would then collapse into several petty republics, and the American experiment would end. It was to prevent this that the soldiers of the Union Army fought. But everyone recognized the centrality of slavery to the conflict – both Union and Confederate soldiers knew that the South fought for slavery, and that the “way of life” Southerners claimed to defend would be one anchored in slavery and White supremacy. The average Northern soldier was not greatly concerned at first with overthrowing either, but they and their leaders soon realized that the Rebellion drew strength from the millions of people they forced to work for them. They, likewise, realized that the enslaved could be counted on as allies for the Union cause.

Yet, at this early stage, Northerners hesitated to turn the Civil War into a Revolution. Conservative men, opposed to secession but supporters of White supremacy, all dreamed of restoring the “Union as it was,” and insisting on prosecuting a war that disrupted slavery as little as possible. Lincoln was not one of these men. He and the Republican Party, from the first moment, predicted that Union victory meant the doom of slavery, for the Slave Power that had artificially protected it and guarded it from the natural march of progress, had been overthrown. As soon as the Southern States returned, the Republican policies of “Freedom National” would be implemented, and slavery put on the path of ultimate extinction. Free soil for the territories, abolition in the District of Columbia, the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, and Federal pressure on the Border States, all of these were adopted. But what would have been great anti-slavery achievements in the antebellum now proved insufficient, and the Union’s leaders had to recognize that the “inexorable logic of events” was now leading them towards Emancipation.

This momentous step couldn’t have been taken without the actions of the enslaved people themselves. Southern masters who had convinced themselves that the people whose liberty they robbed were happy and loyal, suffered a rude awakening as the war started. Far from what the enslavers had believed, Black people struggled mightily to obtain their freedom, offered their help to Federals that in many cases remained reluctant, and defied the power of the slaveholders. This did not, at first, happen through slave insurrection, for the enslaved recognized that the increasingly repressive Southern State had the necessary force to repress any violent uprising, making any such attempt nothing short of suicidal. Nonetheless, Black people opened a “second front” at the very heart of the Confederacy as they fled to the Union’s lines; offered their services as laborers, spies, and soldiers; and resisted the power of the slaveholders by refusing to work or demanding payment. As a State founded on slavery, the Confederacy had to resist this challenge, but it still sapped resources and manpower it could not afford.

CivilWarVictoryParadeHarpersWeekly1865.jpg

The Victory of the Union

Thus, the Union accepted Emancipation chiefly as a military policy that would weaken the Confederacy while allowing it to gain greater strength by recruiting the formerly enslaved as allies in the struggle. But this should not be understood as merely a desperate policy Lincoln had no other option but to adopt. The administration had stricken back against slavery since the start, and at every crucible, at every choice between policies that weakened slavery and those that upheld it, Lincoln chose the option that furthered human freedom. Certainly, many Northern politicians and generals disagreed with the government’s interpretation of the war and believed that a conciliatory policy would be better. If it were up to men like Douglas and McClellan, the Union Army would have enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, would have never enlisted Black soldiers, would have never adopted the kind of policies that augured a Revolution in Southern life. Consequently, the gradual, painless, compensated emancipation all but the most Radical abolitionists had envisioned in 1860, had already given way to a complete, violent, and immediate destruction of slavery by military power in 1862.

The conservative dream of completely separating the war from slavery was over, and from then on, the United States Army fought not merely for Union, but also for Liberty. Again, this was not something incidental, for the war started a process of radicalization against slavery and then against White supremacy within the Northern people. Seeing the horrors of slavery up close, and identifying the Southern Slavocracy as the responsible for the conflict, Northerners started to feel a deeper moral revulsion against slavery than ever before. This wouldn’t have been possible without the efforts of Black people and their Radical allies, who continuously pushed forward for imbuing the war with a greater moral significance. These campaigns of anti-slavery slavery agitation, plus seeing the value of Black people and their commitment to the Union cause in such great events as the Battle of Union Mills, all helped to transform the nation’s conception of Black people. By the end of the war, Northerners had become fully convinced that the perpetuity of the Union, but also the aims of justice and the survival of the national ethos of Liberty, required the eternal overthrow of slavery and a true effort at Equality for all. The Civil War, then, had become the Second American Revolution.

This Revolution frightened Southerners. The Confederacy was a fundamentally counterrevolutionary effort, which sought to preserve the structure of antebellum Southern society, one dominated by the slaveholder elite, against the terrifying challenge Northern abolitionists presented. However, the South was not united in this effort. The question of the Confederacy’s legitimacy and its claim of democratic government is one that has been debated countless times. One must not forget that there were at least four million abolitionists that the Southern elite did not take into account when the secession movement started. Yet even beyond them, secession was not unanimously accepted by Southern Whites. Hundreds of thousands would resist the Confederacy, fighting in blue uniforms or as Unionist guerrillas, and defying the slaveholders’ pretensions to make them give up their properties and lives for a cause which seemed only to benefit the elite. Especially because that elite seemed unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices, resisting bitterly and shortsightedly every attempt to make them give up any of their “rights.” Deep cracks in Southern society were exposed and grew more pronounced as the war continued and the sacrifices asked of the poor increased.

The Southern masters responded to this challenge in the same way they responded to Black attempts to reclaim their freedom: with brutal repression. Throughout the war, the Confederacy and its Armed forces acted swiftly and ruthlessly against Unionists, persecuting, massacring, and attacking them. The sorry tales of repression in East Tennessee and Western North Carolina are examples. The Confederacy employed similar methods to stamp out defiance amongst the enslaved, who were used to being driven from their homes and murdered by White power structures. In this way, the continuous, aggressive State violence needed to maintain slavery and the power of the planter aristocracy was exerted, and the South answered to the North’s radicalization by radicalizing itself, taking increasingly appalling measures to maintain its power. And those great libertarians like Robert Toombs and Alexander Stephens, who spoke so often and so bitterly against tyranny and for constitutional government, never challenged this repression. Because, to the leaders of the South, violence to enforce their “rights” was always good, whereas any challenge to their power, no matter where it came from, was completely unacceptable.

This meant that ultimately the government of John C. Breckinridge also became unacceptable to those who held power within the Confederacy. Committed to a successful prosecution of the war above all else, the Breckinridge regime employed all the methods thus described to enforce the power of the Confederate State, but also sought to lessen the burden upon the poor and push the wealthy to make the necessary sacrifices. The Administration thus faced planters that fought against impressment of goods and enslaved laborers, resisted his intromission in local government and obstructed the prosecution of the war, and above all believed that Breckinridge was not adequately protecting slavery. All because these measures attempted against the power they held to be sacred and untouchable. And thus, Breckinridge to them became the worst tyrant in history not because of what he did to Unionists or Black people, but because he dared to tell them what to do.

CSA+defeat+2.gif

The Defeat of the Confederacy

This culminated in the so-called “Five Monstrous Decrees” and the attempt to recruit Black soldiers, both hard blows against slavery that nonetheless failed to save the Confederacy, which tottered in the brink of destruction after the Union victories in Atlanta and Mobile. Knowing that further resistance was hopeless, Breckinridge then tried to surrender, hoping that a negotiated peace may yet save White supremacy or even slavery. But even this the planter aristocracy could not countenance. Deciding that it was better to be utterly destroyed than to voluntarily give up their “rights,” they overthrew Breckinridge and then executed him, cleaving Southern society in two and alienating the poor Whites who had seen him as their protector. In this Southerners were merely repeating history, for it was this same pride and arrogance that had resulted in secession. And just like how secession had only brought about the very revolution they had wanted to avoid, more radical and immediate than it could have been otherwise, the coup against Breckinridge only assure that the war would go until it destroyed the Confederacy. The same suicidal instinct that had made them reject Lincoln, made them unable to accept Breckinridge, and thus assured their complete perdition.

The result was a bloody, horrifying fiasco, just as Breckinridge had predicted. The South’s collapse resulted in famine extending through the Southern countryside and a breakdown of order, leading to anarchic Jacqueries that claimed thousands of lives more. This assured that the Civil War would be the deadliest conflict in American history, and one of the bloodiest in the history of the world. Over 650,000 Union soldiers died in the struggle to maintain the nation, and a further 500,000 Confederate soldiers, most of disease. Famine, anarchy, and disease, extending beyond the end of the war, all claimed some 100,000 civilians in Union-areas, while over 500,000 thousand Confederate civilians died. The 1.8 million people that died in the war represented 5.8% of the US population, and, staggeringly, over 10% of the Confederate population and over 40% of its White males of military age. The war had further reduced the South to an “economic desert,” making the South go from 30% of the nation’s wealth to less than 10%. It also fundamentally changed the dynamics of power – never again would the South domineer over the Federal government as it once did, but instead the US entered a period of Northern, and more specifically Republican, dominance.

The most inescapable fact of Southern defeat was the destruction of slavery. Unlike what Northerners had believed, slavery proved to be a sturdy institution, requiring powerful military blows and a concerted effort until it was destroyed. The legal end of slavery throughout the nation did not come until June 1865, when the Reconstructed government of Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment, securing emancipation in the South and starting it in Kentucky and Delaware, both of whom clung to the institution. The actual end of slavery came on the ground, as Union soldiers started an occupation of the South and enforced emancipation at gunpoint. But the military and unconditional defeat of the Confederacy had already assured the outcome, granting their freedom to over four million of human beings and revolutionizing Southern life. “Society has been completely changed by the war,” observed a Louisiana planter. “The [French] revolution of '89 did not produce a greater change in the 'Ancien Régime' than this has in our social life.” And he was completely right – the American nation would never again be the same.

The “vaunted world of privilege and power” that the Southern elites had enjoyed and sought to protect now came crashing down as the victorious Union enforced emancipation, land redistribution, and justice against the leading rebels. “The props that held society up are broken,” said the daughter of a former planter, as she observed these changes. The once “rich, hospitable, powerful, are now poor, and like Samson of old shorn of their pride and strength,” grieved a Mississippian. Katherine Stone gasped in horror at the idea of “submission to the Union (how we hate the word!), confiscation, and Negro equality.” Sarah Morgan believed for her part that it would be best for Southerners to “leave our land and emigrate to any desert spot of the earth.” Some rebels followed her counsel and fled the country, never to return, the most prominent of them being General Beauregard. E. Kirby Smith and some of his lieutenants fled to Mexico; Judah P. Benjamin and others preferred Europe, while other communities tried to relocate to Brazil or Cuba. Some 50,000 rebels left the country, convinced by the fate of those who stayed that this was the right choice.

Several leading rebels ended up being trialed for war crimes and treason. Governor Vance was hanged for war crimes for his actions in Western North Carolina, a fate shared by Wade Hampton and Jeb Stuart, who was hanged in Harpers Ferry, the same place in which he had stood during John Brown’s execution. Howell Cobb and Robert Barnwell Rhett were hanged as traitors for having served in high positions in the US government and then joining the rebellion. Even some who obtained clemency because they had surrendered themselves received step penalties, such as Joseph Brown, condemned to 10 years of imprisonment, or Joseph E. Johnston, who was saved by the hangman only by Sherman’s intervention and then condemned to 20 years of imprisonment, having served only ten years when his health failed, and he died in 1875. Anticipating such a fate and seeing the “government overthrown & the whole property of myself and my family swept away,” Edmund Ruffin preferred to imitate his former chief and shoot himself. Other rebels received greater clemency if they had given up in time, such as General Longstreet, who received a full pardon, or Henry Wise, who merely had to suffer the confiscation of his properties, both because they surrendered themselves after the Coup.

Lincoln%20Assassinators%20Convicted_0.jpg

Post-war trials

Execution, however, was reserved only for the worst rebels, being used almost entirely against the architects of secession, supporters of the Junta, or war criminals. Most often, the Union enforced exile against the losers of the war. Due to Lincoln’s personal intervention, for example, Alexander Stephens was “allowed” to flee to England, where he would scrape a meager existence by advertising cheap products and being regarded as a curiosity by Europeans. Albert Sydney Johnston had his own sentence commuted to exile for having denounced the Junta, but, he observed later, it would have been preferrable to “die in my own native land than even live as a King in a foreign land.” Beauregard also echoed the American loyalist Thomas Hutchinson, writing in a bout of homesickness that he would rather “die poor and forgotten in my country than amidst honor and glory in another nation.” But this was a possibility forever closed – none of them would see the US again.

Others decided to exile themselves after their relatives received the Union’s justice. Thus, Varina Davis settled in England, denouncing how Lincoln had by “a single dash of the pen” wanted to “disrupt the whole social structure of the South, and to pour over the country a flood of evils.” Mary Breckinridge and her sons, after a brief stay in Kentucky, also decided to leave for Canada, writing that “I cannot bear the sight of this land - it isn’t home without my dear martyred husband.” Mary Boykin Chesnut also spent many months grieving how “our world has gone to destruction,” and wondering whether her husband “would be hanged as a Senator or as a General.” James Chesnut would be hanged as a Senator, the properties of his father then being confiscated, and Mary being given a small amount of money which she used to leave the country for France, where she would survive by publishing her memories (the first edition being in French). As she embarked, penniless and bitter, she saw enslaved people celebrating their freedom. “It takes these half-Africans but a moment to go back to their naked savage animal nature,” she observed in hatred. Gertrude Thomas, who had gone from a wealthy mistress to a ruined poor woman, also wished for a “volley of musketry” to be “sent among the Negroes who were holding a jubilee” in Georgia.

For the ruined planter class, Katherine Stone said, the “future stands before us dark, forbidding, & stern,” full of “all the bitterness of death without the lively hope of Resurrection.” Stone’s plight was even more severe, for when she returned to her plantation in Mississippi, she found it already redistributed to the people her family had enslaved. Granted a forty-acre homestead by the Federal commander, the girl who had once enjoyed a life of ease and pleasure for the first time had to work for her own bread. Even Unionist planters like William J. Britton felt themselves ruined by the end of slavery and the policies of the Union in favor of equal rights. He took dark pleasure in seeing “the political mad caps who have destroyed our once prosperous and happy people Swing at the end of hemp,” only regretting how “our great man Toombs was not among the number.” Although the full form of the post-war settlement was to be determined, most planters could already tell that the balance of power had changed and could only brace for worse.

That the Revolution was just starting was also recognized in the North. As the Congress closed its December session, a lame duck Chesnut could only declare apprehensively that “the anti-slavery party is in power. We know it. We feel it.” The Lincoln administration had won the election and then the war on a platform calling for the destruction of slavery, equal rights for all Americans, and a throughout Reconstruction of the Union. The victory of the Union, Frederick Douglass declared, had been a necessary and glorious one, for the future and soul of the nation and the progress of humanity. “The world has not seen a nobler and grander war” than this Second American Revolution. While costly and full of sacrifice, this struggle had written “the statutes of eternal justice and liberty in the blood of the worst tyrants . . . We should rejoice that there was normal life and health enough in us to stand in our appointed place, and do this great service for mankind.” A former slave named Uncle Stephen made the same point with less eloquence but just as deep a feeling. “It’s mighty distressin’ this war,” he told Yankee soldiers, “but it ’pears to me like the right thing couldn’t be done without it.”

default.jpg

The Ruins of Richmond

Nonetheless, the victory of the Union had not settled the issues of the war, but only opened new challenges. The issues of the war were certainly not settled in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, where the famine and the Jacquerie were raging on. They were not settled in the Mississippi Valley and other large swathes of the South, where roving bands of marauders still stole from starving civilians and where order hadn’t been reestablished. They were not settled in many plantations where former masters tried to maintain slavery and were preparing to fight for a system of labor and racial subordination, even if it required violence. They were not settled in the Black belt, where new Black landowners found themselves attacked by terrorists that wanted to reverse the tide of the Revolution. They were not settled in the Upper South, where a deadly riot started when Kentucky troops attacked a group of Tennesseans that had been singing “Stonewall Jackson’s Way.” They were not settled in the North either, where William Lloyd Garrison tried to dissolve the American Anti-Slavery Society by declaring that its work was completed, only for Frederick Douglass and Wendell Philipps to take over it and adopt a new motto: “No Reconstruction Without Negro Suffrage.”

The United States had successfully passed through its greatest trial, maintaining its unity and nationhood in the face of a powerful rebellion. But new and perhaps more difficult trials were now dawning. The American Civil War was over, but it remained to be seen whether the United States could win the peace in the new Reconstruction Era.
Untitled presentation.jpg
 
Btw, since TvTropes was mentioned... are there any YMMV tropes you think apply to this work? I'd be interested in reading any examples you might think of!
I'm not super informed regarding TVTropes and their various named tropes, but there would surely be some that apply to Johnny Breck.

Was he honourable, dishonourable, a plutocrat better able to hide it, a good man taken in by the plutocrats, a defender of the poor. There'll be a lot of YMMV debate and views on him in-universe too.
 
If you don't get a response, pop on to the forum and introduce yourself.
Thank you, I'll keep this in mind.

And so the first Book of this wonderful Timeline closes and we look forward to the next one.
Thanks! I hope it's as successful as this part was.

My pleasure! I discovered this story through TV Tropes, so it was a given that I could help in there. I'll update the thing with Stuart.

The problem with YMMV tropes is that, as indicated, it's about things Your Mileage May Vary on. Some tropes that could apply:
- Anticlimax Boss: The last fight with Jackson was a clear sign of this.
- Catharsis Factor: Let's be honest, we all enjoyed seeing the Confederacy getting kicked.
- Complete Monster: The usual suspects (everyone under "The Butcher").
- Memetic Badass: Lincoln
Really glad I made that TvTropes page! And, yes, you're right, but I do wonder about more subjective opinions. Those all fit, I believe.

Leading to another Hogan's Heroes scene idea which would be Poetic Justice. There was an episode where a guy was trying to negotiate England's surrender. The bumbling colonel Crittenden looked a lot like him so he was sent to impersonate the guy and as per Hogan's plan bungled everything so that a German invasion fleet was sunk.

The traitor gets out of the tunnel system, which he warned about once but Hogan and his man got him back down there, and says "Good news, I've escaped again!" Upon which major hostetter, the Gestapo guy who always screams "what is this man doing here," quickly says to the traitor, "you are under arrest for treason, take him away."

That would be so beautiful to see one of those pirates say they have achieved a great victory for president Breckenridge and start to praise him, right before one of the junta has him shot.


The one drawback is that the weaker the presidency, the less important it will seem to abolish the Electoral College because it would be said,"all it does is elect a president, Congress holds the real power." And I imagine there might be a limiting of the president's power after a while. Although not until a good deal into reconstruction.
I wasn't envisioning the President being so weakened the US becomes essentially a parliamentary Republic. But after this Civil War some probably are spooked at how powerful Lincoln got at times.

Short of a Second Constitutional Convention, I simply cannot see the states agreeing to the passage of what would have to be a plethora of constitutional amendments designed to transform the United States government into a parliamentary system. It would constitute an absolutely unacceptable transfer of power from the states to the federal government. NOT going to happen.

Not just refusing the loss of the EC (a BIG time political concession to the population poor states, like the US Senate), but items like Parliamentary Votes of No Confidence, Cabinet Revolts, loss of cyclical elections, and the breakdown of the Separation of Powers are ALL matters that Americans would find (even in the 19th century) MOST politically indigestible. And at all levels OF government: Federal, State, County, and Municipal.
No, a parliamentary system is simply not on the cards. The US shall remain a Federal Republic, but much more centralized than OTL, and the doors to more profound changes are still open. I do believe we need to get rid of the EC, and that was a very real proposal that I think could garner greater support here.

None of those tribes will get their land back.

No one in the Federal Government is going to take productive land off Confederates and give it to the first nations. I suppose it's possible that an unusually high proportion of it is given to freed people on the basis that it hasn't been truly developed yet so give it to the new group of landowners etc.

But I can't stress enough that strengthened abolitionism in no way leads to respect for indigenous peoples- I point you to the devout abolitionist stronghold of Canada, whose contempt for US slavery in no way prevented their own genocidal campaigns.

Coupled with the fact that all the powers that be are great believers in the importance of property rights- which is why the slavers dressed up so much of their defence in those terms- and there will be absolutely zero impetus for anyone in the Union to hand the property of white people over to a group that has no constituency in congress. People believed that the tribes were going extinct, and they believed this was a good thing.
I have to agree. To give you all an idea of how support for Black rights did not mean support for Native American rights, take Jane Grey Swisshelm, an abolitionist who, however, saw Native Americans as just another face of the "Slave Power" - in her mind, both the Rebels and the Tribes shunned productive labor and the natural march of civilization. She characterized them as “wild beasts” and exclaimed that “A Sioux has as much right to his life as a hyena.” Certainly, you had some more progressive individuals like William Lloyd Garrison who wanted assimilation over genocide, but this is hardly what the tribes themselves wanted. Finally, the mass of Republicans, including crucially Lincoln and Seward, still are wholehearted believers in the idea that it is the US' destiny to take over those lands and develop them. Any earlier reluctance to expansion was usually based on how those lands could then be used for slavery, but now that issue has been resolved. There's zero chance of lands being given back to Native Americans.

I imagine a massive deciding factor for the fate of the Confederacy-aligned Native American tribes would probably be how the tribal leadership in the Indian Territory reacted to the Confederacy's coup. If they cut their losses, things would certainly go more smoothly with the federal government. If they stick it out to the end though, then it's probably going to get an extra ugly kind of ugly.
For what it's worth... there was a deleted line in the final chapter about how General Stand Watie was captured and handed over to John Ross, but I deleted it because I realized I ultimately don't know enough about Native American politics to decide what will happen. Most likely, the Union will treat all Native tribes as conquered enemies. They will require them to accept emancipation and equal rights, but beyond that I'm not sure.

It would be darkly funny if the tribes' slaves got the land but they didn't.
That may happen.

I love how history works this way!! And did Sickles pioneer the temporary insanity plea ITL?
Most likely. I don't see how the butterflies would have changed that, and it's too amusing to be left out.

On the other hand, it would give away more land from the Traitors, and help ensure the Tribes are, at the very least, invested in keeping them down...
The US probably doesn't want their support in such an endeavor.

Basically, this. Nothing has happened in this TL - save (possibly) a less severe Dakota War - which is going to soften attitudes of white Americans towards Native Americans. It sucks - badly - but its the reality of what's been described. If anything, things could get a bit roughter for the tribes in this situation: it effectively creates a unified front (kind of) of Northern whites and freedmen against Natives when Freedmen begin to migrate into the Western territories - which IS going to happen (and I suspect that black slaves being held by in the Indian Territory are going to be given tribal land; meaning there will be prosperous black communities on the Plains to start as the base and inspiration of such a migration).

In an ironic turn, the one group which may empathise with Natives (in a sickening, self-serving, and patriarchial sort of way, of course) are going to be Southron whites and, esspecially, the planter elite who are going to read into the Native struggless to retain their land, a very nice metaphor for their own doomed rebellion.

I just don't think there's reasonable way that the western tribes are going to get any more of a fair shake in this TL than in our OWN - at least not prior to the 1880s and 1890s. Perhapse we can get an earlier Indian Citizenship Act or Indian New Deal; but such things wouldn't be feasible until the frontier has already been 'closed.' So, it could well be during the *Progressive Movement. But until that time, there's a lot of land in the West, and the white and black American settlers are going to want it and, not only that, see it as their duty to take it.
I'm not sure how big the movement of freedmen to the west will be. OTL, there were efforts at such "emigrationism" only after the collapse of Reconstruction. While it was still going on and there seemed to be real hopes of progress in the South, most Black people preferred to stay put and build up their own constituencies. A more successful Reconstruction and a more robust Black community is probably going to result in much less westward movement, at least for a few decades. Eventually, as you note, we could see earlier efforts at integration, but in the short term the US will continue its program of colonization.

I'm not super informed regarding TVTropes and their various named tropes, but there would surely be some that apply to Johnny Breck.

Was he honourable, dishonourable, a plutocrat better able to hide it, a good man taken in by the plutocrats, a defender of the poor. There'll be a lot of YMMV debate and views on him in-universe too.
That would be "Alternate Character Interpretation." Probably "Cry for the Devil" (sympathy for the villain too) given how many said they actually felt somewhat sorry for him.
 
E. Kirby Smith and some of his lieutenants fled to Mexico
Not for long, hehe. If the US exerts pressure, such Confederate exiles will be f*cked.

So ends Book One of a Socalist USA
It really depends. Although it's obvious that a fully Reconstructed US will make the socialist, anarchist and communist movements in the US stronger in the Deep South, that is not a guarantee that such movements will have the capacity (whether legal or revolutionary) to eliminate the GOP and establish a Socialist America. It's a 50/50 for me: either the working class in the US becomes even stronger than OTL and has an actual opportunity to declare a revolution/take power in a legal manner and creating something akin to Allende's Chile; or the US state apparatus is more interventionist, which ensures a better US in the long run, but also nulls the revolutionary workers' movements due to reformism.
 
It really depends. Although it's obvious that a fully Reconstructed US will make the socialist, anarchist and communist movements in the US stronger in the Deep South, that is not a guarantee that such movements will have the capacity (whether legal or revolutionary) to eliminate the GOP and establish a Socialist America. It's a 50/50 for me: either the working class in the US becomes even stronger than OTL and has an actual opportunity to declare a revolution/take power in a legal manner and creating something akin to Allende's Chile; or the US state apparatus is more interventionist, which ensures a better US in the long run, but also nulls the revolutionary workers' movements due to reformism.
At the very least, a more “European” US could be an interesting outcome in itself, now you mentioned it.
That would be "Alternate Character Interpretation." Probably "Cry for the Devil" (sympathy for the villain too) given how many said they actually felt somewhat sorry for him.
On that note, maybe A Lighter Shade of Black could also apply to him, at least compared to say Toombs and the junta?
 
I'm not sure how big the movement of freedmen to the west will be. OTL, there were efforts at such "emigrationism" only after the collapse of Reconstruction. While it was still going on and there seemed to be real hopes of progress in the South, most Black people preferred to stay put and build up their own constituencies. A more successful Reconstruction and a more robust Black community is probably going to result in much less westward movement, at least for a few decades. Eventually, as you note, we could see earlier efforts at integration, but in the short term the US will continue its program of colonization.

to play devil's advocate - I think OTL is a pretty poor judge for how black western migration would work in that ATL. The failure of the Freedmen's Bank and the constant attempts to undercut Freedmen's attempts to build up wealth, pretty much nullified the chances of a great Freedmen migration West. Those who would have wished to go, simply couldn't afford to.

Although the myth of the Western frontier was that it worked to undermine American radicalism by allowing a pressure valve for the discontent to find new lives out West, this wasn't really the case (as much as I hate to dismiss my fellow Wisconsinite, the esteemed Frederick Jackson Turner). The fact of the matter was, that in order to move West and homestead, one had to possess a fair bit of wealth to afford passage and supplies while the land was improved.

It's akin to saying that the poor Irish living in a New York, or Boston slum simply preferred urban living and wanted to make a go of it where they were. Some? Sure. But for the vast majority, the opportunity to move West never even occurred to them, because they didn't have the financial ability to do so. So to, the Freedmen in the post-War South.

In a timeline where the Freedmen are going to have a more financially secure existence, there is going to be a movement West. Will many prefer to stay in the South and carve out an existence? Of course. But for others (not the majority, I'm sure) the memories of slavery and the war are going to too much, and given the chance and opportunity of the Promise of the West, they'll be packing their bags and saying "bye" to the trauma, blood and sadness.

Even in OTL, when the opportunity to love West occurred, there were many Freedmen who jumped at the opportunity to make a new life for themselves. The problem, of course, was that this was contingent on immigration societies - funded by Northern blacks and whites - to provide assistance, and this was thin on the ground and sporadic. In this, once again, the comparison to poor Irish is pretty spot on (immigration societies for the Irish existed also, a prominent one founded by Archbishop John Ireland. But they usually failed due to lack of resources). However, I could see the freedmen doing what the Irish did as well as follow the railroad: the rail companies have a ready population to help settle western towns and provide labor and assistance - freedmen.

Furthermore, I'd say for the goals of this timeline to succeed, you almost NEED significant black settlement of the West. As long as they do not, the Freedmen and their descendents remain a Southron phenomenon. Its easy for the well-to-do northeastern white Liberals to speak well of the freedmen and offer assistance when they remain the South. But to truly be accepted, to really gain prominence, they need to take part in the great American endeavor of the post-war World. And that's the settlement of the West.

Yes, this is unfortunate for the natives residing there at the time. But the settlement of the West was the defining moment of the American experience during the later 19th and early 20th century. And if Freedmen are going to gain equal respect and placement within the American mythology, they NEED to take part. They were there in OTL, of course - there were Buffalo Soldiers and significant percentages of cowboys were black. But there need to be even more of them here, walking hand in hand with other settlers and helping to create a West which is multi-racial. Thats how you really work to forge an American identity where Freedmen are seen as (near) equal partners to white settlers.
 
to play devil's advocate - I think OTL is a pretty poor judge for how black western migration would work in that ATL. The failure of the Freedmen's Bank and the constant attempts to undercut Freedmen's attempts to build up wealth, pretty much nullified the chances of a great Freedmen migration West. Those who would have wished to go, simply couldn't afford to.

Although the myth of the Western frontier was that it worked to undermine American radicalism by allowing a pressure valve for the discontent to find new lives out West, this wasn't really the case (as much as I hate to dismiss my fellow Wisconsinite, the esteemed Frederick Jackson Turner). The fact of the matter was, that in order to move West and homestead, one had to possess a fair bit of wealth to afford passage and supplies while the land was improved.

It's akin to saying that the poor Irish living in a New York, or Boston slum simply preferred urban living and wanted to make a go of it where they were. Some? Sure. But for the vast majority, the opportunity to move West never even occurred to them, because they didn't have the financial ability to do so. So to, the Freedmen in the post-War South.

In a timeline where the Freedmen are going to have a more financially secure existence, there is going to be a movement West. Will many prefer to stay in the South and carve out an existence? Of course. But for others (not the majority, I'm sure) the memories of slavery and the war are going to too much, and given the chance and opportunity of the Promise of the West, they'll be packing their bags and saying "bye" to the trauma, blood and sadness.
It makes me wonder how am I great grandfather's mothers parents learned of where they settled in Northeast Ohio. A growing town which would soon flourish into city, the place where they lived was one where they came over first as the father and maybe a sibling or two in the round 1870, then a few more of the kids, and finally the mother and the last of her 11 kids. When he had made the money to bring the others over he sent it over.

I wonder if it was one of those societies that provided that. I really wasn't aware that they existed but that is interesting.

And once he died, in 1880 the census lists my great-grandfather's mother at age 11 as a house servant for a fairly wealthy family in that city, living around the corner from the future President McKinley. They had an older daughter who was like a big sister for the girl, and she was well cared for.

I give this as an example of how there will need to be some kind of safety net for the widows and children like that. I think a little too much attention is paid to the workers and some of these discussions because they at least can earn money, even if it's not much, and they can earn more if they wind up gaining control of the production. The women often couldn't. And the children, if they weren't given an opportunity to have an education, weren't going to be able to do better than manual labor.

The fact that there will be so many widows and orphans of all races is going to wake people up to that need a lot faster than it did in our timeline. Maybe not huge gobs of people, but enough so that we might see some sort of social safety net develop at least locally. So that families are still caring for the widows endorphins like is customary, especially because there will be so many older siblings who are old enough to care for younger ones and things like that, but where there will be people checking to make sure that everyone is cared for. The Progressive Movement might get a jump start in this timeline and end up truly helping a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
No, a parliamentary system is simply not on the cards. The US shall remain a Federal Republic, but much more centralized than OTL, and the doors to more profound changes are still open. I do believe we need to get rid of the EC, and that was a very real proposal that I think could garner greater support here.
I agree about the need to ditch the EC. I just disagree that even ITTL the popular support will exist in the population poor states to support the idea. IOW, said proposed amendment establishing direct population-based elections of the office of POTUS just won't make it politically.

Maybe I'm just too cynical from my experience of seeing the Equal Rights Amendment failing. Mainly on the grounds of all those state legislators wives being anti-ERA, based on their selfish worries over what effects the ERA would have on divorce laws (alimony :mad: ).
 
I do believe we need to get rid of the EC, and that was a very real proposal
I agree about the need to ditch the EC. I just disagree that even ITTL the popular support will exist in the population poor states to support the idea. IOW, said proposed amendment establishing direct population-based elections of the office of POTUS just won't make it politically.

Maybe I'm just too cynical from my experience of seeing the Equal Rights Amendment failing. Mainly on the grounds of all those state legislators wives being anti-ERA, based on their selfish worries over what effects the ERA would have on divorce laws (alimony :mad: ).
IMO the best way to kill the EC is to have it diverge from the PV twice, in a very short amount of time, in the opposite direction each time. So first, in, say, 1884, it chooses a Liberal Republican even though the Labor Republican won the popular vote; then in 1892 it chooses a Labor Republican but the Liberal Republican wins the popular vote. This would leave both major parties mad at the EC and possibly give them the mutual motivation to get rid of it. The main issue is that it may be hard to compose political coalitions that deliver such divergent results in such a short amount of time; the closest OTL came was 1960 and 1968 (the fact the Bayh-Celler Amendment was proposed shortly afterward is not a coincidence).

It might even require it happening repeatedly, but that is slightly less likely. It could perhaps be balanced out by having it wildly vary in terms of percentage in additional elections, though (this was the logic behind Bayh-Celler IOTL, as Humphrey's share of the EC was far below his share of the PV).
 
I would argue the best way to get rid of the EC would be having a third party candidate playing spoiler stopping a clear PV winner from taking office and grinding the whole system to a halt which would probably draw enough Ire and public demand for electoral reform
 
I just realized something that might get Theodore Roosevelt into prominence earlier.

In 1886, the democrats, with Tammany Hall backing as usual, one a close election for mayor of New York city. Roosevelt finished third as a Republican, with second place a surprising candidate who was the candidate of a very Pro labor faction.

In this timeline, with Tammany Hall gone, the Republicans will probably dominate even New York city. It will be interesting to see what factions develop, perhaps the Republicans will dominate until this fellow emerges, I forget his name at the moment. Theodore Roosevelt is a smart politician and it is entirely possible that he will win that election with people throwing their support to him rather than the much more left candidate.

That's pretty far in the future, near the end of part two with the Reconstruction era, but it is interesting to note that Theodore Roosevelt could have a road to power that is actually faster than in our timeline.
I wonder who that guy in second place is. Maybe we should let him win🤔. Perhaps even have him become president, who knows.
 
Last edited:
This is how the Civil War should've ended. No more revisionist history or self-serving bigots to even try and justify one of the egregious errors in American history. Through blood and fire, the Union had an opportunity to right this wrong and move towards the path toward true equality and opportunity in the United States.

Unlike OTL, this is going to stick instead of having their rights be slowly eroded by the Southern slavocracy, which will make Reconstruction much more interesting in the long run. Having a more politically active and powerful African American community is going to have vast effects on American politics, culture, and science moving forward, and I can't wait to see how those changes will cause America to blossom.

Not for long, hehe. If the US exerts pressure, such Confederate exiles will be f*cked.
Depends on how willing the United States is to pursue former Confederates in foreign territory.

Luckily, Mexico is sure to give them back if the United States merely asks. Juarez owes the United States for its support, and he'll repay them with these exiles if he has to.
 
This is how the Civil War should've ended. No more revisionist history or self-serving bigots to even try and justify one of the egregious errors in American history. Through blood and fire, the Union had an opportunity to right this wrong and move towards the path toward true equality and opportunity in the United States. (1)

Unlike OTL, this is going to stick instead of having their rights be slowly eroded by the Southern slavocracy, which will make Reconstruction much more interesting in the long run. Having a more politically active and powerful African American community is going to have vast effects on American politics, culture, and science moving forward, and I can't wait to see how those changes will cause America to blossom. (2)


Depends on how willing the United States is to pursue former Confederates in foreign territory. (3)

Luckily, Mexico is sure to give them back if the United States merely asks. Juarez owes the United States for its support, and he'll repay them with these exiles if he has to. (4)
1) :)

2) HEAR-HEAR-HEAR!!!:love:

3) Something sure to poison or foster good relations between the United States and other countries, depending on the circumstances in each country's case.

4) As the John Surratt Case proved, even going to hide in minor countries (the Papal States and Egypt, regarding Surratt) proved to be no protection. As for TTL, it is likely that a MUCH hardened United States is going to regard the protection of high ranking ex-Confederates to be a MAJOR headache for the "offending country". And as I posted earlier, major countries are ITTL equally likely to look askance at the protecting of these high ranked ex-Confederates (ESPECIALLY Junta leaders, for those who escaped).

In particular I am thinking of the British Empire (5), whose leaders spent decades trying to ameliorate the damages done to Anglo-American relations following the American Civil War.😤🤬

5) And when the time comes, the Third French Republic (6) (and its people) as well. Oh, HI Miss Liberty!🗽

6) Whose establishment I for one consider to be a historical inevitability. (7) Perhaps even more so ITTL!

7) Between the Imperial French Mexican fiasco and taking on Bismarck's Prussia (post-Austro-Prussian War of 1866), I have always been adamant that Napoleon III's fall was a certainty.
 
Basically, this. Nothing has happened in this TL - save (possibly) a less severe Dakota War - which is going to soften attitudes of white Americans towards Native Americans. It sucks - badly - but its the reality of what's been described. If anything, things could get a bit roughter for the tribes in this situation: it effectively creates a unified front (kind of) of Northern whites and freedmen against Natives when Freedmen begin to migrate into the Western territories - which IS going to happen (and I suspect that black slaves being held by in the Indian Territory are going to be given tribal land; meaning there will be prosperous black communities on the Plains to start as the base and inspiration of such a migration).

In an ironic turn, the one group which may empathise with Natives (in a sickening, self-serving, and patriarchial sort of way, of course) are going to be Southron whites and, esspecially, the planter elite who are going to read into the Native struggless to retain their land, a very nice metaphor for their own doomed rebellion.

I just don't think there's reasonable way that the western tribes are going to get any more of a fair shake in this TL than in our OWN - at least not prior to the 1880s and 1890s. Perhapse we can get an earlier Indian Citizenship Act or Indian New Deal; but such things wouldn't be feasible until the frontier has already been 'closed.' So, it could well be during the *Progressive Movement. But until that time, there's a lot of land in the West, and the white and black American settlers are going to want it and, not only that, see it as their duty to take it.
Just to clarify, with all of my talk about giving the First Nations a better shot. I fully agree and understand that things are going to be bad, possibly worse, in the short term.

My broader point is that there's a chance that things might be improved later and that the steps for later improvement can be laid as early as U.S. Grant taking the White House. He's absolutely going to continue assimilation and the west is going to be stolen from its rightful owners, but his (mildly) gentler policies as well as his and Parker's removal of the Army from the bureaucracy of the Indian Affairs Committee sets things up for more opportunities for change down the road and potentially earlier the OTL.

Furthermore, while the phenomena of oppressed groups who gain rights pulling up the ladder behind them is absolutely a thing, the idea that "non-white" groups can be given equality and justice can't be ignored. A precedent has been set, so we may see a more formal political movement for Native rights sooner. We likely won't see any progress until the 1890s or early 20th century, but that's still far sooner than our world.

One idea I'd throw out is that perhaps Oklahoma dodges a bullet by taking the hit earlier than OTL. Maybe we see an earlier Oklahoma land rush, but only for Confederate aligned tribes. John Ross and other Union aligned leaders throw the CSA allied tribal members under the bus for more formal protection of what land they have left. Well... maybe not throw them under the bus per-say, but maybe recognize that if they sacrifice the treasonous tribal members, they can save the rest. This would be a poison pill to be sure and lead to some bitter resentment within the tribes with the legacy of Union and Confederate leaving lasting scars possibly longer than other parts of america. But it may allow them to save something in the long run as the land that the tribes keep can hold up their loyalty as a bit of a shield against future land loss.

It's a bit fuzzy, but maybe it'd work?
 
If this happens I suspect it'll because it'll be the end of the South as a unified political bloc capable of coordinating actions between common social institutions and the State governments, not because it remains depopulated. I think the North will ensure that the South remains politically divided itself and never again able to unite to pose a threat to the Union under any circumstances (particularly if the bandit and anti-Black, counterrevolutionary terrorism persists, leading to prolonged military occupation) but nevertheless I'd expect the place to repopulate pretty quickly - although it'll be a very different looking, much more cosmopolitan South than pre-Revolution.
I somehow forgot to reply to this. The period of Republican/Northern dominance that ensued after the Civil War is simply what happened IOTL. Take into account how, before the war, almost every President had either been a slaveholder himself or an advocate of slavery. Southerners also elected most Speakers, Justices, and had an oversized influence in the Senate - see the "Fourth Street Mess" that basically dictated legislation to Buchanan. After the war, this ended - for about 50 years most Presidents, Speakers, and Justices were Northerners. From McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom:

This change in the federal balance paralleled a radical shift of political power from South to North. During the first seventy-two years of the republic down to 186 1 a slaveholding resident of one of the states that joined the Confederacy had been President of the United States for forty-nine of those years—more than two-thirds of the time. In Congress, twenty-three of the thirty-six speakers of the House and twenty-four of the presidents pro tern of the Senate had been southerners. The Supreme Court always had a southern majority; twenty of the thirty-five justices to 186 1 had been appointed from slave states. After the war a century passed before a resident of an ex-Confederate state was elected president. For half a century none of the speakers of the House or presidents pro tern of the Senate came from the South, and only five of the twenty-six Supreme Cour t justices appointed during that half-century were southerners.​
Even with a "Solid South" (which won't be a thing here), a period of Republican dominance at the National level is a given. Here, that dominance will just be greater.

Not for long, hehe. If the US exerts pressure, such Confederate exiles will be f*cked.


It really depends. Although it's obvious that a fully Reconstructed US will make the socialist, anarchist and communist movements in the US stronger in the Deep South, that is not a guarantee that such movements will have the capacity (whether legal or revolutionary) to eliminate the GOP and establish a Socialist America. It's a 50/50 for me: either the working class in the US becomes even stronger than OTL and has an actual opportunity to declare a revolution/take power in a legal manner and creating something akin to Allende's Chile; or the US state apparatus is more interventionist, which ensures a better US in the long run, but also nulls the revolutionary workers' movements due to reformism.
Lincoln probably would be fine with the exiles remaining in exile, the threat of punishment enough to keep them out of the US.

At the very least, a more “European” US could be an interesting outcome in itself, now you mentioned it.

On that note, maybe A Lighter Shade of Black could also apply to him, at least compared to say Toombs and the junta?
Yeah, Breckinridge is certainly less bad, so to speak, than the Junta. Ironically, with how much of a dumpster fire it all became at the end, Confederates may somehow remember the Breckinridge years as a good time - the time when they were fighting with honor with a real chance at victory and the planters were kept in their place. Even though that would not be really true.

Furthermore, I'd say for the goals of this timeline to succeed, you almost NEED significant black settlement of the West. As long as they do not, the Freedmen and their descendents remain a Southron phenomenon. Its easy for the well-to-do northeastern white Liberals to speak well of the freedmen and offer assistance when they remain the South. But to truly be accepted, to really gain prominence, they need to take part in the great American endeavor of the post-war World. And that's the settlement of the West.

Yes, this is unfortunate for the natives residing there at the time. But the settlement of the West was the defining moment of the American experience during the later 19th and early 20th century. And if Freedmen are going to gain equal respect and placement within the American mythology, they NEED to take part. They were there in OTL, of course - there were Buffalo Soldiers and significant percentages of cowboys were black. But there need to be even more of them here, walking hand in hand with other settlers and helping to create a West which is multi-racial. Thats how you really work to forge an American identity where Freedmen are seen as (near) equal partners to white settlers.
Very well, you have convinced me. Your arguments are very compelling, and you're of course completely right that for future integration we need Black people in every corner of the nation, and I hadn't considered how even if less people want to migrate a stronger Black community would allow more to actually migrate.

The fact that there will be so many widows and orphans of all races is going to wake people up to that need a lot faster than it did in our timeline. Maybe not huge gobs of people, but enough so that we might see some sort of social safety net develop at least locally. So that families are still caring for the widows endorphins like is customary, especially because there will be so many older siblings who are old enough to care for younger ones and things like that, but where there will be people checking to make sure that everyone is cared for. The Progressive Movement might get a jump start in this timeline and end up truly helping a lot of people.
Yeah, you're right. In many ways Reconstruction provided the first real US safety nets, as the Army and Bureaus fed people, gave them healthcare and homes. But this was always meant to be a temporary effort, with many Bureau agents expressing qualms about teaching people to be "lazy" and how they needed to feel the "spur of necessity" to become good citizens. Given the much more disastrous circumstances here, we may see a stronger, longer-lasting Bureau presence and States developing their own safety nets much sooner.

I agree about the need to ditch the EC. I just disagree that even ITTL the popular support will exist in the population poor states to support the idea. IOW, said proposed amendment establishing direct population-based elections of the office of POTUS just won't make it politically.

Maybe I'm just too cynical from my experience of seeing the Equal Rights Amendment failing. Mainly on the grounds of all those state legislators wives being anti-ERA, based on their selfish worries over what effects the ERA would have on divorce laws (alimony :mad: ).
As I mentioned previously, there was some support IOTL for "reforming" the EC, mostly amongst the Radicals. For one, they recognized that freeing Black people actually enhanced Southern electoral power. “It was unjust to the North,” Grant lamented for example. “In giving the South negro suffrage, we have given the old slave-holders forty votes in the electoral college. They keep those votes, but disfranchise the negroes. That is one of the gravest mistakes in the policy of reconstruction.” The other issue was that many feared that a corrupt regime or a minority could change the result in a single state and decide who was to become President, something the Reformers feared the most. As such, I think direct-election has a real chance, if Republicans are both convinced that they are the "natural majority" of the nation, remain afraid of a resurgent South by means of disenfranchisement and outsized population, and think the EC actually offers more opportunities for corruption. A coalition of Radicals, Reformers, and Party bosses could then pass the amendment.

It might even require it happening repeatedly, but that is slightly less likely. It could perhaps be balanced out by having it wildly vary in terms of percentage in additional elections, though (this was the logic behind Bayh-Celler IOTL, as Humphrey's share of the EC was far below his share of the PV).
This seems the most likely scenario to me - Republicans win big nationally, but a combination of terrorism and EC shenannigans means they only have a razor-thin margin in the EC.

I would argue the best way to get rid of the EC would be having a third party candidate playing spoiler stopping a clear PV winner from taking office and grinding the whole system to a halt which would probably draw enough Ire and public demand for electoral reform
That, too.

I wonder who that guy in second place is. Maybe we should let him win🤔. Perhaps even have him become president, who knows.
A Georgist President... and not just anyone, but the Henry George. Very intriguing, very intriguing...

This is how the Civil War should've ended. No more revisionist history or self-serving bigots to even try and justify one of the egregious errors in American history. Through blood and fire, the Union had an opportunity to right this wrong and move towards the path toward true equality and opportunity in the United States.

Unlike OTL, this is going to stick instead of having their rights be slowly eroded by the Southern slavocracy, which will make Reconstruction much more interesting in the long run. Having a more politically active and powerful African American community is going to have vast effects on American politics, culture, and science moving forward, and I can't wait to see how those changes will cause America to blossom.


Depends on how willing the United States is to pursue former Confederates in foreign territory.

Luckily, Mexico is sure to give them back if the United States merely asks. Juarez owes the United States for its support, and he'll repay them with these exiles if he has to.
Yes, I'll always grieve how in OTL the opportunity was thrown away. But not here. A better nation will be built.

1) :)

2) HEAR-HEAR-HEAR!!!:love:

3) Something sure to poison or foster good relations between the United States and other countries, depending on the circumstances in each country's case.

4) As the John Surratt Case proved, even going to hide in minor countries (the Papal States and Egypt, regarding Surratt) proved to be no protection. As for TTL, it is likely that a MUCH hardened United States is going to regard the protection of high ranking ex-Confederates to be a MAJOR headache for the "offending country". And as I posted earlier, major countries are ITTL equally likely to look askance at the protecting of these high ranked ex-Confederates (ESPECIALLY Junta leaders, for those who escaped).

In particular I am thinking of the British Empire (5), whose leaders spent decades trying to ameliorate the damages done to Anglo-American relations following the American Civil War.😤🤬

5) And when the time comes, the Third French Republic (6) (and its people) as well. Oh, HI Miss Liberty!🗽

6) Whose establishment I for one consider to be a historical inevitability. (7) Perhaps even more so ITTL!

7) Between the Imperial French Mexican fiasco and taking on Bismarck's Prussia (post-Austro-Prussian War of 1866), I have always been adamant that Napoleon III's fall was a certainty.
Beauregard remains the wild card, especially if, as mentioned, his foreign adventures are mistaken for/construed to be a second wave of filibustering or a government in exile. Depending on what he does, Kirby Smith could also find himself in hot water, especially if the greater number of Confederate exiles believe they have a real chance of establishing slavery in Mexico under Max (something Max refused to do). And, yes, by this point a Third French Republic is inevitable, but I'm still looking for ways to have a smoother, more republican so-to speak birth.

Just to clarify, with all of my talk about giving the First Nations a better shot. I fully agree and understand that things are going to be bad, possibly worse, in the short term.

My broader point is that there's a chance that things might be improved later and that the steps for later improvement can be laid as early as U.S. Grant taking the White House. He's absolutely going to continue assimilation and the west is going to be stolen from its rightful owners, but his (mildly) gentler policies as well as his and Parker's removal of the Army from the bureaucracy of the Indian Affairs Committee sets things up for more opportunities for change down the road and potentially earlier the OTL.

Furthermore, while the phenomena of oppressed groups who gain rights pulling up the ladder behind them is absolutely a thing, the idea that "non-white" groups can be given equality and justice can't be ignored. A precedent has been set, so we may see a more formal political movement for Native rights sooner. We likely won't see any progress until the 1890s or early 20th century, but that's still far sooner than our world.

One idea I'd throw out is that perhaps Oklahoma dodges a bullet by taking the hit earlier than OTL. Maybe we see an earlier Oklahoma land rush, but only for Confederate aligned tribes. John Ross and other Union aligned leaders throw the CSA allied tribal members under the bus for more formal protection of what land they have left. Well... maybe not throw them under the bus per-say, but maybe recognize that if they sacrifice the treasonous tribal members, they can save the rest. This would be a poison pill to be sure and lead to some bitter resentment within the tribes with the legacy of Union and Confederate leaving lasting scars possibly longer than other parts of america. But it may allow them to save something in the long run as the land that the tribes keep can hold up their loyalty as a bit of a shield against future land loss.

It's a bit fuzzy, but maybe it'd work?
Certainly. The very fact that this US is not a "White man's country" will provide hope and new opportunities to many groups, and serve as a springboard and inspiration for their own struggles for rights. And that's clever, seeing the tribes play the White people's politics and feuds in their favor. A nice way to show the Natives' agency.

Here is it. It's kinda bare right now, but with reader support we'll be able to fill it.
Thank you :)
 
<snip>Beauregard remains the wild card, especially if, as mentioned, his foreign adventures are mistaken for/construed to be a second wave of filibustering or a government in exile. Depending on what he does, Kirby Smith could also find himself in hot water, especially if the greater number of Confederate exiles believe they have a real chance of establishing slavery in Mexico under Max (something Max refused to do). And, yes, by this point a Third French Republic is inevitable, but I'm still looking for ways to have a smoother, more republican so-to speak birth.<snip>
The sad truth of it is as I have pondered the matter is that Benito Juarez at least won't even have the opportunity to hand over troublesome ex-Confederates. AISI, I doubt very much that such people would ever allow themselves to fall into the hands of the armed forces of the Republic of Mexico. They'll stick with Max until they have to flee the country IMO.

I agree with you now-in part-about Lincoln not wanting to have to deal with exiled ex-Confederates. (1) However, I DO foresee an exception to this. Domestic political forces within the US (North AND South!) will demand the extradition of the Junta leaders (2), at the very least. And I doubt Lincoln would throw away the opportunity to score political points with angry mobs demanding justice (and vengeance).

1) Particularly those anti-Junta ex-Confederates who managed to flee the country. Though NOT those who fled to the Union (who could count on a friendly reception), but rather to Mexico or by sea to other foreign nations.

2) And the worst of their fellow travellers.

EDIT: Actually, there was a very good John Wayne/Rock Hudson film (The Undefeated-1969) fictionalizing the story of Confederate major general Joseph Shelby's flight to Mexico. In the film, the "Shelby-like" character played by Rock Hudson, upon reaching the Mexican Army, found to his horror that he and his people had fallen into the hands of the Mexican Republican Army!:eek:😨 This, AFTER Hudson had offered the services of his ex-Confederate troops to fight for Maximiliano! The Republican Mexican commanding officer was not pleased...:mad:

IRL, Shelby was able to reach Max, who wasn't interested in Shelby's offer. Seems even Max had SOME standards. Including his refusal to foist the institution of Slavery upon Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Top