Reconstruction: The Second American Revolution - The Sequel to Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid

[Red_Galiray]

Yeah that’s completely good, just recommend to fix the little mistake I made
it is supposed to say 1865 not 1861 here my bad


I get that, the main reason I do the wikis is because 1. I like making them it is something I enjoy doing and 2. I think that they can help one visualize how the changes materialize in this world 3. I am completely good with doing the wikis because like I said it is something I enjoy

Thanks! And thank you a lot for doing them! I'm glad you liked my TLs enough to inspire you to work on something you enjoy!

Huh, I had actually forgotten about those proposals. IIRC the push for Federally funded education was strong going into the 1880s and was solid in terms of constitutionality - unfortunately, it was beaten in the House of Representatives. Federal education would also be positive in introducing Federal oversight and preventing any irregularities in education (read: Lost Cause). I could definitely see this one being more sustained if the GAR hears that Southern textbooks are trying to give a different message and campaigns for a more standardized textbook. But you are right that terrorism did ultimately undermine the staying power of the Republican state governments from both a social and fiscal standpoint. I do suspect that the South will remain considerably behind in income level to the North, but a more educated South (both black and white) and greater economic & social mobility in the 1880s could make it a more vibrant and economically dynamic region and catch up earlier than IOTL.

Having a National narrative of the war taught in American schools was also a priority for me. It would also push the US closer to other states in the 19th century, which had developed more centralized education systems where a standardized national history was told. I certainly believe the Army and others would be very interested in history being told the right way - in the victors writing the history.

Speaking of the railroads, I just had a thought: has the Crédit Mobilier scandal been set in motion yet? It started off in 1864 and I imagine it still happened IOTL. It's plausible that this could be the impetus for a civil service reform movement ITTL. Alternatively, civil service reform could be used as a means for the Senate to try to wrest the patronage power away from the President and into the hands of the Senate.

I don't know much about the scandal beyond the basics, so I didn't really have it in my mind right now. I was going to touch on corruption a little later, since we need some civil service reform.

I am super excited to read this timeline!

Thank you very much

 

[AztecFireGod]

hey @Red_Galiray here I did the list of Supreme Court Justices (though only the ones with the Incumbent thing really matter)
Had to be a link because file was too big

 

[PRM]

Hey @Red_Galiray would you say that the post-Civil War war crimes trials will be on the level of the Nuremberg trials in their significance and historical importance?

 

[Whiteshore]

Hey @Red_Galiray would you say that the post-Civil War war crimes trials will be on the level of the Nuremberg trials in their significance and historical importance?

I personally wouldn't go that far, though once TTL's Hague Conventions are negotiated, the precedents from these trials could be something American diplomats could push to implement.

 

[PRM]

I personally wouldn't go that far, though once TTL's Hague Conventions are negotiated, the precedents from these trials could be something American diplomats could push to implement.

Well I mean I know it wouldn't necessarily be something that affects the world. I guess I should have simplified about it's significance and importance being towards American history and not the world per say.

 

[sparkptz]

Hey @Red_Galiray would you say that the post-Civil War war crimes trials will be on the level of the Nuremberg trials in their significance and historical importance?

Not even close IMO. Would be treated as just another case of a state dealing ruthlessly with traitors.

What made Nuremberg significant was, in no small part, the fact that recognised members of a nation state government were tried by the other belligerent states for crimes against all of humanity, i.e. it was the human race as a whole that was the injured party. That's most definitely not going to be the case here, that would undermine much of the Union case of the war to treat it as anything other than treasonous rebels fighting for an evil cause.

The work of delegitimising the plantation slavers' case will be done by schools and businesses, not courts. There is also no particular need to assemble evidence of the planters' crimes, which was a key reason the IMT was convened; it's not like they hid their evils away and tried to destroy evidence of slavery like the Nazis did.

 

[Byz]

Loved this TL's predecessor. I never expected to read a Shakespearean tragedy centered around John Breckenridge as basically the B Plot of the TL, but it ended up being possibly my favorite part. The level of research and care that went into this timeline is evident, and I found myself learning a lot of little civil war factoids as I read it. Well deserving of the Turtledove, and I'm excited to see where you go from here!

A truly ruinous commitment!

This was a hilarious joke. We are all laughing at your comment.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

i just read the entire first TL about the civil war and it was great.

Had one question though, what exactly qualified as a cutoff for those who were prosecuted/jailed/executed and those who were exiled or given clemency? I know Longstreet was given a full pardon, but would Lee have had he lived? Would Breckenridge for seeking peace? Was it just those that went along with the coup that were jailed (like would Jackson have been given clemency had he not been part of the coup for example)?

 

[Red_Galiray]

hey @Red_Galiray here I did the list of Supreme Court Justices (though only the ones with the Incumbent thing really matter)
Had to be a link because file was too big

Wow, really great job too! These are amazing

Hey @Red_Galiray would you say that the post-Civil War war crimes trials will be on the level of the Nuremberg trials in their significance and historical importance?

Hm, no, not really. The Nuremberg Trials involved the people who had been basically the enemies of the entire world, after a World War that completely changed the planet and defined history. This is a US affair. While they'll be huge for American history and jurisprudence, I can't see them ever achieving a similar importance to the world at large.

I personally wouldn't go that far, though once TTL's Hague Conventions are negotiated, the precedents from these trials could be something American diplomats could push to implement.

Certainly, especially because they can establish precedents regarding the nature of war crimes.

Not even close IMO. Would be treated as just another case of a state dealing ruthlessly with traitors.

What made Nuremberg significant was, in no small part, the fact that recognised members of a nation state government were tried by the other belligerent states for crimes against all of humanity, i.e. it was the human race as a whole that was the injured party. That's most definitely not going to be the case here, that would undermine much of the Union case of the war to treat it as anything other than treasonous rebels fighting for an evil cause.

The work of delegitimising the plantation slavers' case will be done by schools and businesses, not courts. There is also no particular need to assemble evidence of the planters' crimes, which was a key reason the IMT was convened; it's not like they hid their evils away and tried to destroy evidence of slavery like the Nazis did.

Yeah, it'll be seen as a US internal affair. In fact, the US trialing its traitors would push it closer to the standards of 19th century nations - the exceptional thing about OTL was that the US did not punish the rebels, when the common method amongst most nations was ruthless justice.

Loved this TL's predecessor. I never expected to read a Shakespearean tragedy centered around John Breckenridge as basically the B Plot of the TL, but it ended up being possibly my favorite part. The level of research and care that went into this timeline is evident, and I found myself learning a lot of little civil war factoids as I read it. Well deserving of the Turtledove, and I'm excited to see where you go from here!

This was a hilarious joke. We are all laughing at your comment.

Thank you! I'm pretty proud of the Breckinridge storyline myself. I think there's a lot of both irony and tragedy in a man accepting to lead the slaveholders' rebellion only to find that the abolitionists were right when they said slavers were lazy, arrogant, and prideful, leading him to his own destruction when he was only trying to save them from their own suicidal tendencies. Hope you enjoy this part too!

i just read the entire first TL about the civil war and it was great.

Had one question though, what exactly qualified as a cutoff for those who were prosecuted/jailed/executed and those who were exiled or given clemency? I know Longstreet was given a full pardon, but would Lee have had he lived? Would Breckenridge for seeking peace? Was it just those that went along with the coup that were jailed (like would Jackson have been given clemency had he not been part of the coup for example)?

Thank you for your kind words

We'll explore the issue later in much greater detail, but usually execution was reserved for prominent supporters of the Junta, the architects of secession, and war criminals. Longstreet for example was given a full pardon because he didn't support the Junta, played no part in secession, and did not commit any large scale war crimes (his troops did behave in a rowdy manner during the Pennsylvania campaign, but didn't massacre people or burn towns). By contrast, men like Early, Hampton, and Stuart supported the Junta and engaged in war crimes by burning and pillaging during Early's raid. Politicians like Rhett or Cobb were executed because they had been instrumental in achieving secession and then supported the Junta; Henry Wise was also a secessionist, but was given clemency for surrendering in time. Unlike Longstreet, he did not deserve a full pardon and still had some properties confiscated because of this. There can be other mitigating factors: Alexander Stephens was only exiled because, despite being nominally a member of the Junta, he never really did anything and did not try to flee or resist his arrest; Georgia Governor Brown was imprisoned instead of executed because despite supporting the Coup he surrendered himself and also had tried to help the poor; Johnston was also given clemency for recognizing reality and surrendering his Army instead of continuing to fight. For that matter, Toombs and Beauregard probably would have been executed had they been captured. As we'll soon see, the process actually is highly individualized, decentralized, and sometimes even arbitrary.

Jackson, Lee, and Breckinridge are interesting possibilities. Jackson probably would have been executed too, given that he massacred Black soldiers and was part of the Junta. At most, I could see him being, like Johnston, condemned to many years in prison had he surrendered. Even had he deflected after the coup like Longstreet, he probably would have faced some punishment, probably exile, given his previous crimes. Lee would have been in a similar situation. His troops engaged in war crimes - few were ordered by Lee, but he did nothing to stop them. Surrendering in time would probably have resulted in exile, because Lincoln would find the idea of executing the very popular Lee too troublesome, but having him in the country would be complicated too. Breckinridge actually has many possibilities. Had he managed to conclude his negotiated peace, that probably would include at least pardons for Lee and most Confederate officials (though I think the Union would have insisted in at least trialing war criminals like Forrest), but Breckinridge doubted he himself could obtain a pardon and was ready to surrender himself. In that case, executing Breckinridge would also be troublesome, so I think he would have been exiled. Had he been defeated unconditionally, Breckinridge could have been executed, but again, that would open all sorts of problems so exile is the most likely choice. Just like how, OTL, Lincoln would have preferred if Davis fled the country. Finally, there's yet another possibility: what if Breckinridge had been just imprisoned by the Junta and then liberated by the Union? That would have given Lincoln a headache. In fact, by executing him, the Junta saved the Union a lot of trouble.

 

[PRM]

Wow, really great job too! These are amazing


Hm, no, not really. The Nuremberg Trials involved the people who had been basically the enemies of the entire world, after a World War that completely changed the planet and defined history. This is a US affair. While they'll be huge for American history and jurisprudence, I can't see them ever achieving a similar importance to the world at large.


Certainly, especially because they can establish precedents regarding the nature of war crimes.


Yeah, it'll be seen as a US internal affair. In fact, the US trialing its traitors would push it closer to the standards of 19th century nations - the exceptional thing about OTL was that the US did not punish the rebels, when the common method amongst most nations was ruthless justice.


Thank you! I'm pretty proud of the Breckinridge storyline myself. I think there's a lot of both irony and tragedy in a man accepting to lead the slaveholders' rebellion only to find that the abolitionists were right when they said slavers were lazy, arrogant, and prideful, leading him to his own destruction when he was only trying to save them from their own suicidal tendencies. Hope you enjoy this part too!


Thank you for your kind words

We'll explore the issue later in much greater detail, but usually execution was reserved for prominent supporters of the Junta, the architects of secession, and war criminals. Longstreet for example was given a full pardon because he didn't support the Junta, played no part in secession, and did not commit any large scale war crimes (his troops did behave in a rowdy manner during the Pennsylvania campaign, but didn't massacre people or burn towns). By contrast, men like Early, Hampton, and Stuart supported the Junta and engaged in war crimes by burning and pillaging during Early's raid. Politicians like Rhett or Cobb were executed because they had been instrumental in achieving secession and then supported the Junta; Henry Wise was also a secessionist, but was given clemency for surrendering in time. Unlike Longstreet, he did not deserve a full pardon and still had some properties confiscated because of this. There can be other mitigating factors: Alexander Stephens was only exiled because, despite being nominally a member of the Junta, he never really did anything and did not try to flee or resist his arrest; Georgia Governor Brown was imprisoned instead of executed because despite supporting the Coup he surrendered himself and also had tried to help the poor; Johnston was also given clemency for recognizing reality and surrendering his Army instead of continuing to fight. For that matter, Toombs and Beauregard probably would have been executed had they been captured. As we'll soon see, the process actually is highly individualized, decentralized, and sometimes even arbitrary.

Jackson, Lee, and Breckinridge are interesting possibilities. Jackson probably would have been executed too, given that he massacred Black soldiers and was part of the Junta. At most, I could see him being, like Johnston, condemned to many years in prison had he surrendered. Even had he deflected after the coup like Longstreet, he probably would have faced some punishment, probably exile, given his previous crimes. Lee would have been in a similar situation. His troops engaged in war crimes - few were ordered by Lee, but he did nothing to stop them. Surrendering in time would probably have resulted in exile, because Lincoln would find the idea of executing the very popular Lee too troublesome, but having him in the country would be complicated too. Breckinridge actually has many possibilities. Had he managed to conclude his negotiated peace, that probably would include at least pardons for Lee and most Confederate officials (though I think the Union would have insisted in at least trialing war criminals like Forrest), but Breckinridge doubted he himself could obtain a pardon and was ready to surrender himself. In that case, executing Breckinridge would also be troublesome, so I think he would have been exiled. Had he been defeated unconditionally, Breckinridge could have been executed, but again, that would open all sorts of problems so exile is the most likely choice. Just like how, OTL, Lincoln would have preferred if Davis fled the country. Finally, there's yet another possibility: what if Breckinridge had been just imprisoned by the Junta and then liberated by the Union? That would have given Lincoln a headache. In fact, by executing him, the Junta saved the Union a lot of trouble.

Very interesting. I can't wait to read about the war crimes trials, I hope that the union used this to show once and for all just how bad the confederacy was in it's cruelty, it's barbarity so that it will be extra hard for whatever version of lost cause there is ITTL to say "On they we're just people fighting for their rights."

 

[Ironshark]

Very interesting. I can't wait to read about the war crimes trials, I hope that the union used this to show once and for all just how bad the confederacy was in it's cruelty, it's barbarity so that it will be extra hard for whatever version of lost cause there is ITTL to say "On they we're just people fighting for their rights."

the thing is some version of the lost cause has been confirmed to exist in this timeline.less of a "it wasn't about slavery" and more "the soilders were badass and honorable but the cause was evil"


the thing is some version of the

 

[Mildtryth]

the thing is some version of the lost cause has been confirmed to exist in this timeline.less of a "it wasn't about slavery" and more "the soilders were badass and honorable but the cause was evil"


the thing is some version of the

So, something like the clean Wehrmacht myth in a cadet grey uniform.

 

[Red_Galiray]

Very interesting. I can't wait to read about the war crimes trials, I hope that the union used this to show once and for all just how bad the confederacy was in it's cruelty, it's barbarity so that it will be extra hard for whatever version of lost cause there is ITTL to say "On they we're just people fighting for their rights."

Thanks! And yes, I plan to establish the Confederates as being deeply evil, so much that in popular culture they'll be as infamous and hated as the Nazis.

the thing is some version of the lost cause has been confirmed to exist in this timeline.less of a "it wasn't about slavery" and more "the soilders were badass and honorable but the cause was evil"


the thing is some version of the

Not another version of the Lost Cause, but what I'd call the "Clean Confederate" myth, which would be eventually ditched and recognized as a myth within the world of the TL too. Not that "the soldiers were badass and honorable" but "the poor people were forced to fight by the Evil planters, they had no choice. They didn't believe in slavery and most wanted out after the Coup but were forced or deluded by the Junta." Just like how for a long time people insisted that the average German soldier did not believe in Nazism or Hitler, that war crimes were the fault of a few fanatics and most people fought honorably for their country, not for an Evil cause.

The main rationale for this is that people just won't accept right out of the gate that they, or their parents or grand-parents, were evil people fighting for an evil cause. The idea that they had been forced and deluded by the planters as the truly responsible would be a fiction needed for the short term comfort and conciliation of the people. And it's much better than the OTL "Yeah our cause was just and we fought for it willingly and with pride."

 

[Komnenos002]

This was a hilarious joke. We are all laughing at your comment.

Thank you!

 

[PRM]

Thanks! And yes, I plan to establish the Confederates as being deeply evil, so much that in popular culture they'll be as infamous and hated as the Nazis.


Not another version of the Lost Cause, but what I'd call the "Clean Confederate" myth, which would be eventually ditched and recognized as a myth within the world of the TL too. Not that "the soldiers were badass and honorable" but "the poor people were forced to fight by the Evil planters, they had no choice. They didn't believe in slavery and most wanted out after the Coup but were forced or deluded by the Junta." Just like how for a long time people insisted that the average German soldier did not believe in Nazism or Hitler, that war crimes were the fault of a few fanatics and most people fought honorably for their country, not for an Evil cause.

The main rationale for this is that people just won't accept right out of the gate that they, or their parents or grand-parents, were evil people fighting for an evil cause. The idea that they had been forced and deluded by the planters as the truly responsible would be a fiction needed for the short term comfort and conciliation of the people. And it's much better than the OTL "Yeah our cause was just and we fought for it willingly and with pride."

I'll take clean confederate over lost cause anyday. That could probably somewhat play a role ITTL's Dust In The Wind (Replacement for Gone With The Wind) where the poor main character the equivalence of Rhett is someone who always looked at slavery with horror and the planters as monsters and didn't want anything to do with secession but he and his family would be forced to by first the confederate government and then the Juanta.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

Thank you for your kind words

We'll explore the issue later in much greater detail, but usually execution was reserved for prominent supporters of the Junta, the architects of secession, and war criminals. Longstreet for example was given a full pardon because he didn't support the Junta, played no part in secession, and did not commit any large scale war crimes (his troops did behave in a rowdy manner during the Pennsylvania campaign, but didn't massacre people or burn towns). By contrast, men like Early, Hampton, and Stuart supported the Junta and engaged in war crimes by burning and pillaging during Early's raid. Politicians like Rhett or Cobb were executed because they had been instrumental in achieving secession and then supported the Junta; Henry Wise was also a secessionist, but was given clemency for surrendering in time. Unlike Longstreet, he did not deserve a full pardon and still had some properties confiscated because of this. There can be other mitigating factors: Alexander Stephens was only exiled because, despite being nominally a member of the Junta, he never really did anything and did not try to flee or resist his arrest; Georgia Governor Brown was imprisoned instead of executed because despite supporting the Coup he surrendered himself and also had tried to help the poor; Johnston was also given clemency for recognizing reality and surrendering his Army instead of continuing to fight. For that matter, Toombs and Beauregard probably would have been executed had they been captured. As we'll soon see, the process actually is highly individualized, decentralized, and sometimes even arbitrary.

Jackson, Lee, and Breckinridge are interesting possibilities. Jackson probably would have been executed too, given that he massacred Black soldiers and was part of the Junta. At most, I could see him being, like Johnston, condemned to many years in prison had he surrendered. Even had he deflected after the coup like Longstreet, he probably would have faced some punishment, probably exile, given his previous crimes. Lee would have been in a similar situation. His troops engaged in war crimes - few were ordered by Lee, but he did nothing to stop them. Surrendering in time would probably have resulted in exile, because Lincoln would find the idea of executing the very popular Lee too troublesome, but having him in the country would be complicated too. Breckinridge actually has many possibilities. Had he managed to conclude his negotiated peace, that probably would include at least pardons for Lee and most Confederate officials (though I think the Union would have insisted in at least trialing war criminals like Forrest), but Breckinridge doubted he himself could obtain a pardon and was ready to surrender himself. In that case, executing Breckinridge would also be troublesome, so I think he would have been exiled. Had he been defeated unconditionally, Breckinridge could have been executed, but again, that would open all sorts of problems so exile is the most likely choice. Just like how, OTL, Lincoln would have preferred if Davis fled the country. Finally, there's yet another possibility: what if Breckinridge had been just imprisoned by the Junta and then liberated by the Union? That would have given Lincoln a headache. In fact, by executing him, the Junta saved the Union a lot of trouble.

"Architect of Secession" means what exactly? Cause Alexander Stephens for example probably was but got off lightly because for example he didn't order or take part in any actual war crimes for example.

Considering Generals like Sherman burned and pillaged too, would simple raiding actually be considered a war crime by the Union or would it involve something more substantial like massacre of prisoners or blacks (in reference for what you said about Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Jubal Early)?

In OTL, Robert E Lee spent his remaining five years pushing for reconciliation and against diehard activity (as opposed to obvious types like Forrest for example). What would be done in the event of, for example, a surviving Lee or the surviving Longstreet willing to push reconciliation of the Union and against fireeater feelings? Cause you said Albert Sydney Johnston got exile instead of prison for going against the Junta. Was that what earned Longstreet his pardon? His willingness to push for the southerners to accept the Union?

 

[Whiteshore]

Architect of Secession" means what exactly? Cause Alexander Stephens for example probably was but got off lightly because for example he didn't order or take part in any actual war crimes for example.

Presumably fire-eaters who were deemed to have been the architects of secession from their rhetoric and actions before the Civil War.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

Presumably fire-eaters who were deemed to have been the architects of secession from their rhetoric and actions before the Civil War.

Does voting for secession count, or does it have to be the people that prepared the resolutions - to use the Declaration of Independence for example, would "architects" include everyone that signed the Declaration or just the Committee of Five (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman) that wrote it?

These are important distinctions

 

[Red_Galiray]

I'll take clean confederate over lost cause anyday. That could probably somewhat play a role ITTL's Dust In The Wind (Replacement for Gone With The Wind) where the poor main character the equivalence of Rhett is someone who always looked at slavery with horror and the planters as monsters and didn't want anything to do with secession but he and his family would be forced to by first the confederate government and then the Juanta.

Yes, I think it's infinitely better to say "the Confederate cause was an evil one that granpapa was forced to join" instead of outright defending it and taking pride in it.

"Architect of Secession" means what exactly? Cause Alexander Stephens for example probably was but got off lightly because for example he didn't order or take part in any actual war crimes for example.

Considering Generals like Sherman burned and pillaged too, would simple raiding actually be considered a war crime by the Union or would it involve something more substantial like massacre of prisoners or blacks (in reference for what you said about Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Jubal Early)?

In OTL, Robert E Lee spent his remaining five years pushing for reconciliation and against diehard activity (as opposed to obvious types like Forrest for example). What would be done in the event of, for example, a surviving Lee or the surviving Longstreet willing to push reconciliation of the Union and against fireeater feelings? Cause you said Albert Sydney Johnston got exile instead of prison for going against the Junta. Was that what earned Longstreet his pardon? His willingness to push for the southerners to accept the Union?

Prominent secessionists who had an important role in pushing for and then achieving secession, being part of secessionist State governments, the conventions that passed the ordnances, or the Confederate Constitutional Convention. Especially bad if they had occupied prominent posts in the US government. People like Cobb, who had Speaker of the House and then the President of the Confederate Constitutional Convention for example. Alexander Stephens would count, but he was exiled instead of executed because, as you note, he did not take part in war crimes, did not support the Junta, and executing him would have been troublesome.

Sherman's campaign, though destructive, was never indiscriminate. He targeted war resources and infrastructure, not just burned towns willy-nilly. Some Confederate campaigns on the other hand just destroyed and burned towns without military value. Moreover, he never engaged in large scale executions or massacres. So we can't compare Sherman with Confederate war criminals, neither IOTL nor ITTL.

You gotta remember that here Longstreet surrendered willingly. He was not compelled to surrender. In the event Lee survived and was forced to surrender, that would not entitle him to a full pardon. It was the fact that Longstreet deflected and willingly surrendered himself that earned him clemency. That said, the opportunity is open to those already condemned to earn greater clemency if they are willing to denounce the Confederacy and adopt Unionist (read Republican) values. Hint: Joe Brown.

Does voting for secession count, or does it have to be the people that prepared the resolutions - to use the Declaration of Independence for example, would "architects" include everyone that signed the Declaration or just the Committee of Five (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman) that wrote it?

These are important distinctions

A difference would be made between the most important secessionists and others who participated but did not take a leading role. To use your example, the Committee of Five would be slatted for execution as leaders of the movement, but other signatories would be executed, exiled, or just have to suffer confiscation based on their prominence and other actions. To draw further parallels, someone like Hancock would probably also be executed, for he had been prominent in the anti-British movement and was a Massachusetts leader. So someone like Yancey, a known agitator, if he weren’t, you know, dead already. The only universal is that anyone who took part in the secession movement, the Confederate government or military or that of its States, or was a US officer or official and then joined the rebellion, is to be permanently disenfranchised and prohibited from holding office again. Unless they truly embrace Reconstruction (hint: Mahone).

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Alexander Stephens would count, but he was exiled instead of executed because, as you note, he did not take part in war crimes, did not support the Junta, and executing him would have been troublesome.

Probably the same with John Tyler had he survived. He was definitely willing to serve in confederate legislatures but the idea of executing a former president would have troubling implications without him committing other crimes.

Of course, he will be like Robert.E Lee in this timelime, with a lot of questions about him. Whether he would have supported the junta not, or possibly been smart enough to surrender- he was a strong believer 8n states rights so it's even more likely he'd have opposed the junta, as it could be seen as just a power grab. Actually I can see him speaking out against the junta and being executed by them himself

His youngest children will grow up 8n a very different world from OTL, hopefully he can still have a grandson alive this long after. Might be interesting people for an interlude if not part of a full update.