Answering the Call of Lafayette: America Intervenes in the Franco-Prussian War

[robertp6165]

The US of 1917 has a fairly substancial regular army and has an organised national militia. In 1870 there is only the 40,000 regulars and 32,000 NY militiamen organised. The organisation of 200,000 volunteers isn't without question, but it will take time.

The U.S. Army strength at the outbreak of war in 1917...on paper...was 175,000. This is the authorized strength per the National Defense Act of 1916. This was not an actual strength, however, as the U.S. was relying on volunteers exclusively until the draft was introduced in 1917, and the ranks were never filled to the authorized level prior to 1917. As for the militia, the strength of this...again on paper, not in reality...was a bit over 100,000 men. And these militias, while they may have been "organized," were not regularly trained and not well equipped at the outbreak of war.

While this is certainly more than the U.S. had available in 1870, nevertheless the U.S. had to train and equip at least 700,000 raw draftees to place a force of 1 million in France within a year, which they did.

The fact that the U.S. in 1870 had a very large pool of already trained veterans around, and a large pool of retired veteran officers as well (which is even more important, perhaps, than the veteran enlisted men, as the officers will do the organizing), gives the 1870 United States a huge leg up over the 1917 United States in putting together a large force quickly.

As an actual combat weapon? Every single one. The Spencer/ Winchester fires a very underpowered round (in fact a pistol round) with an effective range of less than 200m. Notably, the US also considered the Spencer an ineffective combat weapon, as did France which scoured the world market for small arms in 1870, and bought up all the surplus Spencers. It didn't perform well in real combat.

The problems you cite don't really impact whether or not it's an "effective combat weapon." Range, especially in built up areas like Europe, is not nearly as important as rate of fire. That's why armies eventually abandoned bolt actions and SLRs like the Garand in favor of assault rifles which have a reduced range and accuracy, but can put a lot of lead into the air.

And actually, the Spencer Rifle had an effective range of about 500 yards. While it is true that it was difficult to hit a man at a range beyond 200 yards, this was not due to any deficiency in the weapon, but rather to the simple fact that very few marksmen...using ANY rifle...can reliably hit a man-sized target at a range beyond 200 yards.

The Spencer was HIGHLY effective during the Civil War, and given the short ranges at which most of the fighting during the Franco-Prussian War will be occurring, will be effective during that conflict as well, if used aggressively in large numbers...which is what the U.S. forces do.

The Trapdoor Springfield remained (after conversion to copper cartridges, which repeated the Spencer jamming problem, then brass) the standard US service rifle until 1892, and militia units were still carrying them in the Spanish-American War.

This is true, but was due more to conservatism in the U.S. military than to defects in the Spencer rifle. The Ordnance Department was concerned about the problems of supplying ammunition for a repeater, and wanted to re-use all those surplus Civil War Springfield rifles, and so decided to adopt the trapdoor Springfield instead of switching to a repeater like the Spencer.

Capacity was around 200 completed rifles or carbines per month. That is *full capacity*, the Winchester RAC weren't churning nearly that many out.

That is the capacity...in peacetime...of one factory. Wartime capacity normally turns out to be much higher. The ATL also assumes that the various government arsenals and other arms makers like Colt, Remington, etc. get involved in production of Spencers. The ATL states that it takes a year and a half for the A.E.F. to be re-equipped with Spencers.

 

[arctic warrior]

That might happen, although I think it would more likely to be something along the lines of Mussolini's stance vis-a-vis France in World War Two...wait until the enemy is already defeated, then jump in at the last moment and claim some spoils...in this case, Schleswig-Holstein.

As I wrote Denmark would wait until the allies began pushing the Germans back and then possibly join on having their claim to Slesvig recognized by the French and Americans.
Holstein would not be an option at this time - Danish politicians, except the most foolhardy, had learned a lesson the hard way in 1864!

I thought so of the French navy, which would be an even greater incentive for the French to get the Danes to participate early on - which they tried OTL.

 

[bard32]

This timeline (admittedly more of a sketch than a fully fledged timeline at this point) was inspired by the recent thread on American intervention in the Franco Prussian War. Basically the POD is that Napoleon III supports the Union during the Civil War, and avoids getting entangled in Mexico.

ANSWERING THE CALL OF LAFAYETTE:
American Intervenes in the Franco-Prussian War
An Alternate History Timeline
by Robert Perkins

1861-1863--The American Civil War. In contrast to OTL, Emperor Napoleon III of France, following public opinion within France, throws his full support behind the Union. The government of Queen Victoria in Britain, influenced in part by Napoleon's diplomats, does likewise. Confederate arms purchasers are given the cold shoulder in both countries, and the war ends in April 1863 with the complete defeat of the Confederacy. Because the war goes much better for the Union right from the beginning, President Lincoln never issues the Emancipation Proclamation.

October 1861--Treaty of London. Britain, France and Spain decide to unite their efforts to collect unpaid debts from the Mexican government.

December 1861--Spanish fleet and army arrives at Vera Cruz.

1862--In Prussia, the largest of the German states, a member of the landed aristocracy, Otto von Bismarck, becomes Chancellor. Representing the king, he declares that his government is to rule without parliament.

January 1862--British and French fleets arrive at Vera Cruz.

March 1862--French army lands in Mexico.

April 1862--A convention of the London Treaty powers decides to withdraw from Mexico. Napoleon III, however, does not immediately go along with the other powers, and French troops remain.

May 5, 1862. The Battle of Puebla. French troops suffer a humiliating defeat at the hand of Mexican forces, although they do not suffer huge casualties.

June 1862--Upon learning of the defeat at Puebla, Napoleon III decides that Mexico might not be worth the effort it would take to seize it, and orders the withdrawal of French troops.

June 1862 onward--Recriminations in France over the defeat at Puebla lead to an earlier reform of the French military. Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon, with the approval of Emperor Napoleon III, closes loopholes in the national conscription regulations, and increases bonuses for reenlistment of veteran troops, both of which greatly increase the strength and quality of the French military.

April 1863 onward--At the end of the Civil War, relations between the United States and France are quite possibly better than they have ever been. In a speech before Congress in September 1863, President Lincoln publicly thanks Napoleon III for his support of the Union during the war, and for his respect for the Monroe Doctrine at a time when the United States was unable to directly enforce it. Over the upcoming years, relations between the two countries will continue to improve.

April 1863 onward--The process of Reconstruction proceeds in the United States. President Lincoln attempts to follow a relatively benign Reconstruction policy, and in an effort to regain the loyalty of the recently conquered Southerners, he sponsors a revival of the proposed 1861 Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that slavery cannot ever be abolished by action of the national government. However, the amendment is modified to also state that slavery cannot be introduced into any of the Territories of the United States, nor can it be adopted by any State in which it does not currently exist. In addition, the amendment specifically states that the right of secession from the Union does not exist. These benign policies, and especially the revival of the Corwin Amendment (now known as the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment), are vehemently opposed by Radical Republicans in Congress, and President Lincoln finds himself in a power struggle with Congress which effectively stymies the whole Reconstruction process.

January 1864--Based on the observations of French military attaches of the Union Army’s use of railroads during the Civil War, French Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon decides that railroads will play a crucial role in any future military crisis as the key to rapid mobilization. He hires the former head of the U.S. Military Railroad Bureau, Herman Haupt, who has recently left the U.S. Army and returned to civilian life, to assist in the design of a plan for the rapid mobilization of the French military. With the blessing of President Lincoln, Haupt goes to France, where his advice proves of great help to French planners.

February-October 1864--The Second Schleswig War proceeds as per OTL. Prussia and Austria emerge as the victors over Denmark. This gives further impetus to French military reform efforts, since French Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon can see that Prussia is an emerging military threat.

November 1864--President Lincoln narrowly defeats Democrat George B. McClellan (who is wildly popular as the General who captured Richmond in the summer of 1862) and is re-elected for a second term. At the same time, many of the most Radical Republican members of Congress are voted out by a weary public which wants a resolution for the Reconstruction issue.

March 1864 onward--The new, less radical Congress begins to cooperate with President Lincoln's Reconstruction proposals. By the end of 1864, all of the defeated Southern States have been re-admitted to the Union.

July 1864--Congress passes the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment. It is submitted to the States for ratification.

April 1865--Buoyed by the votes of the returned Southern States, the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment is ratified and becomes the law of the land as the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

1866--The Seven Weeks War between Prussia and a coalition of Austria and several German states. Prussia inflicts a humiliating defeat on Austria and it’s allies, and effectively emerges as the new leader of Germany. France is still in the process of reorganizing and reforming it’s military, and, as in OTL, does not intervene in the war.

1869 onward--The states of the Upper South begin emancipating their slaves, starting with Delaware in 1869. By the end of the century, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri will have followed. Virginia, too, will consider emancipation legislation, but it’s legislature will vote it down by a narrow margin in 1898. Slavery remains strong in the Deep South, however, right up to the end of the century, with no sign of emancipation in sight.

1867--Jacques Louis Randon is replaced by Adolphe Niel as French Minister of War. Niel continues the reforms begun by Randon.

September 1868--Revolution in Spain overthrows Queen Isabella II.

November 1868--Presidential Elections in the United States. A Republican ticket consisting of war heroes Ulysses S. Grant and John C. Fremont handily defeats the Democratic challengers, George B. McClellan (still popular enough to be renominated by his party) and Samuel Tilden.

June 1870--The Spanish government offers the throne of Spain to Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This is vehemently opposed by France.

July 2, 1870--Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen withdraws his candidacy for the Spanish throne in response to French protests.

July 13, 1870--The Ems Dispatch. King Wilhelm I of Prussia is approached by the French ambassador while visiting the resort of Bad Ems. The French ambassador demands that the Prussian King guarantee that no Hohenzollern would ever again become a candidate for the Spanish throne. Wilhelm refuses. Later that day, he authorizes Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to release news of these events to the press. Bismarck, without changing the essential facts of the meeting, edits the press release in such a way that it appears to the French that the Prussian King insulted the French Ambassador, while at the same time appearing to the peoples of the various German states that the French Ambassador insulted the Prussian King.

July 19, 1870--France declares war on Prussia. The Franco-Prussian War begins.

July 1870-May 1872--The Franco-Prussian War (or, as it will be known in the United States, “The German War”). As in OTL, Prussia manages to persuade the south German states to join the war against France, and quickly mobilizes an army of over 1 million men for the invasion of France. The various reforms instituted in the French army since 1862 prove to be of great value, and France manages to mobilize nearly 800,000 well-trained men within a month after the declaration of war, with the goal of an ultimate mobilization of over one million men proceeding and well along toward completion. And, unlike in OTL, the mobilization is much better organized, thanks to the plan devised with the input of Herman Haupt. The French infantry is much better armed than the Prussians, although their artillery is, as in OTL, outclassed by the Prussian Krupp guns. However, the French are able to do much better in the early battles of the war, and although they do not win any outright victories, they manage to avoid any major defeats in the early months of the war, which bogs down into a bloody stalemate. Trench lines begin to scar the beautiful French countryside as both sides dig in.

The United States government, in response to French appeals, begins shipping surplus military equipment and other supplies to France almost immediately upon the declaration of war. The “yellow press” in the United States is meanwhile whipping up public opinion in favor of France, “our friend during the Great Rebellion, the land of Lafayette, now under the boot of the Teutonic bully.“ In response, the Prussians send out several commerce raiders which begin preying on U.S. shipping in the Atlantic and elsewhere. Public outrage over these depredations leads President Grant, on October 10, 1870, to ask Congress for a declaration of war on Prussia. Congress almost unanimously approves this declaration the next day.

The United States is able to mobilize more quickly than would otherwise be the case by calling upon it’s Civil War veterans…both Union and Confederate…who provide a large reserve of men with military experience and training who will form the core of the expanded army. Thus, within six months, the United States is able to form, equip, and transport to France, an American Expeditionary Force of 500,000 men (commanded by General William T. Sherman), with as many more in the process of training and equipage.

The structure of the American Expeditionary Force is as follows...

THE AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
General William T. Sherman, Army Group Commander

FIRST ARMY--General William Rosecrans
--1st Corps...Lt. General James Longstreet
--2nd Corps...Lt. General John Schofield
--3rd Corps...Lt. General George Meade
--4th Corps...Lt. General Winfield S. Hancock

Second Army--General Thomas Jonathan Jackson
--1st Corps...Lt. General Philip Kearny
--2nd Corps...Lt. General Ambrose Powell Hill
--3rd Corps...Lt. General James Ewell Brown Stuart

Cavalry Corps--Lt. General George Armstrong Custer
--1st Division...Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest
--2nd Division...Major General Judson Kilpatrick

Note that the First Army is composed primarily of brigades formed from Northern regiments. The Second Army (which is significantly smaller than the First Army) is composed primarily of brigades formed from Southern regiments.

The U.S. forces are armed with the various versions of the trapdoor Springfield Rifle (primarily Allin conversions of existing Civil War surplus muskets, which can be produced quickly and cheaply) at the outset, but President Grant soon contacts Oliver Winchester, who has acquired rights to the Spencer Repeating Rifle after purchasing the Spencer company in 1869, to have the Spencer mass-produced (Grant favors the Spencer design over Winchester’s own product, the Henry Rifle, because it fires a much more hard-hitting and longer-ranged cartridge). In cooperation with government arsenals, Winchester’s New Haven Arms Company, in cooperation with the various government arsenals and other private contractors, begins churning out Spencer Rifles by the hundreds of thousands by the end of 1871. By mid-1872, the American Expeditionary Force in France will be equipped almost entirely with the new Spencers.

The American Army is also equipped with batteries of another weapon...the Gatling Gun. Superior to the French Mitraleuse, the Gatlings are also accompanied by a better doctrine for their use than the one used for the French weapon, and overall, the Gatlings will be much more effective than the Mitraleuse during the war.

Units of American troops begin participating in the war well before the main American Army is deployed, with the first of these…an American cavalry division commanded by Major General George Armstrong Custer, with Nathan Bedford Forrest as one of his Brigadiers…taking part in battles in northern France as early as January 1871 (Custer will later rise to command the Cavalry Corps of the A.E.F., and Forrest to command one of the Divisions). However, they don’t begin to really make themselves felt until May 1871, at the Battle of Verdun, when a major offensive by American troops almost broke the German lines. However, they were inadequately supported by the French, and in the end, the amount of ground gained was not commensurate with the number of men lost.

Nevertheless, the weight of American manpower begins to tell, and from May 1871 until the end of the war two years later, the Germans are gradually forced back. The increased firepower which the Americans experience as a result of their gradual re-equipping with Spencer rifles, and their effective use of Gatling Guns also plays a significant role in this. By the Spring of 1873, the Germans have been pushed completely out of France and Franco-American forces are advancing into Germany itself.

Seeing the inevitability of defeat, in May 1873 King Wilhelm I of Prussia asks for the resignation of Chancellor Bismarck, which he receives. He then asks for an armistice. This is granted on May 16, 1873. Treaty negotiations then begin, mediated by the King of Belgium, at Brussels. They will drag on until August 1873.

November 1872--Presidential Elections in the United States. President Grant wins re-election over a Democratic Ticket consisting of Samuel Tilden and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. Tilden and Johnson had run on a peace platform, citing the high casualties of the war in France. They lost by a landslide, and President Grant takes this as a mandate to continue the war to it’s conclusion.

August 1873--The Treaty of Brussels is signed between Prussia (representing itself and it’s allies), France, and the United States. By terms of this treaty, France is allowed to absorb Luxembourg, and receives a large indemnity from Prussia. Prussia also is forced to give up it’s control of the North German Confederation, with the complete sovereignty of the various German states within it to be recognized. German unification is effectively derailed.

How would the United States intervene? When it came to the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the Americans didn't have a dog in the fight. Besides,
Napoleon III had the military blunder known as Mexico. France was also dependent on Southern cotton so he wouldn't side with the majority of the
French people.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Upon researching the role of the French navy in the Franco-Prussian War, I found that their blockade of Germany was a failure, and the French Navy's performance in general was not great. The French military reforms in the ATL have been focused on the army, and the quality and strength of the Navy, therefore, is as per OTL. So I don't see that the Prussians would have had that much difficulty slipping a few disguised and armed merchant ships out for commerce raiding, had they chosen to do so.

Actually the reason that there were practically no use of the French navy during the Franco-Prussian War is that there was practically no Prussian navy to worry about. Whatever few warships the French set up to patrol the North Sea and Baltic will accomplish things. Prussian privateers may have existed, but they would have been few. The Prussians did not really turn attention to their fleet until the 1880s.

 

[robertp6165]

How would the United States intervene? When it came to the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the Americans didn't have a dog in the fight. Besides,
Napoleon III had the military blunder known as Mexico.

Read the timeline. It answers both of these questions.

France was also dependent on Southern cotton so he wouldn't side with the majority of the
French people.

Well, French access to Southern cotton was pretty much cut off during the war in OTL, so supporting the Union is not going to make a hill of beans difference there. Ending the war more quickly, however, would allow the supply to be restored more quickly. So from that standpoint, its a good decision on his part.

 

[robertp6165]

Actually the reason that there were practically no use of the French navy during the Franco-Prussian War is that there was practically no Prussian navy to worry about. Whatever few warships the French set up to patrol the North Sea and Baltic will accomplish things. Prussian privateers may have existed, but they would have been few. The Prussians did not really turn attention to their fleet until the 1880s.

Wikipedia gives a brief account of the activities of the French Navy during the war. Basically, the French Navy attempted to set up a blockade of the north German coast beginning in July 1870, but the French Navy was undermanned and depended on conscripts to fill out it's ranks. Unfortunately, when the war broke out, most of the seamen which were intended to be called up to fill the ranks of the Navy were at sea, either in the Newfoundland fisheries or elsewhere, and were not available. Therefore the French Navy was not able to put a large proportion of it's 470 vessels to sea. Also, the Navy suffered a chronic shortage of coal which forced those ships which were on blockade duty to frequently leave it in order to find fuel. Autumn storms in the North Sea took a heavy toll on the blockade ships, and by September 1870, the entire blockade was abandoned. The French Navy returned to the Channel Ports and took no further part in the war.

So basically, from July to September 1870, a very porous blockade existed, and after September, none at all. Prussia could have put raiders to sea during the blockade without much problem, and after it was abandoned, it could have done so at any time completely without fear of the French Navy.

 

[Ghost 88]

This timeline (admittedly more of a sketch than a fully fledged timeline at this point) was inspired by the recent thread on American intervention in the Franco Prussian War. Basically the POD is that Napoleon III supports the Union during the Civil War, and avoids getting entangled in Mexico.

ANSWERING THE CALL OF LAFAYETTE:
American Intervenes in the Franco-Prussian War
An Alternate History Timeline
by Robert Perkins

1861-1863--The American Civil War. In contrast to OTL, Emperor Napoleon III of France, following public opinion within France, throws his full support behind the Union. The government of Queen Victoria in Britain, influenced in part by Napoleon's diplomats, does likewise. Confederate arms purchasers are given the cold shoulder in both countries, and the war ends in April 1863 with the complete defeat of the Confederacy. Because the war goes much better for the Union right from the beginning, President Lincoln never issues the Emancipation Proclamation.

October 1861--Treaty of London. Britain, France and Spain decide to unite their efforts to collect unpaid debts from the Mexican government.

December 1861--Spanish fleet and army arrives at Vera Cruz.

1862--In Prussia, the largest of the German states, a member of the landed aristocracy, Otto von Bismarck, becomes Chancellor. Representing the king, he declares that his government is to rule without parliament.

January 1862--British and French fleets arrive at Vera Cruz.

March 1862--French army lands in Mexico.

April 1862--A convention of the London Treaty powers decides to withdraw from Mexico. Napoleon III, however, does not immediately go along with the other powers, and French troops remain.

May 5, 1862. The Battle of Puebla. French troops suffer a humiliating defeat at the hand of Mexican forces, although they do not suffer huge casualties.

June 1862--Upon learning of the defeat at Puebla, Napoleon III decides that Mexico might not be worth the effort it would take to seize it, and orders the withdrawal of French troops.

June 1862 onward--Recriminations in France over the defeat at Puebla lead to an earlier reform of the French military. Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon, with the approval of Emperor Napoleon III, closes loopholes in the national conscription regulations, and increases bonuses for reenlistment of veteran troops, both of which greatly increase the strength and quality of the French military.

April 1863 onward--At the end of the Civil War, relations between the United States and France are quite possibly better than they have ever been. In a speech before Congress in September 1863, President Lincoln publicly thanks Napoleon III for his support of the Union during the war, and for his respect for the Monroe Doctrine at a time when the United States was unable to directly enforce it. Over the upcoming years, relations between the two countries will continue to improve.

April 1863 onward--The process of Reconstruction proceeds in the United States. President Lincoln attempts to follow a relatively benign Reconstruction policy, and in an effort to regain the loyalty of the recently conquered Southerners, he sponsors a revival of the proposed 1861 Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that slavery cannot ever be abolished by action of the national government. However, the amendment is modified to also state that slavery cannot be introduced into any of the Territories of the United States, nor can it be adopted by any State in which it does not currently exist. In addition, the amendment specifically states that the right of secession from the Union does not exist. These benign policies, and especially the revival of the Corwin Amendment (now known as the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment), are vehemently opposed by Radical Republicans in Congress, and President Lincoln finds himself in a power struggle with Congress which effectively stymies the whole Reconstruction process.

January 1864--Based on the observations of French military attaches of the Union Army’s use of railroads during the Civil War, French Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon decides that railroads will play a crucial role in any future military crisis as the key to rapid mobilization. He hires the former head of the U.S. Military Railroad Bureau, Herman Haupt, who has recently left the U.S. Army and returned to civilian life, to assist in the design of a plan for the rapid mobilization of the French military. With the blessing of President Lincoln, Haupt goes to France, where his advice proves of great help to French planners.

February-October 1864--The Second Schleswig War proceeds as per OTL. Prussia and Austria emerge as the victors over Denmark. This gives further impetus to French military reform efforts, since French Minister of War Jacques Louis Randon can see that Prussia is an emerging military threat.

November 1864--President Lincoln narrowly defeats Democrat George B. McClellan (who is wildly popular as the General who captured Richmond in the summer of 1862) and is re-elected for a second term. At the same time, many of the most Radical Republican members of Congress are voted out by a weary public which wants a resolution for the Reconstruction issue.

March 1864 onward--The new, less radical Congress begins to cooperate with President Lincoln's Reconstruction proposals. By the end of 1864, all of the defeated Southern States have been re-admitted to the Union.

July 1864--Congress passes the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment. It is submitted to the States for ratification.

April 1865--Buoyed by the votes of the returned Southern States, the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment is ratified and becomes the law of the land as the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

1866--The Seven Weeks War between Prussia and a coalition of Austria and several German states. Prussia inflicts a humiliating defeat on Austria and it’s allies, and effectively emerges as the new leader of Germany. France is still in the process of reorganizing and reforming it’s military, and, as in OTL, does not intervene in the war.

1869 onward--The states of the Upper South begin emancipating their slaves, starting with Delaware in 1869. By the end of the century, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri will have followed. Virginia, too, will consider emancipation legislation, but it’s legislature will vote it down by a narrow margin in 1898. Slavery remains strong in the Deep South, however, right up to the end of the century, with no sign of emancipation in sight.

1867--Jacques Louis Randon is replaced by Adolphe Niel as French Minister of War. Niel continues the reforms begun by Randon.

September 1868--Revolution in Spain overthrows Queen Isabella II.

November 1868--Presidential Elections in the United States. A Republican ticket consisting of war heroes Ulysses S. Grant and John C. Fremont handily defeats the Democratic challengers, George B. McClellan (still popular enough to be renominated by his party) and Samuel Tilden.

June 1870--The Spanish government offers the throne of Spain to Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This is vehemently opposed by France.

July 2, 1870--Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen withdraws his candidacy for the Spanish throne in response to French protests.

July 13, 1870--The Ems Dispatch. King Wilhelm I of Prussia is approached by the French ambassador while visiting the resort of Bad Ems. The French ambassador demands that the Prussian King guarantee that no Hohenzollern would ever again become a candidate for the Spanish throne. Wilhelm refuses. Later that day, he authorizes Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to release news of these events to the press. Bismarck, without changing the essential facts of the meeting, edits the press release in such a way that it appears to the French that the Prussian King insulted the French Ambassador, while at the same time appearing to the peoples of the various German states that the French Ambassador insulted the Prussian King.

July 19, 1870--France declares war on Prussia. The Franco-Prussian War begins.

July 1870-May 1872--The Franco-Prussian War (or, as it will be known in the United States, “The German War”). As in OTL, Prussia manages to persuade the south German states to join the war against France, and quickly mobilizes an army of over 1 million men for the invasion of France. The various reforms instituted in the French army since 1862 prove to be of great value, and France manages to mobilize nearly 800,000 well-trained men within a month after the declaration of war, with the goal of an ultimate mobilization of over one million men proceeding and well along toward completion. And, unlike in OTL, the mobilization is much better organized, thanks to the plan devised with the input of Herman Haupt. The French infantry is much better armed than the Prussians, although their artillery is, as in OTL, outclassed by the Prussian Krupp guns. However, the French are able to do much better in the early battles of the war, and although they do not win any outright victories, they manage to avoid any major defeats in the early months of the war, which bogs down into a bloody stalemate. Trench lines begin to scar the beautiful French countryside as both sides dig in.

The United States government, in response to French appeals, begins shipping surplus military equipment and other supplies to France almost immediately upon the declaration of war. The “yellow press” in the United States is meanwhile whipping up public opinion in favor of France, “our friend during the Great Rebellion, the land of Lafayette, now under the boot of the Teutonic bully.“ In response, the Prussians send out several commerce raiders which begin preying on U.S. shipping in the Atlantic and elsewhere. Public outrage over these depredations leads President Grant, on October 10, 1870, to ask Congress for a declaration of war on Prussia. Congress almost unanimously approves this declaration the next day.

The United States is able to mobilize more quickly than would otherwise be the case by calling upon it’s Civil War veterans…both Union and Confederate…who provide a large reserve of men with military experience and training who will form the core of the expanded army. Thus, within six months, the United States is able to form, equip, and transport to France, an American Expeditionary Force of 500,000 men (commanded by General William T. Sherman), with as many more in the process of training and equipage.

The structure of the American Expeditionary Force is as follows...

THE AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
General William T. Sherman, Army Group Commander

FIRST ARMY--General William Rosecrans
--1st Corps...Lt. General James Longstreet
--2nd Corps...Lt. General John Schofield
--3rd Corps...Lt. General George Meade
--4th Corps...Lt. General Winfield S. Hancock

Second Army--General Thomas Jonathan Jackson
--1st Corps...Lt. General Philip Kearny
--2nd Corps...Lt. General Ambrose Powell Hill
--3rd Corps...Lt. General James Ewell Brown Stuart

Cavalry Corps--Lt. General George Armstrong Custer
--1st Division...Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest
--2nd Division...Major General Judson Kilpatrick

Note that the First Army is composed primarily of brigades formed from Northern regiments. The Second Army (which is significantly smaller than the First Army) is composed primarily of brigades formed from Southern regiments.

The U.S. forces are armed with the various versions of the trapdoor Springfield Rifle (primarily Allin conversions of existing Civil War surplus muskets, which can be produced quickly and cheaply) at the outset, but President Grant soon contacts Oliver Winchester, who has acquired rights to the Spencer Repeating Rifle after purchasing the Spencer company in 1869, to have the Spencer mass-produced (Grant favors the Spencer design over Winchester’s own product, the Henry Rifle, because it fires a much more hard-hitting and longer-ranged cartridge). In cooperation with government arsenals, Winchester’s New Haven Arms Company, in cooperation with the various government arsenals and other private contractors, begins churning out Spencer Rifles by the hundreds of thousands by the end of 1871. By mid-1872, the American Expeditionary Force in France will be equipped almost entirely with the new Spencers.

The American Army is also equipped with batteries of another weapon...the Gatling Gun. Superior to the French Mitraleuse, the Gatlings are also accompanied by a better doctrine for their use than the one used for the French weapon, and overall, the Gatlings will be much more effective than the Mitraleuse during the war.

Units of American troops begin participating in the war well before the main American Army is deployed, with the first of these…an American cavalry division commanded by Major General George Armstrong Custer, with Nathan Bedford Forrest as one of his Brigadiers…taking part in battles in northern France as early as January 1871 (Custer will later rise to command the Cavalry Corps of the A.E.F., and Forrest to command one of the Divisions). However, they don’t begin to really make themselves felt until May 1871, at the Battle of Verdun, when a major offensive by American troops almost broke the German lines. However, they were inadequately supported by the French, and in the end, the amount of ground gained was not commensurate with the number of men lost.

Nevertheless, the weight of American manpower begins to tell, and from May 1871 until the end of the war two years later, the Germans are gradually forced back. The increased firepower which the Americans experience as a result of their gradual re-equipping with Spencer rifles, and their effective use of Gatling Guns also plays a significant role in this. By the Spring of 1873, the Germans have been pushed completely out of France and Franco-American forces are advancing into Germany itself.

Seeing the inevitability of defeat, in May 1873 King Wilhelm I of Prussia asks for the resignation of Chancellor Bismarck, which he receives. He then asks for an armistice. This is granted on May 16, 1873. Treaty negotiations then begin, mediated by the King of Belgium, at Brussels. They will drag on until August 1873.

November 1872--Presidential Elections in the United States. President Grant wins re-election over a Democratic Ticket consisting of Samuel Tilden and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. Tilden and Johnson had run on a peace platform, citing the high casualties of the war in France. They lost by a landslide, and President Grant takes this as a mandate to continue the war to it’s conclusion.

August 1873--The Treaty of Brussels is signed between Prussia (representing itself and it’s allies), France, and the United States. By terms of this treaty, France is allowed to absorb Luxembourg, and receives a large indemnity from Prussia. Prussia also is forced to give up it’s control of the North German Confederation, with the complete sovereignty of the various German states within it to be recognized. German unification is effectively derailed.

A small nit to pick Custer as the Chief of Cavalry is absurd, most all of the Ex- Confederate horsemen had forgotten more than Custer ever knew and there was Sheridan, Terry, Crook, and Kilpatrick, who outranked the Prima Donna.

 

[robertp6165]

A small nit to pick Custer as the Chief of Cavalry is absurd, most all of the Ex- Confederate horsemen had forgotten more than Custer ever knew and there was Sheridan, Terry, Crook, and Kilpatrick, who outranked the Prima Donna.

In reply...

--There was never any possibility that the post would go to a former Confederate officer. Sectional jealousies from the Civil War are still there, and since the Cavalry Corps is predominantly Northern troops, a Northern general had to be picked to command the Corps. That is one reason why J.E.B. Stuart is commanding an infantry corps in Jackson's Second Army. As for the Northern officers...

--Philip Sheridan had not moved to the cavalry by the Spring of 1863, when the war ended in the ATL. He was still commanding an infantry Division in the Army of the Cumberland (in OTL, he did not move to the cavalry until 1864, when Grant took over the Army of the Potomac and put Sheridan in charge of the cavalry there).

--Alfred Terry also commanded infantry during the Civil War (in both the ATL and OTL).

--George Crook likewise commanded infantry during the Civil War (he didn't command cavalry until Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864 in OTL, which didn't happen in the ATL).

--Judson Kilpatrick could have been picked, but had left the Army when the war in 1863 ended and gone into politics. Custer (who is assumed to have had a somewhat more glorious career in the ATL) stayed in the Army, and as a result when the German War started, had more seniority.

Another officer I considered for the post was Benjamin Grierson, but I felt that his lack of West Point credentials would give an edge to Custer when the time came to pick the Cavalry Corps commander.

 

[sonicwind123]

In reply...

--There was never any possibility that the post would go to a former Confederate officer. Sectional jealousies from the Civil War are still there, and since the Cavalry Corps is predominantly Northern troops, a Northern general had to be picked to command the Corps. That is one reason why J.E.B. Stuart is commanding an infantry corps in Jackson's Second Army. As for the Northern officers...

--Philip Sheridan had not moved to the cavalry by the Spring of 1863, when the war ended in the ATL. He was still commanding an infantry Division in the Army of the Cumberland (in OTL, he did not move to the cavalry until 1864, when Grant took over the Army of the Potomac and put Sheridan in charge of the cavalry there).

--Alfred Terry also commanded infantry during the Civil War (in both the ATL and OTL).

--George Crook likewise commanded infantry during the Civil War (he didn't command cavalry until Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864 in OTL, which didn't happen in the ATL).

--Judson Kilpatrick could have been picked, but had left the Army when the war in 1863 ended and gone into politics. Custer (who is assumed to have had a somewhat more glorious career in the ATL) stayed in the Army, and as a result when the German War started, had more seniority.

Another officer I considered for the post was Benjamin Grierson, but I felt that his lack of West Point credentials would give an edge to Custer when the time came to pick the Cavalry Corps commander.

Wasn't John Buford in charge of the Calvary in the Summer of 63, I know he died in the summer, but if the war ended in the spring, I am not sure he would of died.

 

[Ghost 88]

In reply...

--There was never any possibility that the post would go to a former Confederate officer. Sectional jealousies from the Civil War are still there, and since the Cavalry Corps is predominantly Northern troops, a Northern general had to be picked to command the Corps. That is one reason why J.E.B. Stuart is commanding an infantry corps in Jackson's Second Army. As for the Northern officers...

--Philip Sheridan had not moved to the cavalry by the Spring of 1863, when the war ended in the ATL. He was still commanding an infantry Division in the Army of the Cumberland (in OTL, he did not move to the cavalry until 1864, when Grant took over the Army of the Potomac and put Sheridan in charge of the cavalry there).

--Alfred Terry also commanded infantry during the Civil War (in both the ATL and OTL).

--George Crook likewise commanded infantry during the Civil War (he didn't command cavalry until Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864 in OTL, which didn't happen in the ATL).

--Judson Kilpatrick could have been picked, but had left the Army when the war in 1863 ended and gone into politics. Custer (who is assumed to have had a somewhat more glorious career in the ATL) stayed in the Army, and as a result when the German War started, had more seniority.

Another officer I considered for the post was Benjamin Grierson, but I felt that his lack of West Point credentials would give an edge to Custer when the time came to pick the Cavalry Corps commander.

I too thought of Grierson but he also was lesser known at the time as was Custer ( if military record to 1863 is used,) As sw123 mentioned Buford would be not only a infinitely better choice but also better known.
As you disqualified Grierson for lack of WP credentials Forrest would also be a non starter as he did not even have formal schooling at all. I presume you whished a Southerner for Cav Division commander so bring Stuart down and give Hardee his Inf Corp or you could choose Rooney Lee, Fitzhugh Lee, or as a streach John Hunt Morgan ( not a WP IIRC but had been active in the militia before the ACW and was high in the chain of command in the west).

As for not giving Stuart the Cavalry to start with, remember they gave Joe Wheeler command of the Cavalry in 1898 for the same reason you would be giving Ex-Confederates command in this TL, to get Southern support. With this in mind Stuart as Commander of the Mounted Rifles would be a good choice.
Robert, I say MRs for a reason as any European Cavalry is going to run right over the US Horse if it trys Traditional Cavalry Tactics of fighting mounted, although the way the CSA used Sam Colt's invention will but a hurt on them.

 

[Historico]

True, Im wondering however who all might join the Earlier Great Migration to an US Dominicana Territory...It is possible that OTL Prominent Black Reconstruction Figures such as Douglass, Rainey, Bruce and Revels move to the territory? How might they take a role in the government of the Island?

However, I do feel, especially representaion wise the question of Citizenship is a powder keg waiting to explode. Might the Freedman with a much stronger African-American population base begin to demand for more rights...Especially those who lived as Citizens under the Dominican Republic?

Also, Is it possible that Ulysses S. Grant decides to run for his Third-Term after a possible successful Annexation of the Domincian Republic and a German War Victory earlier in TTL?

 

[robertp6165]

I too thought of Grierson but he also was lesser known at the time as was Custer ( if military record to 1863 is used,) As sw123 mentioned Buford would be not only a infinitely better choice but also better known.
As you disqualified Grierson for lack of WP credentials Forrest would also be a non starter as he did not even have formal schooling at all. I presume you whished a Southerner for Cav Division commander so bring Stuart down and give Hardee his Inf Corp or you could choose Rooney Lee, Fitzhugh Lee, or as a streach John Hunt Morgan ( not a WP IIRC but had been active in the militia before the ACW and was high in the chain of command in the west).

As for not giving Stuart the Cavalry to start with, remember they gave Joe Wheeler command of the Cavalry in 1898 for the same reason you would be giving Ex-Confederates command in this TL, to get Southern support. With this in mind Stuart as Commander of the Mounted Rifles would be a good choice.

Okay, you've convinced me.

Here is a new structure for the A.E.F.

THE AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
General William T. Sherman, Army Group Commander

FIRST ARMY--General William Rosecrans
--1st Corps...Lt. General James Longstreet
--2nd Corps...Lt. General John Schofield
--3rd Corps...Lt. General George Meade
--4th Corps...Lt. General Winfield S. Hancock

Second Army--General Thomas Jonathan Jackson
--1st Corps...Lt. General Philip Kearny
--2nd Corps...Lt. General Ambrose Powell Hill
--3rd Corps...Lt. General John Cabell Breckinridge

Cavalry Corps--Lt. General James Ewell Brown Stuart
--1st Division...Major General Joseph Wheeler
--2nd Division...Major General Judson Kilpatrick

In this revised version of the force structure, Nathan Bedford Forrest and George Armstrong Custer are demoted to Brigadier General and are commanding brigades within the Cavalry Corps.

We can also revise this section of the timeline...

Units of American troops begin participating in the war well before the main American Army is deployed, with the first of these…an American cavalry division commanded by Major General George Armstrong Custer, with Nathan Bedford Forrest as one of his Brigadiers…taking part in battles in northern France as early as January 1871 (Custer will later rise to command the Cavalry Corps of the A.E.F., and Forrest to command one of the Divisions).

...to read as follows:

"Units of American troops begin participating in the war well before the main American Army is deployed, with the first of these…an American cavalry division commanded by Major General James Ewell Brown Stuart, with Joseph Wheeler and Judson Kilpatrick as his Brigade commanders…taking part in battles in northern France as early as January 1871 (Stuart will later rise to Corps command, and Wheeler and Kilpatrick to Division command, as the Cavalry arm of the A.E.F. expands)."

Robert, I say MRs for a reason as any European Cavalry is going to run right over the US Horse if it trys Traditional Cavalry Tactics of fighting mounted, although the way the CSA used Sam Colt's invention will but a hurt on them.

I agree that American cavalry (being light cavalry) would be roughly handled in a straight-on engagement with European heavy cavalry (although, as you say, their use of firearms in many cases would prove a shock to saber-wielding Prussian Cuirassiers and Dragoons). Against European light cavalry, they would probably fare well. But I agree, most likely they will be used as mounted infantry and their tactics will be those pioneered by Forrest during the Civil War...use the horses for mobility, but fight dismounted.

 

[robertp6165]

True, Im wondering however who all might join the Earlier Great Migration to an US Dominicana Territory...It is possible that OTL Prominent Black Reconstruction Figures such as Douglass, Rainey, Bruce and Revels move to the territory? How might they take a role in the government of the Island?

However, I do feel, especially representaion wise the question of Citizenship is a powder keg waiting to explode. Might the Freedman with a much stronger African-American population base begin to demand for more rights...Especially those who lived as Citizens under the Dominican Republic?

Also, Is it possible that Ulysses S. Grant decides to run for his Third-Term after a possible successful Annexation of the Domincian Republic and a German War Victory earlier in TTL?

Assuming that Grant does, in fact, decide to annex the Dominican Republic, probably some of these figures will move there, while others will remain behind and protest the conditions there in an attempt to change them. Frederick Douglass, especially, I don't see going overseas in the ATL, especially since going there is not likely to be compulsory in the ATL. He will stay behind and "rabble rouse," so to speak, in an attempt to stir the consciences of the white population and inspire change. Probably without much success, sadly.

As for Grant running for and winning a third term, that won't happen, I think. Grant's administration is likely to be as scandal-ridden in the ATL as in OTL, although he would get a boost as a President who successfully guided the U.S. through a major foreign war. And, after the stresses of wartime leadership, Grant may not want the job anyway.

 

[robertp6165]

Wasn't John Buford in charge of the Calvary in the Summer of 63, I know he died in the summer, but if the war ended in the spring, I am not sure he would of died.

Some officers who were not killed in battle during the Civil War in OTL were killed in battle in the ATL. Buford is one of those.

 

[robertp6165]

The Corwin/Lincoln Amendment

Here is the text of the Corwin/Lincoln Amendment, ratified in April 1865.

Section 1. Congress shall have no power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held under the laws of said State as slaves, or held to labor or service as punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, under the laws of said State. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held under the laws of said State as slaves, or held to labor or service as punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, under the laws of said State.

Section 2. No state shall, having ratified the Constitution of the United States and having been admitted into the Union of States by Congress, be permitted to rescind it’s ratification of the Constitution or withdraw from the Union of States without the consent of Congress. A vote of 2/3 of the members of Congress shall be required to approve any such action by a State.

Section 3. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, in any territory which may be owned by the United States, but which has not been organized or admitted into the Union as a State. No State which has previously abolished slavery or involuntary servitude may pass legislation rescinding the abolition of same.

Section 4. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to the number of free persons, excluding Indians not taxed, which may reside within each State. No person who is held to slavery or involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be counted toward the apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes to any State.

Section 5. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

[67th Tigers]

Okay, you've convinced me.

Here is a new structure for the A.E.F.

THE AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
General William T. Sherman, Army Group Commander

FIRST ARMY--General William Rosecrans
--1st Corps...Lt. General James Longstreet
--2nd Corps...Lt. General John Schofield
--3rd Corps...Lt. General George Meade
--4th Corps...Lt. General Winfield S. Hancock

Second Army--General Thomas Jonathan Jackson
--1st Corps...Lt. General Philip Kearny
--2nd Corps...Lt. General Ambrose Powell Hill
--3rd Corps...Lt. General John Cabell Breckinridge

Cavalry Corps--Lt. General James Ewell Brown Stuart
--1st Division...Major General Joseph Wheeler
--2nd Division...Major General Judson Kilpatrick

Ignoring my concerns about size, Longstreet is senior to Jackson (on both the old US and the CS Army List). Should they elect to rejoin the US army, Longstreet will become a Major, and Jackson a Captain (Bvt Maj).

Also, the rank structure is wrong. US practice was not to appoint officers above the rank of Maj Gen (since Washington took the rank of Lt Gen). During the ACW they had a couple of exceptions to promote Grant to Lt Gen, which they wouldn't have done ITTL. They returned to the practice post ACW, and only promoted to higher ranks in 1917, so as to fit in with their British and French allies.

Thus the AC and CC are likely Maj Gens (possibly acting Maj Gens or Maj Gens of volunteers), DCs are likely Brig Gens or Cols.

In fact, the seniority of those mentioned is:

Rosecrans, Brig Gen, Jun 1861
Sherman, Col, 1861 (possibly Brig Gen in late 1863 ITTL as per OTL)
Kearny, Maj 1848 (?)
Longstreet, Maj 1858
Meade, Capt 1856
Hancock, Capt, mid-1850's
Jackson, Capt
Schofield, Capt 1861
JEB Stuart, Capt 1861
AP Hill, 1Lt 1851
Wheeler, 2Lt, 1859
Kilpatrick, 2Lt 1861
Breckinridge, not on the Army List (Bvt 2Lt, whenever he joined the US Army)


The prevailing iron law is:

Rosecrans: Army Group Commander
Sherman and Kearny are Army Commanders
Kilpatrick and Breckinridge are the Cavalry Division Commanders
everyone else is a Corps Commander

 

[Nicomacheus]

Assuming that Grant does, in fact, decide to annex the Dominican Republic, probably some of these figures will move there, while others will remain behind and protest the conditions there in an attempt to change them. Frederick Douglass, especially, I don't see going overseas in the ATL, especially since going there is not likely to be compulsory in the ATL. He will stay behind and "rabble rouse," so to speak, in an attempt to stir the consciences of the white population and inspire change. Probably without much success, sadly.

As for Grant running for and winning a third term, that won't happen, I think. Grant's administration is likely to be as scandal-ridden in the ATL as in OTL, although he would get a boost as a President who successfully guided the U.S. through a major foreign war. And, after the stresses of wartime leadership, Grant may not want the job anyway.

On Grant:

Assuming that the scandal of Grant's administration seems to be a function of his personality and his political skills, you're probably right that the scandal will stick around in the ATL. There will be some important differences: 1) The Credit Mobilier scandal I would expect to be impacted by the differing relationship with France as well as butterflies from the differing Franco-Prussian War. 2) Even if the CM scandal is blunted by the war, I'd expect that the war might serve as a crucible to out more of the scandals than OTL. This might concentrate the news and hurt Grant's reputation more than OTL, but might also make for a better second term, when more of the scandals might have come out.

However, OTL Stalwart Republicans (those against Civil Service Reform) sought to nominate Grant for a third term...in 1880. The Stalwarts, led by Roscoe Conkling and Thomas Platt (different than the Platt of amendment fame), seem to have been Radicals. TTL the Radical Republicans seem to have been forced out. I'm not sure how this impacts Grant's Administration, since he tended to favor some Radical Reconstruction policies (prosecution of the KKK and civil rights for African Americans) but not others (he wanted to limit the number of troops in the South). In any case, Grant was Radical enough to prompt the creation of the Liberal Republicans (who though him corrupt and though Reconstruction over and opposed African American civil rights). Indeed, I'm kind of wondering whether you might want to revisit whether Grant should be president in 1868: TTL the war is over before Grant became commander in the East OTL.

If you still keep Grant, though, I think he will press for annexation of Santo Domingo: OTL he advocated it because he hoped that making an all black state would force the South to deal with the reality of African American civil rights in the Union. TTL he may be seeking to reconcile the very thorny citizenship situation as well as create a more feasible refuge than Liberia. Of course, Grant's politics in this regard could be a creation of OTL's Civil War.


On the Text of the Corwin / Lincoln Amendment:

I'm surprised the text actually includes the use of the word "slavery" given the previous scrupulous avoidance of the term. This would seem to be a big win for the South.

I'm also surprised that you include a provision to allow secession under any terms. This I think Lincoln would have objected to. Are you thinking that perhaps some Northern or Western group fears the consequences of creating no legal avenue for secession? I'd at least think the threshold would be higher.

Is the silence of the text on the issue of Confederate officials supposed to mean that the amendment does not seek to disbar their political involvement or require them to swear loyalty oaths?

Also, I though you were planning on repealing the Fugitive Slave Clause. Are you thinking this and the like come in a different amendment?

While I think the text is plausible as a whole (except for the secession part), I do think that it's passage is going to alter the nature of the Republican Party and subsequent politics. I'd expect that there's still a core of more liberal votes who may seek to form a new party down the line.

This may mean that just after the War, the Republican Party is formally abolished in favor a merger with the Democrats as the Unionist Party. Hence you'd see almost a one-party state for a while, with perhaps two rump groups on either side of the political spectrum who won't be apt to cooperate for a good while: very liberal northeasterners -- former Radical Republicans and unapologetic Southerners who oppose some aspect of TTL Reconstruction.

 

[robertp6165]

Ignoring my concerns about size, Longstreet is senior to Jackson (on both the old US and the CS Army List). Should they elect to rejoin the US army, Longstreet will become a Major, and Jackson a Captain (Bvt Maj).

Also, the rank structure is wrong. US practice was not to appoint officers above the rank of Maj Gen (since Washington took the rank of Lt Gen). During the ACW they had a couple of exceptions to promote Grant to Lt Gen, which they wouldn't have done ITTL. They returned to the practice post ACW, and only promoted to higher ranks in 1917, so as to fit in with their British and French allies.

Thus the AC and CC are likely Maj Gens (possibly acting Maj Gens or Maj Gens of volunteers), DCs are likely Brig Gens or Cols.

In fact, the seniority of those mentioned is:

Rosecrans, Brig Gen, Jun 1861
Sherman, Col, 1861 (possibly Brig Gen in late 1863 ITTL as per OTL)
Kearny, Maj 1848 (?)
Longstreet, Maj 1858
Meade, Capt 1856
Hancock, Capt, mid-1850's
Jackson, Capt
Schofield, Capt 1861
JEB Stuart, Capt 1861
AP Hill, 1Lt 1851
Wheeler, 2Lt, 1859
Kilpatrick, 2Lt 1861
Breckinridge, not on the Army List (Bvt 2Lt, whenever he joined the US Army)


The prevailing iron law is:

Rosecrans: Army Group Commander
Sherman and Kearny are Army Commanders
Kilpatrick and Breckinridge are the Cavalry Division Commanders
everyone else is a Corps Commander

That may be the prevailing iron law, however, President Grant, as Commander-in-Chief, is not bound by the "iron law" and can pick who he likes to command.

Grant doesn't like or respect Rosecrans and does like and respect Sherman, so Sherman gets the top slot. However, Rosecrans did, seemingly, perform well in the ATL Civil War (no Chickamauga), and so his seniority does earn him an Army command.

As for the others, Second Army, for political reasons, has to have a Southern commander. Although Longstreet may have been senior to Jackson on the old Army list, Jackson became much more famous during the Civil War (both OTL and ATL), and Grant chose him, again for political reasons, to give the South it's greatest living hero in Army command. To prevent possible jealousy from causing problems in Second Army, Longstreet is given a Corps command in First Army.

As for the rank structure being wrong, Grant has chosen to use the "Confederate" rank structure so that American Generals can deal on more level terms with French Generals and Marshals (basically the same thing that happened during World War I).

 

[robertp6165]

On Grant:

Assuming that the scandal of Grant's administration seems to be a function of his personality and his political skills, you're probably right that the scandal will stick around in the ATL. There will be some important differences: 1) The Credit Mobilier scandal I would expect to be impacted by the differing relationship with France as well as butterflies from the differing Franco-Prussian War. 2) Even if the CM scandal is blunted by the war, I'd expect that the war might serve as a crucible to out more of the scandals than OTL. This might concentrate the news and hurt Grant's reputation more than OTL, but might also make for a better second term, when more of the scandals might have come out.

Agreed.

Indeed, I'm kind of wondering whether you might want to revisit whether Grant should be president in 1868: TTL the war is over before Grant became commander in the East OTL.

Nevertheless, he was one of the major war heroes of the ATL Civil War, having captured most of Tennessee and Mississippi, including Vicksburg, before the end of 1862. I probably should write up, at some point, a sketch of the course of the ATL Civil War. That might make it easier to understand some of the later developments in the timeline.

If you still keep Grant, though, I think he will press for annexation of Santo Domingo: OTL he advocated it because he hoped that making an all black state would force the South to deal with the reality of African American civil rights in the Union. TTL he may be seeking to reconcile the very thorny citizenship situation as well as create a more feasible refuge than Liberia. Of course, Grant's politics in this regard could be a creation of OTL's Civil War.

All very true, and issues I will have to mull over.

On the Text of the Corwin / Lincoln Amendment:

I'm surprised the text actually includes the use of the word "slavery" given the previous scrupulous avoidance of the term. This would seem to be a big win for the South.

I decided to do this after consulting the language used in the Northwest Ordinance of 1784, which I am assuming would have been consulted with regard to the ban on slavery in the territories.

I'm also surprised that you include a provision to allow secession under any terms. This I think Lincoln would have objected to. Are you thinking that perhaps some Northern or Western group fears the consequences of creating no legal avenue for secession? I'd at least think the threshold would be higher.

There actually were concerns raised by some Congressmen from some of the Northern States in OTL as to whether it was a good thing that the right of secession had been rendered null and void by the war. I am thinking that this, along with a desire to throw in a lump of sugar for the South in order to make swallowing the bitter pill that the amendment generally represents to the South somewhat easier, is what motivates Lincoln and his allies to include this measure. For all intents and purposes, secession is effectively a dead issue, even with this provision, since no State can any longer unilaterally secede...2/3 of the representatives of the other States have to approve for it to be permitted. That is VERY unlikely to happen, and I think everybody involved in the passage of the amendment knows that.

Is the silence of the text on the issue of Confederate officials supposed to mean that the amendment does not seek to disbar their political involvement or require them to swear loyalty oaths?

I am assuming that they would have had to swear loyalty oaths to regain their citizenship after the war, just as in OTL. The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with that requirement, it was imposed as part of the amnesty issued by President Johnson. However, Lincoln (as in OTL) wants to make the process of Reconstruction as painless as possible, and so there is no provision barring Confederate officials from political involvement (that was insisted upon by the Radicals in Congress who were bent on punishing the South, and does not appear to have been part of Lincoln's plan).

Also, I though you were planning on repealing the Fugitive Slave Clause. Are you thinking this and the like come in a different amendment?

I have been considering how, exactly, to do that when slavery has now been formally protected under the Constitution. I may add a Section 6 to the amendment, or find another way. One idea I have been tossing around in my head...A Section 6 which states that slaves escaping into States which have abolished slavery do not have to be returned. However, if the State government of whatever State the slave escapes into elects not to return the slave, the State Government must pay fair compensation to the slave's owner. This solution would not make either side completely happy, but seems the fairest and most equitable way to handle the issue.

While I think the text is plausible as a whole (except for the secession part), I do think that it's passage is going to alter the nature of the Republican Party and subsequent politics. I'd expect that there's still a core of more liberal votes who may seek to form a new party down the line.

This may mean that just after the War, the Republican Party is formally abolished in favor a merger with the Democrats as the Unionist Party. Hence you'd see almost a one-party state for a while, with perhaps two rump groups on either side of the political spectrum who won't be apt to cooperate for a good while: very liberal northeasterners -- former Radical Republicans and unapologetic Southerners who oppose some aspect of TTL Reconstruction.

Again, some good ideas that I will have to consider.

 

[oudi14]

I presume Lee died in 1870 in TTL as he did in OTL. Even if he was alive, I guess he would be too old to want to go to Europe and have a field command over there.