The Worst American Civil War Alternate History Cliche
- Thread starter Mitro
- Start date
haven't found that one yet (budget requires mostly library reading for now, and libraries are small here in rural America) but I will look for it or see if I can get inter library loan
That's also a gross exaggeration, in the other direction. Lee owned a few slaves he inherited from his mother. He and his brothers sold off most of their mother's slaves and divided the proceeds. Lee kept a few, whom he employed as servants for himself and his wife at various Army posts; he rented them out when stationed in free territory. By 1850 or so, all these slaves had died off, or been emancipated by Lee. (The records are vague.)
Lee's father-in-law, G.W.P. Custis, owned over 100 slaves at his three plantations (Arlington was just the largest). Mrs. Lee was his only child. When he died in 1857, he left the three plantations to Lee's sons, and $10,000 each to Lee's daughters. However, the estate was heavily indebted, as Custis wa a poor manager. His will emancipated his slaves, but with the provision that they could be held for up to five years, to clear the debts of the estate and satisfy the bequests. Lee (much to his annoyance) was made executor, and thus a de facto slaveowner. Custis was a "kindly" slaveowner, who never sold any slaves. So his plantations were overstocked with slaves, who had become accustomed to slacking. Lee made them work harder, and rented out the extras to other plantations. Those who resisted or ran away, claiming immediate freedom under the will, Lee punished, having some flogged.
This was brutal, and more than enough to refute any notion that Lee was anti-slavery. But it doesn't reach the level of "infamous". Lee's harshness was exaggerated by Union propagandists during the war, to discredit Lee.
Jasen777
Donor
He split slave families, which the previous generations of his family had not done, and those slaves he extended where kept until the a state court literally forced him to free them. Saying that's not "infamous" is arguing semantics.
Yeah, sorry, there is no coming back from that, Union "propaganda" be damned.
I was referring to a conflict known as the American War of Independence, in which most of the British Empire revolted with French help. Perhaps you haven't heard of it, though, it's not very well-known any more.
It was troops of the Army of Northern Virginia, not slave catchers accompanying them that enslaved free blacks. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...orth-a-military-disgrace/stories/201306300221
The Confederate Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession. It did not address secession at all.
I provided a source that said Racer could hit 6.8 Knots. What is your source that Racer could do 9.3?
You are correct that Immortalite took ten days, but that does not change my point. In actual history, Immortalite, which was rated at 12.3 knots, took 10 days to travel from Bermuda to the Chesapeake. As the captain later reported "Throughout the whole passage I encountered moderate Gales from the N.W. and West, with a high sea; and only succeeded in making Cape Henry on the evening of the 4th instant. At this time I found the Fore Yard sprung and the Ship leaking excessively throughout her Decks, Waterways, Topsides, and Bends." In ITWNMUOTOS, you have a British fleet make the same trip in 4 days with no apparent damage or scattering of the ships in spite of sailing into a heavy gale. It would be possible for them to leave the colliers and supply ships ungaurded, but why would Admiral Milne take the risk?
To the best of my knowledge, the only ironclad designs the British had in January 1862 were the Warrior class (Length 128m, beam 17.8m, draught 8.2m), the Defence class (Length 92m, beam 16.5m, draught 7.9m) and the Hector class (Length 85.4m, beam 17.2m, draught 8m) The Welland Canal had locks that were 45.7 meters long, 8.1 meters wide, and 3.1 meters deep, so none of these ironclad designs could possibly fit through the Welland Canal. Designing and building a new class that could is going to take a lot longer that 90 days.
The Confederacy had already formed a government before Lincoln took the oath of office, so clearly he hadn't done anything tyrannical when they seceded.
Saphroneth
Banned
Times of London, 23 July 1858, which gives her speed on her trials as 9.3 knots.
You are very much mistaken. They also had the Aetna class (three variants, all of them with less than 9 feet draft) and the Thunderbolt class. None of these ships took very long to design or build, especially not with experienced builders.
Please discuss my TL in the TL thread, as I requested and you quoted.
If Britain ends up annexing any US territory, I'd expect the US to be just as forgiving as France was after Germany took Alsace and Lorraine.
That's one possible way an independent Confederacy might split, though Texas or all of the TransMississippi breaking with the Confederacy does not gaurantee they would rejoin the Union. The Border States might split at some point as well, though they'd be more likely to rejoin the Union. And South Carolina was run by a reactionary oligrarchy who had property requirements to hold office and almost didn't join the Confederacy because the forbid the international slave trade, though if they seceded they'd probably end up a failed state. More likely than actual secession would be Confederate states threatening secession in an attempt get the central government to do what they wanted.
Because Venice was only very recently added to the Habsburg Empire when it was lost (annexed in 1814, rebelled for over a year in 1848, lost in 1866). The people there did not speak German, did not identify as Austrian (Republic of San Marco tried joining Sardinia Piedmont), and had not long been part of the nation.
Plus, Austria wasn't friendly with Italy afterwards. Italian nationalists were still eyeing Austrian lands and the Austrians were building up forts and strategies against the Italians just in case. If Austria didn't have to worry about Russia, France, Germany, something might've come of it sooner. But yeah, they weren't so much forgiving as just not able to push for it.
Britain taking parts of the US would be more reminiscent of Germany-Alsace Lorraine-France due to the whole thing of Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine. That the US has a duty to expand from sea to shining sea and that Old Worlders ought to stay out of the New World. Jingoists would be in the streets rallying people to reconquest, the public would be inflamed, warhawks would be sweeping the nation. I mean, it doesn't take much of a casus belli for the US to go to war. Look at the War of 1812, where America went to war over impressment of American sailors. Or the Spanish American War, where the US went to war over the Maine, which the Spanish hadn't actually touched but blew up anyways and provided enough nationalistic fervour to make peace impossible.
Now imagine if Britain, the age old 'oppressors' from whom the founding fathers 'liberated' the USA and had been arming the devil-worshiping, 'evil' Natives to kill good Christian Americans, came back to seize 'rightfully' American lands, in defiance of the US's manifest destiny to expand across North America (is likely what would be said to rile up the public). Pretty easy to get the public to push for war, right? It'll be easy to ride that wave into office, hard to resist it once in, and, after all, hadn't the US won every war against Britain up until that point? (Yes, I'm aware that the French more or less won the American Independence War for the Americans, yes, I'm aware that the War of 1812 was a stalemate and relied on Britain being tied up with Napoleon for the USA to even stand a glimmer of a chance. I'm pointing to the propaganda possibilities, as Americans had seen both as effectively American victories. The first for achieving independence, the second for being able to fight off the old enemy once more). Not only that, there's a huge Irish population in the USA and the Irish aren't well known for having much affection for the United Kingdom. (Twisting the lion's tail, as it were). It's worth noting that Ango-American relations weren't great until the 1890s OTL and that's without Britain seizing American lands.
Plus, it usually takes a common threat or enemy for enemies to bury the hatchet. What potential enemies would there be? The French were aligning with the British, the Russians aren't in a position to project into North America (and would have more conflict with the British than the Americans), the Austrians had no interests nor ability to intervene in the New World nor did the Prussians, the Japanese and Chinese are a long way from being able to threaten anyone outside of Asia. On the other hand, British and American interests are liable to conflict and border skirmishes can easily escalate quickly.
In short, Britain taking American land would probably not end peaceably due to a fair number of factors leading up to such a POD and the general state of the world in the 1860s. Now, butterflies can happen but I'd put my money on a vengeful USA.
I have read On War, as it happens, and was familiar with the concept of friction before I had read it due to general osmosis.
The interesting point, however, is that you feel driven to bring up a specific timeline on this board, describing it in terms so slanted I wouldn't be able to recognise it if I hadn't read your comments on it. I'm making a point based on a general understanding of history, not on anything that happens in a specific TL on this board - especially one where the author acknowledges that he has learnt a lot about the period while researching for the TL and would now write some events differently.
Saphroneth
Banned
Er, the Confederacy, unless I've misunderstood the context. The Confederacy would be a very obvious common enemy with values contra to those of the British.
So only taking areas like Minnesota or California, then, places only very recently added to the US, would be acceptable?
It's also an interesting case of a double-standard, given that the person in question has only good words for a TL in which the US flawlessly captures Norfolk Virginia about five months early (aided by such minor conveniences as the Confederacy ahistorically cutting their garrison in the place by 80%, the disappearance of a gun battery on the beach he has the US use, a fortified entrenchment with 30 guns vanishing from the route the Union takes to 'avoid' the fortified positions, and so on - which is worse than any mistakes I made...)
As for friction in ITWNMUOTOS, I'd invite criticism on the TL itself as to places I should be including it. A point worth making on that score, however, is that the timeline I used (while not allowing for specific weather events from OTL) already incorporated plentiful delays of a day here and there over what could be achieved (e.g. Freeport to Norfolk is 3 days at 9.3 knots, I have them take four days to get there and another ten days before action begins) - whereas in the case of reinforcing Canada it was well within the means of the British. The Brits just have a lot more spare capacity and as such do rather better.
Last edited:
Because, according to their theory, the right of secession was innate even under the US constitution. To mention it in the CSA constitution would imply the contrary.