I suppose the question is how much events on the 'wild western front' had any influence on the war in the east.
Speaking of Texas, I often read about how Kirby Smith basically ran the place as an independent country after the Union took the entire Mississippi and cut him off from the rest of the confederacy. I've never managed to find anything that goes into detail about how the Kirby Smithdom was run. Will it play any role in this TL's future?
The fate of Texas has a lot to do with whether France invades Mexico or not, and I haven't decided whether to butterfly that away or retain it.
Got a question in the Pennsylvania campaign Lee sold free black people into slavery in the south if said campaign surely that can be the the excuse used to have him and all his ilk hanged.
I have also considered that, you know? Hanging him for treason may be tricky, but if Congress creates a criminal code that includes war crimes as actions punishable by execution, then perhaps it would be possible to hang him for kidnapping Blacks or allowing his troops to massacre Unionists. But I have not decided yet because, as discussed previously, it's hard to make such trials without making them balconies from which Lee, Breckenridge and Davis can make their case and without turning them into martyrs.
Brings another question how in general were southern unionists treated by the confederates?
Terribly, as we will see soon...
Now, in Red's timeline, the war is different enough that you can butterfly away Appomattox, and the chief executive - whoever he is at the time - can decide the policy up front, and use that to shape whatever terms he will allow his commanders to offer Lee et al in terms of surrender. I do think you have to assume that if the administration makes plain that it plans to prosecute and hang (if comvicted) all senior Confederate officials and military officers for treason, then you will have to bank on there being few surrenders, and that your armies will have to fight them until they're destroyed in detail. You may end up not taking many of them alive.
The other problem you would have to deal with is that many Union Army officers were quite opposed to such a policy, and they included the likes of Grant and Sherman. You may well have to clean house of the senior army ranks up front to eliminate the danger of opposition from that quarter - I mean, a danger that could even potentially involve a military coup. This could be doable, but you would have to realize that the talent pool of radical Republican officers willing to accept a hardline policy like that was a lot smaller.
So it's not like it's not doable, but I think the policy has to be decided up front, and you just have to be willing to live with the war being longer and more expensive - and the postwar occupation of the South likewise.
And I we end up going down that route we may end with a totalitarian United States with political purges and under military control and that would be kind of a mess...
Personally, I think the best course of action for the senior Confederates is to give them two options:
1. Have them swear an oath of loyalty to the US and allow them to live a quiet, retired life, with the strict stipulation they never be allowed to hold political, military, or judicial office ever again. If you can convince any of them to be publicly in favor of Reconstruction, all the better.
2. Exile them. Allow them to leave with their money and possessions to wherever they want, and forbid them from ever returning to the US under any circumstance.
As much as I might hate the whole lot of them, hanging them is just going to turn them into martyrs. Even imprisoning them would only increase sympathy for them, as happened IOTL with Jefferson Davis.
Breckenridge, quite surprisingly, accepted the results of the war, and men like Lee may be able to remain silent. But Davis and others are dangerous because they will create a Lost Cause narrative that would be prejudicial to the fate of Reconstruction. I'm leaning towards semi-voluntary exile, but nothing's settled yet.
Seems alot of people are active in this thread, so I'm going to ask this there any way the native americans can get a better treatment than otl due to this alt civil war or they is too hard to stop there destruction.
I am sympathetic towards them, but Lincoln, for all I admire him, was terrible when it comes to Native American affairs. I don't see a more Radical Lincoln trying to preserve their lands, to be honest. Perhaps a more radical conception of citizenship and rights may result in changes in the future, but in the short term I see nothing but tragedy.
I would add a stipulation, that they must do so under military supervision. If that needs to be explicitly stated, anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if they actively started sabotaging their properties if they had them seized. Not on an organized level, maybe, but spontaneous acts of spite and desperation would have a lot of propaganda value to any of the die-hard ex-confederates.
Bitter aristocrats leaving nothing behind wouldn't surprise me.
I wouldn't be surprised either.
Invasion of the North you say? I smell Gettysburg folks!
Something even bigger.
Did Grant issue
General Order No. 11 yet, or was it Butterflied away?
For those of you who don't know, General Order No. 11 expelled all the Jews from Grant's military district (parts of Tennessee Mississippi, and Kentucky), as allegedly Jews were heavily involved in the illegal cotton trade. It was widely condemned by the Jewish community, members of Congress, and the press. Lincoln did countermand the order within a month, and Grant later expressed regret for issuing the order, but suffice it to say it was a big black mark in Grant's record.
Grant did issue the order, it's just that I didn't know how to weave it into the narrative and the chapter was already rather long.
3) I will say that I fear you may be underrating just how much damage this many major setbacks may do to Union morale by this point. In OTL, I don't think the North was ever quite as close to breaking as many have liked to argue; but I think it has to be said that there *was* a breaking point, and in the war as you have it to date, I really think there would have been an appreciable chance of blowback that the Lincoln Administration might have struggled hard to grapple with (notice how hedged my words are here). I couldn't assign a percentage to it; but I do think the risk of giving the South some extra big die rolls early on to get that hard war policy you want does come with some very real risks.
So, I don't have any problem with criticism. I welcome it, in fact! I'm quite a novice when it comes to writing, and there are plenty of people here who know more than me. You in special,
@Athelstane are a very knowledgeable person. I am afraid I have strained disbelief when it comes to how far both Union and Confederacy are willing to go. One possible justification is that both fear enormously more threatened due to events like Dred Scott being purely Southern or Kansas being forced to accept the Lecompton constitution, but you are quite right that we're probably approaching the breaking point. I am not against a rewrite if it proves necessary. I could make the Kentucky campaign a greater Union victory and make Vicksburg a more ambiguous draw. Ultimately, some artistic license is to be expected for this is not a "hard" timeline but one with a specific objective and thus events serve that objective.
In any universe, Braxton Bragg is going to be a blithering idiot.
Great work as usual!
It's a result of his own flaws of character. It's a little ironic that Breckenridge served under Bragg in OTL, and now Breckenridge is Bragg's president in here.
I could definitely see some more conservative governors or state legislatures organizing resistance to any further conscriptions or even stonewalling volunteer drives.
Also, for an idea that's really out there that I don't think is plausible but is still interesting... What if some more eccentric types try to "save" their states by suing for peace individually?
That line about the Confederates being just 75 miles south of Cincinnati and the impending R.E Lee invasion are definitely going to rattle the resolve of the people. Up to this point the people of the True North have been very insulated from the consequences of the war, the worst of the fighting has happened either in the south or in border states. They're much more detached from the war, and the moment that the real pain touches them, it will cause complications.
Nobody in Illinois wants to die over this that hasn't already signed up, and that's likely the case with many of the other states. And when people start fleeing the fighting, they might just push their state governments to declare neutrality, or even to give the Confederates right of passage so they don't burn everything down.
Those requests don't have to go through, but to hear them at all will be very disconcerting. And if some of the less faithful governments actually try anything in that direction, that could usher in and give good reason for a stronger clampdown in the face of the war entering another bloodier phase.
The thing is, the National Union is in political shambles due to some very unfortunate rolls. Cut off from political power, the only way of expressing their discontent is through violence, a glimpse of which was offered in the anti-draft riots I briefly mentioned but will later analyze in detail. Lincoln, for his part, is now convinced that all Southerners are rebels except for Unionists and that all opponents of his government are traitors who want the South to win. Perhaps not so dogmatically, since Lincoln is still a practical man, but the thing is that Lincoln will not hesitate to use all his powers to maintain public safety and the prosecution of war. Which is important because it settles two precedents: that the people can also be threats that state governments may not be able to handle, and that in that case the Federal government has the power and duty to intervene.
when ever George Thomas comes up I have to play this song
Great song! Thanks for sharing! I guess it would be the Sledgehammer of Lexington her, huh?
I am almost tempted to make the argument that with the opening disasters for the North as Red laid them out - with the Southrons swamping Maryland in short order - the odds may just be better than even that you get a critical mass of states doing exactly what you're talking about. I'm on the fence about whether Lincoln could have kept the war going.
Mind you, I'm enjoying your timeline, Red, so I'm more than happy to see how you develop it, so we can see where it can go. I might have had more northern blowback in the summer of '61 if I had been writing it, but I think you are within your rights to work from a premise that Lincoln could somehow have kept the war going in spite of it, and make it plausible.
As I said, a certain suspension of disbelief is necessary in this work, as in many other pieces of fiction. At one point I was ready to have Kentucky secede too but realized I had overplayed my hand and backtracked. I do think certain things in the early chapters could be changed to better justify why the North did not surrender (my account of the 1860 election is rather bare to say the least, and I wrote it today I would probably make it more violent so that Northerners would be convinced that Southern secession means their destruction). But I don't think I've ever crossed into ASB or impossible territory at least.
P.S. In connection with my last I would like to draw attention to
this broadside published by the National Union Executive Committee (file is too big to post here) - basically, Lincoln campaign propaganda - in September 1864. The map is probably being a little generous territorially for (an oddly shrunk) Texas and Indian Territory, but otherwise, it's a fascinating snapshot in time. In particular, Red should be pillaging this relentlessly for language to stick in the mouths of his historical figures, shamelessly, because there's a gold mine of this stuff in here. "
The end cannot be doubtful. Those who violated the Divine Law have incurred the penalty, and will inevitably meet the allotted punishment."
But I particularly enjoyed the summary toward the end, "Territory conquered" and "Population Recovered." When I look at all that grey Union hatching in West Tennessee and think about all the thousands of yeoman farmers had been eagerly joining up on Forrest's recruiting raids that spring and summer. "
The hell I've been recovered, damnyankee!"
Thanks for the primary source. I often struggle with titles and quotes, and this will be useful.
"Amateurs study tactics, professions study strategy and/or logistics". Guess the paradoxical Rosecrans is the final form of Amateurs.
Thomas seems like he would get his butt kicked by Lee, but he seems a pretty good choice for fighting more mediocre CSA generals.
Huh, thought supplies came down the Mississippi river. My bad.
To be fair Thomas never faced the best of the Confederacy, but instead Hood and Bragg. Only McClellan could lose against them. And yes, Grant was advancing along the Mississippi Central Railroad, so he was supplied by railroad. Sherman was supplied by river, so he did not face such problems when he went to Chickasaw Bayou.
This is the only actual critique I have to make of this timeline overall, which I like very much and am avidly following. I might question the military performances of certain characters at certain times (Hooker vs. Lee seemed to me frankly unfair to Hooker, considering how many things IOTL had to go *just right* for Lee for Chancellorsville to happen as it did), but every author has the right - indeed the obligation - to choose the competency of their characters. 1% events happen, as do knock-on impacts from butterflies, and differing historical interpretations. If it serves the overall story, then it doesn't even 100% of the time have to be 'plausible' as long as it is 'possible'. it is only when actual geography or timing becomes impossible that casual readers get the right to comment - and even then, in my view, only when also having solutions instead of just pointing out problems.
Thank you very much for the criticism! I really appreciate it, sincerely. I lacked adequate sources describing the terrain or the battles at length, so I only wrote what seemed plausible. I am glad someone with more knowledge came to lend me a hand.
I also struggled with Hooker vs. Lee, but ultimately my story needs Hooker to lose so that Lee will go north and... do some nasty stuff. I guessed that it would be somewhat realistic for someone like Hooker to freak out and perform much worse than OTL because here it must feel like he has the weight of the Union on his shoulders.
George "Sledgehammer of Lexington" Thomas
I like it. Hopefully, he will get the honor in this TL he did not in our TL.
I like the loyal Thomas. Besides, being a Virginian who decided to side against treason, I'm sure Lincoln is ready to trumped him and his performance.
In all serious though, that is a cool song you found, and this is a great TL from what I've read so far.
Thanks!
You have to wonder how many hard punches the Union can take. How will they radicalize rather than saying no mas? It is getting dicey. I thought the capture of Washington and battle of Baltimore was the high water mark but I guess it's one of those things you could argue over which was the high water mark, because the union controls more territory now.
I didn't read the comment about how Iuka may not have gone like you propose, I haven't had the time to do that. But it would have been nice to see a little more success in the West. But, it's also true that it is a few months earlier that Lee will be invading and there is still the chance for the union to get such a quick big victory the public pressure really doesn't have a huge chance to go fully against Lincoln. There was a lot of Need for build up at first, but here it can be more like a heavyweight fight without a lot of time for the union to absorb the blows before it makes some drastic counterpunches.
Which, admittedly, is why I say it would have been good to see some counterpunches that are successes during the time that the union is seeing these defeats. Because then it's easier to see that the champ isn't totally on the ropes against this TL's Drago.
This time the civil war is more of a desperate struggle where both Confederacy and Union continuously push each other against the ropes. A few updates ago some pointed out that it was implausible that the Confederacy would last much longer, now it's the opposite. As I said, I think I will rewrite the update slightly to make Vicksburg a draw and East Tennessee a bigger victory to make sure the Union does not collapse.
I know, I was expecting increased Southern atgrocities, too - like the burning of New York which was contemplated OTL late in 1864.
Regarding atrocities... well, the war is going to get much nastier. I guess I've been too squeamish, but in a couple of updates I have included vague references to war crimes that I did not describe at length because, frankly, I wouldn't know how to do so without coming across as tasteless or looking like I'm glorifying violence. The contrabands McClellan abandoned when he left the Peninsula? Many of them were massacred, whipped or resold to slavery. And the Black regiment that fought with Grant was also massacred down to the last man, with the exception of a few that survived. Guerrilla warfare in Missouri and Kansas is even worse, and guerrillas are starting to appear in Kentucky and Maryland for the Union, and also North Carolina, Northern Alabama and Texas for the Confederacy. I will describe at all, I just am looking for a way to do while convening adequately both my sympathy for the victims and just how appalling these crimes are.
Another thing that has limited me somewhat is that I try to keep this TL in an idealist current, and also that it could well spiral out of control and the Confederacy ends as the United States' Ireland, needing to be held down by a bayonet because the wounds of the war are too deep to heal. I don't think a South where the Federal government violently disfranchises Whites would be inherently worse than OTL, after all, it would be just the counterpart to the Jim Crow South. But it would not be fairer, and I can't certainly call this a succesful or quasi-successful Reconstruction if the South remains in constant upheaval for decades afterwards. Nonetheless, violent atrocities committed by both sides and way worse than OTL are soon to come.
Surprised how much controversy the Union defeat in the west is causing. I don't think its particularly unlikely, and with the great contribution of Confederate partisans to the defeat it serves to show the union just how committed the south is to defending slavery and hating the north. Giving them extra impetus to beat the snot out of the southerners later in the war.
I do think so too, since in this case it's not so much that Johnston defeated Grant but the partisans did.
I mean, unless
@Red_Galiray has a problem with it, I'm liking this tangent quite a bit.
It's not entirely irrelevant and it's leagues better than some of the other tangents the thread has gone on.
Yeah, I don't mind. It's an useful comparison of how wars radicalize, all the more useful because it's in Britain, which is somewhat similar to the United States.
Has anyone ever done one?
