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

[Steelers94]

I did notice, but I didn't want to mention it because I've kind of made a mess of the names of TTL's Civil War. While I would like it to be known as the Slaveholders' Rebellion or something like that, within the text I've consistently called it the Civil War. And, given that that was the most common way to call the conflict IOTL too, from the very start, I think having the name stick would be unavoidable. My idea was that maybe the entire war is referred to as the Civil War, but the movement against Breckinridge which resulted in the coup and then the war continuing is called the Slaveholders' Rebellion. Likewise, an idea that I had was that the Stars and Bars would be associated with Breckinridge and his government, and the Battle Flag with the Junta.

Personally I can see it eventually being called the Slaveholder's Rebellion once it reaches modern day TTL. As the final refutation of TTLs Lost Cause and to lay bare the truth of what it truly was even in its name alone.

 

[piratedude]

Eh, I think we could compromise and say that some people might start to delineate between "the civil war proper" and the pro-slavery insurrections that came after

 

[TheDetailer]

I did notice, but I didn't want to mention it because I've kind of made a mess of the names of TTL's Civil War. While I would like it to be known as the Slaveholders' Rebellion or something like that, within the text I've consistently called it the Civil War. And, given that that was the most common way to call the conflict IOTL too, from the very start, I think having the name stick would be unavoidable. My idea was that maybe the entire war is referred to as the Civil War, but the movement against Breckinridge which resulted in the coup and then the war continuing is called the Slaveholders' Rebellion. Likewise, an idea that I had was that the Stars and Bars would be associated with Breckinridge and his government, and the Battle Flag with the Junta.

Nice idea! It makes sense!

 

[naraht]

I will admit that I am surprised nobody mentioned the detail on the top after all what does the wiki says the coup was part of?

I noticed, but it seemed almost a bridge too far.

 

[TheDetailer]

I know that he was born in 1875, but what do you think would happen to D. W Griffith ITTL?

 

[PRM]

I know that he was born in 1875, but what do you think would happen to D. W Griffith ITTL?

Hopefully doesn't become a racist segregationist

 

[Whiteshore]

I did notice, but I didn't want to mention it because I've kind of made a mess of the names of TTL's Civil War. While I would like it to be known as the Slaveholders' Rebellion or something like that, within the text I've consistently called it the Civil War. And, given that that was the most common way to call the conflict IOTL too, from the very start, I think having the name stick would be unavoidable. My idea was that maybe the entire war is referred to as the Civil War, but the movement against Breckinridge which resulted in the coup and then the war continuing is called the Slaveholders' Rebellion. Likewise, an idea that I had was that the Stars and Bars would be associated with Breckinridge and his government, and the Battle Flag with the Junta.

Maybe it could be divide between Europeans and Americans with the former preferring the Civil War while the latter use Slaveholder's Rebellion?

 

[AztecFireGod]

I did notice, but I didn't want to mention it because I've kind of made a mess of the names of TTL's Civil War. While I would like it to be known as the Slaveholders' Rebellion or something like that, within the text I've consistently called it the Civil War. And, given that that was the most common way to call the conflict IOTL too, from the very start, I think having the name stick would be unavoidable. My idea was that maybe the entire war is referred to as the Civil War, but the movement against Breckinridge which resulted in the coup and then the war continuing is called the Slaveholders' Rebellion. Likewise, an idea that I had was that the Stars and Bars would be associated with Breckinridge and his government, and the Battle Flag with the Junta.

I did think about that, just thought that by the time Wikipedia came around it would generally be accepted as a slaveholder rebellion
As for the flags I used the official Flag for Robert E. Lee’s headquarters for Jackson s I felt he would use Lee’s standard and I used the battle flag for the other two main commanders due to their more abrupt re-enter as active commanders during the coup, the rest all use the Stars and Bars due to them being either part or most recently being part of the official confederate government

 

[Steelers94]

Eh, I think we could compromise and say that some people might start to delineate between "the civil war proper" and the pro-slavery insurrections that came after

I mean TBF even OTL the Civil War wasn't really a civil war. For all intents and purposes both TTL and OTL the so called "Civil War" was really the crushing of the attempted rebellion and secession of whiny pissed off white supremacist slaver aristocrats who couldn't imagine a society where they couldn't own another human. They weren't trying to change the US Government's form, they weren't planning on staying apart of the US, they were trying to make their own nation. I stand by my statement that the end game would by modern day TTL finally admitting what it truly was, a Slaver Rebellion and not just a civil war.

 

[TheCoolCucumber]

My idea was that maybe the entire war is referred to as the Civil War, but the movement against Breckinridge which resulted in the coup and then the war continuing is called the Slaveholders' Rebellion.

Doesn't this have the rather unfortunate implication that the war wasn't a slaveholders rebellion from the start? And frankly, I can't imagine anyone who would use the term "Slaveholders Rebellion" would draw enough of a distinction between the Breckenridge Administration and the Junta to justify giving the conflict a different name after the later came to power.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I know that he was born in 1875, but what do you think would happen to D. W Griffith ITTL?

Hm his early life would be entirely different given that his father was a Confederate colonel and legislator - at the very least, someone like him wouldn't be allowed to take a seat in the Legislature. He was also a Kentuckian, and Kentucky's status is still in flux what with all its war-time problems with the Union but also its rejection of the Junta. I could see him making a film about the Coup depicting Breckinridge as a hero.

I did think about that, just thought that by the time Wikipedia came around it would generally be accepted as a slaveholder rebellion
As for the flags I used the official Flag for Robert E. Lee’s headquarters for Jackson s I felt he would use Lee’s standard and I used the battle flag for the other two main commanders due to their more abrupt re-enter as active commanders during the coup, the rest all use the Stars and Bars due to them being either part or most recently being part of the official confederate government

Yeah, that makes sense. I was talking more about popular culture later.

Doesn't this have the rather unfortunate implication that the war wasn't a slaveholders rebellion from the start? And frankly, I can't imagine anyone who would use the term "Slaveholders Rebellion" would draw enough of a distinction between the Breckenridge Administration and the Junta to justify giving the conflict a different name after the later came to power.

Yikes, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe initially the people who do want to make such a distinction, the Clean Confederate myth we've so often talked about, would refer to the Junta as the Slaveholders Rebellion, with it later expanding to include the entire war and Breckinridge regime as people realize that it was a slaveholders rebellion from the start.

 

[TheCoolCucumber]

Yikes, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe initially the people who do want to make such a distinction, the Clean Confederate myth we've so often talked about, would refer to the Junta as the Slaveholders Rebellion, with it later expanding to include the entire war and Breckinridge regime as people realize that it was a slaveholders rebellion from the start.

I think the term being connected to the Clean Confederate myth makes a lot of sense. Very much ties into the idea that the planters got the south into the war, and when Breckinridge tried to get them out of it he was killed by the planters for his troubles.

Personally, I think Slaveholders Rebellion is a rather poor name for the conflict in general, because it ignores the fact that while the planter class was succession's and the war's strongest backers there was broad based support for the war from whites across social strata. Indeed, while the war was about protecting the slave property of the planter class, it was also—and perhaps more importantly—a war about preserving a strict racial caste system that placed blacks at the bottom of the social ladder and all whites above them whatever their standing in society.

So, while the war was a rebellion of slaveholders, I think as the decades go by people would be more prepared to admit that it was also more than that, and terms like "Slaveholders Rebellion" would probably fade from mainstream and academic use alongside the Clean Confederate myth.

But that's just my two cents on the subject!

 

[PRM]

I think the term being connected to the Clean Confederate myth makes a lot of sense. Very much ties into the idea that the planters got the south into the war, and when Breckinridge tried to get them out of it he was killed by the planters for his troubles.

Personally, I think Slaveholders Rebellion is a rather poor name for the conflict in general, because it ignores the fact that while the planter class was succession's and the war's strongest backers there was broad based support for the war from whites across social strata. Indeed, while the war was about protecting the slave property of the planter class, it was also—and perhaps more importantly—a war about preserving a strict racial caste system that placed blacks at the bottom of the social ladder and all whites above them whatever their standing in society.

So, while the war was a rebellion of slaveholders, I think as the decades go by people would be more prepared to admit that it was also more than that, and terms like "Slaveholders Rebellion" would probably fade from mainstream and academic use alongside the Clean Confederate myth.

But that's just my two cents on the subject!

I agree with this

 

[AztecFireGod]

I think the term being connected to the Clean Confederate myth makes a lot of sense. Very much ties into the idea that the planters got the south into the war, and when Breckinridge tried to get them out of it he was killed by the planters for his troubles.

Personally, I think Slaveholders Rebellion is a rather poor name for the conflict in general, because it ignores the fact that while the planter class was succession's and the war's strongest backers there was broad based support for the war from whites across social strata. Indeed, while the war was about protecting the slave property of the planter class, it was also—and perhaps more importantly—a war about preserving a strict racial caste system that placed blacks at the bottom of the social ladder and all whites above them whatever their standing in society.

So, while the war was a rebellion of slaveholders, I think as the decades go by people would be more prepared to admit that it was also more than that, and terms like "Slaveholders Rebellion" would probably fade from mainstream and academic use alongside the Clean Confederate myth.

But that's just my two cents on the subject!

You are probably right I only used one of the names the rebellion had otl
is it fully accurate probably not but I think it would probably caught on the circles of people designing the Wikipedia page enough for it to be the name it has (probably is under a lot of contention)

 

[naraht]

I mean TBF even OTL the Civil War wasn't really a civil war. For all intents and purposes both TTL and OTL the so called "Civil War" was really the crushing of the attempted rebellion and secession of whiny pissed off white supremacist slaver aristocrats who couldn't imagine a society where they couldn't own another human. They weren't trying to change the US Government's form, they weren't planning on staying apart of the US, they were trying to make their own nation. I stand by my statement that the end game would by modern day TTL finally admitting what it truly was, a Slaver Rebellion and not just a civil war.

My American History teacher had a *very* rigid definition of what various types of war were. To him, 1776-1783 and 1861-1865 were both wars of independence, just one successful and one not. A civil war had both sides fighting for power within the same area, so the English or Spanish civil wars qualified. And a revolution was what France had in 1789. Russia 1917-1921 did have aspects of various types of war.
World War II was a war of conquest, World War 1, was a war of another type, don't remember...

 

[TheDetailer]

Hopefully doesn't become a racist segregationist

Me too, although again he hasn’t been born yet - if he even will be at all with the butterflies going on - so we’ll just have to wait and see what happens with him.

Hm his early life would be entirely different given that his father was a Confederate colonel and legislator - at the very least, someone like him wouldn't be allowed to take a seat in the Legislature. He was also a Kentuckian, and Kentucky's status is still in flux what with all its war-time problems with the Union but also its rejection of the Junta. I could see him making a film about the Coup depicting Breckinridge as a hero.

Interesting. Yeah that makes sense, I could imagine that being a less problematic film than what he directed in 1915 IOTL, although it would probably still be criticised by modern people.

I think the term being connected to the Clean Confederate myth makes a lot of sense. Very much ties into the idea that the planters got the south into the war, and when Breckinridge tried to get them out of it he was killed by the planters for his troubles.

Personally, I think Slaveholders Rebellion is a rather poor name for the conflict in general, because it ignores the fact that while the planter class was succession's and the war's strongest backers there was broad based support for the war from whites across social strata. Indeed, while the war was about protecting the slave property of the planter class, it was also—and perhaps more importantly—a war about preserving a strict racial caste system that placed blacks at the bottom of the social ladder and all whites above them whatever their standing in society.

So, while the war was a rebellion of slaveholders, I think as the decades go by people would be more prepared to admit that it was also more than that, and terms like "Slaveholders Rebellion" would probably fade from mainstream and academic use alongside the Clean Confederate myth.

But that's just my two cents on the subject!

Yeah to me personally I prefer the normal name of the “American Civil War”, it’s just a classic and easy name to memorise.

 

[Red_Galiray]

I think the term being connected to the Clean Confederate myth makes a lot of sense. Very much ties into the idea that the planters got the south into the war, and when Breckinridge tried to get them out of it he was killed by the planters for his troubles.

Personally, I think Slaveholders Rebellion is a rather poor name for the conflict in general, because it ignores the fact that while the planter class was succession's and the war's strongest backers there was broad based support for the war from whites across social strata. Indeed, while the war was about protecting the slave property of the planter class, it was also—and perhaps more importantly—a war about preserving a strict racial caste system that placed blacks at the bottom of the social ladder and all whites above them whatever their standing in society.

So, while the war was a rebellion of slaveholders, I think as the decades go by people would be more prepared to admit that it was also more than that, and terms like "Slaveholders Rebellion" would probably fade from mainstream and academic use alongside the Clean Confederate myth.

But that's just my two cents on the subject!

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I hadn't considered it, but you're right that there's the unfortunate implication that the war was only for the planter class and that the poor people had not stake in it but were just forced to fight against their will - which is the myth we've been discussing. Instead it should be emphasized that the poor people were just as committed to maintaining White supremacy.

You are probably right I only used one of the names the rebellion had otl
is it fully accurate probably not but I think it would probably caught on the circles of people designing the Wikipedia page enough for it to be the name it has (probably is under a lot of contention)

What kind of editing wars would there be within this TL lol? I could see actually a lot of back and forth regarding what flag to use to represent the Junta, akin to the Austria-Hungary situation.

My American History teacher had a *very* rigid definition of what various types of war were. To him, 1776-1783 and 1861-1865 were both wars of independence, just one successful and one not. A civil war had both sides fighting for power within the same area, so the English or Spanish civil wars qualified. And a revolution was what France had in 1789. Russia 1917-1921 did have aspects of various types of war.
World War II was a war of conquest, World War 1, was a war of another type, don't remember...

Frankly, I kind of agree. The US Civil War is, in many ways, not a true civil war. If the Confederates had won we could know it as the Confederate War for Independence instead. Just like how if Washington had lost, we'd be talking of the American revolt or insurrection.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

By the way, Red, I was thinking about a Side Story involving Dr DaCosta for the sequel and I just found one post that needs a thread Mark to go with the other. It is on page 327.

I have my idea for what his Eureka moment will be and how soldiers heart will become Shell Shocked 50 years early, and there will be a little bit of a nudge toward psychiatry because of the access he will have had to several European studies that he would not have in our timeline, such as the one that was discussed earlier on the child who clearly suffered from PTSD after the Napoleonic invasion of russia.

 

[Whiteshore]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I hadn't considered it, but you're right that there's the unfortunate implication that the war was only for the planter class and that the poor people had not stake in it but were just forced to fight against their will - which is the myth we've been discussing. Instead it should be emphasized that the poor people were just as committed to maintaining White supremacy.

And on that note, it would emphasize that the most “guilty” class for the crime of secession, if you will, were not the planters per se (though they did play a major role) but the “small slaveholders” who aspired to be planters.

 

[Red_Galiray]

By the way, Red, I was thinking about a Side Story involving Dr DaCosta for the sequel and I just found one post that needs a thread Mark to go with the other. It is on page 327.

I have my idea for what his Eureka moment will be and how soldiers heart will become Shell Shocked 50 years early, and there will be a little bit of a nudge toward psychiatry because of the access he will have had to several European studies that he would not have in our timeline, such as the one that was discussed earlier on the child who clearly suffered from PTSD after the Napoleonic invasion of russia.

You're right, I have threadmarked that. Thank you for writing these!

And on that note, it would emphasize that the most “guilty” class for the crime of secession, if you will, were not the planters per se (though they did play a major role) but the “small slaveholders” who aspired to be planters.

Hm that's true, but in popular memory the planters will remain the paramount "villains," most likely.