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

Okay for starters I have to say this chapter is brilliant I couldn't stop reading but I guess that's generally true with everything you write.
Thank you!

However their are a few plot holes I don't like. If Lee was so cocky why didn't he just keep going north? I think maybe this can be explained by the intelligence he had on hand. If I have one complaint it seems like the union victory came too easy. Maybe this can be explained away by the confederate troops essentially making a large loop around union forces to attack them from behind and thus being more fatigued.
Breckinridge, being from Kentucky, is desperate to show that the Confederacy will support similar uprisings. He nurses the hope that Kentucky and Tennessee Confederates will rise up, but if they see that Baltimore proclaimed their lot with the Confederacy and was let out in the cold, why would they take the risk? It was mostly a political maneuver, and a bit of strategy as well, since Lee's two main objectives were re-establish Confederate control over Maryland and defeat Reynolds. Taking Pennsylvania supplies and perhaps Harrisburg was secondary. Lee also lacked accurate intelligence of the how many troops Reynolds had and where they were exactly. He thought that a much larger percentage of his army had gone South to pursue Beauregard, and didn't know of the failure at Fort Saratoga and the return of Doubleday. Lee and his soldiers had also marched longer and faster than Reynolds' had, and the Yankees were able to rest and fortify along the Pipe Creek while Lee continued running around Pennsylvania, to Gettysburg and back. And when they finally arrived they found a very strong defensive position that under normal circumstances would be almost impossible to carry. As a last point, Lee had also sent Beauregard south because he needed ammunition, but due to Fort Saratoga Beauregard simply never returned - so he was low on ammo too.

This feels like a Dues ex Machina.

Huh?

Well if you want to radicalize the northern population that's how you do. If they would have kept this up with the industrial sabotage they might have had a serious effect on the Norths war economy.

Is this supposed to be a riff on a modern politician.

This level of hubris is unbelievable.

Okay this catatonic state I can buy.
Hill's behaviour is based on OTL and comes from a conversation with @Arnold d.c IOTL, Hill suffered from a grave if unspecified disease that did take him out of fighting several times, most notably at Spotsylvania, when he had to be replaced by Jubal Early. Perhaps "all but useless" is a harsh judgement, but it cannot be denied that Hill's health problems limited his effectiveness at several engagements, and they only worsened once he was promoted to corps commander.

"Red" is a translation problem. You see, my native language is Spanish, and spy network is red de espionaje in Spanish. I got the two of them mixed up.

The Confederates did perform widespread industrial sabotage, but it's for naught since the Union can repair bridges and railroads faster than the rebs can burn them down.

No, it's an OTL quote by Longstreet. Similarly, the quote about "profound contempt" is an OTL observation from a British officer. Here, I think Lee's hubris is somewhat justified by just how massive his victories have been thus far. Think about it, he did not merely repulse the Union, he destroyed two whole corps. Lee's observations regarding how his soldiers could do anything and also how retreating would destroy their morale are also from OTL.

Edit: I have slightly rewritten the update to better explain why Lee turned back to Baltimore, why he was willing to assault the Union, and how the Union cavalry managed to drew Stuart away and thus leave Lee "blind" to the strength, positions and terrain of the Union.

I can imagine Jackson or some other Confederate officer who was at Union Mills saying something along the lines of Richard Ewell's admission in @TheKnightIrish's TL after the Battle of Liberty:
That's a good quote. Damn, I want to ask if I can borrow it.

Which is too bad, in the case of the Electoral College; it made a certain degree of sense in the 1780s, but by the 1860s it had become a vestigial organ, largely tolerated because of mistaken notions about it inflating the value of "small states" (it does not, but rather inflates the value of competitive states) and the fact that it served in the vast majority of cases as a rubber stamp for the popular vote. Really, it should have been abolished in the 1820s or 1830s, when universal white manhood suffrage was accepted, because the entire complicated system that had been envisaged clearly had no relationship whatsoever with how American politics had actually developed, and the whole exercise was just a waste of time and money to no purpose.
Abolishing the electoral college is my pet project. One possible angle is how it's, in effect, a way of indirect democracy. Radicalism was in a continuous search for a new definition of what it means to be a citizen, and the Civil War too created a true American nation. Couldn't, then, be argued that a direct vote is more democratic and conductive to a new birth of freedom?
 
Last edited:
Abolishing the electoral college is my pet project. One possible angle is how it's, in effect, a way of indirect democracy. Radicalism was in a continuous search for a new definition of what it means to be a citizen, and the Civil War too created a true American nation. Couldn't, then, be argued that a direct vote is more democratic and conductive to a new birth of freedom?
I honestly do not see Lincoln doing it, not whilst he can set the political agenda and use it to his advantage, esecially if it gives him clear majorities. EC/Senate/House ewise.

If you want to abolish the electoral college, you would probably need another election similar to that of 1824/1876. That would really drive the narrative home that its a system that needs change.
 
Bragg? Seriously? How? That guy was so hated by everyone. I recently learned that apparently there were attempts on his life during the Mexican War.
He got very lucky. IIRC, the war in the east went bad enough good parts of Virginia got razed while Bragg had a fluke that saw the west as a major victory. You should check out the timeline. It's a pretty good one
 
One of my greatest difficulties is remembering that although I know what happens in the future, or rather what might happen, the people ITTL don't. So I have to take off my modern lenses and try to see the situation as the people of the period would have, without the benefit of hindsight.
I could totally see the North slightly bungling Reconstruction so that while African-Americans do keep their enfranchisement and that at least some white Southerners come to terms with it, it only pushes the remnants of the confederate/white supremacist cause out into the wilderness rather than destroying it for good, letting it incubate until the cause of tolerant, multicultural, liberal democracy suffers a stall. A World War here, a global financial crash there, and suddenly you start getting "normal, decent people" who think that the crazy bunch of goons, who think all of "Our" problems will be solved if "We" just got rid of "Them", might actually be worth giving a chance.
 
So, from your clues, Lee will either be fired, resign, or die. Yet you also say you can't allow him to die a hero's death. He did have sever heart trouble at times in late 1863 OTL, which may be exacerbated by another loss. Or, he could just lose Virginia eventually, then quit or be fired in disgrace.

There is still a good reason to have an Electoral College, especially to those in the 1860s, and that is that if one person had unified the opposition, LIncoln would have lost. I can't see it being abolished before the 1880s at a minimum, because there would be the fear that opponents of the Reconstruction could rally the masses and do something corrupt.

You need the opposite to happen - have it deny a really good candidate - but then also you need to get rid of the arguemnt that it allowed LIncoln to win handily, because that is going to be a *huge* thing to supporters for a long time.

There's some good discussion here in the Korean officer ISOT to the ARW story on what could be done, including an alternate proposal which I don't remember the details of but which I think the author adopted. Perhaps you can just PM the author so you don't have to go through the mounds of posts. Pewrhaps it will allow you to tinker while also mollifying the mid-19th century people who woud insist that a way must be found for a LIncoln to succeed when needed against evil opposition.
 
I think Lee is going to have to resign if he doesn't want to be relieved by Breckenridge; IIRC he did offer his resignation after Gettysburg, but Davis declined it. He suffered a defeat worse than OTL Gettysburg, with more than half of his army lost and irreplaceable, and even worse, two of his corps were functionally destroyed by Black troops. This disaster will wipe out pretty much all the victories that have gone before, and strike right at the heart of the Confederate psyche. Beauregard is also toast, career-wise. So the question now is, who replaces Lee - Longstreet or Jackson? Probably Longstreet, I think; Jackson's reputation will be permanently tainted since his corps was one of those smashed by the aforementioned Black troops. He might or might not remain in command, but he'll certainly never enjoy the same cachet he did before Union Mills.

On the Union side, we are now presented with one of the great paradoxes of TTL American history; Abner Doubleday, the lightly-regarded braggart who went around claiming to be the "Hero of Moultrie", is now the authentic, genuine hero of both Fort Saratoga and Union Mills! And his corps of United States Colored Troops has just been transformed into the elite formation of the Army of the Susequehanna, having overthrown both Beauregard and the feared Jackson. Whenever Reynolds, or his successor if Reynolds doesn't survive a particular engagement, comes upon a particularly hard-to-shift Rebel position for the rest of the war, you just know it's going to be, "Send for Doubleday's boys, they'll clear 'em out."
 
I guess I'm just in the chronic condition of being a dumbass when I'm completely sober, but I have one beer in me and that is just enough for me to realise why, to reference Doubleday's deliberative nature, his subordinates picked "Forty-Eight Hours". Forty eight hours is the length of a double-day.
 
Thus, in the darkness before the dawn, the Grand Army of the Republic rises to defeat the traitorous foe, preserving this, the last best hope for mankind. Never in the annals of American history has so much been owed to so few.
 
Last edited:
Stevens did point out that simple disenfranchisement was the lightest punishment ever inflicted on traitors. Seriously, reading about Reconstruction it's simply disgusting to see how the Southerners treat Black people having rights as some kind of terrible fate, when in other countries rebels like them were literally exterminated.
Even when rebellions of white people rebelling against other white people to gain independence wer crushed (like Poland or Hungary), the rebels were punished by executions of the leadership and/or deporting them abroad or to some inhospitable area of the state (I'm looking at you, Siberian katorgas).
 
Even when rebellions of white people rebelling against other white people to gain independence wer crushed (like Poland or Hungary), the rebels were punished by executions of the leadership and/or deporting them abroad or to some inhospitable area of the state (I'm looking at you, Siberian katorgas).
Alexander II: Perhaps, Mr. Lincoln, I send you my troublemakers, and you let me use yours to "settle" Siberia?
 
I want to blow up the Lost Cause into a million atoms, so that Lee, Jackson, and other Confederates will not be seen as great heroes or anything, but simple traitors. Thus, I can't allow an heroic death to any leading Confederate. A pathetic one, on the other hand...
What? No? I thought this was a radical civil war not a: lets have a series of de-radicalizing events one. I personally want the south to fight on when the war is totally futile, I want them and the union to suffer a horrible gorilla campaign (laughs maniacally). Honestly if you give them semi heroic deaths you can drag this thing on so long that it won't matter if their heroes, the civil war will be looked on by white southerners the same way ww2 was looked on by the germans in the 50s and 60s. They're proud they fought but ashamed of the actions of confederacy, yes they do think the slavery thing was horrible but their grand pappy was just an honorable soldier following orders and whipping the yankees. Make the southern cities like Dresden and the treatment of the slaves like the holocaust. Maybe have a Stalingrad where confederates are surrounded and starved till one of their generals surrenders.
in fact, since the countryside is heavily Republican that would be completely nonsensical.
My thoughts exactly.
"Red" is a translation problem. You see, my native language is Spanish, and spy network is red de espionaje in Spanish. I got the two of them mixed up.
The fact that English isn't your first language makes your writing skills even more impressive!
I honestly do not see Lincoln doing it, not whilst he can set the political agenda and use it to his advantage, esecially if it gives him clear majorities. EC/Senate/House ewise.
Why? He won the election.
Alexander II: Perhaps, Mr. Lincoln, I send you my troublemakers, and you let me use yours to "settle" Siberia?
People would never consent to this but it certainly has its appeal to me.
 
Last edited:
People would never consent to this but it certainly has its appeal to me.
Same here. A lot of my ancestors had to deal with a ton of shit from the Russian Empire (including a ggg-grandfather forcibly serving in the army at the time), and the prospect of said ancestors getting free passage to America sounds pretty good to me. And it would be interesting to see how the Confederates fared in Siberia.
 
I believe @TheKnightIrish's TL squared the circle of what to do with captured Confederates who couldn't be conveniently tried by declaring them to have forsworn their citizenship (or somesuch) and exiling them. Exactly where they went was their affair, so long as they left the country, but most of them ended up going to Mexico, IIRC, and entering Maximilian's service.

Of course, we are looking at a more radical and more bloody Civil War, so I imagine that quite a few Confederates might end up with death certificates bearing the immortal phrase "Killed while resisting arrest", with prime candidates being such charming fellows as Bloody Bill Anderson, William Quantrill, and Nathan B. Forrest. While others might find themselves in the hands of Union jailers who end up saying, a la Captain Renault, "We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape."
 
However their are a few plot holes I don't like. If Lee was so cocky why didn't he just keep going north? I think maybe this can be explained by the intelligence he had on hand. If I have one complaint it seems like the union victory came too easy. Maybe this can be explained away by the confederate troops essentially making a large loop around union forces to attack them from behind and thus being more fatigued.
As I provided the ideas for the campaign, I'll help to alleviate some plot holes.
  1. Lee doesn't keep going north because while he is cocky, he's not absolutely insane. Continuing to move north means moving away from Maryland and Baltimore, the ultimate objective of the campaign. Moving north might inflict more political damage (and Lee was planning to take Harrisburg, but the early uprising at Baltimore forced Lee to abort the plan).
  2. Lee has little intel on the Pipe Creek Line. He doesn't know what hill Reynolds is behind nor does he know the strength of the force in front of him. He knows it's the Army of the Susquehanna but he doesn't know how many troops had been actually detached to guard Washington or march to Baltimore. The only way he can find out is through a reconnaissance-in-force, which brings on the battle.
This feels like a Dues ex Machina.
As @Red_Galiray says, A.P. Hill is sick with... something. No one knows what it really is, but A.P. Hill IOTL suffered from the disease so much that he could not command the corps at times. The incident the gap caused by A.P. Hill is somewhat inspired by the general's actions on Day 2 of Gettysburg. IOTL, A.P. Hill was supposed to be continue Longstreet's assault up the line. Now, Longstreet had done fine work. He had personally decided when and which units would attack, when the reserves would go in and when the attack was called off before the attack was futile.

Contrast this with A.P. Hill, who basically acts as a courier for Lee and does absolutely no supervising. A.P. Hill's orders to his division resemble something like: "Lee tells me to tell you to do X", and when the subordinate tries to do X, A.P. Hill isn't even watching them. R.H. Anderson, not used to working with A.P. Hill, messes the attack up on his own but had enough success to justify using Heth's reserve division. A.P. Hill didn't send Heth in. Now, A.P. Hill's second division, Pender's, was supposed to continue the attack further north. However, Pender was killed before the attack began and his successor has no idea what to do. Instead of giving said subordinate orders, A.P. Hill does nothing. The same is pretty much true for Gettysburg Day 1 and 3, in which A.P. Hill basically tells his subordinates what Lee wants them to do but provides no supervision as to how it should be done.
 
So Lee likely offers his resignation like OTL and Breckinridge accepts it, he ends up dying of a heart attack from the stress of the defeat or both happen. Meanwhile Doubleday and his troops are now the genuine heroes of the Union which means if Reynolds dies then he's likely next in line for command assuming circumstances don't change. Which would mean the Western Theater gets run over by both Grant and Sherman thus meaning the deep South will likely cease to exist by wars end... I can say I'm 100% ok with that outcome.
 
Another fantastic update! Great analogue to Gettysburg, and shows the sad truth and brutality of this kind of conflict.
 
I mean, the real problem is that there were low population states in the North, too - and ones that were disproportionately influential in Washington.

Radical Republicans seem not to have felt the need for any real tinkering with the actual apparatus of government, feeling confident that they'd be in overwhelming control of all branches anyway.
I must concede the point regarding the Radicals' lack of will for changing how the government actually operated. Most Republicans probably think they will always carry a Solid North, and with it the Presidency. And with the political opposition in shambles it would be hard to believe that the post-war period would not be dominated by Republicans.

If you want to abolish the electoral college, you would probably need another election similar to that of 1824/1876. That would really drive the narrative home that its a system that needs change.
It does seem so.

He got very lucky. IIRC, the war in the east went bad enough good parts of Virginia got razed while Bragg had a fluke that saw the west as a major victory. You should check out the timeline. It's a pretty good one
Sounds interesting. It's hard to picture Bragg as anything but a hated failure, but I guess that things can easily end up differently.

I could totally see the North slightly bungling Reconstruction so that while African-Americans do keep their enfranchisement and that at least some white Southerners come to terms with it, it only pushes the remnants of the confederate/white supremacist cause out into the wilderness rather than destroying it for good, letting it incubate until the cause of tolerant, multicultural, liberal democracy suffers a stall. A World War here, a global financial crash there, and suddenly you start getting "normal, decent people" who think that the crazy bunch of goons, who think all of "Our" problems will be solved if "We" just got rid of "Them", might actually be worth giving a chance.
I'll be honest, I'm considering having a Second Civil War later down the line, and after it more fundamental changes could take place.

Or, he could just lose Virginia eventually, then quit or be fired in disgrace.

There is still a good reason to have an Electoral College, especially to those in the 1860s, and that is that if one person had unified the opposition, LIncoln would have lost. I can't see it being abolished before the 1880s at a minimum, because there would be the fear that opponents of the Reconstruction could rally the masses and do something corrupt.
Lee did once declare, rather melodramatically, that "Richmond must not be given up!". I think that if Breckinridge pulls out of Richmond to continue the war out of the Carolinas, Lee may decide to remain in Virginia.

ITTL, remember, Lincoln almost won an outright majority of the popular vote (around 49%) and there was substantial violence on the eve of the war, including Yankees expulsed or tarred and feathered in the South. I can see a "Lincoln would have won a large majority without Southern terror" narrative appearing, especially now that the Southerners are literally terrorizing Unionists.

I think Lee is going to have to resign if he doesn't want to be relieved by Breckenridge; IIRC he did offer his resignation after Gettysburg, but Davis declined it. He suffered a defeat worse than OTL Gettysburg, with more than half of his army lost and irreplaceable, and even worse, two of his corps were functionally destroyed by Black troops. This disaster will wipe out pretty much all the victories that have gone before, and strike right at the heart of the Confederate psyche. Beauregard is also toast, career-wise. So the question now is, who replaces Lee - Longstreet or Jackson? Probably Longstreet, I think; Jackson's reputation will be permanently tainted since his corps was one of those smashed by the aforementioned Black troops. He might or might not remain in command, but he'll certainly never enjoy the same cachet he did before Union Mills.

On the Union side, we are now presented with one of the great paradoxes of TTL American history; Abner Doubleday, the lightly-regarded braggart who went around claiming to be the "Hero of Moultrie", is now the authentic, genuine hero of both Fort Saratoga and Union Mills! And his corps of United States Colored Troops has just been transformed into the elite formation of the Army of the Susequehanna, having overthrown both Beauregard and the feared Jackson. Whenever Reynolds, or his successor if Reynolds doesn't survive a particular engagement, comes upon a particularly hard-to-shift Rebel position for the rest of the war, you just know it's going to be, "Send for Doubleday's boys, they'll clear 'em out."
Lee and Jackson's legends have been whipped out, that's for sure. No more will the Yankees fear them. On the other hand, now the rebs must fear the use of Black troops against them, which will only increase thanks to their valor at Fort Saratoga and Union Mills. As you say, this is a direct hit against their psyche, their principles and worldview. Their whole rebellion was founded on the principle that White people are the master race and Black people are only fit to be slaves - but now their former slaves are defeating them decisively on the field of battle. How can you even begin to rationalize that? Such psychological coups are sometimes even more potent than simple material victory.

I guess I'm just in the chronic condition of being a dumbass when I'm completely sober, but I have one beer in me and that is just enough for me to realise why, to reference Doubleday's deliberative nature, his subordinates picked "Forty-Eight Hours". Forty eight hours is the length of a double-day.
...I somehow didn't realize that either.

Thus, in the darkness before the dawn, the Grand Army of the Republic rises to defeat the traitorous foe, preserving this, the last best hope for mankind. Never in the annals of American history has so much been owed to so few.
The Union Forever! The cause of liberty and equality now marches forward, and no traitor will be able to stop it.

Even when rebellions of white people rebelling against other white people to gain independence wer crushed (like Poland or Hungary), the rebels were punished by executions of the leadership and/or deporting them abroad or to some inhospitable area of the state (I'm looking at you, Siberian katorgas).
Perhaps "exterminate" was an exaggeration, but the leaders of other rebellions were punished harshly as you say, while Jeff Davis et al were allowed to live out the rest of their lives in peace. I do think a "semi-voluntary" exile could be imposed in some of the worst Confederates. Lincoln does not have a Siberia, but I think he'd be content to have Breckinridge and his accomplices in Mexico and Europe, anywhere but the United States.

Alexander II: Perhaps, Mr. Lincoln, I send you my troublemakers, and you let me use yours to "settle" Siberia?
The image of those traitors trying to grow some food on the Siberia's frozen wastelands is a funny one, I'll admit.

What? No? I thought this was a radical civil war not a: lets have a series of de-radicalizing events one. I personally want the south to fight on when the war is totally futile, I want them and the union to suffer a horrible gorilla campaign (laughs maniacally). Honestly if you give them semi heroic deaths you can drag this thing on so long that it won't matter if their heroes, the civil war will be looked on by white southerners the same way ww2 was looked on by the germans in the 50s and 60s. They're proud they fought but ashamed of the actions of confederacy, yes they do think the slavery thing was horrible but their grand pappy was just an honorable soldier following orders and whipping the yankees. Make the southern cities like Dresden and the treatment of the slaves like the holocaust. Maybe have a Stalingrad where confederates are surrounded and starved till one of their generals surrenders.
The post-war Reconstruction should afford all the necessary anger for a campaign of counterrevolutionary terrorism without giving any strength to the Lost Cause. I am envisioning Gotterdammerung, and I can at least say that the South will resemble Paraguay at the end. The few remaining soldiers will, also, take to the hills as guerrillas, and be dealt as such. I want there to be so much devastation that any of the die-hard believers in the cause will be hated by the common folk as a source of problems and suffering. The Southern will must be so broken that they will never attempt anything like this again. At the same time, a measure of charity for all must be offered, so that the people who accept Reconstruction and obey the government have an out other than resisting to the bitter end.

The fact that English isn't your first language makes your writing skills even more impressive!
Thanks!

Same here. A lot of my ancestors had to deal with a ton of shit from the Russian Empire (including a ggg-grandfather forcibly serving in the army at the time), and the prospect of said ancestors getting free passage to America sounds pretty good to me. And it would be interesting to see how the Confederates fared in Siberia.
The homestead act should take care of that.

I believe @TheKnightIrish's TL squared the circle of what to do with captured Confederates who couldn't be conveniently tried by declaring them to have forsworn their citizenship (or somesuch) and exiling them. Exactly where they went was their affair, so long as they left the country, but most of them ended up going to Mexico, IIRC, and entering Maximilian's service.

Of course, we are looking at a more radical and more bloody Civil War, so I imagine that quite a few Confederates might end up with death certificates bearing the immortal phrase "Killed while resisting arrest", with prime candidates being such charming fellows as Bloody Bill Anderson, William Quantrill, and Nathan B. Forrest. While others might find themselves in the hands of Union jailers who end up saying, a la Captain Renault, "We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape."
Some Confederates will be in for war crimes. Reminder that Stonewall Jackson and his troops massacred captured Black soldiers at Harpers Ferry, so I can't see him escaping the noose. Quantrill or Forrest, if caught, may not even receive a trial and simply be immediately hanged as guerrillas. Other leading Confederates must be exiled or "allowed" to flee, both to avoid creating martyrs and depriving the Southern white supremacists of leadership. At the same time, I think that some should be allowed back as long as they accept and support Reconstruction (i.e. Longstreet).

So Lee likely offers his resignation like OTL and Breckinridge accepts it, he ends up dying of a heart attack from the stress of the defeat or both happen. Meanwhile Doubleday and his troops are now the genuine heroes of the Union which means if Reynolds dies then he's likely next in line for command assuming circumstances don't change. Which would mean the Western Theater gets run over by both Grant and Sherman thus meaning the deep South will likely cease to exist by wars end... I can say I'm 100% ok with that outcome.
My only concern is that I would still like for Grant to end up as commander in-chief... but there's another way to accomplish that. I don't know if Doubleday had political ambitions? He never sought office OTL, and I don't think it's because of poor war service. Generals with far less auspicious careers did end up elected to political office.

Another fantastic update! Great analogue to Gettysburg, and shows the sad truth and brutality of this kind of conflict.
Thank you very much! This war is much crueler than OTL's. Parts of Virginia and Maryland will probably remain wastelands for decades to come.
 
The post-war Reconstruction should afford all the necessary anger for a campaign of counterrevolutionary terrorism without giving any strength to the Lost Cause.
Huh?
Gotterdammerung
YES!!!
I want there to be so much devastation that any of the die-hard believers in the cause will be hated by the common folk as a source of problems and suffering.
Like post war Germany?
Reminder that Stonewall Jackson and his troops massacred captured Black soldiers at Harpers Ferry, so I can't see him escaping the noose. Quantrill or Forrest, if caught, may not even receive a trial and simply be immediately hanged as guerrillas.
Thats the other thing, what will happen to the union gorillas and the confederate ones. I can see the army's personal being punished for their crimes but its a little more difficult with partisans given that there are union loyal ones.
 
I must concede the point regarding the Radicals' lack of will for changing how the government actually operated. Most Republicans probably think they will always carry a Solid North, and with it the Presidency. And with the political opposition in shambles it would be hard to believe that the post-war period would not be dominated by Republicans.
I mean, this is the basic demographic calculus that triggered the South to secede in the first place: The North had a growing electoral advantage, and more particularly the places in the North which supported Republicans. And then you add in disenfranchisement of southern states in the first phase of Reconstruction...

And now, in your timeline, that is sure to be even MORE the case!

It is an interesting balance of ideological imperatives at work with Radical Republicans. On the one hand there is the stain of America's Original Sin that has to be obliterated, by whatever means necessary. On the other hand, there was a deep belief that the U.S. constitutional order was the best ever devised by man, which is why they were so dedicated to preserving it whole, everywhere. The more you tinker with the actual structures, the more that imperative gets called into question.
 
Last edited:
Top