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

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

A few things I would like to see in the post-war story:

1. How the world is impacted by a different civil war and Reconstruction, as well as the US's better attitudes and treatment towards Black people
2. How the labor/socialist/anti-capitalist/anti-authoritarian movements will be impacted ideologically and also in their struggles
3. How Reconstruction will go, and how any attempts to roll back attempts to help Black people will be fought (*cough* KKK *cough*)

 

[TheCrimsonPaw]

May I ask why?

It's a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 

[Denliner]

Thanks, I'm glad you found this a fitting conclusion. And, yes, it's morbid but rather fascinating to see people going through such situations. A greater wealth of knowledge may surge from this tragedy, including in nutrition but also psychology and others.

Psychology is another topic that might be worth discussing in Reconstruction. While I doubt we'll see major headways into PTSD research and post-wartime treatment, the gruesome aftermath of the ACW is bound to leave a large number of veterans deeply unwell (especially among the Confederate side), enough for doctors to notice even with limited means to document or treat them.

Frankly I like the idea of an alternate Gone With the Wind, as in, a work of Southern literature that occupies a similar place in American popular memory but it's radically different. Definitely not the same title or author, but a similar look at a Southern family during the Civil War and its aftermath, only portraying the ugly reality instead of the romanticization of Mitchell's original book. I just can't help but like when things that paralel OTL show up in TLs to punctuate how different the world is. For the same reason I held onto an idea, mentioned much earlier in the thread, of having the equivalent of Birth of a Nation (the first big picture innovating cinematography) be instead a movie about John Brown.

It's certainly possible. There are so many people from the poor or middle class who suffered so much that someone will grow up to write about their experiences in a novel. I'd imagine a book like that would look back and romanticize the Old South (and even the Confederacy under Breckinridge) only for the Civil War to rip that apart and leave them starving and broken thanks to the Slavocracy, with the end being incredibly bittersweet as they can never claim their old peaceful livelihoods back.

A movie about John Brown on the scale of Birth of a Nation sounds epic. Far more worthy of being shown in the White House than that piece of racist garbage.

 

[Ranger Ridiculous]

I love this I considered many scenes like this while writing the update, and even thought of writing something similar myself, but I couldn't be happier that you did it first, especially because it's a very well-written piece that reflects wholeheartly my vision for the Jacquerie - people, for a moment, realizing they share the same oppressors and rising against them. Unable to erase decades of racism and hatred, it, nonetheless, offers a glimpse into a better future, even if it's one that began in blood. Thank you for writing this.

The door was still open as they walked into the silent entry hall, lit by the setting sun. Francis took a moment to note a picture of a young man in a captain’s uniform, and another of an older woman in a fine dress. He saw the black bands on the frames before passing them by.

I'm glad you liked it and honestly I'm over the moon about it being made canon. The Jacquerie is such a solid idea for this TL and does much to solidify the themes you've been playing with this whole time, really solidifying the ACW as a second American revolution and showing how the old southern way of life, that of the master and the slave is truly being shattered.

I'll also note that I didn't realize until just now that I accidentally wiped out an entire family line with this story. So make of that what you will. If you want to get metaphorical, you could argue that each character represents a different class in the old south and after that, the story takes its course.

For the same reason I held onto an idea, mentioned much earlier in the thread, of having the equivalent of Birth of a Nation (the first big picture innovating cinematography) be instead a movie about John Brown.

A movie about John Brown on the scale of Birth of a Nation sounds epic. Far more worthy of being shown in the White House than that piece of racist garbage.

I really like this idea, honestly, a movie about John Brown would make for an excellent action film so it feels fitting to give him and his story the honor of being the "first" action movie.

John Brown in general is going to cast a long long shadow over the American psyche with him becoming a proper folk hero far sooner and far more firmly in this world. Interestingly, it could be a reversal of what happened in our world. In OTL, he's getting a bit of a renaissance now as an American hero, but ITTL, he might see a bit of a reassessment as people confront that he was, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist. One on the side of angels, but a terrorist all the same.

 

[Devoid]

I've been thinking about the post-war settlement, and there's two things I'd like to note:

The first is regarding the composition of the eventual labor Republicans. If, as has been suggested, they end up absorbing the Populists, which is very likely - despite their extremely agrarian tendencies they, from the earliest proto-Populist movements in the 1870's (the Greenback Party, for example, merged with the Labor Reform Party to form the Greenback Labor Party) had always sought to attract labor to their cause. Absorbing the extremely agrarian Greenbacks/Populists could easily lead to a strong Farmer-Labor leaning for the eventual labor party, which could lead to a lot of interesting results (in particular, for something absent IOTL, you could see division between African-American farmers and more mercantile/machine oriented or conservative African-Americans like Booker T. Washington - depending on if Black settlement in the prairies is much higher than OTL, you could use it to give both parties substantial Black blocs that keep both of them interested in protecting Black rights).

Another thing is regarding civil service reform, which did not cut cleanly across economic or social lines but during the 1870's was the biggest political issue and a key divider inside of both the OTL Democrats and Republicans. I actually think the post-war GOP might have three factions post-war: in addition to the Labor Republicans and the Business Republicans, you could also see Civil Service Reform Republicans, with the three factions variably cooperating with each other, as I just don't see how fellow economic conservatives like Roscoe Conkling and Rutherford Hayes end up in the same faction given how much they hated each other on the civil service reform question that, IMO, is going to be an unavoidable part of the post-war question. A very interesting thing to explore here is how you thread the needle of how often civil service reform was use to screw Black people IOTL versus the fact that corruption is going to need to be dealt with - figuring out how to separate the reformism from its often racist elements (which is why early Black Republicans were so conservative early on) could be an integral part of the Republican Party's journey, and also possibly enables the laborites, who I suspect would be dismissed as dangerous radicals in their early years, to eventually become a major party - if the reformists/liberal Republicans decide to split from the party on the same cycle as a really bad economic recession, this split in the vote and good messaging from the laborites could be what enables them to actually win, before they eventually reunite in order to defeat the laborites.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Psychology is another topic that might be worth discussing in Reconstruction. While I doubt we'll see major headways into PTSD research and post-wartime treatment, the gruesome aftermath of the ACW is bound to leave a large number of veterans deeply unwell (especially among the Confederate side), enough for doctors to notice even with limited means to document or treat them.

Indeed, that's the whole idea behind doctor Dacosta in the pieces I've written. The fact that he is in Philadelphia and will have the ear of some leaders, especially now that the war ending makes them relatively less busy helps. In our timeline in the 1860s, you could see research being done in Philadelphia. And it wouldn't catch the eye of anyone in Washington unless it was really big news. Being in the same city has a major effect.

So, it won't be PTSD being understood clearly, as much as the field of psychology will very likely develop from this greater trauma and the idea of a peace and trauma spectrum might be the original basis versus what Froid developed.

 

[Grun_Ritter]

Now the that prologue is over let this epic begin.

Edit: also congratulations @Red_Galiray on finishing this first part of the TL it has been a hell of a ride.

 

[Arnold d.c]

it'll probably result in a rural/urban cleavage, especially because the countryside was starving partly to feed the cities. The Jacquerie is going to have a very important place in American popular memory, much like the Great Fear in the history of the French Revolution.

It does also make for a split in party loyalties down South later on. Of course, the economic interests between agriculture and industry have usually clashed over taxation and tariffs, but the rural South could be fertile grown for a biracial political coalition for more pro-labour/populist policies. I also wonder how rural and urban Southerners would view the collapse of the Confederacy differently, especially since the rural South got the worst of it.

Beauregard is going to be interesting. He, in some regards, was "Reconstructed" after the war, but never ever gave up his undying hatred for Jefferson Davis. I could see him blaming Breckinridge and Davis for the defeat till his last breath, yet acknowledging the reality of the North's victory. Not that it would help him - I can say he will never return to the US. But if he then becomes a foreign mercenary, what will the US think?

Yeah, Beauregard largely seemed to have swallowed the defeat of the South relatively well compared to Jubal Early. I doubt that he'll dare to come home if the trials do see generals hung for treason. As for where he could go, there's always Mexico or Egypt (Confederate general W.W. Loring did so). Now, what might the U.S. think? Well, it might not amount to much at first, especially if he's at far away Egypt. But then I thought about the idea of Lincoln visiting Jerusalem and *gasp* look Beauregard's right there with his mercenary army! He's up to no good! Even more so if a few hundred Southerners chose to follow him - clearly a bodyguard for his return to the South!

Doing his thing somewhere, I guess? I don't think he was too important during the Civil War. Were it not for his ultimate fate he might go unmentioned in history books.

He was a cavalry division commander, and participated in several major battles. I could imagine him puffing up his credentials by claiming he led the cavalry charge at Sayler's Creek, ignoring his superior's and colleague's contributions to the fight. I remember there was a time when Custer was propped up for leading the "charge that saved the United States" at Gettysburg - for leading his brigade in action, ignoring the fact that Stuart was just there to draw some attention, and that his division commander was running the whole battle.

 

[Collin1212]

Why can i see Sherman saying something on toombs similar to stalin when he heard hitler committed suicide.


”Now he's had it. Pity we couldn't take him alive.”

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I just thought of something with the capital. Quite a few countries would have to have moved their embassies also and now we'll have to move them back. Obviously it's not the same as Embassy Row that my friend Sander and his mom and I walked in 2003 has amazed tourists who saw just how connected so many countries were with the United States and how big many embassies are (Sander had never really explored that area himself and he lives just outside of DC) but with Washington having been burned, other countries will have to have put up some sort of expense to move their embassies. It wouldn't be the expense of a century later but it's not nothing either.

So while Dr DaCosta is having the opportunity to get in touch with medical people in other countries through the consuls there in philadelphia, those other countries have to be more than a little upset at the South for the damage that was done to their buildings and probably commiserated with the Union during the war just over the fact that the rebels wantonly destroyed foreign property.

I can see the temporary housing of those diplomats becoming a center for consulate South Side the capital once it is moved back to Washington dc. Perhaps Philadelphia will become some sort of major Center for foreign trade or something as a result of this. Obviously Ellis Island and New York City will still be the major hub for immigrants, but the idea of a megalopolis from New York City down to Washington May grow slowly starting a few decades from now instead of coming up mostly in the latter days of the 20th century as it did in our timeline.

I think Philadelphia, if the leagues develop as they did in our timeline, keeps two major league baseball teams in this one.

 

[Ranger Ridiculous]

I just had a stray thought. I'm curious how all this will impact Utah and the Mormons. They were for the most part sympathetic to the Confederacy for their own reasons and they had been prodding the US government for a while. I'm not sure what would happen, but i feel like it would go bad for the church. I have a feeling that Brigham Young might find himself up against a US government that is much more willing to smack him down than they were before the war. It could also be the Utah could be a place to send Americans who are viewed as more loyal than the Mormon settlers.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but IOTL Young sent an envoy to Lincoln to figure out his policy on the Mormons and it was basically “you do your thing and let me do mine” wonder if that happened in this timeline? And the whole Utah War would probably be viewed as another one of the cowardly traitorous Buchanan’s blunders.
If I was Young and the LDS I’d be keeping my head down lest you get a visit from Phil Kearney and play the we were always loyal but Buchanan and his southern goons swarmed us… see we named this city Lincoln 😊

You're right, but it does feel like a powder keg. Mountain Meadows is still very much an open wound. I could see the US government being incredibly tetchy and trigger happy towards any group that feels like a threat to the Union. I could see Utah exploding due to tensions on the ground no matter what Young and the LDS leadership tries. It would only take some Mormons stepping over a line and soldiers getting involved for it to all get ugly quick. I could also see perhaps former Confederates trying to take refuge in the west as it is, and Utah is a VERY good place to hide out. Young might not like it, but it would only take one Mormon family taking in a Confederate war criminal with claims of conversion for the US government to freak out.

Edit: Plus there's the issue that Young a few times claimed slavery was ordained by God and endorsing native slavery. He also tried to make Utah a slave territory. Anyone with a chip on their shoulder against the church could easily turn these against Young and church leadership as a way to bring the US government against them.

I'm not sure when he tried to make Utah a slave Territory.

The following is from an interview given in 1859 with Horace Greeley. http://wiki.nycldshistory.com/w/1859-08-20-New_York_Tribune-Interview_with_Brigham_Young
...
HG: Are there any slaves now held in this territory?

BY: There are.

HG: Do your territorial laws uphold slavery?

BY: Those laws are printed -- you can read for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the States, we do not favor their escape from their owners?

HG: Am I to infer that Utah, if admitted as a member of the Federal Union, will be a slave state?

BY: No, she will be a free state. Slavery here would prove useless and unprofitable. I regard it generally as a curse to the master. I myself hire many laborers and pay them fair wages. I could not afford to own them. I can do better than subject myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their families, to provide and care for them in sickness and health. Utah is not adapted to slave labor.
...

There isn't any doubt in my mind that Brigham Young was the most anti-negro of the Presidents of the Church (in absolute terms, if relative to the US population at large that point, there might be an argument for Harold B. Lee), *but* if statehood was offered to Utah (with pretty much any boundaries that includes SLC, as large as the proposed State of Deseret or as small as what ultimately became Utah) with the requirement that it be a free state, Brigham Young would have taken that deal in a heartbeat.

But by 1856, the linking of Slavery and Polygamy as "The twin relics of Barbarism" in the Republican Party Platform and the passing of the Morrill Act in 1862 put the Federal Government (dominated by the Republicans at that point) on the path that it took iOTL.

I'm expecting that the events of a more radical civil war may lead to actions against Polygamy and the Church being harsher faster. If the Morril Act is ineffective as OTL because Utah juries won't convict, the replacement laws and court decisions from the late 1870s and 1880s may occur earlier (while BY is still prophet, he died in 1877)
I haven't seen many TL where the 1860s to end of Polygamy go more smoothly than OTL, but a lot where they go worse.

In some ways "The twin relics of Barbarism" are like George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil". Just because you don't align with multiple things doesn't mean they get along with each other.

He pushed for Utah to pass the Act in Relation to Service in 1852, this would remain in place until 1862 when slavery was banned in all US territories. Most of the slavery in Utah was Native slavery as noted earlier, but there were African slaves as well. Young was the one who pushed for this act in a speech to the legislature and drafted the act.

This I absolutely agree with, the Mormons are already on the government shit list because of the "twin relics" connection, and the now firmly republican controlled congress is unlikely to tolerate anything perceived as secessionist. Add to that a much larger US Army, and a US army that's likely to become fairly familiar with counter-insurgency, it places Young, Utah and the church in a very difficult position.

I agree that it would put much of what came later in the 1870s and 1880s earlier, while Young is still alive. As you pointed out, if the Morril Act ends up being as toothless as it was OTL (likely) I could see the troops being sent in to enforce the act and to defend non-Mormons. Young might lose his job as governor (or worse if he's seen as too much of a problem) and may even end up in front of a jury, a jury who has likely already overseen trials of former Confederates. If the lawyer set to prosecute draws connection to Young, slavery and the recent war, Young is in big trouble.

If the Mormons end up with even a tangential connection to the Confederacy, that may spell doom for the church a the US government may decide to put more loyal settlers into the region.

My wonder would be, if Young is killed/arrested/dies early, would there be a second succession crisis similar to how things went after the death of Joseph Smith?

Ah. I had forgotten the 1852 act. Yup, I literally can't see things getting better for the LDS than iOTL.

Note, I doubt they would move them all to Hawaii. OTOH, if they buy Alaska.

As for a second succession crisis, depends on exactly when Young dies. Young changed the Order of Succession in 1875 (and died in 1877). If he dies before changing the order of Succession, he is followed by Orson Hyde, who died in 1878 and then by Orson Pratt (who dies in 1881). While at that point you end up with Taylor as prophet as iOTL, but Orson Pratt as prophet would be quite interesting (his first wife (Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt) and most of her children became apostate and ended up as an anti-polygamy activist.

Loads of fun!

This kind of got lost in the shuffle of the last post, but I am still curious of your thoughts on Utah and the Mormons in this TL @Red_Galiray

 

[piratedude]

Perhaps Philadelphia will become some sort of major Center for foreign trade or something as a result of this.

Technically speaking that's just OTL, its been a major port alongside New York, Boston, and Baltimore.

Baltimore might take a hit ittl so Philly could be just that little bit bigger, or maybe not, hard to say really

 

[HueyLongsUnderwear]

This kind of got lost in the shuffle of the last post, but I am still curious of your thoughts on Utah and the Mormons in this TL @Red_Galiray

To be noted that IRL Young offered to raise units and I think they ended up using a cavalry unit to fight natives in Utah. So they were loyal, mountain meadows will have to be addressed by young tho

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Technically speaking that's just OTL, its been a major port alongside New York, Boston, and Baltimore.

Baltimore might take a hit ittl so Philly could be just that little bit bigger, or maybe not, hard to say really

Thanks, I guess I don't think of it as a major port like NewYork- Probably because I just associate Ellis Island with immigration and figure everything came through there after the Civil War. . Still, someplace will take a hit because of the increased use of Philadelphia, as you said.

 

[Ranger Ridiculous]

Admittedly we don't know what Young has done so far given that this has not been discussed in the TL yet, but it doesn't look good.

To be noted that IRL Young offered to raise units and I think they ended up using a cavalry unit to fight natives in Utah. So they were loyal, mountain meadows will have to be addressed by young tho

That's the issue though. While Young has (likely) played as a loyalist, even in OTL, he flirted with secessionist ideas, even if that was at times to appease more hardline elements of his own followers.However, he now has a very unfriendly government in Washington that pre-war has signalled their distaste for Mormonism, is now trigger happy about any sort of perceived secessionist tendencies, has a perceived mandate to crack down on such things and the political capital to do so. And that's before you factor in the 1852 Act. Mountain Meadows isn't so much unaddressed as a growing liability and excuse for the Federal government to begin sticking its nose in Utah's affairs, and as we've already established, the party that now has complete control of the government and nearly unlimited political capital is unlikely to like what they find.

For the record, I'm not taking a "side" on the issue. More than I'm looking at it and it really doesn't look good for Young no matter WHAT he does. Even if he walks on eggshells and he keeps his head as low as possible, doing everything that Washington asks, he's liable to get a lot of scrutiny from Washington that he in no way wants. Even if by some miracle he gets through the rest of the Lincoln administration unscathed, a future Republican president could easily use him and the church as a scapegoat to garner some quick positive buzz.

Note, I doubt they would move them all to Hawaii. OTOH, if they buy Alaska.

Is it weird that this feels oddly plausible?

Though I wonder if the US will actually buy Alaska, can't see why they wouldn't if offered though...

 

[naraht]

Admittedly we don't know what Young has done so far given that this has not been discussed in the TL yet, but it doesn't look good.


That's the issue though. While Young has (likely) played as a loyalist, even in OTL, he flirted with secessionist ideas, even if that was at times to appease more hardline elements of his own followers.However, he now has a very unfriendly government in Washington that pre-war has signalled their distaste for Mormonism, is now trigger happy about any sort of perceived secessionist tendencies, has a perceived mandate to crack down on such things and the political capital to do so. And that's before you factor in the 1852 Act. Mountain Meadows isn't so much unaddressed as a growing liability and excuse for the Federal government to begin sticking its nose in Utah's affairs, and as we've already established, the party that now has complete control of the government and nearly unlimited political capital is unlikely to like what they find.

For the record, I'm not taking a "side" on the issue. More than I'm looking at it and it really doesn't look good for Young no matter WHAT he does. Even if he walks on eggshells and he keeps his head as low as possible, doing everything that Washington asks, he's liable to get a lot of scrutiny from Washington that he in no way wants. Even if by some miracle he gets through the rest of the Lincoln administration unscathed, a future Republican president could easily use him and the church as a scapegoat to garner some quick positive buzz.


Is it weird that this feels oddly plausible?

Though I wonder if the US will actually buy Alaska, can't see why they wouldn't if offered though...

The primary question is will the hammer come down (in terms of polygamy being a federal crime) before or after young's death. And there are about 4 different people that could end up as the next prophet with *very* small tweekings of decisions by Young and when he dies. I can go into greater depth if desired.

As long as the US doesn't take a completely hard "Republican" turn ( in the European sense of Republican of wanting monarchies to be replaced by republics), the Tsar will *still* see the Americans as the most likely buyer to keep the British from simply snipping it off in some future war. In fact it Petropavlovsk had fallen during the Crimean War, the British might have grabbed it in the treaty ending the Crimean War.

The problem for constructing a TL where the Russian don't see it sold to the US, is the more that the UK intervenes leading to a Civil War that is more expensive to win or even that the Confederacy leaves is that that makes the US look to their one friend in Europe (Russia) and wanting to tie the two countries together by purchasing what the Russians are afraid they will lose.

 

[Ranger Ridiculous]

The primary question is will the hammer come down (in terms of polygamy being a federal crime) before or after young's death. And there are about 4 different people that could end up as the next prophet with *very* small tweekings of decisions by Young and when he dies. I can go into greater depth if desired.

I very much would be interested. My personal take is that the hammer is likely to come down sooner rather than later. At the very least, there's likely to be heavy pressure while Young is still alive.

As long as the US doesn't take a completely hard "Republican" turn ( in the European sense of Republican of wanting monarchies to be replaced by republics), the Tsar will *still* see the Americans as the most likely buyer to keep the British from simply snipping it off in some future war. In fact it Petropavlovsk had fallen during the Crimean War, the British might have grabbed it in the treaty ending the Crimean War.

The problem for constructing a TL where the Russian don't see it sold to the US, is the more that the UK intervenes leading to a Civil War that is more expensive to win or even that the Confederacy leaves is that that makes the US look to their one friend in Europe (Russia) and wanting to tie the two countries together by purchasing what the Russians are afraid they will lose.

I'm inclined to agree. I see no reason for the US to turn in that direction in the near future, certain not during Lincoln or the next administration's time. And Alaska is such a bargain, I can't see why they wouldn't, even with the greater cost of the war. As far as I can tell, the Union economy is doing well enough as well.

 

[Ammonios]

Why can i see Sherman saying something on toombs similar to stalin when he heard hitler committed suicide.


”Now he's had it. Pity we couldn't take him alive.”

Hello,

Wasn't there another person of note who needs to be accounted for, he did help the junta set up. I forget his last name, but he was called Rhett.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Hello,

Wasn't there another person of note who needs to be accounted for, he did help the junta set up. I forget his last name, but he was called Rhett.

Surprise, you did remember his last name! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barnwell_Rhett I remembered it was his last name when you typed that but couldn't remember anything else so I just Googled and Fire eater.

He may very well be someone we see in the next thread.

 

[Ammonios]

Surprise, you did remember his last name! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barnwell_Rhett I remembered it was his last name when you typed that but couldn't remember anything else so I just Googled and Fire eater.

He may very well be someone we see in the next thread.

Hello,

Yes, I recall a chapter or two where he was embarrassed by an unusual incident during the war. For that he joined the junta just to get back at those who embarrassed him.