I’m not sure if it would be. The OTL decline of Jefferson’s reputation is a pretty recent thing, and before that he was widely viewed as a hero of radical democracy with his slaveowning regarded as a reluctant thing. Notably, the Republican Party is named after Jefferson’s Republican Party, and many trademark Republican policies like the Homestead Act are very Jeffersonian. Plus, he wrote the Declaration of Independence which was the guiding document of the early Republican Party (and the Confederacy abhorred it). I would imagine Jefferson would have a good reputation chiefly for the Declaration of Independence, and his slaveowning would end up excused, and in fact he may be viewed as the ultimate founder of Republican ideology.That sounds like an interesting idea, though the question is whose faces would be there aside from Washington and Lincoln as Jefferson’s reputation might be lower ITTL.
Fair enough, though we can agree that Northern Founding Fathers would be emphasized in TTL’s narrative.I’m not sure if it would be. The OTL decline of Jefferson’s reputation is a pretty recent thing, and before that he was widely viewed as a hero of radical democracy with his slaveowning regarded as a reluctant thing. Notably, the Republican Party is named after Jefferson’s Republican Party, and many trademark Republican policies like the Homestead Act are very Jeffersonian. Plus, he wrote the Declaration of Independence which was the guiding document of the early Republican Party (and the Confederacy abhorred it). I would imagine Jefferson would have a good reputation chiefly for the Declaration of Independence, and his slaveowning would end up excused, and in fact he may be viewed as the ultimate founder of Republican ideology.
I suppose there is one possibility - he gets flack for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - though I think that’s on the lower end of plausibility. In that case, I imagine the main president between Washington and Lincoln to receive a hagiography would be Andrew Jackson who, likewise, was celebrated as a hero of radical democracy until recently, and he additionally has the bonafides of having faced off Calhoun in the Nullification Crisis.
In my opinion, there's no way a "reconciliation" event could ever take place ITTL.The mythic Gettysburg reunion, though known nowadays as an example of reconciliation, actually was a quite terse meeting. Bitterness had evidently remained, a few fistfights broke out, and many veterans openly insulted or refused to associate with the "enemy." I could see a Union Mills reunion resulting in similar incidents. Surely, a survivor of the Stonewall Brigade wouldn't be happy to see a Black veteran of the 54th Massachusetts there.
I mean past a certain point you have to have a reconciliation event of some kind. You can't just keep treating southerners as enemy or others as that'll just lead to continued resentment and division. Even if it is the government essentially forcing the two sides to meet and go "look just fucking shake hands and smile. You don't have to like each other but you need to at least be able to live with each other."Not like I want a reconciliation anyway. The traitors were extinguished and the South is now a clean slate from which something better can be achieved.
Especially as the last thing the US wants is for White Southerners to be as irreconcilable to Washington's authority as Irish Catholics were to Britain.I mean past a certain point you have to have a reconciliation event of some kind. You can't just keep treating southerners as enemy or others as that'll just lead to continued resentment and division. Even if it is the government essentially forcing the two sides to meet and go "look just fucking shake hands and smile. You don't have to like each other but you need to at least be able to live with each other."
Yeah the last thing the U.S. Needs is it's own version of the troublesEspecially as the last thing the US wants is for White Southerners to be as irreconcilable to Washington's authority as Irish Catholics were to Britain.
Or the revolts Poland and Hungary did against Russian and Austrian rule respectively, for that matter.Yeah the last thing the U.S. Needs is it's own version of the troubles
You're right that most offenders don't have to deal with the secession question. Dealing with the perpetrators of mistreatment/massacre of Unionists and USCT along with the supervisors of horrendous POW camps is easy enough. It's mostly the political figures like Howell Cobb and Robert Barnwell Rhett, where the question must be addressed.I think the most likely approach is just to bypass the question of secession's constitutionality by focusing instead on war crimes for many offenders. Even those who did not commit them directly could be hanged by association, saying that they supported a criminal government (the Junta) ergo they are criminals. I can also see some simply refusing to engage with the question, but that would give some credence to the idea that these were mere kangaroo courts that wished to hang rebels without real regard for legality or justice.
Interestingly, post-war George Thomas argued after the Memphis Riots that Congress should have made all Southerners aliens, with the loyal retaining citizenship while the rest had to undergo the naturalization process like foreigners. Most likely just a frustrated remark from Thomas.Probably that as well. I can see many harping on how, if they are indeed Americans and thus can be trailed by their courts, they should receive the same constitutional protections; if they don't receive those protections because they have forfeited their citizenship, then they aren't Americans and can't be trialed by their courts.
IIRC the vast majority of the veterans ignored the formally planned events, which included the political speeches about reconciliation under the scorching sun, in favor of wandering around the battlefield on their own and reconnecting with old comrades. There were a lot of tension about how Pickett's Virginians had an emblem with the phrase 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' - which was associated with Lincoln's assassination. It was supposedly just the state of Virginia's motto and nothing else. This being the height of the Lost Cause era, a lot of the speeches glossed over why the war was fought, which I can't see happening ITTL. I imagine in a Union Mills meeting, the speeches would be focused on how getting rid of the slaveholders was a god thing and allowed the Southerners to be brothers again. In the meantime, most veterans wander off, to think of their past and what had been accomplished. I can't imagine that a veteran of the Stonewall Brigade, probably being the more devoted to the memory of Stonewall Jackson and the Junta, would be shaking hands with a veteran of the 54th Massachusetts at Manchester, the high tide of the Confederacy ITTL.The mythic Gettysburg reunion, though known nowadays as an example of reconciliation, actually was a quite terse meeting. Bitterness had evidently remained, a few fistfights broke out, and many veterans openly insulted or refused to associate with the "enemy." I could see a Union Mills reunion resulting in similar incidents. Surely, a survivor of the Stonewall Brigade wouldn't be happy to see a Black veteran of the 54th Massachusetts there.
I don't think the military districts have been discussed yet. It should be noted that it's not guaranteed to happen: military districts were unique in that they reported to Washington directly and different from the usual districts/department system used during the war and in peacetime. More important is probably the Military District commanders. OTL it was:Are the military districts the same?
And can someone point me to the chapters dealing with weaponry?
Like what is there for veterans from both sides to reconcile for? Most of the Confederate soldiers were either killed, starved to death, or became raving bandits who harassed civilians until they were put down by the Union Army. And those who survived got to live to see their families and livelihoods destroyed by the Union, their worst nightmares come true.I mean past a certain point you have to have a reconciliation event of some kind. You can't just keep treating southerners as enemy or others as that'll just lead to continued resentment and division. Even if it is the government essentially forcing the two sides to meet and go "look just fucking shake hands and smile. You don't have to like each other but you need to at least be able to live with each other."
That's true, I am probably putting modern concepts of closure into my idea of a Union Mills gathering. As noted, if there was one it would be about the destruction of the planter class and bringing the pour from both sides together, but I had forgotten just how many were killed also, so much more than OTL.What I could see is smaller regional events done by organizations dedicated to the memories of either Union / Confederate soldiers across the North & South, and I reckon they would be far more peaceful affairs and ones more enjoyed by veterans on both sides than whatever happened in Gettysburg in 1913.
I would once again like to suggest Siegel for Texas for some fun interaction with the Texas German community.-General Schofield, the First Military District (Virginia);
-General Sickles, the Second Military District (North Carolina and South Carolina);
-Maj. Gen. John Pope, the Third Military District (Georgia, Florida, and Alabama);
-Maj. Gen. Edward O. C. Ord, the Fourth Military District (Mississippi and Arkansas);
-and General Sheridan, the Fifth Military District (Louisiana and Texas).
so as I mentioned before this was my first draft:Yes, at the end they courted their own destruction. I think it was mentioned that the equivalent to the Milligan case was more radical and allowed for military tribunals in any State still in insurrection, and given the Southern conditions that clearly applies. In any case, however, these cases are probably going to be somewhat controversial for American jurisprudence, since they are bound to have their fair share of extralegality and arbitrariness.
It's interesting, but I think we could enter a period of weakness for the Supreme Court. Republicans showed they were fully willing to just strip the Court's jurisdiction to protect Reconstruction, and with them having the Executive in their side I could see them just pressuring the SCOTUS into not messing with them and their power over the South and the nation.
Hm while there may be some controversy, I don't think any official is going to seriously suggest making such a distinction, for it would seem to imbue the Confederate government with a degree of legitimacy if its politicians are given a better treatment compared with other rebels. If anything, I can see civilians being treated in harsher ways, since terms of surrender, except for notorious war criminals, usually include some kind of amnesty for soldiers and officers.On that note, trying civilian politicians via military tribunal could be something that draws some controversy even from those who support tribunals for Confederate military leaders on grounds that, while they deserve their day in court for their crimes, the "normal" court system should have been used to prosecute them with the possibility that the question of whether civilian politicians, as opposed to military officers, being tried that way was even legal going to the Supreme Court.
Eh, I like Alaska well enough.speaking of alaska alaska was not a name set in stone
Oh, I wasn't talking of butterflying the theft of the land, just saying that such an iconic monument being built on stolen land leaves a sour taste in my mouth.Mount Rushmore was built for the proximate reason of attracting tourists to the Black Hills, after the area's economy declined following the gold rush there. It's sadly quite unlikely this butterflies away the Black Hills Gold Rush and the war and land-thefts that followed - but I do wonder if, with a larger "carpetbagger" migration taking people who would otherwise move west southwards, and the costs of keeping the military in the South coming at the expense of western deployments, western settlement, including that of the Black Hills, would be weaker, or at least delayed.
This is an obvious enough idea - but it would be both fun and plausible for the Mount Rushmore analogue to be at Stone Mountain.
Glad to have you on board I do think Georgeism is probably going to be a greater force ITTL, but maybe as part of a Populist coalition rather than its guiding light.How did I miss this. This is almost as bad when i accidentally hit ignore on the old thread for months.
I saw early you said that a land value tax is probably happening do think Georgeism is going to be stronger this timeline with more staying power? Also I can see some left wing people in the United states jumping on Georgism as a way to divide land owners and capitalists event they often are the same
Yeah, we'll need to ignore the fact that almost every Southern person was complicit in the system of slavery and White supremacy, and that secession and the Confederacy enjoyed wide popular support at first.Even if the reality that the richer yeomen, the "small slaveholders" who aspired to be planters one day and arguably stood more to lose than the planters from Lincoln winning, were the class most "guilty" of secession would need to be papered over.
That sounds like an interesting idea, though the question is whose faces would be there aside from Washington and Lincoln as Jefferson’s reputation might be lower ITTL.
No military districts yet. Those were a measure of Congressional Reconstruction meant to wrestle the process away from Johnson. Here, the Congress hasn't passed any Reconstruction bill yet, so Lincoln is entirely in charge. The options were either creating districts with commanders overseeing two or more States (Virginia and North Carolina as one was proposed, for example) or just following the war-time example and appointing military governors to each State. The latter is what's being done here.Are the military districts the same?
And can someone point me to the chapters dealing with weaponry?
I do think that Jefferson's reputation will be diminished in the short term, and reevaluated and then take a negative turn much earlier. Mostly because his belief that slavery would simply die out would come to be seen as naive and foolish even sooner, as Republicans take pride in being the ones to right the wrongs of their forefathers. In the short to medium term he'd remain a popular Founding Father because of the reasons you describe, but I can see Jefferson being seen as foolish and hypocritical as a mainstream opinion by the 1960's.I’m not sure if it would be. The OTL decline of Jefferson’s reputation is a pretty recent thing, and before that he was widely viewed as a hero of radical democracy with his slaveowning regarded as a reluctant thing. Notably, the Republican Party is named after Jefferson’s Republican Party, and many trademark Republican policies like the Homestead Act are very Jeffersonian. Plus, he wrote the Declaration of Independence which was the guiding document of the early Republican Party (and the Confederacy abhorred it). I would imagine Jefferson would have a good reputation chiefly for the Declaration of Independence, and his slaveowning would end up excused, and in fact he may be viewed as the ultimate founder of Republican ideology.
I suppose there is one possibility - he gets flack for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - though I think that’s on the lower end of plausibility. In that case, I imagine the main president between Washington and Lincoln to receive a hagiography would be Andrew Jackson who, likewise, was celebrated as a hero of radical democracy until recently, and he additionally has the bonafides of having faced off Calhoun in the Nullification Crisis.
Further making reconciliation of that kind unlikely is that I plan to have the GAR and the Union League survive, which implies a degree of "waving the bloody shirt" which could hardly allow for Southern veterans to be embraced.In my opinion, there's no way a "reconciliation" event could ever take place ITTL.
The Gettysburg reunion also had a stabbing done by a Union veteran during this event, and that was OTL. Even after decades of peace, I highly doubt we will see veterans of either side see eye-to-eye without outright trying to murder each other, especially the former Confederate veterans, who not only lost their sense of purpose and livelihoods by the collapse of the Slavocracy, but also be utterly humiliated by both black & white soldiers in the aftermath of Union Mills and the subsequent campaigns in the Deep South.
Not like I want a reconciliation anyway. The traitors were extinguished and the South is now a clean slate from which something better can be achieved.
Yeah. I don't think we could have something like Germany's "De-nazification" if that means forbidding all symbols, expressions, and anything that could be seen as a glorification of the Confederacy. Leaving aside the fact that it's just not logistically realistic for a 19th century State without the necessary bureaucracy, to continuously treat Southerners as basically enemy aliens would make it impossible for them to accept Union rule. It'll be hard to balance, but they must have a say in their States and the Federal government, must occupy political posts, and, as long as they live peacefully and respect the law, must be given the same rights as any American. They don't have to fully accept Union rule, just decide it's tolerable enough to not try and overthrow it through violence.Especially as the last thing the US wants is for White Southerners to be as irreconcilable to Washington's authority as Irish Catholics were to Britain.
Yeah. Those trials are probably the ones which will be more interesting for TTL's American jurisprudence because they will expose the greatest questions regarding the legality of the whole process.You're right that most offenders don't have to deal with the secession question. Dealing with the perpetrators of mistreatment/massacre of Unionists and USCT along with the supervisors of horrendous POW camps is easy enough. It's mostly the political figures like Howell Cobb and Robert Barnwell Rhett, where the question must be addressed.
I can actually see such events outright excluding anyone who remained willingly on the Confederate ranks after the coup. This, again, would somewhat whitewash Breckinridge if, say, a Kentucky regiment is allowed to attend but not the Stonewall Brigade.IIRC the vast majority of the veterans ignored the formally planned events, which included the political speeches about reconciliation under the scorching sun, in favor of wandering around the battlefield on their own and reconnecting with old comrades. There were a lot of tension about how Pickett's Virginians had an emblem with the phrase 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' - which was associated with Lincoln's assassination. It was supposedly just the state of Virginia's motto and nothing else. This being the height of the Lost Cause era, a lot of the speeches glossed over why the war was fought, which I can't see happening ITTL. I imagine in a Union Mills meeting, the speeches would be focused on how getting rid of the slaveholders was a god thing and allowed the Southerners to be brothers again. In the meantime, most veterans wander off, to think of their past and what had been accomplished. I can't imagine that a veteran of the Stonewall Brigade, probably being the more devoted to the memory of Stonewall Jackson and the Junta, would be shaking hands with a veteran of the 54th Massachusetts at Manchester, the high tide of the Confederacy ITTL.
Something like that seems far more likely.What I could see is smaller regional events done by organizations dedicated to the memories of either Union / Confederate soldiers across the North & South, and I reckon they would be far more peaceful affairs and ones more enjoyed by veterans on both sides than whatever happened in Gettysburg in 1913.
Noted! Just gotta say that the list there is the OTL list. I don't have an exact list of who is in every State right now.I would once again like to suggest Siegel for Texas for some fun interaction with the Texas German community.
This checks out, thanks for it!OTL concurrence/dissent | TTL Majority (very similar except that it gives Congress a much more explicit Greenlight to establish military courts, probably also establishing that the president can do it as long as he has Congressional approval which Lincoln would very clearly have): 6 (Fisher, Strong, Ballard,Wayne, Swayne, Miller)
OTL majority| TTL concurrence (probably a more moderate version of the OTL majority acknowledging the situation demands action but insiting on questioning wheter Congress can use that power): 4 (Grier, Nelson,Hoar,Davis)
Thank you very much for this1865 Supreme Court with portraits (because I was bored)
On that note, I imagine Eli Whitney being viewed ITTL in a similar manner to how we view Thomas Midgley IOTL, with that in mind.I do think that Jefferson's reputation will be diminished in the short term, and reevaluated and then take a negative turn much earlier. Mostly because his belief that slavery would simply die out would come to be seen as naive and foolish even sooner, as Republicans take pride in being the ones to right the wrongs of their forefathers. In the short to medium term he'd remain a popular Founding Father because of the reasons you describe, but I can see Jefferson being seen as foolish and hypocritical as a mainstream opinion by the 1960's.
I mean I argued that in the other thread that I imagine TTL Whitney will be viewed as one of the biggest causes that lead to the war. Because TBH Jefferson wasn't initially wrong in his belief that slavery would just die out. It was dying until that damnable invention came into being.On that note, I imagine Eli Whitney being viewed ITTL in a similar manner to how we view Thomas Midgley IOTL, with that in mind.
So the cotton gin should never have been invented?I mean I argued that in the other thread that I imagine TTL Whitney will be viewed as one of the biggest causes that lead to the war. Because TBH Jefferson wasn't initially wrong in his belief that slavery would just die out. It was dying until that damnable invention came into being.
At the very least delay it 10-15 years and it's likely worst case the border states if a civil war still happens would be Tennessee and North Carolina.So the cotton gin should never have been invented?
Hence my comparison with Thomas Midgley and how his inventions caused more damage than he ever intended.I mean I argued that in the other thread that I imagine TTL Whitney will be viewed as one of the biggest causes that lead to the war. Because TBH Jefferson wasn't initially wrong in his belief that slavery would just die out. It was dying until that damnable invention came into being.