The largest possible CSA at a peace Treaty ending the war, is all of the pre-war Slave states minus Delaware plus Washington DC, what became Oklahoma, and all of what became Arizona and New Mexico. In *that* case, they *might* move their government to DC (with the US moving to Philly or New York). They simply didn't *want* Boston or Chicago in their new Nation.
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
@Deaf Peregrine
The word revolt is generally used to describe small and short conflicts not a fullscale war. When you say revolt I image something that laste a week at most not a brutal war that lasted for years. Civil war is simply much more accurate description. Also, I not sure how calling a revolt solves your problem.
LOL, tantrum at worst sounds like some manager getting so mad at the Umpire that he picks up bases and starts throwing them, kicks dirt on the umpire, throws bats and balls out of the dugout, and so on.
Seriously, I think one reason it was called the Civil War was because of the emphasis on the individual and the family. There were plenty of families in which it was a civil war because you had brother fighting against brother. However, I can understand the confusion because that is really mostly only true in the border states or, at most, upper south, though there were of course a few unionists in the Deep South.
If he thought the Spanish or Russian Civil Wars were only civil wars to some extent, though, then I imagine the definition must have changed at some point from the classical view. Because those were definitely systems of government fighting against each other, just like the English.
My AP History teacher back in the mid-'80s was the same way, she hated how the South treated people, but she also saw the significance of their desire for independence. It was a desire that, because of the evils, had to be defeated, but a desire nonetheless. It had just kept festering since decades earlier. ( unless I'm mixing teachers, she was also a big fan of John Quincy Adams because, while he wasn't a great president, he fought hard to end the ban on discussion of slavery in Congress and also defended the slaves in the Amistad case. She saw that ban as a big sign that the South would eventually refuse to accept anything but total freedom, because America was built on honest, rational discourse and discussion of issues, and the South did not want rational discourse. It's also why she universally condemned Richard Nixon because he refused to be open and honest about so much. She said in class she wouldn't be surprised if he had considered a coup attempt, although that is getting off topic so I better stop.)
Given that it was festering for so long, slavery Rebellion sounds accurate, for the reason that a civil war sometimes doesn't have to have a long simmering. Beforehand. It can just be about who succeeds the last king. But, there had been quiet Rebellion and trickery for decades from the South)
Seriously, I think one reason it was called the Civil War was because of the emphasis on the individual and the family. There were plenty of families in which it was a civil war because you had brother fighting against brother. However, I can understand the confusion because that is really mostly only true in the border states or, at most, upper south, though there were of course a few unionists in the Deep South.
If he thought the Spanish or Russian Civil Wars were only civil wars to some extent, though, then I imagine the definition must have changed at some point from the classical view. Because those were definitely systems of government fighting against each other, just like the English.
My AP History teacher back in the mid-'80s was the same way, she hated how the South treated people, but she also saw the significance of their desire for independence. It was a desire that, because of the evils, had to be defeated, but a desire nonetheless. It had just kept festering since decades earlier. ( unless I'm mixing teachers, she was also a big fan of John Quincy Adams because, while he wasn't a great president, he fought hard to end the ban on discussion of slavery in Congress and also defended the slaves in the Amistad case. She saw that ban as a big sign that the South would eventually refuse to accept anything but total freedom, because America was built on honest, rational discourse and discussion of issues, and the South did not want rational discourse. It's also why she universally condemned Richard Nixon because he refused to be open and honest about so much. She said in class she wouldn't be surprised if he had considered a coup attempt, although that is getting off topic so I better stop.)
Given that it was festering for so long, slavery Rebellion sounds accurate, for the reason that a civil war sometimes doesn't have to have a long simmering. Beforehand. It can just be about who succeeds the last king. But, there had been quiet Rebellion and trickery for decades from the South)
Last edited:
The Southern Rebellion fits best, imo. Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but a civil war fits a “winner takes all” type of conflict much better, whereas what we call “The American Civil War” is, well, a secession attempt that got squashed. As someone said above, the South didn’t want any anti-slavery states in their new confederacy because that would breed challenges to their desire for slavery as the law of the land. And trying to make slavery the law of the land throughout the entirety of the US by force might have been desirable to the Planter Aristocracy, but I think even they (however delusional and idiotic they may have been) were aware that it wasn’t actually achievable. So secession it was.
Compare the Russian or Spanish Civil Wars, which did center on conflicts over who got control over the entire country. They were the kind of knock-down no-holds-barred fights that do, I feel, deserve the titles of Civil Wars.
Compare the Russian or Spanish Civil Wars, which did center on conflicts over who got control over the entire country. They were the kind of knock-down no-holds-barred fights that do, I feel, deserve the titles of Civil Wars.
Last edited:
I like to call it the War of Southern Treason in otl, I feel like that fits here even better.
I can see this chapter has received a lot of positive attention, and I'm really glad to see it. I've been building up towards this since the start of the war, and it is a pivotal part of the climax of the story. I think the twist has been received well by most, who agree with my decision. I'll further explain my reasoning by replying to several comments that have opinions close to mine. I believe this turn of events also covers the two requirements for a good twist, in that many did not expect it but others did, and most agree that it's not unrealistic. There's a lot of foreshadowing hidden in early chapters. We're, at last, in the final stretch. If I can maintain the pace of an update per month, this TL will be finished before the year ends. As always, no promises due to school and other commitments, but we're truly approaching the end now. Thanks for all of your support.
Longstreet's position has certainly become precarious now. For all intents and purposes his enemies are now the government. That goes double for Davis. We'll see more about them next time.
The debate about the use of Black soldiers was particularly revealing because most frankly admitted the only thing they cared about is slavery. They didn't feel anything for the Confederacy as a nation, they didn't feel any attachment to any "Southern" culture separate from slavery, they only cared about the Confederacy as long as it meant perpetuating slavery. There was never any Confederate nationalism.
Breckinridge is somewhat tragic. It's a tragedy of his own making, of course, and he doesn't deserve much sympathy. But it's hard not to feel pity for someone who gave so much for a cause, earning only the scorn of the people he tried his hardest to save, even if that cause is so deeply wrong. It's in some way the ultimate story of karma - he tried to fight for slaveholders, only to realize that the Northern radicals were right: slaveholders are lazy, self-righteous, destructive, tyrannical, and feel no loyalty to anything except their own gain.
We'll discuss the exact details of the peace proposal later, along with analyzing the specifics of the Southern peace movement.
Yeah, I can see "Breckinridge isn't overthrown and somehow manages to win the war in like two months" being one of those cliched TLs.
(But yeah I do envision a future land tax, so any people who managed to retain their land will have to pay for it).
We will see the reaction of the State governments (those that are left anyway) and Congress next chapter.
Andy, really, isn't the one in the worst spot. He at least was saying they should win militarily, but then what? Pardon and restore all the power of the people who did this? Tilden is in an infinitely worse position.
Lincoln would probably never accept a negotiated peace. But the Northern public may have voted in a candidate that would accept if they believed Lincoln too intransigient and the peace terms acceptable. But even then Lincoln would have until March to win completely. What would be the result then?
The thing about dead leaders is that it's easy to say they would have been the best had they lived. I mean, we can see this in Lincoln - people say that if only he had lived somehow the US would have become an egalitarian paradise. A martyred Breckinridge could everything to everyone all at once.
I struggled with the decision of killing Lee. Mostly because then Confederates can say he was never truly defeated (I think Grant's Eight Days were a clear defeat, tho). Furthermore, even though I also like the imaginary of Appomattox, I think it actually hurt the nation in the long term. It created the sense that as soon as the war was over the rebels ought to have been forgiven immediately, and that any measure that sought justice was actually vengeance that went against the "spirit of Appomattox." That idea is why no Confederate leaders were prosecuted and why many Northerners rejected Reconstruction. The handshake of Appomattox created in Northerners an enduring idea of themselves as the merciful victors who refused to punish their defeated foe but welcomed them back with open arms. And that's not good when those defeated foes definitely deserved to be punished.
We discovered right now that, sadly, the great majority of them aren't literate after all.
Thanks! I planned this precisely to prevent Lost Causers from denying that slavery played a huge role in the Civil War. Here are the slavocrats overthrowing their own government all to protect slavery, and plainly admitting that the Confederacy was meant to protect slavery and they don't want independence without it. How could you deny that they seceded over slavery? Of course, there are idiots who deny IOTL despite overwhelming evidence. But their numbers will be fewer here.
I did not want Lee to have a glorious dead. He doesn't deserve one. A meaningless dead is much more fitting, in my opinion. Some idolization is probably inevitable, but it's harder to do when he died for nothing. If he had died in a blaze of glory, that would at least give the rebels some consolation, and Lost Causers something to rally around.
Longstreet's position has certainly become precarious now. For all intents and purposes his enemies are now the government. That goes double for Davis. We'll see more about them next time.
Even Stanton is bound to be laughing at this. I mean, if Breckinridge had actually been able to tender terms of peace, that could have been troublesome for Lincoln - a lot of people don't care how the war ends, so a conditional surrender would be completely fine by them. Given that a negotiated peace is the platform of the other parties, they would be strengthened because a lot of people would ask "why are we still fighting?" if the enemy is outright offering to surrender. But that possibility is now closed, and Lincoln can say "see? they would have never accepted a peace offer!" They have not only secured their defeat, but their defeat at the hands of a strengthened Lincoln.
You hope he isn't? Or that he is? Frankly, something like that would be a gratuitous insult. There's no need for that, and it would be completely out of character for Grant and Lincoln.
Lmao no. As soon as things are truly lost be sure they will be the first ones in a ship bound to Cuba or Brazil.
Such things aren't going to be well received in Britain or France. Could we see the status of belligerent of this Confederacy revoked, in favor of it being considered a mere domestic insurrection?
"Everything will be fine with E. Kirby Smith's attack."
Thanks! I very consciously am going for the tone of a historian trying to reconstruct events that remain contentious, where a lot of the involved players can't be trusted or never gave their versions, and where we simply don't know a lot of what truly happened. I'm glad to see you liked it.
Yes, but sparingly. And only after I finish this. The focus will remain in the US.
Thank you! I'm really glad you took the time to say you like my little TL
The debate about the use of Black soldiers was particularly revealing because most frankly admitted the only thing they cared about is slavery. They didn't feel anything for the Confederacy as a nation, they didn't feel any attachment to any "Southern" culture separate from slavery, they only cared about the Confederacy as long as it meant perpetuating slavery. There was never any Confederate nationalism.
Breckinridge is somewhat tragic. It's a tragedy of his own making, of course, and he doesn't deserve much sympathy. But it's hard not to feel pity for someone who gave so much for a cause, earning only the scorn of the people he tried his hardest to save, even if that cause is so deeply wrong. It's in some way the ultimate story of karma - he tried to fight for slaveholders, only to realize that the Northern radicals were right: slaveholders are lazy, self-righteous, destructive, tyrannical, and feel no loyalty to anything except their own gain.
Believe me, I know from the history of Latin American hacendados just how bad landowners can be. But still, it's rather perplexing to see a people so obsessed with their honor that they would rather lose everything than give up a little. Their gamble mostly worked IOTL, with them receiving pardons, retaining their lands, and being allowed to retake their power. But that won't be the case here. This last self-destructive blow will be their last.
It's also damn hard! I don't want to have to deeply research aspects that are outside of the main area of the TL and get so far from what I, and most readers, actually care about.
I have never wanted to portray them as cartoon villains, but as deeply flawed, tragically mistaken men. It was these flaws that led them to such acts of evil, rather than it being something inherent. That's why I've tried to humanize them.
We'll discuss the exact details of the peace proposal later, along with analyzing the specifics of the Southern peace movement.
It's basically the inmates running the Asylum now. Davis may have been somewhat delusional OTL regarding the possibility of the war being won, but now the clowns who were against the draft, impressment and other such evidently necessary measures are the ones running the show.
Of course, "states rights" has always been just code for "slaveholders' rights." More people are bound to recognize this when the guys who screeched "STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS" are the ones taking over the government.
Yeah, I can see "Breckinridge isn't overthrown and somehow manages to win the war in like two months" being one of those cliched TLs.
Downright evil, but not beyond the Confederates. It's good they were stupid evil.
They won't have to put up with any Land tax because they won't have any land! All of it will be in the hands of those who deserve it: the people who actually worked it.
(But yeah I do envision a future land tax, so any people who managed to retain their land will have to pay for it).
That would be indeed a very interesting POD. I mean, as we'll soon see, with Lee alive there's probably no coup.
Yeah, the three main alt histories ITTL are probably: 1) Booth succeeding in killing Lincoln; 2) Lee doesn't die and Breckinridge goes down fighting; 3) Lee dies but there's no coup and Breckinridge's peace offer goes forward.
I can actually see the Union making a big show of how they aren't actually celebrating. Saying, "see, those rebels were salivating when they thought Lincoln could be killed, but because we're so magnanimous we don't celebrate, for real."
Some lionization was inevitable. Believe me, it was a somewhat hard choice.
Yes. As I mentioned previously, we'll probably need some kind of "Good Confederate myth" that says that the mass of Confederates were honorable people who were truly fighting for hearth and home, but they were deluded by criminal slaveholders, until the Union liberated them from their tyranny. Lee would be something like Erwin Rommel - he was fighting for a bad cause, but he was an honorable gentleman who did not share the values of the tyrants. Of course we know that isn't true, but such a myth would allow Southerners to believe they didn't do anything wrong while turning their anger towards the slavocrats. It'd be harder to swallow the fact that they were, in fact, in the wrong.
The "true" heir of Lee, in a way.
Thanks for your appreciation!
We will see the reaction of the State governments (those that are left anyway) and Congress next chapter.
Andy, really, isn't the one in the worst spot. He at least was saying they should win militarily, but then what? Pardon and restore all the power of the people who did this? Tilden is in an infinitely worse position.
Worse, for many poor Southerners Breckinridge was their champion, the leader who actually cared about them. They could see he actually tried to stand up to the slaveholders, that he was doing his best to protect them. How will they react?
This idea can indeed be really useful for Reconstruction. Especially if it's framed as the ultimate example of a deluded Southerner being redeemed by the Union - Breckinridge, too, was misled by the slavocrats, and as soon as he refused to be their tool, as soon as he realized that the Union was better and that dying to protect slaveholders was not worth it, they took him out. That's definite proof that there was no peace to be made with the Slave Power, it must be destroyed.
I can definitely see a movie like that lol. A very dark comedy.
Yes, they were right, but the main factor behind their opposition was simple racism and a love for White supremacy. I can't see any arguments pointing out that arming the enslaved is a bad idea. They seemed convinced that they would be loyal soldiers thanks to that promise of freedom. Heck, some were so delusional that they thought the Black men would serve as slaves without a promise of freedom, because under their vision they didn't want freedom in the first place.
Lincoln would probably never accept a negotiated peace. But the Northern public may have voted in a candidate that would accept if they believed Lincoln too intransigient and the peace terms acceptable. But even then Lincoln would have until March to win completely. What would be the result then?
Of course, we all know they don't deserve sympathy. No one who fights willingly for slavery does. But they have the sympathy of many Southerners, especially poor ones. And that's more important.
It's always disgusting how they somehow could have claimed that God was in their side.
Hamlin is indeed doing Senate stuff. In some of the cut content from the TL, actually, it was explicitly said that Colfax was the Speaker of the House. It was during a discussion of the schemes of the Blairs, with Frank Blair being offered Lincoln's support to be Speaker of the House, but most Republicans going for Colfax instead. I cut it because of time.
There are hints
I actually didn't say that Breckinridge himself died, only that his namesake did. But it's indeed hard to see him coming out of this alive.
The thing about dead leaders is that it's easy to say they would have been the best had they lived. I mean, we can see this in Lincoln - people say that if only he had lived somehow the US would have become an egalitarian paradise. A martyred Breckinridge could everything to everyone all at once.
This is a very insigthful comment, because this was basically my same reasoning. I always believed that it was necessary to divide the South, and especially to drive a wedge between the poor and the rich. This weakens them enormously.
All of Davis' children, as far as I know, have already been born. Same with Jackson's. So your boyfriend should be okay, free to make these bastards keep spinning.
Frankly it kind of bothers me too. I like the name in other languages, which is basically Secession War. But people at the time already referred to it as the Civil War so I couldn't really change the name, because it is likely inevitable that it would be engraved in people's memories as "the Civil War" instead of other names. War of the Rebellion is the other most likely name.
It depends on how "extreme" one is regarding butterflies. I think the same people would probably exist for like a couple of generations until the butterflies affect them directly. Most likely all Americans are affected. But by the modern day, yes most likely it's a completely different group of people.
You must remember, these are not OTL Jackson or Johnston. They are different from their counterparts because of the many changes. Johnston especially hates Breckinridge because of all that nasty Georgia business. Moreover, it's not a question of evil. These men do not see themselves as being evil, as being the villains. In their minds, they are saving the Confederacy. Johnston and Jackson are not joining the plot of evil mustache twirling villains, but think they are the courageous defenders of Lee's legacy against a President who's betrayed them and Lee.
I struggled with the decision of killing Lee. Mostly because then Confederates can say he was never truly defeated (I think Grant's Eight Days were a clear defeat, tho). Furthermore, even though I also like the imaginary of Appomattox, I think it actually hurt the nation in the long term. It created the sense that as soon as the war was over the rebels ought to have been forgiven immediately, and that any measure that sought justice was actually vengeance that went against the "spirit of Appomattox." That idea is why no Confederate leaders were prosecuted and why many Northerners rejected Reconstruction. The handshake of Appomattox created in Northerners an enduring idea of themselves as the merciful victors who refused to punish their defeated foe but welcomed them back with open arms. And that's not good when those defeated foes definitely deserved to be punished.
If only I could draw!
Most likely. The enfranchisement of millions of working men can only move the nation to the left.
That's certainly wacky lmao.
I don't know if any of the changes here would affect his image?
I took the figure from Steven A. Channing's "Confederate Ordeal: The Southern Homefront." Unfortunately, it's a work of popular history, one of those that unfortunately just cite their bibliography at the end instead of using footnotes, so I can't check the sources. I looked closer into it and found the Alabama impressment law, which didn't set a prize but allowed the Governor to pay whatever he considered just. Other states did set prices, with Florida setting it at 25 dollars, Virginia at 20, and the Central government at 11, the same pay as a private. It seems that rather than a law, it's just that Alabama sometimes paid that amount.
That's probably the best argument for it being a civil war, with the Union and Confederate governments disputing control over the Southern states and not the whole nation. But if we accept that definition then the American War of Independence was a civil war too - and that's something some historians say.
Reminds me of Baron Von Strucker in Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Strucker (to his men): We will never surrender!
Strucker (to his 2IC, 1 second later): I'm going to surrender.
I always find it hilarious that they had pre Bellum stories written, and a big part was the slaves would remain loyal throughout the entire war, which would always be short because the Southerners made for better soldiers compared to those "mongrel shopkeeper Yankees".
Calling them delusional is a insult to actually delusional people.
Grant or Lincoln would never do that but I could see common soldiers acting on their own likely defacing his grave since in their minds he and all the other slaveowners or planter class who caused this war. And it's them who are prolonging the war longer it should last just because they don't want to give their powers and slaves. And that's not counting how much grief Lee caused the Union with his leadership in the field.
I assuming there plenty of hate in Union forces and there be even more when they hear that the Planter class decided to go down fighting than just end it.
I do wonder how the Implosion of the CSA would influence political thought in Europe, because ITTL, it's plain to almost everyone that the Civil War was just the Slavocrats playing pied-piper, singing the siren's song of "Racial Supremacy/Solidarity/Warfare" to trick the Poorer Whites into a Lemming-like lunge, stopping right at the edge of the cliff of combat, laughing as those foolish enough to follow them are thrown into the man-made hell of a civil war in which they had no real reason to fight.
Replace "slavocrats" with "aristocrats", "race" with "ethnic", and delete "civil", and that situation can fit almost every European Colonial Conflict and Inter-Imperial Wars, especially the Franco-Prussian War.
I anticipate that the Civil War in the US would greatly shape the way the propogandist narratives of imperial/ethnic glory unfold throughout Europe, from being fully embraced IOTL, to being roundly criticized ITTL.
Replace "slavocrats" with "aristocrats", "race" with "ethnic", and delete "civil", and that situation can fit almost every European Colonial Conflict and Inter-Imperial Wars, especially the Franco-Prussian War.
I anticipate that the Civil War in the US would greatly shape the way the propogandist narratives of imperial/ethnic glory unfold throughout Europe, from being fully embraced IOTL, to being roundly criticized ITTL.
Last edited:
How are the freedmen going to preserve their independent yeoman lands in the face of the march of capitalist development that will inevitably come from the north? I suppose any kind of Granger/Populist movement will include a lot more Black people or even be dominated by them - maybe we’ll see a Black William Jennings Bryan figure emerge
Through Communal Solidarity and possibly all those rifles they so happen to have.
Sure, but then they’ll have to contend with federal troops coming to support the industrialists.
If nothing else it's exactly the sort of thing they would consider beneath the dignity of a civilised nation - an unspoken part of the Old World order which roughly functioned fine until WW1 (and even then, not until deep into WW1 for various reasons) was that nations and their monarchs were permitted to lose wars whilst retaining a sense of dignity, and thus losing was tolerable. If military coups against governments for losing wars became normalised, then there would be little incentive for monarchs to not fight to the last man - because in that case, they already are.
I suppose it could just be added to the laundry list of arguments against republicanism though.
In all honesty I doubt the Civil War would be seen as much more than silly Americans with their silly republican ideals doing silly republican things like fighting brutal civil wars (with all the European civil wars conveniently memory-holed for the time being). It would be beneath the serious gaze of the great powers in how they conduct their affairs because it's "only those Americans". New World affairs just weren't seen as being of equal important to Old World affairs to the Old World powers until the 20th century, it's only in hindsight with historians looking back that that stance has been re-evaluated to consider 19th century New World events as important as they really were.
Somehow in the course of writing this post I managed to completely forget that 1848 happened in... 1848, and we are already in the 1860s. In which case the rise of radical nationalism is already guaranteed IMO, and nationalism has already been thoroughly appropriated by the forces of reaction - Bismarck would already have made his "blood and iron" speech assuming it wasn't butterflied away (and even if it had, the underlying policy would not have been)
Last edited:
Would you prefer Confederate Rebellion?
While things termed revolts tend to be small, that's more a consequence of within state wars inherently being limited to a smaller scale than ones that involve multiple states. The Dugan Revolt lasted 15 years and killed millions. Civil War isn't accurate for reasons others have said; no one considers the Mau Mau Rebellion to be the several thousandth British Empire Civil War, and if asked "How many Roman Civil Wars were there?" very few would count each Jewish–Roman War among them; people would list wars between rival Emperors.
It solves the problem because people intuitively understand that governments don't need deep ideological motives to crush revolts as they pose an inherent threat to government power. Thus the Confederates revolting over slavery says little about what loyalists thought of the issue.
Well, I guess now is the time to reread the story then lol.There are hints
This reminds me of a scene in Downfall: a bunch of hardcore die-hards talk about how they are either going to die fighting or kill themselves. Seconds later, it is announced the war is over... and only two of them actually go through with it. I imagine in a Downfall-style film ITTL, there would be a bunch of planters talking big game about a militia they had formed and lead are about to whip the Yankees... and then news comes that both all of the regular Southern armies had been forced to surrender. Cue panicked attempts to find a nice boat out of the States.
Yeah... now I have to wonder how long it will take for the Confederacy to collapse under such circumstances. Winter is coming, which will hinder offensive operations... but this will be the worst winter of the war. Will the regular Confederate armies be able to hold together under such leadership?
@Deaf Peregrine
I wil concede that you are correct that revolts are not always small. That said there is still one thing that make many rebellion including the ones you mention different from ACW. Confederacy was a state with all organisation that it implies. They were not just an armed group that is involved in your typical rebellion. Rebellions are also often thought I suppose not always irrelugar conflicts. ACW definetly was not since as I already said Confederacy was a full fledget state.