Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
Admiral Halsey
Banned
I mean one of the main reasons they stayed was because at the start Preservation of the Union was the goal. TTL is gonna have Slavery's Abolition be a main plank of the war from the very start(maybe a Republican platform plank that they run on as well) Kentucky in such a case is much more likely to leave then stay.I think Kentucky would stay with the Union. If anything, it may be alienate from the rest of the South. It is economically tied to the Union and OTL it had little enthusiasm for 'King Cotton' nationalism. (But it still be even profoundly divided that I will say.) Missouri and Maryland seem likely to go as you said.
In either case....
Which gives them little bargining room. I recall Lincoln spent the first couple years TRYING to be nice to the occupied Slaver scum when they were gained, then finally just lost patience about '63, told the guys down there that if they want to stop being treated like traitors, then rejoin the Union. Or words to that effect, I'll dig up my copy of Fall of the House of Dixie for clarification later.
In meridie est destrui!
Think there will end up that freedmen will be given a state or two of their very own where they will be a majority when all is said and done?
Hmmmmm... could the prospect of turning the first state that seceded into a black-ruled state be too tempting for Thaddeus Stevens to pass up?
Imo it would be complete ASB if something like this happened.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
I mean if the Union goes complete Radical Republican TTL on the South it's quite possible that it happens just by default.
Also just thought that post war if the KKK forms then if Grant's either president or still in charge of the military he might just tell Sherman "no mercy." Or if you really want to spice things up how about President Sherman?
The onlyi way it could would be if you had enough damage to the state that you got an overwhelming majority of blacks - South Carolina might have been just over 60% black at the very end of the war according to Wikipedia demographics but I think you'd have to get it to 75% at least, probably more likely 80%.
Could you have a bunch of slavers down there for one last huge battle? Could enough former slaves be freed, then go and fight for the Union, then bring their families? Could enough devastation be done that you'd have whites leaving the state in droves and staying away? According to that above link, if you take 1860's black population and add maybe 50,000 more blacks (barely doable) and have 50,000 fewer whites, you'd have a state that's 5/7th black, or about 72.5% black. And, both are really hard to imagine and wind up with still plenthy who would refuse to cooperate with being ruled by blacks.
They must, for their own security.
Yeah, probably.
Love that song.
I'm finding the idea of the Union losing Washington and being forced to move to Philadelphia somewhat alluring.
Delaware seceding is almost ASB. But Missouri is very possible. Indeed, the radicalization of the Republican Party has led to the marginalization of Conservative Republicans and some Northern Democrats. The Blairs of Missouri played an important role in preventing Missouri's secession, and they might not be able to do that ITTL. By the way guys, remember that Kansas is a slave state ITTL, under the control of Lecompton. The good people over there may attempt secession.
Bring the good ol' bugle boys!
I want to go until the end of reconstruction. After that I don't know enough to continue. There will, however, be an epilogue showing US history after that.
First of all, the only thing the South deserves is another visit from Sherman.
Interestingly enough, securing East Tennessee for the Union was one of Lincoln's earliest war aims. If they do manage that ITTL, something like that might happen.
Yeah, but when the question is between our very survival as a people and some pesky economics, which one do you choose? I mean, the South believes that the Republicans are ready to march and kill 'em all if they don't do something. Kentucky adopted "neutrality" IOTL, casting their lot with the Union when the Confederacy invaded. What if some rash man... *cough* Frémont *cough*... does something stupid? It may force Kentucky's hand.
...yeah, dissolving the original states would rob the Union of any legal justification. Of course, winners write the rules, but they still wanted to frame their actions as constitutional crushing of treason.
Pretty much. South Carolina they could get away with, but anything more without good reasons (Pro-Unionists.) it would hurt their standing in the world.
Part of me respects for @Red_Galiray for not doing foreign support for the confederate, instead making the people more radical, but im also upset that with making the south more radical means we will have less southern loyalist, unionists. Makes me sad as they never get love and are fascinating group of people.
Reminds me of Diary of the Doofus King II if that's the case.
Missouri in OTL was all tangled in a complex net of personalities and politics stirred up a hornet's nest and it be the case more so here. (Good bless those Germans in St. Louis, the bedrock of Republicans and Unionists in the city.) Keep Lyon alive (Don't have Frémont hang him out to dry), you have better chances of smashing secession. Kansas would probably collapse into a hot mess, or be taken over by Unionists.
If East Tennessee can do it in TTL, it would be alike to that of a dagger aim at the heart of the South.
Even if Kentucky leaves, there would be plenty of unionists regardless of what the state legislature says.
If the CS fails to secure east Kentucky, you could see a West Virginia-style secession (Maybe combined with WV to make a state of Appalachia/Vandalia.)
.Well, just because some grow mroe radical doesn't mean that more people become radical. It could mean the crazies become crazier
Cryostorm
Donor
In fact it could mean you have more West Virginias in the Appalachian areas, Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee, that resist even more strongly once the war begins.
The author stated already alot of southern unionists will remain loyal this time. Arguably the southern unionists won the war from the beginning by seizing important lands, but to have a stronger confederates they need to fail.