A heartbeat away from greatness: a timeline of missed opportunities

yboxman

Ouch, this could be nasty. The Ottoman army is weaker and its two former allies during the Crimean are now on opposing sides in the tussle for power. Also Britain, the one most opposed to Russian expansion, is possibly being diverted by the US maneuvers for expansion.

I was thinking that Russia might be wanting to absorb the gains made and think over lessons learned from the war with Austria but some of the leadership at least might be thinking the situation favours further gains. Or possibly they will be content with bringing Moldava fully into their sphere.

Are the Russians still holding by the treaty imposed by the Crimean war? Thinking especially of the restrictions on them having warships in the Black Sea, which would make any advance more difficult.

Steve
 

yboxman

Banned
yboxman

Ouch, this could be nasty. The Ottoman army is weaker and its two former allies during the Crimean are now on opposing sides in the tussle for power. Also Britain, the one most opposed to Russian expansion, is possibly being diverted by the US maneuvers for expansion.

I was thinking that Russia might be wanting to absorb the gains made and think over lessons learned from the war with Austria but some of the leadership at least might be thinking the situation favours further gains. Or possibly they will be content with bringing Moldava fully into their sphere.

Are the Russians still holding by the treaty imposed by the Crimean war? Thinking especially of the restrictions on them having warships in the Black Sea, which would make any advance more difficult.

Steve

Russia has renounced (most) of the treaty of Paris in the second congress of Vienna with French and Prussian (and Bavarian) support. British oppose this but without French support they aren't going to act unilateraly against Russia's fleet in the Black sea- especially since Russia isn't actually building the fleet yet and won't be for some time (their budget is in serious trouble, even more than OTL).

France and Russia are now co-protectors of Christian minorities in the Ottoman empire but Napoleon, trying to sweeten Britain up has suggested that Britain and the "Italian confederation" under the Pope also share the "honor".


The end result was that it's a joint concert of Europe concern. Who exactly replaces Austria in the concert now that it is no longer a great power is a matter of some debate. Napoleon is pressing for the Italian confederation while Britain is pressing for Spain.
 

yboxman

Banned
How would any war with the Ottomans and Russians go? Would it be anything like the 1878 war or worse?

Worse for the Russians on the military level. In every respect (Finances, Demography, industry, transportation, military organization, military equipment, Balkan allies, navy), except for their commanders they are less strong Vs the Ottomans in 1859 than they are in 1878. Even more so due to their losses in men and equipment Vs Austria.

OTOH they are more likely to reap any political and territorial gains they make since Austria is Neutralized, France and Prussia are Neutralizing each other, and Britain needs to prioratize the Balkans Vs additional fronts. So the Ottomans probably lose less but the Russians gain more if that makes any sense.

I think this question came up earlier in an exchange with ABC and I gave a detailed analysis.
 
OTOH they are more likely to reap any political and territorial gains they make since Austria is Neutralized, France and Prussia are Neutralizing each other, and Britain needs to prioratize the Balkans Vs additional fronts. So the Ottomans probably lose less but the Russians gain more if that makes any sense.

Not really. But I will wait for any update which would hopefully explain and make sense of it.

When is the next update anyway?
 

yboxman

Banned
Not really. But I will wait for any update which would hopefully explain and make sense of it.

It will be a while until we return to the Balkans so "briefly": OTL the Russians had five direct wars with the Ottoman empire over a period of a century (1806-1812, 1828, 1853-1856, 1878, WWI) and supported or sponsered several indirect wars by the Balkan states against Turkey (Serbo-Turk war, Thessaly conflict, Cretan rebellion, Balkan wars). It also intervened to save the Ottomans from Muhamad Ali.

Russia was usually militarily victorious in these conflicts (Crimean war was an exception but even there when directly engaged against the Ottomans in the causacaus they won ground). It invested massive resources and manpower in these wars. It reached Constantinopole twice. But.

the but is that if you look at what Russia actualy gained from these conflicts the answer is Nada. They never gained direct territory in the Balkans beyond the Pruth line after 1812. The sum total of their gains in the Caucuas was Kars with a grand population of maybe 50,000 Armenians, Kurds and goats (mostly goats). The Balkan states they "liberated" from the Ottomans were allied with Russia's enemies, on the balance, more than they were allied with Russia. And they had LESS influence over the straits in 1914 than they did in 1814.

In contrast, Austria gained Bosnia , Prussia placed it's royal candidates on the throne of Romania, Albania. Bulgaria and Greece, France gained Tunis and a defacto protectorate over Lebanon, Britain Egypt and Cyprus and minor league Italy gained Libya and the dodecanesse islands- and all that with much less military investment on their part. And we won't even go into how Russia was screwed in WWI.

Why? After all Russia made very impressive gains prior to the Napoleonic wars Vs the Ottomans when the correlation of forces between Russia and the Ottomans was much more in the Ottomans favor. So what gives?

The answer is that after 1812 the congress of Europe always prevented Russia from taking territory from the Ottomans. The Russians would invest massive resources in fighting the Ottomans and whatever gains they made would be determined primarily by alliances within Europe rather than by the result on the Battlefield.

So the Bottom line is that even if Russia does worse in 1860 than 1878 (say, advance only to the Balkan mountains and never make it pass Shipka pass. Or even avoid crossing the Danube rather than reaching Constantinopole) it will be in a much better position to either annex it's conquests or transform them into real puppet states bound to them by a common ruling house, treaties of protection and alliance and financial contributions to common defense (tribute) instead of handing them back to the Ottomans or establishing independent states which will turn against them.

When is the next update anyway?

Whenever I have time to write it. I've had a conjuction of creativity and some free time while experiments were brewing (I'm a Developmental biology PhD) over the past few days so you have been blessed with 5 longish updates in 3 days. What do we say?

Anyway, I'll probably post three more posts on North American developments this week, hop back to East Asia next week and then grind in four posts or so about the Ottoman-Russian and Franco-Prussian conflicts.
 
Last edited:
Whenever I have time to write it. I've had a conjuction of creativity and some free time while experiments were brewing (I'm a Developmental biology PhD) over the past few days so you have been blessed with 5 longish updates in 3 days. What do we say?

Anyway, I'll probably post three more posts on North American developments this week, hop back to East Asia next week and then grind in four posts or so about the Ottoman-Russian and Franco-Prussian conflicts
.

1. Very well.

2. More now. :p Please.

3. Alrighty then. Also, when can we see a map?


Also, just to say, love this TL.
 

yboxman

Banned
2. More now. :p Please.

Someone's momma obviously didn't raise him proper:p but OK, update sometimes today.

3. Alrighty then. Also, when can we see a map?

Whenever there's a definitive change in territory compared to OTL.

Also, just to say, love this TL.

Thanks:) I'm beginning to grow quite fond of it as well- mostly because I don't know what happens next. Assesing probabilities at each stage and rolling a dice to determine outcomes is a lot more fun than deciding on an end point and railroading the outcome towards it.
 

yboxman

Banned
#27 No master but the law

For Buchanan the clear cut offer of the Alaska purchase, accompanied by news of growing tensions in the Pacific Northwest, was a political lifeline. With it, he was able to face his opposition, both within the Democratic party and among the former Whigs of the "opposition party" (1) and even some of the republican congressmen with an upalatable choice- support his requests for funding to make the Alaska purchase and expand the army or face public opprobrium, particularly in California and Oregon.

In his attempts to broker a deal with the Northern Democrats, Know nothings, Whigs and pro-expansion Republicans it quickly became apparent that while he might gain nominal support for the Alaska purchase, in his greater aim of ensuring a presidential legacy of American expansion to the south the issue of Slavery, and particularly of Kansas, would poison any potential deal. Credit for the proposal which eventually would be labeled the Kansas-Columbia-Alaska-Mexico-Caribbean bill, and for the Democratic move to reintroduce the Missouri compromise on modified terms (2) is a matter of controversy with both northern democrat Stephan Douglas and Whig Kentucky Senator Crittendan receiving credit. In practice however Buchanan could not have enlisted support for the bill amongst either most of southern wing of his own party, nor started the cascade of events which were to lead to a breach with the fire-eaters and a Democrat-Whig union were it not for the timely actions of Captain John Brown….

(1) After 1858 they are basically middle south and border state based anti-slavery expansion by "unfair" measures (Kansas). They are not abolitionist or anti slavery expansion as such however- if they were they would have no electoral prospects whatsoever (and they were in fact wiped out in the 1860 elections) . During the civil war most members of the party in Kentucky and Tennessee backed the Union and served with it (or tried to avoid politics and the war). North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia representatives however mostly served with the confederacy.

(2) The Supreme court decision in Dread Vs Scott established that Slavery is legal in any territory of the United states and that neither the federal government or any territorial legistlature cannot abolish it within any given territory. Only states can do that. The coalenscing platform of the Whig-Moderate democrat alliance is to propose a constitutional amendment stating that no new state can be admitted north of the Missouri compromise with a constitution allowing slavery or south of the line with a constitution prohibiting slavery, while permitting states to change their constitutions through the usual means after being admitted to the union. For the Radical Republicans and much of the North,as well as for southern fireeaters, this is of course anathema.
 
Last edited:

yboxman

Banned
#28 John brown's body



Old John Brown’s body is scattered across both field and wave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But though he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His son yet marches on.
(Chorus)
John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas still knows his valor as she struggles for rights he fought to save;
Now, though his body lacks even the scant comfort of a grave,
His son yet marches on.
(Chorus)
He stormed Harper’s Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
He was scorned by "Old Virginny" that slave owning shrew;
They shot him for a traitor, though they knew not what they do,
Yet his son still marches on.
(Chorus)
John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And one day throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For we are all his sons now… and we are marching on!
(Chorus)
The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,
A river of blood and fury separates the sinful from the true,
And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed we mean to do,
For now his sons stand at last united … and we are marching on!
(Chorus)
Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike we still may,
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,
For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,
The blood of the giant shed across the earth a thousand sons has birthed…
we are all wide awake now and we are marching on!
(Chorus)

(1) Call this a cliffhanger. Sort of curious as to how TTL poem will be interpeted by the readers- compare to original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Br...atton:.5B24.5D.
 
Last edited:
yboxman

nor started the cascade of events which were to lead to a breach with the fire-eaters and a Democrat-Whig union were it not for the timely actions of Captain John Brown

This sounds to me like a more general Democrat-Whig alliance joining with the Republicans against the hard line southerners, although it could be the other way.

The TTL John Brown's song sounds rather like there is going to be a pretty bloody civil war soon that is likely to render any US desires to attack Canada irrelevant. If I'm reading the bit above correctly then it will be a smaller succession movement with less support and probably suppressed more quickly.

Steve
 

yboxman

Banned
yboxman



This sounds to me like a more general Democrat-Whig alliance joining with the Republicans against the hard line southerners, although it could be the other way.

It's a democrat-whig-Know nothing alliance which strains relations within the democrat party with the fire breathers, not a democrat-republican alliance (politically impossible.). Some republican expansionists concerned about keeping their seats are prepared to back Buchanan on Alaska. But party discipline largely holds.

yboxman

The TTL John Brown's song sounds rather like there is going to be a pretty bloody civil war soon that is likely to render any US desires to attack Canada irrelevant. If I'm reading the bit above correctly then it will be a smaller succession movement with less support and probably suppressed more quickly.

Interesting guess. Compare it with the originial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown's_Body#Version_by_William_Weston_Patton:.5B24.5D

Also, in case you didn't catch the reference- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes
 
Last edited:
It's a democrat-whig-Know nothing alliance which strains relations within the democrat party with the fire breathers, not a democrat-republican alliance (politically impossible.). Some republican expansionists concerned about keeping their seats are prepared to back Buchanan on Alaska. But party discipline largely holds.

I meant that a number of elements that in OTL neutral or moderately pro-south, such as Virginia which only moved after Washington make clear it would use force to prevent succession. And speculating that it sounds like more will be on the northern side in TTL conflict, with possibly only the deep south standing for succession. Not any political alliance.


I will only comment that being interesting doesn't mean its accurate. ;) Have to see what actually develops

Also, in case you didn't catch the reference- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes

No I didn't know about them. Seems to have been very controlled but could have been a lot, nastier. When I read point 1) 'a political police' it was an 'Oh s**t' moment but they seemed to have been pretty well controlled and avoided major disorder.

Steve
 

yboxman

Banned
No I didn't know about them. Seems to have been very controlled but could have been a lot, nastier. When I read point 1) 'a political police' it was an 'Oh s**t' moment but they seemed to have been pretty well controlled and avoided major disorder.

Steve

heck, giving away any more would be a spoiler. Probably get there in about a month. Small hint: check out the triggers for southern secession OTL and voting pattern by state Vs electrol college distribution in 1856 Vs 1860. Also, check out the nomination process in each party and consider the effect of alternate candidates.
 
Last edited:

iddt3

Donor
heck, giving away any more would be a spoiler. Probably get there in about a month. Small hint: check out the triggers for southern secession OTL and voting pattern by state Vs electrol college distribution in 1856 Vs 1860. Also, check out the nomination process in each party and consider the effect of alternate candidates.
Well if the Republicans are more confident they might nominate Seward rather than Lincoln, which would likely make the election even more partisan. He'd still likely win though assuming the democrats split as OTL.
 

yboxman

Banned
1860 electoral prospects

Well if the Republicans are more confident they might nominate Seward rather than Lincoln, which would likely make the election even more partisan. He'd still likely win though assuming the democrats split as OTL.

Well if the Republicans are more confident they might nominate Seward rather than Lincoln, which would likely make the election even more partisan. He'd still likely win though assuming the democrats split as OTL.

Even if the Democrats don't split and Seward is nominated the democrats are not going to win the electoral college though they might take the popular vote.

The Republican victory in OTL 1860 was a combination of three factors:

1. The mind boggingly stupid decision Buchanan made to try to push a Pro-Slavery constitution for Kansas through even though it was clearly achieved by anti-democratic means- and refusal to back down even after Douglas and much of his own party rebelled at the decision.
2. The resultant democrat split.
3. But most significantly- the collapse of the nativist Know nothing party.

You see, until the 1860 election U.S elections were usually about several issues, allowing a third and even a fourth party to act as a spoiler. furthermore, issues usually cut across sectional lines, meaning almost each state was a contested battleground. This started to change after 1852 with the foundation of the Republican party on the basis of opposition to Slavery (though to varying degrees of devotion) which obviously could find no support basis in the South. Accordingly, it appealed primarily to Northern Identity. This platform failed in 1856 since they had to contest their position in the North not only with the Democrats, who retained a cross sectional appeal as well a solid home base in the deep south, but with the Know nothings, who appealed to another strain of Northern Identity- anti-Catholicism (and Judaismn) and anti Immigration. Once the Know nothings collapsed it was purely Democrats against Republicans- and the Remmenants of the Southern Whigs were competing with the democrats who had poisoned themselves in the North with their attachment to expanding Slavery.

For the Democrats to win the electoral college in 1860, Assuming Kansas is accepted as a state before the elections (and they WILL vote republican) the democrats need to win 37 more Electoral college votes than both branches of the party+ the constitutional union (WHigs) won OTL. The only states which OTL would have gone Democrat/Whig if you combine the votes of both wings of the Democratic Party+Bell are California and Oregon (and The Democrats probably gain more votes if they purchase Alaska). And they are worth only 7 electorates. Where can the Democrats gain the other 30?

The only states where the issue is conceivably in doubt are Illinois and Indiana at 50.7 and 51.1 for the republicans OTL. But bear in mind that the opposition votes went to Douglas OTL and in order to avoid a split the democrats will have to run a candidate and a platform LESS likely to appeal to the North than Douglas did OTL. New Jersy is a interesting state where the electoral college is not a "winner take all" system- OTL Douglas took 3 electorates Vs Lincolns 4. If the Democrats don't split they might take one more or one less- not enough to make a difference. But even if The Dems max out in all those states they still lose the electoral college.

For them to win one of three things need to happen:
1. A Republican split between Radical Easterners and moderate westerners (unlikely)
2. A return to life of the Know nothings (less likely).
3. A event massively different from OTL which can shift the electorate in Pensylvania or Ohio more than 5% towards the ruling democratic party. Could happen but unlikely.

However, if the Democratic party does not split and has some foreign policy acheivement their candidate might win 60% of the popular vote... and still lose the electoral college. I don't think the U.S ever had such an electoral college-popular vote split. Certainly not one on the background of such sectional strife or split in votes.
 
yboxman

Fascinating. Just about every other mention of the 1860 election assumes that the Democratic split was the key factor in the Republican victory. However you say that the collapse of the Know Nothings was the vital step. That would potentially set up a sensitive situation with the Democrats winning the most votes, possibly by a long way, but the Republicans winning the White House.

Steve
 

yboxman

Banned
#29 Harpers Ferry

Excerpts from "passage to armageddon" by Adrian hall (1)

October 15th, 1859
The 19 men and 2 women in the Kennedy farmhouse are gathered in a circle their heads bent as John Brown's hypnotic voice leads them in prayer.

Omnipotent and steadfast God,
Who, in Thy mercy, hath
Upheaved in me Jehovah's rod
And his chastising wrath,

For fifty-nine unsparing years
Thy Grace hath worked apart
To mould a man of iron tears
With a bullet for a heart.

Yet, since this body may be weak
With all it has to bear,
Once more, before Thy thunders speak,
Almighty, hear my prayer.

I saw Thee when Thou did display
The black man and his lord
To bid me free the one, and slay
The other with the sword.

I heard Thee when Thou bade me spurn
Destruction from my hand
And, though all Kansas bleed and burn,
It was at Thy command.

I hear the rolling of the wheels,
The chariots of war!
I hear the breaking of the seals
And the opening of the door!

The glorious beasts with many eyes
Exult before the Crowned.
The buried saints arise, arise
Like incense from the ground!

Before them march the martyr-kings,
In bloody sunsets drest,
O, Kansas, bleeding Kansas,
You will not let me rest!

I hear your sighing corn again,
I smell your prairie-sky,
And I remember five dead men
By Pottawattamie.

Lord God it was a work of Thine,
And how might I refrain?
But Kansas, bleeding Kansas,
I hear her in her pain.

Her corn is rustling in the ground,
An arrow in my flesh.
And all night long I staunch a wound
That ever bleeds afresh.

Get up, get up, my hardy sons,
From this time forth we are
No longer men, but pikes and guns
In God's advancing war.

And if we live, we free the slave,
And if we die, we die.
But God has digged His saints a grave
Beyond the western sky.

Oh, fairer than the bugle-call
Its walls of jasper shine!
And Joshua's sword is on the wall
With space beside for mine.

And should the Philistine defend
His strength against our blows,
The God who doth not spare His friend,
Will not forget His foes (1).

John brown and his followers are no Quakers, no pacifist sheep of the lord. They are his sword and his vengenance. But yet in some particulars they have adopted their customs. And so it is that in the silence following the prayer each speaks, in no particular order, as they feel the spirit come upon them.

It is Lieutinant Watson Brown, steady as a rock who speaks first "I… I miss my Bell. When we prayed it is her I thought of, and of how much I wish to be with her. And I fear. I fear that come tomorrow or the next day I might die and never again see her. But then I thought of all those who are cut off from their families. Those who will never again see their wives or sons because of the evil that is being done by wicked men" Here, he glances at Dangerfield Newby, colored and born a slave, Freeman now, but married to one not free Who, with their seven children, waited him South, The youngest baby just beginning to crawl;" I have written to Bell yesterday. And I should like to read you all my letter though it touches on matters of the heart between man and wife. "Oh, Bell, I want to see you And the little fellow very much but must wait. There was a slave near here whose wife was sold South. They found him hanging in Kennedy's orchard next morning. I cannot come home as long as such things are done here."

Oliver Brown speaks next, his youngish his beautiful masculine face standing out amongst the rough band. Newly wed, at only nineteen, His words are the pure music of the fanatic. "The good book says that in war both man and wife must leave their marriage bed though it be on the very hour of their nuptials. As long as a single human soul is in bondage then war it is"

Kagi, the self-taught scholar, quiet and cool,

Stevens, the cashiered soldier, Puritan-fathered, A singing giant, gunpowder-tempered and rash.

Dauphin Thompson, the pippin-cheeked country-boy,
More like a girl than a warrior;

They, and the others, speak as the spirit directs them. Some remain silent. Others speak but a single word.

"Freedom" says Dangefield newby, still uncomfortable at speaking amongst whites, even with all that they have experienced and will suffer together.

But it is John Brown's daughter annie who speaks the final words. "I pray you all come back. But more so I pray you all come back with your shields- or upon them".

And then they leave, on the march to Harper's ferry, and even today, with all the blood and tears shed in the cause of freedom one may yet hear the echo of their steps.

The bearded faces look strange In the old daguerreotypes: they should be the faces
Of prosperous, small-town people, good sons and fathers, Good horse-shoe pitchers, good at plowing a field, Good at swapping stories and good at praying,
American wheat, firm-rooted, good in the ear. They are all strong men.

They tied up the watchmen and took the rifle-works. Then John Brown sent a raiding party away to fetch in Colonel Washington from his farm. The Colonel was George Washington's great-grand-nephew, Slave-owner, gentleman-farmer, but, more than these, Possessor of a certain fabulous sword given to Washington by Frederick the Great and of a pair of pistols given to him by Lafayette, father of freedom. True, to revere mere objects was but a form of idolatory. But are not men embarked upon near certain death entitled to some leeway? And do not soldiers, even soldiers of the lord, require talisman to bolster their courage?

They captured him and his sword and brought them along processionally. The act has a touch of drama, Half costume-romance, half unmerited farce. On the way, they told the Washington slaves they were free, Or free to fight for their freedom. The slaves heard the news with the dazed, scared eyes of cattle before a storm.
A few came back with the band and were given pikes, And, when John Brown was watching, pretended to mount A slipshod guard over the prisoners. But, when he had walked away, they put down their pikes And huddled together, talking in mourning voices. It didn't seem right to play at guarding the Colonel but they were afraid of the bearded patriarch with the Old Testament eyes.

A little later It was Patrick Higgins' turn. He was the night-watchman of the Maryland bridge, a tough little Irishman with a canny, humorous face, and a twist in his speech.

He came humming his way to his job. "Halt!" ordered a voice. He stopped a minute, perplexed. As he told men later, "Now I didn't know what 'Halt!' mint, any more than a hog knows about a holiday."

There was a scuffle.

He got away with a bullet-crease in his scalp and warned the incoming train. It was half-past-one. A moment later, a man named Shepherd Heyward, free negro, baggage-master of the small station, Well-known in the town, hardworking, thrifty and fated,
Came looking for Higgins.

"Halt!" called the voice again, But he kept on, not hearing or understanding, whichever it may have been.

A rifle cracked. He fell by the station-platform, gripping his belly, And lay for twelve hours of torment, asking for water Until he was able to die.

There is no stone, No image of bronze or marble green with the rain
To Shepherd Heyward, free negro of Harper's Ferry, And even the books, the careful, ponderous histories, That turn live men into dummies with smiles of wax Thoughtfully posed against a photographer's background In the act of signing a treaty or drawing a sword,
Tell little of what he was.

And yet his face Grey with pain and puzzled at sudden death Stares out at us through the bookworm-dust of the years With an uncomprehending wonder, a blind surprise.
"I was getting along," it says, "I was doing well.
I had six thousand dollars saved in the bank.
It was a good town, a nice town, I liked the folks
And they liked me. I had a good job there, too.
On Sundays I used to dress myself up slick enough
To pass the plate in church, but I wasn't proud
Not even when trashy niggers called me Mister,
Though I could hear the old grannies over their snuff
Mumbling along, 'Look, chile, there goes Shepherd Heyward.
Ain't him fine in he Sunday clo'es--ain't him sassy and fine?
You grow up decent and don't play ball in the street,
And maybe you'll get like him, with a gold watch and chain.'
And then, suddenly--and what was it all about?
Why should anyone want to kill me? Why was it done?"

So the grey lips. And so the hurt in the eyes.
A hurt like a child's, at punishment unexplained
That makes the whole child-universe fall to pieces.
At the time of death, most men turn back toward the child.

Brown did not know at first that the first man dead
By the sword he thought of so often as Gideon's sword
Was one of the race he had drawn that sword to free.
It had been dark on the bridge. A man had come
And had not halted when ordered. Then the shot
And the scrape of the hurt man dragging himself away.
That was all. The next man ordered to halt would halt.
His mind was too full of the burning judgments of God
To wonder who it had been. He was cool and at peace.
He dreamt of a lamb, lying down by a rushing stream.

Meanwhile, the train Passed over the bridge to carry its wild news
Of abolition-devils sprung from the ground
A hundred and fifty, three hundred, a thousand strong
To pillage Harper's Ferry, with fire and sword.
Meanwhile the whole countryside was springing to arms.
The alarm-bell in Charlestown clanged "Nat Turner has come.'
Nat Turner has come again, all smoky from Hell,
Setting the slave to murder and massacre!"
The Jefferson Guards fell in. There were boys and men.
They had no uniforms but they had weapons.
Old squirrel-rifles, taken down from the wall,
Shot guns loaded with spikes and scraps of iron.
A boy dragged a blunderbuss as big as himself.
They started for the Ferry.In a dozen
A score of other sleepy, neighboring towns
The same bell clanged, the same militia assembled.

But when they arrived at the ferry they found the abolitionists gone. For as they sought to storm the arsenal at night they were confronted, not by confused townsmen or scattered militia but by nearly thirty federal army engineers, commanded by stern Robert E.Lee of famous repute. Recalled from leave to oversee the transport of the Armories contents (2) to the grim boreal forests of the North, alarmed at the sound of gunfire and quickly sending out eager Jeb.E.Stuart to reccointer the area he understood, all too quickly what was occurring. he had organized his men in Ambush, killing over half of the force when they entered the armory, including John Brown. Five of the survivors, without their prophet, scattered and were all, save for Oliver Brown, hunted down by the vengeful men of the town. Stevens however managed to organize five of the other survivors and fortify the station house where Washington was being held by his terrified slaves.

As dawn rose over the town Colonel Lee attempted to achieve the release of Colonel Washington. Had he been dealing with John Brown, confidant in both his destiny and his moral scruples then he may indeed have proven successful. As it was, Stevens, his command over the survivors less sure had posted two of the men to shoot the hostages at the first sign of assault. With few men to choose one of the grim guardsmen was, according to the testimony of Washington's tearful bondsmen, Dauphne Thomsphon.

His finger slipped. From sweat or fate? Panic or purity of purpose? Either way, the blood of the father of our once great nation was spilled and Lee led his men in furious assault upon the station house. When Washington's body was discovered the fury of the townsmen was unbound. Had he not been wounded in storming the station house Lee might have made some effort to maintain civilized standards of behavior. But as it was, no prisoners were taken and the bodies of the abolitionists were mutiliated and then thrown into the Potomac. John Brown's body was never recovered.

Dry eyed, Oliver Brown, disguised as a citizen of the town, watched the savage mutiliation of his father's body by the townsfolk. Slipping away, like a ghost amongst the living, he made his way north, not knowing whether his brother Owen and the other men left to guard the Bridge, lived or died.

And as Old John Brown's remains made their way down to the Atlantic His Son Marched on to the North. In his belt were the pistols of Lafayette. Both were loaded.

(1) I basically Plagarized most of this and made changes based on changes to the time line and my own artistic license- but I'm not disclosing my sources.
(2) Harpers ferry is the central Federal armory and contains nearly 100,000 muskets (!!) in 1859. The fact that it was left practically unguarded OTL just goes to demonstrate how unmilitarized the U.S was before the civil war. TTL Winfield is reluctantly shifting regular army troops to the Canadian border and calling out for recruits to the Maine and Vermont Militia. That means he needs to arm them and he also want to stockpile weapons and supplies near the border and make sure his current stockpiles are in good condition.
 
Last edited:

yboxman

Banned
The measure of John Brown

You can weigh John Brown's body well enough,
But how and in what balance weigh John Brown?

He had the shepherd's gift, but that was all.
He had no other single gift for life.
Some men are pasture Death turns back to pasture,
Some are fire-opals on that iron wrist,
Some the deep roots of wisdoms not yet born.
John Brown was none of these,
He was a stone,
A stone eroded to a cutting edge
By obstinacy, failure and cold prayers.
Discredited farmer, dubiously involved
In lawsuit after lawsuit, Shubel Morgan
Fantastic bandit of the Kansas border,
Red-handed murderer at Pottawattomie,
Cloudy apostle, whooped along to death
By those who do no violence themselves
But only buy the guns to have it done,
Sincere of course, as all fanatics are,
And with a certain minor-prophet air,
That fooled the world to thinking him half-great
When all he did consistently was fail.

So far one advocate.
But there is this.

Sometimes there comes a crack in Time itself.
Sometimes the earth is torn by something blind.
Sometimes an image that has stood so long
It seems implanted as the polar star
Is moved against an unfathomed force
That suddenly will not have it any more.
Call it the _mores_, call it God or Fate,
Call it Mansoul or economic law,
That force exists and moves.
And when it moves
It will employ a hard and actual stone
To batter into bits an actual wall
And change the actual scheme of things.
John Brown
Was such a stone--unreasoning as the stone,
Destructive as the stone, and, if you like,
Heroic and devoted as such a stone.
He had no gift for life, no gift to bring
Life but his body and a cutting edge,
But he knew how to die.

Fortunate indeed were the slavers that they
could not try them in their court of Sodom.

For had they done so, had he but a few weeks
to speak, to blaze forth his hoarded knowledge
and spread his sparks like live coals
On every State in the Union....

Then what might have occured? He would have been hanged, to be sure.
But as they strung him up they would have been hanging slavery as well (1).

As it was but one spark escaped the conflagartion at harpers ferry. One man, or barely a man, on a road whose end he could not know.

(1) OTL, the trial of John brown strengthened anti-Slavery sentiments in the North and separatist sentiments in the south. TTL the death of all the raiders means that the effect of the raid is less ongoing and the murder of the hostages serves primarily top draw the southern Whigs into the Democrat camp.
 

yboxman

Banned
#30 bay of the Pig

Well, I guess my plagiarized poetry isn't that great- so moving back to Puget sound....


San Juan Island, October 25th 1859

The standoff had lasted for nearly two weeks. Under strict orders to avoid firing the first shot Admiral Baynes had chosen to block further reinforcement of the American garrison on San Juan Island by bodily placing his ships between the Friday harbor, now sardonically referred to by both his and the American troops as the " bahía del cerdo " (1) and the American forces. In the confined waters of the San Juan channel this placed his force at considerable disadvantage but he was sufficiently confident of the superiority of his force to take the risk. He was rather less confident, at first, of the navigational skills of the Yanks. As the standoff degenerated into a game of chicken, with American ships seeking to rush the line of blockade his captains became quite anxious about the possibility of collision (2). He himself was more concerned that frayed nerves would lead an overanxious captain to fire his guns (3). As matters were, however, it seemed the Yanks were under orders similliar to his own- avoid firing the first shot at all costs.

Over the past two days the Yanks seemed to have given up. Rather than seeking to dock in the harbor they had instead begun sending longboats to the beaches to supply their Garrison with food and, he suspected, some reinforcements. He had not tried to stop them. Partly, because he could not, without sinking the boats. But mostly because absent heavy artillery the garrison on the island was in effect his hostage. While the growing Earthwork and timber fort might be a difficult nut to crack for his marines it had little prospect of standing up under sustained naval bombardment- not unless they could effectively shoot back (4).

In fact, he was engaged in writing yet another patient missive to Governor Douglas explaining, in painstaking detail and with the utmost politeness those basic military realities, and further explaining that landing his own garrisons on the Orka Island and Lopez Islands would simply deplete his active forces and faןl to secure the Rosario strait as an alternate route between Victoria and the mainland given American title and occupation of cypress island (5), when the dispatch boat arrived from Vancouver.

Admiral Baynes was grateful when he opened the dispatches that he had taken the time to relocate to his cabin. It would not do, would not do at all, for his men to see him gnash his teeth and crumple his hat when he read the message.

"From: Governor Douglas

To: Admiral Baynes

Be informed that a mixed American force of some 1500 militia and regulars is approaching the Washington Territory- British Columbia border. They claim to be in pursuit of renegade Yakima loyal to Kamiakin (6) who reject the Latah creek settlement . I have, pursuant to my duties called upon the militia and will ensure the Yanks do not pass the border in their pursuit. Concurrently, efforts are being made to arm and organize the loyal population on the mainland (7) and disarm those elements whose loyalties are doubtful (8).

(1) Bay of the pig- you either get it or you don't.
(2) Dice roll- no collision
(3) Ditto
(4) Landing men and supplies on gravely beaches is one thing. But you can't do that with Cannon.
(5) Another clash averted .
(6) Who fled to British Columbia after the Yakima war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakima_War. Of course the threat the Yakima currently pose to settlers in Washington territory is, to put it mildly, dubious.
(7) Ie; Candians, British and Europeans. And possibly Inidian auxiliaries from friendly tribes.
(8) American citizens. Who are the overwhelming majority of whites in mainland British Columbia.
 
Last edited:
Top