Reconstruction: The Second American Revolution - The Sequel to Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
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.
Fair enough, though we can agree that Northern Founding Fathers would be emphasized in TTL’s narrative.
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.
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."
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.
Or the revolts Poland and Hungary did against Russian and Austrian rule respectively, for that matter.
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.
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.
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.
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:
-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).
Sheridan fulfilled his duties in line with the Republican vision of Reconstruction, Pope tried to do the same but enjoyed less trust from Grant and was removed by Andrew Johnson, Sickles had some good ideas but perhaps overreached in implementing economic and legal changes, and Schofield and Ord were both obstructive to Reconstruction, with Ord being decent enough to tell Grant that he should be replaced (Schofield not doing that at all). Reflecting on it a bit, it is interesting to wonder what the criteria for selection was. All five were commanders of corps and minor armies at most, with Pope having been disgraced in 1862 at the Battle of Second Bull Run. Army commanders like Sherman, Meade and Thomas were instead deployed in Military Divisions and Departments, with only Thomas directly dealing with the South at Tennessee and Kentucky. Maybe it was a matter of seniority? But Meade was ultimately sent to replace Pope as commander of Third Military District. On the brighter side, it does allow for a more junior set of generals, who are more aligned with Reconstruction to make an impact.
As for weaponry, I don't think there are any chapters dealing with it.
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.
The Union Army, meanwhile, saw the atrocities of the Confederate soldiers firsthand, all too gruesome for most soldiers to bear. As a result, most had no hesitation in killing Confederate soldiers and even officials by the end of the war. I don't see them having any sympathy for Confederate veterans due to their actions against everyone in the South.
Without historical revisionism like OTL Lost Cause, I can hardly see the United States government sanctioning a similar event since it would give some kind of legitimacy to the Confederacy and its cause, a cause they spent blood, sweat, and tears in bringing down. No, those Confederate veterans were rebels, traitors who committed treason against the United States, and they don't deserve that kind of respect.
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.
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.
Some sort of local events probably would spring up, but perhaps the best thing will be for the children of each side and not for the soldiers themselves. Or if it is for the soldiers, it is more for the ones like the boy soldier in my last interlude, the 14-year-old who was suffering from PTSD as we now know it. Indeed, when he is finally more mentally capable of coming to grips with what a fewjunta-supporting madmen did to his mother when she protected some black children, just getting back together with someone like the doctors up north might be the best thing.
I would once again like to suggest Siegel for Texas for some fun interaction with the Texas German community.
so as I mentioned before this was my first draft:
OTL majority: 3 (Davis, Grier, Nelson)
OTL concurrence/dissent: 3 (Wayne, Swayne, Miller)
Unknows: 4 (Hoar, Fisher, Strong, Ballard)
Now knowing the context of the case I will consider that the Ex parte Milligan equivalent happened shortly after Ballard's appointment around early 1865 instead of 1866, so looking at the opinions of the 4 unknowns I can conclude a few things, first Ballard is going to go for the OTL dissent, Ballard was a judge who prosecuted traitors in Kentucky extensively so I can see him siding with the OTL dissent especially considering the situation, for Strong while his history is mixed on Reconstruction "Strong held that the Reconstruction Amendments allowed Congress to enact legislation punishing private individuals when a state failed to protect constitutional rights." considering the OTL dissent on Milligan was all about how Congress had the authority to put up military tibunals I can see Strong siding with the OTL dissent, Fisher is an enigma but considering he participated in a trial against one of the Lincoln assasination conspirators and pushed for abolition (even if compensated) means that it could be either way, I would go for him joining the OTL dissent again due to the situation in the south, Hoar seemed to have been a moderate in reconstruction and would have normally vote with the OTL majority, the main thing that changes is the context of TTLs Milligan, as it is happening with all authority in the South Collapsing so I could see someone like Davis and even Grier or Nelson voting in favor of the OTL dissent due to how bad the situation has got in the south, so I imagine it would look something like this.
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)
1865 Supreme Court with portraits (because I was bored)
Explanation for "Factions" aka Support for Reconstruction:
Chief Justice William Strong - (Moderate Support): Based on his support for states' rights and against the civil rights act of 1866, yet he still supported and held that the Reconstruction ammendments allowed Congress to enact legislation to enforce said Ammendments, he also wrote the opinion for an early equal protection case in Strauder v. West Virginia.
Associate Justice 1 Samuel Nelson - (Opposition): Based on his decisions on Dred Scott, the Prize Cases, and the fact that after the war Nelson urged the administration to reduce the penalties on the defeated South.
Associate Justice 2 Ebenezer R. Hoar - (Moderate Support): Based on Hoar's works with his father to form the Free Soil Party of Massachusetts, his loyalty to the Republican Party, how he opposed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, and his opposition of Federal Intervention, also his endorsement of Strong as a candidate for the court means they proably shared views.
Associate Justice 3 Robert C. Grier - (Moderate Opposition): Based on Grier writing the majority opinion in the Prize Cases, upholding Abraham Lincoln's presidential power to institute Union blockades of Confederate ports, here he didn't join the majority in Dred Scott, but his pro democratic party ideals and blatant corruption otl when keeping Buchanan informed of the decision of the court puts him in the moderate opposition.
Associate Justice 4 Samuel F. Miller - (Support): Based on his opinions strongly favoring Lincoln's positions, and him uphelding the wartime suspension of habeas corpus and trials by military commission, while also having a very narrow view on the 14th Ammendment, yet supporting measures against the KKK and using federal force to protect african americans from violence.
Associate Justice 5 Noah H. Swayne - (Support): Based on his staunch judicial support of the Lincoln's war measures and supporting the CRA of 1866.
Associate Justice 6 David Davis - (Moderate Support): Based on his Liberal Republican affiliation later on as I couldn't find his concrete opinion on the Reconstruction Era laws.
Associate Justice 7 George P. Fisher - (Support): Based on his loyalty to Lincoln and support of Grant and later on Benjamin Harrison.
Associate Justice 8 James M. Wayne - (Opposition): Based on him using his power in the court to make sure the South escaped any penalties for the war.
Associate Justice 9 Bland Ballard - (Support): Based on his very strict prosecution of traitors in Kentucky.
Explanation for "Factions" aka Support for Reconstruction:
Chief Justice William Strong - (Moderate Support): Based on his support for states' rights and against the civil rights act of 1866, yet he still supported and held that the Reconstruction ammendments allowed Congress to enact legislation to enforce said Ammendments, he also wrote the opinion for an early equal protection case in Strauder v. West Virginia.
Associate Justice 1 Samuel Nelson - (Opposition): Based on his decisions on Dred Scott, the Prize Cases, and the fact that after the war Nelson urged the administration to reduce the penalties on the defeated South.
Associate Justice 2 Ebenezer R. Hoar - (Moderate Support): Based on Hoar's works with his father to form the Free Soil Party of Massachusetts, his loyalty to the Republican Party, how he opposed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, and his opposition of Federal Intervention, also his endorsement of Strong as a candidate for the court means they proably shared views.
Associate Justice 3 Robert C. Grier - (Moderate Opposition): Based on Grier writing the majority opinion in the Prize Cases, upholding Abraham Lincoln's presidential power to institute Union blockades of Confederate ports, here he didn't join the majority in Dred Scott, but his pro democratic party ideals and blatant corruption otl when keeping Buchanan informed of the decision of the court puts him in the moderate opposition.
Associate Justice 4 Samuel F. Miller - (Support): Based on his opinions strongly favoring Lincoln's positions, and him uphelding the wartime suspension of habeas corpus and trials by military commission, while also having a very narrow view on the 14th Ammendment, yet supporting measures against the KKK and using federal force to protect african americans from violence.
Associate Justice 5 Noah H. Swayne - (Support): Based on his staunch judicial support of the Lincoln's war measures and supporting the CRA of 1866.
Associate Justice 6 David Davis - (Moderate Support): Based on his Liberal Republican affiliation later on as I couldn't find his concrete opinion on the Reconstruction Era laws.
Associate Justice 7 George P. Fisher - (Support): Based on his loyalty to Lincoln and support of Grant and later on Benjamin Harrison.
Associate Justice 8 James M. Wayne - (Opposition): Based on him using his power in the court to make sure the South escaped any penalties for the war.
Associate Justice 9 Bland Ballard - (Support): Based on his very strict prosecution of traitors in Kentucky.
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.
Eh, I like Alaska well enough.
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.
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.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.
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.
No chapter about weaponry because I know little about it and, truthfully, it never has interested me that much, so I never wrote any. Sorry!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Something like that seems far more likely.
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.
This checks out, thanks for it!
Thank you very much for this
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 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.
Hence my comparison with Thomas Midgley and how his inventions caused more damage than he ever intended.