Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

In other news the ocean is wet. The way sidebar speculations spiral on this thread we'll max out at 500 pages before Reconstruction begins in earnest.
I should note that speculation on reconstruction would be fine. It is the "Lincoln as a leftish icon" that I think is too far ahead. Admittedly, I also feel that turning him into a leftish icon and generally leftist interpretation of war and/or reconstruction are thrown around without caution. Like as a leftist I can understand that desire, but is it really warranted ? To some degree yes, but I would advise caution here.
 
I should note that speculation on reconstruction would be fine. It is the "Lincoln as a leftish icon" that I think is too far ahead. Admittedly, I also feel that turning him into a leftish icon and generally leftist interpretation of war and/or reconstruction are thrown around without caution. Like as a leftist I can understand that desire, but is it really warranted ? To some degree yes, but I would advise caution here.
i agree with this , I did contribute to this myself so I will refrain from doing so and going more off topic, “ Marxist Lincolnite Thought” was a joke I thought was funny to be fair though lol

I’m very interested to see what his legacy ends up being and how complicated it is
 
i agree with this , I did contribute to this myself so I will refrain from doing so and going more off topic, “ Marxist Lincolnite Thought” was a joke I thought was funny to be fair though lol

I’m very interested to see what his legacy ends up being and how complicated it is.
It was a little funny, that I will admit. As for Licoln's legacy, I'm interested too, but as noted it is too early to tell. When we get to Reconstruction, then we are going to have something to base are discussion on.
 
It was a little funny, that I will admit. As for Licoln's legacy, I'm interested too, but as noted it is too early to tell. When we get to Reconstruction, then we are going to have something to base are discussion on.
This is true . Until then I’ll ponder if my ancestors still managed to not get killed by Champ Ferguson in this timeline as well lol
 
Welp. The South and its Slavocracy are doomed.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll kick back, relax and smugly snack Popcorn while watching Uncle Billy light up the Fireworks.
 
Last edited:
Considering that I doubt Rutherford Hayes would become President ITTL, a minor yet still prominent repercussion for Latin America would be that Paraguay would be even smaller ITTL with how, IIRC, his diplomatic actions are a major reason why Paraguay still exists after the War of the Triple Alliance (which has made him somewhat of a hero to Paraguayans):
 
Considering that I doubt Rutherford Hayes would become President ITTL, a minor yet still prominent repercussion for Latin America would be that Paraguay would be even smaller ITTL with how, IIRC, his diplomatic actions are a major reason why Paraguay still exists after the War of the Triple Alliance (which has made him somewhat of a hero to Paraguayans):
Forget about being minor, it wouldn't even exist in the first place because the original plan of the Argentinians and Brazilians was to simply carve up the two between them... Which would've led into more frontier for them to argue about which would lead into another war where, if we're being honest, would see Brazil trounce them given they were the ones with the experienced armies who had chased after Solano Lopez for 4 years, meaning Brazil would get all the former territory that was Paraguay as well as other territories from Argentina.
 
I should note that speculation on reconstruction would be fine. It is the "Lincoln as a leftish icon" that I think is too far ahead. Admittedly, I also feel that turning him into a leftish icon and generally leftist interpretation of war and/or reconstruction are thrown around without caution. Like as a leftist I can understand that desire, but is it really warranted ? To some degree yes, but I would advise caution here.
I mean, even IOTL Lincoln has been regarded as a leftist icon in certain circles at certain times, and there have definitely been leftist interpretations of the Civil War and reconstruction (mostly because there have been leftist interpretations of pretty much every historical event). I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this might also be true ITTL, although of course the actual degree to which these interpretations are true and popular (not necessarily the same thing, naturally) remains to be seen.
 
I mean, even IOTL Lincoln has been regarded as a leftist icon in certain circles at certain times, and there have definitely been leftist interpretations of the Civil War and reconstruction (mostly because there have been leftist interpretations of pretty much every historical event). I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this might also be true ITTL, although of course the actual degree to which these interpretations are true and popular (not necessarily the same thing, naturally) remains to be seen.
That is actually a good point.
 
Considering that I doubt Rutherford Hayes would become President ITTL, a minor yet still prominent repercussion for Latin America would be that Paraguay would be even smaller ITTL with how, IIRC, his diplomatic actions are a major reason why Paraguay still exists after the War of the Triple Alliance (which has made him somewhat of a hero to Paraguayans):
I mean, maybe, but there's certainly a chance that whoever is President at that point then might still interceed.
 
Well, it was either Little Orphan Ani or Darth Malak from KOTOR.
I'm afraid my knowledge of Star Wars is limited to knowing Darth Vader is Luke's father.

Old Rosey isn't the worst choice but he's not fighting an outmatched martinet like Bragg in Kirby Smith, I sure hope he brings Julius Garesche or somebody like him, a steadying influence. Rosecrans did have the tendency to panic and issue unnecessary orders during the heat of battle, if Kirby Smith can exploit that, I think the Trans-Mississippi will be a no-go zone for Union forces unless someone like Thomas, Sheridan, or A.J. Smith were to take charge.
Rosecrans is, funnily enough, something of a folk hero for the events where he got lost in Texas. We'll see how he fares against Kirby Smith.

It'll not be surprising to see a single outburst of violence in the beginning like how the Indian Partition happened, however.
I am envisioning something violent indeed, but I don't know enough about the Indian Partition to draw any direct parallels or inspiration from it.

Even if the most realistic outcome would be the "unmarked mass grave due to the chaos of the final months of the war".

On that note, I imagine a lot of those who are fighting for the Confederacy would be fighting not so much out of ideological fervor but out of sheer inertia at this point, especially with the mess the Confederacy has become at this point and all that.

On that end, I'd say it was more of a double-edged sword in how, on one hand, the formal surrender did take away the winds out of any large-scale insurgency (at least for the first few months after the war's end) but on the other hand, what you mentioned was not good in the long term.
Yeah, there's a lot of simple inertia. It's like, truly, what are you going to do except try and live until the whole thing comes crashing down?

Continuous trouble with guerrillas will indeed be nasty, but it'll draw a direct line between them and Klan terrorists and thus make it very hard for Northerners to ignore them.

I see the Soviet Union actually happening yes the usa is more left here but you are not going to change what happens in Europe and how Germany changed the world or put Lenin back in russia
You're getting way ahead. Who says I'm not going to change what happens in Europe? At the very least, I believe it's both more logical and interesting for something to change there.

Something tells me that General Grant was rather surprised when General Longstreet approached his Army with only at most a dozen other people and surrendered to him...then he found out about the Coup and probably went "What the hell?"
Yeah, the way things moved around those October weeks must have been a completely crazy ride for everyone. Lee's death, the Coup, Breckinridge's execution, all taking place quickly one after the other.

thoughts on the chapter :

a people should know when they’re conquered.
It’s going to be a charnel house

And I’m wondering : you mentioned Hunter/Ewing going scorched earth in Missouri in earlier chapters. How has the situation developed there?
We were actually going to visit Missouri in the next chapter!

We need a chapter just of Longstreet's surrender and his meeting with Grant.
That's a good idea for a side-story.

On that note, I imagine that European historians would lean more towards ending the war when the Trans-Mississippi is defeated/forced to surrender, marking the destruction of the conventional armies of the Confederacy, whereas American historians would probably lean towards what you mentioned about the crushing of the final die-hards who go full brigand mode.

On that note, another Nazi Germany parallel you could draw upon would be how the Nazis very much turned their fury on those people who realized that it was all over and it was for the best to surrender or desert with local officials who try to surrender their counties/towns/cities to the Union often finding themselves on the wrong end of a firing squad or gallows and punishments for desertion increasingly being, you've guessed it, firing squads or short drop hanging.
I mean, for all intents and purposes they are already doing so to a degree, sowing terror within Unionist/Dissident communities that resist the draft and impressment. Things will get worse, however.

Right, I doubt that the Union would be too focused on a backwater with the Eastern Confederacy on the backfoot. I found it funny that he told a Union officer sent to negotiate his surrender that his Army of Trans-Mississippi remained "strong, fresh, and well-equipped" - only for the army to desert him entirely just 2 weeks later. Of course, the question remains as to whether or not the Southerners desert or not ITTL. There are sure to be a lot more dead-enders but apparently the remnant Trans-Mississippi economy had basically collapsed by January 1865, with a Federal officer noting that "No squad of men... can live anywhere we have been. The people have neither seed, corn, nor bread, or the mills to grind the corn in if they had it."

It might be enough to be a meme ITTL.
Get stuck with crippled army->fight Grant & Sherman->lose Meridian->get one W at Marietta->fat Ls from Tupelo to Atlanta
->propose black troops->flops -> your government collapses because of it ->your men hate you now -> guess I'll die

I'm sure there will be some people who take pity on him on an ITTL alternate history forum to give him command over the Army of Tennessee over Cheatham.

Hmm, I could definitely see this happening, where blacks from less successfully Reconstructed states move over to more successful ones and whites the other way. Could lead to some solid blocs for certain parties and less friendly interactions between certain state on the level of Missouri-Kansas. Speaking of which, anyone have a clue where Reconstruction might thoroughly succeed and where it might not? My guess is that the Carolinas, Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee will work out while Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky are less successful.
Yeah, at the end Kirby Smith probably will find himself with what's little more than a small guerrilla band. Even the most committed dead-ender can't fight without food.

Curiously enough, Cleburne's back luck and unfortunate end could make him a more well-known and more sympathetic figure. Like, "did you know this General who wanted to free Black people?" ignoring how he didn't want that out of altruism and envisioned them remaining as serfs.

Reconstruction can probably succeed in Black majority states such as South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, and states with substantial White Unionist populations like Tennessee and North Carolina. It's basically doomed in Texas and Kentucky, and it's hard to see much initial success in Louisiana (always a clusterfuck) or Virginia.

Only now I remembered learning about this "old-timey" expression. I think you should have used author's notes here, especially when it is used by a notorious racist, so one can actually reasonable assume it is used as a racist insult :)
Eh, author notes can be sometimes distracting as a reader, and annoying to implement as a writer. Major things I tend to clarify in later posts, and I'm not really concerned by small things like this one.

I'm reminded of a bit from Judas and the Black Messiah when Fred Hampton and the Black Panthers meet with the southerners. "What if the overseer had banded with the slaves and cut the master's throat?"

It could be interesting to see pockets of class unity between former slaves and poor "white trash" based upon a shared experience of struggle against the planters, a struggle that is almost certainly literal. I know this is somewhat already implied, but this is coming to my mind more and more. It could be interesting to see if some poor white southerners soon find more opportunities with the former slaves than they did in the old system, becoming allies with the new free black communities of the south.
Yes, something like that. There are hints of that already, but we'll see solidarity, if only out of survival, appear in many Southern communities as the situation turns desperate.

The more likely follow up:
Longstreet grumbles: “Fine…”
Grant rummages through his baggage and pulls out a pack of cards: “So, Pete, wanna play a game of brag?”
Longstreet: “Do I, Sam!?”

More seriously, when Grant met Longstreet at Appomattox, his first instinct was to ask Longstreet to play a game of cards with him (which Grant was apparently quite bad at). Longstreet was so moved by the act that he wrote: “Great God! I thought to myself, how my heart swells out to such magnanimous touch of humanity. Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?”
I did plan on including a scene of Grant inviting Longstreet to play cards, using that same quote, but I couldn't find where to put it, and the idea of writing the whole scene now seems more appealing.

Thanks, recovery is slow but going well.

I think everyone has their own idea of how long streets surrender goes, we have an outline so it is probably easiest to just have some sort of fanfiction about it. :) his surrendered to colored Troops doesn't seem that odd, though. He could easily see them first, and decide that he may as well surrender to them because he might make himself look better in the eyes of the north. He will know what propaganda is and realize that it doesn't mean that he's going to be shot by the north if he goes, so I can see him waving the white flag, and then asking them to take him to Grant himself.

Then, Grant sits down with him in his tent, and Longstreet makes some comment about how he just felt it would look better if he accepted that he could still have honor and yet surrender to a black man. Grant would then tell him that, if he really wanted to get with the program that the Union had, with certain... stipulations being accepted by Longstreet, that his old friend might be able to make himself useful as more than just a prisoner.

In other words, Grant would hint at what Longstreet would need to do to avoid a lengthy sentence, and at the end he would remark that Longstreet had actually done the hardest part already in accepting that he had lost and to whom. " from the sounds of it, james, many of you rascals will never even accept surrender, let alone equality. Because with what we are doing, perhaps they realize that it is inevitable." With Longstreet eventually going on to realize that he should accept the inevitable and fight for the rights of the former slaves.

I wonder what the youngest Soldier will be. The Nazis, continuing with the theme of Downfall parallels, had some as young as their early teens, I don't know if they had any preteens, but there might well be some who are at least trying to guard prisoners as young as 12 or 13.
How are you doing now? Again, wish you a speedy recovery!

Grant probably wouldn't dare require anything more than an oath of allegiance in exchange for protection from the Confederates. Stuff like offering immunity from prosecution in exchange of fundamentally political declarations would be probably regarded as something for the civil authorities to decide instead of the military commanders. And, unfortunately, we will see children conscripted indeed.

The Fusionists and populists in the south had some success in building bridges between the two. Racial harmony wasn’t going to suddenly happen but the experience of “we both know what it’s like for the planters to steal a child” as a guerrilla said in the “somewhere in Georgia” side story, is something to build on
And we will build upon that ;)

Maybe, but I'd like to think that someone would realize that was maybe, like, super morbid. On the one hand, especially because Brooks apparently died less than a year afterwards, Sumner may very well still have some enmity towards him, but...he got sick and pretty suddenly and unexpectedly died. I could easily see Sumner being like "Well, I guess that settles what God thought of the whole thing" and moved on with his life. Even if 7 years is enough for a head to decompose into a clean skull and/or any Union soldiers digging him up cleaned it before mailing it, I think most people don't want to random get mailed the human skull of even their worst enemy, much less someone they quite possibly had moved on from.

On the other hand, with peer pressure and groupthink and all that, it's very possible that cooler heads don't prevail, and be an interesting way to showcase the vindictiveness many Union soldiers feel towards Confederates/Planters/Slavers. (After all, if, from a Union soldier's P.O.V., the war's already been won and it's just a matter of time (which, well, it is, but don't tell the CSA soldiers that) they'd probably feel pretty upset towards the dead-enders who tricked soldiers into still fighting, getting both some of his buddies killed, maimed, or injured, as well as forcing him and his to keep on fighting and all that...as well as possibly also being upset at having to kill poor whites who're "just misguided," since even if you've dehumanized them and disassociated from killing them, you can still be upset that you had to when it was pointless.



I think Longstreet was still pretty white supremacist, even after he was reconstructed. I wonder if his experience in captivity will change that at all (for example, IIRC, Sherman became a stronger advocate for Civil/Black rights towards the end of his life, even as the winding down/end of Reconstruction made it "unfashionable," at least in part to his experiences with the Buffalo Soldiers while he was out West. And doing some pretty hainious shit to Native Americans, unfortunately. "Sherman did nothing wrong" is only an acceptable statement when talking before 1866. He did/ordered plenty of extremely fucked up shit, unfortunately. Though while I'm thinking about it, did the greater intensity/more radical nature of the war butterfly whichever massacre some jackass piece of shit in the Calvary ordered in like 1863? I can't remember any names, but I do remember that supposedly their leader took the American flag they'd been given and was running in from on them waving it around to try and say "hey we're friendly, stop killing us, including women and children, indiscriminately." I think I read about it in a Reddit post or some shit, so take this with a grain of salt, but allegedly it radicalized people like Sitting Bull and spurred a lot of the armed resistance against the U.S. (which my understanding of is that, while pretty understandable, what with the U.S. just ignoring treaties it had made, it generally lead to both relatively innocent white settlers getting killed, and a lot of innocent Native Americans getting killed in retaliation, and because of the sheer population imbalance, still ended up with them being forced onto reservations and really shitty conditions, just with (significantly) fewer, and heavily traumatized, people. In other words, it was largely pointless and at best didn't change anything and more often made things even worse for Native Americans.), and so at least partially avoiding that would be awesome.

Even if we're still stuck with so much racism against Native Americans because "Black people have been civilized by us which is why they can be our equals, unlike those savages" (though if that sort of thinking become predominate in the U.S. over the pseudoscientific horseshit we got IRL like Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and all the other stuff used to create and support the "White Man's Burden" shit to justify colonization of Africa and Asia, I do think that the U.S.'s brand of Imperialism will be less absolute dogshit for its victims. If the U.S. even partially rejects stuff that says that Africans and Asians are genetically inferior to Europeans (and that even among Europeans, the farther south or east you go the more inferior they get—see treatment of (largely southern and Scilican) Italian and Slavic + Hungarian immigrants), and instead holds the position that they're culturally inferior, I think that would lead to significantly more pressure for America to "walk the walk" for its Imperialist adventures than Europeans (who used basically that exact same line: "we coming here to Civilize them"), because if it's not doing any stuff we might call nation building today—building schools and hospitals and setting up democratic stuff (while also exploiting the shit out of the natural resources of the country and leveraging the power imbalance to sell its industrial goods instead of letting it start its own domestic industries—Imperialism is bad plain and simple) and the like, then people are probably gonna ask what the U.S. is doing over there. Also, since we're getting a much more successful reconstruction, we're probably going to see at least some Black involvement in that (there is SO MUCH precedent for formerly oppressed groups happily becoming the oppressors, after all), and since at least some of them will fully subscribe to "we're African-Americans, and that's why we're better than you" I can't help but imagine any business ventures and colonial Bureaucrats involving them will have more...kinda-sorta-just-a-little symbiotic relationships in mind? You know, the son of former slaves sets up a coffee or banana or fruit or rubber plantation and treats the workers like shit, managing to be oblivious to the irony, but who also builds a school, a church, and maybe a hospital or whatever. (Obviously in this hypothetical it'd be best if this person actually did realize the irony, and so then do stuff like, you know, pay them decently, give them half-decent working conditions and treatment, make sure they have decent housing and sanitation, etc. etc. but I think those cases would, unfortunately, be pretty rare.) I guess I think it'd be less likely for a Black person to just use that as a veneer and be at least a little invested in also improving their quality of life, even in a paternalistic way uncomfortably reminiscent of the slaver's viewing of their very own parents.

In essence, I think, if the viewpoint is that "Black people [former slaves] deserve equal rights because they've been Americanized and they aren't inherently inferior to white people" is a common viewpoint in the U.S., there will be a greater expectation of the public to hear about railroads, schools, churches, etc. wherever America has Imperialistic adventures, as well as some of the people involved either on the business side or the administrative side actually giving a shit about the natives, even if it's in a paternalistic "American culture and ideals are the best, and I'm going to show you why" sort of way that's still secondary to profits.

It'll still be bad. It may very well still be really bad in the Philippines (unfortunately common Teddy foreign policy L). Imperialism is inherently exploitative and is bad, and the repeated conversations of "well x country's imperialism was/would've been less horrible than y country's are kinda stupid. I just feel the need to say all that, I guess, because I feel like this America's brand of Imperialism, if we ever get that far, will be relatively unique, and its shit sandwich for the native will come with a side of "investment in the country besides what is necessary for the exploitative extraction of natural resources" which I imagine will, again, largely be in the form of schools, churches, and hospitals. Not just a few metaphorical crumbs of that from missionaries and charities, but like a quarter of a serving.


Makes me wonder what Marx will think of it all, and how it might influence his writings (especially since, you know, he was actually frickin' pen pals with Lincoln, or so I've read).


Texas and Louisiana I can see, but I'm more confident in Kentucky. The animosity towards the rest of the South/CSA and the competing narratives about Breckenridge makes me think that poor whites from Kentucky will be much more hostile to any Klan (if only because its founders/leaders are former planters and the like) and more likely to accept Reconstruction out of spite (especially if whoever's overseeing it is savvy enough to let it also benefit poor whites and leans into, like, "I try and ask myself what Breck would want me to do. Then I'd have to remind him that he has to help the whites and the Negros of Kentucky, and his answer doesn't change." [Basically, all the stuff the different Bureaus are doing to help set up the freedmen, help the poor in Kentucky. Breckenridge neither racist nor spiteful enough to ever do less stuff, hurting white people, because Black people would also benefit from it, and playing this up "we're helping you, like Johnny Breck wanted to, and we're also helping freedmen, which he would've been OK with if us helping you was conditional, so let us help all y'all".) IDK, maybe I have too much faith in humanity.
Regarding the idea of sending a skull to Summer... I find it just too morbid and mean spirited. I include violence as an unavoidable consequence of the war and as a reflection of historic atrocities. Not because I find it fun or amusing. So I won't go out of my way to include details like that.

I will say that you and I share many opinions regarding imperialism. Especially a fundamental adversion to saying some colonizer is "better" than another, but at the same time a recognition that the character and ostensible aims of American imperialism ITTL will change, never forgetting that "they built roads and hospitals!" is no justification either. It'll be a complex thing to grapple with...

Kentucky may end up feeling like an "orphan" state too. Like, where do they belong? They were never part of the CSA and their favorite man was killed by the slavers, but at the same time they grew to despise the Union which basically took over in the last year of the war. Reconstruction's prospects are dim, with strong racism plus few true Unionists and a small Black population resulting in staunch resistance to change. But at the same time they may prove resistant to the Lost Cause and pro-Confederate apologia given Breckinridge's fate.

I like this idea, it feels like a good way to help build the Clean Confederate Myth that has been stated as the replacement for OTL's Lost Cause Myth. Who could we see taking this tact and also be put in a position of authority in Kentucky? On this note. I've heard people trying to see how Lee's legacy might be weaponized against the slavers, I don't think that's going to happen. I think what's more likely to happen is that the broader populace (poor whites) are going to rally around the Myth of Father John and his Clean Confederates while dead enders and planters are going to hold up the Myth of Ole' Marse Lee as the pinnacle of southern aristocracy. In the same way that Breck is going to be cut slack post war, Lee is going to become demonized in time. Obviously both men are more complicated, but that feels like the most likely outcome in the popular understanding of the war.


I'm just hoping Chivington gets crushed by a Confederate horse sitting on him, accidentally shoots himself or drowns in a latrine. It would be the one time this entire TL I'd be rooting for the Confederacy. The guy had a spotty record regarding treatment of prisoners OTL during the war, but it got swept under the rug due to the general air of wanting to move on from the war. Sand Creek was in many ways only possible because of his personal animus against the Native population.
Lee will probably become an extremely controversial character. Who do you believe? The Breckinridgites who swear up and down that Lee was loyal to Breckinridge and would have accept an honorable peace? Or the Juntists who think Lee would have never accepted surrender and would have overthrown Breckinridge himself? I believe Lee's reputation was grand enough that an attempt to rehabilitate him and insist that he was also a "Good Confederate" would be made, and find some success because after all it's hard to link Lee to the Junta when he was, you know, dead when they took power, and due to his genuine friendship with Breckinridge. He'd be basically the Rommel to Breckinridge's Speer. And like Rommel and Speer they would both become less popular with time.

Marx had a high opinion of Lincoln and did write him a letter, Lincoln didn't personally respond but IIRC someone from the State Department did send a positive letter back in Lincoln's stead. Lincoln was a lot less radical than Marx, but I could see him having a broadly positive opinion of him if Marx continues to write nice things about America like he did OTL.
That "Lincoln and Marx were pen-pals" has always been exaggerated a lot, imo... Still, Marx ought to be thrilled about what's going on in the US.

Makes me wonder if future communist states couldn't base some of their land reforms either partially or fully on the way the USA is doing here, especially when it comes to keep peace between different ethnic groups in diverse nations.
I can see something like that.

I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves, guys.
Always. It usually doesn't bother me, though.

This is the correct take, I feel.

We're about to enter into an age of politics that will be shepherded in by big business interests coming out of the North. In many ways, as the American public relies on governmental and private interests to rebuild the country after an even more devastating war, the Gilded Age might be worse than OTL. The sentiment isn't going to be conciliatory, especially if Washington is viewed as being bought by and/or corrupted by such people and organizations. TTL's events will prove to many that while electoral politics can be good, it sometimes simply isn't enough to correct injustice where it may exist. It's the double-edged sword of any timeline whose outcome is a far more radical civil war. The seismic shift in political thought that this is going to bring about, which we can see the effects of even now, can't be understated.

Conflicts between private companies and labor are going to be much more volatile than IOTL (and that's saying something) because the sentiment is surely going to become that while getting rid of the slavers was a good thing that the job has been left unfinished.
Labor will be the next great battle. As you note, people will say "if destroying the Southern aristocracy was the right thing to do, why aren't we destroying the Northern aristocracy too? If destroying chattel slavery was right, why aren't we destroying wage slavery?" There is a direct line between Radicalism and Socialism, with radicals like Wade and Butler coming to support labor causes. And greater enfranchisement and power for a fundamentally working class demographic like Black people can only result in a left-ward shift that's going to make many Republicans uncomfortable.

The fall of slavery showed that the use of state power/force, to redistribute property and emancipate the oppressed showed a way of dealing with an oppressive economic system. For all my support of capitalism, intellectual honesty compells me to admit that labor relations at the time were bad, as were working conditions.

It is fairly reasonable to assume that poorly treated factory workers will draw comparison to the slavocrat planters of the Antebellum South. And decide to follow the precedent established to achieve their aims.

Labor unrest and violence will skyrocket.
Indeed, especially because it's easy to cheer on this expanded State power when it's used against the slavers, but it can easily be used against labor too. Remember, these laws and organizations like the gendarmerie allow for the use of force against anyone who resists the authority of the United States - and a strike is certainly resisting, isn't it?

especially int the south where the ruling classes and their means of controlling the lower classes are being dismantled plus you have a lot more partisan actions.
Yeah. The overthrow of the old ruling class opens a vacuum in which all sorts of factions want to step in. The Northerners want the new ruling class to be free labor capitalists, but will the common folk stand by that?

In other news the ocean is wet. The way sidebar speculations spiral on this thread we'll max out at 500 pages before Reconstruction begins in earnest.
By my count there's only 4 updates left before Reconstruction, and I was thinking of creating a new thread for that. So we may yet finish the TL (first part) here :)

I should note that speculation on reconstruction would be fine. It is the "Lincoln as a leftish icon" that I think is too far ahead. Admittedly, I also feel that turning him into a leftish icon and generally leftist interpretation of war and/or reconstruction are thrown around without caution. Like as a leftist I can understand that desire, but is it really warranted ? To some degree yes, but I would advise caution here.
At this point I can say with some confidence that there will be a lot of love for "Comrade Lincoln" within some circles ITTL. Similarly to how the popular conception of Lincoln is the "man who freed the slaves" IOTL, the popular conception here would be "the man who freed the slaves, destroyed the planters, and remade the South." Nuances and blemishes would be lost and leftist would just look at a guy who destroyed a parasitic ruling class through a revolutionary process that radically redistributed the means of production.

This is true . Until then I’ll ponder if my ancestors still managed to not get killed by Champ Ferguson in this timeline as well lol
yeah I have an ancestor or too that deserted from the confederate army they had to hide, I do wonder if they make it or not.
You know what, you're both butterflied. It's canon that your ancestors explicitly died.

Welp. The South and its Slavocracy are doomed.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll kick back, relax and smugly snack Popcorn while watching Uncle Billy light up the Fireworks.
Next chapter is bound to be cathartic for all of us!

Considering that I doubt Rutherford Hayes would become President ITTL, a minor yet still prominent repercussion for Latin America would be that Paraguay would be even smaller ITTL with how, IIRC, his diplomatic actions are a major reason why Paraguay still exists after the War of the Triple Alliance (which has made him somewhat of a hero to Paraguayans):
But I don't want Paraguay to disappear :(

I mean, even IOTL Lincoln has been regarded as a leftist icon in certain circles at certain times, and there have definitely been leftist interpretations of the Civil War and reconstruction (mostly because there have been leftist interpretations of pretty much every historical event). I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this might also be true ITTL, although of course the actual degree to which these interpretations are true and popular (not necessarily the same thing, naturally) remains to be seen.
Yeah, that's the thing. I believe we can already speculate regarding Lincoln's reputation. For better or worse the aftermath of wars is often ignored in favor of the war itself, so Lincoln in popular culture is likely to only take into account his war-time record. And that looks very attractive to leftists. Now, the TL will of course explore what actually "happened" later on, but my Reconstruction is probably going to take a much less prominent role in popular culture ITTL than my Civil War.
 
But I don't want Paraguay to disappear :(
Well, Paraguay could still be around in a truncated form, even if it very much would be a shadow of its OTL form and stripped of 60% of its OTL territory, but yeah, the unexpected reprecussions of this TL outside the US like what we've discussed about Paraguay are interesting to ponder.
Uh, the VMI Cadetes, probably? Or some other kind of hastily assembled militia using children pressed into service on that moment.
On that note, what would be a good equivalent to how the Volkssturm were often equipped with captured foreign weapons or WW1 rifles (or their Japanese equivalent using bamboo spears) could be how the last Confederate troops were often armed with smoothbore muskets or even pikes (this was an actual OTL Confederate proposal)
Yeah, at the end Kirby Smith probably will find himself with what's little more than a small guerrilla band. Even the most committed dead-ender can't fight without food.
That of course assumes he doesn't flee to Mexico like what he did IOTL, with exile very much a common fate for dead-enders who nonetheless recognize the war as lost but still refuse to submit to the Union
Regarding the idea of sending a skull to Summer... I find it just too morbid and mean spirited. I include violence as an unavoidable consequence of the war and as a reflection of historic atrocities. Not because I find it fun or amusing. So I won't go out of my way to include details like that.
On that note, the idea could be around ITTL as a popular myth, even if that won't really happen here.
 
A scene which I imagine will be more common as the war drags on will be white, poor Southerners who deserted or refused conscription, hanged besides runaway slaves, and both families mourning right next to each other.
 
At this point I can say with some confidence that there will be a lot of love for "Comrade Lincoln" within some circles ITTL. Similarly to how the popular conception of Lincoln is the "man who freed the slaves" IOTL, the popular conception here would be "the man who freed the slaves, destroyed the planters, and remade the South." Nuances and blemishes would be lost and leftist would just look at a guy who destroyed a parasitic ruling class through a revolutionary process that radically redistributed the means of production.
On this - it's my personal belief, with I think some historical grounding, that some of the tailspin, fragmentation and infighting that plagued the revolutionary left between Napoleon and 1917 was in no small part due to the sheer lack of successful models to point to even as symbolic inspiration after the fall of the Jacobins (and even then their success is a very very qualified success). With Lincoln's administration being both unquestionably revolutionary in nature - if accidentally so - and unquestionably successful under the most strenuous of examinations, I expect "Lincolnism" to be a powerful if conveniently ill-defined force that could well dominate radical left circles in the coming generations. If nothing else I expect the idea that revolutionary progress is waged through the electoral capture of existing regimes and imposed from above by government law, rather than from below by popular uprising, to be very popular.
 
On this - it's my personal belief, with I think some historical grounding, that some of the tailspin, fragmentation and infighting that plagued the revolutionary left between Napoleon and 1917 was in no small part due to the sheer lack of successful models to point to even as symbolic inspiration after the fall of the Jacobins (and even then their success is a very very qualified success). With Lincoln's administration being both unquestionably revolutionary in nature - if accidentally so - and unquestionably successful under the most strenuous of examinations, I expect "Lincolnism" to be a powerful if conveniently ill-defined force that could well dominate radical left circles in the coming generations. If nothing else I expect the idea that revolutionary progress is waged through the electoral capture of existing regimes and imposed from above by government law, rather than from below by popular uprising, to be very popular.
On that note, the reformist left/social democrats could view Lincoln as a role model for how a reformist movement should advocate peaceful reforms whenever possible but at the same time be prepared to defend their gains from the forces of reaction.
 
What would be TTL's Confederate equivalent to OTL's 12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend"?
Confederate Congress created the Junior Reserves, a formation of 17-18 year old boys meant to take over rear-area duties. However, towards the end, they were put up to front-line duty as seen in North Carolina. It should be noted that the Junior Reserves seemed to suffer a higher attrition rate than normal, with historian Wade Sokolosky noting that a careful examination showed greater % of sickness and desertion. It is unclear as to why they suffered more from ill health than their older comrades (I'm not a doctor) but it could be a mixture of poor administration and leadership or a lack of nutrition from limited rations.

There was also a more prolific case of boys being used in combat - namely the VMI at New Market as Red_Galiray mentioned and the Georgia militia at Griswoldville. Sherman's troops shot the charging militiamen down en masse and it was not until the fight was over that they found that they had killed old men and young boys, with one wishing they would never fight again.

One of the most WTF quotes I found in the Collapse of the Confederacy was a quote by a newspaper, the Richmond Dispatch, urging Confederate parents to send their boys to the army: "If a Confederate parent now wishes to teach his son the way to live, and the way to die, let him send him... to the bronzed and battle-scarred veterans in the front." This was written without irony.

But I don't want Paraguay to disappear :(
I mean, Rutherford B. Hayes could still be a major politician, maybe rising to Secretary of State? He did serve as a general, like in the Valley now, and was prone to waving the bloody shirt, which should be more effective ITTL.
 
Top