Which is what essentially actually did happen de facto, might I add.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Which is what essentially actually did happen de facto, might I add.
@Specialist290 - Yeah, and a legitimate discussion could be had over how it was better and/or worse than actual slavery. I regret that troops were withdrawn, Reconstruction ended and four million people abandoned to de facto tyranny... but given that Northerners had little more affection for African-Americans than Southerners, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Still... I regret.
I suppose then, Director, you will be very much enthralled, pleased, and outraged with what Reconstruction in this timeline will look like!
I can only imagine how intense the work on Reconstruction is going to be!
I have actually seen The Birth of a Nation in its entirety. I have a masters in film studies and D. W. Griffith's movie is absolutely pivotal to understanding the development of cinema and cinematic language as we know it. Actually seeing it, especially for someone who didn't grow up with any particular knowledge of the American Civil War except via pop cultural osmosis, was a surreal and distressing experience - I've never been able to view the 'heroic cavalry charge' in movies in quite the same way again...
I have actually seen The Birth of a Nation in its entirety. I have a masters in film studies and D. W. Griffith's movie is absolutely pivotal to understanding the development of cinema and cinematic language as we know it. Actually seeing it, especially for someone who didn't grow up with any particular knowledge of the American Civil War except via pop cultural osmosis, was a surreal and distressing experience - I've never been able to view the 'heroic cavalry charge' in movies in quite the same way again...
Seeing that this AAR has a heavy emphasis on cultural history, I think we'll be seeing DW Griffith's film pop up at some far later date in this AAR, if I get to that time period that is!
I remember a long long time ago, when I was younger, AMC (American Movie Classics) once showed back to back airings of the film (way late at night/early morning). I fancy, given the current climate of things in the U.S., that would never happen again regardless of its importance to revolutionizing film, or the fact that the film itself is preserved in the national archives of the National Film Registry.
I am really enjoying your coverage of the politics of the Civil War. The different factions in the North and South...some of which I have heard of (like the Copperheads) and others I have not (like the Tory Unionists)...have not really been covered in what I have seen and read about the Civil War. I am glad to see you are making up for that deficit of knowledge, volksmarschall.
Is this the same thing as "American Exceptionalism"? Or something different?
What?
Like mine?
Is this the same thing as "American Exceptionalism"? Or something different?
What?
Like mine?
Last edited:
I am really enjoying your coverage of the politics of the Civil War. The different factions in the North and South...some of which I have heard of (like the Copperheads) and others I have not (like the Tory Unionists)...have not really been covered in what I have seen and read about the Civil War. I am glad to see you are making up for that deficit of knowledge, volksmarschall.
Why thank you Nathan! There's so much more to the politics of the ACW than the usual coverage, and more to the CW than just the battles and generals and 'usual suspects.' It truly reflects my motto of AAR-ing regarding the historical games (though I do love the fun of Stellaris, but obviously if I did an AAR there, no historicity...) of bringing in actual history (often neglected histories) to us since most people on the forum probably have some attachment to the historical in some form or another. Others of us, in various ways, live and work in the field.
Pretty much. Even the famous "Model of Christian Charity" sermon by Winthrop didn't become well-known and mass distributed until the 19th century, then was mass produced and redistributed during the Civil War in the north, esp. New England, for very obvious propaganda reasons. Most historians will date the rise of "American Exceptionalism" as we understand the term to the Civil War era, although some have made some very worthwhile points and arguments for turn of the century.
What?
That's a reference to Dante's Inferno. Dante, when he reaches the Ninth Circle of Hell, finds Brutus, Cassius, and Judas (the infamous traitors) frozen in the mouths of Satan. I was making a literary reference and joke that Jefferson Davis, another infamous traitor, could be inserted for his notoriety of treachery.
By the way, volksmarschall, did you know the last Civil War veterans died in the 1950s? Some of the men who are fighting in your version of the Civil War could conceivably still be alive 80-90 years after the war's end.
CHAPTER VIII: The Politics of the Civil War
Politics in the Army of the Potomac
Politics in the Army of the Potomac
Although John C. Fremont was President during the duration of the Civil War, his poor handling off affairs and constant firing of commanding generals in 1861 and into early 1862 was problematic for not only the morale of the Union Army, it also earned him the scorn of the Secretary of War William Clayton. Clayton, a former general and hero to many for his actions in the Mexican Wars and Quebec War, had devised to “Anaconda Plan” to constrict the life forces out of the Confederacy through naval blockade and by seizing the Mississippi River and cutting the Confederacy in half. He also insisted on divisionary attacks in Tennessee while the main Union army, the Army of the Potomac would remain in defense of Washington but also striking distance of Richmond. Clayton’s plan was to constrict the Confederacy and win victory through small engagements while delaying a final showdown for as long as possible. It was the long game, but also one that Clayton felt would save many lives.
Fremont, on the other hand, much like Douglas, was rash and wanted a quick and decisive victory. Life on the frontline was often more difficult. General Coburn, though having seized New Orleans despite the valiant but vain defense of General Jerome Forest, sat in New Orleans rather than press the advantage upward. This caused the movement of the Army of Mississippi to be halted at Crooked Lake, where Confederate forces under Albert Johnston achieved a great victory, another decisive victory akin to First Richmond. Thousands of Union soldiers were dead and captured, and the army retreating back into Missouri. Subsequent Confederate victories at Clinch Mountain and the Cumberland Pass soured the Union war effort. All of this, as mentioned, helped give rise to the Copperhead movement in the north.
Fremont continually pressed his commanders, especially in charge of the Army of the Potomac, to deviate from Clayton’s strategy. Rather than hold back, he ordered them forward. In 1861 alone, five different commanders led the army until George McClellan took command on September 17. Sedgewick, Pope, Hill, and Taylor were all commanders, then relieved. Pope, Hill, and Taylor each managed to serve as overall commander for just a single battle. Their defeats prompted their removal and “exile” to the Westerly front. Mostly to fight the concurrent Dakota War with the uprising of Sioux Indians.
The constant shifting of formal commanders of the army cast distrust and paranoia among generals of the corps of the army too. While brigade commanders were fairly exempt, though not always the case, corps commanders constantly had both the concern of fear of being removed but also the dynamics of political rivalry with other corps commanders in attempting to jockey for promotion and be the next leader of the army. Others sought good relationships with generals expected to be the next in line to command, thereby becoming something of a protected protégé of sorts. This became commonplace when McClellan became commander of the army.
From left to right: Generals Sedgewick, Pope, Hill, and Taylor, the first four major commanders of the Army of the Potomac, who, through inaction or embarrassing defeats, had short stints as commander. Politics was overbearing at time, and this was especially true for Major General Samuel Hill, who did not engage in any major battles, and was relieved for failing to march on Richmond due to his cautious philosophy.
In the midst of turmoil and chaos, and personal animosity between Fremont and Clayton, Vice President Lincoln stepped in. Lincoln, a friend of Clayton, is generally seen as not only a steadying hand for Fremont, but the man who directed and moved much of the war effort behind the scenes by spring of 1862. General McClellan’s Richmond Campaign had started off promising. 60,000 Union soldiers moved down to Roanoke and drew the main Confederate Army of Virginia out to block the path to Richmond. General Michael Banks also achieved a victory at Second Cumberland and threatened Richmond from the West. While Lee placed his faith in Jackson’s 15,000+ men to hold of Banks, Lee took to the offensive. In a series of six battles in 10 days, now remembered as the “10 Days’ Campaign,” there marked a certain promise in the hopes of a sudden Confederate collapse. The first two battles ended in Union victories, though they were nothing more than blistering skirmishes. The third battle, Gaines’s Mill, was far more brutal. A young Union colonel, Francis Barlow, blunted Longstreet’s counter attack that almost broke Fitz John Porter’s corps.
But the sudden and almost disastrous shock stunted McClellan. The other three battles fought over the course of five days were minor skirmishes that were relatively insignificance. But the news of Gaines’s Mill and the lack of action by McClellan won little favor in the eyes of Fremont. President Fremont, enraged, issued an order for McClellan to press westward and take the fight to Lee. McClellan responded, “Mr. President, I command the only army between you and Lee. It would be wise to follow Secretary Clayton’s advice that we shall act as a screen against Lee’s possible advancement on Washington…to suffer defeat in the middle of Virginia would negate all the gains recently won [by Grant] on the Mississippi.”
McClellan, ever beloved by the men and an excellent disciplinarian and driller, was fired and court martialed for insubordination. Seeking revenge on Fremont for ruining what was a promising career—and McClellan had trained and disciplined the Army of the Potomac very well from the days of George Sedgwick and John Pope, whose defeats at First Richmond and Manassas Junction were almost catastrophic to the core—McClellan ran for the Democratic nomination in 1864. Though the war was over, McClellan stood good chances at scoring revenge over his rival, Fremont. But Fremont had been pushed aside by the Republicans for his handling of the Vallandigham Affair. Thus, McClellan’s bid for revenge was spoiled. And with it the Democratic Party’s hope for a quick presidential recovery.
The politics of the Army of the Potomac was something that was necessary to overcome. McClellan, for his brilliance, had other faults—namely his protection of those whom he considered his protégés. Fitz John Porter, for one, was a cautious and competent commander. But his relative inaction at Gaines’s Mill exposed him without McClellan’s oversight and protection. During “Fremont’s Witch Hunt,” which saw McClellan relieved and court martialed on the orders of Fremont himself, the same fate struck Generals Porter, George Morell, and John Buford, the cavalry commander who would later prove instrumental in the Battle of the Valley Pike. All four commanders were eventually reinstated with full honors and ranks, but the damage had been done to McClellan, Porter, and Morell. Buford, due to a lack of senior cavalry officers, was reinstated to his post in time to regain his honor and prestige at Valley Pike. The same could not be said for “McClellan’s Circle.” Porter, a fairly cautious but competent corps commander, had his reputation tarnished. Morell, who testified on behalf of Porter (and himself) doubly ruined his career by defending Porter and McClellan while he was also under court martial. Another 20 colonels and important field officers under McClellan, Porter, Morell, and Buford had their effective careers ruined when they testified in defense of their bosses.
Fremont famously articulated the saying, “If the general [McClellan] will not use his army, I would like to borrow it for a time.” Of course, Fremont’s means of borrowing the army was by replacing the headstrong McClellan with someone more subservient to his own dictates and commands. Yet, Fremont was alienating the officer corps and the army itself. A very bad outcome indeed. The court martial of General McClellan turned much of the Army of the Potomac against Fremont. It didn’t help that this was coinciding with his arrest of Congressman Vallandigham. Secretary Clayton resigned his post in protest. Lincoln, in either a stroke of genius or sheer luck, saved the Administration from total collapse.
For whatever faults McClellan had as a field commander, he was a man who genuinely cared for his men. He was unwilling to throw away lives recklessly and needlessly. Furthermore, the benefit of McClellan’s tenure as general commander of the Army of the Potomac was that he turned it into an effective and disciplined fighting force. While he, and the many officers he chose under him, did not have the aptitude to conduct the war in a victorious manner in the field, his contributions of turning a depressed and defeated army into a solidified fighting force that would stand up to the brunt of Lee’s Army of Virginia was his greatest legacy and contribution.
Major General George B. McClellan, the "Young Napoleon. McClellan was a competent driller and army organizer, who was well-liked among the soldiers and junior officer classes. He did, however, make political enemies, primarily in President Fremont. Fremont constantly ordered McClellan to march on Richmond in an attempt to end the war as quickly as possible, and to succeed where his predecessors had failed. McClellan was cautious, and was scorned for it. Over all, the historiography of McClellan has fluctuated from incompetent officer and politicking general to competent army organizer who was too cautious on the battlefield but nevertheless aided in a tremendous manner to the development of a proper fighting army. McClellan's reputation is, therefore, strongly contested between those historians who see him in a more positive light, and the traditional school that sees him negatively.
“Mr. Lincoln’s War”
Vice President Lincoln quickly exercised power and calm that was not seen in Fremont. In fact, many believe that his presence caused an about turn in Fremont’s “hand’s on” policy to a “hand’s off” policy (though in reality, the hands on control simply passed from Fremont to others). Lincoln also convinced Fremont to extend an offer of command to William Clayton, and had informed Clayton that he would receive an offer to come out of retirement to lead the Union Army of the Potomac. Anti-Lincolnian writers constantly articulate the view that this was Lincoln’s secret plot that ultimately undercut Fremont and led to his presidency by 1864. Regardless of the merits (to which there are little), it is without question that something happened between Lincoln and Fremont after the McClellan court martialing. Clayton, now in command of the army, even extended an olive branch to McClellan, whom Clayton actually greatly admired and believed was the right commander to lead the cautious Virginia Campaign to final fruition in due time. But unlike Jacob and Esau, McClellan turned the offer down and ran for Congress in 1862 instead, winning his seat as a Copperhead Democrat and positioning himself against Fremont.
Lincoln, however, was no angel either. He was, in other ways, equally political. He had driven his friend, William Clayton, to high command. Granted Clayton was an exceptional commander and earned his money by war’s end, the clear politicking is something hard to miss. At the same time Lincoln advocated Fremont for the invasion New Leon, the Confederate territory south of the Rio Grande due to the Mexican Crisis. The usage of some 30,000 soldiers to police what was essentially desert badlands prevent those men from being utilized east of the Mississippi or in the heart of Texas, but it had the intent of warding off against potential incursion from Walker’s troops in Mexico—as well as from stemming the tide of the Mexican migration crisis because of the Mexican Civil War. Furthermore, Lincoln wanted to be “kept in the loop” as it were from Grant, (Nathaniel) Banks, and Clayton, issuing private letters to the three principal commanders that they should message him of their success or failures first, to which Lincoln would then pass it on to Fremont.
Within “Lincoln’s circle” was Secretary of State William Seward, who became one of Lincolns’ closest confidants. When Clayton took command of the Army of the Potomac, Lincoln procured the nomination of Edwin Stanton to replace Clayton as Secretary of War. Likewise, the new Attorney General, Edward Bates, replacing Caleb Smith (an anti-slavery Republican) was chosen to ensure the legality of the eventual Emancipation Proclamation and an ardent “radical” abolitionist. There was a literal cabal in the Fremont Administration that was called “The Lincoln Cabinet” or the “Lincoln Cabal” that itself was made up of an eclectic bunch of politicians with their own interests always at play. These were the real faces behind the war by the summer 1862. And most people knew it, especially the press. Fremont’s power was broken. He was, now, nothing more than a public figurehead. Mismanagement of the war, the Vallandigham Affair, and the McClellan Affair all but ruined Fremont. But Lincoln and his new cabal were not going to let Fremont’s mishandling change the intent of the Union’s war aims.
Ulysses Grant, for one, summed it up best to Nathaniel Banks when the two armies along the Mississippi convened with one another. “It’s Mr. Lincoln’s war now. Whatever liberty he hath granted to us, runs back through him. That which Mr. Lincoln hath granted he can surely take away.” And the Union commanders knew this all too well. It was not long until Grant became a favorite of Lincoln, remaining in the western theater through both hardship and success—winning much fame and reputation in the process.
Grant was right to see the awkward paradox of liberation under Vice President Lincoln, but also a very demanding and short leash, also held by the same man. Certainly any actions that Lincoln could personally object to would give second thoughts to any commander. At the same time, the release of the stress of Fremont playing general from the White House was also a great sigh of release. The generals were freer under Lincoln’s watch than Fremont’s, but they still had a leash to answer to, as Banks found out all too well. Banks was an appointment of Fremont’s, a friend, politician turned general. Banks was, in a way, more competent than Coburn whom he replaced. But in many other ways, was far inferior to Clayton and Grant, and far inferior as general commander than many of the corps commanders under Clayton and Grant. His handling of the Red River Uprising in Louisiana was one of the last shining lights of the Confederacy in 1863, and was later relieved of field command and given a senior position within the War Department.
The Mississippi Valley Campaign, 1860-1863, was one of the three major theaters of war (along with Richmond/Virginia Campaign and the "March Along the Coast" campaign). General Ulysses S. Grant became famous for his resounding success in the campaign, and became a national hero in the process. Over all, the cutting of the Confederacy in two was a major contribution to the "Anaconda Plan" drafted by General Clayton and the eventual victory in the war.
“Mr. Lincoln’s War” was an apt title to invoke the importance of the second half of the war from the Union perspective. Lincoln was also prominently connected to networks within the Republican Party. After the victory at Valley Pike, Lincoln urged for the Emancipation Proclamation which freed all slaves in the territory re-gained by Union forces as a war measure. The irony of this is, while Fremont issued the order and gave a public speech proclaiming its detail, history remembers the man who drafted its idea and pressed for its passage: Lincoln. It also makes sense, given Lincoln’s electoral victory in 1864 and role in the early years of Reconstruction. Today, many historians are very much waging the second aspect of “Mr. Lincoln’s War”—his hagiography. In fact, Lincoln’s hagiography was pushed from the moment the war ended. It is now almost an afterthought to remember the President who began Reconstruction after winning his election in 1864 as also the “president” during the war. He may not have been commander in chief properly speaking, but he was in all but name by June of 1862.
The Emancipation Proclamation, which proclaimed liberty to slaves in the territories re-gained by Union forces, or escaped and runaway slaves who entered Union territory. The legacy and legality of the Emancipation Proclamation was, in theory, resolved with "Radical Reconstruction" after the war. Although proclaimed by President Fremont, the idea was the brainchild of Vice President Abraham Lincoln. Pro-slavery and unreconstructed Southern Democrats were unrelenting in attaching Lincoln's name to the proclamation in an attempt to defame him, and claim that Lincoln was a secret tyrant behind closed doors running a cabal that was not only plotting against the traditions of freedom in the United States, but was even plotting to overthrow President Fremont if given the opportunity.
SUGGESTED READING
Bruce Catton, Mr. Lincoln’s Army, Glory Road, and A Stillness at Appomattox
Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative (in three volumes)
Doris Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
Warren Hassler, Commanders of the Army of the Potomac
James Rawley, The Politics of Union: Northern Politics during the Civil War
Stephen Sears, George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon and Lincoln’s Lieutenants
John Waugh, The Class of 1846: From West Point to Appomattox—Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan and Their Brothers
Bruce Catton, Mr. Lincoln’s Army, Glory Road, and A Stillness at Appomattox
Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative (in three volumes)
Doris Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
Warren Hassler, Commanders of the Army of the Potomac
James Rawley, The Politics of Union: Northern Politics during the Civil War
Stephen Sears, George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon and Lincoln’s Lieutenants
John Waugh, The Class of 1846: From West Point to Appomattox—Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan and Their Brothers
Last edited:
I have not done as much reading about Mr Lincoln as I likely should have done, but in what I have it has struck me that Lincoln possessed a quite particular tenacity. It served him well in our timeline, and it seems to be doing the same in this.
Confess I've never heard of a 'Tory Unionist,' which is surprising for someone who considers himself one.
Where did you get the term from?
Where did you get the term from?
My inner Civil War buff loved this chapter. There's always been something fascinating about the intricate cut-and-thrust of the Union and Confederate armies, as well as the intrigues and backroom deals of the various generals and politicians all struggling to turn the situation to their own advantage, that has always appealed to me ever since I first started studying the period.
The brief mention of William Walker makes me wonder if his regime is going to survive the demise of the Confederacy by any great margin, given the fact that he's going to be a magnet for unreconstructed Confederates and a thorn in the side of any serious attempt to exercise the Monroe Doctrine. Perhaps a quiet deal with the French or the British is in the works, one of those "You scratch my itch and I'll scratch yours" sorts of things...
Furthermore, the tantalizing hint of a more radical Reconstruction makes me wonder if there are going to be any repercussions down the road for tightening the vise -- maybe, in distant decades, we'll see disgruntled Southerners putting the "Red" in "red state"? That would be an interesting twist...
The brief mention of William Walker makes me wonder if his regime is going to survive the demise of the Confederacy by any great margin, given the fact that he's going to be a magnet for unreconstructed Confederates and a thorn in the side of any serious attempt to exercise the Monroe Doctrine. Perhaps a quiet deal with the French or the British is in the works, one of those "You scratch my itch and I'll scratch yours" sorts of things...
Furthermore, the tantalizing hint of a more radical Reconstruction makes me wonder if there are going to be any repercussions down the road for tightening the vise -- maybe, in distant decades, we'll see disgruntled Southerners putting the "Red" in "red state"? That would be an interesting twist...
Looks like you're being bitten by the photobucket bug like so many others have been.
I'm aware of our imagery predicament.
now it's really like reading a straight up history book for the moment. Hahaha
I would highly recommend Doris Goodwin's Team of Rivals, from which the film Lincoln was taken from--if you haven't read that one already. In fact, I'm gonna go back and edit the suggested reading for that, since part of the writing of the new VP Lincoln is taken from that work. Good stuff. Plus, I enjoyed the film too. One of the few historical films I have actually enjoyed.
Confess I've never heard of a 'Tory Unionist,' which is surprising for someone who considers himself one.
Where did you get the term from?
The primary documents and letters. Southern Unionists were often labelled as "Tories" by the secessionist forces. But few histories ever talk about this, or actually refer to Southern Unionists by what secessionists called them by: Tories. The Union forever! (The one and proper union, too, that is!
)Well, I think the next update will wet your beak as to what the rise of the Radicals is gonna be like.
I've always had imgur for the longest time, but my first hosting for AARs was photobucket. Old habits die hard I guess.
Team of Rivals and Shelby Foote's opus is the sum of my serious reading on Lincoln, alas.
Well those aren't bad choices to get knowledge on Lincoln. Although they will appear later in Suggested Reading, David Donald's magisterial Lincoln, and Ronald White Jr.'s A. Lincoln biographies are very wonderful, and they earn my full backing for people who take seriously volksmarschall's recommendations!
I also think Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided is a good read, and a wonderful rebuttal, though dated, to all the anti-Lincoln libertarian B.S. that has propped up over the last ten years. Perhaps you'll look here for other serious biographies and treatments of Lincoln. All three are great books and well-worth the reading for the serious reader.
These days it depends on what I can find in my local library usually - one thing that happened with the advent of daughter is far less buying of books, and especially non-fiction books (for obvious, money-related reasons). Though its history section does have some good books in it - I currently have on loan a general history of the Carribbean, an account of the Merchant Venturer expedition to Russia in the mid-16th century, and an account of the Wellesley vs Massena portion of the Peninsular War.Well those aren't bad choices to get knowledge on Lincoln. Although they will appear later in Suggested Reading, David Donald's magisterial Lincoln, and Ronald White Jr.'s A. Lincoln biographies are very wonderful, and they earn my full backing for people who take seriously volksmarschall's recommendations!
I also think Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided is a good read, and a wonderful rebuttal, though dated, to all the anti-Lincoln libertarian B.S. that has propped up over the last ten years. Perhaps you'll look here for other serious biographies and treatments of Lincoln. All three are great books and well-worth the reading for the serious reader.