The Liberty Bell Rings: The Story of The Free American Commonwealth

[trekfan]

The Free State Compact

Between the States of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

November 5th, 1866

Article I

This association of states shall be called “The Free American Commonwealth”, henceforth referred to as “the Commonwealth”.

Article II

Section I

The members of the House of Delegates shall be appointed by the legislatures of the Commonwealth’s constituent states. In proportion to their populations, New York shall send 25 representatives to the House of Delegates, Pennsylvania shall send 17, Ohio shall send 14, Indiana shall send 7, Illinois shall send 6, New Jersey shall send 4, Michigan shall send 2, Massachusetts shall send 7, Connecticut shall send 3, Vermont shall send 3, New Hampshire shall send 4, Maine shall send 6, Rhode Island shall send 1, Iowa shall send 1, Minnesota shall send 1, and Wisconsin shall send 1.

Section II

The House of Delegates will have the exclusive power to legislate laws pertaining to the entire Commonwealth, while the individual state governments will have the power to govern only within their borders.

Section III

The House of Delegates will have the power to raise taxes on behalf of the Commonwealth in order to ensure the security of the Commonwealth, as well as to make war against threats to the Commonwealth’s sovereignty. The House of Delegates may take any action deemed necessary and proper to ensure the survival of the Commonwealth.

Section IV

Each delegate shall have one vote in all legislative matters, as well as those regarding the ratification of treaties with foreign powers, including the United States of America. A simple majority is needed to pass a measure. Either a delegate or the President of the Commonwealth may present a measure for consideration. Delegates may abstain from a vote if they wish. If a vote ties, the President will cast a tie-breaking vote. The President may never abstain from such a vote.

Section V

The House of Delegates may conduct business so long as at least sixty percent of the delegates are present.

Section VI

The House of Delegates will meet in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 12, 1866, with future meeting times to be determined at the first assembly.

Section VII

Any vacancies in the House of Delegates must be filled by the states as quickly as possible.

Section VIII


Members of the House of Delegates will serve for the entirety of the war with the United States of America, as well as throughout the subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Section IX

The House of Delegates may regulate interstate commerce, so long as such regulation does not unfairly burden any individual state or region.

Article III

Section I

During its first meeting, the House of Delegates shall elect a President of the Commonwealth, in whom the power of the Executive will be placed. This person, once elected, will serve for the entirety of the war with the United States of America, as well as throughout the subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Section II

The House of Delegates may remove the President from office with a vote of no confidence. Such a vote must pass with two-thirds support in the House of Delegates. Should this occur, the House of Delegates shall elect a new President as soon as possible.

Section III

The President must have been a citizen of one of the Commonwealth’s constituent states for at least five years. A delegate to the House may be elected President; however, should this occur he shall resign his seat in the House of Delegates.

Section IV

The President shall be considered the commander-in-chief of the Commonwealth’s armed forces.

Section V

The President shall be considered the chief diplomat of the Commonwealth.

Section VI

The President does not have veto power over legislation passed by the House of Delegates. The President does have veto power over treaties ratified by the House of Delegates.

Article IV

Section I

Seeing as this Compact is a temporary means by which to bind together the aforementioned states, a Constitutional Convention shall be held as soon after the cession of hostilities and the guarantee of the Commonwealth’s independence as is practical, to be determined by the House of Delegates.

Section II

No member of the House of Delegates may also serve as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. The President of the Commonwealth shall serve as the President of the Constitutional Convention.

Article IV

Each state shall afford full faith and credit to the record, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

Article V

Section I

Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited everywhere in the Commonwealth under every circumstance, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section II

Any enslaved person currently within the borders of the Commonwealth is now considered to be free and is under the protection of the Commonwealth, as well as the state in which he finds himself. Any enslaved person who escapes from his master and retreats into the Commonwealth will be considered free, and will be considered to be under the protection of the Commonwealth, as well as the state in which he finds himself.

Article VI

Entrance into the Commonwealth by any other state currently part of the United States of America must be approved by sixty percent of the House of Delegates, as well as the President.

Done at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 5th, 1866.​

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866​

The Annexation of Texas​

The road to the War of Secession is a long and windy one and is subject to much historical debate. At what point did the North’s secession become inevitable? Was it after the House of Representatives undemocratically resolved the Election of 1864, which lead directly to calls for a Constitutional Convention? Was it after the Compromise of 1849, which laid down the foundations of Popular Sovereignty regarding the slavery issue? Was it after the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which failed to solve the issue at the Union’s inception? Was it after the first slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia all the way back in 1619? Or was it never inevitable, and was instead a very avoidable consequence of inept leadership? Historians have been debating these questions since the War of Secession itself. This summary will briefly examine the some of the key events leading to the war. When one endeavors to discuss the bloodiest conflict in both American and Commonwealth history, one struggles to find exactly where to start. For the purposes of this summary, we will begin thirty years prior to the signing of the Free State Compact.

Our story begins not in the United States, but rather in Mexico. In 1836, Mexico was a nation at war. Immensely regretting the decision to let American settlers into Tejas, Mexico was now combating a rebelling Texan Republic. While hardly a world power, Mexico nonetheless should have been able to handily defeat the Texans and restore order to the wayward province. Yet the rebels prevailed, largely by chance. After the successful (for the Texans) Battle of San Jacinto, a rebel contingent captured Antonio López de Santa Anna, leader of the Mexican forces. Forcing him to sign a treaty ending hostilities, the encounter transformed almost certain defeat into victory. Texas was free to shape its own destiny.

For a few years, at least. Sam Houston, the 1st President of Texas, and his supporters advocated for the annexation of Texas into the United States. Texas had neither the manpower nor the resources to sustain itself as an independent state. Better to be one star among many than to be forever overshadowed by Texas’ larger neighbors. There was once problem: the United States didn’t want them. As Texas would be a slave state, its incorporation would throw off the balance between slave and free in the Senate. In addition, most in Congress, Democrat and Whig, desired to avoid conflict between the United States and Mexico, as did the Van Buren Administration. Texas would need to wait for a political shift in its neighbor for the time being.

That shift would come after the Election of 1844. After two terms in office (having narrowly defeated William Henry Harrison four years before), President Martin Van Buren declined to run for reelection. The election swiftly became a referendum on the annexation of Texas, as the eventual Democratic nominee, James Polk, favored it, while Whig Henry Clay opposed. Since its creation, the Whig party had been steadily gaining more and more support among the American people, only having lost narrowly in 1840.

The Election of 1844 was close, but James Polk eventually won out.​

Yet it would not be enough. The idea of Manifest Destiny, the United States’ destiny to expand across the whole of the North American continent, was sweeping the country. His opposition to such expansion helped Polk and the Democrats portray Clay as out of touch to the common man. While hardly a landslide, Polk defeated Clay by a decent electoral margin. On April 4, 1845, only a month after the new President’s inauguration, the United States of America officially annexed the Republic of Texas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few notes:

As you can see, this is not a retelling of actual historical events. In our timeline, William Henry Harrison won the election of 1840, and Texas was incorporated in 1846, not 1845. I am writing this based on the events of my game.

For this electoral map, as well as future ones, I am basing the state calls on the eventual winner of the election in game, as well as the state by state breakdowns of ideology and party support found in the population tab.

If you have any questions, I encourage you to ask. If you see any typos and/or other mistakes, I encourage you to let me know.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Mexican-American War​

While small in population, Texas hosted mighty ambitions. During its stint as a Republic, Texas claimed land far outside of its actual control, from the Rio Grande to as far north as what would become Wyoming. In addition, there was considerable momentum in the Texan legislature to claim lands as distant as California for the fledgling Republic. Of course, Mexico disputed these claims. Just because Mexico had been forced to allow Texan independence did not mean Mexico had to endure whatever humiliation the wayward province sought fit to bestow. That land was Mexican – if Texas wanted it, Texas would have to fight for it.

The Republic of Texas' far flung claims
Image Credit: Daughters of the Republic of Texas​

After annexation into the Union, the Republic of Texas’ claims became the State of Texas’ claims, and thus those of the United States. It was precisely this situation the United States had sought to avoid years earlier under the Van Buren Administration. Politics had shifted considerably since then: Polk was President and expansionist fever was sweeping the nation. The United States would span from coast to coast, even if Mexico was in the way.

At this time, it was routine for American patrols to expand their routes into the disputed regions with Mexico. On March 7, 1846, one such patrol encountered a Mexican detachment. The Mexicans, seeing the Americans trespassing on what they believed to be Mexican soil, opened fire, killing one American and wounding another. The return fire killed three Mexicans, after which both sides retreated.

Some historians contend that the skirmish was an accident which played directly into the national mindset at the time. Others believe President Polk himself ordered that patrols be sent into the disputed territory, hoping to provoke a confrontation. Either way, the result was the same: casus belli for war with Mexico. Congress acted swiftly, declaring war on March 18.

The details of the Mexican-American War are unimportant for the purposes of this summary. What is important is that the war would end two years later, in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which turned over the disputed land to Texas (and the United States), as well as California and several other territories which would become parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico (the Gadsden purchase would complete the borders of the final two).

The Mexican Cession of 1848
Image Credit: By Kballen - Own work, CC BY 3.0 ​

Manifest Destiny had finally been achieved, and the nation was ecstatic. Yet, behind the jubilation stirred an impending crisis, and lawmakers braced for what they knew would come next. The issue of slavery could not be ignored in these new lands.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that America conquering Mexico would be like a man swallowing arsenic, declaring that “Mexico will poison us”. His words would prove to be prophetic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, we haven't started the alternate history in earnest yet. Soon though.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
Compromise of 1849​

Before the ink had dried on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the question of slavery’s status in the Mexican Cession was heavily contested. What was the United States to do with these new territories? People were already beginning to settle in them – they could not remain unorganized forever. It seemed that everyone had their own idea about how to organize them, all equally unpalatable to their opponents. For example, the Wilmot Proviso proposed the banning of slavery in the entirety of the Mexican Cession, excluding Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, William Yancey’s Alabama Platform advocated for the expansion of slavery into the entirety of the Mexican Cession. Gridlock gripped Congress, paralyzing the Federal Government.


The Compromise of 1849 was eventually brought about by the efforts of a great many people; however, for the purposes of this summary we will focus on only three: Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, and President Lewis Cass of the United States (elected in 1848 after President Polk declined to seek reelection, defeating Whig Zachary Taylor and former President Martin Van Buren, running on the newly created Free Soil Party’s ticket). While not alone, these three men successfully used their influence to force five bills through Congress, ending (or at least postponing) the crisis – Clay in his role as “The Great Compromiser”, and Douglas and Cass in their promotion of Popular Sovereignty as a method of deciding slavery’s status in a territory.


The five bills of the Compromise were as follows:


1. The California Territory was organized, and slavery was prohibited in its borders.


2. The Utah and New Mexico Territories was organized, with slavery to be determined by popular sovereignty


3. Texas dropped its land claims outside of its modern state borders, with the extra land to be incorporated into other territories.


4. The slave trade, but not slavery itself, was to be abolished in the District of Columbia on March 1, 1854.


5. The Fugitive Slave Act was strengthened.


No one was happy with this solution. Antislavery and Abolitionist lawmakers opposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Act and postponing the slave trade’s abolition in D.C. Pro-slavery lawmakers opposed slavery’s prohibition in the California Territory, as well as the eventual abolition of the slave trade in D.C. Only moderates were content with popular sovereignty’s implementation. However, its constituent bills managed to pass because the Compromise was the least objectionable solution to the greatest number of people. In their famous address to Congress in favor of it, Clay, Douglas, and Cass appealed to this very fact, with President Cass passionately arguing that “while this legislation may be imperfect, we must start somewhere, gentlemen, for the betterment of these United States”.

Senator Henry Clay arguing for the Compromise on the Senate floor.
Image Credit​

In the end, each bill received the votes it needed, and the Compromise of 1849 became the law of the land. Yet, as we now know, it would not be enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In OTL, Zachary Taylor defeated Cass, as Van Buren split the Democratic vote in several northern states. In my game, the Democrats won 1848.

In OTL, the Compromise of 1850 made California a free state. In my game, no one wanted to migrate to California, so it didn't have the population of accepted pops to become a state. Hence, California is a free territory here.

In OTL, the D.C. slave trade was banned immediately, not after a period of five years.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Second Nullification Crisis
​

In March 1850, the Massachusetts legislature passed what was called a “Habeas Corpus Law”, which established a state judicial process to assist those accused of being fugitive slaves (Under the Compromise of 1849’s Fugitive Slave Act, there was no such mechanism). The law essentially made the Fugitive Slave Act unenforceable within the borders of Massachusetts, meaning the law was de facto nullified, which had not been attempted by a state since South Carolina tried to nullify the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1832. Six months later, even as Southern lawmakers raved their fists at Massachusetts, many Northern juries began to exercise jury nullification to acquit those accused of being fugitive slaves. Massachusetts’ actions began a firestorm – the North trampled on the foundations of federal power over the states.

President Cass was between a rock and a hard place. As President, he could not allow the North to so brazenly defy Washington. Yet, if he enforced the Fugitive Slave Act in the North, he would seriously jeopardize his already shaky chances at reelection by essentially forfeiting any northern support (Cass was not particularly popular anywhere for the Compromise of 1849, and there were rumblings of a challenge for the Democratic nomination by former New Hampshire Senator Franklin Pierce). If Cass chose not to enforce the Act, he would likewise permanently damage his reputation in the South. No matter what he did, Cass could not find a way out of the crisis with his political ambitions intact.

After a week of deliberation, Cass did the only thing he could do. Calling on the precedent set by the Force Bill, passed in 1833 in the First Nullification Crisis, the President authorized the use of force to ensure Massachusetts’ compliance, as well as that of the other defiant areas. By using the Force Bill, Cass was able to bypass Congress, and within the next month the United States military suppressed the “insurrection”, as Cass’ allies described it.

The reaction in the North was pandemonium. Northern lawmakers vehemently argued that Cass had no authority to the military in this way, as the Force Bill explicitly stated that the section the President cited “shall be in force until the next session of Congress, and no longer”. Cass argued that the Force Bill was intended to end a state’s attempt at nullifying a federal law, which was the current situation. The Framers of the Bill would agree that force was authorized in this circumstance. The Supreme Court would eventually hear the case, with Whig war hero Winfield Scott as the plaintiff, and make what was arguably one of the worst decisions in its history.

In Scott v. Cass, the Court held that, given Massachusetts’ nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act, Cass’ use of the United States military was authorized by the Force Bill, as well as the Constitution itself. In addition, the Court stated that the Habeas Corpus Act of Massachusetts was blatantly unconstitutional. Immediately, the North made its fury known. Several states passed Habeas Corpus Acts of their own as a display of defiance, though they knew that the acts would be stricken down almost instantly. Most furious of all was Massachusetts itself, with several members of its legislature drafting articles of secession. The Union seemed to be on the brink of disillusion, and Cass knew what he had to do.

In a dramatic scene often portrayed by film and documentary makers, President Cass met with Massachusetts’ representatives and senators. As the legend goes, Cass had a single letter in front of him, which he wordlessly showed to his company. They must have been satisfied with what they saw, because, on April 2, 1851, Lewis Cass became the first and only President of the United States to resign his office. William Orlando Butler, Cass’ Vice President, assumed office shortly after.

In the short term, it seemed Cass’ sacrifice had worked, despite the chaos in the days immediately following the resignation. Massachusetts’ articles of secession never bore fruit, and a piece of legislation, the Compensation Act, was passed by Congress and was signed by President Butler. The bill gave Massachusetts a monetary compensation for any damage done by the military in its suppression of the nullification. For the moment, the crisis had passed.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Election of 1852​

William Butler was not a popular president. To Democrats, he was an uninspiring replacement for Cass. To Whigs, he was a yet another Democrat in office, continuing Cass’ legacy. It is no surprise that, when the Election of 1852 came around, the Democratic party elected to choose another candidate. After the Second Nullification Crisis, the Democrats were facing a difficult election, and party leaders knew they would have to nominate a Northerner to stand a chance. Eventually, the convention delegates settled on Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. The Whigs nominated General Winfield Scott, known for his action in the Mexican-American War and for his role in Scott v. Cass, to lead them to what they assumed would be an easy victory.


Scott primarily campaigned on two issues: The Second Nullification Crisis, and Franklin Pierce’s relative obscurity (“who’s Franklin Pierce?” was actually Scott’s campaign slogan for a time). The first delivered the Northeast’s electoral votes, save New Hampshire, to Scott. However, the second failed to deliver, as Franklin Pierce’s name recognition grew with the during the campaign, and voters were not very impressed by Scott’s lack of a substantive campaign. Voter turnout was low in most areas of the country, except for areas of the Northeast where the earlier crisis was particularly heated. However, despite the uninspiring campaign, once the ballots were tallied it became clear the Whigs had managed to win the election.

Democrats were disappointed, but not particularly surprised. They had a long way to go towards repairing their reputation in the North. Whigs were jubilant – they had finally captured the White House! With a Congress largely thankful to be rid of Cass’ toxic legacy, it looked like the country had finally started to heal the wounds of the Second Nullification Crisis.

That feeling was short lived. Winfield Scott’s four years as president were rife with political conflict as the debate over slavery continued in full force. Indeed, the seeds of disunion sown decades, even centuries before continued to sprout, this time in the form of the Scott administration’s most (in)famous policy – The Kansas Nebraska Act.

​

President Scott in 1862
By Charles D. Fredricks & Company - Heritage Auctions, Public Domain
​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we're back! I apologize for how long it's been since the last update - hopefully this will not happen again.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Kansas-Nebraska Act​

People often focus on the great men and women of history. Their exploits capture the imagination. They can be admired and imitated or hated and reviled. These people are certainly important, but often they are not the most important. Case in point: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Its passage being one of the key events leading to the War of Secession, the Kansas-Nebraska Act is often attributed to the lobbying efforts of Stephen Douglas. While true, this is incomplete. Douglas did play a crucial role in creating and passing the act. But why?

A sketch of a rail train, 1850s.
Image Credit​

The railroad. Since before the time covered by this summary, the railroad had been developed, improved, and expanded across the Union, tying the states together and facilitating commerce. With the railroad, population centers, trade hubs, and industrial centers were no longer inexorably tied to rivers. Now, combine that with massive territorial expansion brought on by the manifest destiny and the Mexican-American War, as well as the influx of population to the West Coast. It should be no surprise that many business and political leaders wanted to build a transcontinental railroad, to connect the East with the West. Stephen Douglas was one of them, but if it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone else. He was hardly the only person to have the idea for a transcontinental railroad that would pass through what became Kansas and Nebraska, nor was he the only supporter of using popular sovereignty to resolve the slavery question.

For the transcontinental railroad to be built, the land it would pass through had to be organized as territories, eventually becoming states. Along with some congressional allies, Douglas, senator from Illinois, pushed for the organization of the Kansas and Nebraska territories, opening them for settlement and eventual statehood. If this happened though, it threatened to through off the balance of power in the Senate, adding four more free state senators to the mix. Of course, this was unacceptable to the South. Especially given the anti-slavery President Scott, the South could not allow itself to become outweighed by the more populous North.

After much debate, some, led by Douglas, began to coalesce around the idea of popular sovereignty to determine slavery’s status in Kansas and Nebraska, as the Compromise of 1849 held for Utah and New Mexico, effectively repealing the Missouri Compromise. Reactions to this proposal were mixed. Unsurprisingly, senators and representatives from slave states were far more likely to support it their northern counterparts, regardless of political party. By no means were the Whigs a purely anti-slavery party – Southern Cotton Whigs largely supported the proposal. Region seemed to be more important than party. Eventually, Douglas and his supporters gathered the votes to pass the act, but they faced one last hurdle – President Winfield Scott.

Scott did not want to see slavery expanded, and absolutely did not want to repeal the Missouri Compromise, fearing, among other things, the political fallout. Threatening to veto the bill, he alienated much of Congress, including members of his own party. In addition to Southern Cotton Whigs, a few Northern Whigs supported the bill not for the aspects pertaining to slavery, but rather for the economic development that would follow the transcontinental railroad. These two groups did not constitute a majority of the party, but they were enough to wield real influence.

And wield it they did, for this coalition presented the president with an ultimatum: sign the bill, or they would run one of their own against Scott in the general election. Splitting the Whig vote, this would effectively through the election to the Democrats, which Scott couldn’t accept. Strong-armed and powerless, Scott signed the bill into law on May 18th, 1854.

It’s easy to condemn Scott for not putting up more of a fight against the bill. After all, we know what happened afterwards. The bloodshed in Kansas and the even bloodier War of Secession unleashed upon North America an era of conflict never seen before. But one must keep in mind the limits of “great man” history. Just as often as they shape history, presidents are shaped by it. At best, vetoing the Kansas-Nebraska Act would only have delayed the inevitable. Eventually, it may have even led to a Southern secession, rather than the familiar Northern one (of course, the plausibility of such a thing is up for debate). The War of Secession was brewing for centuries, and the forces driving it were far larger than Winfield Scott, Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, or even John Frémont. The faulty should be criticized, but they must also be put into the correct historical context. If they aren’t, we risk repeating history.

The Kansas and Nebraska Territories
Image Credit - Public Domain​

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
Bleeding Kansas​

Kansas’ official nickname is “The Sunflower State”; however, that is not its only nickname. Indeed, Kansas has also been referred to as “The Wheat State” and, uncommonly, “The Crossroads State”, referring to how the events preceding Kansas statehood set the stage for the broader direction of the country in the coming years. During the 1850s and early 1860s, though, Kansas had another nickname: “Scott’s Graveyard”. For Kansas saw a period of bloody fighting brought on by popular sovereignty’s implementation. Over two hundred people died in the conflict between pro- and anti-slavery forces, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars of property damage. The horrors inflicted on innocents by both sides imprinted itself on the Kansas’ culture. For instance, the sack of the anti-slavery town Lawrence by pro-slavery guerillas in 1856 was a defining moment in the town’s culture, influencing its identity generations after the War of Secession. The fighting raged approximately from 1854 to 1863, ending when Kansas was finally admitted to the Union.

The sacking of Lawrence in 1856 became a rallying cry for anti-slavery advocates in Kansas, as well as for Commonwealth forces during the War of Secession
Image Credit​

Popular sovereignty, implemented in Kansas by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, held that the settlers of a territory should determine for themselves whether or not that territory (and eventual state) would allow slavery. A relatively simple concept in theory, Kansas would soon encounter problems. Kansas’ first territorial legislature was elected in 1854, with residents sending a pro-slavery majority to Shawnee Mission, the territorial capitol. Or, at least, they appeared to be residents. In reality, over seventy percent of the ballots cast in the election were not from Kansans at all, but rather from neighboring Missouri, a slave state. Incensed over the fraudulent election, free-staters rejected the Shawnee Mission government and elected their own legislature, based in Topeka. Having two legislatures claiming to be Kansas’ legitimate government was, of course, not a recipe for stability in the fledgling territory. The turmoil would only grow when anti-slavery and abolitionist organizations across the country sent thousands of their supporters to the territory, to counter the influx of Missourians and other pro-slavery settlers. Among the notables who would make the trek was John Brown, an advocate for armed insurrection to end slavery.

John Brown, killed in a raid on Lecompton in 1857, organized armed resistance to pro-slavery forces in Kansas. The Commonwealth elevated him to martyrdom during the War of Secession, though he was seen as a terrorist by the Union
Image Credit​

A pro-slavery settler fired the first shot of armed conflict in November of 1855, killing a free-stater named George Brooks. The fighting would only grow from there – the next several years saw armed militia bands frequently roam the countryside, raiding opposing towns and exchanging fire with opposing bands. Though the death toll of Bleeding Kansas was minuscule compared to the catastrophic War of Secession, it left a profound mark on the national consciousness. Both sides of the slavery question saw their ideology as being in a righteous battle against the forces of evil. Many Northerners in particular viewed the conflict as a reckoning with Slave Power, a term used to describe the often-disproportionate power the slaveholding South had over the American political system.


The fighting would continue in force until 1863. During that time, voters rejected several different state constitutions, both pro- and anti-slavery. Eventually, to the fury of abolitionists and the disappointment of President Lincoln, a pro-slavery constitution narrowly survived a vote, and was approved by Congress. Kansas entered the Union on January 26th, 1863 as a slave state, with its state capitol in pro-slavery Lecompton. Armed anti-slavery resistance largely dissipated, though reports of guerilla activity persisted until the end of the War of Secession. Contemporary observers and modern historians largely chalk up the approval of the pro-slavery constitution to voter fraud, with Missourians once again streaming across the border to vote in Kansas. Congress began an investigation into the claims, but never completed it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another big divergence from OTL here, with abolitionists being dealt one of their greater defeats. We'll see how this plays out across the country.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Collapse of the Whigs and the Election of 1856​

Slavery destroyed the Whig Party. There had always been a rift in the party over the issue with most Whigs in the North either indifferent or opposing it, while southern “Cotton Whigs” supported it. It was the latter who strong-armed President Scott into signing into law the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and this would prove to be the catalyst of the party’s disintegration. Heated, sometimes hostile debate between different factions of Whigs dramatically grew after its passage, and Winfield Scott’s declaration that he would not be seeking a second term proved to be the final straw. The Whigs could not agree on a platform, much less on a presidential candidate. In the end, the Whig Party dissolved, and its former members went in different directions. A few former members ended up joining the Democratic party. However, most ended up joining one of two new parties: the American Party and the Republican Party.

The American Party, also referred to as the “Know-Nothings”, embodied the nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic sentiment that had been growing among more conservative Whigs for the past couple of decades, though there was a split in the party regarding slavery. They contested presidential election, 1856, before being absorbed by the other parties. The Republican Party was the larger and more significant of the two, formed in opposition to slavery by several groups, including a large proportion of ex-Whigs.

The Election of 1856 saw voters choose between Democratic nominee James Buchanan, Republican nominee John Frémont, and American nominee Millard Fillmore. Facing one of the more organized forces in the United States, the Democratic Party, the two new parties faced an uphill battle. In the end, the passion of their supporters was not enough as Buchanan was elected President. Though they did not capture the White House, the Republicans and the Know-Nothings both had impressive performances. The former captured most of the Northern states, and the latter won Maryland. Some historians believe that Fillmore served as a spoiler candidate. Had the Know-Nothings not fielded anyone, they argue, Frémont would have been elected President. Nevertheless, Buchanan began what would prove to be a largely ineffectual term in 1857.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Election of 1860​

James Buchanan’s term was defined by the conflict in Kansas, which had captured the national attention and inflamed supporters of both slavery and abolition. It should be no surprise then that the slavery issue was front and center in the lead up to the 1860 election. Buchanan, sensing that he was piloting a sinking ship, opted to not seek a second term, leaving the race open.

The Republican Party, bruised but not beaten from the last election, had spent Buchanan’s term organizing and building infrastructure throughout the free and border states. With their base mobilized by the Kansas situation and the recent Dred Scott SCOTUS decision, which effectively legalized slavery in the territories, the Republicans were prepared to take Washington by storm. Initially, William Seward led the pack of candidates seeking the presidential nomination. Eventually, however, Abraham Lincoln surprisingly won the battle. Lincoln swiftly made Seward his running mate to avoid any kind of vote splitting which would hurt the party during the election. The Republican platform staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery in the territories, with many Democrats reading between the lines and fearing the Republicans would move towards abolition should they win.

The Democratic Party emerged with two clear front runners, Vice President John Breckenridge and Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois. The Democratic conventions were scenes of chaos, with Southern and Northern Democrats each threatening to walkout should the other’s motions be adopted. It looked as if the party might split, which would assure a Republican victory. Fortunately, this was narrowly avoided through a series of compromises. In the end, Stephen Douglas headed the presidential ticket, with Breckenridge as his running mate. The Democratic platform supported the continued institution of slavery, the use of popular sovereignty in the territories, and the Dred Scott decision (this was a concession from Douglas, who had mixed feelings about the decision).

Another party calling itself the Constitutional Union party also contested the presidential election in the South. Primarily made up of former conservative Whigs, it sought to avoid disunion over the slavery issue. In the time since the Second Nullification Crisis, during which Massachusetts considered articles of secession, various states in both the North and the South had entertained the idea of secession periodically, particularly when they did not get their way. The Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee for President. The party platform emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws and did not take a firm stance on slavery.

Looking back, the Election of 1860 is often overshadowed by its dramatic successor four years later. Yet, at the time, the Election of 1860 was one of the most contentious in history, both during the campaign and afterwards. Douglas’ Democrats, saved from a party split, captured every slave state, as well as the free states of California and Oregon. The Republicans took the everything else (Bell received no electoral college votes, though he came close in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia). Never had there been such a stark geographical divide in the Electoral College results. Even more controversial were the results themselves: Douglas won the popular vote, while Lincoln edged out the Electoral College.

States carried by Lincoln are Red, states carried by Douglas are blue​

To say the South was outraged would be an understatement. Lincoln performed terribly in the South, never capturing more than 10% of the votes. In some states, he wasn’t even on the ballot. It seemed as if the worst fears of the Constitutional Unionists were about to come true. There was open talk of secession in the Southern legislatures which President Buchanan did nothing to quell. In the end though, the country was (temporarily) saved from disunion by Stephen Douglas himself, who toured the states he carried and fiercely advocated against secession, alongside John Breckenridge, John Bell, and Sam Houston of Texas. Even these efforts would likely not have been enough had President-Elect Lincoln not publicly committed to not touching slavery where it already existed (which he did at the request of Douglas).

And so, Lincoln assumed office in 1861, heading a country never more divided than at that moment. His promise to not interfere with already-established slavery put him at odds with many in his own party. Combined with the virulent hatred Democrats felt for him, Lincoln would have much trouble governing. As his first term progressed and tensions continued to mount, Lincoln increasingly seemed to be governing two largely separate nations, neither of which he belonged to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're getting close to the action now. My computer is headed to the shop for repairs right after I post this update, so it may be some time before the next one.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Beginning of the End​

Abraham Lincoln, most historians agree, never had a chance of being a successful president. The deals, compromises, and concessions he had to make to keep the South from seceding handicapped him immediately. Republicans in Congress who expected to find an ally in implementing the Republican Party platform instead found a president unwilling to disturb the delicate balancing game he had been playing. Republican efforts to investigate and stop the continuing violence against Free-Staters in Kansas failed in the face of an ambivalent Senate and noncommittal Lincoln. The problem was not that Lincoln did not want to, but rather that he felt he couldn’t. To Lincoln, saving the Union was not only his first priority, but his only priority. As he lost the popular vote, most Democrats saw him as an illegitimate president. If he took direct action in Kansas, or if he moved to limit slavery, Lincoln would not only be seen as illegitimate, but an active threat to the South. It is a great historical irony that Lincoln, in his devotion to the Union’s preservation, would end up being a direct cause of secession. In his appeasement of the South, Lincoln abandoned the North. It would be his gravest mistake.

Lincoln’s most notable success was the 1862 passage of the Homestead Act. Seeking to spur further settlement of the western territories, the Homestead Act allowed settlers to acquire land for free from the government, provided they noticeably improve the land. Most Southern Democrats opposed the law, fearing it would attract European immigrants and poor Southern whites to the West. Indeed, in the following years immigration to the West drastically increased from both within and outside of the United States, which would prove to have a lasting effect on the region’s political culture.

Despite their one victory, Republicans were not happy by 1864. They had succeeded in taking the presidency, but for what? Abraham Lincoln had done little to curtail the South and slavery. It seemed to many that Lincoln was merely another Winfield Scott, being nominally anti-slavery but doing nothing to end it. The Slave Power conspiracy theory, the idea that the government was controlled by wealthy, corrupt southern slaveholders wielding immense influence, exploded in popularity. Many believed that Lincoln was hamstrung by the Slave Power (an unnuanced but not inaccurate assessment), and some even believed he was an active participant in the conspiracy.

Thus, the Republican Party’s nomination for president was not uncontested. The incumbent president still had the support of the moderate wing of the party, which claimed most elected Republicans. The more radical wing, however, was a different story. Fed up with the Lincoln Administration’s paralysis regarding slavery, as well as Kansas’ final admission into the Union as a slave state, they would not accept the status quo. The furious base was ready to make waves at the Republican National Convention. They only needed a voice.

Enter John C. Frémont.

John C. Frémont: Father of the Commonwealth​

General. Explorer. Republican Presidential candidate in 1856. Frémont swiftly became the face of the Republicans disillusioned with Lincoln. So numerous was this faction that Frémont prepared to contest the nomination. Frémont began his campaign by writing a letter to every single delegate to the National Convention, imploring them to abandon Lincoln. The Republican party required a 2/3 majority for a presidential nomination, and Lincoln’s supporters were stunned when he fell short on the first ballot (as was tradition at the time, Lincoln did not attend the convention personally). What followed was a heated battle between Lincoln and Frémont supporters, fighting to sway the few undecideds in the convention hall. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ballots all went by, with Frémont time and again depriving the more numerous Lincoln supporters of a 2/3 majority, each time gaining slightly more support.

In a scene often recreated in movies, before the seventh ballot, Frémont himself entered the convention hall and gave an impassioned speech to the delegates, denouncing slavery, Slave Power, and gradualism. His supporters were inspired; his detractors were horrified. Before the end of the speech, the convention chair ordered that Frémont be removed from the hall for disrupting the proceedings. In protest, all of Frémont’s delegates walked out of the convention with him. Afterwards, the remaining delegates quickly nominated Lincoln.

However, Frémont wasn’t done. Soon after the national convention’s conclusion, radical Republicans held their own convention for an entirely new party: The Radical Democracy Party. They swiftly nominated Frémont for president. Notable attendees of the convention included Frederick Douglass, Wendell Philips, and William Lloyd Garrison. The party platform called for an immediate end to slavery as well as the protection of civil rights and liberties. The stage was set for a dramatic race between President Lincoln, former Vice President John Breckenridge (the Democratic nominee), and Frémont.

Frémont’s campaign targeted the core abolitionist and anti-slavery base of the Republican party, painting Lincoln as a traitor to the cause and as subservient to Slave Power. Though he actually considered withdrawing to avoid acting a spoiler candidate, Frémont’s campaign quickly gained steam in the Northeast and the Midwest. There would be no withdrawal – he was in it to win.

The Election of 1864 remains the most contentious in United States history. Democrat John Breckenridge swept the slave-holding states as well as free California and Oregon due to Lincoln and Frémont splitting the Republican vote. Frémont secured pluralities in every Northern state except for Illinois and Ohio, where Lincoln narrowly took the lead. As the votes were tallied, it quickly became clear that the United States had encountered a nightmare scenario: no candidate had a majority of popular or electoral college votes, sending the election to the House of Representatives.

The Election of 1864​

According to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, in a case like this, the House of Representatives votes on the President. However, they do not vote as individual members; rather, they vote as states, with each state having one vote. It was here that the major flaw of the Radical Democracy Party was exposed: Frémont was their only candidate. With its limited resources, the party did not run anyone for the House of Representatives, and the Republicans already in office were far more partial to Lincoln. Even though Frémont won 14 states, only the Massachusetts delegation voted for him, giving Frémont one vote on the first ballot to Breckenridge’s sixteen and Lincoln’s seventeen (with Lincoln supported by the Northern delegations minus Massachusetts as well as California and Oregon). Lincoln was only one state shy of winning reelection, which he received on the second ballot after Massachusetts finally gave in.

The reaction to this result was pandemonium. Riots broke out in several cities, including Philadelphia, New York, and Atlanta. A Boston crowed reportedly burned Lincoln in effigy. The seams holding the country together were quickly unraveling.


-------------------------------------------------------------
We have one final road to 1866 coming up, and then it's off to war. Remember, I welcome any and all suggestions about the kind of content and topics you all want to see moving forward.

 

[trekfan]

The Road to 1866
The Breaking Point
​

There are two ways to amend the American Constitution. The first is for both branches of Congress to pass an amendment with two thirds majorities, and for three fourths of state legislatures to ratify it. This method is by far the more common and, up until this point, the only method used. It is, however, not the only method. The other is for two thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, during which amendments could be adopted by three fourths of the convention delegations. This is the harder route and the more dangerous one, depending on your perspective. Yet, sometimes the risky option is the only option.

President Lincoln’s second inauguration took place on March 4th, 1865. His address was brief, calling for the peaceful resolution of conflict and differences of political opinion. He elevated the Union above all else, arguing that, were the Union to be sundered, it would be as if God himself were purged from heaven. His speech did little to calm the storm that had developed since the House of Representatives reelected him. State legislatures across the nation, North and South, had been debating secession ever since the election results were announced. The United States had become a more democratic place since the 12th Amendment was ratified – did it really make sense to use an outdated and unpopular solution to such a pressing problem? Even most Lincoln supporters didn’t think so.
Two main camps emerged. One, the more radical, called for the Union’s dissolution, arguing that the North and South had simply become too different for one national government to suit both. These secessionists were most powerful in the Deep South and the Northeast, drawing the same conclusions from very different points of view. The other camp acknowledged that the current structure of government could not sustain the Union and called for serious reform to hold the country together. The reformists were strongest in the northernmost slave states as well as Illinois and Ohio, the two states Lincoln carried in 1864. Over the course of a few months, reformist resolution calling for a convention as per Article V of the Constitution passed in Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, California, Oregon, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, New York, Alabama, Louisiana, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Vermont – two thirds of the states. A convention would be held.

Of course, there was one problem: no one knew how a convention was supposed to work. The Constitution does not list any guidelines about the actual proceedings of a convention, and the only historical precedent was the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Nearly eighty years old, many thought its procedures didn’t apply to the present day. Surprising many, Congress acted quickly to proactively address the issue, passing the Convention Act of 1865. Though Congress was far less reformist than the state legislatures, both Democratic and Republican leaders recognized the need to define rules for the convention – if they didn’t, war would be inevitable. The Convention Act of 1865 established that, in accordance to Article V, a constitutional convention would begin on September 1st, 1865. The location was a point of contention. It was felt that the delegations from wherever the convention was held would have a home field advantage. A Southern city like Washington D.C. was unacceptable to the North in the same way that a Northern city like Philadelphia was to the South. Lawmakers eventually chose Wilmington, Delaware. Though in a slave state, it had divided pro and anti-slavery sympathies. Though not perfect, it was the most neutral location lawmakers could find. Each state sent three delegates, to be nominated by their state legislatures. Per Article V, three fourths of the delegates would have to agree for an amendment to be adopted. Speaker of the House Galusha Grow would preside over the convention but could not cast a vote. And so, on September 1st, 105 men from the Union’s thirty-five states convened in Wilmington to decide the future of the country.

The hopes of some to avoid the elephant in the room until later were dashed when the first two motions were to consider amendments to abolish and permanently protect slavery, respectively. This threatened to deadlock the convention right from the start, which was only avoided when a delegate from Kentucky successfully motioned to postpone discussion on amendments pertaining to slavery until the end of the convention.

The convention then turned its attention to reforming the electoral system, which did not prove to be much more productive. Most everyone agreed that the current system did not work (there was not much love for Lincoln in Wilmington), but suggestions to fix it were varied, ranging from a strict popular vote system (popular among Northern delegates) to mere alterations of the Electoral College. The most popular suggestion of the latter category would make it so that, if no candidate received a majority of electoral votes, the one with the fewest would give his votes to another candidate. One might expect that suggestion to be popular with Northern Frémont supporters (as this system would have most likely handed Frémont the presidency in 1864), but one would be wrong. The North was fed up with its large population being subverted by a system that overly enfranchises the more sparsely populated South. After two months of debate, Northern delegates drew a line in the sand: the popular vote or nothing. Of course, the popular vote was unacceptable to Southern delegates, as such a system would ensure that the South would be forever outweighed by the North. The result was deadlock and the death of any possibility of meaningful electoral reform.

For the next three months the convention debated the role and necessity of the Senate. This debate was interesting in that it was not strictly sectional like the others – two of the three Virginia delegates joined many Northern states in arguing for the establishment of a unicameral legislature based on proportional representation. Most Southern states opposed this, as did delegates from Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan. The motion that came closest to passing would have kept the Senate but altered its composition, guaranteeing every state at least two senators, but then awarding additional senators to states based on population, not to exceed three additional senators. This amendment garnered two thirds of the delegates’ support, falling short of the constitutional requirements.

The Wilmington Convention was in session for over a year, and not a single amendment garnered the necessary three fourths support to be adopted. During that time, secessionists had been busy. With each piece of news about the Convention’s latest debate, secessionist sentiment had grown in both the North and the South. Secessionists managed to secure narrow majorities in most Northern state legislatures as many reformists began to sour on the idea that the Union was salvageable.
The breaking point finally arrived on September 8th, 1866, when the Wilmington Convention adjourned for the final time. The wheels of history were turning as the delegates began their journeys back home. On September 9th, the Massachusetts state legislature met to vote on articles of secession. The vote succeeded, making The Bay State the first to leave the Union. New Jersey followed on the 11th, and by the 20th Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, New York, and Indiana had followed them. The governors of Illinois and Ohio managed to keep their states from seceding for a time; however, they were fighting against the tide. On October 2nd, a secessionist mob descended on Springfield, Illinois, overwhelming police and deposing the state government. The same happened in Ohio the following day. Both states formally seceded on October 5th, after interim secessionist governments were established.

President Lincoln acted as soon as news about Massachusetts reached him. He issued a statement denouncing secession as illegal and immoral and called for a special session of Congress on September 10th. There he gave his famous “Appeal to the Union” address, warning of the horrors a civil war would bring and imploring Massachusetts to reconsider. He also bluntly stated that, while he wished above all else to avoid a war, he would do everything in his power to preserve the Union, including calling on the precedent set by the Force Act and Scott v. Cass. It was far too little and far too late. On October 5th, the same day his home state seceded, Lincoln made good on his threats, and ordered federal troops in Massachusetts to dissolve the state legislature.

After Massachusetts left the Union, commanders of the various U.S. military forts within the states surrendered the installations to the state authorities (most had secessionist sympathies, and many were granted commissions in the eventual Commonwealth’s army). Fort Warren was an exception. Off the coast of the mainland, Fort Warren became a hub of Unionist activity within Massachusetts. It was these soldiers Lincoln ordered to Boston. Little did he know, however, that the state militia had intercepted Lincoln’s message.

Seeing that Fort Warren now posed an existential threat to the rebel state, Massachusetts acted quickly, dispatching the militia to seize Fort Warren. On October 7th, the bombardment of the fort began from the coast. After twenty-seven hours of bombardment, Fort Warren surrendered. Surprisingly enough, no one died or had even been wounded during the bombardment, a bloodless opening to one of North America’s most destructive wars.

Despite all of Lincoln’s efforts, America was now at war. On October 10th, Lincoln issued a declaration calling for 75,000 volunteers to crush the rebellion. In the following days there were dozens of skirmishes at military forts across the North, all of which ended with the under-equipped federal soldiers surrendering to the local militia. The next few weeks would seek representatives of the seceded states meet in Philadelphia to create a government, the result of which was the Free State Compact, a temporary government designed to win the war. The Free State Compact was signed on November 5th, and John C. Frémont was elected as President of the Free American Commonwealth by the House of Delegates.

The War of Secession was the defining moment of American history, both in the United States and in the Commonwealth. Popular accounts describe it as the industrial pitted against the agrarian, the democratic pitted against the autocratic, and above all the free pitted against the slave. Young men on both sides, dreaming of glory in combat, marched off to battle only to discover the horrors of modern war. Nearly 500,000 people died in the War of Secession. In doing so, they created two nations and changed the course of history.

The Flag of the Free American Commonwealth
​

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And thus concludes part 1 of the AAR, and I must say it's been a long time coming. Remember to get in your suggestions for content you want to see moving forward. I am planning an overview of Union and Commonwealth strategic goals, as well as an analysis of the party systems that develop on both sides of the border after the war. Thank you to everyone who has commented and continues to support this project!

EDIT: Formatting issues

 

[trekfan]

Funny you guys should ask, I just finished making this

 

[trekfan]

Famous Generals of the War of Secession: The Union
​

Robert E. Lee

The Commanding General of the United States Army, Robert E. Lee is one of the most famous faces of the War of Secession. Soon after the attack on Fort Warren and Lincoln’s call for volunteers, presidential advisor Francis Blair offered Lee command of the defenses of Washington D.C., as he had a reputation as a brilliant tactician for his service in the Mexican-American War. Lee’s first major battle of the war was the Battle of Cardiff on March 7th, 1867, where his forces repelled a Commonwealth offensive into Maryland. From there his rise was meteoric. Lee pursued the retreating Commonwealth forces into Pennsylvania, where he won the Battle of Delta and the Battle of Castle Fin. Greatly impressed with his performance, President Lincoln demoted the somewhat ineffectual General Halleck and offered Lee his position as General-in-Chief. Lee accepted.

Lee’s tenure as General-in-Chief is characterized by Union success in the Eastern Theater, which only ended after his death in combat during the Battle of Harrisburg on July 9th, 1868. During this period, Lee turned his Army of the Potomac from a haphazard collection of volunteers into the one of the world’s finest fighting forces. Lee had a talent for successfully marshaling his troops against larger forces, allowing him to continue winning victories even after the Commonwealth’s military organization improved and the army began to take shape. Though the war lasted for another year afterwards, Lee’s death arguably guaranteed the death of the Union cause, as Harrisburg ensured that the Commonwealth would have the time necessary to bring its superior population and resources to bear against the Union.

Thomas Jackson

Thomas Jackson quickly became a legendary figure in the Union army. A colonel when the war began, he quickly gained notoriety for leadership in the Battle of Pennsboro, when his outnumbered soldiers held the line against a superior Commonwealth force, earning him the nickname “Brickwall”. He then oversaw the expulsion of the rebels from western Virginia. Modern military historians chalk Jackson’s successes in this theater up more to the Commonwealth’s disorganization (technically, the Battle of Pennsboro was between the Union and the Ohio State Militia, not the Commonwealth) than to Jackson’s tactical brilliance, but nonetheless Jackson became a legend on both sides of the conflict, inspiring some and terrifying others. He participated in Lee’s 1868 invasion of Pennsylvania and assumed command of the Army of the Potomac after the Lee’s death and the defeat at Harrisburg.

Jackson led Union forces during one of their only victories of 1869, halting the rebel advance towards Baltimore at the Battle of Hereford. That success proved to be short-lived, as he was forced to retreat from the Battle of Shawsville and was routed at the Battle of Lutherville. Jackson’s final battle was the Battle of Baltimore, the bloodiest of the war, where he was defeated and captured by Commonwealth General Schuyler Hamilton.


George McClellan

One of the many Northerners to fight for the Union during the War of Secession, McClellan was in high demand after the North seceded, with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York all offering him command of their respective state militias. McClellan, however, disapproved of secession and federal interference with slavery, and instead fled to Kentucky, where he was placed in command of Union forces there. Much as Lee had done in the East, McClellan turned the Army of the Ohio into a strong fighting force. McClellan had a talent for organization and logistics, which allowed his soldiers to become formidable. However, he also had a talent for overestimating the size and strength of his enemy. It is for this reason he refused to order his forces across the Ohio River - he was convinced that a Commonwealth force lay on the other side, at least 200,000 strong, waiting to annihilate his men. This was not true: Commonwealth forces in the area numbered no more than 50,000. McClellan remained inactive until President Lincoln ordered him to cross and capture Cincinnati, hoping to put pressure on the rebels in more than one place. Begrudgingly, McClellan complied. Though the crossing was perilous, McClellan did succeed in capturing the city. Afterwards, he insisted on having no less than one month to allow his men to recuperate, reinforce, and resupply. Instead, Lincoln removed McClellan from command, reassigning him to shore defenses in the Carolinas, a dead-end job if there ever was one. McClellan was a frequent critic of the Lincoln administration for the remainder of the war.

William Tecumseh Sherman

Another Northerner, William Tecumseh Sherman is famous for his command of Union forces in the Western Theater. Sherman started the war as a Colonel, leading men during the Battle of Cardiff, after which he was reassigned to Kentucky. An Ohioan, Sherman requested that he be assigned to Kentucky so that he might “liberate his state from the rebels”. Eventually, Sherman was placed as General McClellan’s second in command during the latter’s offensive into Ohio, where Sherman was instrumental in the capture of Cincinnati on May 7th, 1867. Sherman was promoted and assumed command of the Western Theater after McClellan was fired. Sherman sought to cut the Commonwealth in half by occupying Ohio all the way up to Lake Eire. For much of the next year it seemed he would succeed, winning battle after battle against the outclassed Commonwealth resistance. Sherman’s advance was only stopped at the Battle of Jasper Mills, where his army was defeated by a Commonwealth force led by General Ulysses S. Grant. Sherman was made General-in-Chief after the death of Robert E. Lee in 1868, though he opted to remain in the West and delegate the Eastern Theater to General Thomas Jackson. Sherman was eventually forced across the Ohio River by Grant in 1869, shortly before the war’s conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here we have the first War of Secession update. Soon there will be a similar one covering the Commonwealth. In the meantime, a disclaimer: military history is not my strong suit. I've been doing research to mitigate that weakness, but if I make a mistake please do not hesitate to call me out.

A note on flags: I've given the matter some thought and have decided to implement Jan Skrzetuski's excellent redesign of my original flag design as the Commonwealth's flag (the white bordered one). I've learned a lot about graphic design thanks to this project, some of what works and even more of what doesn't. A big thanks to you, @Jan Skrzetuski - I will edit the previous update to display the altered flag instead of the original. I also like the idea of using the Gadsden flag as a battle flag. All flag related questions will be settled in a forthcoming flag update, but I wanted to update you all on my current thinking on the matter.

 

[trekfan]

Famous Generals of the War of Secession: The Commonwealth​

Schuyler Hamilton

Schuyler Hamilton, grandson of Alexander Hamilton, rose to prominence during the War of Secession. He joined the New York militia after the state seceded and was given a commission as colonel. He demonstrated bravery and heroism during the Commonwealth’s failed first invasion of Maryland when he assumed command of his brigade after his commanding officer was killed during the Battle of Cardiff. Hamilton was promoted to Brigadier General and served in that capacity for the next fifteen months. Hamilton was promoted again after the Battle of Harrisburg, during which his men held the line against a superior Union force. He was instrumental to the Commonwealth’s victory there, as well as in the several battles afterwards that forced the Army of the Potomac back over the Mason-Dixon line. Hamilton commanded the main thrust of the Commonwealth’s second invasion of Maryland, engaging the Army of the Potomac several times throughout late 1868 and 1869. This culminated in the Battle of Baltimore, where Hamilton oversaw the capture of the city and of General Thomas Jackson. He then positioned his forces for an attack on Washington D.C. itself, but the war ended before those plans could come into fruition.

Ulysses S. Grant

Called to service when the war began, Ulysses S. Grant distinguished himself on the Western Theater throughout the war. He was a colonel at the Battle of Pennsboro, where the Ohio State Militia was defeated by Thomas Jackson. After the humiliation in western Virginia, Grant was assigned to preparing defenses in preparation for a Union crossing of the Ohio river. General McClellan’s inaction in that area gave Grant the time he needed to prepare Cincinnati’s strong defenses. Though the city did eventually fall, McClellan suffered heavy casualties, halting the invasion. Grant’s demonstration of competence and tactical expertise eventually earned him command of all Commonwealth forces on the Western Theater. For months he fought a defensive war of attrition against General Sherman during the latter’s advance into Ohio. This culminated in the Battle of Jasper Mills, where Grant defeated Sherman and turned the tide of the war in the West. From there, now finally able to marshal the Commonwealth’s superior manpower after months of disorganization and disunity, Grant counterattacked. He spent the rest of the war gradually grinding Sherman’s Army of the Ohio to dust, earning Grant a reputation as a butcher for his seeming disregard of casualties.

George Meade

George Meade was made a brigadier general of Pennsylvania volunteers when the war began, which quickly turned into a field command when his men participated in the failed first invasion of Maryland. His most notable actions during that campaign were during the Battle of Delta, where his brigade inflicted more than 2-1 casualties on the Army of the Potomac during the Commonwealth’s retreat into Pennsylvania. Meade later assumed command of the Army of the Susquehanna shortly before the Battle of Harrisburg, one of the Commonwealth’s most important victories. Afterwards, he developed plans for an invasion of the Delmarva Peninsula, which he believed would humiliate the Union and force them to sue for peace while avoiding the heavy fortifications of central Maryland. However, he was overruled by President Frémont, who instead wanted to move against Baltimore and Washington D.C. Though they didn’t see light during the War of Secession, Meade’s plans were adapted for use in the Great War. During the second invasion of Maryland, Meade was forced to delegate command of the Army of the Susquehanna to Schuyler Hamilton due to a severe bout of pneumonia. Despite his illness, however, Meade famously continued to send orders via telegraph to Hamilton and the various brigade commanders from a hospital bed. Whether or not those orders, issued in a somewhat delirious state, aided or hurt the Commonwealth’s chances during the invasion is a matter of debate among military historians. Meade was making a recovery by the end of the war and would go on to oversee the Commonwealth’s post-war military reorganization as General-in-Chief.

David Hunter

David Hunter is a legendary figure in Commonwealth history. During the war he gained notoriety for his continuous support for enlisting freed slaves in the military. For decades, slaves in the South had been fleeing to the Northern free states, a trend which only increased after secession. With the Commonwealth being under no obligation to return runaway slaves and feeling pressure to find every advantage possible over the Union, Hunter’s arguments were eventually heeded. Hunter was given command of the 1st South Carolina, the first Commonwealth regiment comprised of freed slaves. This regiment would go on to earn its place in Commonwealth mythology. Hunter’s men would be instrumental in the defense of Harrisburg and the subsequent battles that forced the Army of the Potomac back into Maryland. It was during the second invasion of Maryland, however, that the 1st South Carolina became legends. Hunter adopted the policy of liberating slaves wherever he found them, offering a rifle and a place in the regiment to men who wanted them. This actually created a minor logistical nightmare for General Hamilton during the campaign, as supply routes were obstructed by freed slaves headed towards Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, Hamilton did not order Hunter to stop, and tales of a marauding black army seizing slaves spread like wildfire throughout the Union, terrifying slaveholders (even today, imagery depicting this is prevalent among racist and white nationalist circles in both the United States and the Commonwealth). The 1st South Carolina were the first soldiers to enter Baltimore during the battle there. Afterwards, a private from the 1st South Carolina raised the Commonwealth’s national flag over city hall. By the end of the war, despite the racism still prevalent in the War Department, Hunter and his men were among the most decorated soldiers on either side of the Mason-Dixon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@El Pip I can definitely write something about the naval war, thank you for your suggestion.

Thank you for your comments everyone! The next update will be an overview of both sides' strategic aims at the beginning of the war, as well as the challenges and advantages each have. From there we will launch into the first war developments update, this one covering 1866.

You may have noticed that I have only mentioned battles in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio up to this point. Don't worry, I will be covering the other areas of fighting.

 

[trekfan]

War of Secession - Strategic Overview
​

When the Northern states seceded from the Union, they took with them nearly 60% of the United States’ population, powerful commercial centers, many natural resources, and most of the major railroad and industrial centers with them. The United States’ capacity to make war was greatly diminished without the North, which Commonwealth generals realized after the Battle of Cardiff and its subsequent battles proved the war would not be short and sweet, as many had previously believed. Even though the Union won those battles, they took heavy casualties, preventing Robert E. Lee from pressing the advantage. President Frémont and his advisors believed that time was on the Commonwealth’s side. The longer the war went on, more and more men could be mobilized, and Lincoln’s regime would continue to exhaust itself trying to conquer the North. In short, all they had to do was outlast the Union, which was the guideline through which leaders devised most Commonwealth strategy until late in the war.

That was easier said than done, for while the Commonwealth did have the advantage in terms of population and resources, the Union had advantages as well. For one, the Union was vastly superior when it came to military leadership, with most officers being veterans of the Mexican-American War or any of the several conflicts with Native American tribes. While the North also had some experienced officers, they were lacking in comparison. Many of the most promising generals remained loyal to the Union, even the Northerners. Another advantage for the Union was the navy. While a handful of ships did defect to the North, most stayed loyal. Given the Commonwealth’s relatively small coastline and dependence on imports to fuel certain industries, a naval blockade threatened to be effective.

The USS Merrimack was one of the several dozen Union vessels to serve in the Northern Blockade until her destruction in 1867. She was one of the several decommissioned vessels to be pressed back into service due to the War of Secession​

Robert E. Lee understood all this, which his overall strategy as General-in-Chief reflected. At sea, he pushed for a complete blockade of the Northern coast, closing ports from Philadelphia to the Canadian border. He hoped this isolation would hamper the rebellion’s war-making capacity. On land, Lee initially advocated for a quick strike towards Philadelphia, the Commonwealth’s interim capitol, to dissolve the House of Delegates by force. This plan was quickly undone after the Battles of Delta and Castle Fin, however. Though Union victories, they so exhausted the Army of the Potomac that Lee had no choice but to call off the offensive. After a period of recovery, Lee adopted a different strategy: exploit the Commonwealth’s disunity.

By no means was the North united in secession. Even in Massachusetts, the center of rebel and abolitionist sentiment, around 40% of the population were Unionists, many of whom opposed slavery but could not abide by secession (a Union marching song, “Marching to Harrisburg”, portrayed these people as having “wept with joyful tears” when the Army of the Potomac marched by them). Lee figured that if he could decisively humiliate the Commonwealth on Northern soil enough times, Unionist views would gain prominence over secessionists, public opinion about the war would sour, and the North would be forced to surrender before it could levy the full force of its population and industry. This was the inspiration for Robert E. Lee’s offensive towards Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and would continue to heavily influence Union strategy until Thomas Jackson was forced out of Pennsylvania in late 1868.

Further West, the Union command had a grand vision of conquering Ohio up to Lake Erie, cutting the Commonwealth in two. It was this task with which President Lincoln tasked General McClellan. Much in line with General Lee’s thinking, Lincoln believed that quick assault into Ohio, before the Commonwealth had the chance to assemble a sizable force, had the best chance succeeding. McClellan thought differently, convinced that whatever force he could assemble would be insufficient to take on the large rebel force he was sure existed, just lurking beyond the sight of scouts and observation balloons. It’s up for debate if the Ohio plan would have worked had McClellan been more aggressive, but nonetheless McClellan’s inaction severely hampered the Union’s efforts in this region, which would only change after General Sherman assumed command of the Army of the Ohio.

Even further to the West was one of the most overlooked areas of the war. The Prairie Front, as some observers called it, lacked the massive armies and large battles that characterized warfare further East. The war in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, the Dakota Territory, and the Nebraska Territory was a very mobile war, with relatively small forces, often cavalry, skirmishing with each other and raiding farms and small towns. Historians often relate it to the fighting in Kansas from 1854 to 1863, though in some places it was not anywhere near as intense. Most settlers of Dakota and Nebraska came from the North and were not keen to take up arms against their rebellious cousins, with many having secessionist sympathies themselves. For this reason, the fighting centered on the Iowa-Missouri border, where it was every bit as brutal as Bleeding Kansas.

The Prairie Front was not a focus of either Union or Commonwealth leaders: fighting was most often between Iowa and Missouri’s respective state militias rather than the Union and Commonwealth armies (some historians refer to the Prairie Front as “The Iowa-Missouri Border War” for this reason, though such a name overlooks the fighting elsewhere on the prairie). State leaders on both sides sought to disrupt their counterparts’ economies by raiding farms and intercepting trains carrying agricultural products further East. At one point in 1867 Missouri had so effectively paralyzed crop shipments from Iowan farms that the Commonwealth needed to import more food from British North America, which was expensive and a contributing cause of the Debtor’s War. Months later, Iowa’s decisive victory in the Battle of Milan gave the Commonwealth a much-needed morale boost and was followed by victory at Harrisburg a week later. The Prairie Front was quiet compared to the big battles in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but it did have a serious impact on the war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming up next is an update about major developments of the war in 1866. It shouldn't be a long update because the war only started at the tail end of 1866. As always, thank you everyone for your comments! You all give me the motivation to keep writing.

 

[trekfan]

The War of Secession - 1866​

Battles​

The War of Secession got off to a slow start. Both sides had to quickly construct proper armies out of the few regulars, the state militias, and volunteers. In addition, winter was coming. Leaders on both sides of the Mason-Dixon thought the season would bog down their offensives. Better to wait a few months and gather strength before marching off to war, even if it was sure to be a quick one (as most people erroneously assumed). For these reasons, the siege of Fort Warren was one of only two major confrontations during the waning months of 1866. The other was Ohio’s invasion of Virginia.

The war had been “raging” for nearly a month before the Commonwealth’s formation. Before that, each seceded state claimed to be an independent Republic, individually waging war to secure themselves in independence. The rebel state governments never seriously considered maintaining independence; secessionists almost always advocated for the creation of a Northern confederacy. Nevertheless, before the signing of the Free State Compact the Northern states were independent of each other and conducted their own military operations. Most of these amounted to the seizure of American military assets within the state boundaries. However, Rutherford B. Hayes, installed as the Governor of Ohio after secessionists deposed the Unionist state government, was more ambitious.

Hayes wanted his state to be as influential as possible in the future Commonwealth and decided the best way to ensure that would be through military action. He reasoned that Ohio beginning an offensive on its own would force the rest of the North to defer to its leaders. Thus, Hayes and his advisors planned an invasion of Virginia for political purposes. It was a massive gamble. Hayes risked becoming a pariah in the Commonwealth should his plan fail, in addition to jeopardizing the broader war effort.

The entire plan was ill-conceived. Ohio alone did not have the resources to sustain an incursion for long – the invasion exhausted the state’s resources, slowing fortification efforts along the Ohio river. The Appalachian Mountains prevented the invasion force from seriously threatening the Union – all it did was waste time, resources, and manpower. On November 9th, the Union repelled Ohio’s advance at the Battle of Pennsboro, sending the invaders back across the state border. The United States was given a major propaganda victory, with Southern newspapers hailing the valiance of Brickwall Jackson and his men in the face of the more numerous yet poorly trained and equipped Ohioans. Hayes’ political career ended with Pennsboro – the following month the Ohio state legislature impeached Hayes for malpractice. All in all, the operation was a complete failure.

Other Events​

By executive order, President Lincoln ordered the closing of all major ports in rebellious states on November 19th. This was the beginning of the naval blockade of the Commonwealth that would continue in some form throughout much of the war.

On December 6th, the British Parliament passed a symbolic resolution condemning slavery throughout the world. Though it never mentioned developments across the Atlantic, many observers took this as an informal show of support for the Commonwealth.

The Free State Compact, formally unifying the rebel states, was signed on November 5th. The compact created the Commonwealth’s first government, intended to win the war and nothing else. It is for this reason that the Compact government was undemocratic in nature. The convention delegates figured that maintaining representative democracy throughout the war could backfire and endanger the Commonwealth’s independence due to the Unionist sympathies prevalent among much of the population. If the Commonwealth were to suffer a major military setback, they figured, Unionists could gain control of the state legislatures and rejoin the Union. Understandably, this was not a risk secessionist leaders wanted to take. Instead, the Free State Compact empowered the House of Delegates and the Presidents to do what was necessary to win the war. Most of the rights Commonwealth citizens now take for granted were not mentioned anywhere in the Compact. Indeed, many people were imprisoned without trial for expressing anti-secession views too loudly. Some political scientists characterize the early Commonwealth as a “representative dictatorship”, with some even promoting temporary authoritarianism as a means of establishing a democracy in the longer term. Though it worked in this case, the “Commonwealth Model”, as it became known, of using dictatorship to bring a democracy out of a crisis has been used by authoritarian regimes to justify their repressive actions. Modern examples include Britain during the Second Great War and post-revolution China in the 1970s. In most cases, temporary dictatorship became rather permanent – the Commonwealth is an exception.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to try for weekly updates until further notice. Up next is the long awaited flag update!

 

[trekfan]

Flags of the Commonwealth​

Not long after the signing of the Free State Compact did the issue of a national flag come up in the Commonwealth. At the start of the war, fighting men from different states and even different regiments often flew their own flags. Military leaders quickly recognized the need for a standard banner both to boost morale (a common flag helped inspire feelings of a united purpose, important in a country struggling with building a national identity) and for practical reasons.

The House of Delegates passed the Flag Act in January 1867, formally establishing the national flag of the Commonwealth. Its thirteen stars represent the original thirteen states of the Union and the ideals upon which the new Commonwealth were founded. The Sixteen stripes represent the sixteen states of the new Commonwealth.

Though the Commonwealth’s navy was something of a joke, at least during the first half of the war, the Flag act also established the Commonwealth’s naval ensign. Inspired by the Serapis Flag of the Revolutionary War, the naval ensign featured sixteen stars and sixteen stripes, each representing the Commonwealth’s sixteen states. Both this and the national flag were both designed by a young Polish immigrant whose name is unfortunately lost to history.

Both flags had a critical flaw: they bore a strong resemblance to the Union flag, which was confusing during several battles where soldiers on either side were unsure if they were fighting friend or foe. Though the designs are noticeably different in most cases, during the heat of battle smoke can obscure differences in design, leaving only the common colors. Though most military historians do not believe the flag confusion substantially impacted any major battles, it became enough of a problem that Commonwealth forces began using a different flag in battle. That flag was the Gadsden Flag. A part of American culture in some form since before the Revolution, the Gadsden Flag became a symbol of Northern secessionist though years before the War of Secession began. The Massachusetts state militia used it during the Battle of Fort Warren, and it was used intermittently in some form across the battle. Its colors a stark contrast to the Stars and Stripes and its message inspiring to those fighting beneath it, the Gadsden Flag was the natural choice for a dedicated battle flag.

Adopted in 1871, this flag symbolized the Commonwealth presidency. Once again, the sixteen stars represent the sixteen states of the Commonwealth. The central star represents the President, guiding the Commonwealth to a prosperous future. Let it never be said that John C. Frémont didn’t have a healthy ego.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A big thanks to @Jan Skrzetuski and @Erich Von Lundendorf for the designs, as well as @J_Master, who I believe was the first to suggest the Gadsden Flag as a battle flag.

This is a day late, sorry about that.

Coming up next is the year 1867. It's eventful.

Thank you everyone for your comments - you continue to make this project fun to write.

 

[trekfan]

Justification for the Secession of the Northern Commonwealth​

The Unanimous Declaration of the People of the Free American Commonwealth


It has been the proud history of the peoples of this continent that when, under threat of tyranny, they have dissolved their associations with those who would oppress them and stood, in the face of force of arms, resolute in their task to defend and bolster the liberty of all men. When, in the year 1765, the British Empire sought to impose tyrannical acts upon the thirteen American colonies, brave patriots resisted and struggled for men’s fundamental rights.

On the 4th of July, 1776, these patriots declared that “we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

They further establish that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.”

We hold that the Government of the United States is subject to the principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence, namely that all men are created equal, and that government exists to secure their fundamental rights. It has become undeniable to any reasoned observer that the Government, under its current constitution, has become alien and hostile to these ends. As it was in 1776, a respect of the opinions of mankind requires that we declare the causes which lead us to this conclusion.

The Union has enabled and facilitated the existence and expansion of slavery, the greatest evil of our time, the ultimate enemy of free men and free institutions. It has allowed the slavers to usurp the rightful popular government of the state of Kansas, establishing a slaveholding regime where there was once liberty.

The Union has inhibited the removal of slavery where it maintains its grip. It has repressed all voluntary associations of abolitionists, contrary to the First Amendment and the ideals of its own Declaration of Independence.

The Union has imposed an unelected and illegitimate president in the incumbent Abraham Lincoln, a man whose dearth of moral character is only exceeded by his treachery and deceit.

The Union has allowed its morally bankrupt Supreme Court to eliminate all protections against the expansion of slavery in the scarcely settled territories, and also hold the free states subject to the fugitive slave laws, an insult to all who recognize the fundamental rights afforded to every man.

The Union has stood against the free states’ lawful and righteous attempts to resist the Union’s encroachment on those rights through nullification.

The Union has maintained a Constitution empowering those who would bind other men to servitude at the expense of the people and has resisted any and every invitation to reform.

It has been seen that the Union Government, overseen by Mr. Lincoln and his predecessors, by the various Congresses and the Judiciary, has become hostile to the ends of righteous free government, and it is therefore the right and duty of the people to abolish it and bring forth a new government, more conducive to the protection of liberty and men’s unalienable rights.

We, therefore, the people of the Free American Commonwealth, comprising the constituent states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut, with solemn fortitude, in defense of the fundamental rights of all men, declare the Union heretofore existing between ourselves and the United States is forever dissolved, and declare to the free nations of the world that the Commonwealth will assume her position among them as a separate and independent state.


Adopted January 1, 1867.


---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, it's been a while! I haven't forgotten about this project and have been itching to work on it again.

This update should not be taken to signify that I am taking this AAR off of its hiatus - do not expect regular updates or even another update for the next several months at least. Just know that I have no plans to abandon this project and will return when I have the time and motivation. These days it seems I only have one or the other

 

[trekfan]

Developments 1867 – The Eastern Front​

Opening Moves​

Both sides have been busy during the winter months. Last year’s Battle of Pennsboro (often referred to as “Hayes’ Folly”) clearly demonstrated the need for the Commonwealth to organize an effective fighting force, and quickly. If the Commonwealth was to outlast the Union, it would have to be capable of facing down the enemy forces. On paper, a simple concept, but it was Herculean to the largely inexperienced Commonwealth military leadership.

By the end of February, the North had something to show for its efforts - the newly christened Army of the Susquehanna stood at over 80,000 men strong. Command of this force fell to Ambrose Burnside, in what was largely a political appointment. Burnside had been one of the few Democrats who favored secession of his state, Rhode Island, after the House of Representatives resolved the election of 1864. The smaller states had been jockeying for power in the House of Delegates after the signing of the Free State Compact, and command of the young country’s largest army to a Rhode Islander satiated their desires. Burnside had been a Colonel in the United States Army before turning to politics in 1858. On the other side of the Mason-Dixon, Robert E. Lee commanded the Union’s Army of the Potomac, which at this point was 90,000 strong. Lee had gotten the job off of his reputation for brilliant tactics during the Mexican-American War.

Burnside felt that the Commonwealth needed to strike as soon as weather conditions permitted it. Forcing the Union to fight on its own soil would demoralize his opponents and drive up support for the war back home. Enthusiasm had waned after the disaster at Pennsboro and there was serious concern that Unionists could rise to power in state governments. The Commonwealth needed a victory on Union soil, and soon. Burnside convinced President Frémont to green-light an invasion of Maryland. Though he had no illusions of capturing Washington D.C., he hoped to put pressure in Baltimore and disrupt the Union’s own preparations. It was rumored that Robert E. Lee was commanding a sizable force, but that it would take another two weeks for it to be ready for action.

As it happens, the Commonwealth’s intelligence on Union military activity was lacking – Lee’s force had in fact been ready for battle for nearly two weeks. So, the Army of the Susquehanna marched South and crossed the border into Maryland on March 7th, the superior Army of the Potomac was waiting for them. Lee met Burnside just over the Maryland border, at the tiny hamlet of Cardiff.

What followed became the bloodiest battle in American history, though that title would end up being granted to several battles over the course of the war, eventually resting with the Battle of Harrisburg. Most estimates have the combined casualties at around 15,000 killed, wounded, and missing. Modern historians chalk up the high casualties to the new technologies employed, most notably the Gatling gun. Both sides had deployed several of the weapons to support select infantry brigades, to devastating results. Future battles would see battlefield commanders adjust their tactics to accommodate the weapon’s immense destructive capability, though this would take time.

Casualties were higher for Burnside’s outnumbered Army of the Susquehanna. After several hours of fighting, the general ordered a withdrawal back across the border, to regroup and reevaluate the invasion in light of the Army of the Potomac’s evident superiority.

Lee was not about to give the rebels the chance. After a brief respite, he ordered the Army of the Potomac into Pennsylvania in pursuit of Burnside. The two armies met again on March 10th, outside of Delta, Pennsylvania. After a few hours of fighting, the Commonwealth fell back again, though some relief came when Lee halted his advance. The Union had taken heavy casualties at Delta, partly thanks to the tactics of Brigadier General George Meade, whose brigade inflicted nearly 2:1 casualties on the slavers.

Even so, Lee was not to be deterred. After a few days of rest, the Army of the Potomac marched North again. This put Burnside in an awkward position. At this point, Burnside doubted whether he could even defeat Lee, much less push him back across the border. However, the alternative to sending his men to the slaughter would be to allow Lee to continue on, perhaps even to Philadelphia, which President Frémont made sure Burnside know was unacceptable. No, the only choice was to meet Lee and, somehow, halt his advance. It was with this attitude that Burnside met Lee for a third time, on March 16th at Castle Fin, Pennsylvania.

This battle ended up having the fewest casualties of the trio. Though nominally a Union victory, as Burnside again ordered a withdrawal, the battle had revealed the shortcomings of the Union supply chain. It became clear to both sides that if he advanced further so quickly, Lee’s army would be enveloped. So, the Army of the Potomac adopted defensive positions just a few miles west of the Susquehanna River, while Burnside withdrew to the north. It would not be long before the two armies would face off again, and both generals intended to be ready.