Speculative fiction idea - a divided USA

Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I don't normally do this, but I've had an idea for a short story, maybe a novella, and I'd like to see what people, especially our American forum members think.

The American Civil War has ended in a stalemate. With neither side able to make any significant gains, an uneasy compromise is reached. The Confederacy and the Union agree to a nominal federal union, with both sides having their own Presidents, Vice-Presidents and governments, which together form the new United States. The Confederacy (now known as the Southern United States) retains slavery.

In 1867, Northern President Andrew Johnson is impeached and convicted, but refuses to hand over power with the support of (by now) unpopular Southern President Jefferson Davis, who had won a second term due to the "victory" of the Confederacy. War hero Ulysses S. Grant, backed by a number of state governors, takes matters into his own hands and forcibly deposes Johnson.

Jefferson Davis is assassinated in 1868, propelling Alexander Stephens to the Southern Presidency. The ambitious Stephens looks to take advantage of the turmoil in the North to reunite the United States under a single presidency.

Fearful of a military threat from the North under Grant, people in the South begin demanding immediate elections with Robert E. Lee as candidate. Stephens appoints him Vice-President to appease the voters. The two men do not get on, and their fractious relationship threatens to undermine the South.

Somewhere along the line, all this leads to a reunification of the USA - how, I don't know yet.

What do you think?
 
Joined Feb 2019
4,409 Posts | 3,607+
Serbia
I like it so far. I think that this sample is a bit too small and would like to see Grant's coup and the political drama of the timeline covered in detail. Other than that, I think that the premise is nice and takes a more original approach than the generic ''the South wins'' story line.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I like it so far. I think that this sample is a bit too small and would like to see Grant's coup and the political drama of the timeline covered in detail. Other than that, I think that the premise is nice and takes a more original approach than the generic ''the South wins'' story line.

Yeah, I think the plot is too extensive to be a short story. I want it to be a character-driven, political intrigue story as you say. It will most likely be a novella (although I dunno, is 50,000 words a novella?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mastersonmcvoidson
Joined Nov 2016
5,776 Posts | 2,668+
Germany
50,000 words a novella?

50,000 words is a short novel. A novella has around 10,000 words, such as "Fantomina" (12,000 words) by Eliza Haywood, whose translation I am currently completing.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
50,000 words is a short novel. A novella has around 10,000 words, such as "Fantomina" (12,000 words) by Eliza Haywood, whose translation I am currently completing.

10,000-12,000 words is really a long short story, IMO.
 
Joined Oct 2011
40,550 Posts | 7,631+
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Yeah, I think the plot is too extensive to be a short story. I want it to be a character-driven, political intrigue story as you say. It will most likely be a novella (although I dunno, is 50,000 words a novella?).

I remember that when I wanted to write a novel they told me that 50,000 words is the limit between a novella and a novel [but you know that Italians talk a lot ... we also write a lot!].
 
Joined Nov 2016
5,776 Posts | 2,668+
Germany
10,000-12,000 words is really a long short story, IMO

Quote:

This collection of early works by Eliza Haywood includes the well-known novella Fantomina (1725) along with three other short, highly engaging Haywood works:


1602073306012.png

1602073522434.png
 
Joined Aug 2020
2,833 Posts | 2,454+
Devon, England
10,000-12,000 words is really a long short story, IMO.
Well you could build your story up from short stories with a linked narrative.

Certainly I find the premise intriguing. I would say go for it, the important thing being to get it written and then you can play around with length especially if you get a good editor. Editors are annoying with their constant suggestions to rewrite this bit and that bit but it does really improve your story even if it is a dent to the ego (or maybe that is just me) but I would recommend it.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Well you could build your story up from short stories with a linked narrative.

Certainly I find the premise intriguing. I would say go for it, the important thing being to get it written and then you can play around with length especially if you get a good editor. Editors are annoying with their constant suggestions to rewrite this bit and that bit but it does really improve your story even if it is a dent to the ego (or maybe that is just me) but I would recommend it.

Editing is a hugely important part of writing. I'll worry about finding an editor at a later date though, gotta get the first draft written first. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomRodent
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
This collection of early works by Eliza Haywood includes the well-known novella Fantomina (1725) along with three other short, highly engaging Haywood works:

The line is hardly clear cut. Plenty of works that are considered short stories run to 10,000 words or thereabouts, and this thread is not about discussing what is or is not a novella.
 
Joined Oct 2011
40,550 Posts | 7,631+
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Regarding the story, personally I love when the matter becomes global.

A mess in the Northern States could have switched some European interest on again for those lands.
But probably it would become really complicated to build a good involvement of Paris and London. May be a new contest between the two colonial powers about a piece of North America could be an intriguing background for the main narration.
 
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
Johnson was impeached in 1868, not '67. Jefferson Davis was constitutionally limited to a single six year term that would have run out in early '67. These little details are easily fixed by changing Davis to Stephens in the above scenario.

Stephens was a controversial figure in the South. He was a former Whig and founder of the Constitutional Union Party that ran Bell for president in 1860. He only became vice president of the Confederacy as a compromise, an attempt to establish national unity by including all factions in the government. I don't know if Stephens had the support to win the Southern presidency. It should be easy enough to find a Confederate politician to succeed Davis.

Lee would die in 1870. He was in poor health already during the war having suffered at least one heart attack. However, as far as I know he continued working right up until his death as president of Geo. Washington College in Virginia. I don't know if he ever had any political ambitions. He would probably respond to a plea of "Your country needs you." By the end of the war he seemed rather fed up with the whole thing. My sense is that he eagerly transitioned into peace.

Grant disliked Johnson enough to side with Congress against him. I think Grant the military dictator would be a difficult sell. He might call for quick elections. The vote in the Senate was in May '68. Elections were not until November. There was no vice president. There was a presidential succession law (The Presidential Succession Act of 1792). The president pro tem of the Senate was next in line - Benjamin Wade of Ohio. Wade was a lame duck senator who had been voted out of office in 1867, but because of the technicalities of the day he didn't actually leave office until 1869. Still, you don't want a lame duck president which makes Grant as military dictator a little more likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftyhunter
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I thought about that, but in 1868, the Crimean War was only 12 years before - I'm not sure if Britain or France had the stomach for more war.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Lee would die in 1870.

I know, but I need a strong figure who could act as an opponent to Stephens. I could, at least for the purposes of this, have Lee survive a few more years.

The reason I had Stephens ascend to the Presidency was because I wanted to have him seen to be usurping power. I could redo that scenario in a different way though. Hmm...
 
Joined Oct 2015
1,888 Posts | 445+
California
Jefferson Davis is assassinated in 1868, propelling Alexander Stephens to the Southern Presidency. The ambitious Stephens looks to take advantage of
Somewhere along the line, all this leads to a reunification of the USA - how, I don't know yet.


What do you think?

Relations with the French in Mexico should do the trick. In this timeline have the French do better in Mexico and have even given limited military support to the south during the CW. Parts of the south like Texas and Louisiana have French garrisons. You can have Napoleon III and Maximillian supporting Jefferson Davis who heads the pro-French alliance faction in the CSA. The pro-French camp in the CSA believe close ties with Nap III will keep the US at bay. You can have Alexander Stephens who heads the Anti-French pro reunification faction be complicit in the Davis assassination, with tacit approval by Grant. Both anti-French factions in the North and South want the French out and are willing to go to war with France over it to galvanize deep seated patriotism muted by the civil war.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Relations with the French in Mexico should do the trick. In this timeline have the French do better in Mexico and have even given limited military support to the south during the CW. Parts of the south like Texas and Louisiana have French garrisons. You can have Napoleon III and Maximillian supporting Jefferson Davis who heads the pro-French alliance faction in the CSA. The pro-French camp in the CSA believe close ties with Nap III will keep the US at bay. You can have Alexander Stephens who heads the Anti-French pro reunification faction be complicit in the Davis assassination, with tacit approval by Grant. Both anti-French factions in the North and South want the French out and are willing to go to war with France over it to galvanize deep seated patriotism muted by the civil war.

Ooh, hmm, yes - maybe French support is what managed to bring the war to a stalemate. I was definitely thinking about having Stephens be part of the assassination plot.

I am thinking that the ACW would create all sorts of precedents that would upend what would be normal constitutional processes in both the north and the south.

I had envisaged Stephens as the villain of the piece, it being a lot about his personal ambition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seneschal
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
I know, but I need a strong figure who could act as an opponent to Stephens. I could, at least for the purposes of this, have Lee survive a few more years.

The reason I had Stephens ascend to the Presidency was because I wanted to have him seen to be usurping power. I could redo that scenario in a different way though. Hmm...

Stephens the usurper can work for you, given that he lacked broad-based support in the South. Maybe the Southern election of '67 gets thrown into the Confederate House of Representatives and Stephens gets elected through the back door, like John Quincy Adams in 1824. Lee might be too strong for your needs. Lee was so popular in the South after the war that I can't imagine him winning an election by less than a landslide. If you're still considering other Southern politicians I suggest taking a look at John C. Breckinridge, Buchanan's vice president and unsuccessful candidate for president in 1860. He was a general in the war and Davis' Secretary of War. There's also Zebulon B. Vance, very popular state's rights governor of North Carolina.
 
Joined Dec 2011
3,173 Posts | 237+
Angel City
Make it controversial folks eat that up. Let your antagonist be good individual who turned bad. It is hard to reconcile being intrinsically good and now extrinsically bad. Perhaps something or someone pushed his goodness to the limit. Let the protagonist be self efficient yet weak a character he despises in himself/hersel they both fight against each other common goal. Publish it I look forward to reading it.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Make it controversial folks eat that up. Let your antagonist be good individual who turned bad. It is hard to reconcile being intrinsically good and now extrinsically bad. Perhaps something or someone pushed his goodness to the limit. Let the protagonist be self efficient yet weak a character he despises in himself/hersel they both fight against each other common goal. Publish it I look forward to reading it.

I think I'm more of the kind who likes the idea that in a political drama, no one is inherently good or inherently evil. There will be some - like Stephens, or whoever the "villain" is - who are nakedly ambitious, and others who "do what must be done", and those who think they are serving the greater good.

I haven't decided whose POV to write it from yet. It might end up being third person omniscient.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Stephens the usurper can work for you, given that he lacked broad-based support in the South. Maybe the Southern election of '67 gets thrown into the Confederate House of Representatives and Stephens gets elected through the back door, like John Quincy Adams in 1824. Lee might be too strong for your needs. Lee was so popular in the South after the war that I can't imagine him winning an election by less than a landslide. If you're still considering other Southern politicians I suggest taking a look at John C. Breckinridge, Buchanan's vice president and unsuccessful candidate for president in 1860. He was a general in the war and Davis' Secretary of War. There's also Zebulon B. Vance, very popular state's rights governor of North Carolina.

Do you think Lee would work as a Paul von Hindenburg figure, who keeps the villain in check until he dies of a stroke?
 

Trending History Discussions

Top