| April 10 |  |
Editor says, what if US President Matthew C. Perry had sent the US Navy to force open the Confederacy? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the June 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1794, on this day Matthew Calbraith Perry the fifteenth President of the United States was born in Newport, Rhode Island.
Matthew C. Perry
15th US PresidentThe son of Captain Christopher Perry and Sarah Perry, he was also the younger brother of Oliver Hazard Perry, famous for capturing an entire British squadron at the Battle of Lake Erie during the War of 1812. Commissioned as midshipman in 1809, he launched an illustrious naval career that would last almost half a century, culminating in the opening of Japan.
Commodore Perry returned to the United States in 1855, a national hero who commanded almost universal respect and a remarkable reputation for forceful negotiation. The man of the hour, he was ran for office, winning the Presidency in 1856.
The arrival of such a powerful figure in the White House certainly augured well for the country. Because during his single term of office, the disintegration of the Union began to accelerate with frightening speed. Of course the expectation was that Perry would impose a quasi-military solution upon the south just as Andrew Jackson had done so during the Nullification Crisis.
He certainly tried, grasping at solutions that had worked in the past. But it didn't quite work out that way, because the famous gunboat diplomacy which had worked with such success in Tokyo Bay met a rather different response in Charleston Harbour.
Story continues..
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: President Perry Source: Wikipedia Labels: Matthew Perry, Civil War, Commodore, US Navy, America. Editor says, Wikipedia reports - when Perry returned to the United States in 1855, Congress voted to grant him a reward of $20,000 in appreciation of his work in Japan. Perry used part of this money to prepare and publish a report on the expedition in three volumes, titled Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan. He was also advanced to the grade of rear-admiral on the retired list (when his health began to fail) as a reward for his services in the Far East. Perry was known to have suffered severe arthritis that left him in frequent pain, that on occasion precluded him from his duties.
~ I don't think we've ever had an Admiral-President. One thing...the US Navy wouldn't have been let fall into its pre-Civil-War desuetude on his watch, I think.
~ Intriguing POD, looking forward to more installments.
~ I agree with Mr. Oppen's point. The blockade would be quickly and firmly established by a polished US Navy.
June 2
Editor says, what if Abraham Lincoln tried to stop tyranny coming to America? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the July 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1860, on this day the thirty-sixth United States Congress voted to impeach President Matthew C. Perry for ordering the US Navy to force open Charleston Harbor thereby exceeding the authority of Commander-in Chief as defined by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
President Perry ImpeachedThe escalating crisis in government had been precipitated by the abolitionist seizure of Fort Sumter. A catastrophic loss of trade forced the South Carolina Militia to launch an attack on John Brown's raiders, but the possibility of Federal Property being occupied was too much for Perry who decided to pre-empt. However the US Navy refused to execute the order, considering the retired Commodore quite insane to consider that the gunboat tactics of Tokyo Bay would translate into a resolution in Charleston Harbour.
Indeed such a clumsy attempt at coercion would have been tantamount to a declaration of war, a power reserved to the US Congress. This point was forceably expressed by the former lawyer turned Whig Congressman Abraham Lincoln (pictured) who argued that "they [the framers at Philadelphia] so frame[d] the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bring this oppression upon us".
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: President Perry Source: Wikipedia Labels: Matthew Perry, Civil War, Commodore, US Navy, America. Editor says, in reality Lincoln did make such a comment but in 1848. In the libertarian publication "Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America" the author John Emerson argues that Lincoln actually brought tyranny to America.
~ Uh-uh. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion without a declaration of war because it was a REBELLION. The president is charged with protecting the constitution -- including constitutional order -- of the United States and enforcing its laws.
~ Was the Secession a rebellion, though? That's what the question has been from the beginning...
~ The Fedgov would have done whatever was necessary to get JB and his merry crew out of that fort.
~ "The Secession" was a rebellion, all right, by any reasonable definition. Had the Union been intended to be the voluntary and revocable compact Southerners claimed, the Constitution would surely have said so at some point and made provision for orderly withdrawal. It does neither. Southerners simply threw a multi-state armed tantrum when the 1860 election went to a man they feared would end their cherished institution of slavery. (Ironically, Lincoln himself claimed that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do so--but Southerners, enraged that they had not been able to dictate terms as in past disputes, refused to believe him.)
~ The issue of rebellion or war gets back to the whole question of whether the Federal union was in fact a union of sovereign states, where the US is or the US are is correct. The trust of the post-1850 Dixiecrat discourse is that the US are and thus that any Federal attempt at coercion [using armed force against a state] was an act of war against both that state and the proto-nation of Dixie. The South was felt to be a separate nationality [think Quebec in Canada or Scotland in the UK] such that other Southern states could not abide coercion as a matter of honor. This is why in our 1861 SC and the CSA pushed for an armed showdown at Charleston. They wanted a war to force the outer south to declare. It almost worked. Four states seceded over coercion. Missouri botched its attempt. Maryland had its attempt squashed at gunpoint. Kentucky declared neutrality and was in fact a third nation for most of a year.
~ Ugh, politicians... Perry knew how to get things done!
October 16
Editor says, what if John Brown had tried something rather different? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the June 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1859, on this day a group of raiders led by the Northern abolitionist John Brown seized the coastal fortification located in Charleston Harbor sending the Federal soldiers away in small boats.
Siege of Fort SumterWith merchant shipping diverting to safer ports, the immediate lost of commerce forced the South Carolina Militia to launch a strike on Federal Property that would be viewed as an Act of War by US President Matthew C. Perry.
In fact the complete surprise achieved by the raiders was due to Allan Pinkerton's tight control of operational security. Brought into Brown's confidence as security enforcer, he had soon discovered that the original plan to seize the arsenal at Harper's Ferry had been compromised such that it was unlikely they would achieve their goal of arming freemen and slaves to create a general servile insurrection.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: President Perry Source: Wikipedia Labels: John Brown, Civil War, Matthew Perry, Fort Sumter, Harper's Ferrry. Editor says, many thanks to Allen W. Donnell, Eric Oppen, Jeff Provine and Scott Palter for their contributions to the development of this story
~ Good twists.
~ Interesting. With Pinkerton on the anti-slavery fight instead of pursuing his detective agency, Brown could do so much better.
~ Pinkerton WAS an abolitionist and did know John Brown. Read John Jakes' "On Secret Service" for an additional, if somewhat fictionalized, look at this man.
~ The actual Harpers Ferry Raid was resisted by local militiamen, which was not considered an act of war against the Feddle Gummint...why would President Perry side with JB against the South Carolinians? Concept is MP not sympathetic at all to JB but resents militia seizing and holding Federal Property e.g. wants USN to evict JB not militia
~ It is unlikely that any president would provide protection to raiders occupying Federal property. Confusion the USG objects to South Carolina militia occupying Federal Property they also want to seize John Brown but they want to do it first, requiring access to Charleston Harbour. South Carolina wants to do so herself to restore southern pride / resolve the situation more quickly..
Older Posts
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
