My first timeline here...Confederacy wins

I figure I will go a while at a time, get the details down pat, then go on. Here is rough draft of part 1:
Jan 1858 Stephan Douglas dies of pneumonia
Feb 1858 Lecompton Constitution passes Congress, Kansas admitted as slave state
Mar 1858 Nebraska amitted as free state
Nov 1860 Lincoln wins narrow election
Feb 1861 Southern states start secceding
Mar 1861 Lincoln takes over, Civil War starts
Apr 1861 Lincoln assassinated, Hannibal Hamlin assumes office, issues Emancipation Proclamation for all United States
May 1861 Kentucky and Missouri join Confederacy
Jun 1861 South wins Battle of Hagerstown (Maryland)
Jul 1861 South wins Battlle of Frederick (Maryland)
Sep 1861 South manages to win the bloody Battle of Washington, Capitol relocates to Philadelphia
Oct 1861 Hamlin impeached, Simon Cameron assumes presidency
Nov 1861 Hamlin signs Treaty of Baltimore, ending the Civil War and recognizing the CSA.
OK, people, what do I have to change?

If Hamlin is impeached how does he end the Civil War by signing the peace treaty? Hmm it is intresting to see a change of strategy by the South, that must mean Jefferson Davis isnt handed the Presidency, maybe he becomes the General of the Armies of the Mississippi, and John Breckenridge becomes President of the CSA and takes an aggressive stance. But does Virginia secede before the war starts, or after the war starts like OTL? That may hamper things a bit.

I don't think Nebraska had enough eligable voters (white males, age 21+) to vote to become a state.

Sorry, I meant Cameron. Brain fart. Virginia is good. It might even vote for Lincoln...would this be enough to swing the election? Or did it go Lincoln OTL?
Maybe Emancipating every state would push them over the line quick?

Mikey:
Checked my almanac. You are likely right.

So is Virginia part of the C.S.A.? How many years are you going to take this TL?

tom said:

Sorry, I meant Cameron. Brain fart. Virginia is good. It might even vote for Lincoln...would this be enough to swing the election? Or did it go Lincoln OTL?
Maybe Emancipating every state would push them over the line quick?

Click to expand...

Why would Lincoln do that?

Can't see why Hamlin would suddenly spring for the Emancipation Proclamation in 1861. So far the war is not over slavery, but to preserve the Union. Any good politician would figure out that one would have to be weary of the border states. Also since the Emancipation Proclamation severely angered Ohio, India and Illinois its also likely that the war effort in those states will be hampered from the very beginning.

Once pledging itself to the destruction of slavery, which the Federal Government did, any failure, such as surrender, would have tremendous political consequences for the remaining US states. The abolitionalists of New England could very well revolt against the Federal Government of failing to stamp out slavery.

I think you are completely ignoring the impact that Lincoln's assassination, even in 1861, would have on the country.

WI with Lincoln's assassination in 1861 the nation is deeply shocked and goes into a few days of mourning, which serves as a cooling off period. Hamlin opens new negotiations with the states in rebellion and an agreement is reached for a gradual emancipation of slaves over a thirty year period. The New England states learning of this immediately seceede from the Union. President Hamlin calls upon the newly reinstated General Lee to lead the reunited Army against New England. Jefferson Davis is confirmed by the Congress as Vice President.

Any good politician would figure out that one would have to be weary of the border states.

Click to expand...

weary ? I think wary or leary but not weary

Grey Wolf

To David - I don't understand why New England would want to secede after the South has seceded ? It has enough power to retake control of the political process by constitutional means even if the immediate period is not going to be their liking.

I do agree that the Emancipation Proclamation looks out of place but it does not need to be. If the South is WINNING very quickly and Hamlin as an avowed abolitionist comes into office then it may be an emergency measure by the North designed to destabilise the South. Yes, it will also destabilise the North a little bit but if the ATL' s proclamation is based on OTL's then it is very small - it is a little known fact that the Emancipation Proclamation made a deliberate EXCEPTION for states of the Union and Union-controlled areas. Only an amendment to the constitution removed slavery there. Yes, a proclamation especially by someone like Hamlin is going to seem to be the first step on the road to that amendment, but its not an immediate threat.

btw what I don't understand is why Hamlin is impeached ? Is it an impeachable offence to be losing a war ?

Grey Wolf

Ah Tom, here's a very useful site :-
http://search.eb.com/elections/etable2.html

and OTL's 1860 electoral college :-
http://search.eb.com/elections/1860.html

I suppose the question with regard to Virginia is whether Douglas took votes that might have split evenly between Lincoln and the others and thus let Bell in ?

Of course, Douglas' death does not mean that nobody will stand in his stead, but perhaps the Southern Democrat/Democrat split doesn't occur or maybe whoever takes his place is less well known, charismatic and effective and thus takes a smaller part of the popular vote and no votes in the electoral college at all ?

Grey Wolf

Also, remember that being impeached is not the same as being removed from office. Clinton was impeached, but he still was president. So Cameron wouldn't become president upon Hamlin being impeached.

DominusNovus said:

Also, remember that being impeached is not the same as being removed from office. Clinton was impeached, but he still was president. So Cameron wouldn't become president upon Hamlin being impeached.

Click to expand...

Negative - he went through the impeachment process and was ACQUITTED

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/impeach.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/

If he had been found guilty then that would be a different matter. One assumes that that is what is intended here for Hamlin, but the make-up of the Senate would determine what happened in the final vote...

Grey Wolf

Oh, and from :-
http://www.abcny.org/presimpt.htm

"The Constitution deals with the subject of impeachment and conviction at six places. The scope of the power is set out in Article 11, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Other provisions deal with procedures and consequences. Article 1, Section 2 states:

The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Similarly, Article I, Section 3, describes the Senate's role:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

So, in order to TRY Hamlin there has to be something which can be categorised as a 'high crime' or 'misdemeanour', and in order to have him removed from office you need not only a majority in the Senate byt a 2/3 majority, though perhaps in the middle of a war if there was only a simple majority and he was technically acquitted he might still stand down rather than render the entire system of government paralysed at a crucial moment

Of course, like Nixon, Hamlin may stand down BEFORE the impeachment trial if he thinks he will either lose or if he is motivated by a sense of patriotism in the middle of a war

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf said:

Negative - he went through the impeachment process and was ACQUITTED

Click to expand...

Exactly. But its not the impeachment that removes a president. Impeaching is simply bring up the charges.

Grey Wolf said:

To David - I don't understand why New England would want to secede after the South has seceded ? It has enough power to retake control of the political process by constitutional means even if the immediate period is not going to be their liking.

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

This is only a recent thought of mine from when I wrote the ATL on the Northwest Conspiracy. I think that New England may not completely stomach the idea of the Federal Government reversing itself on the war against slavery. The idea works better, from my POV, after a few years of war rather than right at the outset.

Actually, my point before was that the Federal Government reaches an accord that keeps the Confederacy from seceeding, partly since Lincoln is dead, and a compromise is reached, and then New England secedes. Oh, there is all of hand waving to make this idea work, so it might not be too plausible.

Of course, the real question is what effect gunning down a president has.

You know, at the start of the war, people might frown on that.

Virginia, North Carolina, etc. seceded rather than fight a war against the Confederacy. If the war starts differently, these states might stay with the Union. And if Virginia stays with the Union, that means Lee serves as the commander of all Union forces crushing the "rebellion." He was offered the job, but would not fight against his fellow Virginians.

Who commands the Confederate forces in the East, then? Bedford Forrest? Or someone else?

ConfederateFly:
Until the present or (more likely) until I run out of steam. Virginia is part of the CSA.
Faeelin:
It would not be Lincoln, it would be Hamlin.
Poepoe:
My understanding was that Hamlin was even more of a fiery abolitionist than Lincoln. Yes, it would be stupid for a politician to emancipate all the slaves at this point, but politicians have done stupid things before. I would guess an early assassination would enflame passions in the North, not cool them.
Grey wolf:
No, but come on. Impeachment is more a political thing. Probably every president has done something that his enemies could spin into an impeachable offense if they thought they could get away with it. Was Clinton's indiscretions worse than Kennedy's or Grover "Ma, ma, where's my pa, gone to the white house ha ha ha" Cleveland's? Was Watergate initially worse than Teapot Dome? Was Andrew Johnson more of a criminal than other presidents?
DominousNovus:
Yeah, I forgot that. My bad.

If impeachment was truly only a political move, then Lincoln surely should have been impeached for lack of success that the Union had in the field in the opening year of the war. The war itself has been going on barely more than eight months. Hamlin may be more prone to rotating generals than Lincoln was. The Emancipation Proclamation itself was issued until September 1862 OTL nearly a year into the war.

True the assassination of Lincoln would inflame the North, but there would also be sympathetic feelings in the South. He is the first US President assassinated and it would certainly taint (by association) the South in the eyes of the nation and world.