DBWI: If Lincoln had won in 1860 instead of Douglas?

[CaliBoy1990]

Hey folks, today was the 150th anniversary of the First Battle of Antietam so I thought I might put this thread up. In 1860, Stephen Douglas won the election by 50.4% of the popular vote, with running mate Breckinridge. But, as we all know, the Civil War broke out anyway in November 1861 after the bombing of Fort Sumter. Douglas was at first reluctant to escalate the war, which hampered the U.S. Army significantly, and the war only became a full blown conflict after the resignation of VP Breckinridge in April 1862. Douglas then finally began to fully use his abilities as commander-in-chief, but by June, his health had begun to fail him, and sadly, finally died in April 1864 just as the Union began to truly win the war. Vice President Daniel Dickinson, who had been appointed to replace Breckinridge, became President; though an honest and likable leader, was unable to handle the war, and in July 1867, the Treaty of Louisville ended the conflict. Dickinson himself passed away in October of that year, and was replaced by his Vice President, Horatio Seymour.
Seymour won the 1868 election by a slight, but the Democrats took decades to recover, starting with the election of James Blaine in 1872.
The C.S.A., meanwhile with Virginia(except for West Virginia, of course!) though sans Kentucky and northern Arkansas, struggled on for the next 40 years, supported only by a Conservative government in London(Canada rejected Commonwealth membership in 1867 and became a full republic, mainly thanks to Britain's support of the Confederacy.) and the French Empire(until 1877, that is. Napoleon III was overthrown in July), and still facing an angry U.S.A. Their only conquest,really, was in Mexico, when their Civil War occurred in 1878 and wracked the country for 3 whole years, during which the C.S. snapped up Sonora, Baja California, Chihuahua, and most of Coahuila in late 1879, all of which were soon flooded with white settlers.
It wasn't until 1904 that the C.S.A. finally began to implode, after a number of deadly slave uprisings, and not until April 1907 that the Confederacy officially ceased to exist.

What I'd like to ask is, could Lincoln's election have possibly shortened the Civil War, and maybe even stopped the C.S.A. from rising up?
And, for that matter, would there still have been two Great Wars(Germany won the first and was crushed in the Second)? Or the terror bombings in the 1960s or the militia attacks in the late '80s thru early 2000s? Or even the fear of atomic war between the U.S. and Marxist Russia?

Harry Turtledove may have covered this back in the '80s but I want to hear your own unique perspectives.

[WhiteRussian]

Remember, the 25th Amendment wasn't passed until the 60s. The President couldn't appoint a VP then, they had to wait until they ran for re-election with a running mate.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by WhiteRussian

Remember, the 25th Amendment wasn't passed until the 60s. The President couldn't appoint a VP then, they had to wait until they ran for re-election with a running mate.

IC: The 25th? Actually, I do believe it was the 17th. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled in 1866 that the President could choose his successor before an election in times of crisis. And then the 17th Amendment was passed in 1882 anyhow after President Garfield
was assassinated, so yeah.

OOC: That had been true IOTL, but things have changed here, though.

@Snake: Sadly, I'm inclined to agree with you here. Douglas really should've gotten his ass in gear.

[marl_d]

With Lincoln at the helm, the war wouldn't have lasted or been as bloody as it was. He made several entries into his journals on how he would have run the war, including freeing the southern slaves as well as making Grant the Commander of the Union forces. Douglas, then Dickinson's inablity to use their resources properly is was lead to the UK and French recognizing the CSA.

Unfortunately this lead to the continuation of slavery for several more years, even if the CSA was forced to "officially" end slavery by the English, it might as well as continued, blacks would have been much better off, and would have saved the world the hardships of 3 major and bloody wars between 1890-1930.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by marl_d

With Lincoln at the helm, the war wouldn't have lasted or been as bloody as it was. He made several entries into his journals on how he would have run the war, including freeing the southern slaves as well as making Grant the Commander of the Union forces. Douglas, then Dickinson's inablity to use their resources properly is was lead to the UK and French recognizing the CSA.

Unfortunately this lead to the continuation of slavery for several more years, even if the CSA was forced to "officially" end slavery by the English,ceased to do so. it might as well as continued, blacks would have been much better off, and would have saved the world the hardships of 3 major and bloody wars between 1890-1930.

Actually, the CSA collapsed in 1907....and the British government stopped opposing slavery again after the Conservatives took power again in 1880 and it wasn't until they were kicked out by angry voters in the spring of 1892 that London finally began to do so
again. Liberal PM Henry Campbell deserves a lot of credit for being the first British PM to actually engage in a trade embargo against the Confederacy, by the way.

(The War between the States caused the U.S. to sit out of the Great War, btw.)

One of the good things that came out of this, I believe, was the fact that when segregation did finally come around(as it inevitably would, sadly.) it was limited strictly to the South, and not even all of the southern states(and was permanently banned in 1953). Anti-miscegenation laws had a much harder time gaining acceptance as well, thanks to the many eugenics horrors uncovered by the famous muckraker J. Upton Sinclair in 1908.

OOC: I didn't want to ruin the fun but I think you might have forgotten to read parts of the OP.

[marl_d]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Actually, the CSA collapsed in 1907....and the British government stopped opposing slavery again after the Conservatives took power again in 1880 and it wasn't until they were kicked out by angry voters in the spring of 1892 that London finally began to do so
again. Liberal PM Henry Campbell deserves a lot of credit for being the first British PM to actually engage in a trade embargo against the Confederacy, by the way.

(The War between the States caused the U.S. to sit out of the Great War, btw.)

One of the good things that came out of this, I believe, was the fact that when segregation did finally come around(as it inevitably would, sadly.) it was limited strictly to the South, and not even all of the southern states(and was permanently banned in 1953). Anti-miscegenation laws had a much harder time gaining acceptance as well, thanks to the many eugenics horrors uncovered by the famous muckraker J. Upton Sinclair in 1908.

OOC: I didn't want to ruin the fun but I think you might have forgotten to read parts of the OP.

OOC: hehe, I'm a little out of it and missed the last sentence about the country imploding in 1907

[Snake Featherston]

To be honest, the outbreak of the War of Secession was primarily Douglas's own damn fault in the first place. Lincoln would have been a bit more flexible in terms of maneuver and his very status as a dark horse candidate means the animosity the South had for Douglas would not in all probability have been had for Lincoln.

[Patton]

Lincoln always said was willing to do to anything to hold the Union together. So as soon as Fort Sumter was hit he would have moblized the Union Army. With the Union activily fighting in 1861 before the Confederates had had time to organize Richmond may have even fallen to Union forces, but it is a long shot.