President Seward
- Thread starter CT23
- Start date
Seward was a Governor and Senator of New York, as a Senator he was an ardent opponent of Slavery, and was widely seen as the frontrunner of the Republican nomination, before a semi-obscure Illinois Representative stole from him the nomination.
How Seward would have acted as Commander in Chief is a hard thing to ascertain, I know about his actions as Sec of State, but those actions might become fuddled as a Military leader, rather than a diplomatic one.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Seward was a brilliant man to whom the United States owes a great deal. But he lacked Lincoln's consummate political skill. I can't see him managing the political coalition of Radical Republicans, Moderate Republicans, and War Democrats the way Lincoln did. I could see Kentucky and Missouri going over to the Confederacy without the careful handling of Lincoln, and the fracturing of the united front the Union was more or less able to present during the war. Also, the chances of war with England during the Trent Affair (or whatever the first crisis would turn out to be) would be much more likely, as the British perceived him as being anti-British.
Of course, Seward knew fine wine and good food, so the dinners at the White House would have been much nicer...
Of course, Seward knew fine wine and good food, so the dinners at the White House would have been much nicer...
katchen
Banned
I seem to recall that one of Seward's first suggestions to Lincoln was to start a war with Britain or France to unite the country and PREVENT secession. The British perception of Seward was accurate. Seward WAS anti Great Britain. He wanted the British and preferably all other European nations completely out of the Western Hemisphere. 
I think if Seward had been elected and the South HAD seceded, Seward would have taken the Trent Affair into a war with the UK. And Seward would have attempted to and might well have succeeded in enlisting Russia's support as an ally. Possibly Prussia/Germany as well. All kinds of butterfflies would be possible from this.
Would Bismarck take the opportunity of Great Britain's (and possibly France's as well) war with the United States to annex the Netherlands and use that to balance out Catholic Austria and Bohemia, thereby crafting Gross-Deutschland? Quite possibly. Germany would likely never get another chance to do something like that. At least not in Bismarck's lifetime.
Could a fully mobilized United States under Seward take over Canada as well as deal with the Confederacy if it had Russian help? I would say, quite likely, with the possible exception of defensible Nova Scotia and possibly Newfoundland. An Irish Rising, supplied with American repeating rifles would be devastating to the British and could well be the thing that would bring the War Between the States home to the UK.
In which case, a Seward Presidency would cause a complete shift in US foreign policy and investment patterns. There would be no Anglo American Alliance, nor British investment in the US. Instead there would be reciprocal trade and investment between the US and Germany and Russia. Things would be very different. Britannia would actually have to share the waves with a number of other powers.
I think if Seward had been elected and the South HAD seceded, Seward would have taken the Trent Affair into a war with the UK. And Seward would have attempted to and might well have succeeded in enlisting Russia's support as an ally. Possibly Prussia/Germany as well. All kinds of butterfflies would be possible from this.
Would Bismarck take the opportunity of Great Britain's (and possibly France's as well) war with the United States to annex the Netherlands and use that to balance out Catholic Austria and Bohemia, thereby crafting Gross-Deutschland? Quite possibly. Germany would likely never get another chance to do something like that. At least not in Bismarck's lifetime.
Could a fully mobilized United States under Seward take over Canada as well as deal with the Confederacy if it had Russian help? I would say, quite likely, with the possible exception of defensible Nova Scotia and possibly Newfoundland. An Irish Rising, supplied with American repeating rifles would be devastating to the British and could well be the thing that would bring the War Between the States home to the UK.
In which case, a Seward Presidency would cause a complete shift in US foreign policy and investment patterns. There would be no Anglo American Alliance, nor British investment in the US. Instead there would be reciprocal trade and investment between the US and Germany and Russia. Things would be very different. Britannia would actually have to share the waves with a number of other powers.
Russia wouldn't get involved, it was hardly pro-USA IOTL, and would be less so with a President like Seward.I seem to recall that one of Seward's first suggestions to Lincoln was to start a war with Britain or France to unite the country and PREVENT secession. The British perception of Seward was accurate. Seward WAS anti Great Britain. He wanted the British and preferably all other European nations completely out of the Western Hemisphere.
I think if Seward had been elected and the South HAD seceded, Seward would have taken the Trent Affair into a war with the UK. And Seward would have attempted to and might well have succeeded in enlisting Russia's support as an ally. Possibly Prussia/Germany as well. All kinds of butterfflies would be possible from this.
Would Bismarck take the opportunity of Great Britain's (and possibly France's as well) war with the United States to annex the Netherlands and use that to balance out Catholic Austria and Bohemia, thereby crafting Gross-Deutschland? Quite possibly. Germany would likely never get another chance to do something like that. At least not in Bismarck's lifetime.
Could a fully mobilized United States under Seward take over Canada as well as deal with the Confederacy if it had Russian help? I would say, quite likely, with the possible exception of defensible Nova Scotia and possibly Newfoundland. An Irish Rising, supplied with American repeating rifles would be devastating to the British and could well be the thing that would bring the War Between the States home to the UK.
In which case, a Seward Presidency would cause a complete shift in US foreign policy and investment patterns. There would be no Anglo American Alliance, nor British investment in the US. Instead there would be reciprocal trade and investment between the US and Germany and Russia. Things would be very different. Britannia would actually have to share the waves with a number of other powers.
Bismark wouldn't get involved in the war at all, though if the war continues into 1866 with Anglo-French help to the Confederates (highly unlikely, it would've ended way before that), then the Austro-Prussian War could've ended differently.
The USA wouldn't be able to take Canada in anyway, they might be able to win against the Confederates, but that will come at a huge cost and the American economy will be heavily dented. How you think the Irish could get US guns I've no idea considering that the US Navy could only barely keep up OTL's blockade of the Confederacy, ITTL their navy would be either destroyed or permanently in dock due to the Royal Navy and French Navy.
Hnau
Banned
The whole beginning of the war would have been different. Seward was more well-known of an abolitionist than Lincoln, and would have won by even less and provoked more Southern anger. Yet even with earlier and possibly more secessions, he also seemed to be more in favor of waiting to let the situation resolve itself. He would have delayed longer to call for conscripts, and may not even do it in the same way as Lincoln, so Virginia and Kentucky could have stayed out longer (they joined the CSA only after Lincoln pissed them off by calling for conscripts). Seward was a shrewd guy but Lincoln was more pragmatic, which is why I predict a worse more misdirected early effort by the North that could possibly even itself out over time.
Actually, Russia did show its sympathy to US IOTL. They even sent their fleet to US for a while because they didn't want it to be trapped in case something went down with the British.
Historically American-Russian Relations have been good, never any real conflict between the two, plus they shared many goals: IE a weaker Britain would be favorable to both of them.
Lincoln did not call for conscripts in 1861. The Draft was not introduced until well into 1863 - a year after the Confederacy did so. All the soldiers in 1861 were regulars or volunteers.
yeah, i seem to remember reading about that; iirc, Lincoln didn't want to call the professional soldiers out of the Midwest because they were preoccupied fighting/exterminating the Lakota. would Seward have the same reservations, i wonder?
I'm wondering if a President William Seward would have called for some seventy thousand volunteers, as did President Lincoln, or if he would have gone straight in calling for the draft.
One thing which we must keep in mind here is that the U.S. Army of 1860 was incredibly small. It was essentially a constabulary for the frontiers, and when the C.S.A. broke with the Union, enough officers and men left to cut it almost in half, leaving the President, be that Lincoln or Seward or Douglas or anybody else, with a need to find a lot of new troops, and quickly.
One thing which we must keep in mind here is that the U.S. Army of 1860 was incredibly small. It was essentially a constabulary for the frontiers, and when the C.S.A. broke with the Union, enough officers and men left to cut it almost in half, leaving the President, be that Lincoln or Seward or Douglas or anybody else, with a need to find a lot of new troops, and quickly.
Lincoln proclaimed a state of rebellion and called on the states to provide troops to the Federal government for suppression of the rebellion.
These troops were volunteers, not conscripts.
The U.S. did not adopt conscription until late 1862.
Kentucky never "joined the CSA". When Confederate troops entered Kentucky in September 1862, the state legislature voted a resolution calling on U.S. to help "expel the invaders". The Kentucky State Guard, which was controlled by pro-secession officers, marched south into Tennessee and joined the Confederate Army, becoming known as the "Orphan Brigade". In early 1862, the Confederate Army of Tennessee moved into southern Kentucky. At this time, members of the Brigade and some other pro-Confederate Kentuckians held a self-appointed "convention" at Bowling Green, and this gathering issued a declaration of secession. No one except the most rabid Confederate sympathizers ever claimed this declaration had any legal force.
Lincoln called for 75,000 militia. Over the next year the Union raised over 500,000 men, all volunteers. These forces seemed adequate to defeat the CSA.
About half the officers in the regular Army retired or "went south". However, very few of the rank and file did.