President Bell

[Derek Jackson]

WI Republicans had run a more radical candidate in 1860 and so S A Douglas had done better.

This is not enough for Douglas to win, or come second on the electoral vote but is enough to ensure that the election goes to the House,

Bell is eventually elected as a compromise.

Does this merely postpone the Civil War?

[Max Sinister]

That depends on whether the slaveholders are eventually willing to make a compromise or not. But if Lincoln only won because the Democrats were split, it might take a long time until the Republicans' candidate wins...

[President Ledyard]

I assumed a President Alexander Graham Bell on first glance - I imagine that would be fairly interesting as well

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

WI Republicans had run a more radical candidate in 1860 and so S A Douglas had done better.

This is not enough for Douglas to win, or come second on the electoral vote but is enough to ensure that the election goes to the House,

Bell is eventually elected as a compromise.

Does this merely postpone the Civil War?

It might postpone southern secession for a short time, but I doubt it would postpone it for long. The Constitutional Unionists were former Whigs, and they supported all the Whig programs (high tariffs, business subsidies, etc) that were detested in the South. Bell also was on record as opposing the expansion of slavery into the territories. So in essence, what you have is a Southern Abe Lincoln. Or maybe we should say a "Gray Republican Party" instead of a "Black Republican Party."

As to whether there would be a war, it would depend on how President Bell handles the secession if and when it occurs. Since in OTL he supported the Confederacy during the war, he might opt to allow the "erring sisters to go in peace," and the war might not happen at all.

[Baseball]

Wasn't he from Tennessee, though? What if his own state wanted to secede? They might, fearful that once the first states were out of the Union, there would be such a majority of free states that they woudl outlaw slavery. (Not saying they would do this, but that's the way it seems propagandists would spin it.)

Maybe that's what Buchanan even wanted to do, though he acted like he was just too dumbstruck to do anything. (Didn't he say, "I am the last president of the United States" once around that time?)

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Baseball

Wasn't he from Tennessee, though? What if his own state wanted to secede? They might, fearful that once the first states were out of the Union, there would be such a majority of free states that they woudl outlaw slavery. (Not saying they would do this, but that's the way it seems propagandists would spin it.)

Yes, he was from Tennessee, and if Tennessee seceded, that would make for an interesting scenario. Does he resign and go with his native State, or does he become another Andrew Johnson? As for whether Tennessee would want to secede, possibly so. But remember that in OTL Tennessee voted by a large majority not to secede until Lincoln issued his demands for the States to furnish militias with which to invade the secessionist states. Assuming Bell issues no similar demands, it seems unlikely that Tennessee would secede.

[larpsidekick]

An awful lot of people from the south stayed with the Union - one Tennessean of hand was David Farragut...

You've got to remember the major divisive point was slavery - not only it's existence, but it's extension. Dred Scott seemed to make it illegal even to prevent slaves entering free territory. Southerners were looking to take Cuba to furnish a new, powerful slave state. Kansas bled before any state seceeded, John Brown raided Harpers Ferry to furnish a slave rebellion - feelings were high on both sides. Any compromise candidate would be faced with the sort of compromise offered by John J Crittenden in 1860 - one that to the Northeast / New England States seemed to be all them giving and nothing from the south. Everything had split on sectional lines, over the slavery issue, from Political parties to churches, and while the election of a democrat wouldn't have had South Carolina out of the Union as quickly as the election of Lincoln, the fire eaters would look to use the threat of secession at any oppurtunity they felt threatened - and eventually the time would come when they seceeded, over the Slavery issue.

If this had been under a President other than Lincoln, would he have gone to war to force the South back in the Union? I believe he would have had to - pressure from the North would make it impossible not to. Would he have taken the fateful steps turning the war into one for the total reconstruction of the South? Again, I think once the war had started, the pressures and polarisation of society (as well as military necessity) would have brought about an abolitionist war - without such a war, the Union would have had great difficulty in winning.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

If this had been under a President other than Lincoln, would he have gone to war to force the South back in the Union? I believe he would have had to - pressure from the North would make it impossible not to.

The majority opinion in the North prior to the attack on Fort Sumter was against any attempt to force the South back into the Union. So this "pressure" simply would not have existed, or if it did, would have been more than counterbalanced by the majority will.

Lincoln had basically decided to go to war before the Fort Sumter attack ever occurred. He announced in his First Inaugural Address that he would invade the South if necessary to collect the Morrill Tariff, which was passed in early 1961. That's one reason why Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens became flashpoints...they were the last remaining Federal harbor facilities which could be used to enforce collection of said tariff.


It is unlikely that John Bell would have resorted to war to collect the tariff, even though he was a supporter of high tariffs.

[larpsidekick]

Originally Posted by robertp6165

The majority opinion in the North prior to the attack on Fort Sumter was against any attempt to force the South back into the Union. So this "pressure" simply would not have existed, or if it did, would have been more than counterbalanced by the majority will.

Lincoln had basically decided to go to war before the Fort Sumter attack ever occurred. He announced in his First Inaugural Address that he would invade the South if necessary to collect the Morrill Tariff, which was passed in early 1961. That's one reason why Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens became flashpoints...they were the last remaining Federal harbor facilities which could be used to enforce collection of said tariff.


It is unlikely that John Bell would have resorted to war to collect the tariff, even though he was a supporter of high tariffs.

There was immense pressure on Lincoln to go to war to preserve the Union - and would have been whatever the President in the White House. How about this 'We elected Lincoln, and are just as willing, if necessity requires, to fight for him.... Little Boone can be relied upon for 500 Wide Awakes, well armed and equipped.' - this before PGT opened fire on Sumter. The collection of Customs duties only became an issue because of secession - the Morrill Tariff wasn't why states seceeded - indeed, SC had secceded before it came into law, and it only passed because Southern Congressmen had started leaving Congress to begin the process.

You also can't take too much notice of the 'go in peace' editorials of people like Horace Greeley - they were mainly aimed as a bluff towards both the South and Lincolns new government - Greeley said 'I fear nothing... but another disgraceful backdown of the free states' - it was a way of deflecting compromise.

Finally, Lincolns vow to 'hold, occupy and possess' federal property, and collect 'duties and imposts' was pretty vague - intentionally - he had initially written that he would reclaim federal property. The address was an attempt to cool passions and buy time - and Upper south politicians praised its temperance and conservatism (obviously, the lower south saw a decleration of war, but by then had already seceeded - Lincoln was trying to hold the upper south). Sumter became a flashpoint because Buchannans failure to reinforce in the last days of his presidency created a crisis for Lincoln to deal with without allowing time for moderates such as John Gilmer of NC to prevail. My take on Lincolns decision on Sumter is that he expected the Confederates to open fire - he would have been happy to have peace, but expected war, and did not have minority support to begin that war.

Majority will in 1861 was for war, in both North and South. If that had not been the case, how could State governers offer so many more regiments than asked by Lincoln - Indiana gave 12 instead of 6, Ohio 20 instead of 13, Massachusetts sent 4 regiments to various threatened points within a week of being asked for them.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

There was immense pressure on Lincoln to go to war to preserve the Union - and would have been whatever the President in the White House. How about this 'We elected Lincoln, and are just as willing, if necessity requires, to fight for him.... Little Boone can be relied upon for 500 Wide Awakes, well armed and equipped.' - this before PGT opened fire on Sumter.

I don't deny that there was a segment of the Northern public who wanted war and favored using force to reimpose the Union. They were, however, a minority.

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

The collection of Customs duties only became an issue because of secession - the Morrill Tariff wasn't why states seceeded - indeed, SC had secceded before it came into law, and it only passed because Southern Congressmen had started leaving Congress to begin the process.

Nor did I say it was the issue which caused the secession. I said it was the issue over which Lincoln said he would invade. Which is true.

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

You also can't take too much notice of the 'go in peace' editorials of people like Horace Greeley - they were mainly aimed as a bluff towards both the South and Lincolns new government - Greeley said 'I fear nothing... but another disgraceful backdown of the free states' - it was a way of deflecting compromise.

If Horace was the only one saying these things, you might have a point. But the fact is the majority of Northern newspapers, politicians, and other opinion-makers prior to Fort Sumter were speaking out against going to war to reimpose the Union on the seceded States.

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

Finally, Lincolns vow to 'hold, occupy and possess' federal property, and collect 'duties and imposts' was pretty vague - intentionally - he had initially written that he would reclaim federal property. The address was an attempt to cool passions and buy time - and Upper south politicians praised its temperance and conservatism (obviously, the lower south saw a decleration of war, but by then had already seceeded - Lincoln was trying to hold the upper south).

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Hmmm. Sounds pretty clear to me.

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

Sumter became a flashpoint because Buchannans failure to reinforce in the last days of his presidency created a crisis for Lincoln to deal with without allowing time for moderates such as John Gilmer of NC to prevail. My take on Lincolns decision on Sumter is that he expected the Confederates to open fire - he would have been happy to have peace, but expected war, and did not have minority support to begin that war.

I suppose that's why he told Gustavus Fox that the attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter would be a success even if it failed, because it would cause a war (this is not an exact quotation...I can find that for you if you care to dispute that he said it).

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

Majority will in 1861 was for war, in both North and South. If that had not been the case, how could State governers offer so many more regiments than asked by Lincoln - Indiana gave 12 instead of 6, Ohio 20 instead of 13, Massachusetts sent 4 regiments to various threatened points within a week of being asked for them.

Because Fort Sumter was fired upon. The "attack on the flag" changed everything and solidified Northern opinion behind Lincoln and war. To say that these facts bear any relevance to public opinion before Fort Sumter was attacked is absurd.

[larpsidekick]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree - I firmly believe Lincoln didn't 'invade due to the imports and tariffs' - He invaded to ensure the Union was one and indivisible, and that this had fulsome support in the North. I think we agree Abe was happy to have a war started by the Confederates, but disagree on the nature of support for war prior to Sumter (mea culpa for the stats post PGT's opening fire - apologies).

I don't think the majority of Northerners were unwilling to go to war, and that no compromise the South would accept would be acceptable to the North (see Crittenden and the Committee of Thirteen). Once secession had happened, the Union president - whoever he would be - would have to attempt to force the seceeders back in somehow (pretty much, only war), or see his party disappear from power for ever and a day - something no politician is willing to risk.

One thing I had thought of - would it be possible with a Southern President to accept a compromise that causes the Free states to seceed? I don't think anyone was talking about it, but, some of the clauses in the last attempt were terribly pro Southern

[Derek Jackson]

We of course have no idea of what the true nature of Public Opinion in the North was. There were no reliable Polls.

Just a reminder of what happened in OTL. Lincoln did not send arms to reinforce a fort which which was, afterall, Federal property. He merely sent ordinary supplies.

Tha racist traitors, led by men who had sworn allegience to the United States then fired on the US flag.

It is hard to imagine a President in the cirumcstances doing other than Lincoln did.

The purpose of this thread, other than to find out a bit more about Bell, was to guess the reactions to this possibility.

(By the Way Lincoln was NOT elected because of the split vote. He won actual majorities in states which gave him a majority of the electoral vote.)

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by robertp6165

The majority opinion in the North prior to the attack on Fort Sumter was against any attempt to force the South back into the Union. So this "pressure" simply would not have existed, or if it did, would have been more than counterbalanced by the majority will.

Lincoln had basically decided to go to war before the Fort Sumter attack ever occurred. He announced in his First Inaugural Address that he would invade the South if necessary to collect the Morrill Tariff, which was passed in early 1961. That's one reason why Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens became flashpoints...they were the last remaining Federal harbor facilities which could be used to enforce collection of said tariff.


It is unlikely that John Bell would have resorted to war to collect the tariff, even though he was a supporter of high tariffs.

And did he ever manage to get that time machine finished?

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

We of course have no idea of what the true nature of Public Opinion in the North was. There were no reliable Polls.

That is true, so far as it goes. Such evidence as we have, however, supports my position that the majority were not in favor of using force to restore the Union until after Fort Sumter.

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

Just a reminder of what happened in OTL. Lincoln did not send arms to reinforce a fort which which was, afterall, Federal property. He merely sent ordinary supplies.

He also sent additional troops to reinforce the garrison.

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

Tha racist traitors, led by men who had sworn allegience to the United States then fired on the US flag.

Whatever. I don't feel like engaging in a protracted debate today about whether the secessionists were traitors or not, or whether they were actually any more racist than the people of the North. It is not important to the point we are discussing anyway.

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

It is hard to imagine a President in the cirumcstances doing other than Lincoln did.

On the contrary...it is quite easy to imagine John Bell acting differently. And for that matter, James Buchanan acted differently. Just because LINCOLN did as he did does not make that the inevitable reaction of any sitting President.

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

The purpose of this thread, other than to find out a bit more about Bell, was to guess the reactions to this possibility.

The question you posed was, does the election of Bell merely postpone the Civil War. Unless you have some evidence supporting your contention that Bell would have used force to reimpose the Union on the seceded States...assuming the states still secede if Bell is elected...then I stand by my original point.

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

(By the Way Lincoln was NOT elected because of the split vote. He won actual majorities in states which gave him a majority of the electoral vote.)

Hmmm, I don't recall anyone disputing that. But okay.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Wendell

And did he ever manage to get that time machine finished?

LOL. OOOPS. Danged typos.

[Nicole]

If Bell doesn't enforce the union and states still secede, I think that North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas may not secede, meaning a smaller Confederacy...

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Imajin

If Bell doesn't enforce the union and states still secede, I think that North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas may not secede, meaning a smaller Confederacy...

That is indeed likely...almost to the point of certainty. The only reason these states left the union in OTL was that Lincoln attempted to force them to provide troops for an invasion of the secessionist states. If no such request is made, they don't secede.

[larpsidekick]

Originally Posted by robertp6165

That is indeed likely...almost to the point of certainty. The only reason these states left the union in OTL was that Lincoln attempted to force them to provide troops for an invasion of the secessionist states. If no such request is made, they don't secede.

If so, how do you explain the scores of demonstrations in such cities as Richmond, Raleigh and Nashville that happened Apr 12 - 14 - before Lincoln called for troops (Apr 15)? There was a massivly powerful sense of Southern nationalism throughout the upper south (save notable places where slaveholding had not taken root e.g. West Virginia, East Tennessee), based on Slavery.

Lincolns call for troops was the trigger for upper south states to seceed, not the root cause. Essentially, the upper south seceeded (with the knowledge that this was declaring war on the Union) to defend the freedom to own slaves. Where slaveholding was limited (the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Kentucky), the states did not seceed.

Without the root causes being addressed - and this means either an acceptance of slavery by the Northern states, or the acceptance of abolition by the upper south, the differences pulling them out of the Union were great enough that it only needed a trigger - and this could have been any one of a number of things. A Southern confederacy without the upper south was doomed, and agitation would have come from the lower south to get their southern brothers into the Confederacy

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

Where slaveholding was limited (the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Kentucky), the states did not seceed.

You're making wrong associations here.

To my knowledge Delaware was the only place where there was no serious risk of secession. The differences between Virginia and Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky, and Arkansas and Missouri were not that great. Ever heard of the Baltimore riots, or the Confederate governments of Tennessee and Missouri? Sympathies were mixed throughout the Upper South.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

If so, how do you explain the scores of demonstrations in such cities as Richmond, Raleigh and Nashville that happened Apr 12 - 14 - before Lincoln called for troops (Apr 15)?

Because they knew what was coming. The first shots had been fired. War was inevitable then.

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

There was a massivly powerful sense of Southern nationalism throughout the upper south (save notable places where slaveholding had not taken root e.g. West Virginia, East Tennessee), based on Slavery.

Lincolns call for troops was the trigger for upper south states to seceed, not the root cause. Essentially, the upper south seceeded (with the knowledge that this was declaring war on the Union) to defend the freedom to own slaves. Where slaveholding was limited (the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Kentucky), the states did not seceed.

Without the root causes being addressed - and this means either an acceptance of slavery by the Northern states, or the acceptance of abolition by the upper south, the differences pulling them out of the Union were great enough that it only needed a trigger - and this could have been any one of a number of things.

I don't deny that there was secessionist sentiment in the Upper South. Heck, there was even some secessionist sentiment in New York and New Jersey at that time. But I would point out that Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina all voted not to secede by rather substantial margins. There clearly was a large reservoir of loyalty to the Union in those States...until they were asked to provide troops for an invasion of the seceded States.

If the differences pulling these States out of the Union were truly great enough that it only needed a trigger, then the secession of the deep South should have been enough.

Slavery in the States of the upper South had been declining for a while before the war, and if those States had remained in the Union, they would probably have eventually accepted the sort of compromise you speak of regarding abolition. But they did, in common with the people of the deep South, believe in the right of secession, and refused to stay in a Union ruled by an administration which was willing to invade States which had exercised their right to secede.

Originally Posted by larpsidekick

A Southern confederacy without the upper south was doomed, and agitation would have come from the lower south to get their southern brothers into the Confederacy

A Southern Confederacy without the upper South was doomed only if the Federal Government decided to attempt to force them back into the Union by force of arms. If the Federal government does no such thing...as an administration under John Bell would likely have done...then having the States of the Upper South remain in the Union becomes a positive advantage, because it makes military action against the seceded states difficult, if not impossible, to do, as well as providing a pourous, friendly border over which trade can be conducted even if the government should declare a blockade.