DBWI: What if Abraham Lincoln became President in 1860?

glenn67

I watched Barack Obama on TV address a rally in Havana after sweeping the Kansas, Nebraska, Washington and Cuba caucuses. After seeing Obama and former Vice President Fidel Castro raised their arms in victory, I am confident that Obama will clinch the Democratic party nomination.

I have pondered some remarks he made in his speech about the manumission of slavery in the 1890s and Abraham Lincoln's opposition to it.

I read in the history books that if Abe Lincoln was elected in 1860, the South would secede and there would have been a civil war. Do you agree?

Discuss.
 

Blue Max

(OOC: I think I have SOME idea how this might have happened, but I still think this is really out there)

Lincoln was a politician of his time, an abolitionist in the mold of other radicals like Lloyd Garrison and John Brown. But despite his stature, he would ultimately be defeated by Seward in the 1860 primaries--the same Seward who bent over backwards to keep the South in the Union. It was a very close thing, but by alienating his own party, Seward managed to keep the nation together.

Had the Republican Party not divided itself and acted as a united force, they would have forced the South into concessions that they could never accept. Lincoln would continue to lead the abolitionist wing of the party, even as Seward was essentially forced to lean on Democrats and Whigs to gain support.

That splintering of the Republican party changed history. And on this one, the writing is mistaken--Lincoln would have starved slavery out by banning its westward expansion. He would have accepted Manumission if it could be helped, Lincoln just never had a chance with Seymour's Election in 1864.

I wonder, if Lincoln had come to power, would the South Back down? South Carolina had, over tariffs, attempted to Secede. I doubt they would so quickly forget this lesson.
 

Othniel

It seems to me that you are forgetting that Westward expansion of Slavery was already limited by the Missouri Compromise. Indeed that was almost overturned when they tried to admit California as one state. One Senator, Stephen Douglas, attempted to overturn that compromise with a new one that would allow the Californias as one state(a free one), but would destory the limitations placed on slavery in the Territories.

This California Compromise could have displaced the status quo, and slavery would have spread to Kansas or some other territory north of the compromise line, instead of causing a general increase in fillibusters southward.

Now lets look at this Civil War Scenario. It all depends on if we have alll slave states at the time, or just those whose economies became increasingly dependant on it. Virgina (1867) was under a decade away from emancipation, as were Kentucky(1869) and Tennesee (1869). North Carolina would follow in 1872. If involved then these would be the states supplying the troops as the those five commonly kept their millitias at home to guard against slave revolts. If not the Faithful Five (those that kept their slaves until the GEB) would be fighting a defensive war.
 

Blue Max

It could not have happened that way.

You see, the Supreme Court (Dred Scott Case) ruled that states have no real power to stop slaves from entering their states, and that slaves imported into a state remain slaves.

The Effects of the ruling are hard to understate--this means that unless everyone abandons slavery, no one can. OTL, this led to furious resentment in the northern states, with some, like Lloyd Garrison, threatening to secede over the issue.

Part of the problem is that Dred Scott opened the door to slavery too far. It would take a second legal case (Walker vs. State of New York) to get the court to reverse its ruling and allow states to free slaves within their borders without compensation. This ruling wasn't issued until 1871.
 

glenn67

After the USA wins the Spanish-American War in the 1890s, Spain gives Cuba and Puerto Rico to the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top