Skallagrim
Banned
An offline conversation about the old chestnut of AH ("could the South have won the Civil War?") prompted me to suggest that the most viable strategy for Confederate success would be to be as reasonable as possible. Painting the North as the aggressor is the only way to maintain as much foreign support (both inside the Union and in uninvolved countries) as they possibly can. This is not to say that I think the South absolutely cannot win the war (meaning: 'at least a significant part of the CSA is recognised as independent post-war') through an alternate course of the war. I just consider that outcome to be rather unlikely, considering the overwhelming power of the North. In light of the fact that maximising outside support and encouraging outside opposition to the Union is only going to be good for the CSA, I really think that a policy to that end would be the wisest move.
My question is: how much would it help?
The scenario is very simple, although not very likely in itself. This is more of a "suppose they had done this" discussion, and I am fully aware that the chances of it happening are slim. (As such, posts aiming to derail the thread into debating the likelihood of the premise are neither needed nor appreciated.) Let us take the premise that the CSA deliberately sets out to be as reasonable as possible, actively aiming to prevent armed hostility if possible. This entails:
-- Publicly offering to pay the Southern states' share of the USA's public debt, the exact sum to be negotiated during a confederence to that end (possibly with foreign powers as neutral mediators to come up with a reasonable figure).
-- Publicly offering to fully compensate the USA for any and all federal installations present within the seceded states at full value without any haggling or complaining.
-- Actively and publicly renouncing any claims to any southern state that does not voluntarily secede, nor any claims to any territories of the USA.
-- Publicly calling for an avoidance of any armed conflict, urging any grievance to be resolved through negotiation (if need be with foreign mediation).
-- Publicly announcing that any US serviceman to surrender to the CSA in the context of federal installations being given up will be granted safe passage to the border, unmolested.
-- Publicly announcing that all materials present in such installations may be removed and taken along by such evacuating personnel; even offering civil contracters paid for by the CSA to help in returning Union property to the Union.
-- Highly publicising the above offers, thus ensuring that everyone in both the Union and the rest of the Western world knows about these positions.
-- At all costs keeping complete lunatics like Robert Barnwell Rhett out of any position of power, and ensuring that he can't publicise his crap either (if need be by shoving him down a flight of stairs). As such coming across as at least sane and normal to any foreign observers.
-- Avoiding the accentuation of slavery in any dealings with foreign powers; instead purely stressing the right to shape one's own national destiny as the important issue at stake. Likewise avoiding any foreign policy based on threatening foreign powers by the possibility of witholding cotton from the global market. Instead offering highly, highly preferential trading rights to any foreign power that recognised the CSA. And of course stressing that any Union blockade would be a violation of foreign nations' rights as well...
-- Instead of attacking Fort Sumter, merely keeping up its blockade and waiting for the fort's supplies to run out (which will happen in a matter of weeks, forcing its occupants to surrender).
-- Basically under no circumstances what-so-ever being the aggressor, and instead just waiting for the North to move.
This strategy, as far as I can tell, forces Lincoln to very obviously play the part of the aggressor. The one disagreement is the legality of secession. On every other conceivable point, the South is being as gracious as anyone could possibly be. Consider that before the attack on Fort Sumter, public opinion even in the North was very divided on the legality of a coercive war. Many held secession to be perfectly legal-- and although everyone knows I agree with that, whether that's accurate doesn't have to be discussed here: what matters is that short of the OTL attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln's sole casus belli will be "I want to coerce these unwilling states back into the Union by force".
There will be many people up North who won't consider that a good enough reason. The South can again play up the comparisons the USA's declaration of independence, stating (accurately) that their secession is just as legal (or illegal, if you will) as that of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and all the other Founding Fathers.
How would this proceed? What would Lincoln do? He can basically pursue war directly, or offer to start negotiations.
OPTION ONE
If Lincoln does pursue a war under these circumstances, we may freely assume that Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee will secede and join the CSA.
Will any other states (Missouri? Kentucky? Maryland?) be moved to secession under these circumstances? I personally doubt it very much, although they might move to refuse participation in "mister Lincoln's war", which would then no doubt cause Lincoln to order Federal take-over of those states, which might cause more foreign animosity (and conversely more sympathy for the South).
In any case, assume for the scenario that even if Lincoln does outright start a war, the CSA will still stick to all of the above, with the additional policies of:
-- Publicly offering plebiscites to be held in the most Unionist regions of Kentucky and Virginia (essentially the region that became West Virginia and the bordering region of Kentucky), on the condition that the USA similarly allows a plebiscite in the Indian Territory.
-- Calling for foreign mediation and/or intervention in this war of aggression being waged against them.
OPTION TWO
If Lincoln instead calls for negotiations instead, assume that the CSA is completely open to this, with its one immutable demand being that it gets recognised as an independent nation and will indeed end up being treated as such when negotiations conclude.
Which is more likely: war or negotiations? And which of the two is more likely to result in Southern success?
Consider that if negotiations get started, and with no attack on Fort Sumter, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee are still Union states. They'll be pushing for recognition of the CSA. They'll have a voice in Congress, in any negotiations, and in any future presidential election. That might push things over the edge, and result in the Union basically just accepting Southern independence in return for (very) preferential trading rights and provided the CSA pays through the nose in the public debt and compensation-for-federal-property departments.
Regarding the option of war, the CSA is not fundamentally stronger than in OTL, but presumably enjoys wider public support in the Union and in Europe. Any attempt by Lincoln to basically just straight-up re-conquer the South would, conversely, face considerably more opposition both at home and abroad. Any attempt to do so may well result in a peace candidate being elected in '64... which is a horizon the CSA can reach alive. This is further bolstered by the fact a way smarter Confederate foreign policy may well mean that European powers (though not likely to actively fight on the South's behalf) may choose to put pressure on Lincoln to come to the negotiating table. Under these circumstances, if the South lasts long enough for Lincoln to be voted out of office, foreign recognition is probably a given. At that point, the war is over (because foreign powers will not accept being blockaded when they want to trade with a country they have recognised).
Anyway, this is what I suggested as the best policy the CSA could have followed, and I think it would have yielded the greatest chance of winning them independence. Mind you, I'm not saying it will definitely succeed. I just think it would offer them the best possible shot at it. Basically, if I got dropped in late 1860 and my one job was to try and secure Confederate independence, this is what I'd do. (Actually, assuming I'd have absolute power, I would just abolish slavery at once, which would get abolitionism-minded Britain to recognise me and back me up, which would in turn ensure my success and make my actions moral to boot-- but while my premise of calm diplomacy is just highly, highly unlikely - what with shouty Southern fire-eaters and all - the premise of getting the fledgling CSA to give up slavery is just plain ASB. Therefore, we'll go with my diplomacy premise here.)
What do you think? How far could this 'peace strategy' have gotten the CSA?
My question is: how much would it help?
The scenario is very simple, although not very likely in itself. This is more of a "suppose they had done this" discussion, and I am fully aware that the chances of it happening are slim. (As such, posts aiming to derail the thread into debating the likelihood of the premise are neither needed nor appreciated.) Let us take the premise that the CSA deliberately sets out to be as reasonable as possible, actively aiming to prevent armed hostility if possible. This entails:
-- Publicly offering to pay the Southern states' share of the USA's public debt, the exact sum to be negotiated during a confederence to that end (possibly with foreign powers as neutral mediators to come up with a reasonable figure).
-- Publicly offering to fully compensate the USA for any and all federal installations present within the seceded states at full value without any haggling or complaining.
-- Actively and publicly renouncing any claims to any southern state that does not voluntarily secede, nor any claims to any territories of the USA.
-- Publicly calling for an avoidance of any armed conflict, urging any grievance to be resolved through negotiation (if need be with foreign mediation).
-- Publicly announcing that any US serviceman to surrender to the CSA in the context of federal installations being given up will be granted safe passage to the border, unmolested.
-- Publicly announcing that all materials present in such installations may be removed and taken along by such evacuating personnel; even offering civil contracters paid for by the CSA to help in returning Union property to the Union.
-- Highly publicising the above offers, thus ensuring that everyone in both the Union and the rest of the Western world knows about these positions.
-- At all costs keeping complete lunatics like Robert Barnwell Rhett out of any position of power, and ensuring that he can't publicise his crap either (if need be by shoving him down a flight of stairs). As such coming across as at least sane and normal to any foreign observers.
-- Avoiding the accentuation of slavery in any dealings with foreign powers; instead purely stressing the right to shape one's own national destiny as the important issue at stake. Likewise avoiding any foreign policy based on threatening foreign powers by the possibility of witholding cotton from the global market. Instead offering highly, highly preferential trading rights to any foreign power that recognised the CSA. And of course stressing that any Union blockade would be a violation of foreign nations' rights as well...
-- Instead of attacking Fort Sumter, merely keeping up its blockade and waiting for the fort's supplies to run out (which will happen in a matter of weeks, forcing its occupants to surrender).
-- Basically under no circumstances what-so-ever being the aggressor, and instead just waiting for the North to move.
This strategy, as far as I can tell, forces Lincoln to very obviously play the part of the aggressor. The one disagreement is the legality of secession. On every other conceivable point, the South is being as gracious as anyone could possibly be. Consider that before the attack on Fort Sumter, public opinion even in the North was very divided on the legality of a coercive war. Many held secession to be perfectly legal-- and although everyone knows I agree with that, whether that's accurate doesn't have to be discussed here: what matters is that short of the OTL attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln's sole casus belli will be "I want to coerce these unwilling states back into the Union by force".
There will be many people up North who won't consider that a good enough reason. The South can again play up the comparisons the USA's declaration of independence, stating (accurately) that their secession is just as legal (or illegal, if you will) as that of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and all the other Founding Fathers.
How would this proceed? What would Lincoln do? He can basically pursue war directly, or offer to start negotiations.
OPTION ONE
If Lincoln does pursue a war under these circumstances, we may freely assume that Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee will secede and join the CSA.
Will any other states (Missouri? Kentucky? Maryland?) be moved to secession under these circumstances? I personally doubt it very much, although they might move to refuse participation in "mister Lincoln's war", which would then no doubt cause Lincoln to order Federal take-over of those states, which might cause more foreign animosity (and conversely more sympathy for the South).
In any case, assume for the scenario that even if Lincoln does outright start a war, the CSA will still stick to all of the above, with the additional policies of:
-- Publicly offering plebiscites to be held in the most Unionist regions of Kentucky and Virginia (essentially the region that became West Virginia and the bordering region of Kentucky), on the condition that the USA similarly allows a plebiscite in the Indian Territory.
-- Calling for foreign mediation and/or intervention in this war of aggression being waged against them.
OPTION TWO
If Lincoln instead calls for negotiations instead, assume that the CSA is completely open to this, with its one immutable demand being that it gets recognised as an independent nation and will indeed end up being treated as such when negotiations conclude.
Which is more likely: war or negotiations? And which of the two is more likely to result in Southern success?
Consider that if negotiations get started, and with no attack on Fort Sumter, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee are still Union states. They'll be pushing for recognition of the CSA. They'll have a voice in Congress, in any negotiations, and in any future presidential election. That might push things over the edge, and result in the Union basically just accepting Southern independence in return for (very) preferential trading rights and provided the CSA pays through the nose in the public debt and compensation-for-federal-property departments.
Regarding the option of war, the CSA is not fundamentally stronger than in OTL, but presumably enjoys wider public support in the Union and in Europe. Any attempt by Lincoln to basically just straight-up re-conquer the South would, conversely, face considerably more opposition both at home and abroad. Any attempt to do so may well result in a peace candidate being elected in '64... which is a horizon the CSA can reach alive. This is further bolstered by the fact a way smarter Confederate foreign policy may well mean that European powers (though not likely to actively fight on the South's behalf) may choose to put pressure on Lincoln to come to the negotiating table. Under these circumstances, if the South lasts long enough for Lincoln to be voted out of office, foreign recognition is probably a given. At that point, the war is over (because foreign powers will not accept being blockaded when they want to trade with a country they have recognised).
Anyway, this is what I suggested as the best policy the CSA could have followed, and I think it would have yielded the greatest chance of winning them independence. Mind you, I'm not saying it will definitely succeed. I just think it would offer them the best possible shot at it. Basically, if I got dropped in late 1860 and my one job was to try and secure Confederate independence, this is what I'd do. (Actually, assuming I'd have absolute power, I would just abolish slavery at once, which would get abolitionism-minded Britain to recognise me and back me up, which would in turn ensure my success and make my actions moral to boot-- but while my premise of calm diplomacy is just highly, highly unlikely - what with shouty Southern fire-eaters and all - the premise of getting the fledgling CSA to give up slavery is just plain ASB. Therefore, we'll go with my diplomacy premise here.)
What do you think? How far could this 'peace strategy' have gotten the CSA?
Last edited: