1860's, Flashpoint Missouri

I've often wondered about political developments in the US had southern secession been defeated politically by southern Unionists in 1860-1861. In this scenario Lincoln becomes president of a united country with the South in a state of wary watching, ready to try secession if he does some "overt act" against slavery.
In this scenario I believe Lincoln as president would do nothing to openly play into southern fears. However, local state by state events would be a different matter, with local Republican parties gaining strength in the border south area from Missouri in the west to Maryland/Delaware in the east.
I believe Missouri might have become the first state in which a growing Republican party, further nourished by patronage from the administration, would lead the fight for statewide slavery abolition. In the 1860 election, Lincoln and Douglas combined won 45% of the vote, Lincoln winning 10%. Of course its unclear how many Douglas voters would have become future Republican voters, but in 1860, more southern leaning voters could have voted for Bell (who came a close second to Douglas in the state) or Breckinridge.
William Seward wrote in 1858 that with Kansas saved for the free state cause, Missouri would be an upcoming battle in the fight against slavery. According to the book Ballots for Freedom James Rollins, "running on a free labor platform" was almost elected governor. Antislavery candidates had been elected mayors of St Louis and other towns in the 1850's as well.
In this scenario, Republicans would likely gain seats in the Missouri legislature ( I believe they won 12 in the Missouri house in 1860) and field a creditable governor candidate of their own during Lincolns' first administration. A movement toward slavery abolition in Missouri would be about to begin.
 
I don't know, but this is a pretty interesting subject.

I think the first real flashpoints will be fights in Congress over slavery in the territories matched with efforts by slaveholders to bring slaves in to provoke a response and/or litigation, since the Supreme Court is slave-friendly at this point. Give it a couple of years and I predict a Republican effort to pack the court, probably successfully.
 
I've wondered about territories as well, but the main territory where slavery had a chance that was left was the New Mexico territory, and the amount of slaves there was tiny, after 10 years of territorial status, so my guess is that a state effort to abolish slavery, through the Republican party in the state in question, would be most likely to trigger a new round of sectional trouble and perhaps secession.
 
It makes sense that the first enroads the Republican Party would make would be in the border states. There would be less institutional opposition to the Republicans because the slavepower was weakest in those states.

Once the idea that a Republican presidency would not mean civil war, a lot of the fear surrounding the party and Lincoln would dissipate among ordinary southerners. I would expect many of the people who supported the Constitutional Union Party would defect to the Republicans. If the Democratic Party remains divided, the Republicans could win pluaralities fairly soon.

I don't think direct anti-slavery moves would happen at first. Instead, the Republicans would concentrate more on economic issues on how slavery negatively affects free labor, or against the attempts by the slavepower to limit freedoms. Because of the 3/5 clause, slaveowners effectively have a much larger say in politics than their numbers suggest. I foresee an effort to redress that bias through redistricting and other electoral reforms. After the Republicans score some successes, they become a mainstream party and then begin to take direct actions against slavery and abolition. That probably won't happen until the 1870s.

I can see Republican victories in the border states throughout the 1860s, a growing party in the Upper South that would cement the Unionists in combination with unionist Democrats.

In terms of other acts, President Lincoln would likely make sure northern commanders be assigned in forts and arsenals throughout the south to prevent any chance of rebels seizing them without a fight, as happened IOTL with the Buchanan appointees.

I see the first goals of the Republicans in keeping the union, not provoking ordinary slaveowners, and putting policies in place that would prevent the fire eaters from risking secession. Only after those goals are achieved will we see abolition movements in any of the states except for perhaps Delaware because the population is so low.

If the Republicans gets two terms with Lincoln and then win a third straight election, I think at that moment state Republican parties would be willing to push for abolition.
 
Lincoln will do his darnedest to restrain abolition movements in border states. The Blairs were fairly conservative anyhow, so I don't expect to see early attempts at abolition in Missouri.
 

katchen

Banned
Virginia would also be a flashpoint in this scenario. Remember, the entire Western third of the state seceded from Virginia because it didn't want slavery. And in Missouri, the lineup for and against slavery is also highly geographic with most anti-slavery Missourians living either in St. Louis or north of the Missouri River.
I suspect in both cases, attempts would be made to solve the problem by partitioning the States through votes in the state legislature followed by a favorable vote in a compromise minded Congress.
California is another state that could be a flashpoint if civil war is avoided. Slavery is illegal in California but during the 1850s, many Californians owned slaves and no attempt was ever made to free them or interfere with slave ownership. So legalization of slavery could definitely be on the agenda in California as plantation type agriculture spreads there, especially since California is so good an area for plantation type agriculture.
Another flashpoint could likely be the possible admission of Cuba and Santo Domingo (Puerto Rico, too) as states. Hard to tell when Spain will abolish slavery OTTL but ITTL, Spain abolished slavery in 1873. This could unite Spanish slaveowners into rebelling against Spain and seeking admission to the U.S. And down the line perhaps the question of annexation of all or parts of Brazil at the behest of slaveowners there as that country moves progressively toward abolition. After all,in 1880 one can get from Washington DC to Rio faster than one could get from Washington to St. Louis in 1820.
 
Virginia would also be a flashpoint in this scenario. Remember, the entire Western third of the state seceded from Virginia because it didn't want slavery.

Nonsense. Western Virginia separated from Virginia becaus the people there opposed secession. Slavery was freely practiced in western Virginia, and there was no anti-slavery agitation there.

The longstanding grievance of western Virginians was that the state government in Richmond was geographically far from them, and was dominated by surrounding Tidewater region to western Virginia's detriment.

There were proposals for dividing the state long before the War.
 
I've wondered about territories as well, but the main territory where slavery had a chance that was left was the New Mexico territory, and the amount of slaves there was tiny, after 10 years of territorial status, so my guess is that a state effort to abolish slavery, through the Republican party in the state in question, would be most likely to trigger a new round of sectional trouble and perhaps secession.

If you can somehow get some Yankee settlers into New Mexico, you could possibly get that state admitted maybe as much as 55 years or so before it was IOTL(though it wouldn't likely have much more than maybe 100,000 at most, though).

It makes sense that the first enroads the Republican Party would make would be in the border states. There would be less institutional opposition to the Republicans because the slavepower was weakest in those states.

And they could do well in West Virginia, too, after it gets admitted, even if it's before the start of the *War; slavery, while it was practiced to a degree in a few areas, wasn't nearly as dominant as in eastern Va. even in 1850-60.

Once the idea that a Republican presidency would not mean civil war, a lot of the fear surrounding the party and Lincoln would dissipate among ordinary southerners. I would expect many of the people who supported the Constitutional Union Party would defect to the Republicans. If the Democratic Party remains divided, the Republicans could win pluaralities fairly soon.

Maybe, but unfortunately, it probably wouldn't stop the cries for secession, I don't think.

I don't think direct anti-slavery moves would happen at first. Instead, the Republicans would concentrate more on economic issues on how slavery negatively affects free labor, or against the attempts by the slavepower to limit freedoms.

I can see that happening, too, especially in Missouri and the Upper South.

Because of the 3/5 clause, slaveowners effectively have a much larger say in politics than their numbers suggest. I foresee an effort to redress that bias through redistricting and other electoral reforms. After the Republicans score some successes, they become a mainstream party and then begin to take direct actions against slavery and abolition. That probably won't happen until the 1870s.

I can see Republican victories in the border states throughout the 1860s, a growing party in the Upper South that would cement the Unionists in combination with unionist Democrats.

And they might even be somewhat successful in east Tenn./Western N.C., too; both of these areas did have their share of Unionists who weren't exactly pro-slavery, too(even if not necessarily rooting for the abolitionists 100%, either).

In terms of other acts, President Lincoln would likely make sure northern commanders be assigned in forts and arsenals throughout the south to prevent any chance of rebels seizing them without a fight, as happened IOTL with the Buchanan appointees.

Though unfortunately, we all know how that one turned out.....:(

I see the first goals of the Republicans in keeping the union, not provoking ordinary slaveowners, and putting policies in place that would prevent the fire eaters from risking secession. Only after those goals are achieved will we see abolition movements in any of the states except for perhaps Delaware because the population is so low.


If the Republicans gets two terms with Lincoln and then win a third straight election, I think at that moment state Republican parties would be willing to push for abolition.

That is certainly possible, IMO.

Lincoln will do his darnedest to restrain abolition movements in border states. The Blairs were fairly conservative anyhow, so I don't expect to see early attempts at abolition in Missouri.

Virginia would also be a flashpoint in this scenario. Remember, the entire Western third of the state seceded from Virginia because it didn't want slavery. And in Missouri, the lineup for and against slavery is also highly geographic with most anti-slavery Missourians living either in St. Louis or north of the Missouri River.
I suspect in both cases, attempts would be made to solve the problem by partitioning the States through votes in the state legislature followed by a favorable vote in a compromise minded Congress.

Very true; While it certainly is true that abolitionism did have a harder time in W.V. than elsewhere, the Westerners still felt antagonistic towards the Eastern area, and many of them weren't exactly pro-slavery, either.

As for Missouri, it's also been noted that there were a fair number of people in the Ozark area who were anti-slavery, and IIRC, there were also a few counties just north of the River that had quite a few slaves in them, too.
(This reminds me of The Story of a Party, btw; the state of Osage was formed to honor the Unionists in that area, IIRC.).

California is another state that could be a flashpoint if civil war is avoided. Slavery is illegal in California but during the 1850s, many Californians owned slaves and no attempt was ever made to free them or interfere with slave ownership. So legalization of slavery could definitely be on the agenda in California as plantation type agriculture spreads there, especially since California is so good an area for plantation type agriculture.

It might depend on who moves to California; from what I've read, IOTL, the majority of people who moved to CA were actually Northerners for the most part, with the possible exception of the southernmost areas.

Another flashpoint could likely be the possible admission of Cuba and Santo Domingo (Puerto Rico, too) as states. Hard to tell when Spain will abolish slavery OTTL but ITTL, Spain abolished slavery in 1873. This could unite Spanish slaveowners into rebelling against Spain and seeking admission to the U.S. And down the line perhaps the question of annexation of all or parts of Brazil at the behest of slaveowners there as that country moves progressively toward abolition. After all,in 1880 one can get from Washington DC to Rio faster than one could get from Washington to St. Louis in 1820.

Or, conversely, if Spain delays the end of slavery, and the U.S. ends it before Spain does, many Spanish slaveowners might actually side against the U.S. if Cuba and Puerto Rico become targets for annexation.

The longstanding grievance of western Virginians was that the state government in Richmond was geographically far from them, and was dominated by surrounding Tidewater region to western Virginia's detriment.

There were proposals for dividing the state long before the War.

Some truth here, but Katchen is definitely correct as well, even if the effort wasn't nearly as pronounced as in other states(which also seems to be true). And, IIRC, the proposals to divide Virginia go back to not long after Kentucky was admitted.
 
I
Once the idea that a Republican presidency would not mean civil war, a lot of the fear surrounding the party and Lincoln would dissipate among ordinary southerners. I would expect many of the people who supported the Constitutional Union Party would defect to the Republicans.

Not as long as Republicans are officially and explicitly anti-slavery, even if only by opposing "slavery expansion". Bear in mind that the Republican Party has an overtly abolitionist wing. What Southerner would dare caucus with Owen Lovejoy or Charles Sumner?

If the Democratic Party remains divided, the Republicans could win pluralities fairly soon.
At what level? In state elections? Hardly. In presidential elections? Why should southern Democrats continue to run separate candidates? After 1860, it would be argued that this strategy led to Lincoln's victory. Since that didn't trigger secession, why repeat it?
 
Last edited:
Not as long as Republicans are officially and explicitly anti-slavery, even if only by opposing "slavery expansion". Bear in mind that the Republican Party has an overtly abolitionist wing. What Southerner would dare caucus with Owen Lovejoy or William Sumner?

At what level? In state elections? Hardly. In presidential elections? Why should southern Democrats continue to run separate candidates? After 1860, it would be argued that this strategy led to Lincoln's victory. Since that didn't trigger secession, why repeat it?


Indeed, aren't the Republicans at least as likely to split as the Dems?

With slavery in the Territories a dead issue (no slaveholder will risk bringing his property into a Territory run by Reps) the party needs a new raison d'etre. The obvious one would be the Fugitive Slave Law, but Lincoln has unequivocally pledged himself to enforce this. Assuming he sticks to his word, how long before the more radical wing of his party decide that he is "just another Whig" and start looking for a new political home?

If he breaks his word, of course, that will be highly controversial, since even many who dislike the FSL still accept that it is part of the law of the land, and a lot of northern states were close in 1860, so he probably isn't re-elected.. This leaves the Reps with the choice of picking a Radical (who won't win) or choosing another moderate at the risk of splitting.
 
Top