A peaceful secession?

The obvious booby trap for the south, beyond the strong possibility that Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia may not go along with the rest, are the many issues of vital import which were effectively forfeited by the act of secession yet which are desperately important to the south.


1) The territories, none of which went into southern hands OTL.

2) Trade and tariff issues. Now the CSA has to pay its own way and may be in for a bad shock when King Corn turns out to be more influential than King Cotton. People can make clothing last, not bread.

3) Transcontinental railroad. Now the south can't build one on their own for a long time and there's no hope the first will be built near the new border.

4) Fugitive slave act. Not only dead but now the problem starts at the Mason-Dixon line(or further south!) instead of Canada.

The one issue marginally favoring the south...

5) Ol' Man River, aka the Mississippi. Acquired by act of the federal government, the Midwest is going to respond extremely poorly to any limits of access to the river OR new fees charged. This might be a useful bargaining chip for the south except that the north's minimum requirement is going to leave a river running for hundreds of miles in the south as an international waterway and not compromising effectively forfeits the one real bargaining chip.
 
The secession does not last.

If there is no fight between the northern government and the secessionists, then I foresee the South possibly existing without international recognition until it decides to rejoin the union. I may be wrong, but I don't think that the confederacy would get very far in developing a unique identity without the war.


However, with or without Fort Sumter, war was likely to have occurred making the premise of this hypothetical rather difficult.
 
Wikipedia's entry on Edwin M. Stanton states:

He strongly opposed secession, and is credited by historians for changing Buchanan's position away from tolerating secession to denouncing it as unconstitutional and illegal.

Could Buchanan really just have "tolerated" secession and let the South go peacefully?
Is picking an Attorney General other than Stranton enough?
 
Could Buchanan really just have "tolerated" secession and let the South go peacefully?
Is picking an Attorney General other than Stranton enough?

It could be interesting if Buchanan were to take an openly pro-South stance, recognizing the seccession and opening diplomatic relations with the Confederacy. It might be interesting if he used his last few months as a lame duck President to try and present Lincoln with peaceful seccession as a fait accompli.
 
It could be interesting if Buchanan were to take an openly pro-South stance, recognizing the succession and opening diplomatic relations with the Confederacy. It might be interesting if he used his last few months as a lame duck President to try and present Lincoln with peaceful succession as a fait accompli.
I wrote a TL like this for a Previous challenge thread.
POD was Lincoln being Accidentally overheard being very very Derogatory toward Buchanan, [Dueling Words].
Buchanan Recognized the Confederate Ambassador.
Congress called for Impeachment, but lost due to only 6 weeks lasting in Term.
When the President Recognizes the Confederate Ambassador, so do English and French Ambassadors.
Lincoln then has the Problem of undoing this
 
I wrote a TL like this for a Previous challenge thread.
POD was Lincoln being Accidentally overheard being very very Derogatory toward Buchanan, [Dueling Words].
Buchanan Recognized the Confederate Ambassador.
Congress called for Impeachment, but lost due to only 6 weeks lasting in Term.
When the President Recognizes the Confederate Ambassador, so do English and French Ambassadors.
Lincoln then has the Problem of undoing this

Interesting ATL do you have the link? What is interesting is the fact that Impeachment proceedings would be called for even when the North was entirely undecided upon the idea of secession.
 
Top