AHC no civil war

Lincoln tried, very hard, to prevent the South from seceding. He publically said that his goal was to Preserve the Union, if that meant preserving slavery, outlawing slavery, or partially preserving it and partially outlawing it. The problem, as I see it, is that the South had been itching to leave the Union for many decades prior to the Civil War, and they saw Lincoln's election (the first Republican President in history, part of the brand-new Republican Party that sort of evolved from the ashes of the Whig Party) and the slavery issue as the justification they sought to secede.
 
The Southern States honestly thought they could start, fight, and win a war against the Union that was very difficult for them to win. It wasn't quite as bad as Japan vs. the US in WW2, but similar. Why did the Southerners think they could prevail against a much larger, more populated, more industrialized set of states? Well, for the same (wrong) reasons Japan did. They thought they could win because they wanted to win, and so they crafted their beliefs and expectations to confirm with outcome they desired and honestly expected. This is a psychological phenomenah known as Confirmation Bias, AKA Wishful thinking. Japan had no chance of defeating the US, but they wanted to believe that they could win. . .so they chose to believe that they could win. Did Nazi Germany really have a realistic chance of invading and occupying the entire Soviet Union? No, not really. . .but if you want to believe that one of your soldiers can defeat ten of theirs, than you can convince yourself it's true. Confirmation Bias leads to all sorts of horrible outcomes that look very predictable, even inevitable, in hindsight.
 
The trouble is that the Southern politicians, as my fellow AHites have already pointed out, were the type that would not take "Yes" for an answer, never mind "No." Each compromise and each allowance only bred more demands. It is rather hard to negotiate with people like that. Even if someone were to enshrine slavery as a fundamental law and profess to do the utmost to let it continue, the next demand would be to create more slave states and expand slavery. How long would such a situation continue?
 
the only way to prevent the Civil War is to make Slavery unafforable... like having the Bole Weevil infests the south earlier than in the OTL... its hard to justify a "way of life" when you can't afford to keep it
 
if you want to believe that one of your soldiers can defeat ten of theirs, than you can convince yourself it's true.

Šćepan Mali of Montenegro beat a larger Venetian force. In the Ottoman campaign against him the next year, they inflicted 30 to 1 in terms of casualties despite being outnumbered 12 to 1. Unless you think the Ottomans are complete backward gunpowederless backwater country which they were not, and everything but gunpowderless part (which would never apply to them) of that description wouldn't apply for another 30 years , this only makes sense if the Slavs were better fighters. And there were a few times the Romans beat back a 10 to 1 disadvantage (and I mean 10 armed as best as their side can be, not 10 unarmed rioters), although more often than not the Romans tended to lose when the other side had more than a 3 to 1 numbers.
 
this is actually a very easy challenge. the challenge in the opening post was to simply prevent the civil war with either Lincoln or Buchannan. While it is unlikely to have happen if Lincoln simply allows the south to leave peacefully the challenge met in a technical sense if not in the spirit that it was intended.
 
the only way to prevent the Civil War is to make Slavery unafforable... like having the Bole Weevil infests the south earlier than in the OTL... its hard to justify a "way of life" when you can't afford to keep it

That might cause problems, but in the end, I think it actually became more about social stability than money in the long run. Southerners saw what happened in Haiti, and decided that slavery must be preserved at all costs, or the blacks would kill them in their sleep and rape their wives and daughters. If poorer farmers couldn't afford it any longer, they'd get bought up by richer ones. And if that somehow became a problem, too, they'd push for the government to step in and buy them. Anything other than leaving "those people" to their own devices.
 
Get Virginia and Lee to stay with the Union, maybe North Carolina and/or Texas too. Support the Union enclaves before war breaks out and offer them statehood in their own right. Make it very clear that British and French aid or recognition will not happen. Replace the four Union generals with much younger pro-Union ones very early in the process. Have Sam Cooper found and shot for treason if he defects.
 
What about actually taking proactive steps when the South first even makes noise to succeed, instead of Buchanan being a lame duck and letting the southerners take whatever they desired? Either remove all forms of munitions, weapons, and other materials from the south, remove US navy ships so they can't be commandeered, etc, and do whatever it takes to hamper any effort by the south. At the same time, start recruiting for the army, the moment it becomes clear that the southern states are making a serious move to leave the Union.

If the Union actually presses their advantages "before" Lincoln is sworn in, the South would be looking at a much more organized Northern force while also having fewer resources of their own. If they do decide to fight on, the disparity might be too great. But they may end up blinking in that situation.

Also, agreed with the Above. The Upper South formed quite a lot of the Confederacy's backbone. Virginia and, I think, Tennessee were the most industrialized states. North Carolina contributed the most troops (and Wilmington was the longest standing major Confederate port, if I recall, for blockade running). Start removing pieces, and things start to get rather dicey for the south.
 
What about actually taking proactive steps when the South first even makes noise to succeed, instead of Buchanan being a lame duck and letting the southerners take whatever they desired? Either remove all forms of munitions, weapons, and other materials from the south, remove US navy ships so they can't be commandeered, etc, and do whatever it takes to hamper any effort by the south. At the same time, start recruiting for the army, the moment it becomes clear that the southern states are making a serious move to leave the Union.

If the Union actually presses their advantages "before" Lincoln is sworn in, the South would be looking at a much more organized Northern force while also having fewer resources of their own. If they do decide to fight on, the disparity might be too great. But they may end up blinking in that situation.

Also, agreed with the Above. The Upper South formed quite a lot of the Confederacy's backbone. Virginia and, I think, Tennessee were the most industrialized states. North Carolina contributed the most troops (and Wilmington was the longest standing major Confederate port, if I recall, for blockade running). Start removing pieces, and things start to get rather dicey for the south.

Could Buchanan have move the Harpers Ferry arsenal to somewhere like Ft Monroe (which, iirc, remained in Union hands throughout the war). He could have argued that the John Brown raid showed it to be too vulnerable in its present location.
 
Could Buchanan have move the Harpers Ferry arsenal to somewhere like Ft Monroe (which, iirc, remained in Union hands throughout the war). He could have argued that the John Brown raid showed it to be too vulnerable in its present location.

He could have, but Buchanan wouldn't have unless you give him a change of hearts and conviction years before. it's one to say he hypothetically could have done it, but Buchanan wouldn't have.
 
He could have, but Buchanan wouldn't have unless you give him a change of hearts and conviction years before. it's one to say he hypothetically could have done it, but Buchanan wouldn't have.

Why not? He didn't support secession any more than Lincoln did. The trouble was that, like most Northerners, he didn't take the danger seriously. Republicans and Northern Democrats alike had heard secession talk before, and largely dismissed it as bombast.
 
More specifically:

a. Keep governor Letcher of Virginia loyal to the Union by any means necessary. Even if this means remuneration for slaves lost, this deprives the Confederacy of much of her leadership talent and industry. It also allows an open border with the Union that might be enough for North Carolina and eastern Tennessee/Franklin to stay as well.

b. David Twiggs and other officers are rotated as soon as possible after South Carolina secedes. This puts a large though divided Union-led force in Texas itself.

c. Samuel Cooper was the main Confederate general on paper - ironically a New Yorker. If he is isolated before he can turn, great, if not then he can be tried for treason.

d. Make an example of Charleston. Burn it down in a full show of naval force with a specific intention to demonstrate what happens to the property and infrastructure of *any* seceding state. It will be a very unpopular act and could backfire if done incorrectly but could break the back of the Confederacy before the war even starts.

e. Make it clear no aid will come from Britain or France. Have troops in reserve on the border with Canada when possible as a deterrent but not so close as to be an overt threat.

f. Consider the purchase of Cuba as a delaying tactic for Southern expansion with Haitian conquest as another possible avenue. Although morally loathsome this could achieve the goal of delaying a civil conflict for a decade or two.
 
The Southern States honestly thought they could start, fight, and win a war against the Union that was very difficult for them to win.

Wishful thinking was common on both sides. Winfield Scott was considered a pessimist, if not an alarmist, for thinking the war would require 300,000 troops and two or three years to defeat the rebellion.

A few men saw more clearly.

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." - Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs' reaction to Jefferson Davis' planning to attack Ft. Sumter. Toombs was the only member of the Confederate Cabinet to oppose the attack.

"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South." Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, shortly after his removal from office for refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederacy.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." - William T Sherman, President of Louisiana State University
 
Top