AHC: North preempts Southern Secession

With a POD early as needed, is it possible for the North to preempt the formation of the Confederacy with a military intervention or outright invasion? What might the effects be? (besides throwing the option of all southerners behind yet to be formed Confederacy of course) And if this is utter ASB (though I hope to remain within plausibility), what do you think the effects might be just for kicks?
 
With a POD early as needed, is it possible for the North to preempt the formation of the Confederacy with a military intervention or outright invasion? What might the effects be? (besides throwing the option of all southerners behind yet to be formed Confederacy of course) And if this is utter ASB (though I hope to remain within plausibility), what do you think the effects might be just for kicks?

If the North and the President are prepared to intervene immediately, then it's unlikely any slave state would declare secession.

For one thing, it implies that the President is absolutely unsympathetic to slave-state demands, and also that the slave states didn't declare secession before he took office.

If he's been in office a while, and the slave states accepted that, then it's going to be hard to stir up the panic that drove OTL secession.
 
If the North and the President are prepared to intervene immediately, then it's unlikely any slave state would declare secession.

For one thing, it implies that the President is absolutely unsympathetic to slave-state demands, and also that the slave states didn't declare secession before he took office.

I'm not sure it really implies that last bit. Consider that the initial seceding states did so before Lincoln was actually sworn in, because they believed he was, well... absolutely unsympathetic to slave-state demands.

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas seceded between his election and his inauguation. One may reason that this would have happened the same way if a more radical Northerner was somehow elected, or Lincoln was somehow more radical.

On February 7, 1861, those seceded states adopted a provisional constitution.

On March 4, 1861, Lincoln was sworn in.

On March 11, 1861, the seven seceded states adopted the Confederate Constitution.

It seems unlikely that anyone could, given that timeframe, have launched a military invasion to prevent the Confederacy from being oficially created on March 11th. But supposing a president (be it Lincoln or someone else) willing to attack at once, the newborn Confederacy could have been crushed very swiftly.

I'm not sure about this, but is Lincoln (on anyone replacing him) in a position to prepare an invasion force before his is inaugurated, as president-elect? If he is, he can start as soon as SC secedes, and have his army start marching the moment he takes office. The sevem seceded states, barely organized, would not stand a chance. And considering that, I don't think any additional states (Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina) will opt to secede.

It would be a very short war. Would that count, Kovalenko?
 
Considering the smallness of the Regular US Army in 1861, the fact that the majority of its officers and men were Southerners, and how they reacted when the South DID secede OTL, I would think that you could expect a fragmentation of the army should the US president launch an "unprovoked" attack on the South pre-Fort Sumter. After all, OTL Lincoln was forced to call for "volunteers" from the non-rebellious states to suppress the rebellion, causing Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia to secede in response.

If any US president were to launch an invasion of Southern states using Northern troops (which is what you would have to use), it would be all the Southern Whites' nightmares made real. Kentucky and Missouri would secede, and it would be a job just to hold on to Western Virginia and Western Maryland.
 
I'm not sure about this, but is Lincoln (or anyone replacing him) in a position to prepare an invasion force before his is inaugurated, as president-elect? If he is, he can start as soon as SC secedes, and have his army start marching the moment he takes office. The seven seceded states, barely organized, would not stand a chance. And considering that, I don't think any additional states (Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina) will opt to secede.

It would be a very short war. Would that count, Kovalenko?

That counts, but who could be that radical and still electable? And does the President Elect have the kind of authority to call for the formation of an invasion force?
 
What you would need would be a Southern president in the mold of Andrew Jackson. He was publically against succession when he was in office but also was from the south.
 
The President-Elect has absolutely zero authority. To get an invasion force before Lincoln's inauguration, you'd need a Buchanan with a backbone, or radical Unionist cabinet members who're strong enough to run over him (as the radical secessionist cabinet members did iOTL.) Now that'd be a decent PoD, definitely, if it could be explained...
 
With a POD early as needed, is it possible for the North to preempt the formation of the Confederacy with a military intervention or outright invasion? What might the effects be? (besides throwing the option of all southerners behind yet to be formed Confederacy of course) And if this is utter ASB (though I hope to remain within plausibility), what do you think the effects might be just for kicks?

A preemptive Northern invasion? Unless there is a vastly different interpretation of constitutional power, as it was understood then, the North would come off as the aggressor - and nothing but nearly 250 years of continued propaganda would get people to believe otherwise. I strongly doubt that a majority of the northern states would agree, especially those of the Old Northwest. The border states would have to be also occupied, and Virginia would be justified in its secession.

The door for Federal tyranny and greater centralization of power would be firmly thrown open.
 

saturnV

Banned
I agree with the last poster, the civil war was about states powrs vrs the federal powers , back then the fed didn't have a fraction of the power it does now , that said if a preemptive stricke is made I think the president gets impeached or so many other states join the south that dplomacy vrs war is the only northern solution
 
What you would need would be a Southern president in the mold of Andrew Jackson. He was publically against succession when he was in office but also was from the south.

With Jackson in office there would be no secession.

I agree with the last poster, the civil war was about states powers vs the federal powers, (1) back then the fed didn't have a fraction of the power it does now, that said if a preemptive strike is made I think the president gets impeached or so many other states join the south that diplomacy vrs war is the only northern solution

1) The civil war didn't involve other issues until after Antietam.
 
I'm not sure it would work at all. For example it North Carolina was on the fence about secession, split 50/50 between pro-Union and Confederate. When Federal troops were dispatched to South Carolina all Union support fell apart and the state voted to secede. A preemptive Federal invasion or move would only make support for the Confederates stronger.
 
Top