Crazymachines
Banned
Let's say the Republican party loses out on the presidency in 1860 and 1864, but wins in 1868. What are the biggest consequences of America's national schism being delayed by almost a decade?
American civil war delayed until 1869, what are the consequences?
- Thread starter Crazymachines
- Start date
Crazymachines
Banned
I feel like with a democratic president in the White House from 1864 to 1868, the issue of slavery would merely be kicked down the line. I think it's an issue that's intractable enough that it wouldn't go away on its own.
The issue was slavery in the territories. If a new agreement was had for where southerners could move to vs northerners when it comes to the territories both feel they can live with that sticks there would probably be no secession crisis. If not there certainly still might be one.
Until the pro-slavery leaders demand even more concessions and more active federal support.
What happens in '69 seems like it depends on a lot on general developments in 1860-1868 - we can't really actually assume the OTL trans-continental railroad (or necessarily even any one, although that's not entirely unlikely), for example. But the general balance is not growing better for the eleven states that made the OTL CSA.
What happens in '69 seems like it depends on a lot on general developments in 1860-1868 - we can't really actually assume the OTL trans-continental railroad (or necessarily even any one, although that's not entirely unlikely), for example. But the general balance is not growing better for the eleven states that made the OTL CSA.
Last edited:
That certainly might happen, but it would be up to whoever is leading in Washington then to see if they can isolate the fire eaters and whatever state might start a secession crisis.
If the slavery issue is kicked further down the line by Democrats winning the 1860 and 1864 US Presidential Elections, a compromise might be reached. But this will only be temporary. For starters, the economic and demographic imbalance will only tilt further to the North in these eight years. Therefore public opinion that something ought to be done to eventually result in slavery's extinction will similarly increase.
Pressure will not just be increasing domestically, but abroad as well. Countries like Great Britain and France and even Russia, which had abolished serfdom in 1861, are going to frown upon the institution of slavery still being upheld by a Western country by the 1870s. Thanks to the combination of internal and external pressures, I see slavery ending peacefully no later than 1880-ish. At this point a Southern Secession has no chance of being successful with all the additional industrialization in the Northern states.
Would that occur to those who greatly underestimated the importance of industrialization to whether or not they had a chance in 1861-1865?
If it doesn't, any attempt at secession will be dealt with relatively swiftly when compared to OTL's Civil War.
Almost certainly, yeah. Probably more than a year, but that's more a mobilization issue.
Delaying the war could lead to some domestic changes: the southern part of California may well succeed in seceding from the state. If I remember correctly, the reason partition never moved forward is the secession crisis in 1860. Assuming the new territory takes the intended name of "Colorado", what we know as Colorado will also have a different name (Jefferson? Idaho? Montana?). Set the dominoes up right, and you could change the names of about half of the western states. Obviously this is fairly insignificant compared to other divergences, but I feel the little changes can be the most fun.
I can see the slavers winning in 1860. But not in 1864, entirely because of a case coming up through the courts. Lemmon vs New York was Lincoln's prophesized case which would have "caused the whole north to dream that the nation was on the verge of becoming free, only to wake up and find the Supreme Court had made the whole country slave". There is exactly 0% chance a court as blatantly partisan as Taney's would have upheld the law or Constitution in deciding the case, and would instead have sided completely with the slavers. And in doing so would effectively declare that banning slavery in a state, ANY state, was unconstitutional. After that case there is no way whatsoever that a Democratic president is winning in the 1864 election. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Douglas's prediction that slavery would destroy the Democratic Party in the North would come true, and the south alone cannot elect a president.
I would suggest then that the most likely elected candidate would be...Lincoln actually.
If the Republicans lose in 1860 the most likely cause would be nominating someone more extreme.
Grimbald
Monthly Donor
If you graph Southern military capability vs. Northern it looks like an X where the crossing point is probably in the late 1840s or early 1850s. Time only makes the Northern advantage greater. Eventually it gets so great even deep south fire eaters see the futility of sending their sons to die for a cause lost at inception.
Delay long enough; there will be no war.
Delay long enough; there will be no war.
this falls into the same folly the north did OTL that led to the CSA surviving those years, overconfidence in both their superiority and how pro-union the south was. until the union gets its ass in gear and a general willing to win the war, it'll look similar to OTL but with even more appalling casualties. if anything, unless grant or someone like him gets promoted a hell of a lot faster, it might end up scarring the union into making peace
The superiority that sees the Confederacy losing from the very beginning of the war in the West? Not every fight to be sure, but it's not like the Confederacy was holding its own there by a long shot.
The Union had its ass in gear and generals willing to win the war long before Lee faced Grant, and that's not even tackling the eastern theater at all.
Speaking for myself, I'm not counting on any more pro-union sentiments than OTL - just that the Confederacy to be is in a bad spot for industrial mass warfare, and that the advances in weaponry favor the side better able to get them in numbers as far as changing the direction or pace of things relative to a four year war, I think.
Last edited:
I don't see Lincoln getting the nomination in 1864 in this scenario. Yes a radical getting the nomination in 1860 would have caused the Republicans to lose. However if the Taney court does what you think there's not reason for a moderate like Lincoln to be nominated. The radicals would've been proven right, the south, as they had warned would do so the moment it could, would've forced slavery upon the nation whether it's people wanted it or not. You're going to get a straight radical abolitionist ticket from the Republicans in that scenario and they will almost certainly sweep the entire north with it.
Im curious what effect the Corwin Amendment has. It actually seemed to be advancing before the secessionists took their balls and went home. Its intention was to put the question of slavery permanently to bed, I can say with good certainty that it wouldn't have done that. So what would permanent entrenchment of slavery in the Constitution do?
I think the Corwin Amendment could pass Congress, but I don't see enough states ratifying it. There were 33 states in 1860, so if I can do math (a questionable proposition) you would need 25 states to ratify, meaning 9 could kill it. Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are definite nos. That is 7. You would only need 2 more to kill it. Any combination of free states, but especially Ohio, Connecticut, Michigan, Indiana, or Pennsylvania would be most likely.
I think the amendment passing Congress and failing in the states makes the situation much, much worse. The South is already radicalized and now translates this, in their minds and propaganda, into "these states are voting for direct abolition". Once the 9th state rejects, that would probably be the trigger for South Carolina to secede. By 1860, Rhett and Co. were not looking to make up their minds on secession, only for a pretext.
If a Democrat wins in 1860, it would be based on placating the South, as that is the only way a mostly unified Democratic Party could exist at this point. Either some Doughface Northerner like Issac Toucey or Compromiser like James Guthrie of Kentucky are probably your best bets. As the decline of slavery becomes more evident over the decade of the 1860s, the Southerners would be pushing for more and more future guarantees of their own position to protect against the future most people could see coming but they couldn't. Guthrie would try to compromise his way to an end to his term, thus putting it off until 1864. Toucey was a product of the corrupt Democrat machines of the time, so much so that he could placate the Southerners with patronage as well as compromises, just like Buchanan and Pierce. That could also potentially get you to 1864.
As was mentioned, I don't see how you could get to 1868. I think in 1861-1862, Lemmon v. New York gives Taney the opportunity to declare that states cannot free those already slaves with their laws and that slavery is a perpetual condition unless decreed by the master. This would be the last step needed before the next case to declare that states could not illegalize slavery. That final decision would depend on who our projected president names as Taney's replacement in 1864. If another Doughface Democrat wins in 1864 and keeps throwing bones to the South, I think the secession you are looking at by 1868 is in the North. Then a war would depend on whether Washington is willing to fight to "keep the abolitionists in the Union."
I think the amendment passing Congress and failing in the states makes the situation much, much worse. The South is already radicalized and now translates this, in their minds and propaganda, into "these states are voting for direct abolition". Once the 9th state rejects, that would probably be the trigger for South Carolina to secede. By 1860, Rhett and Co. were not looking to make up their minds on secession, only for a pretext.
If a Democrat wins in 1860, it would be based on placating the South, as that is the only way a mostly unified Democratic Party could exist at this point. Either some Doughface Northerner like Issac Toucey or Compromiser like James Guthrie of Kentucky are probably your best bets. As the decline of slavery becomes more evident over the decade of the 1860s, the Southerners would be pushing for more and more future guarantees of their own position to protect against the future most people could see coming but they couldn't. Guthrie would try to compromise his way to an end to his term, thus putting it off until 1864. Toucey was a product of the corrupt Democrat machines of the time, so much so that he could placate the Southerners with patronage as well as compromises, just like Buchanan and Pierce. That could also potentially get you to 1864.
As was mentioned, I don't see how you could get to 1868. I think in 1861-1862, Lemmon v. New York gives Taney the opportunity to declare that states cannot free those already slaves with their laws and that slavery is a perpetual condition unless decreed by the master. This would be the last step needed before the next case to declare that states could not illegalize slavery. That final decision would depend on who our projected president names as Taney's replacement in 1864. If another Doughface Democrat wins in 1864 and keeps throwing bones to the South, I think the secession you are looking at by 1868 is in the North. Then a war would depend on whether Washington is willing to fight to "keep the abolitionists in the Union."