An Accomplished Revolution (No ACW)

"[Better to consider] the organization of actual government by the seven seceded states as an accomplished revolution - accomplished through the complicity of the late [Buchanan] administration - & letting that confederacy try its experiment."

- Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the United States Treasury, in a private letter to Alphonso Taft, April 28, 1861 (italics in original)

* * *
The debate within the Lincoln administration largely came down to two options: conciliate the South, the better to persuade more states from seceding; or, stick to the policy set forth in Lincoln's Inaugural Address and fight to keep federal control over federal property, including the beleagured Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln eventually took the latter course. But apparently, there was a third option, held by Sec. Chase but never really discussed: let the South go, and hope that they come running back eventually.

At this point, the Confederacy was brand new and consisted of seven states: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Montgomery, Alabama was the capital. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland were still more or less committed to the idea of the Union, although many of their sympathies certainly lay with the would-be nation forming in the Deep South. Chase believed, apparently, that fighting the Confederacy would further alienate the border states.

I know that doing nothing while the union fell apart went contrary to Lincoln's nature. But in my mind that's what makes it a point of divergence. Suppose Lincoln and his administration had been persuaded to "let the confederacy try its experiment" - how soon before war would erupt? Would the remaining border states have seceded? What happens to slavery?

If this POD has been tried before, somebody tell me please. I jusut read this quote from Chase today and have been thinking about it since.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a very original POD. I've never seen this topic before, but then again, I'm kinda new. The idea of Lincoln allowing the secession is somewhat ASB, but if we allow an earlier POD to modify Lincoln's mindset, that could work.

I doubt the border states would've seceded. They were more upset about the North trying to force the South stay in the Union than they were about the actual causes of the secession. As for slavery, it was destined to die out eventually anyway. It might have taken a few decades, but it was so economically destructive and morally objectionable (although those ideas weren't prevalent in the South, abolitionism was spreading so fast that they eventually would have been) that it couldn't have lasted beyond 1900 at the absolute latest. As for how the Confederate experiment would have fared, it's hard to say. They would have been economically disadvantaged until slavery was abolished, but after that I can see them becoming a more conservative version of the US. It would be interesting.
 
I think this is a very original POD. I've never seen this topic before, but then again, I'm kinda new. The idea of Lincoln allowing the secession is somewhat ASB, but if we allow an earlier POD to modify Lincoln's mindset, that could work.

I feel sometimes that "ASB" is used to mean "unlikely" rather than its intended meaning, which is "impossible." Lincoln would have been temperamentally against acquiescing to a division in the Union, most definitely. But it's hardly impossible that a leader could do something that he normally wouldn't do. Temperamentally, you could argue that Lincoln was also unlikely to start a war, but there you are.

The POD, I think, could be that Chase entered into Lincoln's confidence more than his Secretary of State Seward, who advocated a moderate policy of conciliating the slave states. So in the spring of 1861, Lincoln's ear belonged to the do-nothing Chase on one side, and the hawkish Blair family on the other.

In TTL:

March 1861: Chase privately confides to Lincoln that he'd just as soon the Deep South goes alone, and good riddance to them. Lincoln at first is horrified at the thought that he would simply allow the Union to dissolve, but the give-em-hell policies advocated by Postmaster General Blair and his powerful family are also unpalatable to Lincoln, who does not want to be responsible for starting a civil war.

On March 29, Lincoln asks his Cabinet which of the three policies to pusue: surrender Fort Sumter (per Seward, General Winfeld Scott, and most of the Cabinet), rearm it and prepare for attack (per Blair), or simply do nothing (per Chase). The next day, Lincoln telegrams the relevant Navy commanders telling them he has decided not to rearm the fort.

On April 13, Fort Sumter falls. Most of the Union troops escape unscathed.

On April 15, delegations from Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri reaffirm their solidarity with the Union.

On April 17, Tennessee votes to secede.

I doubt the border states would've seceded. They were more upset about the North trying to force the South stay in the Union than they were about the actual causes of the secession. As for slavery, it was destined to die out eventually anyway. It might have taken a few decades, but it was so economically destructive and morally objectionable (although those ideas weren't prevalent in the South, abolitionism was spreading so fast that they eventually would have been) that it couldn't have lasted beyond 1900 at the absolute latest. As for how the Confederate experiment would have fared, it's hard to say. They would have been economically disadvantaged until slavery was abolished, but after that I can see them becoming a more conservative version of the US. It would be interesting.

Long term... I think that some - even all - of the border states will secede anyway. They had faced a more powerful North as it was. With the Confederacy going alone, they will find themselves an increasingly irrelevant minority within the USA, unless they can somehow convince the Deep South states to come back, following Chase's plan. They seem very unlikely to do so, however, given the sentiment down there.

I see the Confederacy very divided in this scenario, however, since they have no war to unite them.

I cannot see Lincoln getting re-elected in 1864. He goes down in history as a shrewd politician in his leadership of his party, but a poor administrator, possibly a country bumpkin who was in over his head.
 
Going to war was unpalatable to Lincoln, but letting the Union dissolve was unthinkable. The Union was effectively Lincoln's religion; avoiding bloodshed wasn't. Also, he took his oath of office extremely seriously and did not view that agreeing to secession was compatible with it.
 
Going to war was unpalatable to Lincoln, but letting the Union dissolve was unthinkable. The Union was effectively Lincoln's religion; avoiding bloodshed wasn't. Also, he took his oath of office extremely seriously and did not view that agreeing to secession was compatible with it.

...which is what makes this a Point of Divergence. It's different. I'm interested in what follows if Lincoln allows his priorities to shift.
 
This is a great POD! Very original.

I can see the seceded states as probably having to struggle with their economies, since I think that the foreign powers might be unwilling to trade as extensively with slaveholders. Chances are that the Confederate states might mellow out after a few decades and rejoin the Union.
 
Up till Fort Sumter the CS was Winning, Ships were sailing Trains were Training, Southern goods were being shipped North, Northern goods were being shipped south.
New York Banks were printing the New Confederate Banknotes, several Northern Newspaper had moved Southern News to the International section.
A sense of status Quo was beginning to overtake the Events.

Then came Fort Sumter, and Lincolns Speech about the Dastardly Rebels having attacked the Union -- "Rally My Brave Boys in Defense of the Union"

So ITTL the supply Ship is never sent, The Union Commander relizing his hoplessness Surrenders peacefully.
The Union Troops are put on a train and depart for the North.

As it becomes apparent that Lincoln is not about to send in the Troops, Virginia votes on secession and the Motion Fails.
A week later, It also fails in NCarolina.

By the beginning of May all the Congress Critters from the Border states have resumed their seats.
At the end of May a Diplomatic delegation from Montgomery arrives in Washington, While Lincoln refuses to Meet them, He does not have them Arrested.

Shortly after wards Britain and France announce they are recognizing the CSA.



Finish later -- going to bed
 
Up till Fort Sumter the CS was Winning, Ships were sailing Trains were Training, Southern goods were being shipped North, Northern goods were being shipped south.
New York Banks were printing the New Confederate Banknotes, several Northern Newspaper had moved Southern News to the International section.
A sense of status Quo was beginning to overtake the Events.

Then came Fort Sumter, and Lincolns Speech about the Dastardly Rebels having attacked the Union -- "Rally My Brave Boys in Defense of the Union".

And the "attack on the flag" at Sumter galvanized Northerners, who rushed to put down the treasonous rebellion. Northern Democrats who had hated both Lincoln and all antislavery people began supporting Lincoln and supporting attacking the south. TTL would indeed involve Lincoln failing to get the support of the whole North.

So ITTL the supply Ship is never sent, The Union Commander relizing his hoplessness Surrenders peacefully.
The Union Troops are put on a train and depart for the North.

Yes.

As it becomes apparent that Lincoln is not about to send in the Troops, Virginia votes on secession and the Motion Fails.
A week later, It also fails in NCarolina.

By the beginning of May all the Congress Critters from the Border states have resumed their seats.
At the end of May a Diplomatic delegation from Montgomery arrives in Washington, While Lincoln refuses to Meet them, He does not have them Arrested.

Shortly after wards Britain and France announce they are recognizing the CSA.

We're clearly thinking along the same lines!
 
Awesome, truly.

I can see a few not mutually exclusive long-term possibilities (no idea which are most likely):

* The Lower States form the CSA. It remains intact.
* Same, but Balkanization
* Some/all border States eventually secede.
* CSA/Independent States live in peace with US/Each Other. Become trade partners and eventual cobelligerents.
* Series of wars over borders/trade/foreign alliances/etc.
* Repatriation of some/all states.
* Some States fall victim to outside takeover...do the others assist/enforce "Monroe Doctrine"?
 
I think Virginia is still going to leave the Union. As will perhaps Tennessee, North Carolina and Kentucky. Without the other Southern states, they are hopelessly outnumbered in Congress and electoral votes. Due to the counting of slaves for state legislative purposes, slave owners held disproportional power in these states. Lincoln may not be re-elected, but Southern influence in national policy will be at an end. Sure 1864 may see a doughface President similar to Buchanan elected, but this won't last long. First the laws prohibiting anti-slavery mail from being carried will be overturned, then the fugitive slave laws will be overturned and pressure will force Delaware and Missouri (filling with German immigrants) to enact manumission laws. Tariffs will rise, internal improvements will occur and the slavers will fume in anger. To which the North will say...Tough crap!

In this scenario the only state to cause problems will almost certainly be Maryland. The North will be loath to lose Washington and fighting may erupt, but if they were willing to let other states go peacefully there is a chance that the capitol could be moved as well. Perhaps New York, Philadelphia and Chicago get into a tiff as to which will be the next capital. As for relations between the South, which will most likely be a collection of smaller nations based on a few state alliances, and the North there will be some rather difficult issues to resolve regarding the transfer of Federal property, the return of fugitive slaves (which will not happen as the Northern states hated the fugitive slave laws even before secession), the status of western Virigina and the right of transit along the Mississippi.

These disputes would probably give rise to several small wars, in which the North would almost certainly win. An expansionist US unfettered by the debate over free or slave would acquire Alaska, Dominican Republic, Hawaii and a Canal Zone. A Constitutional amendment outlawing secession and another one outlawing slavery would come with the election of the next Republican president (1868 or 1872). Slavery would last on until the early to mid 20th century in the Deep South, barring a War of Liberation by an abolitionist led North.

Benjamin
 
As the Confederate Constitution prohibited the importation of slaves--
?Would the CS Supreme Court agree that this included slaves from the US [Virgina, Maryland ect.]?

OTL the CS didn't get around to appointing a Supreme court till after the war
?How long would it take ITTL?


And if Virginia didn't secede in 1861, there would be no WVirginia.
 
I'm reviving this. At least for discussion.

At the end of spring 1861, the CSA consists of:
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Tennessee (8 states)

Loyal states of the USA:
Slave:
Missouri
Kentucky
Arkansas
Virginia
North Carolina
Maryland
Delaware (7 states)

Free:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
California
Oregon (19 states)

The Union has held, but it doesn't take long for the Senators and Representatives on the Hill to realize they are outgunned. The word secession - now with teeth! - is heard in nearly every debate in Congress that touches sensitive issues. That summer it is used to intimidate Congressmen into passing a law that confirms the de facto creation of the Arizona Territory. For the first time in decades, a new territory's citizens from the get-go are guaranteed the right to own slaves.

Antislavery politicians, Lincoln included, grow frustrated at this state of affairs. Before, they compromised in order to preserve the Union. Now, they are compromising when the Union is already un-preserved (to paraphrase Frederick Douglas).

Sure enough, antislavery legislation begins creeping into Congressional committees. When a fillibuster is broken during a debate over softening the fugitive slave law, North Carolina and Kentucky delegates leave the Capitol en masse (August 1861). Reports of chaos and stalemate in the Provisional Confederate Congress keep the other states in - for now.
 
Err... Why does Tennessee secede? Especially on 17 April? Googling, it looks like it seceded OTL on May 6; why would they go EARLIER if Virginia and NC stayed in the Union? Would they go at all, if VA and NC stayed?
 
Hm. There was, I'm sure, a reason for the date when I wrote it last winter. I'll try to remember; otherwise, maybe it should change.

And let me look back at the material I was reading at the time that convinced me Tennessee would want out. There was a legitimate reason for it, that I know.
 
Top