Bloodier and More Violent 1850s --> Presidents Sumner and Rhett in 1861?

[TheDoofusUser]

I think it can be agreed that 1850s was one of the craziest times to be alive in the United States (and not in the good way). Beginning with the disaster of the Compromise of 1850 (Which the Democrats thought was so effective that they declared the issue of Slavery was over and they would never talk about it again re:1852. They learned the hard way that that was far from the case. Source is a Thersites the Historian and Sean Chick stream on Franklin Pierce), we would then go into the Election of 1852 that saw Franklin Pierce win the Presidency and be the second of three disaster Presidents of the Decade. Then we would see events of Bleeding Kansas, John Brown's Raid, and the Caning of Charles Sumner as well as many other violent events that increased Northern and Southern tensions to a breaking point.

So, my question here, is how to make the 1850s so violent that it makes both parts of the nation more willing to look to Radicals rather than throwing their support behind Moderates in the 1860 Election, leading to the selection of Charles Sumner for President of the Union as a part of the Republican Party and Robert Barnwell Rhett as President of the Confederate States?

Bonus question - What would both administrations look like and what would the ACW look like if KY and MO seceded with the rest of the South following something akin to Sumter? (I imagine with KY and MO in the CSA, the major 1864 Capture point for Sumner to win re-election would either be Nashville or Atlanta rather than Atlanta, but I could be wrong here).

 

[Rafi_T]

Great post! Personally, I think those are two (slightly) contradicting goals, in the sense that for one side to be more radical, the other side has to notch more victories. So to have a more radical South you’d need things like: Scott v. Sanford to go in Scott’s favor, perhaps have John C. Fremont win in 1856. Going back in time, you could have things like a free state Missouri and Louisiana, as well as having Virginia approve the gradual emancipation of all slaves born after 1840. This would present a clear and present danger to slave holding interests in the South, and would make them even more radical. If you really wanna go for it, have the constitution state that slaves don’t count for the purposes of representation (but do count for taxation if you really wanna mess with them), as well as banning the importation of slaves outright, rather than putting a 20 year pause on it. Perhaps the Wilmot proviso passes and every state gained from the Mexican Cession is admitted as free.

For the North to be more radical, you’d need the opposite. Scott v. Sanford is even more in favor of Sanford, with perhaps Chief Justice Taney specifying that slavery is legal throughout the entire union, even nullifying personal liberty laws, and transforming every free state into a slave state. Perhaps Cuba and Kansas are admitted as slave states, as well as Colorado (Southern California) and perhaps even Utah. Ok the constitutional issues, you could have slaves count for a full 5/5 in terms of representation (and not count at all for taxation), as well as not allowing for the banning of the importation of slaves.

In the end, at least from my view, it would take a very delicate balancing act to get both sides to equally ramp up how radical they are, without things clearly favoring one side over the other, which would lead to one side radicalizing, and the other either de-radicalizing, stabilizing, or at the very least radicalizing much less/slower.

The only way I could see both sides becoming radical is if they expanded much more: so the North takes Canada (or at least the entire Oregon territory), and the South takes Cuba and all of Mexico (or at least the northern areas of Mexico that the President wanted that weren’t as populated). If the slavers played their cards right, and were able to turn those territories into slave states (even if they didn’t practice slavery on the ground in large numbers) due to the Missouri Compromise, and with the North doing the same with its territories, you could see an even bigger regional divide between North and South as their power increases, which would radicalize them both.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

Great post! Personally, I think those are two (slightly) contradicting goals, in the sense that for one side to be more radical, the other side has to notch more victories. So to have a more radical South you’d need things like: Scott v. Sanford to go in Scott’s favor, perhaps have John C. Fremont win in 1856. Going back in time, you could have things like a free state Missouri and Louisiana, as well as having Virginia approve the gradual emancipation of all slaves born after 1840. This would present a clear and present danger to slave holding interests in the South, and would make them even more radical. If you really wanna go for it, have the constitution state that slaves don’t count for the purposes of representation (but do count for taxation if you really wanna mess with them), as well as banning the importation of slaves outright, rather than putting a 20 year pause on it. Perhaps the Wilmot proviso passes and every state gained from the Mexican Cession is admitted as free.

For the North to be more radical, you’d need the opposite. Scott v. Sanford is even more in favor of Sanford, with perhaps Chief Justice Taney specifying that slavery is legal throughout the entire union, even nullifying personal liberty laws, and transforming every free state into a slave state. Perhaps Cuba and Kansas are admitted as slave states, as well as Colorado (Southern California) and perhaps even Utah. Ok the constitutional issues, you could have slaves count for a full 5/5 in terms of representation (and not count at all for taxation), as well as not allowing for the banning of the importation of slaves.

In the end, at least from my view, it would take a very delicate balancing act to get both sides to equally ramp up how radical they are, without things clearly favoring one side over the other, which would lead to one side radicalizing, and the other either de-radicalizing, stabilizing, or at the very least radicalizing much less/slower.

The only way I could see both sides becoming radical is if they expanded much more: so the North takes Canada (or at least the entire Oregon territory), and the South takes Cuba and all of Mexico (or at least the northern areas of Mexico that the President wanted that weren’t as populated). If the slavers played their cards right, and were able to turn those territories into slave states (even if they didn’t practice slavery on the ground in large numbers) due to the Missouri Compromise, and with the North doing the same with its territories, you could see an even bigger regional divide between North and South as their power increases, which would radicalize them both.

I do think that several massacres in Northern cities and Southern cities would also help in this effort too. I don't think that Slavery would be made legal in every state and the 3/5ths compromise could be revoked, but I can see that being implied by Taney and at the same time, I can also see Buchanan kowtowing and agreeing to make the New Mexico Territory and Utah territory Slave territories but recognizing the Kansas and Nebraska as well as the rest of the Oregon and unorganized territories to decide their own fate. I wonder how Union President Sumner would go against Confederate President Brooks (if Brooks lived past his otl death)