Breckenridge's Confederacy

What if, following the election of Lincoln, Buchanan dropped dead and Breckenridge was US President during the winter of secession?

I think he'd be likely to recognize the secession of the 7 states plus Arizona, as well as withdraw troops from the south and hand over Federal Assets.

With no troops at Fort Sumter, there'll likely be a different cause of the start of the war but I imagine the war starts in April 1961 nonetheless.

When Lincoln becomes President in March, Breckinridge hightails it out of the union.
 
Ironically, Breckenridge was a Unionist, though one who firmly believed in the constitutional rights of the slave-owing classes.
However, if he recognized secession in his legally accepted role as a President, there's little Lincoln could do about it after that. He would be the aggressor, which he would not wish to. There will be negotiation about compensation of Federal assets, a bitter one. But if the US legally recognize the secession, that's it. I'm not sure if the President can do that by his owm power, however.
 
Had Fort Sumter not happened, it's likely the entire Union would've collapsed actually.

David Tenner on the Northwest Conspiracy, via SHWI:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-u...n51&sig=_sy0BupY-iL1L5zG-m9m0H6ckhg#PPA593,M1

For one Southern formulation of this idea, see the article "A Northwest
Confederacy" in http://books.google.com/books?id=jqYKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA59

"[A letter] by a southern planter, published in the Chattanooga Daily
Rebel, attracted considerable attention. It outlined the plan of those
who would nurture a new secession in the United States. The document is
here reprinted entire as a type of the point of view of those in the south
who were looking to the Northwest with hope.

"Hon. H. S. Foote, Richmond:

"DEAR SIR:- Your efforts to suggest some plan by which the war might be
shortened have been praiseworthy. So little had been indicated north of
the Ohio river that it left every move open to serious objections.

"Time and efforts produce by the valor of our troops, seem to have given
existence to a sentiment which deserves a watchful attention from
statesmen of the South.

"This sentiment is found among the agricultural interests in the
'Northern' Valley of the Mississippi river, and mainly among the old
Democrats of that region. We occupy a position now, and have always
done so, that we could not make proposals to the Lincoln Government. That
is the true position still. To that, we bid defiance; but to the
legislatures of Indiana and Illinois, and other states of the Northern
Valley of the Mississippi, which may come to their conclusions, I hold a
different policy to be correct. We should meet their resolutions with all
the concessions which we can consistently make in trade and general
commerce, including, of course, the free navigation of the Mississippi
river, upon conditions thus:

"1st. Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Minnesota, and
perhaps Ohio, shall form the 'Northern Confederacy'.
"2d. Both Confederacies, 'Southern' and 'Northern', to be politically
independent. All the slave states to belong to the 'Southern onfederacy.'
"3d. A league between the two, offensive and defensive, and runaway slaves
to be returned; the navigation of the Mississippi river and free trade,
and 'imports' at our tariff.

"Advantages to both 'Confederacies,' The 'Southern Confederacy' obtains
peace. A strong Ally in War and protection to slavery. Her independence
acknowledged by the Northern Confederacy, which will be be sufficient. She
obtains for her seabord cities the importations for both Confederacies,
and their freight on her rivers and railroads.

"The 'Northern Confederacy' gets rid of the responsibility of slavery. It
may assume whatever portion of the immense war debt now existing, they may
decide upon.

"It secures importations at our low tariff. It secures its former market
in the South for its agricultural productions and the same use of the
great Mississippi river. Its political independence gives position and
place to its rising statesmen. Its topography and unity of pursuit,
institutions and labor; secure harmony and legislation, and promise great
prosperity. The two together secure the adjacent territories, a very
important point; as they cannot be united to the remnant of the old United
States, lying East; including New England which brought on the war. The
two Confederacies would become the great 'powers' of the American
Continent.

"The 'Southern Confederacy,' based upon slave labor, would always
preponderate in intellect; and would control.

"I present this to your well stored, prolific mind, as an outline of what
may come out of a wise course in eeting the sentiment of the 'North West',
heretobefore alluded to.

"It is true they have fought us; invaded our country; and wronged us
terribly; but that is done,and cannot be recalled. It is a matter ot
incalculable advantage to our Confederacy--to stop the sacrifice of life,
and of some importance to limit the debt, and restore our citizens to
their homes. Concession can be made to the 'Northern Confederacy' formed
of the States named; which will stop the war and will benefit us at the
same time. As a cotton planter, and slave owner, I would greatly prefer
the league, on the terms mentioned, to separate independence, with the
enemy of that people, to the institution of slavery. As soon as they are
disconnected from slavery, it will cease to be discussed, everywhere.

"If we are not strong, it may generate another war. The League gives
great strength. Under this league, can be embraced what they mean by
reconstruction. That is, their position will be as good, or better than
before.and 22 States will be in the league instead of 33. But the New
England States, New Jersey, Delaware, &c., are of no importance to them.
They have secured the market and trade, and for these they were fighting;
and are also politically disconnected from slavery. Indeed they thus
obtained all they are contending for. They say they are not fighting to
free the slaves. We obtain all we are contending for.

"I find ultra men, unwilling to do anything, but fight on. They are not in
the army, I have been with the army since its organization. I know the
opinion and sentiment of the army. They have suffered sufficiently,
and desire peace.

"If the North-west are met on the basis proposed herein, I think we will
enter the wedge which will sunder the present authorities conducting the
war. Lincoln will carry on the war during his administration, if he can
get the support of these states. We then should be on the alert, and if
possible, deprive him of this portion of his army. The balance we can
whip, very soon, if necessary. We can conquer a peace from them; but that
will not be necessary. If Indiana and Illinois withdraw the war will
close. With these proposals before them, they won't fight longer. The
other States named will follow, or some of them at least.

"If this be neglected on our part, the leading men may be offered
positions, which would neutralize their efforts.

"These States are a part of the Mississippi Valley and their true alliance
is with the South. They are an agricultural people, and so are we; but
their products are different from ours, and hence the advantages in a
commercial league.

"Negotiations must begin sometime--fighting alone won't adjust a
difficulty.

"I have seen so little of the proceedings of Congress, that I am ignorant
of what has been discussed.

"The prominent idea is this. We make no proposition to the Government, but
we should put in some shape what we will do with certain States, so as to
induce them to cease waring."

As the same article notes, some Southerners were a bit more realistic:
"Of all the humbugs of the age", one southern iconoclast wrote, "this
Northwestern hobby is the most absurd, and at the same time the most
dangerous. Newspapers, having exhausted themselves on the European
intervention, are now trying to raise our hopes by the promise of a
new alliance." Indeed, the extreme Peace Democrats who floated the idea
of a Northwest Confederacy were probably not even a majority of the
Democracy of the Northwest, let alone of the Northwest as a whole. Of
course a much better military showing by the Confederacy could conceivably
make the idea more popular in the Northwest, but to see the idea as a
*substitute* for further Confederate victories on the battlefield (rather
than as a possible if unlikely *result* of them) was unrealistic.
However, the Indiana and Illinois legislatures had been won by the
Democrats in 1862, and many of these Democrats were calling for the US
government to hold a peace conference with the Confederates; in the minds
of some Southerners, there was not much of a step from that to the
Northwest holding a *separate* peace conference if Lincoln turned down the
idea.

Robertp6165 also covered the Central Confederacy proposal, some years ago. Here's the wiki article on the Central Confederacy, should anyone like to read more on it. The fact there actually was a movement in the North to secede and then join the CSA is kinda hilarious, to be honest.
 
Had Fort Sumter not happened, it's likely the entire Union would've collapsed actually.

David Tenner on the Northwest Conspiracy, via SHWI:



Robertp6165 also covered the Central Confederacy proposal, some years ago. Here's the wiki article on the Central Confederacy, should anyone like to read more on it. The fact there actually was a movement in the North to secede and then join the CSA is kinda hilarious, to be honest.

I am not sure how this all, while interesting, relates to a Breckinridge Presidency before Lincoln. A lot of the Upper South might not even secede in this context.
 
The Central Confederacy idea aside from that planter who proposed it seems to have been limited to a few voices in Delaware and Maryland (although IIRC, the Mayor of NYC proposed seceding as well).

Maryland would have been quickly occupied (as OTL).Robertp1615 cites Thomas DiLorenzo, who works at the Ludwig von Mises Institute - a paleoconservative/paleolibertarian org sympathetic to white nationalists and neoconfederates. Just check out this guy who is a Senior Fellow there.

Odds are something would be the casus belli, Lincoln would call for volunteers, and the war would start eventually. There might be more discontent if the union is seen as more of an aggressor however. Arizona could perhaps be a good cause of war though - it's one thing to recognize that some states seceded and it's another to hand over lands under federal jurisdiction (ergo the southern half of Arizona territory) to a "foreign country".

Can the President unilaterally recognize a secession? Is that the job of the state department? Would the Secretary of State have actually listened to Breckinridge's orders or would they have ignored him - creating one sort of constitutional crisis. If he sacks the SoS, then would the Senate confirm another? Lots of issues here.



Breckenridge placating the deep south to the point that the upper south doesn't secede but/and Lincoln's hands are tied with regard to forcing the union to stay together is an interesting idea however. With a newfound domination of the House and Senate by the Republicans with the secession of the Deep South, I can see the Republicans pushing for constitutional amendments banning slavery and secession - thus causing an issue with regard to the fate of the upper south.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure how this all, while interesting, relates to a Breckinridge Presidency before Lincoln. A lot of the Upper South might not even secede in this context.

Without Fort Sumter as a rallying cry, those movements have time to build and eventually will be something Lincoln has to deal. More importantly, however, without Fort Sumter if Lincoln calls up troops without valid cause as it would be seen here, that's definitely going to push the Upper South, including States like Kentucky, into Confederate arms. More importantly, however, if Breckinridge recognizes the Confederacy, the Europeans powers will as well and that's definitely going to trigger an intervention when/if Lincoln tries to force the issue.
 
Without Fort Sumter as a rallying cry, those movements have time to build and eventually will be something Lincoln has to deal. More importantly, however, without Fort Sumter if Lincoln calls up troops without valid cause as it would be seen here, that's definitely going to push the Upper South, including States like Kentucky, into Confederate arms. More importantly, however, if Breckinridge recognizes the Confederacy, the Europeans powers will as well and that's definitely going to trigger an intervention when/if Lincoln tries to force the issue.

Nobody in Europe is going to intervene for the country that exists because it wanted to preserve slavery.

Kentucky is the only state that might secede TTL that didn't OTL, and even then the population was pretty against secession aside from the areas around the Cumberland River.
 
Nobody in Europe is going to intervene for the country that exists because it wanted to preserve slavery.

Kentucky is the only state that might secede TTL that didn't OTL, and even then the population was pretty against secession aside from the areas around the Cumberland River.

Europe was prepared to intervene into the high Summer of 1863 and slavery was no real issue even after the Emancipation Proclamation; the British actually viewed that as an attempt to ferment a servile insurrection in the South which they wanted to avoid. As for the Upper South, Missouri too was prepared to secede and probably could in this instance given the position Lincoln would be in come March in regards to the military and political cost of doing a call up later on without a rally cry. Further, we don't know that about Kentucky; the 1861 elections get cited but those were boycotted by Secessionists and even still about 40% of Kentucky troops in the war fought for the Confederacy.
 

JJohnson

Banned
I am not sure how this all, while interesting, relates to a Breckinridge Presidency before Lincoln. A lot of the Upper South might not even secede in this context.

From what I've seen, the upper south seceded in reaction to Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to invade the seven seceded states. Without that, I don't think they'd leave. It might take some kind of armed conflict on the part of the US against the CS to get any further states to secede.
 
...
Odds are something would be the casus belli, Lincoln would call for volunteers, and the war would start eventually. There might be more discontent if the union is seen as more of an aggressor however. Arizona could perhaps be a good cause of war though - it's one thing to recognize that some states seceded and it's another to hand over lands under federal jurisdiction (ergo the southern half of Arizona territory) to a "foreign country".

....

The complication I see, that could lead to Lincolns casus belli, would be the the division within the southern states over secession. OTL the heat of the moment over abolition & events of the moment like the Ft Sumter attack obscured that the minorities opposing secession in most southern states were not trivial. The counter secession of the western Virginia counties an the attitudes in the eastern Tennssee counties are two examples. With a slightly less inflamed secession among the initial four or five there might be a a more obvious counter movement at the start in other states than Virginia. Those movements might be the casus belli for the Unionists & lead swiftly to the sort of intramural fighting that led to Bleeding Kansas leading to a Bleeding Virginia, Florida, North Carolina.
 
The whole 'Northwest Confederacy' thing strikes me as an adventure in wishful thinking on the part of fire eaters and perhaps a few copperheads.
 
Could Breckenridge make reconquest of the CSA untenable?

I think it'd be interesting if the CSA is limited to the Deep South plus Texas and perhaps Arizona (depending on when the territory secedes TTL). The USA, recognizing that it cannot take the Confederacy, opts to instead push for an anti-secession amendment to the United States Constitution. There ends up being a revolt in the upper south states, but the CSA stays out of it, preferring to protect its own hide.
 
There is a reasonable argument that a peaceful secession of six states would set a precedent that would allow other states to secede later and so eventually end the USA as we know it.

I'm honestly not sure. There are some good counter-arguments. The main one is that the six states were all in the deep South, the upper South stays in the Union in this scenario. The secession could be written off as the departure of a weird part of the country that never really fit in -remember Virginia doesn't leave iTTL- and this attitude would be taken even more so if the USA is able to expand elsewhere, such as into Canada. A second argument is that most people before the Civil War really did seem to think that states could legally secede, otherwise the attempt probably would never have been made in the first place.

What it would probably come down to is that if the remaining union thirty-odd states turns out to be a failure, you will get more states seceding any time it is a crisis, but it it succeeds, and OTL the area was the strongest economy on the planet until the 21st century, then the departure of the deep south is viewed as an anomaly. However, I do think that if the attempt to stop secession by force had failed (I think it was extremely unlikely for the North to lose the Civil War once they decided to fight it) then the USA would have fallen apart.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
There is a reasonable argument that a peaceful secession of six states would set a precedent that would allow other states to secede later and so eventually end the USA as we know it.

I'm honestly not sure. There are some good counter-arguments. The main one is that the six states were all in the deep South, the upper South stays in the Union in this scenario. The secession could be written off as the departure of a weird part of the country that never really fit in -remember Virginia doesn't leave iTTL- and this attitude would be taken even more so if the USA is able to expand elsewhere, such as into Canada. A second argument is that most people before the Civil War really did seem to think that states could legally secede, otherwise the attempt probably would never have been made in the first place.

What it would probably come down to is that if the remaining union thirty-odd states turns out to be a failure, you will get more states seceding any time it is a crisis, but it it succeeds, and OTL the area was the strongest economy on the planet until the 21st century, then the departure of the deep south is viewed as an anomaly. However, I do think that if the attempt to stop secession by force had failed (I think it was extremely unlikely for the North to lose the Civil War once they decided to fight it) then the USA would have fallen apart.

There is a fairly good chance that, supposing that the secession of the Deep South occurred and was seen as a fait accompli, the reaction would involve amending the Constitution to make secession impossible or to regulate it heavily. After all, while it may be true that a very great amount of people in the antebellum USA believed the Union was voluntary, that belief was fading by this time-- and it was particularly fading in the North. (Because the history of the USA had led the South to champion states' rights... in large part to serve their peculiar institution, whereas that same history had ensured that a tighter Union was something chiefly of interest to the proto-industrial-capitalist North.) So, ultimately, a post secession North-dominated USA would realistically veer towards a general attitude opposing secession. (The more southern states could be brought on board by painting the seceded states as 'traitors' in popular discourse, thus making pro-secession views "unpatriotic".)

Ultimately, I think you are correct, and that the secession in this scenario is going to be "that on-off thing those regionalist weirdos did because they never truly fit into real USA culture anyway". We need to keep in mind that the whole attitude to secession in the USA that exists in present-day OTL, which is a lense through which many see the issue, is shaped by OTL's Civil War. The OTL American view of secession is not automatically normal or correct. Lots of countries in history have seen secessions take place. In the vast majority of cases where the secession succeeded, this did not result in the country fracturing. Often, stability increases because the malcontent element is gone. (In fact, I daresay that in the long run, secession is often better for the 'mother country' than for the seceding one! People often want to secede for reasons that aren't fully logical, so the seceding country can end up failing totally. But keeping malcontents in your country against their ardent wishes is always a bad thing, so letting them go and washing your hands of them is always a smart move.)

So... Deep South secession? Ha. The USA isn't going to fracture or fail because of that, but will probably become more unified because of it. Meanwhile, a Deep South-only CSA will lack all the most economically developed parts of the OTL South. It's truly an agrarian state (which actively wishes to stay that way), based on slavery and totally in love with a neo-feudal idea of itself. Once everyone starts to embargo them (bound to happen when slavery gets abolished everywhere else), you have the recipe for a failed state. Everyone in the remaining USA is going to say: "Thank the Lord we dodged that bullet! Imagine if we'd kept those idiots in the Union! All their endless problems would have been our endless problems!" (An illustration of my above claim: letting the Deep South secede with no fuss would have been far better for the North than for the Deep South!)
 
Very good points. But for a stronger Union the ATL US would have to pass a Constitutional amendment banning any future secession. Otherwise social discontents post the POD might attract secessionist sentiment in other regions. Think about the conflict between agrarian vs. industrial interests in the late 19th century North. Might William Jennings Bryan have led a secession movement for Midwestern farmers? Possibly.

If secession was proven Constitutionally allowable any regional dispute could spiral out of control given the right combination of circumstances and the right demagogic leaders. After all even OTL California has toyed with the idea to the extent of putting it on their ballot.

ATL, I could see Texas/Oklahoma/Arizona breaking away from the CSA once oil is discovered.
 
Top