[DBWI] No Lincoln Compromise: What next?

A musing after reading an article from my hometown in Alabama. It was reflecting on the recently discovered 'Lincoln Journals' as they've been called, and cover the years of the Secession Crisis in the 1860's time. I've read the journal and some other literature of the time, and it's kind of surprising how seriously people were taking the threat of war, even though the entire South was outweighed three or more times.

Lincoln's diary made an interesting point about the Lincoln Compromise, though, in how it came almost out of the blue from some highly placed members of the British government that had just swept into power. Apparently it was the British government that suggested the crux of the deal first: that in exchange for a substantial lowering the high tariffs and a forty-year non-aggression pact, that the British government would not support any rebels and would raise tariffs on slave-labor goods or products. Even with the outside offer of a mix of carrot and stick with regards to the South, Lincoln wasn't sure he could make the proposal stick.

It did, of course, no small thanks to the untimely accidents to some Southern hardliners, the farce that was the 'Battle' of Bull Run, and the North Carolina vote against any secession proposal, but still, just reading the letters give you goosebumps.

Just how far could it have gone, though? War or peaceful separation, either would have have had devastating effects to both Northern and Southern financial and production centers.
 
I remember reading about McClellan. It would have been a disaster for the north if he was allowed command anything.

I think there would have been a war. Even though some of the Democrats were against it, I don't think there were enough to force Lincoln to allow the South to go peacefully. The midwest was the area with greatest opposition to the war so I think if Lincoln idiotically put McClellan in charge, he would have messed up so badly other parts of the country would secede, like the midwest, which had the most amount of southern sympathizers.

With the South relying on King Cotton, I would think the British still would have stayed out of the conflict. With the surplus of cotton from Egypt, the British would use that cotton instead. If the south became independent, it would have to destroy the cotton of other countries in order to make them buy their cotton, but that would create many enemies.

I think the north would be fine without the south. It had the whole Great Plaines for crops and the north for manufacturing. The north would have, what I think, is a very convenient source to export its goods.

Imagine what would have happened if the Mexican Expedition actually got off the ground. With the threat of secession gone, Lincoln used the deal with the British to get Napoleon III to think about what he plans on doing.
 
I remember reading about McClellan. It would have been a disaster for the north if he was allowed command anything.
What's with the McClellan hate? Sure, anyone who called himself "The American Napoleon" is surely talking out of his ass, but McClellan was an acknowledged good organizer and was his conservatism made him good at helping deal with the after-effects of the crisis. Compromising with the South was one of the few things he agreed with Lincoln about, IIRC. It's not like he ever had a chance to screw anything major up: sure, there was that Indian engagements that was really Custer's fault, but that was years later and minor.


With the South relying on King Cotton, I would think the British still would have stayed out of the conflict. With the surplus of cotton from Egypt, the British would use that cotton instead. If the south became independent, it would have to destroy the cotton of other countries in order to make them buy their cotton, but that would create many enemies.
I'm sorry? Britain had years of cotton surplus in their warehouses, and they had Egypt, but the two were entirely unrelated. America was and still is the king of cotton because it's so much easier, better, and cheaper to grow it here, and British attempts never amounted to any major production. Even at its 'height', British cotton production never came close to matching the US production, even during the height of the cotton collapse a few years after the Compromise when the markets were so saturated with cotton (which, as it happens, slaughtered British cotton producers as well).

I think the north would be fine without the south. It had the whole Great Plaines for crops and the north for manufacturing. The north would have, what I think, is a very convenient source to export its goods.
I'm betting you're at least a Yank. Birmingham steel can match Detroit rust belt any day, and Richmond is as much a financial heart of the world as New York. Plus, you know, the Great Plains only really got settled much, much later in the century, and the South still has the established cash crop dominance. Considering how much of the US's wealth was generated by Southern agriculture exports, hypothetical future gains make a lean substitute to the immediate loss of so much industry and wealth. Let's not forget, after all, that even outweighed by the North as it might have been, the South was still more industrialized than most European nations.


Imagine what would have happened if the Mexican Expedition actually got off the ground. With the threat of secession gone, Lincoln used the deal with the British to get Napoleon III to think about what he plans on doing.
Why would Napoleon III go through with it anyway? He was big on not upsetting the British, and breaking the British-enforced Monroe Doctrine would have done just that. Without an army of thousands ready to move and a navy to carry them, Lincoln really couldn't have done anything regardless.
 
IMHO, Lincoln was a lucky President. Two terms and relatively peaceful ones at that. He set up all the blocks for manumission in 1865 and then had to deal with all the nativists as more immigrants came over. Good thing his term was coming to an end before they really started pouring over.

Basically, he left as a great compromiser and a terrific President in the Happy '60s. Of course, he sat back and let all the labor problems spring up like vicious weeds in a garden.

Millions of freedmen plus millions of Irishmen, that's a labor nightmare if there ever was one.
 
Top