DWI: If Lincoln Survived to be President

During his train ride to his new office, Abraham Lincoln rode a train to over 100 cities in hopes to ease the tension between South and North. During his train ride in Baltimore, Southern Sympathizers to the secessionist cause attacked and murdered the president :( on February 23rd. Given the situation of murdering an American President-Elect, many secessionist feeling in many of the border states were actively dealt with. I like how those who supported these guys fled South after trying to violently take over. I love how they thought an armed mob could fight Union Troops looking for Luckett, Hillard, and Cypriano Ferrandiniplus the rest of this crew of murderers. Of course a mob of Unionists ready to hang them, I'm not surprised. With the Bombing of Ft Sumter, the Civil War began.

The newly formed formed Governments never saw the assassination as a crime and even rewarded the murderers:mad:. These governments formed the Confederacy [of course their loose confederacy of Seven States would learn Hannibal (a very appropriate name for him) Hamlin decided to go Andrew Jackson on their traitorous asses:D]. Hannibal's army easily beaten and redrafted back the traitorous states in 1863.

Given the Succession Crisis following the hit, would we have the thirteenth Amendment {oot: this is our twenty fifth Amendment} on Succession of the President in case of an death, resignation and incapacitation of the President? What about the war effort? Would the Union war effort be hampered by the mess left over by the attack? Would Texas stayed in the Union? What about the Border States of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee for they had the closes to succession before the assassination attempt and had confederate governments set up? Would Texas stayed Neutral? Would Kentucky be more neutral? What about diplomacy? Would Great Britain and France recognize them if they hadn't committed blatant sanctioned murder of the President Elect? What about Reconstruction?
 
During his train ride to his new office, Abraham Lincoln rode a train to over 100 cities in hopes to ease the tension between South and North. During his train ride in Baltimore, Southern Sympathizers to the secessionist cause attacked and murdered the president :( on February 23rd. Given the situation of murdering an American President-Elect, many secessionist feeling in many of the border states were actively dealt with. I like how those who supported these guys fled South after trying to violently take over. I love how they thought an armed mob could fight Union Troops looking for Luckett, Hillard, and Cypriano Ferrandini plus the rest of this crew of murderers. Of course a mob of Unionists ready to hang them, I'm not surprised. With the Bombing of Ft Sumter, the Civil War began.

The newly formed formed Governments never saw the assassination as a crime and even rewarded the murderers:mad:. These governments formed the Confederacy [of course their loose confederacy of Seven States would learn Hannibal (a very appropriate name for him) Hamlin decided to go Andrew Jackson on their traitorous asses:D]. Hannibal's army easily beaten and redrafted back the traitorous states in 1863.

Given the Succession Crisis following the hit, would we have the thirteenth Amendment {oot: this is our twenty fifth Amendment} on Succession of the President in case of an death, resignation and incapacitation of the President? What about the war effort? Would the Union war effort be hampered by the mess left over by the attack? Would Texas stayed in the Union? What about the Border States of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee for they had the closes to succession before the assassination attempt and had confederate governments set up? Would Texas stayed Neutral? Would Kentucky be more neutral? What about diplomacy? Would Great Britain and France recognize them if they hadn't committed blatant sanctioned murder of the President Elect? What about Reconstruction?

Well, there's lots of possibilities. But for my part, Reconstruction probably wouldn't have been as harsh, for one; after the war, many of the most influential pro-secession planter families, such as the Rhetts and Calhouns, lost their property to the Feds, while free African-Americans and poor whites were given some of this land, for almost nothing.....which ended up being the motivation for a LOT of racialized violence in the short term. OTOH, things actually worked out fine in the long run, because the two communities eventually learned to get along to a degree. This, in turn, made it significantly more difficult for the Redeemers to put the old social structures back in place(for example, mandatory segregation was struck down in 1908, and the practice itself was ruled against 40 years later). And if it hadn't been.....well, let's just say that things could have been worse for Afro-Americans in the South, and possibly lasted longer, too, on top of that(and the effects could very well have reverbated across the country as well. Perhaps an ATL version of the OTL 1889 Chinese Exclusion Act could have succeeded for a while.). :(

And, perhaps, later on, liberalism might have a significantly harder time becoming accepted amongst Southerners during the latter half of the 20th Century, assuming most other OTL trends still hold up(like the push for greater gender equality in the late '40s, early '50s, not long after WWII came to a close). Cities like Austin, New Orleans, Miami, Charleston, Chattanooga, and Nashville are well known as hotspots for liberal thought IOTL; could a greater success of Jim Crow put a pinch on that, or even largely snuff it out altogether? (there might be far less extreme right-wing violence than we had to deal with in the mid '50s IOTL, but that's the only non-negative I can think of).

Just some thoughts, really.
 
Top