Filibuster in the Senate instead of Southern secession

When Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the US in 1860, his coattails carried the Republican party to control of the House and Senate.

In December 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. The remaining southern states slowly followed suit up to the day of Lincoln's inauguration. Eight southern states formed the CSA.

Had the South stayed in the Union, the Senate would have had 31 Republicans, 31 Democrats, 3 Unionists and 1 vacancy (there were equal numbers of slave and free soil states).

My question is: could the Southern Senators have used the filibuster to prevent President Lincoln's agenda from coming to a vote instead of leaving the Union altogether (and preventing the Civil War)?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Democrats were split, IIRC it was increasingly common to see the northern and southern dems running different presidential candidates. I doubt they would have been able to filibuster most if even anything at all.
 
My question is: could the Southern Senators have used the filibuster to prevent President Lincoln's agenda from coming to a vote instead of leaving the Union altogether (and preventing the Civil War)?


Tell us, just what was Lincoln's "agenda"?
 
They seceeded because a president was elected without Southern votes, not because of Lincoln's platform (whatever it was). That said, they might have acted like today's Republican party, opposing anything Lincoln supported, just because of him.
 
The reason the South seceded was because they had finally lost control over Congress and the Presidency, and any continuation was only going to make it more lopsided for the North as more states were admitted in the West. By 1860, there were 18 free states compared to only 15 slave states. A filibuster might delay any abolitionist proposals, but the trend is going against the South.
 
Another important reason the South seceded was that with Lincoln as President, Lincoln could now use the spoils system to build a Republican Party - an avowedly abolitonist party - in the south. In other words, while the Republicans didn't exist as a force within the South at all, now they could recruit local Southerners to be Republicans by making them postmasters, customs officials, and handing out other government jobs.

This was a big deal.

Southern Whigs could exist and still be friendly to slavery. Southern Republicans are not going to be friendly to slavery. Given time, southern Republicans would increase in strength. They'd be elected to local offices and eventually state wide offices. At first probably only in areas like the Appalachias. The Deep South would be very resistant, but it would be easy to see strong local Republican parties in Virginia and Tennessee, and later in North Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, and even Florida.

Since the Republicans proved that a President could now be elected without receiving any electoral votes in the South, it meant that Republicans could keep getting elected without compromising their abolitonism, and keep using patronage to build their strength in the south.

What this meant was that in the long run, slavery was doomed. The Republicans would only increase in strength. All knew that the Deep South alone could not remain independent. They needed the other slave states, and the longer they waited, the more likely the Republicans would grow strong enough locally to prevent the Border States and Upper South from seceding. They could see Virginia joining them in 1860. But what about 1868 or 1876 by which time Virginian Republicans might be a strong force in local politics?

A filibuster in the Senate is not going to change any of this dynamic.

There was a long series of crises over slavery long before the Republicans showed up. The fire eaters could see the writing on the wall, and knew that 1860 was now or never.
 
Another important reason the South seceded was that with Lincoln as President, Lincoln could now use the spoils system to build a Republican Party - an avowedly abolitonist party - in the south. In other words, while the Republicans didn't exist as a force within the South at all, now they could recruit local Southerners to be Republicans by making them postmasters, customs officials, and handing out other government jobs.

This was a big deal.

Southern Whigs could exist and still be friendly to slavery. Southern Republicans are not going to be friendly to slavery. Given time, southern Republicans would increase in strength. They'd be elected to local offices and eventually state wide offices. At first probably only in areas like the Appalachias. The Deep South would be very resistant, but it would be easy to see strong local Republican parties in Virginia and Tennessee, and later in North Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, and even Florida.

Since the Republicans proved that a President could now be elected without receiving any electoral votes in the South, it meant that Republicans could keep getting elected without compromising their abolitonism, and keep using patronage to build their strength in the south.

What this meant was that in the long run, slavery was doomed. The Republicans would only increase in strength. All knew that the Deep South alone could not remain independent. They needed the other slave states, and the longer they waited, the more likely the Republicans would grow strong enough locally to prevent the Border States and Upper South from seceding. They could see Virginia joining them in 1860. But what about 1868 or 1876 by which time Virginian Republicans might be a strong force in local politics?

A filibuster in the Senate is not going to change any of this dynamic.

There was a long series of crises over slavery long before the Republicans showed up. The fire eaters could see the writing on the wall, and knew that 1860 was now or never.

Very nice assessment Blackfox5. Using the filibuster would not have changed the overall truth occurring in America. With the North receiving over 70% of the incoming immigrants the demographic reality meant that the South would lose power in the House very shortly, especially after the tabulation of the 1860 census. In the Senate it would take a bit longer, but Republican control of the House and Presidency meant that there was little chance of any new Slave states entering the Union. Eventually, the Deep South feared that the addition of more and more Free States (along with, god forbid, a slave state like Delaware or Maryland passing an emancipation law) would give the Free States the power to amend the constitution to prohibit slavery.

For the South it was all about preserving slavery while state's rights and preserving the Union came in as very distant seconds. By this point slavery had from a "necessary evil" to a "positive good". They would have never risked their right to keep slaves on something as legally flimsy as a filibuster.

Benjamin
 
By resorting to the filibuster they also admit that the election of Lincoln and, presumably, any other Republican president is not justification to secede so what fig leaf can they find if/when they do finally take the plunge? And what changes might take place, despite the filibuster, in four or eight years, none of which are likely to favor the south?
 
Top