Fort sumter
- Thread starter flamelord
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
Without the South firing on Fort Sumter I think that Lincoln would have found himself with very few options. The fence sitting states will just remain as such until something tipped them either way. Until the bombardment there was a good percentage of the North that favored letting the South go. There was no monolithic support for Lincoln's concept of Union, no matter what modern researchers say.
Its a very turbulent time and historically anyone in the North that didn't side with Lincoln were harshly and unfairly dealt with.
That said, there would probably be a brief period of detente between the North and South with Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky being courted. The next congressional elections may decided things and its not certainly that Lincoln could be reelected in 1864 if relations with the Confederacy lie unresolved. The North would probably be driven towards the conservative side, especially by big business, because of fears of foreign imports entering Southern ports outside the restrictive and high Northern tariffs.
Without the bombardment of Sumter its unlikely the blockade could ever be raised to begin with.
Its a very turbulent time and historically anyone in the North that didn't side with Lincoln were harshly and unfairly dealt with.
That said, there would probably be a brief period of detente between the North and South with Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky being courted. The next congressional elections may decided things and its not certainly that Lincoln could be reelected in 1864 if relations with the Confederacy lie unresolved. The North would probably be driven towards the conservative side, especially by big business, because of fears of foreign imports entering Southern ports outside the restrictive and high Northern tariffs.
Without the bombardment of Sumter its unlikely the blockade could ever be raised to begin with.
Last edited:
Here's a previous thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=80732.
I agree with David that it's unclear what Lincoln does if the South does not give him a causus belli by an over act of rebellion (i.e. making war against the United States). Most likely he keeps trying to provoke the South while not seeming like it, but anything seriously provocative will seem like aggresion on his part.
I agree with David that it's unclear what Lincoln does if the South does not give him a causus belli by an over act of rebellion (i.e. making war against the United States). Most likely he keeps trying to provoke the South while not seeming like it, but anything seriously provocative will seem like aggresion on his part.
Up till the time of Fort Sumter the CS was winning,
Congress was dragging it's feet on approiating Money to expand the Army,
Trains and Ships were still traveling normally.
Several Northern Papers had moved Southern news to the Foriegn Section.
The Labor Organizations were debating Letting the South go.
The big New York banks were willing to accept the Confederate Money [?Why not? -- They had Printed it - after all]
Even the Pro Union Baltimorians were getting upset over Lincoln's Military occupation of the State.
then came Fort Sumter -- And -- The Rebel Have attack The Union.
Having said this, I think Lincoln would have keep pushing till eventually He would have gotten "His Rally Cry".
But the longer the CS has to prepare the better. Some CS troops at Bull Run were still wearing their Union Uniforms.
Congress was dragging it's feet on approiating Money to expand the Army,
Trains and Ships were still traveling normally.
Several Northern Papers had moved Southern news to the Foriegn Section.
The Labor Organizations were debating Letting the South go.
The big New York banks were willing to accept the Confederate Money [?Why not? -- They had Printed it - after all]
Even the Pro Union Baltimorians were getting upset over Lincoln's Military occupation of the State.
then came Fort Sumter -- And -- The Rebel Have attack The Union.
Having said this, I think Lincoln would have keep pushing till eventually He would have gotten "His Rally Cry".
But the longer the CS has to prepare the better. Some CS troops at Bull Run were still wearing their Union Uniforms.
They definitely had options besides shooting. The commander of Ft Sumter had already told local Confederate leadership he'd have to surrender in the next few days due to lack of food.
Of course, that wasn't the only Union held fort on the south. There was also Fort Pickens in Florida.
Fiver said:
For surrender: It makes the Union look weak. It makes it necessary for the Lincoln government to court martial the commander, shoot it. Both are damaging and thus liable to trigger Union hotheads to into taking action themselves.
Against surrender. An easy victory convinces Confederate hotheads that one more push and the war will be won and thus give Lincoln his rallying cry.
DuQuense said:
Given the above before Fort Sumter, the Confederate's best course of action looks like maintaining a phony war. Having no clashes favours them more than the North not just because it gives them time to prepare, but also because the opportunity for the feeling in the Union that the new status quo is fine and if the Confederates want to go their own way then let them. After all they are Americans like us and besides there is all that empty land in the West for us to farm, build railroads on, etc and that is more important than annoying our brothers in the South.
Unlikely that Jefferson Davies and the others can keep the lid on things until 1864. However, if they do then the Peace In Our Time group will defeat that warmonger Lincoln in the presidential elections.
As I understand it Lincoln had taken the decision, and let the potential rebels know, that he was sending supplies but not further arms to fort Sumter. He was doing the least he could to avoid surrdenering the property of the Federal Government.
Had the Confederate leadership been wise they might have avoided the war. On the other hand had that happened they might not have gained Virginia and Tennessee and North Carolina.
Had the Confederate leadership been wise they might have avoided the war. On the other hand had that happened they might not have gained Virginia and Tennessee and North Carolina.
67th Tigers
Banned
I can imagine further break downs. If there is still resisitance to emancipation could New England also break away (and the nacant "Pacific Republic")
David S Poepoe
Banned
What emancipation? It wouldn't have happened. Lincoln was prepared to allow slavery to continue in order to preserve the Union.
67th Tigers
Banned
Precisely my point. The New England states were (ISTR) threatening secession if slavery was not abolished.
It'd be a rather strange "USA"; New England, CSA the USA (NY, NJ, PA, MD, VA, TN etc. "the bit in the middle"), and possibly that old spectre of an independent Confederation of the Oregon and California, plus of course Utah and some Indians in between!
I was under the assumption that it wasn't a war yet. Because lincoln said we won't fire till you fire. That is basically saying you can start the war.
David S Poepoe
Banned
From what I've read its likely that New England and the Old Northwest would have broken off forming their own nations leaving the Mid-Atlantic states also form their own.
If Lincoln hadn't had Fort Sumter to seize on, he would have used the seizure of federal armories as the Confederate's Act of War. I think Lincoln was bent on keeping the Union together with arms, and IMO if a president wants a war, especially in confused times like those, he is going to get one. The Confederate's were eager for a war, they weren't called fire-eaters for nothing.
Because it was politically much better for Lincoln if the other side fired the first shot.
At various times New England had considered seceding - in 1803 over the Louisiana Purchase, in 1808 over the embargo of British trade, in 1814 over war with Britain, in 1843 over the annexation of Texas, and in 1847 over the Mexican War - but not over slavery existing.
The closest they came to to threatening was in 1814 at the Hartford Convention, but even there the threat was not made. In the end, they proposed several amendments to the Constitution, none of which were adopted.
Lincoln realised that if he was seen to be the agressor by the majority then he would get little support for his war. He had to get the northern states on his side who, before Fort Sumter, were mostly happy to let the deep-south slave states go.
With the attack on Fort Sumter Lincoln could spin the situation to his advantage and get the Northern states behind his cause by saying that the seceeded states were openly hostile toward the Union and would be a threat to the USA in the future if left unchecked.
Basically if he invaded the CSA before the attack on Fort Sumter he would be an agressive tyrant but if he invaded the CSA following the attack on Fort Sumter he would be see as a defender of the Union forced to take up arms against the South by their own agression.
So rather than it being a war to prevent secession it would be a war to preserve the Union.
Last edited:
As I said, before the attack on Fort Sumter the majority feeling in the north was just to let they deep-south slave states go and that the Union would be better off without them. It was, after all, only a small part of the country that had left and they were a group of states that the majority of states had argued with for the better part of the previous 20 or 30 year or more.
So a few forts falling into southern hands was not going to rile the Northerners up enough to march to war. As long as the Confederate Government was peacefull and posed no threat to the north, for the most part, there was no reason to fight.
There had to be a open display of hostility toward the north before anyone there would even consider going to war. Even then it took some superb political manouvering by Lincoln before the mojority of the north agreed to fight.