Go South, Young Man...

[robertp6165]

What if Thomas Lincoln, father of Abraham, had decided to move from Kentucky to Mississippi rather than Indiana (and later, to Illinois)? Let's assume that he makes a moderately successful living for himself, enabling him to buy a couple of slaves.

However, his young son, Abraham, looks down on him as being too unambitious. He studies law, as in OTL, and gets admitted to the Mississippi State Bar. He makes a name for himself in the legal field, accumulates wealth, buys a small plantation and about 40 slaves. He goes on to serve several terms in the Mississippi State House, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Senate, where he serves as junior Senator from Mississippi (Jefferson Davis is senior Senator). Like Davis, he gains a reputation as an eloquent defender of States' Rights, second only to Davis in prestige among Southerners.

In the 1860 Election, William Seward runs on the Republican ticket. The Democrats nominate Stephen Douglas, and as per OTL, the Southern Democrats split from the main Democratic Party and nominate their own candidate. Seward wins the general election in November. The South secedes as per OTL.

The Montgomery Convention, after adopting a Provisional Constitution, offers the Presidency to Jefferson Davis. Davis, with dreams of glory as a Confederate General, declines, but suggests Lincoln as an alternative. The Montgomery Convention agrees, and offers the position to Lincoln. On March 4, Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America at Montgomery. William Lowndes Yancey introduces him, saying "The Man and the Hour have met."

On the same day, William Seward is sworn in as President of the United States, taking over from the outgoing President James Buchanan.

So what happens? How does the Civil War play out, with Lincoln at the helm in the South? How does Seward fare as Union President?

 

[JohnJacques]

I think that Lincoln's personal dislike of slavery would not be much affected by living in the South. He had already begun to dislike it in Kentucky and if anything, his dislike would only grow worse when surrounded by it. And I doubt his family will do much better in Mississippi- the South was worse, not better, for small farmers.

Lincoln read widely; he read everything he could get his hands on. That is likely to include more than a few abolitionist tracts. His reading of the Bible led him to despise slavery.

He becomes one of the few anti-slavery Southerners and fades into the history books.

 

[mowque]

And even if not...The CSA STILL crashes and burns. Unless Lincoln magically comes up with more men/material, the South is doomed...

 

[robertp6165]

I doubt his family will do much better in Mississippi- the South was worse, not better, for small farmers.

Mississippi in 1816, when the move would have occurred, offered cheap land and inexpensive slave labor. This was a time when an ambitious man could get wealthy, as indeed a great many poor farmers did during that period. Thomas Lincoln's chances were quite good.

I think that Lincoln's personal dislike of slavery would not be much affected by living in the South. He had already begun to dislike it in Kentucky and if anything, his dislike would only grow worse when surrounded by it. ...

Lincoln read widely; he read everything he could get his hands on. That is likely to include more than a few abolitionist tracts. His reading of the Bible led him to despise slavery.

He becomes one of the few anti-slavery Southerners and fades into the history books.

Oh, yes, Abraham Lincoln detested slavery so much that he...

1) married into a slave-holding family, and regularly visited them, exposing himself and his impressionable children to the slavery he so detested.

2) was perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue to exist forever in those regions where it already existed (see his support for the 1861 Corwin Amendment).

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He was a free-soiler, which, to put it bluntly, means he was a Northern white racist who opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because it meant that BLACK PEOPLE would be allowed into the territories. He, like other free-soilers, wanted the territories maintained as a "whites only" preserve.

There is little to no evidence that Abe Lincoln even thought about slavery until he was 22 years old, when he had been living in Illinois for over 13 years. This could just as easily have been the result of the influence of the people around him than anything else. I think you seriously underestimate the power of cultural influence on an individual's views.

And, whatever else he was, Lincoln was a lover of money. He joined the Whig Party because it supported railroad subsidies and other internal improvements projects. Such projects, not coincidentally, also increased the value of the land where they were to be carried out, and it is no accident that Lincoln made much of his fortune via land speculation. If placed in a Southern milieu, he will see that slave-based agriculture is the path to wealth, power, and influence, and being the ambitious, money-loving sort he was, he will take that path.

 

[robertp6165]

And even if not...The CSA STILL crashes and burns. Unless Lincoln magically comes up with more men/material, the South is doomed...

Not necessarily. The odds were heavily against them, to be sure. But they came close to winning a number of times during the conflict in OTL. Better, or at least different, decision-making at certain key junctures could have produced a different result.

Does anyone have anything more imaginative to add?

 

[metalstar316]

And even if not...The CSA STILL crashes and burns. Unless Lincoln magically comes up with more men/material, the South is doomed...

Not necessarily. Lincoln living in the South could butterfly a total bungler into the White House.

OP- I like this TL. Continue, please.

 

[robertp6165]

Not necessarily. Lincoln living in the South could butterfly a total bungler into the White House.

OP- I like this TL. Continue, please.

Yes, I have to wonder what kind of President Seward would have made. After all, shortly after becoming Secretary of State, he seriously suggested that the way to reunite the country was to start a war with France and Spain!

 

[Faeelin]

2) was perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue to exist forever in those regions where it already existed (see his support for the 1861 Corwin Amendment).

You mean, that amendment proposed in the midst of a civil war to stop bloodshed that killed hundreds of thousands?

 

[Herr Frage]

Hmm, Lincoln voilated the American Bill of Rights grossly as POTUS. As CSA president I think his governors would have more control over his actions.

At any rate Lincoln seems more likely to let his generals fight the war and as anoutsider might keep ibnternal rivalries from effecting the CS Army so much.

Seward I do not know enough about. I understand him to have been an aggressive politican and he made a then dubious purchase of Alaska. Perhaps he would trigger some version of the Trent incident and lose oversea support for the Union?

 

[Wolf]

Robert, I think this TL would be very interesting to read.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Well, I think the changes are likely to involve 1) the diplomatic consequences of having Lincoln as POTCS and Seward as POTUS and 2) the military consequences of both having Jefferson Davis as Confederate General and of Lincoln's differing manner of meddling with his generals.

In #1, I mean not just diplomacy vis-a-vis Europe but also the manner in which the war actually begins. Lincoln OTL as POTUS was quite careful to ensure the South was cast as the aggressor. If he takes the same tack as POTCS, the war starts with a different tone. That tone is likely to have the greatest repurcussions in the border states of Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. If Lincoln can win either of the former two to the Confederate cause, their war will go far better. Such impulses are likely to exacerbated by having Seward be POTUS, since Seward may be much more aggressive than Lincoln in regards to firing the first shots of the war and towards the political balancing act of the border states. The actual diplomatic effects will be very important, but they'll likely hinge on later events. My first guess is that Lincoln might not attempt to use cotton as leverage with Britain and France (though he might easily fall into that trap).

In #2, I'm much less certain. For one, having Jefferson Davis as a General (and not just a General, but one who knows he could have been President) drastically changes the calculus of assessing the first moves of the Confederate Army. Seward will also impact the North's first moves. I doubt the first efforts to invade the South are much more successful, but Seward might embrace tying abolitionism into the Union war effort much earlier (say as the result of some advance by Fremont). This is bound to have some effects.

Overall, though, the weight of men and industry possessed by the North will tell in a long enough conflict. But of course so too will the North's lack of a will to prosecute the conflict from the start. I could well see Seward precipitating a stronger reaction from the Copperheads; perhaps even an attempt to impeach him during the war, say after the 1862 midterm elections.

Interesting idea, nonetheless.

 

[mowque]

(i feel jumped, maybe i was a bit hasty/rude, i took this as another CSA wins thread..but it isn't..sorry guys)

Back on topic- I think we have tho remember, that a Lincoln in the South isn't going to be the same type of Lincoln we know. It is a wholly different atmosphere. And if he is president, we will probably suffer from the same things that (many) OTL Southern Politicians did. But i will say, he will probabaly handle the poltical end far more astutly...And i think he will but heads (just as much or mroe then Jeff Davis, if that is possible) with Govners and whatnot?

But i stand by my point, the Union just has way too much stuff, in the end, The North will crush the South beneath its boots. (although it might be a very differe North and South)

 

[JohnJacques]

Lincoln was personally, opposed to slavery. I don't care about your revisionist nonsense, but he was. And that was from growing up in rural South Illinois, which, while not as rabid about slavery as Mississippi, was still in general support with it. (Like much of the southern parts of the Midwest, and along the Ohio)

As for his connections to the Todds, that came from any family of note in Kentucky. He refused to own any slaves himself, which I think is a mark against your theories about him. He wasn't just a man out for wealth.

Now, his political views were free-soiler- I disagree with your characterization of free-soilers over abolitionists; it seems to me a way to demonize the enemy of your beloved CSA.

Oh and BTW- Southern Whigs existed. The regional divide of politics did not come till after the founding of the Republicans. Lincoln could just as easily become a Whig over a Democrat; in fact, that seemed the mold of most self-made men.

 

[Dave Howery]

from what I've read, Lincoln's personal dislike of slavery really settled into him when he went on a flatboat ride to New Orleans, and saw gangs of slaves in chains being driven to the plantations to the east; he was 19 at the time. Your POD occurs after this. Lincoln might become a southerner and side with them in the ACW... but his chances of personally owning slaves would be about nil. A second trip to NO a couple of years later only confirmed his dislike of slavery, and depressed him deeply.
That said, it has to be realized that while Lincoln personally disliked slavery, politically, he could live with it. In OTL, he wasn't all dedicated to destroying the system of slavery at first, but sought to accomodate it to keep the Union together; most of his anti-slavery acts during the ACW were done with the war in mind.

 

[Zyzzyva]

from what I've read, Lincoln's personal dislike of slavery really settled into him when he went on a flatboat ride to New Orleans, and saw gangs of slaves in chains being driven to the plantations to the east; he was 19 at the time. Your POD occurs after this. Lincoln might become a southerner and side with them in the ACW... but his chances of personally owning slaves would be about nil. A second trip to NO a couple of years later only confirmed his dislike of slavery, and depressed him deeply.
That said, it has to be realized that while Lincoln personally disliked slavery, politically, he could live with it. In OTL, he wasn't all dedicated to destroying the system of slavery at first, but sought to accomodate it to keep the Union together; most of his anti-slavery acts during the ACW were done with the war in mind.

And that's the biggie; Lincoln might have been pro- or anti-slavery; he might have been a racist, or not; he might have been three time-travelling midget KGB agents wearing a very clever disguise - but he was pro-Union. Getting rid of that is the hard part in this TL.

 

[benjamin]

While I often disagree with robertp6165's assessment of OTL Lincoln, Free Soilers and many other issues pertaining to the ACW and its lead-up, I strongly agree with him that the move to Mississippi would lead to a completely different Lincoln than we have had historically. If they move in 1816 as suggested Lincoln will be only 7 years old at the time. This is hardly an age in which his moral and political feelings can be said to already be set in stone.

Lincoln easily become a supporter of slavery, especially if he can internally rationalize it by saying that the slaves are better off in bondage where at least they are civilized and Christianized, though Lincoln was never a strong christian and was called an atheist by some contemporaries. As a slave master he would almost certainly be the type that was fair and even paid his slaves for their labor. I could see him using his own slaves offers to fight for the CSA as illustrative of the way the entire institution of slavery. Once in politics he would almost certainly support the Mexican-American War, the acquisition of Texas and if possible Cuba.

With Lincoln as president Davis would almost certainly become the top general of the CSA. This would diminish Lee's role but as Davis would be just as aggressive and wasteful of the limited resources the outcome in the East would probably be similar. Lincoln was a better diplomat and he almost certain would have been able to elicit more aid from Europe, but it would have to include direct intervention to make a difference. The Trent Affair would almost certainly be butterflied away as it was a comedy of error's on the Union's part, but Seward was abrasive enough to still do something to piss off the Brits.

As commander in chief Seward would not be too bad, he had experience, connections and wasn't a moron, but he had a way of being a bit of a prick. If he kept Winfield Scott as overall commander longer and McClellan in a logistical role and off the field he does have a pool of talented generals at least as good as that possessed by the Confederates (Lyons, Kearny, Thomas, Sheridan, Sherman, Reynolds, Hancock and Buford to name but a few). He may raise a few more hackles in the Midwest, but despite what Herr Frage thinks, the Constitution does allow him to bend the rules a bit during insurrections so he would be tolerated by the majority for the duration of the war.

So barring direct intervention by the Europeans, I think the war plays out with a Northern victory in about the same amount of time, maybe less if Scott stays on and a few of the Union's better generals survive a bit longer than in OTL. The after math may be a bit messier with the Radical Republicans having a larger say in the White House, but if the defeated Lincoln remains conciliatory he may be a great boon in healing the national wounds caused by the conflict. Conversely, as the Confederacy collapses Lincoln's dark bouts of depression may get the best of him and he might just eat a bullet come April 1865.

Regardless its a fascinating POD to think about.

Benjamin

 

[Derek Jackson]

I believe that Abraham Lincoln and his father both opposed slavery. I think there are suspicions that dislike of slavery was part of the reason for leaving Kentufcky.

Of course a person who disliked slavery in Mississsippi, or even Ketucky by the 1850s had the choices of staying silent of leaving (unless they happened to be a slave)

 

[Dave Howery]

I believe that Abraham Lincoln and his father both opposed slavery. I think there are suspicions that dislike of slavery was part of the reason for leaving Kentufcky.

it was; he left in 1816. However, the OP is a bit off; the Lincolns went from Kentucky to Indiana, not Illinois... it was only later in 1830, that they went to Illinois. So, if the OP meant that the Lincolns go south in 1816, then there's a better chance of having Abraham be a southerner with slaves. If it meant 1830, as I'd thought (having seen that Illinois comment), then Abraham owning slaves is very unlikely. However, you somehow have to overcome the fact that Thomas was very anti-slavery....
and Lincoln in the south wouldn't be the Lincoln we know. His ideas were shaped in large by his experiences as a lawyer and politician in Illinois, by the people around him there. It would be very different in the south.

 

[robertp6165]

from what I've read, Lincoln's personal dislike of slavery really settled into him when he went on a flatboat ride to New Orleans, and saw gangs of slaves in chains being driven to the plantations to the east; he was 19 at the time. Your POD occurs after this.

Actually, he was 22. And even if he had been 19, the POD is 1816, when he was 7 years old.

 

[robertp6165]

And that's the biggie; Lincoln might have been pro- or anti-slavery; he might have been a racist, or not; he might have been three time-travelling midget KGB agents wearing a very clever disguise - but he was pro-Union. Getting rid of that is the hard part in this TL.

But, to judge by the sorts of things he was saying in his earlier political career, he wasn't necessarily opposed to secession. In fact, he went on record in 1848...at a time when some factions in the North were talking secession because of the Mexican War...as stating that secession was a right enjoyed by people everywhere...including the U.S. It was only later, when he became President, that his attitude hardened in the other direction...one of those "not on MY watch" kinds of things.