How would the Southern States conquer a rebellious North?

How would I handle this? Main issue is that Seward has crossed the rubicon so to speak by saying the South needs to accept him after even the Supreme Court has ruled my Presidency legitimate. Certainly I would make propaganda that he is a tyrant who is subverting the institutions that the founding fathers created. It really helps that Seward has drawn first blood here as I now have the more propaganda there.

Really the main thing I would be trying to do is win over the neutral states, perhaps by not rocking the boat too much? If I can't conquer the north then sure there must be some there who think Seward has gone too far and are will to fight for the legitimate union?

Unfortunately I am no general so I don't know how win militarily. Hope I have good generals.
 
So, an actual civil war, rather than war for independence.
I suppose that is one way to look at it. I do cringe to think of the aftermath of this scenario as it would be easy for either side to lose the peace here.

Also just want to say I just read through it completely and nice work on your ISOT timeline, looking forward to more.
 
The other thing to consider is this: how much legitimacy did the Supreme Court have? This was, after all, the same SCOTUS (minus the slain Justice Taney) that ruled in Dred Scott and Lemmon vs New York. If the Supreme Court is somehow compromised or invalid, however, then their ruling in Lemmon vs New York is also invalid. That's a big incentive to side with Seward.
 
The other thing to consider is this: how much legitimacy did the Supreme Court have? This was, after all, the same SCOTUS (minus the slain Justice Taney) that ruled in Dred Scott and Lemmon vs New York. If the Supreme Court is somehow compromised or invalid, however, then their ruling in Lemmon vs New York is also invalid. That's a big incentive to side with Seward.
That is true, but I think the biggest issue is that Seward is taking a "everyone who is not fully with me is against me" attitude which could cost him dearly in the long run if he can't fully secure the North.

Edit: Way I see it, the South can't win this on their own; But the North can certainly lose this.
 
Sorry, they can't.

The Senate has to choose between the first two VP candidates, not three. So it would be a straight choice between Breck's running-mate and Seward's.

As the Senate is comfortably Democratic, Joseph Lane is certain to win.

But a quorum for this is 2/3 of the Senate. So just 1/3 oft the Senate boycotts the vote and you have deadlock
 
Wouldn't a number of non-slave states stay loyal to the Union just as a number of slave states did in OTL?I'd presume that the OTL border states would whole-heartedly throw their support behind the union instead?
 
Wouldn't a number of non-slave states stay loyal to the Union just as a number of slave states did in OTL?I'd presume that the OTL border states would whole-heartedly throw their support behind the union instead?

Considering even one full "border" state would split the North up entirely, it'd be more like border regions. An expanded Little Egypt with southern Indiana attached to it, say, joining the South - or the southern two-thirds of Pennsylvania staying loyal while the New England-settled upper third becomes a rebel State of Westmoreland, roughly equivalent to the existence of CSA Arizona Territory representing the southern population and sympathy there.
 
Wouldn't a number of non-slave states stay loyal to the Union just as a number of slave states did in OTL?I'd presume that the OTL border states would whole-heartedly throw their support behind the union instead?
Technically every state is loyal to the Union- its just that the states backing Seward decided to ignore the Supreme Court (especially seeing as its latest hits have been Dred Scott, Lemmon vs New York, and Seward vs either Joseph Lane or John Breckenridge) and claim that the contingent election held with the new Congress was legitimate. That being said, the border states do indeed consider Seward and his cabinet, Supreme Court, and all the members of Congress who joined him in Boston to be traitors.
 
But a quorum for this is 2/3 of the Senate. So just 1/3 oft the Senate boycotts the vote and you have deadlock


Except of course that this leaves the Senate with an overwhelming Southern majority, so they can elect the President pro-Tempore. Then, if neither a President nor a VP is chosen, he can act as President until a choice is made. I hope they wouldn't be provocative enough to pick Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, but I wouldn't rule it out. That gives the Reps a choice between calling off the boycott and letting Lane win, or keeping it up and seeing Davis take over. Could get interesting.
 
The Republicans, with their majority in Congress, elect William Seward on March 12, 1861.


Couple more points. Apologies for not spotting them sooner.

1) The Republicans don't have a majority in the new Congress. OTL they had only 107 members (out of237) and in this election they've done worse than OTL, so may have even fewer.

2) In any case, the new Congress doesn't meet until December 1861, unless the new President (or Acting President) sees fit to call it. So it can't elect anyone after March 4.

Incidentally, if neither a POTUS nor a VP has been chosen, presumably the Act of 1792 would apply, which means you get another election in Nov 1861. Lord alone knows what happens then.
 
Couple more points. Apologies for not spotting them sooner.

1) The Republicans don't have a majority in the new Congress. OTL they had only 107 members (out of237) and in this election they've done worse than OTL, so may have even fewer.

2) In any case, the new Congress doesn't meet until December 1861, unless the new President (or Acting President) sees fit to call it. So it can't elect anyone after March 4.

Incidentally, if neither a POTUS nor a VP has been chosen, presumably the Act of 1792 would apply, which means you get another election in Nov 1861. Lord alone knows what happens then.
good god, another election?
 
Incidentally, if neither a POTUS nor a VP has been chosen, presumably the Act of 1792 would apply, which means you get another election in Nov 1861. Lord alone knows what happens then.
Perhaps the South, fearful that someone like Lincoln or Seward would win in this second election, refuse to go along, claiming that, since the amendment says that the VP takes office, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President, then the Tyler Precedent would take effect and Lane would be POTUS until March 4th, 1865. The Republicans claim that the South and the Democrats are seizing power illegally, sparks fly.
 
Perhaps the South, fearful that someone like Lincoln or Seward would win in this second election, refuse to go along, claiming that, since the amendment says that the VP takes office, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President, then the Tyler Precedent would take effect and Lane would be POTUS until March 4th, 1865. The Republicans claim that the South and the Democrats are seizing power illegally, sparks fly.


If Lane has been chosen VP by the Senate, then there is no 1861 election anyway, as that law is only applicable if both Presidency and Vice-presidency are vacant.

In the latter case, the Acting President would have to call Congress into session and get it to repeal the section of the 1792 Act which mandated an election. I don't see how that could be considered illegal.

More fundamentally, though, I still don't really see why the Republicans would be behaving in such a way. If Northern opinion is so aroused as to make this reaction credible, then the Reps are virtually assured of winning in 1864. So why not just bide their time. In the meanwhile, any slaveowner rash enough to try to exercise his rights under Lemmon can expect to see his slaves liberated by an angry mob.
 
Top