Jefferson Davis assasinated 1862

A vague idea I've had.

On May 25th 1862, CSA President Jefferson Davis is shot dead in Richmond. Vice-President Alexander Stephens assumes the CS Presidency.

What happens next?
 
The Confederate States collapse by the middle of 1863 as Conscription is opposed by the President and as the individual states look to their own defense, 'hanging separately' rather than hanging together. Stephens was a strict Constitutionalist and supported States Rights against any move toward centralization or central government power. He was therefore IOTL estranged from President Davis and exiled himself home to Georgia.

The result is, conversely, indeed probably the better outcome for the CS as a previous poster posited. An early victory forecloses on Emancipationist sentiment, possibly the Proclamation itself. The 'peculiar institution' is severely weakened but may eke out a dying existence into the 1880s, ending due to a lack of labor and exhausted land as well as territorial prohibition.

The political effect of early readmission is, with Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and likely Virginia and North Carolina voting in 1864, a Democrat victory of the Seymour type. No Reconstruction or Freedmen's Bureau. By 1868, with all the seceded states back and slavery dying, political debate on the other issues - capitalism, internal construction etc (railways and tariffs). It is more likely that the Southern Transcontinental Route will be chosen (easier connections and symbolically and militarily binding the country) either alone or in parallel to the Northern Route. The Republicans may well retake the White House but the battle of ideas will be strongly contested as the U.S. is still tied to old ways. Pretty much only Slavery, Secession have been solved. The McKinley-Bryan battle will take place later I imagine, as the period of Republican dominance that pushed the country into a state where Industrial Capitalism and new ideas could win does not occur.

On the foreign front, will the U.S. put Juarez back on the 'throne' in Mexico? The French adventure will be scotched practically in the cradle, but will the Democrats be willing to restore a mixed-blood Indian and rabble-rouser to a failed Presidency? Will Lincoln's government, notwithstanding the great man's public support for the mestizo? Other than that, the United States will be as isolationist as historically. The conquering of the West will I expect take place largely as it did historically - on the one hand, the war finishes earlier, on the other devastation and disruption isn't as bad so there is a little less drive to move. One possible change is a lot more black emigration west from ex-slaves and runaways (the Dred Scott decisions and Fugitive Slave Laws are moot and the Territories are free territory where slavery is not presumed) and concurrent colonisation of Liberia, a government-sponsored project to lance the boil of black presence in the US, blamed for the war. So we could see the West 5% black (given 10% of the total population, that would be several times historical levels) and total slave and free-black population reduced by a quarter. Black codes will exist in the North to encourage the emigration of blacks from those States. It will be a significant political struggle which, outside of New England, will be successful.
 
It could go either way. While Stephens was far more of a 'States Rights' man than Davis, he could be very practical, like his belated endorsement of seccession. If he switches to supporting more centralization to further the war effort, other opponents of Davis may decide it truly is neccessary or they may condemn him as a traitor.

Davis tended to appoint military leaders and cabinet members based on personal loyalty, not competance. Even if Stephens makes the same blunder, Johnston and Beauregard are notably more competant than Polk, Bragg, Hood, and Northrop. OTOH, that means Lee may never see a field command and Johnston and Beauregard were already commanding in important areas at this point.

Stephens might also give his representatives to England and France something to bargain with instead of expecting recognition like Davis.

If Stephens can come up with better political and military strategies than Davis did, which seems likely, then the Confederacy might achieve independance, perhaps even without becoming a British and/or French client state.
 
Query who is the assassisin and what are the supposed motives?

I think there would be a difference depending on whether the assassination related to narrow internal Southern politics, a Unionist, or an out and out abolitionist.
 
Top