Latest Possible POD For the Civil War to Remain a Limited "War of Elderstalk Squirts?"

What would the latest plausible POD be for the Civil War to remain a limited war of limited means and limited ends (along the lines of the Crittenden-Johnson, or "War Aims" Resolution of July 1861, which explicitly disavowed interference with "domestic institutions" of the states), or, as Lincoln termed it, "a war of elderstalk squirts, charged with rosewater?" IOTL, this Resolution was repealed in December 1861, and, throughout 1862, the war became more and more based around a full reconstruction of the south, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation. What is the last moment where this shift could be forestalled, with the war still ongoing?
 
Last edited:
The change was reflected in, for example, William Lloyd Garrison received death threats and widespread blame when he visited Washington in 1861, and was feted in 1862.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Before the provisional EP?

Once the cat is out of the bag and the threat is made public, it is no easy matter for the south to say ‘oops, we quit’ and have the Union accept ending the war with “ok, as we were, then”.
 
That depends; does this have to stop a decisisve Civil War from breaking out in the near future? Because anything that looks like Crittenden dosen't solve the fundimental problems and basically means the whole crisis repeats itself every time the Feds do something against Southern interests, or refuse to follow that region's preferred policy.
 

dcharleos

Donor
Okay, I'll bite.

It's First Manassas. If we posit that the Union wins the Battle of First Manassas as decisively as, say, Thomas won at Nashville, then it's entirely possible that McDowell marches right onto Richmond. Confederate nationalism at that point was not the force it would become in the months and years ahead. If that happened, I believe we would see a conditional Confederate surrender, contingent upon protecting slavery a la the Crittenden compromise.
 
Okay, I'll bite.

It's First Manassas. If we posit that the Union wins the Battle of First Manassas as decisively as, say, Thomas won at Nashville, then it's entirely possible that McDowell marches right onto Richmond. Confederate nationalism at that point was not the force it would become in the months and years ahead. If that happened, I believe we would see a conditional Confederate surrender, contingent upon protecting slavery a la the Crittenden compromise.
Would a conditional surrender along those lines be accepted?
 

dcharleos

Donor
Would a conditional surrender along those lines be accepted?

Well, I think so, at least to the extent that I can imagine plausible realities in the multiverse where such a thing happened. The opportunity is just too good. You can put the rebellion to bed right then and there if you accede to what amounts to the status quo, or you can take your chances with trying to conquer the South.

In my 21st century mind, I know which one I would pick, but I think a lot of people in the 1800s would feel differently. At that stage, what united the North was public opinion about the illegality of secession.

If the rebels consent on that point, I think there is room for a deal.
 
Well, I think so, at least to the extent that I can imagine plausible realities in the multiverse where such a thing happened. The opportunity is just too good. You can put the rebellion to bed right then and there if you accede to what amounts to the status quo, or you can take your chances with trying to conquer the South.

In my 21st century mind, I know which one I would pick, but I think a lot of people in the 1800s would feel differently. At that stage, what united the North was public opinion about the illegality of secession.

If the rebels consent on that point, I think there is room for a deal.
But the terms should be less lenient given that there was a rebellion.
 
Restrictions in new territories on slavery? Seems like a fair trade for protecting it where it is. And that could set the stage for later abolition?
 

dcharleos

Donor
But the terms should be less lenient given that there was a rebellion.

Should be? Sure.

And I doubt that anything as expansive as the Crittenden would actually pass. No one is going to put an unamendable amendment in the Constitution.

However, the fact is, violence works. Violence gets people's attention. Even ostensibly nonviolent movements (like the Civil Rights Movement) have a violent umbra lurking about. For every MLK, there's an Eldridge Cleaver. For every Selma to Montgomery, there's a Watts riot.

So call me crazy, but I think that the South would win much bigger by losing much faster.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So one of the most common clichés of the last decade on this board has been that any independent CSA is doomed to become a third-world'ish failed state and has no reason to abolish by the 20th century or even within the 20th century. With that in mind, if the U.S. ends the war and reincorporates the south on the basis of the old Union, peculiar institution and all, does this somehow massively drag down the US compared to OTL? Do effed up institutions impose a cost in national functioning that seriously outweighs all the averted human and physical property losses of the war?
 
Top