Man of the Hour, A Franklin Pierce Story

The last three months in office...

This next election is going to be a snafu, and there will probably be a civil war/secessions breaking out with a lame duck presidency.
 
I wonder how a Civil War where the Union has had an extra decade to industrialize and widen the gap further will work out.

Badly for the South I wager.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Contrary to current popular opinion, the leaders of the south were not absolute idiots. As the economic power and population of the north grows, they will eventually figure out that they CANNOT WIN and decide to attempt to deal with their problems in other ways the most logical of which is a phased compensated ending of slavery.

Delay the war long enough; there is no war.

By the same token had the war started decades earlier it would have ended with a southern victory.
 
Contrary to current popular opinion, the leaders of the south were not absolute idiots. As the economic power and population of the north grows, they will eventually figure out that they CANNOT WIN and decide to attempt to deal with their problems in other ways the most logical of which is a phased compensated ending of slavery.

Delay the war long enough; there is no war.

By the same token had the war started decades earlier it would have ended with a southern victory.

I mean, they DID try to fight a war against a group with more guns, industry, railroad, food, supplies and every other advantage, and then dismissed it by claiming the Yanks would "lack the will to fight".

If they weren't idiots, they were at least very deluded.
 
A question: Lincoln believed that secession was unconstitutional. If Fort Sumter, or any other federal fort, had not been fired upon what actions were contemplated? I would suppose there would be less support in the North for a military action. Could the South prevailed in the Supreme Court?
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
There is no doubt the odds were against them and strongly so. But it was not impossible. Had it been so northern troops would have been in Richmond in 1861 rather than four years later.

IMHO the 1850s and 1860s were the worst time for the south to attempt to contest the union. In the 1870s or 80s it is a short war or no war and before 1850 their efforts are either successful or uncontested.

But that is my opinion. Slavery was beyond evil and had to be ended either by blood or cooler heads. Circumstances chose blood and that evil was ended.
 
If secession starts much later, odds are Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina stay in the Union. Maybe even Arkansas and Texas. That would be a short war indeed.
Most likely the states that seceded start back-peddling and trying to work out a compromise.
 
Do the Whigs become the full-on Party Of Abolition, as the southern states considered the Republicans in OTL? If not, then there's room for some kind of soft landing for slavery.
 
Do the Whigs become the full-on Party Of Abolition, as the southern states considered the Republicans in OTL? If not, then there's room for some kind of soft landing for slavery.

The TTL Whig Party is a little bit more moderate than the OTL GOP. They have more support in the South where there are still some politicians loyal to the national party rather than the Southern Whigs. The Southern Whigs are extremely disorganized and are in some cases working with the remnants of the Know-Nothings.

Seward was able to take advantage of existing Whig infrastructure in the South that OTL's Republicans couldn't rely on. In TTL 1864 the National Whig Party received 28.1% of the vote in Delaware, 22.8% in New Mexico, 14.3% in Maryland, 12.4% in Kentucky, 11.7% in Missouri, 1.1% in Virginia, and 0.2% in Tennessee.

A question: Lincoln believed that secession was unconstitutional. If Fort Sumter, or any other federal fort, had not been fired upon what actions were contemplated? I would suppose there would be less support in the North for a military action. Could the South prevailed in the Supreme Court?

Without a Fort Sumter-style confrontation, there would probably still be a war, it just might start later.
 
If Davis wins the election, then the Southern States would probably be allowed to peacefully secede from the Union, the problem being why they would want to do that if a friendly person is in office.

Maybe the election ends up thrown to the House, and a few states secede in case the abolitionist candidate wins the election, and after Davis gets confirmed by the House, they do the math, realize that abolitionism is going to only become more popular, and then don't rejoin the Union?
 
If Davis wins the election, then the Southern States would probably be allowed to peacefully secede from the Union, the problem being why they would want to do that if a friendly person is in office.

Maybe the election ends up thrown to the House, and a few states secede in case the abolitionist candidate wins the election, and after Davis gets confirmed by the House, they do the math, realize that abolitionism is going to only become more popular, and then don't rejoin the Union?

I don't want to give anything away, but there are at the very least people threatening secession if [Redacted] wins the election.
 
The TTL Whig Party is a little bit more moderate than the OTL GOP. They have more support in the South where there are still some politicians loyal to the national party rather than the Southern Whigs. The Southern Whigs are extremely disorganized and are in some cases working with the remnants of the Know-Nothings.

Seward was able to take advantage of existing Whig infrastructure in the South that OTL's Republicans couldn't rely on. In TTL 1864 the National Whig Party received 28.1% of the vote in Delaware, 22.8% in New Mexico, 14.3% in Maryland, 12.4% in Kentucky, 11.7% in Missouri, 1.1% in Virginia, and 0.2% in Tennessee.



Without a Fort Sumter-style confrontation, there would probably still be a war, it just might start later.

It seems that so long as the Whigs maintain a significant presence in the states bordering on the Mason-Dixon Line, secession as an option might be confined to the "Gulf Squadron" Deep South states, at least temporarily.
 
The other part of my question dealt with support for the war in the North. What the South called The War of Northern Aggression could have more play if the Federals strike first.
 
Chapter XVII, Nominating Conventions
Vice President Jefferson Davis had presidential ambitions for at least a decade. In 1868, he advertised himself as a moderate Southern politician. He would fill a similar role as Samuel Houston in 1860. He hoped to be able to compete in the North due to his more moderate stance on slavery. More extreme candidates included Senator Louis Wigfall of Texas and Representative Laurence Keitt of South Carolina. The four major Northern candidates were former House Speaker Horatio Seymour of New York, New Jersey Governor Joel Parker, Representative Asa Packer of Pennsylvania, and Representative George Pendleton of Ohio. Of the four, Pendleton had the best chance of competing in the South. Davis had the support of former President Franklin Pierce, and could count on the support of the New Hampshire delegates. In addition, Davis had significant support in the Midwest as well, notably in Illinois.

330px-Laurence_M._Keitt_cph.3a02077.jpg
330px-Louis_Trezevant_Wigfall.jpg

(Left: Laurence Keitt, Right: Louis Wigfall)

Davis opposed some in his party on the issue of Utah. While some fire-eaters were still committed to admitting Utah as a slave state, Davis was willing to let the issue go. He argued that new slave states would come from land acquired in the Caribbean and Latin America. He claimed he was also willing to annex Hawaii and make it a free state. This made him appear more reasonable in the North. On the first ballot he had the highest number of delegates, with Joel Parker and Horatio Seymour tied for second place. Pendleton’s delegates drifted towards Davis, as did Wigfall’s and Keitt’s. On the eighth ballot, Davis clenched the nomination. The Vice-Presidential nominee was Joel Parker. Many Northern Democrats were disappointed with the nomination of Davis, and this resulted in even more defections to the Whigs. On the other hand, there was another wave of Southern Whigs defecting to the Democrats. The remaining Southern Whigs consisted of people who were more moderate on the issue of slavery. They would join with the remnants of the Know-Nothings.

JoelParker-small.png

(Joel Parker)

The Whigs held their convention in Philadelphia. This convention would be notable for its lack of delegates from several slave states. Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida would not send any delegates. In other slave states, only a small number of delegates attended. In 1864, the party had already decided that it was an anti-slavery party. There was no debating this in 1868. The question posed to delegates in Philadelphia was how they would combat slave power. William Seward declined to run for president, feeling that his moment had passed. Financier and nativist George Law was determined to run for the Whig nomination for a third and final time. He would not make it far, however, as nativist support was split between him and former Rhode Island governor William W. Hoppin. General John C. Fremont of California, a former Democrat, surprised no one when he announced his intention to run for president. There was Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, who was seen as too radical by many, as was Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Representative Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was seen as a more moderate choice. Cassius Clay of Kentucky was the only candidate from a slave state.

In the months leading up to the convention, there was great uncertainty as to who would win the nomination. But soon there was an apparent front-runner. Fremont won most of the Western and Midwestern delegates, along with many of the delegates in the Northeast. In previous years, the Whig Party made sure to include a Northerner and a Southerner on the ticket. In 1868, that didn’t matter. What mattered now was to win as much of the North as possible. As Fremont had recently been a Democrat, his running mate needed to be a lifelong Whig. Senator Schuyler Colfax of Indiana was chosen. He was likely selected because the Whigs had lost Indiana in the 1864 election. The Whigs would unite against the expansion of slavery and the enforcement of fugitive slave laws. The Southern Whig Party wouldn’t run their own candidate, but would instead endorse the Know Nothing/American candidate. The Know Nothings nominated elderly inventor and Conspiracy theorist Samuel Morse of New York for President and former Baltimore Mayor Thomas Swann.

255px-John_C_Fr%C3%A9mont.png
330px-SColfax.jpg

(Left: John C. Fremont, Right: Schuyler Colfax)
 

Deleted member 82118

May be inn TTL Fremonnt would be known as "general from Missouri", not from California? OTL he took part in the Presidental election in 1856, only recently was Governor of California. But in you TL, after California there was Japan and Nicaragua in Fremont life. So, may be, he would more associated with his home state, than with California?
 
Top