No Civil War

[historylesson]

Hello everyone. I discovered this forum a few days ago while searching for alternate history scenarios and I thought I would join and participate in the discussions.

While Confederacy ALT are very popular I couldn't find one, here at least, where the Union and Confederacy refuse to fight each other.


I am thinking of doing an ALT with the POD being that there is no Civil War but I would like to get feedback from the forum.

So this is the scenario I have in mind, which isn't really that unrealistic IMO.

Lincoln is elected and the 7 southern states secede. The CSA seizes federal property in the South and tries to negotiate with the Union on a price. Lincoln refuses to meet with the CSA representatives, but Seward does because he doesn't mind giving up on Fort Sumter and the other Charleston forts.

The South Carolina Governor has ordered the Union troops to evacuate the Charleston forts, but lets assume here that Davis convinces him to show some restraint. Davis' Secretary of State had advised him that starting a war with the North would have been disastrous for the South.

Now lets also assume that Seward reaches an agreement with the CSA delegates to sell federal property. Lincoln of course doesn't recognize the CSA, but this doesn't have to be an issue if they agree to sell Fort Sumter to South Carolina rather than the Confederate government.
So the USA does not recognize the CSA but the 2 countries don't go to war until 1864 at least.
What happens in the 1864 election? Who would be the candidates and who wins in your opinion?

Also, would the upper south states secede if there is no war? I would assume Arkansas and Tennessee remain in the Union, but I'm not sure about Virginia. Lincoln had apparently offered to evacuate Fort Sumter if Virginia remained in the Union but the secession camp was quite strong in Virginia even before Fort Sumter happened. North Carolina I would assume would have remained in the Union if Virginia did, but I'm not sure what it would have done if Virginia seceded (we would have had a strange looking map if Virginia was in the CSA and North Carolina in the USA).


A couple of other things I'm not sure about is whether Britain and France would have recognized the CSA and what would have happened to the Arizona Territory and the Indiana Territory. My guess is that the Indian territory wouldn't have seceded while the Arizona territory would have, but I'm not sure how Lincoln would have responded. I assumed there would have been no Emancipation Proclamation without a war, but if someone can convince me otherwise I would be happy to hear what they think.

Thoughts?

 

[Johnrankins]

This is a near-ASB scenario because if Lincoln is president when the South secedes there will be war sooner or later. Even before the war broke out he said secession is treason. If that is the case than it is a serious criminal act that Lincoln sooner or later has to do something about. That something will end in war.

 

[Anaxagoras]

First, welcome to the forum!

So this is the scenario I have in mind, which isn't really that unrealistic IMO.

No offense, but it's actually quite unrealistic. Abraham Lincoln is President of the United States, but you seem to think that William Seward actually wields the power. As Doris Keans Goodwin brilliantly demonstrated in Team of Rivals, Lincoln could and would run political rings around Seward when he needed to, which he did during the early days of his administration. And there is absolutely no way that Fort Sumter and other federal property would be sold to anyone, least of all a state in rebellion, on Lincoln's watch.

 

[historylesson]

First of all, thanks for the responses! They are greatly appreciated. I don't disagree with you Anaxagoras on what you said about Lincoln and Seward, I was just wondering what would have happened if Lincoln had a change of heart and decided to do everything he could not to go to war (and Davis did the same). We could assume that Lincoln was advised that a war would be too bloody to be worth it, and that the CSA, being the loose confederation that it was, would not last long.

Lets not forget that Lincoln was willing to hand Fort Sumter over to the South if Virginia remained in the Union (am I wrong about this?). I always got the impression that Lincoln was more interested in keeping Kentucky and Virginia in the union than anything else.

Even if you believe it was impossible to avoid war, lets assume nothing happened until 1864.
How would that have affected the election? Would Lincoln still run?

I am thinking that Virginia (including West Virginia), North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee would all remain in the Union. The Republicans would try to emancipate as many slaves as possible by raising taxes to compensate slaveowners. Lincoln, I'm thinking, would also declare free all slaves in the CSA if they crossed the border. Also, slave trade would be limited within state borders (Virginia slave owners for example would not be allowed to sell slaves to someone in Missouri). A lot of these measures would be considered controversial but not radical enough for the upper South states to secede.

I would happy to hear a different perspective though.

 

[Napoleon53]

Welcome, my good chap! May the blessings of Ian the Admin be upon you!

I think Virginia would secede sooner or later. It was a hotbed of Confederate sentiment (and still has many neo-Confederates and my sister lives in Bull Run, which is overflowing with places named after CSA leaders). If the North tried to take away the slaves in however nice a way, I think Virginia would hit the road.

A delayed ACW is quite interesting. For one thing, Lincoln's health might be worse than during OTL ACW, and he possibly dies of exhaustion. Hamlin/Johnson trying to fight the war would likely be disastrous.

 

[historylesson]

Welcome, my good chap! May the blessings of Ian the Admin be upon you!

I think Virginia would secede sooner or later. It was a hotbed of Confederate sentiment (and still has many neo-Confederates and my sister lives in Bull Run, which is overflowing with places named after CSA leaders). If the North tried to take away the slaves in however nice a way, I think Virginia would hit the road.

A delayed ACW is quite interesting. For one thing, Lincoln's health might be worse than during OTL ACW, and he possibly dies of exhaustion. Hamlin/Johnson trying to fight the war would likely be disastrous.

I would have to agree with the last sentence
However, I don't see Hamlin or Johnson running for president in 1864. If Lincoln's presidency is considered disastrous due to the secession of the southern states, I could see the Democrats winning the House in 1862. 1864 however would have been a different story as both the Democratic and Republican brand were toxic (the former because they would be considered southern sympathizers and the latter because they would be seen as too radical).

Also if Virginia secedes, does North Carolina also secede? Is there a possibility that North Carolina splits in 2 with the eastern part joining the Confederacy and the western part (which didn't have many slave owners) remaining in the Union? Virginia might have seceded if Lincoln took measures against slavery, but I think it would have led to Britain and France not recognizing the CSA which would have been a strong talking for Lincoln or whatever Republican ran in 1864.

 

[Napoleon53]

I would have to agree with the last sentence
However, I don't see Hamlin or Johnson running for president in 1864. If Lincoln's presidency is considered disastrous due to the secession of the southern states, I could see the Democrats winning the House in 1862. 1864 however would have been a different story as both the Democratic and Republican brand were toxic (the former because they would be considered southern sympathizers and the latter because they would be seen as too radical).

Also if Virginia secedes, does North Carolina also secede? Is there a possibility that North Carolina splits in 2 with the eastern part joining the Confederacy and the western part (which didn't have many slave owners) remaining in the Union? Virginia might have seceded if Lincoln took measures against slavery, but I think it would have led to Britain and France not recognizing the CSA.

Oh, I meant that if Lincoln died in office, his vp (Hamlin or Johnson; I'm tired right now and can't remember which it would be) would have to take over, if only for one, two, three years or so. Bad stuff, right there. The war would probably drag on and on, even though the Union would likely still prevail.

As for N. Carolina: Yeah, I would never imagine it splitting, especially if not bordered by Union territory. The war wasn't just about who owned slaves and who didn't, but that there was a genuine nationalist feeling in the South that had been around since the Revolution (possibly even before THAT). Maryland is a good example: not many slaves, but it identified itself with the South. Plus if it did break up the other part and the rest of the CSA would just invade and that would be over. The N. and S. had totally different cultures and, as one historian put it, would have slugged it out over purely territorial and holier-than-though reasons far earlier than they did, but they just didn't have the technology to.

 

[Lugal]

Welcome to the boards. I can't see Seward going against Lincoln to that extent. Even avoiding the war, it's possible the union still might have broken up. If Davis had listened to Lathers and not attacked Fort Sumter the union could have broken into several nations. Much of the nation did not want to use force to keep the South in. They hated slavery but did not think it was something worth dying over.

New York City sympathized with the south, and some (Mayor Fernando Wood) even advocating forming their own free city-state.

John Pendleton Kennedy was a Baltimore publisher and former congressman who advocated a "Confederacy of Border States". Maryland's governor, Thomas Hicks liked the proposal and corresponded with the governors of several states to lay the groundwork for it.

 

[ikki]

The charge of Lincoln being a dictator is quite true, with him inventing things like warmaking powers from nowhere, and then interpreting on his own what exactly that means. A king in everything but name.

And as such, there is nothing that will not be sacrificed for this glory hound. Only a much earlier assassination could have stopped the civil war.

The war in itself had less to do with negroes, than whether states are allowed to make their own laws on such issues. Or whether the union is superior and all and may rewrite the state laws as they see fit.
The very fact that the 13th amendment was created via bribes and threats should only reinforce the notion.

Even the roman emperors kept insisting they were but elected representatives of a republic.

 

[Napoleon53]

The charge of Lincoln being a dictator is quite true, with him inventing things like warmaking powers from nowhere, and then interpreting on his own what exactly that means. A king in everything but name.

And as such, there is nothing that will not be sacrificed for this glory hound. Only a much earlier assassination could have stopped the civil war.

The war in itself had less to do with negroes, than whether states are allowed to make their own laws on such issues. Or whether the union is superior and all and may rewrite the state laws as they see fit.
The very fact that the 13th amendment was created via bribes and threats should only reinforce the notion.

Even the roman emperors kept insisting they were but elected representatives of a republic.

Lincoln overstepped the Constitution, but he thought he was doing the right thing. I highly doubt he was "thirsting for glory," and there's nothing glorious about 700,000 American committing fratricide. Abe didn't sit on his ebony throne all day, dreaming of ways to declare himself emperor. I actually sympathize with the likes of Lee and Jackson, though I'm pretty unbiased when it comes to ACW, and their kind were far better off under a nice guy like Lincoln than under someone who hated their guts. Lincoln respected his enemies. Thaddeus Stevenites just wanted to "kill/silence/jail all the traitors." If Lincoln was assassinated early, the South would be blamed. Bam, you'll probably get executions of Confederate leaders and ridiculously totalitarian Radical Republican destruction of the South, which would probably to this day be 50-60-70 years behind the rest of America. You just didn't kill leaders back then; that rubbish was reserved for anarchists and terrorists. POTCS Davis repeatedly refused to assassinate Lincoln when he could have, and I like to think Lincoln did the same to Davis.
​

 

[M79]

-Keep the Upper South in the Union by delaying Fort Sumter as much as possible

-Have Breckenridge or someone else of notable political standing moderate a border state conference before shots are fired

-Keep Virginia in the Union and North Carolina will likely stay as well, along with Eastern Tennessee. This effectively opens up parts of Georgia that are Unionist to possible counter-secession like Key West

That might be enough to delay a Civil War for a while but it will be very tough to avoid one altogether. Slavery was the most divisive issue in the nation at that time and its end will threaten the status of a lot of wealthy people who will lobby and fight to keep what they think is theirs.

 

[President Sam Houston]

This scenario is probably ASB too, but the civil war could possibly be postponed, at least, if, following the secession of South Carolina, etc., but before the inauguration of Lincoln, President Buchanan, instead of sitting on his ass doing nothing, cleverly enters into negotiations with the seceded states and signs a treaty of non aggression, peaceful sale of property etc., and gives the Confederacy an air of legitimacy. While the Senate would never ratify it, a treaty could be debated for months and essentially tie up the Lincoln administration after he takes office. Basically, create a political and legal side show that keeps the two sides from engaging in any military action. Perhaps, the situation is such that Lincoln is forced to wait out legal rulings and treaty ratifications. If the Confederacy doesn't stupidly start the war anyway during this time, maybe the stalemate can last a couple of years. Both sides are probably gearing up for war, but with Virginia, NC, Tennessee, and Arkansas probably still in the Union, the Union could be ready for a quick and decisive victory if the war didn't start til mid 1863 say.

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

This scenario is probably ASB too, but the civil war could possibly be postponed, at least, if, following the secession of South Carolina, etc., but before the inauguration of Lincoln, President Buchanan, instead of sitting on his ass doing nothing, cleverly enters into negotiations with the seceded states and signs a treaty of non aggression, peaceful sale of property etc., and gives the Confederacy an air of legitimacy. While the Senate would never ratify it, a treaty could be debated for months and essentially tie up the Lincoln administration after he takes office. Basically, create a political and legal side show that keeps the two sides from engaging in any military action. Perhaps, the situation is such that Lincoln is forced to wait out legal rulings and treaty ratifications. If the Confederacy doesn't stupidly start the war anyway during this time, maybe the stalemate can last a couple of years. Both sides are probably gearing up for war, but with Virginia, NC, Tennessee, and Arkansas probably still in the Union, the Union could be ready for a quick and decisive victory if the war didn't start til mid 1863 say.

A civil war might be avoided altogether with a far back enough POD.

Maybe the United States never went to war with Mexico. Maybe the revolts in Canada in 1837 had succeeded. Maybe the cotton gin was never invented until slavery is completely eradicated from the United States. Maybe the 13 Colonies stayed as colonies of Great Britain...

 

[Johnrankins]

The easiest way is to have someone other than Lincoln elected. Then you have to options 1) A president who bows down to the slave lords of the South and allowing slavery to expand or 2) Be so weak as to allow the breakup of the country.

 

[Athelstane]

The easiest way is to have someone other than Lincoln elected. Then you have to options 1) A president who bows down to the slave lords of the South and allowing slavery to expand or 2) Be so weak as to allow the breakup of the country.

Seward might fit that latter bill.

 

[President Sam Houston]

A civil war might be avoided altogether with a far back enough POD.

Maybe the United States never went to war with Mexico. Maybe the revolts in Canada in 1837 had succeeded. Maybe the cotton gin was never invented until slavery is completely eradicated from the United States. Maybe the 13 Colonies stayed as colonies of Great Britain...

Of course there are endless possibilities for avoiding the civil war if you pick a POD any earlier than say 1850. However, the OP sortof implied that the Civil War was avoided despite Lincoln being elected. This suggests a POD sometime after the 1860 election. Hence why I tried to fashion a reasonable timeline for avoiding the Civil War despite Lincoln's election.