Plausibility Check/WI: Alternate 13th Amendment

So let's go back to the Republican Convention, Illinois, 1860. IOTL, of course, Abraham Lincoln was nominated after multiple ballots in a surprise victory, he would go on to win the Presidency and make history. However, the frontrunner going into the convention was William Seward of New York. Let's say things change, and Seward manages to leverage his early strength to gain enough delegates to capture the nomination after only a few ballots. As part of this political horsetrading, he has to make Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania his VP, no Westerners are there to balance the political ticket.

In the general election, Seward and Cameron are successfully branded as radical abolitionists as well as elitist Easterners. They do well in the Northeast, true, but lose all that Lincoln did IOTL+Illinois, Indiana, California, and Oregon. The final electoral vote count is Seward 137, Breckinridge 75, Douglas 40, and Bell 39: a deadlocked electoral college.

And so the election goes to the state delegations. With Seward sure to provoke a Civil War and Breckinridge a Southern Democrat hated by Republicans, the only logical choice is Stephen Douglas (John Bell, in fourth, cannot be chosen). But there's a catch, that the Southern state legislatures insist on and Douglas comes around on; they want an amendment to the U.S Constitution. It's a compromise, in return for allowing Western states into the country and not trying to force slavery down the throats of Kansas, New Mexico, etc, The Southern Democrats just want one thing: an amendment that protects slavery in the South from federal interference, permanently.

It is not really a popular idea; but it's one that many are pushing for as a compromise. It's the only way the South will stand behind Douglas, and many Northern States are willing to accept it as long as it avoids a civil war. Either through frightened Republicans in Congress or enough states ratifying it, the 13th Amendment passes, ironically it becomes the thing keeping Slavery on life support but keeping the Union together.

Is this at all possible? The tricky part is, of course, getting the Amendment to pass, but it's not quite as far-fetched as it sounds. It would almost certainly have the support of outgoing President James Buchanan, for what that's worth, and though the Unionists+Democrats are desperately outnumbered in the House, a clear majority of the North is willing to forget about abolition so long as they don't have to worry about secession anymore.

If this does end up happening, the consequences down the road are vast. Douglas as President is going to be very unpopular in the North and South, and will probably only serve on term. Nevertheless, he was an advocate for Western expansion, so it's likely this is accelerated due to a temporarily averted Civil War.
 
Last edited:
Bumping.

What effects might this have on the demographic development of the United States? IOTL, the U.S lost hundreds of thousands of young men in the Civil War, here, they will reproduce and cause the Nation to grow even quicker. There's also a fair argument to make in that the Civil War significantly slowed down the birthrates of Americans, for whatever reason, as there was a drop in natural birthrates during and afterwards. Whether this was due to men lost or some cultural impact, it would never grow anywhere near the height it was before until the baby boom of the 40s and 50s, and even then it was lower than before and only temporary.
 
Bumping.

What effects might this have on the demographic development of the United States? IOTL, the U.S lost hundreds of thousands of young men in the Civil War, here, they will reproduce and cause the Nation to grow even quicker. There's also a fair argument to make in that the Civil War significantly slowed down the birthrates of Americans, for whatever reason, as there was a drop in natural birthrates during and afterwards. Whether this was due to men lost or some cultural impact, it would never grow anywhere near the height it was before until the baby boom of the 40s and 50s, and even then it was lower than before and only temporary.


OTL's Corwin Amendment was supported by two-fifths of Congressional Republicans, but of course that was an attempt to reconcile the South to a Republican victory. I wonder if they would still vote for it at the behest of a Democrat. If not it almost certainly loses.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
So let's go back to the Republican Convention, Illinois, 1860. IOTL, of course, Abraham Lincoln was nominated after multiple ballots in a surprise victory, he would go on to win the Presidency and make history. However, the frontrunner going into the convention was William Seward of New York. Let's say things change, and Seward manages to leverage his early strength to gain enough delegates to capture the nomination after only a few ballots. As part of this political horsetrading, he has to make Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania his VP, no Westerners are there to balance the political ticket.

In the general election, Seward and Cameron are successfully branded as radical abolitionists as well as elitist Easterners. They do well in the Northeast, true, but lose all that Lincoln did IOTL+Illinois, Indiana, California, and Oregon. The final electoral vote count is Seward 137, Breckinridge 75, Douglas 40, and Bell 39: a deadlocked electoral college.

And so the election goes to the state legislatures. With Seward sure to provoke a Civil War and Breckinridge a Southern Democrat hated by Republicans, the only logical choice is Stephen Douglas (John Bell, in fourth, cannot be chosen). But there's a catch, that the Southern state legislatures insist on and Douglas comes around on; they want an amendment to the U.S Constitution. It's a compromise, in return for allowing Western states into the country and not trying to force slavery down the throats of Kansas, New Mexico, etc, The Southern Democrats just want one thing: an amendment that protects slavery in the South from federal interference, permanently.

It is not really a popular idea; but it's one that many are pushing for as a compromise. It's the only way the South will stand behind Douglas, and many Northern States are willing to accept it as long as it avoids a civil war. Either through frightened Republicans in Congress or enough states ratifying it, the 13th Amendment passes, ironically it becomes the thing keeping Slavery on life support but keeping the Union together.

Is this at all possible? The tricky part is, of course, getting the Amendment to pass, but it's not quite as far-fetched as it sounds. It would almost certainly have the support of outgoing President James Buchanan, for what that's worth, and though the Unionists+Democrats are desperately outnumbered in the House, a clear majority of the North is willing to forget about abolition so long as they don't have to worry about secession anymore.

If this does end up happening, the consequences down the road are vast. Douglas as President is going to be very unpopular in the North and South, and will probably only serve on term. Nevertheless, he was an advocate for Western expansion, so it's likely this is accelerated due to a temporarily averted Civil War.

It goes to Congress actually, as it did in 1824. The House votes for the President and the Senate for Vice President.
 
It goes to Congress actually, as it did in 1824. The House votes for the President and the Senate for Vice President.

State delegations, sorry. So yes, technically to Congress, though you just need a majority of the States behind you in Representatives.

OTL's Corwin Amendment was supported by two-fifths of Congressional Republicans, but of course that was an attempt to reconcile the South to a Republican victory. I wonder if they would still vote for it at the behest of a Democrat. If not it almost certainly loses.

That's my question. You would need a significant amount of Republicans, roughly 2/5 actually, to support this amendment if it is to go through. IOTL the Corwin Amendment was kind of too late, in here it would be passed with Southern legislatures presumably still in Congress.
 
Top