Question: Confederacy without the ACW?

An idea I've been kicking around, and would like your opinion on, is how the Confederacy and the American Civil War would evolve had PGT Beauregard not fired on Fort Sumter. While the underlying causes of the war would still be present, Lincoln and Davis would likely hesitate to engage in a war without the provocation of firing on Sumter. In this scenario, would it be possible for Davis to:

- Make alliances with Victoria and *maybe* Napoleon III? At this point, slavery isn't the main issue of secession, and Victorian morality could be overcome with a promise to begin a process of gradual emancipation (my high school history teacher insisted that this was Davis's plan to begin with, but I was raised in the south, so that's taken with a grain of salt).

If this did happen, could the ACW be averted entirely? And if so, could the following effects be the result?

- Stronger North America. While it is true that the USA and CSA are separate, there are 600,000 soldiers still alive, not counting those wounded and civilians killed, plus no devastation of the south and reconstruction, and a reason for the US to ramp up industrialization with enemies on the border.

- Stronger CSA. If Davis keeps up with his promise of gradual emancipation, could the CSA play up industrialization as an alternative source of income for the planter elite and immigration as a source of even more labor? This one is a stretch, mainly because of the possibility of:

- Weaker/Balkanized CSA (or a Texas-Louisiana republic). Once again, in 1861, we have much of the "state's rights" rhetoric still in full swing. Could Texas attempt to remove itself from a CSA dominated by the planter elite and instead secede from the Confederacy as a home of southern industrialization? And, could the catholic, French, mercantile classes of Louisiana join this burgeoning nation? Regardless, would the pro-states' rights slant if the confederacy, particularly early on, lead to an enfeebled Confederacy in the 1860s and 70s?

- Greater Midwestern influence in the US? Could the Free Soil/ Granger/ Populist movements gain more traction in American politics without having to win over the south? Could an economically leftist, religiously dogmatic populist party become a challenger to the industrial, progressive Republican Party?

- Prolonged Maximilian Mexico? If France has a vested interest in the CSA or Texas-Louisiana, as well as a natural ally in this nation, could Maximilian survive longer in Mexico? Or, would this inevitably turn to rivalry between the two North American nations?

- Who gets Cuba? If Spain begins to break down in their colonial empire, which nation can take advantage of this and take the island?

Or, is the idea that the ACW can be avoided because Fort Sumter isn't shelled too far-fetched. In that case, how can the ACW be started and might it be different?

- If Lincoln declares war without an active attack by the Confederacy, could the world view this as a war of northern aggression? Might Confederate calls for support be heeded? Or, would Lincoln starting off on the attack lead to a quicker Union victory? And in that case, what would the results be?

Thank you all for your thoughts!
 
- If Lincoln declares war without an active attack by the Confederacy, could the world view this as a war of northern aggression? Might Confederate calls for support be heeded? Or, would Lincoln starting off on the attack lead to a quicker Union victory? And in that case, what would the results be?

Probably OTL, to be honest, perhaps with a bit of a later start date.

Alternatively, you could see a better organized Union Army smash the Confederates at *Bull Run, and end the war that way.

Regardless, I doubt any global powers would jump to recognize the Confederacy, even if the Union shot first.
 
My own guess is that one of three developments would occur if there was no attack on Fort Sumpter:

1. There would be a military confrontation elsewhere when a seceding state sought to occupy a Federal fort or other federal site (Civil War as OTL basically)

2. Lincoln would assemble a military force and march on the South anyway to quash the secession. - the rebellion was an of war with or without South Carolina firing the first shot. (Civil War as OTL basically)

3. There would be a longer period of indecision and cooler heads would eventually prevail in both north and south. The southern states would not attempt to seize any federal property and both sides may seek a compromise solution granting the south more explicit autonomy with respect to it's peculiar institution in return for an acknowlegement of continued affilitaion in some manner with the USA. In this case a treaty with Britain is not possible.
 
- Make alliances with Victoria and *maybe* Napoleon III? At this point, slavery isn't the main issue of secession, and Victorian morality could be overcome with a promise to begin a process of gradual emancipation (my high school history teacher insisted that this was Davis's plan to begin with, but I was raised in the south, so that's taken with a grain of salt).

If this did happen, could the ACW be averted entirely? And if so, could the following effects be the result?

Well with a CSA that hasn't declared war and some shaky politicking going around they could conceivably manage to gain foreign support for their independence before the war even starts. (This could butterfly the war completely as Lincoln could be unwilling to risk war in that case)

- Stronger North America. While it is true that the USA and CSA are separate, there are 600,000 soldiers still alive, not counting those wounded and civilians killed, plus no devastation of the south and reconstruction, and a reason for the US to ramp up industrialization with enemies on the border.

- Stronger CSA. If Davis keeps up with his promise of gradual emancipation, could the CSA play up industrialization as an alternative source of income for the planter elite and immigration as a source of even more labor? This one is a stretch, mainly because of the possibility of:

Each nation here is going to be stronger for not taxing their economies and manpower resources. However, in the short term it probably benefits the CSA more as its more difficult for them to lose the population than the USA while it also saves them from devastation and ruin, but it also means the USA isn't sitting with a powerful army on their northern border and the US's resources remain somewhat untapped which leads to the retardation of American progress as a Great Power somewhat.

- Weaker/Balkanized CSA (or a Texas-Louisiana republic). Once again, in 1861, we have much of the "state's rights" rhetoric still in full swing. Could Texas attempt to remove itself from a CSA dominated by the planter elite and instead secede from the Confederacy as a home of southern industrialization? And, could the catholic, French, mercantile classes of Louisiana join this burgeoning nation? Regardless, would the pro-states' rights slant if the confederacy, particularly early on, lead to an enfeebled Confederacy in the 1860s and 70s?

That's plausible and an unexplored historical idea, but I'm not quite qualified enough to comment on this so I leave it to those who know more to make a big critique.

- Greater Midwestern influence in the US? Could the Free Soil/ Granger/ Populist movements gain more traction in American politics without having to win over the south? Could an economically leftist, religiously dogmatic populist party become a challenger to the industrial, progressive Republican Party?

Well without the Southern voting block and the political power it ended up wielding OTL this is the only real logical conclusion to where another power base would arise from outside the urban poor.

- Prolonged Maximilian Mexico? If France has a vested interest in the CSA or Texas-Louisiana, as well as a natural ally in this nation, could Maximilian survive longer in Mexico? Or, would this inevitably turn to rivalry between the two North American nations?

This is tricky, Maximillian made some blunders and his cause wasn't incredibly well supported outside certain regions and he was depending upon foreign intervention for much of his campaign so it would take something to make Max more popular with the people to really make him win.

- Who gets Cuba? If Spain begins to break down in their colonial empire, which nation can take advantage of this and take the island?

Cuba might just go independent after its revolution. Or it could be snapped up by one of the new states.

- If Lincoln declares war without an active attack by the Confederacy, could the world view this as a war of northern aggression? Might Confederate calls for support be heeded? Or, would Lincoln starting off on the attack lead to a quicker Union victory? And in that case, what would the results be?

This is probably the best thing that can happen to the Confederates as it is a propoganda bonanza and nets them international sympathy at the very least.
 
The CSA before Sumpter was different than the CSA after Sumpter, in that the states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas had yet to secede. Those 4 states probably made up 60 percent (or more) of the white population of the CSA. So without Sumpter, and without some other act of aggression by either the CSA or the Union to start a war, I don't think the CSA gets any of the upper South states. So right off the bat, even without a devastating war, a CSA of 7 states which are even more agrarian and tied to slavery than the CSA of 11 states was, I am not sure that it could survive more than about 15 years or so. And I don't think without any moderate voices in the picture, that there would be any thought to gradual emancipation.

The Republican Party and Lincoln would be looked on as failures for allowing the secession to occur and not stopping it. Lincoln probably gets impeached and the Republican party goes down in flames.

Long term, I think some of the confederate states end up seeking to rejoin the Union, or simply be relegated as a poor backwater outpost. The first 2 to rejoin would probably be Louisiana and Texas. Georgia would probably put pressure on South Carolina and the 2 of them would rejoin together. Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida would likely hold out the longest, and be the worst for it.

So what happens to slavery in balkanized America of the 1860s - 1870s? Especially with the Republican party destroyed under the Lincoln presidency. Well, slavery had been dying out in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia before the war in OTL. Virginian planters had been selling their slaves down south for decades. In this TL, an anti trade law is probably passed to restrict any Union states or citizens to sell slaves to the CSA or its citizens. So this law actually will help kill off slavery in the Union post secession. But it still takes 10 to 15 years. So about the time Texas and Louisiana are trying to get back into the Union, there will be no more slavery in any Union state. As such, as a precondition for re-admission, a CSA state must give up slavery.
 
If Confederates don't fire on Fort Sumter, that means the fort is resupplied and the US still controls the port and can eventually collect the duties of any items being imported. This is essential to symbolically retaining sovereignty over the seceded states. The CSA not taking the fort gives Lincoln a big win.

The fire eaters will see it as a defeat and curse that the moderates have taken control of "their" government. Expect a lot of agitation and anger in the CSA when this happens.

The crisis would be prolonged as Lincoln continued to strengthen his control in the rest of the country, especially the Upper South. IOTL, he had only between March 4 and April 12. So avoiding Ft Sumter gives Lincoln several critical days, weeks, or even months. His goal is to ensure the loyalty of the Upper South when the time finally comes to put down the rebellion when the CSA finally provides a pretext by outright aggression. It also gives him time to reorganize the military to make sure only Union loyalists are in critical positions and that a real contingency plan is in place if war happens.

The more time Lincoln has, the more likely one or more states of the Upper South won't secede. How successful Lincoln is depends one 1) the length of time he has before the next crisis, 2) how successful he is at filling Republican patronage in the Upper South states, 3) how successful he is at placing Union loyalists in any key military and federal installations in the Upper South that won't cooperate with secessionsist, and 4) the exact nature of the eventual CSA provocation. We know firing on Fort Sumter wasn't provocative enough to make many Southerners choose the Union over their sympathies with the Deep South, but we don't know what exactly the CSA will do next. All of the Upper South could still secede, or possibly none. Even if something like one state doesn't secede, it will greatly aid the Union war effort.

In other words, the CSA won't be allowed to secede. It's just a question when the big blow up occurs, and how much advantage it gives Lincoln versus OTL (most likely case), or if the CSA somehow implodes peacefully and resubmits to the Federal government (unlikely, but still a small chance).
 
I do think CSA not firing on Sumter (and other such forts, such as Fort Pickens in Pensacola and Fort Monroe off Hampton Roads) probably does get rid of the American Civil War as we know it. Lincoln doesn't get the casus belli he needs to overcome the public preference for letting the 'Wayward Sisters' go. Of course, there are other ways of provoking war with the CSA... a quick (and not very constitutional) occupation of the states that haven't yet seceded e.g. Virginia, North Carolina etc.

But let's say that war doesn't happen. It would be a big loss to Union prestige as it happens, as no war means tacit Union acceptance that the CSA is legitimate, and so the barrier for foreign recognition is much lower - especially as people like Prime Minister Palmerston wanted to recognize the CSA to weaken America's dominance of the continent. Foreign recognition further inflames secessionist sentiments in the Upper South and I think it would be quite difficult for Lincoln to reject secession votes there.

In the long-run, an independent CSA unharrassed by the Union is probably a dangerously adventurous one, a counterpart of Napoleon III's France. In a country where most of the wealthy went to military academies and where a large proportion of the white population actually served as soldiers during the OTL ACW, I think the CSA would most likely be funding 'filibuster' expeditions in Central America, the Caribbean and Latin America for the acquisition of more slave states. France might partner with the CSA for Mexico at first, but CSA adventurism is bound to end up clashing with the European powers at some point, and you might end up with a situation like Argentina were the European powers feel compelled to 'blockade' the country from time to time in order to teach them a lesson (the Monroe Doctrine being ignored in the wake of the US' weakness).

Long-term, the CSA will definitely fall behind the USA and be at Eastern European levels of development. Reformist movements will probably lead to half-hearted attempts at industrialization and emancipation, but it would take a strong leader indeed to overcome the particularist tendencies of the Southern states. The US probably won't attempt to retake the CSA, though, given that it would just be a burden to do so for little benefit.
 
So, having had a day to think about the ramifications of this, I had a few ideas and questions that I'd like to throw out.

- Could the deep south be re-admitted with diplomacy and concessions on both sides? Lincoln's rhetoric had been pretty strongly pro-preservation of the union, even over emancipation, so could it be possible to reaffirm a state's right to choose on the issue of slavery, as well as other issues, so long as the "rebel states" return? What effects could this have on the US? Would there be a stigma of underlying discontent and dislike between northern and souther states over the "secession crisis of 1860?"

- Conversely, what would be the effect of Lincoln using force to prevent the secession when no Confederate shots have been fired? Could Lincoln be impeached by Upper-South Democrats and moderates if he uses military force in peacetime?

- If the CSA is a short-lived experiment that is aborted a few years in, how does the US evolve from there? That's a huge demographic boon to the United States, as well as no reconstruction (or, at least a less harsh reconstruction) and no devastation of the south. However, it also means that the US won't have the industrial boon that it did having to turn industry to the ACW. Also, how would the emancipation of slaves go without a war that becomes a war over slavery and brings about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

- Might breakaway states occur from the CSA, if it stays independent, and could these states become satellites for the European Powers? Particularly if a newly independent CSA gets involved in an adventuring phase that begins to grate on European powers, I can see significant investments going into independent, breakaway nations that can put pressure on Confederate borders.

- What happens to the border states? If the CSA is let go, what will become of them? If they stay in the union, how will the emancipation of slavery change in these areas?
 
So, having had a day to think about the ramifications of this, I had a few ideas and questions that I'd like to throw out.

- Could the deep south be re-admitted with diplomacy and concessions on both sides? Lincoln's rhetoric had been pretty strongly pro-preservation of the union, even over emancipation, so could it be possible to reaffirm a state's right to choose on the issue of slavery, as well as other issues, so long as the "rebel states" return? What effects could this have on the US? Would there be a stigma of underlying discontent and dislike between northern and souther states over the "secession crisis of 1860?"

- Conversely, what would be the effect of Lincoln using force to prevent the secession when no Confederate shots have been fired? Could Lincoln be impeached by Upper-South Democrats and moderates if he uses military force in peacetime?

- If the CSA is a short-lived experiment that is aborted a few years in, how does the US evolve from there? That's a huge demographic boon to the United States, as well as no reconstruction (or, at least a less harsh reconstruction) and no devastation of the south. However, it also means that the US won't have the industrial boon that it did having to turn industry to the ACW. Also, how would the emancipation of slaves go without a war that becomes a war over slavery and brings about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

- Might breakaway states occur from the CSA, if it stays independent, and could these states become satellites for the European Powers? Particularly if a newly independent CSA gets involved in an adventuring phase that begins to grate on European powers, I can see significant investments going into independent, breakaway nations that can put pressure on Confederate borders.

- What happens to the border states? If the CSA is let go, what will become of them? If they stay in the union, how will the emancipation of slavery change in these areas?

Addressing them in order.

Very unlikely, while a majority of southern civilians had at first held pro Unions views, which quickly vanished when, the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter and even in such a situation that those views held longer the Political elite, would insure that no compromise other then independence would be acceptable, and on the other foot, the Northern Populace would just accept the South back without some sort of repercussions to insure that such an invent does not happen again.

Lincoln was and still is a Political and Public dogma, the war starting at Fort Sumter was masterfully crafted way of either getting the need supplies into the fort or making the Confederates fire the first shots, in this situation Lincoln would find a way to make the south fire the first shots to open fire and start the war.

And given Jefferson naivety in the face of such maneuvering and deep thinking it will happen in one way or another.

The CSA being a short lived experiment is guaranteed thing as shown during the war when it expressed so clearly just why such a form of government is unworkable, but in civil rights matters would probably traverse on a worse path from there on out, with the south most likely inevitably accepting paid emancipation, and the Industrial boom is something that would just take longer to fully progress.

As stated the CSA government is unworkable, with a motto if you don’t like one thing about what happening at the national level you can just leave, which inevitably will happen as the Economic, Social and Political class all start to change with Southern cotton not low demand either sooner or later when Europe starting importing from it own colonies will bring about heavy changes that will cause heavy friction.

The border states basically I imagine what you mean being every southern state but the seven that succeeded would in a term have noose tied around them to stop them from leaving, with a more heavy Military presence, and paid emancipation further down the line.
 
There's a reason I have the link saved.

- Stronger CSA. If Davis keeps up with his promise of gradual emancipation, could the CSA play up industrialization as an alternative source of income for the planter elite and immigration as a source of even more labor? This one is a stretch, mainly because of the possibility of:

Jefferson Davis' promise of gradual Emancipation? Are we talking about actual American history or is this one of the features of the ATL being discussed?

To be helpful, Im going to link to what should be required reading for anyone wanting to post a CSA timeline on these boards, excepting of course the ASB forum. It's about the CSA, and why it seceded - the CSA that was, not the CSA of reenactors dreams, not the CSA of gosh don't the uniforms look sharp, but the CSA that existed in our timeline, in our history, in our world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

This is not some epochal thing, this is one datapoint amongst many that shape the culture of the Southern States before the American Civil War. It's useful to ground these discussion in the history we know, and not the history we might wish.
 
- I think the only way the South will accept a re-admission is if they get even more weighting in Congress to counter the increasing numbers of free states. Nobody in the Union is going to accept that. So no.

- Assuming Lincoln does have to fire the first shot - in OTL the South was very willing to do that for him - the barrier for acceptance would be lowered to some degree. It's not going to be a big change, since 'preserve the Union' was always the stated goal of the ACW rather than something like 'get revenge' or something, but it does mean that embarrassing reverses during the first few months, like 1st Bull Run are going to have greater impact on the war. And the first few months were indeed important to the rest of the ACW.

- Depends on how the CSA is aborted. If you mean the states return to the USA without additional rights, then paid emancipation happens. Reconstruction won't happen, but similarly you could argue that the Southern backlash over reconstruction doesn't happen either. The southern economy would still be dampened and continue to lag in the long run, since pro-Northern economic policies were passed in quick succession as the Southern states seceded.

But if the CSA is readmitted on better terms than before, then we continue to see pro-South social and economic policies, which will definitely retard the growth of the US as a whole.

- There will be breakaway movements, definitely, probably on the issue of tariffs and somesuch. That's why the South will have to turn to adventuring to keep the whole country together. European pressure in response will only unite the South further against a common enemy. Over time I think strong leaders (probably tied to the military) will arise in the South and restrict states' rights, bolstered by this growing sense of 'Southern-ness'. The first few decades will make or break the CSA, though.

- Border states will suffer from increased military policing and such for the duration of the Lincoln administration, and will remain resentful for it. I can't see a Lincoln who lets the Deep South go emancipating the slaves, because that is definitely something that will increase the drive for the border states to leave. Eventually politicians will probably reason that the expense of keeping the border states in is not worth the benefits they bring - the precedent of the CSA looms large here - and so Washington will probably eventually allow them to choose, moving the capital to Philadelphia for good measure.
 
Top