South does not secede in 1860/1

Too pro-Democratic, I think. A Republican Party that can play as sort of a 'White Working Man's' party in the South will make OTL border slave states potential swing states too. On the whole, I see the GOP as stronger than the Whigs, partly because of demographic and economic change, though i think the Democratic Party still has some advantage if it can avoid crazy factionalism. Remember that OTL Southern democrat leaders pushed the factionalism because even though it hurt the party as a whole, it increased their power personally.


Too Democratic in what way?

They only need to do a couple of percentage points better than OTL - and TTL they are not under a cloud for suspected wartime disloyalty, nor is there any "Grand Army of the Republic" to rally votes against them - and of course there's no black vote even in most of the north.

In 1868 the popular General Grant, running while the war was still fresh in everybody's mind, carried CT and IN by less than three percentage points, and couldn't carry NY or NJ at all. In 1880 and 1888 Garfield and Harrison carried NY and IN by less than two percent. That's all the shift the Democrats need.

As for forming an antislavery party in the South - well, as David T has already noted, states like KY and DE were turning down Lincoln's gradual emancipation proposals even when slavery was clearly doomed, and clinging on to the institution until the bitter end in Dec 1865. And look at the lopsided majorities by which KY rejected Lincoln in 1864 and Grant in 1868. And (given the rarity of two-term presidencies in this era) Lincoln almost certainly has only four years in which to do it - four years in which the Democrats control both houses of Congress, and his patronage consists of little more than a few Postmasters and the like. And even these have to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Sure he was a capable politician, but how much can he really do under such conditions?
 
Last edited:
Any Whig with substantial commitment to slavery won't join the Republicans. nor will Lincoln or anyone else try to get them to join. They don't want the slavery issue to tear apart the party. The Republicans are against slavery. Period. They won't alter that to win votes in the South.


In that case what point is there in bothering?

Even in states like VA, KY and TN around one in four families owned slaves. Add to that nonslaveholding relatives of slaveholders, young men on the make who weren't slaveholders yet but expected to become such when they'd made some money, and tradesmen whose biggest customers were slaveholders, and you've got an enormous interest. Even Andrew Johnson, the spokesman of the poorer Whites in TN, voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act and other proslavery legislation. His constituents might not like big Whig planters, but they weren't against slavery per se.

And even DE, where only one family in thirty owned slaves, still held out against abolition right to the very end. So what's the likelihood of building up a serious political force even in the Border states, let alone further down, without the support of significant numbers of slaveholders?
 
Too Democratic in what way?

They only need to do a couple of percentage points better than OTL - and TTL they are not under a cloud for suspected wartime disloyalty, nor is there any "Grand Army of the Republic" to rally votes against them - and of course there's no black vote even in most of the north.

In 1868 the popular General Grant, running while the war was still fresh in everybody's m ind, carried CT and IN by less than three percentage points, and couldn't carry NY or NJ at all. In 1880 and 1888 Garfield and Harrison carried NY and IN by less than two percent. That's all the shift the Democrats need.

As for forming an antislavery party in the South - well, as David T has already noted, states like KY and DE were turning down Lincoln's gradual emancipation proposals even when slavery was clearly doomed, and clinging on to the institution until the bitter end in Dec 1865. And look at the lopsided majorities by which KY rejected Lincoln in 1864 and Grant in 1868. And (given the rarity of two-term presidencies in this era) Lincoln almost certainly has only four years in which to do it - four years in which the Democrats control both houses of Congress, and his patronage consists of little more than a few Postmasters and the like. And even these have to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Sure he was a capable politician, but how much can he really do under such conditions?

Your analysis assumes 1) the Democrats will get over the factionalism and the slave South portion will get over their hysteria and their demands for concessions; 2) that the Republicans won't be able to position themselves in some states not as the anti-slavery party but as the party of putting limits on slavery to keep slaves from competing with white men; and 3) that OTL election results from when the Republicans had clearly become a 'radical' emancipation party have a strong bearing on an ATL where they aren't.

I don't think any of those are good assumptions, especially the first one.
 
Your analysis assumes 1) the Democrats will get over the factionalism and the slave South portion will get over their hysteria and their demands for concessions; 2) that the Republicans won't be able to position themselves in some states not as the anti-slavery party but as the party of putting limits on slavery to keep slaves from competing with white men; and 3) that OTL election results from when the Republicans had clearly become a 'radical' emancipation party have a strong bearing on an ATL where they aren't.

I don't think any of those are good assumptions, especially the first one.

Well, one thing that will definitely help the Democrats get over their factionalism will be Douglas's death. I would not underestimate the extent to which personal hatred of him after his "apostasy" on Lecompton contributed to the Democrats' rupture. In 1864, is the South really going to split the party on what everyone can see is the utterly unrealistic demand for a slave code for the territories? A few die-hards in SC and elsewhere, but nothing like 1860 IMO.
 
Something exceedingly important that tends to get neglected in these sorts of discussions is that the case of Lemmon v. New York is working its way up to the Supreme Court at this point. The Lemmons were appealing to the court system to argue that New York had no constitutional right to emancipate their slaves, or to bar them from bringing their private property into the state.

Considering the Taney Court, there's a significant chance (and it was widely believed, both by abolitionists and by slavery supporters) that the Supreme Court would indeed support the argument of the Lemmons, thus depriving states of the power to bar slavery. IOTL, this was pre-empted by secession and so the case was never heard. Such a ruling would spark civil war, though it's not clear of what sort.
 
The problem with a delayed Civil War is that the level of tension is just too high. You have a party with a popular platform plank in the North that is a literal death sentence in the South, even the Upper South. This is not hyperbole - open support of this issue in the South could and did get people murdered. the authorities would not lift a finder, and the issue in question is not tariffs, just to head that off at the pass.

It's not a very stable equilibrium when one party's platform plank will literally get you killed in a large chunk of the country. Considering that Lincoln taking the oath of office is what sent the South out, I think the PoD has to be pretty far back. Maybe keep the Whigs around longer?
 
Effects of Lemmon winning

I'm imagining a South Carolinian buying a tavern or a boarding house in a busy part of Boston putting up a whipping pole where it could be seen from the street and beating a slave to death.

The next time that happens, someone shoots the South Carolinian before he finishes and claims he was doing it to save the Slave's life. Refusal to prosecute by the Massachusetts prosecutor/government...

Hmm...
 
The *Lemmon* case is interesting. Of course the Lemmons did not assert the right to bring slaves to New York to hold them permanently--but only to pass through the state with them as part of a "transit" or "sojourn" to another slave state. The problem is that while "transit" is inherently for a very short time, "sojourn" can be for years--as with Dred Scott's owner John Emerson, who as an Army surgeon was frequnently transferred by Army command.

I doubt that very many southerners are going to take advantage of a favorable ruling in the *Lemmon* case for the same reason that few used their *Dred Scott* right to take slaves into the territories--it generally didn't make economic sense. This is not to deny that in a few cases it will lead to clashes--but probably less than the Fugitive Slave Act did.
 
In that case what point is there in bothering?

Lots of reasons.

First, votes are votes, and offices won are still offices. Even as a minority party in the state, the Republicans can still win office as state legislators, local offices, and members of the House. That matters. If the Republicans can add even one or two members in Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland that is more than they had before. If they can get a few in all of the Upper South, even better, even though the rest of the state delegation is all pro-slavery. Those extra votes matter.

Second, having an explicitly anti-slavery party changes the debate in the south. In 1860, any deviation from a pro-slavery position is anathema. It is not enough to be against abolition, you must be in favor of slavery's expansion. However, once a local Republican party is formed - no matter how small or regional - then you have people who are openly known to be against slavery. Who even if they don't argue for abolition, will argue for limiting it in the territories, or against mail censorship, or against the gag rule. In some states, they'll even be able to argue for compensated emancipation right off the bat. They may be minority views in 1860 but simply by having local Southerners make them, the terms of the debate changes. What is unthinkable in 1860 becomes something people hear and talk about in the 1860s, becomes plausible in the 1870s, and can be enacted in the 1880s and later.

Third, it's one thing for southerners to demonize unknown Yankee "Black Republicans" and go into hysterics about it. It's another when your neighbor who is now the postmaster identifies as a Republican. Or when a local party committee forms to field candidates and begins approaching people to run for local office. It's much harder to demonize people you know and obviously aren't trying to destroy your community or hate you.

Fourth, having an organization in the South - no matter how small - gives the party leaders in the North intelligence, and an ability to influence local events. Just in case another secession crisis hits, pro-Unionist forces will be ready for it - to debate it, or perhaps even to act against secessionist forces.

Fifth, even as a minority party, the Republicans proved in the 1860 election that they can win provided the opposition is divided. A corollary to that is they may be able to form coalitions with another party and influence the agenda that way. What happens if the minority Republican party in Kentucky legislature prevents any party from having a majority, but has the votes to elect a Constitutional Unionist speaker? They can still influence the legislature for that session even without having one of their own as Speaker.

Sixth, simply because certain Republican goals aren't achievable in the southern states in 1860 does not mean that some of them can't be achieved in some states later on. But the local party needs to be formed first. They may only be a minority party at first and only present in certain regions of the states, but the Republicans have room to grow in those parts of the South that were heavily pro-Union. Even if they only control one third of the TN legislature by 1870 for example, that's something. Even if compensated emancipation can't be passed in 1860 in any of the Border States, that isn't to say it can't be passed by 1870 in some of them.

I find the very question strange. "Why even bother?" Because that is what political parties do. And because once patronage jobs have to be dispensed, you'll be having people coming to Lincoln to get those jobs. OF COURSE he is going to form an embryonic Republican Party in the south. He can't help it otherwise. I can't even fathom how he couldn't.
 
The *Lemmon* case is interesting. Of course the Lemmons did not assert the right to bring slaves to New York to hold them permanently--but only to pass through the state with them as part of a "transit" or "sojourn" to another slave state. The problem is that while "transit" is inherently for a very short time, "sojourn" can be for years--as with Dred Scott's owner John Emerson, who as an Army surgeon was frequnently transferred by Army command.

I doubt that very many southerners are going to take advantage of a favorable ruling in the *Lemmon* case for the same reason that few used their *Dred Scott* right to take slaves into the territories--it generally didn't make economic sense. This is not to deny that in a few cases it will lead to clashes--but probably less than the Fugitive Slave Act did.

It's quite possible that the Supreme Court would use the Lemmon opportunity to make a broader ruling though, like they did for Dred Scott.

A relevant quote from the Dred Scott decision:

A question has been alluded to, on the argument, namely: the right of the master with his slave of transit into or through a free State, on business or commercial pursuits, or in the exercise of a Federal right, or the discharge of a Federal duty, being a citizen of the United States, which is not before us. This question depends upon different considerations and principles from the one in hand, and turns upon the rights and privileged secured to a common citizen of the republic under the Constitution of the United States. When that question arises, we shall be prepared to decide it.
- Justice Nelson
 
Buj it can't be done because Presidential elections make the opposition party paranoid and insane. That's why our GOP's like it is about Obama.

TheYoungPretender was right.

It needs an earller POD, I'm afraid. I must say the easiest way strikes me as EARLIER Civil War.
 
I find the very question strange. "Why even bother?" Because that is what political parties do. And because once patronage jobs have to be dispensed, you'll be having people coming to Lincoln to get those jobs. OF COURSE he is going to form an embryonic Republican Party in the south. He can't help it otherwise. I can't even fathom how he couldn't.



Hasn't The Young Pretender already answered this?

Joining the Republican Party almost anywhere in the South (bar the odd corner like St Louis or Wheeling) would be tantamount to suicide. If they got off with tar and feathers they could count themselves lucky. It would be like being a Mormon in Lilburn Boggs' Missouri!

And you've ignored my main point - that to stand any chance it would need the support of important numbers of slaveholders. Any party which cried "unclean" and said that only non-slaveholders need apply would be an impotent (and eminently lynchable) minority.
 
Last edited:
Joining the Republican Party almost anywhere in the South (bar the odd corner like St Louis or Wheeling) would be tantamount to suicide. If they got off with tar and feathers they could count themselves lucky. It would be like being a Mormon in Lilburn Boggs' MissouriI

And you've ignored my main point - that to stand any chance it would need the support of important numbers of slaveholders. Any party which cried "unclean" and said that only non-slaveholders need apply would be an impotent (and eminently lynchable) minority.

I'll put it with a little less punchy, something I'll freely admit to indulging in.

The sort of political movement Blackfox5 is describing is quite plausible - when the two opposing arguments are both considered legitimate things to discuss in a public space. The issue with abolition in the South in 1860 and the time leading up to it was that it was regarded as something with no place in the public space, period. It was not supported, talked about - and beyond that, part of being in public life was displaying that you didn't even think about it privately. To even be somebody, you had to show you were on the same page with the South's culture and way of life. Local units of government could and did open the mail to check on whether people were talking abolition - and no-one minded because abolition was one of those things.

So it's very hard to have even the start of any slow roll where you get the start of a Republican patronage system in the South. Historically, those jobs would got to local elites or their clients - and in the South at that time, stepping up to be that elite got people killed.
 
I doubt that very many southerners are going to take advantage of a favorable ruling in the *Lemmon* case for the same reason that few used their *Dred Scott* right to take slaves into the territories--it generally didn't make economic sense. This is not to deny that in a few cases it will lead to clashes--but probably less than the Fugitive Slave Act did.


Is it possible that the whole Lemmon business was a bit of a red herring, and that the real danger lay elsewhere?

In the 1860s, iirc, there were already one or two Northern states which barred negroes - even free ones - from residing within their boundaries. If this is held constitutional (and I can hardly see the Taney SCOTUS ruling otherwise) then presumably such states would also have the right to put conditions on a free black's right of residence, eg forbidding him to carry weapons, and/or restricting him to particular forms of employment, such as agricultural labour or domestic service.

Could we end up with parts of the North adopting something akin to the Black Codes of the immediately postwar South? The danger probably isn't immediate, as the large majority of Northern states had Republican legislatures in 1861, but presumably that won't be the case forever, and the northern Democrats, if they haven't already, are likely to soon notice that being anti-Black is far safer electoral ground than being pro-Southern.

Even if things don't go that far, if an increasing number of Free States simply ban negro immigration, that could make it a good deal harder for runaway slaves to avoid capture - they will have fewer free compatriots among whom to hide.
 
Top