The confederacy lose the war in one year

I would see a increase in the addition of free states in the union. Probably some sort of limited reconstruction. At the time the argument was states rights. Maybe have the southern states pass legislation that bans or weakens slavery in those states. Maybe after the southern states rejoin the union(or some states do) a agreement that any free man regardless of skin color counts as a full person for the census.(getting the 3/5 out of the Constitution) while not making slavery illegal, it would give the south a chance to gain if they free slaves.
 
I think you'd still see pardons. The war wouldn't have been too bloody, and surrender would have been pretty quick.

You'd probably see a round 2 in the 1930s.
 
At the time the argument was states rights.
Only so far as it was States' rights to continue slavery. Look at e.g. Virginia's declaration of secession. It explicitly cites slavery.
States' rights as the primary cause is Lost Cause revisionism.

That said, on the Union side, the issue was holding the Union together. Lincoln himself was prepared to guarantee the status of slavery in existing slave states, and would be quite prepared to make it federal law or even a constitutional amendment if it got the war over more quickly.
 
That said, on the Union side, the issue was holding the Union together. Lincoln himself was prepared to guarantee the status of slavery in existing slave states, and would be quite prepared to make it federal law or even a constitutional amendment if it got the war over more quickly.

What would it take for this to be offered, and for the South to except it? Possibly if Bull Run ended as a bloody stalemate and all the signs were that the rest of the War would be nasty, brutish snd long?
 
Last edited:
Lincoln would live longer though, maybe he would abolish slavery in his second term.

How? If the South has been readmitted by then (pretty certain if they lose by mid-1862) they can block any Amendment to that effect.

And would Lincoln have a second term anyway? A single term was the norm in that era.
 

DougM

Donor
Lincoln May have been willing to allow slavery to continue but it never would have been given the protection of a constitutional amendment. At least not after the civil war started. He would never get the enough states to ratify it.
The northern states were not happy with the south. Between the south’s 3/5 rule that gave southern white males a more powerful vote, and the way the south used that to effectively get thier way for decades up to and including passing laws that in effect forced slavery on the north such as the fugitive slave act and the decision that a slaver holder can travel for indefinite time in a free state with his slaves and such and you have a north that is not happy with slavery.
It was not so much that they wanted to end it in the south as it was they were sick of the south trying to extend it elsewhere. So no way are they going to agree to ratify an amendment that perseveres slavery. And that goes double after the south tried to leave and fought even a short war.
By the way this also pretty much proves the war was not about states rights other then the states right to slavery. As the south was perfectly willing to see all sorts of laws passed that stamped all over states rights to not allow slaves.
You can’t say you are pro states rights then say that the anti slavery states MUST allow you to bring in your slaves for a long term visit. In effect that forces the other states to accept slavery inside thier own state. That is hardly the strong defense of states rights that the whole lost cause myth tries to sell.
 
Last edited:
What would it take for this to be offered, and for the South to except it? Possibly if Bull Run ended as a bloody stalemate and all the signs were that the rest of the War would be nasty, brutish snd long?
I suspect that the Union would have to win a couple of very bloody battles. Such that the South knows they can't win, but that the North realizes how much it would cost in lives, money and devastation to force a completely military victory.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Maybe Lee accepts command of the Union army?
If Lee had taken control of the Union army it's actually very likely that he would have washed out in the first 6 month because the army he's commanding just isn't very good, even if he was good officer

McClellan was a bad battlefield commander but pretty good at building the army
 
If Lee had taken control of the Union army it's actually very likely that he would have washed out in the first 6 month because the army he's commanding just isn't very good, even if he was good officer

McClellan was a bad battlefield commander but pretty good at building the army

So you need at least six months of McClelland to build up the army before Lee can take command?
 
Top