The confederacy lose the war in one year

Lincoln would live longer though, maybe he would abolish slavery in his second term.

How? Bring the South back into the Union
in 1862 or 1863 they would, without even
having to breathe hard, block any Congress-
ions attempts to abolish it; not to mention
amending the Constitution to do so. And
Lincoln & the Republicans were committed
to not touching slavery where it already ex-
isted, which they probably couldn’t have done anyway.

This is why I think (& a # of contempor-
aries thought)that the South was STUPID
to secede. They could have defended slavery
much more effectively had they stayed in the
Union, instead of leaving it.
 
How? Bring the South back into the Union
in 1862 or 1863 they would, without even
having to breathe hard, block any Congress-
ions attempts to abolish it; not to mention
amending the Constitution to do so. And
Lincoln & the Republicans were committed
to not touching slavery where it already ex-
isted, which they probably couldn’t have done anyway.

This is why I think (& a # of contempor-
aries thought)that the South was STUPID
to secede. They could have defended slavery
much more effectively had they stayed in the
Union, instead of leaving it.

Another possibility is the slave states could have proposed a secession amendment, which probably would have passed. If anybody had tried to propose a constitutional amendment banning slavery, the south could have said “we’re leaving good bye.”
 
how many got hung in OTL, after 4 years of bloody awful war? Not many. In this ATL, with a much less bloody war, there would likely not be any, unless someone in the south did something really beyond the pale...
Was anyone punished let alone executed for the treasonous secession. From what I read, more people were punished in the North for disloyalty than South.
 
Only so far as it was States' rights to continue slavery. Look at e.g. Virginia's declaration of secession. It explicitly cites slavery.

Yeah I don't know why people seem to forget Slavery was the Root cause.

That said States Rights is an important "side question" that the war did answer (no you can't secede)

And old (outdated) thread I had wondered what would happen if the South won de facto independence, got diplomatic ties with European powers, but USA still considered it part of them. "La la la, we didn't collect a dollar in taxes, get a electoral vote, issue a military order, enforce law, or deliver mail in the last 30 years, but they are still part of USA. We just have a bit on an enforcement problem, but it's legally ours" kind of how China treats Taiwan. And America, which has dealings with Taiwan, doesn't bring this up to Chinese ambassadors since that's rude to rock the boat. Does that establish the precedent States have a right to secede, or would the legality of sucession still be like OTL?
 
Was anyone punished let alone executed for the treasonous secession. From what I read, more people were punished in the North for disloyalty than South.

Treason is a question of numbers.

Overt pro-Confederates were a small minority in the North, so could be dealt with. OTOH, down South, where the "traitors" numbered in millions, it was impossible to punish all of them, and choosing scapegoats would merely antagonise the rest and make postwar reconciliation that much harder. So nobody bothered.
 
The problem was that it was just not about slavery continuing to exist where it did. The slave states, particularly those that did secede, saw that even under "popular sovereignty" you weren't going to see an expansion of slavery, and that in some slave states it was clear that it was in the way out. Fighting against "liberty laws", which many states enacted which said a slave who set foot in that state was free, the fugitive slave act, and continual attempts to redo deals about where slavery might become legal in territories all show it was not about allowing slavery where it existed but guaranteeing it everywhere. After all, in theory, if slaves are considered protected property, there is nothing to prevent somebody moving "north" with a bunch of slaves and setting up an agricultural enterprise using that labor, even if that state is a free state.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" (Constitution of the Confederate States of America) This makes it pretty clear how important the CSA thought slavery was.

Even with the 3/5 clause the south had pretty much lost control of the House of Representatives by 1860 (57/241 representatives were from the states that seceded, 24/241 from border states that still had slavery but did not secede). In the Senate there were 17 free states, 4 border states, and 11 slave states who seceded. The reality was that no new slave states were being added, the old compromise of one of each being admitted was falling apart under demographic and economic reality. The legislative balance had turned against the slave states, and was only going to keep going in that direction.
 
Top