The Union Preserved without Emancipation

That makes a difference. If Bull Run was a decisive Union victory (and it easily could have been), the Confederacy could unravel almost immediately.

At this point, Lincoln would oppose any program of immediate emancipation. Such a program would lack a constitutional basis and would endanger the swift resolution of the secession crisis.

However, in the longer term Lincoln would support programs or policies which would lead to eventual emancipation.
Of course, such a slow emancipation would possibly incur backlash North and South. Backlash that may ensure a one-term Lincoln presidency, and perhaps with enough time and some unlucky breaks, the right to own slaves even enshrined in an amendment. Or something. In short, gradual emancipation is not guaranteed if a quick emancipation is not achieved.
 
That was quite true, but there was more vocal opposition at the time(like hardline abolitionists seeing it as a pro-slavery document and W.L. Garrison burned it).


Indeed, but whom did they speak for?

The Abolitionist candidate, Gerrit Smith, came absolutely nowhere in 1860. And Garrison also said "I spit on George Washington." (for being a slaveholder) but the number of Americans who concurred could probably be counted on your fingers. Ditto where the Constitution was concerned.
 

samcster94

Banned
Indeed, but whom did they speak for?

The Abolitionist candidate, Gerrit Smith, came absolutely nowhere in 1860. And Garrison also said "I spit on George Washington." (for being a slaveholder) but the number of Americans who concurred could probably be counted on your fingers. Ditto where the Constitution was concerned.
This group was too geographically limited and wasn't politically viable. They also lost points for backing John Brown(who had some good arguments that might be sound if he had not turned to violence),a Calvinist who wanted a slave uprising. My point was I can't see diehard Sanders fans(their 2018 equivalent) make that argument today.
 
Lincoln famously said that if he could have avoided the Civil War he would have, even if it left slavery intact, but was that ever a reasonable possibility, either before or after secession? I suppose the answer lies with the fire-eaters, but what position could they have been persuaded to adopt that would ensure the survival of their peculiar institution?

To be quite honest, I'm afraid not under OTL's circumstances; by 1860 a very large number of people in the North outright opposed slavery and would not have readily accepted the Union just giving up on abolition, especially not after the South tried to break the country apart. So, with that, I concur with @Anarch King of Dipsodes on this one:

What the ????

Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of 1863, which de jure freed about 3/4 of the slaves. There would be no going back from that.

And Lincoln tried other methods to end slavery during the war.

By mid-1863, the great majority of Northern men had decided that whether slavery should be abolished for moral reasons, it was a perpetual danger to the Union and must be abolished for that reason.

I cannot see any evidence that after an earlier victory, Lincoln would not pursue a program of complete and final abolition. It might be gradual and would take some years, but he would be on board with any program that did not threaten disruption of the Union.

Not to mention his personal strong distaste of slavery would have driven such aims as well, at least by as much as could be possible, anyway.
 
Top