What happens if to Lincoln and Republicans if they lose the war early?

What if the south is able to win the war and gain independence? What happens to Lincoln and the republicans? Wouldn’t Lincoln be totally discredited as a politician? Will Republican Party disappear after the war? Wouldn’t losing half the country or being blamed for the south leaving make them be seen as incompetent especially considering it is a war many original thought would be easy to win?
 
What if the south is able to win the war and gain independence? What happens to Lincoln and the republicans? Wouldn’t Lincoln be totally discredited as a politician? Will Republican Party disappear after the war? Wouldn’t losing half the country or being blamed for the south leaving make them be seen as incompetent especially considering it is a war many original thought would be easy to win?

How CAN the North lose quickly? The South is incapable of conquering the US and Lincoln is not going to give up. The entire war shows that. He is POUS until 1864 so the war is going to continue until at least early 1865.
 
How CAN the North lose quickly? The South is incapable of conquering the US and Lincoln is not going to give up. The entire war shows that. He is POUS until 1864 so the war is going to continue until at least early 1865.
A political loss maybe? A string of really bad, decisive tactical losses in a row, across a few fronts, and maybe a lucky Confederate assault on Washington could break political will to keep fighting the war. Public opinion early-war was really hit-and-miss as it was IOTL, ya know.
 
How CAN the North lose quickly? The South is incapable of conquering the US and Lincoln is not going to give up. The entire war shows that. He is POUS until 1864 so the war is going to continue until at least early 1865.
I started to write a reply arguing that a big enough setback in the war might have been able to swing the midterm elections enough for Peace Democrats to be able to block funding for the war in 1863, but in researching it I found two big problems with my idea:
  1. It would have taken a huge setback to swing public opinion enough to elect a Peace Democrat majority: the OTL 1862 elections were not close (Republicans and Unionists combined for about 79% of the Senate and about 60% of the House), and not all Democrats in Congress were Peace Democrats. The Republican/Unionist/War Democrat coaltion would have held a majority of the Senate no matter what, and it would take something on the level of Lee outright winning the Maryland Campaign to put the House in play.
  2. Even if Peace Democrats won a House majority in the 1862 elections, the old Congress would still have had their lame duck session to pass legislation. They could have passed an "emergency" war appropriations bill authorizing funding for the war in advance, which would have required a positive act of legislation to repeal (a majority in both houses plus Lincoln's signature, or a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto, neither or which is happening no matter how badly the midterm elections went). And by the time the lame duck Congress's emergency appropriations run out, we're into 1864 at least, which isn't really an "early" Confederate victory.
Basically, an early victory for the Confederacy would require enough outright wins on the battlefield to convince even Lincoln and all but the most fervent of Congressional Republicans and Unionists that the war was hopelessly lost, and that's a very hard POD to contrive.
 

Marc

Donor
I started to write a reply arguing that a big enough setback in the war might have been able to swing the midterm elections enough for Peace Democrats to be able to block funding for the war in 1863, but in researching it I found two big problems with my idea:
  1. It would have taken a huge setback to swing public opinion enough to elect a Peace Democrat majority: the OTL 1862 elections were not close (Republicans and Unionists combined for about 79% of the Senate and about 60% of the House), and not all Democrats in Congress were Peace Democrats. The Republican/Unionist/War Democrat coaltion would have held a majority of the Senate no matter what, and it would take something on the level of Lee outright winning the Maryland Campaign to put the House in play.
  2. Even if Peace Democrats won a House majority in the 1862 elections, the old Congress would still have had their lame duck session to pass legislation. They could have passed an "emergency" war appropriations bill authorizing funding for the war in advance, which would have required a positive act of legislation to repeal (a majority in both houses plus Lincoln's signature, or a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto, neither or which is happening no matter how badly the midterm elections went). And by the time the lame duck Congress's emergency appropriations run out, we're into 1864 at least, which isn't really an "early" Confederate victory.
Basically, an early victory for the Confederacy would require enough outright wins on the battlefield to convince even Lincoln and all but the most fervent of Congressional Republicans and Unionists that the war was hopelessly lost, and that's a very hard POD to contrive.

What the Civil War buried for the most part is the entire Napoleonic, as elaborated seminally by Clausewitz, idea of a decisive victory or two that decided the outcome of a conflict. (One of the concepts that apparently Lee clung to until near the end).
As I have suggested in some other posts, the contrary of this thread is far more likely: that the South loses much more quickly. And that notion is based on a quicker, more successful. execution of the North's Anaconda strategy.
 
I started to write a reply arguing that a big enough setback in the war might have been able to swing the midterm elections enough for Peace Democrats to be able to block funding for the war in 1863, but in researching it I found two big problems with my idea:
  1. It would have taken a huge setback to swing public opinion enough to elect a Peace Democrat majority: the OTL 1862 elections were not close (Republicans and Unionists combined for about 79% of the Senate and about 60% of the House), and not all Democrats in Congress were Peace Democrats. The Republican/Unionist/War Democrat coaltion would have held a majority of the Senate no matter what, and it would take something on the level of Lee outright winning the Maryland Campaign to put the House in play.
  2. Even if Peace Democrats won a House majority in the 1862 elections, the old Congress would still have had their lame duck session to pass legislation. They could have passed an "emergency" war appropriations bill authorizing funding for the war in advance, which would have required a positive act of legislation to repeal (a majority in both houses plus Lincoln's signature, or a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto, neither or which is happening no matter how badly the midterm elections went). And by the time the lame duck Congress's emergency appropriations run out, we're into 1864 at least, which isn't really an "early" Confederate victory.
Basically, an early victory for the Confederacy would require enough outright wins on the battlefield to convince even Lincoln and all but the most fervent of Congressional Republicans and Unionists that the war was hopelessly lost, and that's a very hard POD to contrive.
What if Lincoln and Republicans are more heavy handed early on? Won’t that increase succession support in some places and increase opposition within the union?
 
Basically, an early victory for the Confederacy would require enough outright wins on the battlefield to convince even Lincoln and all but the most fervent of Congressional Republicans and Unionists that the war was hopelessly lost, and that's a very hard POD to contrive.

What would happen if by August 1861, Lincoln is either running around the North and begging for a new army, and northern states are refusing to raise it, or he is dead or a Confederate prisoner of war?
 
What if Lincoln and other Northern Political bigwigs are captured in the 'Great Skedaddle' following first Manassas?

Could the South trade them for peace?

AS to the question at hand I think the Republicans would be toast. The Democrats would have to face off against what ever post-War party rises from Lincoln's ashes. There is a chance for extremists to fill the vacuum.
 
A political loss maybe? A string of really bad, decisive tactical losses in a row, across a few fronts, and maybe a lucky Confederate assault on Washington could break political will to keep fighting the war. Public opinion early-war was really hit-and-miss as it was IOTL, ya know.

That doesn't matter, Lincoln is Commander in Chief and he controls the army. The only thing Congress can do about that is to cut off funds, the last time that was tried a party was destroyed.
 
That doesn't matter, Lincoln is Commander in Chief and he controls the army. The only thing Congress can do about that is to cut off funds, the last time that was tried a party was destroyed.
They could try that, and might with that national mindset, honestly. Beyond that... assassination, Lincoln stepping down, Lincoln stepping down from depression. There’s a lot of options that aren’t necessarily ASB, even though a Confederate military victory is mostly ASB.
 
What if Lincoln and other Northern Political bigwigs are captured in the 'Great Skedaddle' following first Manassas?

Could the South trade them for peace?

AS to the question at hand I think the Republicans would be toast. The Democrats would have to face off against what ever post-War party rises from Lincoln's ashes. There is a chance for extremists to fill the vacuum.

Three problems with that
1) The CSA Army was far too disorginized for that after the battle
2) There were unengaged US troops , at Centerville IIRC
3) They would have to take the capital BEFORE Lincoln etc. retreat themselves and it is quite possible Lincoln would have rather be executed and have Hamlin take over than surrender.
 
They could try that, and might with that national mindset, honestly. Beyond that... assassination, Lincoln stepping down, Lincoln stepping down from depression. There’s a lot of options that aren’t necessarily ASB, even though a Confederate military victory is mostly ASB.
Lincoln stepping down or dying = President Hamlin who was more radical than Lincoln ever was. Good luck with that.
 
Lincoln stepping down or dying = President Hamlin who was more radical than Lincoln ever was. Good luck with that.
More radical president=more alienated Senate, which was wishy-washy at best towards the war at best during certain points in even OTL. Plus, the Presidential election could be shifted in result really easily mid-war to a “Peace” candidate. The North sticking with it is not a done deal, is my point.
 
More radical president=more alienated Senate, which was wishy-washy at best towards the war at best during certain points in even OTL. Plus, the Presidential election could be shifted in result really easily mid-war to a “Peace” candidate. The North sticking with it is not a done deal, is my point.

Enough to cut off funds in a war that the US is still fighting and dying in? I doubt it. They would be massacred in 1864 and know it.
 
They could try that, and might with that national mindset, honestly. Beyond that... assassination, Lincoln stepping down, Lincoln stepping down from depression. There’s a lot of options that aren’t necessarily ASB, even though a Confederate military victory is mostly ASB.
True, but if the union is unstable enough or distracted with domestic issues a confederate victory is not out of the question. If the CSA stays more organized they could win more by catching the union in a bad position more so then individual merit. People downplay the power of lobbying in the US. Third party interest presents a much larger issue in the US then it does in the more unitary states like seen in European. The north might have to worry about short term business interest unintentionally screwing them.
 
Lincoln stepping down or dying = President Hamlin who was more radical than Lincoln ever was. Good luck with that.
Couldn’t that drive more to secede if early on? I think Lincoln was smart waiting for a big victory before acting on some stuff. Wouldn’t a more extreme leader push for a lot of stuff right away that would alienate some and increase opposition?
 
True, but if the union is unstable enough or distracted with domestic issues a confederate victory is not out of the question. If the CSA stays more organized they could win more by catching the union in a bad position more so then individual merit. People downplay the power of lobbying in the US. Third party interest presents a much larger issue in the US then it does in the more unitary states like seen in European. The north might have to worry about short term business interest unintentionally screwing them.
That's part of what I was trying to say! :) The US may have had all the numerical and productive advantages, but real life isn't a computer game, and we only see all that now because of hindsight.
 
Top