What if the South Does Not Rebel?

[Kaptin Kurk]

How is American history changed if, after Abraham Lincoln is elected, the hotheads in the South are somehow constrained and there is no rebellion, instead they pursue their interest through the Supreme Court and Senate. What PoDs are necessary for this?

 

[unprincipled peter]

I'm thinking you need an alternate to James Buchanan, who pretty much encouraged a civil war, or at a minimum, diddled so much as to ensure the animosity grew. IMO, he's the worst president ever (a heady distinction when one has lived through the times of Bush the younger and Obama, but they're much more recent, so get a discount while waiting for emotions to subside)

 

[Dave Howery]

problem is, the south was losing out in the Senate (and House and White House), because the north's population was growing in leaps and bounds... the equal match of free states and slave states was not going to hold much longer... CA already broke the stalemate by being admitted as a free state, and most of the remaining territories are going to go the same way. The south just can't stay in the game much longer. The SC was kept pro south mainly because the Presidents tended to be pro south and they appointed pro south Justices, but Lincoln's election ended that, and the south saw that they were far too disunited to keep electing pro south Presidents. So, the issue is going to come to a head sooner or later, no matter what...

 

[President Sam Houston]

Once Lincoln was elected in November of 1860, the potential PODs that could realistically halt the civil war were extremely limited, in my view.

Could some sort of great compromise be brokered to convince the seceeding states to rejoin the union? I am not sure. I think most Republicans (moderate and radical), would not want to give too many concessions to the seceded states, and thereby set a precedent that rebellious states can extract political gain by just rebelling. Outside of guaranteeing that slavery would be protected and legal in the territories, I don't think the seceded states listen to other potential settlement terms.

Now if your POD is say any time after 1857, then you got many potential realistic timelines that do not have a civil war, but such a POD likely butterflies away the Lincoln presidency in 1861.

 

[snali]

if civil war did not happen then america could then be more focus on industrialist policies because slavery has to end as the north has tipped the balance of power in it favor and the industrialization would to a more imperialist foreign policy like an earlier Spanish american war and other imperialist adventures

 

[Lost the game]

Here's a scenario:

1. the 1850 Compromise is settled with popular sovereignty, so that California is flooded with southerners moving there specifically to vote on a pro-slavery constitution. This leads to a sort of "Bleeding California"
2. Franklin Pierce is elected POTUS, and supports an alt-Kansas-Nebraska Act
3. Events similar to Bleeding Kansas still play out, only a year or two earlier
4. The Sureme Court rules on a Lemmon vs New York type ruling which effectively invalidates antislavery laws
5. Riots break out across the North as fears of a slaveocrat takeover ensues, and sensationalist journalists stoke fears among the working class and immigrants that factory owners will come and replace them with slaves
6. A mob attacks a group of slave catchers as they pursue an escaped slave across the free states
7. After refusing to deal with the mob and rescue the slave catchers, a border slave state calls out its militia to do the job
8. the free state's militia is called out to resist the aforementioned slave state's militia
9. in response to the growing turmoil, President Pierce declares martial law in the free states
10. the free states resist, calling out their own militias.
11. Massachusetts secedes, followed by the rest of the New England states
12. Frankling Pierce calls for volunteers to suppress the Northern rebellion
13. The rest of the North secedes.
14. The North wins, and takes Utah, the Oregon Country, Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska with it

See? The south didn't rebel

 

[eliphas8]

Here's a scenario:

1. the 1850 Compromise is settled with popular sovereignty, so that California is flooded with southerners moving there specifically to vote on a pro-slavery constitution. This leads to a sort of "Bleeding California"
2. Franklin Pierce is elected POTUS, and supports an alt-Kansas-Nebraska Act
3. Events similar to Bleeding Kansas still play out, only a year or two earlier
4. The Sureme Court rules on a Lemmon vs New York type ruling which effectively invalidates antislavery laws
5. Riots break out across the North as fears of a slaveocrat takeover ensues, and sensationalist journalists stoke fears among the working class and immigrants that factory owners will come and replace them with slaves
6. A mob attacks a group of slave catchers as they pursue an escaped slave across the free states
7. After refusing to deal with the mob and rescue the slave catchers, a border slave state calls out its militia to do the job
8. the free state's militia is called out to resist the aforementioned slave state's militia
9. in response to the growing turmoil, President Pierce declares martial law in the free states
10. the free states resist, calling out their own militias.
11. Massachusetts secedes, followed by the rest of the New England states
12. Frankling Pierce calls for volunteers to suppress the Northern rebellion
13. The rest of the North secedes.
14. The North wins, and takes Utah, the Oregon Country, Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska with it

See? The south didn't rebel

I like the cut of your gib. Also New England independent, awesome.

 

[LOTLOF]

This would require Southern leaders to be willing to give ground. Very hard to imagine. All through the 1850's they had been growing more and more confrontational. ORIGINALLY Lincoln had not sought to outlaw slavery. Regardless of his own personal beliefs he felt he did not have that authority. What he hoped for was to prevent its expansion into the territories. His hope being the system would eventually die a natural death as it proved more and more uneconomical.

Despite what the southern fire eaters kept screaming, most of the north was not abolitionist at this point. The abolitionists were just a very loud minority. What most northerners were however, was sick of having slavery and southern privilege forced down it's throat. It was always the South that forced the issue. Right up until they decided the proper and democratic election of a president was cause for secession.

What you need is for the leaders in South Carolina and elsewhere to actually be more afraid of possible Civil War than having a Republican President. The biggest issue is they truly believed they could leave the union either peacefully or after a short war that they would obviously win. If they are more cautious and willing to give up on slavery in the territories they can keep their peculiar institution. Lincoln was never going to try and free the slaves in the states where it existed.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

How is American history changed if, after Abraham Lincoln is elected, the hotheads in the South are somehow constrained and there is no rebellion, instead they pursue their interest through the Supreme Court and Senate. What PoDs are necessary for this?

I will mention one suggestion made originally by the great Dave Tenner.

When the South Carolina convention met in December 1860, there was a division among the delegates. One faction pressed for an immediate declaration of secession. The other faction wanted South Carolina to act in cooperation with other slave states. They feared that SC might find itself alone.

The immediate secession faction carried the day, arguing that the other slave states were sure to follow SC.

One piece of evidence for this had developed only a few weeks earlier. There had been a ceremony for the completion of a new railroad linking SC and Georgia, attended by many prominent men from both states. The secession question was discussed by the attendees, and the Georgians assured the SCinians that Georgia would follow SC.

Now, had this ceremony been held a month later, or been disrupted by bad weather... it was at least possible that the SC convention would take the "Cooperationist" line: call for a convention of all the slave states to decide on a common course of action.

The convention would have been held no earlier than April 1861, which would allow time for the initial panic and hysteria over Lincoln's election to die down, and for Lincoln to make conciliatory moves. and to demonstrate that he was not inciting any slave insurrections.

SC would press for the convention to recommend secession, but that would be opposed or rejected by the Border and Upper South states - if they even sent delegates.

Most likely, the convention would wrangle for several weeks, and finally issue a manifesto of demands with the tacit threat of secession. This would be insufficient for South Carolina, but very offensive in the North and problematic even in much of the South. A few states would endorse the convention manifesto, others would repudiate or ignore it, and even SC would be unwilling to declare secession.

 

[riverboarder]

succession w/o war

I've always imagined an alternative history where the Confederacy pays the Union for forts in Confederate states and they negotiate some internal waterway navigation deals. However, given that Lincoln was all about preserving the Union, it would take a major POD to bring this about.

 

[schuyler]

I've always imagined an alternative history where the Confederacy pays the Union for forts in Confederate states and they negotiate some internal waterway navigation deals. However, given that Lincoln was all about preserving the Union, it would take a major POD to bring this about.

What if Lincoln falls ill and either dies or is severely incapacitated in the early days of his presidency?

 

[Blackfox5]

The main thing that caused secession besides the "provocation" of the election of a Republican was that multiple states seceded at around the same time because they knew the others would. South Carolina was probably radicalized enough to secede anyway, but it was much harder to convince other states to do so. Only after a critical mass was achieved did many Southerner feel safe that they could secede and avoid defeat in a war.

William Freehling's Road to Disunion goes into detail on the period between Lincoln's election and Secession. If you read it, you can probably see various points where if things had gone differently, that secession never happened. These would require PODs that were definitely possible, but just weren't going to happen. So while highly unlikely, such PODs would still be reasonable as something that could have happened with better luck or better leadership.

What is needed falls under two categories. One is better leadership in Washington - especially in regards to preventing Federal arms falling to the rebels. The other is better leadership among Southern "Cooperationists" who were pro-slavery but wanted to remain the Union. A more organized cooperationist movement might have seized leadership in the South at a crucial time, edging out the minority fire eaters, and coming up with a compromise plan that Lincoln could accept and which would keep the South in the Union. Probably it would happen under the leadership of Alexander Stephens. South Carolina might still secede, but alone and isolated, it's probably it would be returned to the fold after enough time without bloodshed.

In another decade, the economic and industrial power of the non-slave states would be so great, that secession might be seen for the folly that it was. It would give the Republicans time to build a patronage base in the South - no matter how tiny in some places, but potentially substantially in the Upper South and certain sections of the Lower South - to strengthen the anti-secession movement when inevitably the next political crisis happens.

 

[Johnrankins]

What if Lincoln falls ill and either dies or is severely incapacitated in the early days of his presidency?

Then Hamlin is president and he is not much more likely than Lincoln to allow the states to leave.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

Then Hamlin is president and he is not much more likely than Lincoln to allow the states to leave.

Kill Hamlin too.

 

[Johnrankins]

Kill Hamlin too.

Then you come to Pennington who isn't likely to do so either. The fact is that so many people would have to die that it becomes almost ASB. The Civil War wasn't that controversial. Even the 1862 election wasn't that bad for the Republicans. They gained three seats in the US Senate and lost 25 in the House retaining both houses which isn't bad for a mid-term election.

 

[DaleCoz]

Just brainstorming here. Buchanan basically kicked the can down the road on how to handle states seceding. That made the Civil War worse by allowing federal authority and federal arms to be seized by the secessionists. It could have been worse, though.

What if Buchanon died shortly before or after the 1860 election? That would leave his Vice President, John C. Breckinridge, in charge for the remainder of Buchanan's term--from November 1860 to March 1861. That would stir things up. Historically, Breckinridge was very pro-South, to the extent that he ended up serving in the Confederate army, though he did attempt to find a compromise that would allow the seceding states to stay in the Union before war broke out.

Not sure how that would cut in terms of secession. I'm also not sure how the North would react to having a pro-slavery president from a slave state (Kentucky) in charge for several months while the nation was in political turmoil. They wouldn't have enough people in the then current Senate to impeach him. What would happen, for example, if he quietly allowed all federal property in the seceding states to be seized by the states, and/or withdrew federal troops from seceding and border states as a "gesture of reconciliation", leaving the states in charge of the forts and arsenals?

That could end up with some very nasty situations in the likes of Missouri, with mini-civil wars breaking out in several border states, and maybe even mutinies among pro-North military leaders. That could get extremely twisted, with pro-Confederate elements of the military claiming to be supporting constitutional authority while they try to suppress pro-Union rebellions in the military.

If you want to get really nasty, have Breckinridge's actions inadvertently or deliberately push the more radical elements in the north into open armed rebellion against his authority. Maybe he does the withdrawal and base turnover, then adds in giving the seceding and border states "their" share of the US Navy and Treasury, maybe even control of "their share" of the territories that hadn't become states yet. I'm pretty sure that would spark a rebellion. Then the federal government spends the next couple of months trying to suppress the rebellion, with pro-Confederate forces happily joining in to "support the constitutional authority of the president."

That's an interesting--actually rather nightmarish--question in itself, but it isn't "What if the south didn't secede?" Could Breckinridge have calmed the fire-eaters down in some way, by offering them the concessions mentioned and maybe others? That would be difficult because a temporary presidency wouldn't have much to offer beyond federal property that couldn't be rolled back when Lincoln took power.

Maybe we take the northern rebellion a step further. How would president-elect Lincoln react to Breckinridge attempts to make secession or at least the emasculation of federal power a fait accompli? It would be difficult to say nothing as the current president deliberately undercut future presidents' power. In the climate of an open armed rebellion, though, he would have to be very careful not to say something that could be construed as inciting rebellion. Worse case scenario: we end up with the current president of the United States trying to arrest the president-elect as a traitor.

Bottom line, the south blunders into a situation where they temporarily control the levers of the federal government and maybe into a kind of near-coup situation, with the north being forced to rebel against the current federal government in order to keep the president-elect from being arrested for treason. At that point, I could see the two sides each claiming to be the legitimate federal government, with pro-North military men rebelling against the Breckinridge regime and forming their own army to protect Lincoln. The army tears itself apart. We have a soon-to-be president in armed rebellion against the current president. At that point, I have no idea what happens.

Maybe Breckinridge declares the 1860 elections void given the 'rebellion' and tries to hold new elections, which tears the country apart even more completely. The south doesn't secede so much as it tries to retain control of the federal government. Maybe the Breckinridge administration even declares rebelling Northern states, or maybe just the Republican Party as being "in rebellion" and refuses to seat their incoming Senators and Representatives. We end up with the south in control of the symbols of federal power, and probably in control of most of the border states and some territories, but otherwise with pretty much the same division of the country.

And that goes in some very dark directions. I'm not sure Breckinridge would go down those roads. While he was pro-slavery, I'm not sure he would be willing to be as dishonorable as he would have to be to get the country in that kind of situation. In any case, this does illustrate that secession wasn't the worst situation the country could have found itself in over slavery.