What would happen to Lincoln and the Notth after a southern victory?

If the South had won (assuming by it's own), what would happen to Lincoln if he was taken into the slaver custody in the victory? What would happen to the USA that remains?
 
If Lincoln is captured he would be released after peace treaty has signed. But frankly, I doubt that Confederates manage to capture him so just let's say that Lincoln is enforced to recognise CSA. In that case Lincoln probably resigns or even commit suicide (not completely out of character). And even if he doesn't do both, he probably wont run againnew term assuming that peace was achieved by 1864.

USA would be just smaller and it would go forward on its own way. It is not end of the nation,, but USA would be pissed for while.
 
There's countless threads on it, but the remaining states definitely take on a new character with a Civil War loss. Some people are pretty convinced it'll go one way or another, but I think there's a lot of room for different futures. The only unlikely one I think is that they just kind of shrug it off and move on.

I would expect a higher degree of militarization from this point forward. Even if they return to an amicable relationship, something that would take a while, I would expect expansionism to be a bigger concern for the North. They don't want to see the Confederacy grow so they'd protect the territories against any future land grabs, but also look to boost, or in an extreme scenario conquer northern Mexico to hem in slavery and deny them access to the Pacific. I'd expect to see them do the same with Cuba and the Caribbean. If Britain aided the South in any way I'd expect them to view Canada with a lot more suspicion and garrison that border as well.

Without the counterweight of the south the supreme court and the Senate skew a lot more towards New England and Midwestern interests. I don't know exactly how this plays out, but I've seen predictions of a more socially liberal country, greater worker rights, and a more established social safety net. I could also see a strengthening of the federal government with respect to the states. I could also see the foundation of a new capital, since having your seat of power separated from a potentially hostile neighbor by nothing but a small navigable river is less than ideal.

When the turn of the century rolls around, there's a lot more politics to play in the international stage within North America. Isolationism might not seem feasible with a large competitor right next door. Or if they do still go for an isolationist policy I could see them being a lot more uppity about it. Things like the distant blockade of Germany might be viewed as an unacceptable affront to their neutrality.
 
I could see the Union completely collapsing if it doesn't manage a win against the CSA. What would fill the void of Yankeeland afterwards?
 
They don't want to see the Confederacy grow so they'd protect the territories against any future land grabs, but also look to boost, or in an extreme scenario conquer northern Mexico to hem in slavery and deny them access to the Pacific.
There will definitely be a new dynamic on the continent. The two nations will share a long border with not a real lot of natural barriers defining it. The two nations will have severe animosity towards each other, and there'll be a lot of maneuvering to shore up defined territory, and deal with this new situation of having to be prepared for a hostile/capable neighbor geopolitically.

However... I don't think hemming in slavery is going to be a defining bulwark of the North. There'll be a lot of border incidents as the North will welcome escaped slaves from the South. But I don't think the North will be expanding based on denying slavery. Any expansion will be based on denying the South territory advantageous to them in future wars. And, if I recall correctly, slavery hasn't been outlawed yet in the North on a federal level. That has to be remedied first. Lincoln will be disgraced, and his successor will have a hard time healing a fractured country. Pissing off landed elites who still make a living on slavery and who might secede to the South was not conducive to healing the nation. Look for a more gradual form of phasing out slavery.
 
If the South manages to make good on its secession, I suspect that you're going to see further splintering as well. You're likely to be left with a New England nation, a Midwest nation, a Deep South nation and a border states nation. If New Orleans and the Mississippi aren't absolutely guaranteed as free and open, you're likely to see an awful lot of bloodletting over the years as well.
 
I could see the Union completely collapsing if it doesn't manage a win against the CSA. What would fill the void of Yankeeland afterwards?

If the South manages to make good on its secession, I suspect that you're going to see further splintering as well. You're likely to be left with a New England nation, a Midwest nation, a Deep South nation and a border states nation. If New Orleans and the Mississippi aren't absolutely guaranteed as free and open, you're likely to see an awful lot of bloodletting over the years as well.

I can't see that when Southern states manage to gain independence others just suddently gets same idea. Probably rest of states would remain as loyal for federal government. They hardly get inspirations.
 
I can't see that when Southern states manage to gain independence others just suddently gets same idea. Probably rest of states would remain as loyal for federal government. They hardly get inspirations.
The interests of the upper South are closer to those of the Northern Border states, and the ability of the Northeast to hold the rump of the Union together is going to have been reduced mightily. A precedent will have been set also. Remember that a fair number of the non-Confederate border states were also slave states that wouldn't appreciate having Emancipation forced on them, especially after a war where the North lost.
 
Might want to correc North in the title. I saw it on the front page as “What Would Happen to Lincoln and the Nott” And started thinking it was either and Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, or that Lincoln somehow ended up with Robin Hood. Anyways, capturing Abraham Lincoln would be an issue, especially given there were assassination attempts on him very early on, which was why he had to be taken into DC the first time in a sealed car, I believe. There was lots of Confederate cartoons showing him wearing a Kilt and such, claiming he was a coward who dressed up to hide himself. Given Confederate propaganda, both early on and later on, I wouldn’t doubt a Confederate soldier would try to shoot him or something. At the very least you will see him beaten and people shaving his beard. Might be if they do al this and still kill him he gets a Christ like aura. Also, we thinking he is the only person captured or would other government officials or his family be snagged? Or I suppose John Wilkes Booth had intended to kidnap him before finally settling on assassination due to Lincoln wanting to give African-Americans citizenships. Maybe he succeeds here. Though that would have been in exchange for the release fo Confederate prisoners. Neither the North nor the South would give up the war just for one man, and whoever that one man was would not want them to anyways.


EDIT: Bleep it, this is what happens when I cannot sleep and I look for something to do. I misread the OP and don’t realize that the whole point of the thread was there already being a victory. Sorry about that.
 
If the South manages to make good on its secession, I suspect that you're going to see further splintering as well. You're likely to be left with a New England nation, a Midwest nation, a Deep South nation and a border states nation. If New Orleans and the Mississippi aren't absolutely guaranteed as free and open, you're likely to see an awful lot of bloodletting over the years as well.
I see no reason for the rump USA splitting. Animosity against a common rival/foe will likely bring them together more closely, just as Canada stayed together due to the existence of the USA.

I imagine rump USA becomes a less powerful but more successful country than OTL. It will develop more along the lines of other Western democracies. Most of the racial division, paranoid tendency amd religious extremism over the last century and a half comes from the South. It will still exist in the north as it does in most countries, but it will be a fringe position.
 
I see no reason for the rump USA splitting. Animosity against a common rival/foe will likely bring them together more closely, just as Canada stayed together due to the existence of the USA.

I imagine rump USA becomes a less powerful but more successful country than OTL. It will develop more along the lines of other Western democracies. Most of the racial division, paranoid tendency amd religious extremism over the last century and a half comes from the South. It will still exist in the north as it does in most countries, but it will be a fringe position.
Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky are all 3 slave states. The rest of the rump US will want to abolish slavery in those 3 states. It's difficult to imagine them refraining from doing so given the political correlation of forces. It's easy to see them seceding in response. It's also easy to see parts of the CSA seceding, especially if those border states go. It's also pretty likely at that point that CSA and USA will both be exhausted from a bloodshed standpoint.
 
Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky are all 3 slave states. The rest of the rump US will want to abolish slavery in those 3 states. It's difficult to imagine them refraining from doing so given the political correlation of forces. It's easy to see them seceding in response. It's also easy to see parts of the CSA seceding, especially if those border states go. It's also pretty likely at that point that CSA and USA will both be exhausted from a bloodshed standpoint.
Not sure how soon the US would abolish slavery, I expect they would wait a while and make sure their army is secure (though hard to keep that a secret) tot make sure they didn’t try anything to secede themselves. What I do expect is that, without Southerners on the Supreme Court (unless a few stuck around in the Union just for that power. I am unsure who was actually on the Court back them) the various pro-slavery compromises are done away with in court, so no slavery will be allowed in the Western territories, plus the Fugitive Slave Act would be curtailed. Probably for the Union slave states, but DEFINITELY for the Confederacy.

I also can see the Union supporting Haiti more (though naturally it will be a while to do that financially, given war costs) and depending on how late in the war this happened, with the Confederates spreading clothing infected by smallpox patients in Northern thrift or stores (plus occupied Southern cities), massacres of Black soldiers, the suctioning off of captured Blacks (as if suctioning someone is going to return them to their ‘rightful owner’), setting fire to ten hotels in New York city at the same time (originally planned for Election Day, poor planning for a Democrat city.) so that the fire fighters would not be able to stop them all, the bank robberies based in Canada, the mass lynching of German-Americans in Texas who had a problem with overseers and (explicitly the rich) slave owners being exempted from the draft, when people without slaves had to go en masse... and of course people starving to death in prison camps in the South. You got loads of things to support a Black Legend against the confederacy, though a lot of the stuff happened after they were losing. So again, it depends on just when this victory happens.
 
The border states are not successfully seceding following a Confederate victory. Even in the most successful scenario for the south the Northern army won't be broken. The border states were occupied and garrisoned as soon as the war began and that would be maintained through the abolition of slavery, which would come fairly quickly since whatever the next president may think there is a path to constitutional amendments that only requires the state legislatures and you can bet that there would be sufficient support among them to do so. In fact I think it's entirely possible that with the removal of the southern states a new constitutional convention may be called.
 
I can see the US becoming more expansionist in decades after.

I see a US taking and possibly annexing Panama. Cuba and PR are up in the air but I think a focus on Asia and an earlier annexation of Hawai’i. If the US focuses on Asia since there is no CSA to contest thing there could still be a Spanish-American War… with the possibility of a Cuba and PR annexation?

It would be interesting if the US and whoever is after Lincoln, if the Dominican Republic offers to sell itself to the US like OTL.

What is often overlooked is Africa. The Scramble for Africa is about to really get going. I can see the US doing more with Liberia or creating new areas for freed/escaped slaves going North. I would suspect the US would become involved in Africa for the resources and naval bases in an attempt to reassert its authority.

I was working on a timeline where the CSA wins with European help. After, Grant helps the US President craft the “Three I’s” policy: isolate the Confederacy, promote immigration, and support industrialization. Essentially the US became a Great Power by playing better politics and undermining the CSA at every turn for years (like ignoring northerners going south to stir up slave rebellions). The US ends up with a slightly larger colonial empire than in OTL and wins a proto-WWI conflict with the CSA.

I highly doubt the US fragments. You have a hostile power to your south and you want to fragment more?

Many states contributed large numbers of soldiers to this conflict. I don’t see the US going down some desolate depression path. And I certainly don’t see them disarming into near nothingness like Turtledove portrayed.

Also… when the CSA wins is a big deal. If it’s after like Gettysburg and they somehow destroy the Union army (and I mean destroy it like kill half of it) they may get their CSA but what about all the occupied bits?

New Orleans could be held hostage by the US in exchange for unfettered Mississippi River access… or trading it for Virginia north of the Occoquan River or Northern Neck to protect DC. How do they deal with Chesapeake Bay control?

One thing that is forgotten, the further into the conflict you go the more stuff the US can be again with.

There is kinda only one scenario I can think of: the south wins a pivotal battle AND Lincoln is assassinated earlier (as a butterfly maybe) AND war wariness sets in after both those events.

In my TL the CSA wins a big battle and Lincoln goes to a military hospital and a Union soldier basically with severe PTSD assassinates him and the VP issues a ceasefire as public support for the war plummets with Lincoln dead and the CSA having just won a big battle.
 
Last edited:
Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky are all 3 slave states. The rest of the rump US will want to abolish slavery in those 3 states. It's difficult to imagine them refraining from doing so given the political correlation of forces. It's easy to see them seceding in response. It's also easy to see parts of the CSA seceding, especially if those border states go. It's also pretty likely at that point that CSA and USA will both be exhausted from a bloodshed standpoint.
Not a chance. The AoNV saw just how "pro-secession" Maryland was during their invasion, when they got icy receptions everywhere they went, while the Union army was cheered and the people turned out to give supplies and support when they could. The AoNV was so disillusioned by Maryland's lack of support that during the Gettysburg campaign when new units tried singing "My Maryland" the units that had been on the Antietam campaign told them to essentially shut the hell up. 4/5 of Marylanders who served in the war (80,000 vs 20,000) fought in the Union army.

In Kentucky it wasn't quite that bleak, but very close. 3/4 of Kentuckians who served in the Civil War (75,000 vs 25,000) fought in the Union army, and when Bragg invaded to try and rally Kentucky he got virtually no volunteers, as everyone who wanted to serve in the CSA already had gone south to do so. Over 75% of the men who served in armies in Missouri also fought for the Union (110,000 vs 30,000).

Anyhoo, in response to the question, if Lincoln falls into slaver hands he'll be lynched.

As for the Union itself, IMO the blowback will destroy the Democratic party in the north, which will be easily portrayed as being the party which had set the stage for secession, and then the loss of the war. There will be a HUGE number of points that can be pounded on to hammer the Buchanan and Pierce administrations, as well as legislatures hostile to the federal government. When the CSA continues acting in the exact high-handed manner the pre-war south did this would only increase. The first measure I can see is an amendment flatly banning secession from the United States being passed, with one gradually abolishing slavery following some years later.
 
I can see the US becoming more expansionist in decades after.

I see a US taking and possibly annexing Panama. Cuba and PR are up in the air but I think a focus on Asia and an earlier annexation of Hawai’i. If the US focuses on Asia since there is no CSA to contest thing there could still be a Spanish-American War… with the possibility of a Cuba and PR annexation?

It would be interesting if the US and whoever is after Lincoln, if the Dominican Republic offers to sell itself to the US like OTL.


Not sure if USA would go more expansionist than in OTL. Yes, surely it would take Hawaii. And perhaps Baja California too if CSA decides to take some Northern Mexico. But major goal of USA during next decades is going to stop CSA for expanding and mess with that as much as possible.

What is often overlooked is Africa. The Scramble for Africa is about to really get going. I can see the US doing more with Liberia or creating new areas for freed/escaped slaves going North. I would suspect the US would become involved in Africa for the resources and naval bases in an attempt to reassert its authority.

Not really sure if USA would still go with colonialism. It doesn't want mess with Europeans. And USA has already Liberia which might be expanded bit.

I was working on a timeline where the CSA wins with European help. After, Grant helps the US President craft the “Three I’s” policy: isolate the Confederacy, promote immigration, and support industrialization. Essentially the US became a Great Power by playing better politics and undermining the CSA at every turn for years (like ignoring northerners going south to stir up slave rebellions). The US ends up with a slightly larger colonial empire than in OTL and wins a proto-WWI conflict with the CSA.

I doubt that Europeans very much have intrested to help or have cabacities to help CSA. Britain is not too fascinated to help a country which is ideologically pro-slavery and it has good ties with USA. And France has already some other doing with Mexico.

I highly doubt the US fragments. You have a hostile power to your south and you want to fragment more?

Many states contributed large numbers of soldiers to this conflict. I don’t see the US going down some desolate depression path. And I certainly don’t see them disarming into near nothingness like Turtledove portrayed.

Agree.

There is kinda only one scenario I can think of: the south wins a pivotal battle AND Lincoln is assassinated earlier (as a butterfly maybe) AND war wariness sets in after both those events.

In my TL the CSA wins a big battle and Lincoln goes to a military hospital and a Union soldier basically with severe PTSD assassinates him and the VP issues a ceasefire as public support for the war plummets with Lincoln dead and the CSA having just won a big battle.

I don't think that USA will make peace yet after one lost big battle. It would need some other notable defeats too and some really severe loss of moral. And Lincoln's assassination hardly makes anything. Northerners just not step to peace negotiation because their president was killed. But perhaps make war going really really badly and McClellan winning '64 election. He is then pressured to begin peace negotiations and CSA is recognised in 1866.
 
Without the counterweight of the south the supreme court and the Senate skew a lot more towards New England and Midwestern interests. I don't know exactly how this plays out, but I've seen predictions of a more socially liberal country, greater worker rights, and a more established social safety net. I could also see a strengthening of the federal government with respect to the states. I could also see the foundation of a new capital, since having your seat of power separated from a potentially hostile neighbor by nothing but a small navigable river is less than ideal
I agree with this. I mean, with a more homogenous population, US politics would have evolved towards a class-based political system on par with Western Europe. Such a political system historically supported the formation of a welfare state.

I imagine rump USA becomes a less powerful but more successful country than OTL. It will develop more along the lines of other Western democracies. Most of the racial division, paranoid tendency amd religious extremism over the last century and a half comes from the South. It will still exist in the north as it does in most countries, but it will be a fringe position
Second this. Plus, this is more about 20th century but suburbanization would have been far less prevalent, due to higher population density (the vast majority of OTL immigrants would have gone to the North as IOTL, plus mass population flows to the South as IOTL would have been butterflied away; meanwhile the Plains would have never attracted such a large population inflows - we would see denser Northeast/Midwest/Pacific Coast and sparsely populated Great Plains), and the absence of cheap Texas/Oklahoma oil.

But I don't think the North will be expanding based on denying slavery.
There would be no more expansion based on denying slavery because the Plains and Pacific Coast already been settled by then - and the Coast plus everything north of Oklahoma would be free states.

And, if I recall correctly, slavery hasn't been outlawed yet in the North on a federal level. That has to be remedied first.
Only three slave states left in the North, and none of them were large states. Plus, the percentage of slave population was already lower there compared to the South.

As for the Union itself, IMO the blowback will destroy the Democratic party in the north, which will be easily portrayed as being the party which had set the stage for secession, and then the loss of the war.
Yes, the Democratic coalition simply would not work without the South.

Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky are all 3 slave states. The rest of the rump US will want to abolish slavery in those 3 states. It's difficult to imagine them refraining from doing so given the political correlation of forces. It's easy to see them seceding in response. It's also easy to see parts of the CSA seceding, especially if those border states go. It's also pretty likely at that point that CSA and USA will both be exhausted from a bloodshed standpoint.
None of them were large, influential states in a Southern-less US. They would be simply outvoted by the rest of the states, plus the army would keep them from seceding - the US army is not going to disintegrate.

Pissing off landed elites who still make a living on slavery and who might secede to the South was not conducive to healing the nation.
Another option, well, is to send these elites packing to the South - the Sudettenland solution.
 
Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky are all 3 slave states. The rest of the rump US will want to abolish slavery in those 3 states. It's difficult to imagine them refraining from doing so given the political correlation of forces. It's easy to see them seceding in response. It's also easy to see parts of the CSA seceding, especially if those border states go. It's also pretty likely at that point that CSA and USA will both be exhausted from a bloodshed standpoint.

Also Delaware and West Virginia unless you're picturing WV being taken back into Virginia proper.
 
Also Delaware and West Virginia unless you're picturing WV being taken back into Virginia proper.
Delaware and WV had really small slave populations. It wouldn't be like you'd be dispossessing the wealthy elite in those states. Honestly, if the peace arrangement between the CSA and the USA was actually made by someone farsighted and who wanted lasting peace, they'd arrange for all the border states on both sides to have plebiscites by COUNTY instead of by state. A fair number of VA and Tennessee counties would likely want to stay without slavery and a fair number of border counties in the non-CSA border states would probably want to go, if staying meant emancipation. If that was done (which is a BIG ask), the peace arrangement would likely last a lot longer.
 
Top