What Would Lincoln's Presidency Be Like Without Southern Secession?

Not with a majority - which they'd be likely to need for any changes to the FSL

Obviously they had that during the War and Reconstruction, but thereafter not until 1880, and after that not again till 1888, and then not again till 1894. My point is that under anything like normal conditions a majority could well prove elusive.



Only after the Lower South seceded.

I forgot that third parties actually were something back then. These days they might pick up a seat or two.
 
(3) In particular, the Kansas-Nebraska bill was moot once Kansas had been admitted to the Union as a free state. (This happened in January 1861, before Lincoln took office. The vote was in the Senate was 36-16. https://books.google.com/books?id=cqsbAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA498 This is a sufficient margin to indicate that it would still have passed even if the Deep South senators had not withdrawn from the Senate. In the House it passed by an overwhelming 117-42.) Arguably it was even moot as early as 1858, when the voters of Kansas rejected the Lecompton Constitution--it was pretty clear from then on that Kansa would never become a slave state. (Kansas was the only really contested territory under the Kansas-Nebraska Act; nobody ever thought Nebraska would become a slave state.)



Talking of Kansas, is its history likely to be altered by the absence of secession and war?

The free soil victory does not prevent Southerners going there. It just means they can't bring slaves with them, which many didn't own anyway. And TTL, a quarter-million plus Southerners haven't been killed [1], and even more left mutilated and/or destitute to the point where they aren't in a position to take advantage of the Homestead Act. And if slavery continues there could be quite a few small farmers in the South who don't like being in competition with slave labour, and so be inclined to move.

So we might see a lot more Southerners than OTL moving to Kansas and points west. Could this be enough to turn KS into a Democratic State, rather than the solidly Republican one that it actually was in the postwar decades?


[1] Of course the same applies to Northerners, but northern losses were out of a larger population (and a much larger white population) so presumably had less impact.
 
Talking of Kansas, is its history likely to be altered by the absence of secession and war?

The free soil victory does not prevent Southerners going there. It just means they can't bring slaves with them, which many didn't own anyway. And TTL, a quarter-million plus Southerners haven't been killed [1], and even more left mutilated and/or destitute to the point where they aren't in a position to take advantage of the Homestead Act. And if slavery continues there could be quite a few small farmers in the South who don't like being in competition with slave labour, and so be inclined to move.

So we might see a lot more Southerners than OTL moving to Kansas and points west. Could this be enough to turn KS into a Democratic State, rather than the solidly Republican one that it actually was in the postwar decades?


[1] Of course the same applies to Northerners, but northern losses were out of a larger population (and a much larger white population) so presumably had less impact.

The problem is probably some Northerners who were soldiers during the war (Some Southerners as well, but as you say there are more Northerners than Southerners) that move to Kansas instead.
 
The problem is probably some Northerners who were soldiers during the war (Some Southerners as well, but as you say there are more Northerners than Southerners) that move to Kansas instead.

True, but northerners have more places - Nebraska, Minnesota, later the Dakotas - to move to. For the Southerners, Kansas is by far the nearest place to go, and the next nearest, New Mexico, isn't terribly appealing.
 
True, but northerners have more places - Nebraska, Minnesota, later the Dakotas - to move to. For the Southerners, Kansas is by far the nearest place to go, and the next nearest, New Mexico, isn't terribly appealing.

Why would the pre-ACW pattern change though just because of no secession? The numbers were shifting towards the North before the war, why would it change after Lincoln's election even with no war?
 
True, but northerners have more places - Nebraska, Minnesota, later the Dakotas - to move to. For the Southerners, Kansas is by far the nearest place to go, and the next nearest, New Mexico, isn't terribly appealing.

Texas still has room for more southern settlers. In OTL its population practically doubled from 1870 to 1880.
 
What would Lincoln do?

A more interesting question (to me) is what would he not do, or rather, what would he not be able to do. He would not be able to get rid of slavery in the South, only slow or halt its progression in border states/territories. At the time slavery was still embedded in the constitution. The North would have continued to grow and prosper (with the new transcontinental railroad) and over time (this is my hunch) slavery would have withered from economic and perhaps foreign pressures. The economic and population divide between the North and South would have widened and eventually slavery would have crumbled on its own, much like the Soviet Union collapsed internally. At what point does it justify losing 700,000 men to achieve this goal a generation or two sooner rather than later?
 
Why would the pre-ACW pattern change though just because of no secession? The numbers were shifting towards the North before the war, why would it change after Lincoln's election even with no war?

True, but I think the War made the disparity even worse, not only from war casualties (though these might be significant when the permanently injured are added in) but to impoverishment, as it was probably harder for a family with no money (the condition of many Southern ones post-1865) to take advantage of the Act.

Also of course not all Northern settlers would necessarily be Republicans. In most Northern States the Democratic vote stayed over 40%, and over 45% in many. Add in a larger Southern element and the political demographics of western settlers might be significantly changed.

And even if I'm wrong about Kansas, there were quite a few Western states where only a small change would be needed. Iirc the west coast states were generally Republican in the 1870s and 80s, but usually only by quite narrow margins. So it wouldn't require a big change to make them normally Democratic.
 
I know, ASB...
No, it isn't. See below.

... but if somehow the unionists kept the South from seceding (maybe South Carolina starts an abortive attempt but ultimately fails to bring the other states in)...

South Carolina secessionists were divided between an immediatist faction and a cooperationist faction. The latter group wanted to wait until action could be coordinated among all the Southern states, presumably by a multi-state convention. They argued that it could be disastrous for South Carolina to act unilaterally.

Also, IIRC, the cooperationists wanted to delay action until Lincoln had taken office and Done Something to push all the slave states to secession with overwhelming support.

In late 1860, there was a ceremony for the completion of a new railroad linking South Carolina and Georgia. Many prominent men from both states were present, and the secession issue was discussed. At this meeting, many of the Georgians present assured the South Carolinians that Georgia was sure to declare secession as well. This was a significant boost to the immediatist faction, which carried the day at the South Carolina convention a few weeks later.

Suppose that ceremony had not been held, or due to bad weather was not well-attended; and unsure about the attitude of Georgia, the South Carolina convention adopted the cooperationist plan. This is copied in the rest of the Deep South, the Upper South, Missouri, and Kentucky. All these states send delegates to a convention which assembles in Richmond in late February 1861.

Meanwhile, Southern members don't withdraw from Congress, which does not admit Kansas or pass the Morrill Tariff.

Lincoln is inaugurated in on 3 March. Aware that fearful Southerners are watching his every move, and that the Fire-Eaters will seize on any misstep to incite pro-secession panic, he acts with great caution. His first area of action is appointment of Federal officeholders. Lincoln OTL sought to include a Virginian in his initial cabinet, in hopes of averting secession. He's almost certain to attempt something similar ITTL. He must appoint Southern residents to Federal posts in the South. which is going to be tricky. Many Southerners would refuse any appointment by the hated Republican - but the offices must be filled, and Lincoln would go to great lengths to find acceptable men.

As it became clear that Lincoln was not using the Presidency to subvert slavery in the South, enthusiasm for secession would wane. There would be nothing for the Fire-Eaters to point to as an outrage justifying secession. The Southern convention would adjourn after three months or so.

what sort of policies would Lincoln enact?

There are two parts to this question. What policies would Lincoln advocate? And what policies could he get Congress to enact? Bear in mind that Republicans lost 8 House seats in 1860.

His main political goals at that time were:

  • Admitting Kansas as a free state.
  • Enacting a protective tariff.
  • Initiating a transcontinental railroad.
When Congress meets in December 1861... I think he gets Kansas. But the tariff, no, or only in compromise form. The railroad may also have to be compromised.

Foreign policy may become an issue by that time, with the French presence in Mexico raising American hackles. If Lincoln manages that well, even Southerners will applaud.

Would he get a second term?

Would he want one? No Whig ever ran for a second term, and Lincoln was an ex-Whig.
 
Foreign policy may become an issue by that time, with the French presence in Mexico raising American hackles. If Lincoln manages that well, even Southerners will applaud.


Will there be a French presence in Mexico? Iirc their intervention only started once the ACW was well under way.

Conceivably they might occupy Vera Cruz and collect the revenues to recover some of Mexico's debts, but would Napoleon III risk a deeper involvement?
 
Top