How about the following? ...
Any comments?
How about the following? ...
I can understand what you're saying, but can you explain to me why the Crittenden Compromise wouldn't have been able to avert the war?
I mean, yes, true, the states were already about to vote for secession, but wouldn't it change the minds of some delegates?
Read Seward's "maiden speech" in the Senate. Then tell me he could ever consent to slavery expansion by annexation (or conquest).Oh... Why, if I may ask? Because if this way he can prevent the war, why is there no possible way he would accept it?
If he thought that there was no alternative to war - then he would conclude that the South was extorting this policy (slavery expansion) by a threat of violence. And he could not submit to that.Whether, then, I regard merely the welfare of the future inhabitants of the new territories, or the security and welfare of the whole people of the United States, or the welfare of the whole family of mankind, I cannot consent to introduce slavery into any part of this continent which is now exempt from what seems to me so great an evil. - Senator William Seward, March 11, 1850.
But Italy is serious, and attacks Nice at once. Napoleon III is flabbergasted and cannot manage to get his troops south soon enough. Attacks on Corsica and Savoy follow. The war is called La Guerra della Sorpresa. Needless to say, France is surprised. The French citizens protest against troops marching south to kick out the Italians, weary of the previous war and saying the Italians have the right to the Italian-majority areas.
Uhh.
The French populace demanded war with Prussia over the perceived insult of the Ems Telegram, and is flush with victory. Now they demand French capitulation to a treacherous surprise attack by Italy? Including the cession of major pieces of French territory? The French would be particularly angry in that Italy exists as a country only by French aid.
I might add that it would be almost impossible for a 19th-century power to carry out a genuine "Pearl Harbor" attack. It takes time for troops to be mobilized from peace-time status and deployed, and secrecy would be impossible. Furthermore - the war decision has to be made by the parliament, so there is an extended period of public debate first. (Russia or Turkey would be exceptions.) Then there has to be an ultimatum. Then and only then can the troops march.
Secondly, I understand that a problem is that Italy's creation had been dependent upon the French. However, I'm not sure if Nice can be called a "major piece of French territory".... In 1868 the Glorious Revolution erupts and Isabella II of Spain is deposed. Who is to become the next Spanish monarch? Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg perhaps? The Spanish ask him but the French fear German domination in Spain. France pushes Prussia to have Ferdinand say no, but Prussia refuses. The Franco-Prussian War starts...
You disagree with the below?All that can happen before the Deep South states vote is some procedural actions in Congress. That is not going to make any difference to the Fire-Eaters that controlled the secession conventions.
Crittenden's Compromise is a bundle of constitutional amendments. They guarantee the survival of slavery where it exists but they also guarantee that slavery can continue to be forbidden in states where it is forbidden. In other words, the Compromise protects against a Supreme Court following up the Dred Scott Decision with a Dred Scott II declaring all northern abolition legislation unconstitutional on the grounds that it interferes with a man's right to his property--something that is of very real concern in the North. As such, this Compromise is one that can be sold to legislatures in many Northern States as well as border Southern states. So if it passes Congress, it goes to the states for ratification.
And Articles of Secession can be rescinded as easily as they were passed. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely that if President Seward avoids military action in the months from August to September 1861 that some of the Southern State legislatures may start to rescind their Articles of Secession after ratifying the Crittenden Amendments. And unlike Lincoln, I believe that Seward will be inclined to give those states that kind of time, and if no action is forthcoming, put the screws to the South with a naval and land blockade rather than take the drastic step of calling up state militias that are likely to lead to MORE states like North Carolina and Virginia that haven't as yet seceded doing so.
I'm afraid that a change in Seward's mind-set and attitude towards slavery is part of my POD. Please, also read the following: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=8579210&postcount=4 (various quotes from websites and textbooks). Secondly, Seward will try to acquire British Columbia and Alaska to create more of an equilibrium.Read Seward's "maiden speech" in the Senate. Then tell me he could ever consent to slavery expansion by annexation (or conquest).
If he thought that there was no alternative to war - then he would conclude that the South was extorting this policy (slavery expansion) by a threat of violence. And he could not submit to that.
You disagree with the below?
I'm afraid that a change in Seward's mind-set and attitude towards slavery is part of my POD.
It's not weak-kneed I think, it's preventing war.If Seward was a moderate, then so was Lincoln. Neither was an outright abolitionist. But would either of them explicitly repudiate the Republican platform, which included a flat prohibition on slavery in the territories? Lincoln refused. I don't believe Seward would be that weak-kneed.
And to propose adding territory to the U.S. for new slave states would carry that repudiation to an extreme. Seward would be denounced as a Judas or a coward.
I'm afraid that a change in Seward's mind-set and attitude towards slavery is part of my POD. Please, also read the following: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=8579210&postcount=4 (various quotes from websites and textbooks). Secondly, Seward will try to acquire British Columbia and Alaska to create more of an equilibrium.
Toward slavery? Does he stop thinking it is wrong?
In any case, he can't do anything until he takes office, by which time the "Gulf Squadron" will all have declared secession, and Jeff Davis will already be in office. (Unless a butterfly leads to Toombs or Cobb being chosen instead.)
Crittenden's Compromise is a bundle of constitutional amendments. They guarantee the survival of slavery where it exists but they also guarantee that slavery can continue to be forbidden in states where it is forbidden.
...
And Articles of Secession can be rescinded as easily as they were passed. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely that if President Seward avoids military action in the months from August to September 1861 that some of the Southern State legislatures may start to rescind their Articles of Secession after ratifying the Crittenden Amendments. And unlike Lincoln, I believe that Seward will be inclined to give those states that kind of time, and if no action is forthcoming, put the screws to the South with a naval and land blockade rather than take the drastic step of calling up state militias that are likely to lead to MORE states like North Carolina and Virginia that haven't as yet seceded doing so.
ITTL, he'll be more succesful persuading Southern politicians to oppose secession.Wikipedia said:The Compromise of 1850 brought a temporary respite, but the Dred Scott case, decided in 1857, spurred public debate. There was increasing talk of the South seceding from the Union.
Davis’ renewed service in the Senate was interrupted in early 1858 by an illness that began as a severe cold and which threatened him with the loss of his left eye. He was forced to remain in a darkened room for four weeks. He spent the summer of 1858 in Portland, Maine. On the Fourth of July, Davis delivered an anti-secessionist speech on board a ship near Boston. He again urged the preservation of the Union on October 11 in Faneuil Hall, Boston, and returned to the Senate soon after.
As he explained in his memoir The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he believed that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union. At the same time, he counseled delay among his fellow Southerners, because he did not think that the North would permit the peaceable exercise of the right to secession. Having served as secretary of war under President Pierce, he also knew that the South lacked the military and naval resources necessary to defend itself in a war.
Hmm, good point. And Northern opposition will be strong too. I'll have to think of a way so that this doesn't explode in the Civil War nonetheless.Offers to get part of Mexico would be sneered at by the Fire-Eaters, who would say the South could do that for itself.