WI: American Civil War ends earlier, with no Emancipation Proclimation?

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
I am positing that the Union Army proves more successful than OTL, and forces the Confederacy into submission within two years. As a result, there has not been an Emancipation Proclamation as of the end of the war. What is the next step? Is an end to slavery feasible at this point, or is it too likely to cause tensions to explode again? Would Lincoln be likely to take the chance? If slavery is not banned at the end of the war, what is its likely future? How big a future tinderbox would be the loss of 200,000+ Americans with no resolution of the slavery issue?
 

jahenders

Banned
I think most likely Lincoln issues something similar to it as part of the "peace terms." If not, he pushes through measures essentially killing slavery (or phasing it out fairly quickly) during reconstruction (when Southern representatives were replaced or limited in voting). I think slavery is resolved at, or within 2 years of, the end of war.
 
I think the war would have still been a fatal blow to slavery, even if it could have hung on another decade or so. Main reason? The firebrands have blown their wad. They've already played their last card, threatening to secede. There's nothing they can do to threaten anti-slavery measures any more, and with the South defeated, Northern politicians are probably going to be in a pretty good mood for passing them, especially as it was clear that the cause of the revolt was defending slavery.

So, as long as there's a congressional majority for it, which increasingly, there will be, and an anti-slavery president, which will also be a given, legislation to ban slavery is going to get through sometime soon, though it might involve compensation or a time delay.
 

jahenders

Banned
I would agree that a delay or some compensation is the absolute best that slaveholders can hope for if CSA loses faster. However, I don't think compensation is too likely (or it'd be a pittance) and any delay would probably be a fairly short phase out -- perhaps initially not letting Southern states send delegations to Congress, or vote in Federal elections, until they had changed their constitutions to free all slaves. In that process of Southern states changing their laws at different times, some of them might consider compensation, but they likely couldn't afford it.

So, as long as there's a congressional majority for it, which increasingly, there will be, and an anti-slavery president, which will also be a given, legislation to ban slavery is going to get through sometime soon, though it might involve compensation or a time delay.
 
This still leaves the slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington DC. Some alternate version of the 13th amendment would still be needed. But without the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as taking into account Lincoln's hopes of readmitting the states quickly and the resulting lack of reconstruction, as well as the fact Lincoln's stated goal was to keep the Union together, it becomes likely it would take longer than it did OTL.
 
This still leaves the slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington DC. Some alternate version of the 13th amendment would still be needed. But without the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as taking into account Lincoln's hopes of readmitting the states quickly and the resulting lack of reconstruction, as well as the fact Lincoln's stated goal was to keep the Union together, it becomes likely it would take longer than it did OTL.

You bring up a very good point ,it also illustrates one weakness in the Emancipation Proclamation in that it only freed slaves in states that were in rebellion against the Union.
 

jahenders

Banned
Good point and the US couldn't easily use "war guilt" or re-admittance leverage on Union states. So, there's still a push for an amendment. Though, many states may outlaw it before the Federal government gets there.

You bring up a very good point ,it also illustrates one weakness in the Emancipation Proclamation in that it only freed slaves in states that were in rebellion against the Union.
 
Lincoln most likely pushes for the halt of the expansion of slavery into the western territories along with higher tariffs to protect American industries as the Republicans planned to do as the successors of the Whigs in OTL.

Lincoln is more Whig than Emancipating Republican at this point, his exact attitude depending on when the war ends. If the Union did well from the start and ended the war quickly, he would most likely not have developed like he did in OTL.

His ultimate goal would be to preserve the Union. He would not risk alienating either his northern backers or the recently defeated south. He was too good of a politician to do so.

Gradual Emancipation seems to be the way he would go. He could push for all children of slaves born past a certain year To be free with the Republicans having some or all the OTL Civil War Amendments on their platform. Or he might push for compensated emancipation as he planned before the war. He would most likely do both.

He would definitely continue supporting African Colonization as he did during the war either due to the political realities of the time or his own racial views.

Citizenship and voting rights would be a harder goal this timeline as well. The abolitionist wing of the Republican Party would not be as powerful with the war short and Lincoln alive and under scrutiny. Ironically, things could go bad this timeline, though, not as bad as the Confederacy winning.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Not exactly; there were some 20,000 enslaved within

You bring up a very good point ,it also illustrates one weakness in the Emancipation Proclamation in that it only freed slaves in states that were in rebellion against the Union.

Not exactly; there were some 20,000 enslaved within territory occupied by US forces by January, 1863, but not exempted by the language of the Proclamation; it also, immediately (in 1862), cleared the legal status of the so-called "contraband" population, formerly enslaved people who had fled to US lines and were (before the EP) only legally subject to the 1st and 2nd Confiscation acts.

It was, and had to be, structured as a war measure, and so was never going to be the equal of the 13th Amendment; that being said, it was a pretty remarkable action. Lincoln deserves a tremendous amount of credit.

It's also worth pointing out that some sort of legalization of freedmen and prohibition of slavery was in the works from - at least - the time of the 1st Confiscation Act (August, 1861) and the 2nd (March, 1862)...

Best,
 
Top