WI no Emancipation Proclimation

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), British leaders widely favored the Confederacy, as it had been a major source of cotton for textile mills, but Prince Albert was effective in defusing the Trent episode, and the British people, who depended heavily on American food imports, generally favored the United States. What little cotton was available came from New York, as the blockade by the US Navy shut down 95% of Southern exports to Britain. In September 1862, during the Confederate invasion of Maryland, Britain (along with France) contemplated stepping in and negotiating a peace settlement, which could only mean war with the United States. But in the same month, US president Abraham Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation. Since support of the Confederacy now meant support for slavery, there was no longer any possibility of European intervention.

I don't know if this has been done before, but its just curiosity. It sounds to me that if Lincoln didn't announce the Emancipation Proclamation, america would be confederate, or not exist?

What would happen if Lincoln didn't announce the Emancipation Proclamation? On a world scale/ america scale and butterflies, etc.

So, fire away!
 
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure, in part to make foreign recognition of the Confederacy difficult. Since Paris wasn't going to do anything without London's support or leadership things really aren't going anywhere a-historical. The British weren't thinking seriously about intervening to begin with.

Slavery wasn't officially declared unconstitutional until Johnson signed the 13th Amendment.
 
Well no Emancipation Proclomation would mean the South won the Maryland campaign in some measure. Though unless something insane like a TL-191 AoNV destroying the AoP utterly happens, Lincoln just has to wait until December when Stones River is won or Vicksburg is besieged or something.

As for British reaction? Oh sure your average British citizen was often enough rooting for the South, but actually getting involved?

Even during the Trent affair, cooler heads prevailed. That was about as close to British direct intervention that there was.

As for indirect invervention well... looking at the CS Navy and the Army's wide use of Enfields... you can tell who the British arms manufacturers favored.
 
Well no Emancipation Proclomation would mean the South won the Maryland campaign in some measure. Though unless something insane like a TL-191 AoNV destroying the AoP utterly happens, Lincoln just has to wait until December when Stones River is won or Vicksburg is besieged or something.

Not at all. I believe that the WI is if there was no Emancipation Proclamation at all. In the end the war would be over just what it always was, the preservation - by force - of the Union.
 
Not at all. I believe that the WI is if there was no Emancipation Proclamation at all. In the end the war would be over just what it always was, the preservation - by force - of the Union.

Ah. In which case Lincoln just threw away a political weapon so powerful that it spurs debate a hundred and fifty years later?

Hard to say what the impact of no Emancipation Proclomation would be. Certainly less unrest among the South's slave populace, less Black regiments for the north.

Also you'd have to factor in the fact that up until then the war was just to "preserve the Union." You don't have anything more than that to soothe the populace after Lee's mass string of victories in 1862-63, you may see more dissent among the North's population too.

I do think my point about Britain is still valid though.
 
Top