WI: President Hamlin and the Border States

I am a believer that the greatest asset of the Civil War for the North was not their industrial capacity, or their numbers, but was Abe Lincoln himself, I think he was one of the few men who could hold a coalition of Radical Republicans and War Democrats together and masterfully waiting for the proper time to push for abolition, which kept the border states from joining the Confederacy.

So, let's say Baltimore Plot goes off (and I know there is debate whether it actually was a real plot, but let's just go with it), and now we have President Hannibal Hamlin, who from what I've read about him, was not the same as Lincoln. He and Lincoln got along personally, but Hamlin was identified with the more radical clique of Republicans in Congress. His major action during the war was pushing for the appointment of Hooker as commander of the AOP (which of course did not end well). I could see this group pressuring him to let Fremont's emancipation edict stand. In fact similar orders might be replicated in Kentucky and Maryland.

So, if Hamlin decides to let loose the dogs of emancipation in the early stages of the war, could the border states of Missouri and Kentucky (maybe even Maryland?) be scared into the arms of the Confederates (let's also say Polk doesn't make his stupid move against Kentucky in September)?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Hamlin wasn't a radical on the level of Charles Sumner or Thaddeus Stevens, but I agree that he lacked the political adroitness of Lincoln. He might well have proven unable to resist the pressure from within his own party to push for abolition sooner.

Maryland was already under complete Union military occupation and many of the hard-core secessionists had already decamped to Virginia anyway, so I wouldn't expect much change there. Missouri was already a bloody mess; this would make it an even bloodier mess.

Kentucky is the real place you'd see change. The moderate Unionists would probably go over to the Confederate side in large numbers. The legislature might even pass an official vote of secession, though it's possible Lincoln would clamp down on them the way he did on the Marylanders. Confederate armies would find recruiting and supplying their men in Kentucky much easier, especially if there is a functioning Confederate state government in Kentucky. It's a major game changer.

Another consequence would be much greater success for the Democratic Party. They might well gain control of the House of Representatives in the 1862 elections, which would also be a major game changer for the war.
 
Hamlin, I think, could be pressured into a more openly abolitionist stance. He was more inclined to do so than Lincoln anyway, and he was also easier to pressure by the radicals. (Not that Hamlin was a wimp; it's just that Lincoln was so very steadfast.)

Lincoln's death, in itself, would be a source of jubilation to the seceded states. And a reason to be bitterly avenging for the North. IOTL, Lincoln's "cowardly flight" trough Baltimore was used to mock him. ITTL, he'll be a martyr. Don't be surprised when a line about "avenging Lincoln's death" shows up in the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Such anger might result in an even more polarized "with us or against us" stance, with little patience for "neutrality". When Hamlin sides openly with the abolitionists, Kentucky will be far more pro-confederate.

Mind you... Kentucky will still be divided internally. The east of that state is staunchly pro-Union, so at best the state will be divided in two, serving as a battleground in itself.

Missouri will see more pro-confederate elements as well, but that just means bloodier battles. Maryland will by firmly in Union hands, with military forces clamping down very tightly after Lincoln's assasination. Delaware will not even consider secession.
 
I think Lincoln was right, though. Kentucky seceding pretty much means the game's up for the Union.

Lincoln was strategically right, of course. (Morally, I have to say, I'm all with the abolitionists. "Preserving the Union" was never something I regard as a worthy goal; freeing the slaves, on the other hand... that's a truly just cause!)

Kentucky seceding doesn't mean the game's up for the Union, though. It lends the CSA a stronger position in the Northwest, but New Orleans will still fall, and the Union will still steam up the Mississippi. Foreign spectators were all focused on the East anyway, so mare confederate success in the Northwest is not likely to lead to recognition by France or something.

No, this just turns Kentucky into a battleground, instead of Tennessee.

The real threat is in Hamlin's perceived mismanagement, which will see the Democrats gaining in Congress and taking the White House in '64. Add Confederate Kentucky to that, and you'll be seeing a '64 that's more like OTL's '63... meaning the war looks like it'll go on for a long while yet. Maybe, just maybe, a negotiated peace becomes possible.

And the historians will argue for the remainder of eternity on wether Hamlin is the man who "lost the South", or the Democrats messed up and Hamlin "should have been allowed to finish the job". Some of those weird speculative history enthousiasts will even argue that if Lincoln had lived, he'd surely have won the war. But that's just nonsense, right? Because Lincoln was hardly more moderate than Hamlin. He'd have made exactly the same mistakes, surely? ;)
 
I think Lincoln was right, though. Kentucky seceding pretty much means the game's up for the Union.

He said that losing Kentucky was. An Ordinance of Secession per se wouldn't necessarily mean that. There were Unionist militias forming in the eastern part of the state, and if they received the same level of Northern support that West Virginia got, could probably hold their own against the secessionists. In the end, Kentucky might still have been retained for the Union, just more messily, as Missouri was.
 
Top