WI the erring sisters depart in peace

What if seven southern states (South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) seceded in 1860-1 as IOTL, but for whatever reason Lincoln is persuaded to just evacuate federal posts in that territory and let them go. He meets with commissioners sent by the CSA to Washington and eventually some sort of "confedexit"agreement is hammered out.

There will be an argument that the CSA would have attacked the (rest of the) USA anyway, but its not conclusive that this is on the cards, and for the sake of argument lets say this doesn't happen. And you can substitute Seward, Hamlin, or Douglas for Lincoln to make this work.

So by the end of 1861 seven slave states have left the USA peacefully and formed the Confederacy, and are negotiating with Washington over issues such as access to the Mississippi and compensation for federal property within those states. The other six slave states are still in the USA. What happens after that?

I'm posting this because I think this scenario is more likely than the "CSA army curb stomps the USA army" scenarios that we more often get.
 
1) Not happening. Secession was overwhelmingly rejected by non-Southerners.

2) Not happening. Secession was rejected by a large minority of Southerners; does Lincoln stand by while these people are coerced by the secessionists? (Often violently; you might look into the deeds of what German immigrants in south Texas called the Hangerverbande.)

3) If the U.S. did not resist secession by the "Gulf Squadron", the remaining slave states would all secede as well. Once the precedent of secession had been established, and the now overwhelmingly anti-slavery U.S. (18 free to 8 slave states) legislated against slavery, they would have no reason to remain. The four upper South states would go almost at once. That would leave only four slave states to eighteen free states, allowing a constitutional amendment against slavery, which would drive out the other four slave states. Since almost everyone could see that coming, it's not happening.
 
It's not really helpful to say "not happening" when it's part of the premise, unless he asked "could it happen?" It's a "what if." You have to roll with it.
 
I take that back, I think I do. You see, the North wasn't rabidly anti-slavery. Most of the people simply didn't care, but I'd say the population was maybe 70% "don't care" and the rest was "contain slavery" > "State rules" > "abolitionists". So if you don't count the "don't care," a plurality of people who cared wanted to contain slavery, not get rid of it that generation.
 
You shouldn't have to "roll with it" inherently. If I ask "what if a group of Buddhist Iranians invade early thirteenth century Europe" nobody has to play along unless I've built a timeline that leads to that premise plausibly.

That said, I wonder if you go back far enough, perhaps you could end up in a position where the federal government simply lacks the will to attack the secessionists directly? Perhaps the fire-eaters never fire the first shots? Perhaps everything just simmers on and there's never an outright provocation that leads to actual violence?

I mean eventually there'd have to be a conflict, but maybe it could be forestalled for a while while the southern states act somewhat independent?
 
There has been something like a gazillion threads on this forum about the events of 1860-1, many of which I have read, so I don't even know where to begin to address the idea that it was utterly impossible that seven states could have seceded peacefully and then things pretty much stopped there. The objections expressed here are not even wrong. Let alone the considerable number of historical examples of mostly peaceful secessions and major political changes (the US was really unique in that slavery was abolished violently, and actually somewhat though not totally unusual in the determination to crush a secessionist movement by peoples who had been viewed as equals).
 
Top