WI: The fall of a President, an ACW scenario

TFSmith121

Banned
Bee Creek was in Missouri in 1861 and amounted

I am referring to widespread calls for retaliation from the union in the south. With the president being killed by confederates, events like Sherman's Atlanta Campaign in 1864 that destroyed absolutely everything in their path, dynamited factories, and burned down towns, farms, banks and courthouses would be more encouraged.

While I don't have academic sources for it there was a massacre of 200 civilians north of Columbia, South Carolina in 1865. I have read multiple first hand letters of soldiers and civilians who were in the state at the time. As well as descriptions of other smaller incidents. I believe the ones I saw were in the Virginia Military Institute archive, and the Texas Civil War Museum in Fort Worth.

What I mainly am referring to is an escalation of events, and an increase in raids and guerrilla action. But examples that could apply include Bee Creek Massacre and the bloodshed seen throughout the Kansas territory.The reason I listed it is due to reading an interesting book on the subject. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
by Walter Cisco. It has better sources than I can find. While there is a little to much "southern sympathy" the author was rather well grounded and made a good analysis.

IRL
From what I have studied It was not only a war against the army but against the people,with the intent being to break the back of the Confederacy and end the war as quickly as possible. But parts of Grant's orders to Sherman included
And

Makes you wonder how Union officers would react if they fuel to add to the existing flames.

Bee Creek was in 1861, in Missouri, and involved a "massacre" of two.

Mr. Cisco's work is unabashed neo-confederate Lost Causism.

No idea what you're getting at with the reference to Columbia, SC, in 1865.

The economic warfare tactics used during the march to the sea were well within the laws of land warfare of the day, as witness the destruction of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.

You may wish to review the Lieber Code.

Best,
 
In April of 63, Grant was still a Brig General and trudging his way toward Vicksburg. He didn't become General-in-Chief until 1864. Also I still question the likeliness of Hamlin winning the election of 1864 against McClellan.

Of the 9 vice-president who have ascended to the office of president [John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford.]
Only 4 have won of their own right [Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson]


Tyler and Johnson were Democrats who had defected to join Whig or Republican tickets, so essentially presidents without a party. Fillmore was almost renominated, but in any case his party was in such a mess that no Whig was likely to win. Arthur was ill.

None of these is likely to apply in Hamlin's case, so unless the Republicans can find a stronger candidate, he's likely to be nominated. And unless the war is going a lot worse than OTL, he is also likely to be elected. Indeed, as a former Democrat, he may even do slightly better than the ex-Whig Lincoln.


Inevitably though I see things heading toward,
-more civilian massacres (sherman's march to the sea x3)
-more torching of cities (Richmond, Charleston, and Columbia)
-Confederate leaders and generals that are captured are more likely sentenced to death or at best, life imprisonment. (Hamlin may be against the Death Penalty, but most of the Union will the calling for blood, I don't see him having that much of an effect on their treatment; and that's if he gets re-elected.)
-The planter class is going to be demolished.

Might the land be given to Northern whites or former slaves?

Why should any of this be even remotely likely?

It's not at all what happened in 1865, when Sherman placed Raleigh off limits to his troops, just in case any of them were inclined to avenge Lincoln in such a manner. And Lincoln's TTL death, essentially just a bit of bad luck when he strayed too near the front line, probably won't arouse half as much outrage as did Booth's premeditated murder.

Incidentally, in 1872 Congress voted to lift the disabilities jmposed by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment from the vast majority of ex-Rebs, and iirc the then Senator Hannibal Hamlin voted with the majority. He may have been nearer to the Radicals than to Andrew Johnson (what Republican wasn't?) but he was no more vengeful than the general run of his party.
 
Of the 9 vice-president who have ascended to the office of president [John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford.]
Only 4 have won of their own right [Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson]

I think sympathy post-assassination and "Not wanting to change horses halfway" would be enough to carry Hamlin to victory.

If someone else wins does Booth try to take them out? Did he have a particular hatred of Lincoln? Some people have theorized he was jealous of his fiance's relationship with Lincoln's son.
 
I think sympathy post-assassination and "Not wanting to change horses halfway" would be enough to carry Hamlin to victory.


Small point. Would Lincoln's death in such circumstances still be called an assassination, or would he merely be viewed as a casualty of war?
 
He was a military commander in the field of battle, shot by a uniformed soldier behind his own lines. While it would not be murder, I would see a some kind of court martial for the shooter. If they had a union observer, it might diffuse the anger.
 
Top