The South secedes peacefully?
- Thread starter Uruk
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
Someone other than Lincoln getting the Republican nomination, perhaps? Or perhaps Stephen Douglas wins in 1860 one way or another (difficult but not impossible) and the first Republican isn't elected until 1864 and there have somehow been significant changes in the intervening four years to allow for a peaceful secession.
One thing is certain, though: Abraham Lincoln would never allow the Union to be dissolved. If he's in the White House, there could be no peaceful secession.
One thing is certain, though: Abraham Lincoln would never allow the Union to be dissolved. If he's in the White House, there could be no peaceful secession.
birdboy2000
Banned
What the south needs is to try much earlier, when the north is less relatively powerful and the union less solidified. I don't know what an earlier opportunity for peaceful secession would be, however.
Asami
Banned
There was no Southern secession as far as I can tell, any secessionist noises were mostly confined to New England.
best chance i think for successful secession not regarding the 1860's....
would be during Andrew Jackson's term in office.... but that would not be peaceful at all....
would be during Andrew Jackson's term in office.... but that would not be peaceful at all....
You don't get peaceful secession with Jefferson Davis as Confederate President. Rather than try to solve things peaceably, Davis started the war by ordering the unprovoked attack on Ft Sumter.
Come, let's be realistic here. Lincoln had, by that point, made it absolutely clear that he was not going to let the South go. Fort Sumter was a very dumb move on the part of the South, absolutely, but did it cause the war? No. The war would've commenced anyway. Even if the South had been completely peaceful about it, secession was an unacceptable concept to Lincoln.
While I agree that a potato with a face painted on it would likely have made a better president than Davis, replacing him with anyone else will not prevent the war. For that to be possible, the general opinion held by the (leadership in the) North will have to be changed. That is: they must be willing to consider a scenario where secession is acceptable to them. To Lincoln, it was never going to be acceptable.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
Eh, I disagree. Had the South not attacked the Fort, they might have been able to enter a period of "False / Fake" war which very well could have politically been to their advantage.
There isn't one. Secession is by force, against the Unionists in any state declaring secession. It's sort of like "consensual rape" - a contradiction in terms. That's not entirely fair - there have been cases of peaceful secession in history (the "Velvet Divorce" of Czechoslovakia).
However, these cases required near-total consensus in the seceding territory. That was not the case in the American South at any time.
And to the extent that there was a pro-secession consensus in any Southern state, it was because the President (or President-elect) was viewed as hostile to slaveowner interests, and it is very unlikely that any such President would consent to secession.
Nor Douglas. During his 1860 campaign, he said "I am in favor of upholding every law and right under the Constitution - and hanging every man who takes up arms against it."
When Lincoln issued his proclamation of a state of rebellion, calling for 75,000 troops, he asked Douglas to review it. Douglas told him he should call for 200,0000 troops.
What about if James Buchanan had died for some reason, leaving his Kentuckian VP Brekinridge as president until March 4, 1861? OTL Brekinridge had advocated the withdrawal of federal forces from all Confederate states(such as Fort Sumter, for example) in the name of preventing a war. Assuming the military doesn't outright disobey a Brekinridge order to withdraw from the South, this would mean that Lincoln would have to order the first shot of a war.
Would he do it? Even if he did, he would not have the overwhelming support of the public and political class, which only rallied behind the war on account of the Fort Sumter attack. Assuming the war drags on like in OTL(if anything it's likely to go worse for the Union due to substantial/majority public opposition to the war) it's entirely plausible that the Democratic candidate in the 1864 election could run on and win on a platform of forging a truce with the Confederate States.
Would he do it? Even if he did, he would not have the overwhelming support of the public and political class, which only rallied behind the war on account of the Fort Sumter attack. Assuming the war drags on like in OTL(if anything it's likely to go worse for the Union due to substantial/majority public opposition to the war) it's entirely plausible that the Democratic candidate in the 1864 election could run on and win on a platform of forging a truce with the Confederate States.
It could have stalled the commencement of hostilities for a while, giving the South some more time to prepare. But see the comments below your post. There was going to be a conflict, and the North was very serious about restoring the Union. Fort Sumter or no Fort Sumter, the only way I see this ending peacefully is:
1) through negotiations (the South agrees to return to the Union and swear off secession, in return for certain guarantees regarding states' rights and slavery) or;
2) in a scenario where pre-secession politics are so vastly different that the North is inclined to accept secession as legitimate.
Since option 1 is both wildly implausible and doesn't fit the OP's criteria, I really think we should be looking at option 2.
It all depends on timing. I assume you mean for Buchanan to die after the election? Would it be accepted when a vice president, elevated to the presidential office by chance, makes such sweeping decisions while holding the office on a lame-duck basis? I honestly don't know, but it seems a bit iffy.
Alternatively, Buchanan can die earlier, before the 1860 election, making Breckinridge far more established as president, and also making him more of a shoe-in for the Democratic ticket. That would influence the elections, but I still don't see Breckinridge winning. Suppose Lincoln still wins, and Breckinridge evacuates the forts in the south just as you said. If he does that when he has just taken over for Buchanan a month ago, with the election already past, it would be very controversial. But if he has been in office for a year or so by that point, I can see it happening without too much fuss.
Coming from the left but how about a much earlier POD? Like say the south was much less supportive of the American Revolution? Or shortly afterwards the south decides it is in it's best interest to rejoin or ally with the British? Basically a POD in or around the Revolution.
BlondieBC
Banned
POD's.
1) I would go with the US constitution being clear that states are allowed to leave, with some formal mechanism such as a 2/3 vote for it in the state that wants to leave. Have this in the original 11 Amendments.
2) Or have at some point, say 1840's, have a constitutional amendment to try to fix slavery for all time. Something like the South will not leave, as long as slavery is never removed from existing states.
3) Or if not liking that, have some compromise bill that clearly setups the rights of states to leave, decades before the war.
Basically, remove the argument that states can't leave, and I think any coalition to ban slavery will have to accept some slave states leaving.
1) I would go with the US constitution being clear that states are allowed to leave, with some formal mechanism such as a 2/3 vote for it in the state that wants to leave. Have this in the original 11 Amendments.
2) Or have at some point, say 1840's, have a constitutional amendment to try to fix slavery for all time. Something like the South will not leave, as long as slavery is never removed from existing states.
3) Or if not liking that, have some compromise bill that clearly setups the rights of states to leave, decades before the war.
Basically, remove the argument that states can't leave, and I think any coalition to ban slavery will have to accept some slave states leaving.
Now get that past men like this:
"Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, SC Ratifying Convention, 1788.
The people in favor of the Union are not going to be in favor of making it easier to dismantle when someone can't be arsed to compromise.