WI: A coup instead of the American Civil War?
- Thread starter Zioneer
- Start date
It wasn't just Lincoln they were "afraid" of. It was the entire Republican Party and its growing control. The Southern Hotheads simply didn't want to play ball anymore once they felt that they could no longer write all the rules and pick all of the referees. A coup wouldn't solve the problem that the slave-ocracy was simply going to be outvoted.
But let's argue that a coup was attempted/considered; perhaps because secession fails. I do not know much about 1860 transition era Washington insider politics to guess as to who might lead it or what they planned to do once the GOP was out of way. But, if they somehow succeeded in gaining control of DC, would that not just lead to a civil war in reverse as Northern states and others rally to restore the federal government? Hmmmmm..that sounds like a good story: Gray clad Northern rebels fighting to restore the elected federal government as Lee and his boys in blue defend the Flag and those opposing Jeff Davis' Constitutional Restoration.
(FWIW, when I read the thread title my first thought was that the Civil War was the result of 14 coups (11 successful) against legitimate state governments requiring federal intervention.)
But let's argue that a coup was attempted/considered; perhaps because secession fails. I do not know much about 1860 transition era Washington insider politics to guess as to who might lead it or what they planned to do once the GOP was out of way. But, if they somehow succeeded in gaining control of DC, would that not just lead to a civil war in reverse as Northern states and others rally to restore the federal government? Hmmmmm..that sounds like a good story: Gray clad Northern rebels fighting to restore the elected federal government as Lee and his boys in blue defend the Flag and those opposing Jeff Davis' Constitutional Restoration.
(FWIW, when I read the thread title my first thought was that the Civil War was the result of 14 coups (11 successful) against legitimate state governments requiring federal intervention.)
unprincipled peter
Donor
the US, with the checks/balances, and it being a union of state governments, make it tough to pull off a coup. It isn't South America of the era. In the US, coup goes by the name impeachment.
A coup likely taints the secession movement (secession is arguable a legitimate action, while overthrowing a gov't isn't) and causes the iffy states to side with the union. It's still going to be a secession, because unionist states will not recognize the new gov't, nor will other world powers.
A coup likely taints the secession movement (secession is arguable a legitimate action, while overthrowing a gov't isn't) and causes the iffy states to side with the union. It's still going to be a secession, because unionist states will not recognize the new gov't, nor will other world powers.
You'd need a different movement. There was support on both sides to letting The South leave. You'd need to change the question from slaves to government which just wasn't going to happen. Granted this was partly a case of federal vs state rights, but the core of the south leaving was over slavery. You'd need a different US for this to happen.
I believe there was a thread on this topic a few months ago.Most of the people there declared that the coup would not even find support in southerners as they would be too horrified by the underhandedness involved.
EDIT:
Found it:https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...up-instead-of-secession.416082/#post-14755207
EDIT:
Found it:https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...up-instead-of-secession.416082/#post-14755207
There can be no coup, because South didn't want to rule US. They wanted to secede. If they did want to rule entire US, they'd negotiate when Corwin amendment was proposed. Corwin amendment would be passed, Lincoln would be hailed as man who saved they Union... and South would know it can threaten to secede to get their way in future North-South disagreements.
Big problem: a coup implies a centralization of government with a concentration of powers that did not exist at that time. Yeah, someone could take over the White House, but to what end? In an elected government, nobody's going to take the guy seriously. What's he gonna do? Give orders nobody follows? This isn't a monarchy or a junta, where the power is in one individual.
Probably a majority of southern political leaders and voters after Lincoln's election were not absolutely committed to secession. But it would certainly take more than the Corwin Amendment to keep them in the Union. Basically, all that amendment did was to prohibit the federal government from passing a law abolishing slavery in the states. Hardly any southerners thought that *that* was how the Republicans would menace slavery. They were afraid of more indirect methods, which the Corwin Amendment did not address. Nothing in the Corwin Amendment would have prevented Congress from outlawing slavery in the territories while admitting one free state after another, thus reducing the South to a hopeless minority. Nothing in the Amendment would prevent Lincoln from using federal patronage to build up an antislavery party in the South. Nothing in the Amendment would prevent the Post Office from allowing the circulation of "incendiary" materials in the South. Nothing in the Amendment would stop northern defiance of the fugitive slave law--even if Lincoln was sincere in his promise to enforce it. Southern fears of all these things may have been overblown, but they were genuinely felt.
The question is what would southerners who were not "secessionists per se" accept as sufficient reassurances to lead them to stay in the Union. At least in the Lower South, the answer was probably that nothing less than the Crittenden proposals could produce an anti-secessionist majority. But the so-called Crittenden Compromise was so one-sidedly pro-southern (especially in guaranteeing slavery in all territories "hereafter acquired" south of the Missouri Compromise line--which could mean anything from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego) that it is very unlikely that enough Republicans would support it to give it any chance of passage. Indeed, many of them argued quite convincingly that it was not a real compromise at all but simply a surrender to the South. (The only "pro-northern" feature of the Compromise was banning slavery in the territories north of the Missouri Compromise line--where nobody expected slavery to take root, anyway. Oh, yes and the Compromise did call for laws to suppress the African slave trade--but so did the Confederate Constitution!)
It is not really true that the South did not want to rule the United States. Or at least it is not true of all Southerners. Even in South Carolina, James Hammond explained why he thought staying in the Union was safer for South Carolina than attempting "go it alone" secession: "the South...can, when united, dictate, as it has always done, the internal and foreign policy of our country." (Note that Hammond is here admitting one of the Republicans' main allegations--that the South, far from groaning under northern oppression, had hitherto dominated the country.) Hammond explained that "at the North, politics is a trade." The spoilsmen "go into it for gain." (This was a typical South Carolina aristocratic view of the "mobocracy" which was seen as prevalent in other states, and especially in the North.) For that reason, no Yankee has "ever been twice elected President." Mr. Lincoln's administration will also break down "before it can accomplish anything detrimental", for its "antislavery agitation" will "not gain them spoils and power." (Quoted in William W. Freehling, *The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant 1854-1861,*, p. 405) No doubt many southerners agreed with Hammond that a southern-dominated Union would be preferable to secession. Where a crucial number disagreed with him was whether it was *possible.* But if it was not possible through political means (including threats of secession) it would certainly not be possible through a coup d'état.