What if a Pro-Slavery candidate (probably Brenkridge) won the election and made it all slavery? Would a Civil War be possible? How will that change things in US History?
WI Pro-Slavery candidate won 1860 election?
- Thread starter Pearlshire19
- Start date
The North secceeds. No idea about a civil war bu no chance that the North will allow them to
Abraham Lincoln said:
General Mung Beans
Banned
If the canidate tried to make all of the US slave states he'll get impeached.
I don't know about that. Arguably, the Dred Scott decision did just that. Before we go too far with this, recall that Breckinridge is probably not interested in breaking the United States, although I would suspect tensions to escalate.
Breckinridge might be able to pull something off to dodge the civil war--a second war with Mexico to divert attention from Kansas? Short of something like this forcing the USA to hold itself together, it could well start to break apart of Breckinridge pushes too hard.
That said, recall that many slaveowners had been Presidents and the North had generally behaved itself--the reverse was not true.
I suspect that Breckinridge will ultimately fail to eliminate the tensions that have been rising for decades and when Seward or Lincoln is elected in 1864, you'd see a similar civil war breaking out. Kansas would probably be settled before that point, but the USA is probably more fragmented in 1864 than it would be in 1860--which means the war is coming. And if Breckinridge was somehow able to distract the people of the USA through a military adventure, whoever picks up the pieces in 1864 is going to have a mess to deal with.
I remember reading that, because of John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry(act of treason), there was a split in the Democratic Party just before the election. Two main groups formed, one pro-slavery but moderate in their vocal support and the other pro-slavery but with a hard-lined stance.
The reason for this split was that the hard-lined pro-slavery Southerners accused he Democratic Party of not protecting slavery enough and formed their own little clique with its own Presidential candidate to run against the others.
The Republican Party, in reality, won with a 39.8% of the vote with the major Democratic Party Candidates got 18.1% (Breckenridge) and 29.5% (Douglas) of the vote. This means that if the Democrats had not split their party just before the election they would have won 47.6% of the vote so it is possible to get a pro-slavery President in the White House in the 1860's.
I doubt that Breckenridge would campaign for a nation wide installation of Slavery but he would probably spend his time in office attempting to stop the North and South from tearing each other apart. He probably wouldn't find the time to do much else.
Of course Douglas was more likely to win the Presidents office for the Democrats but we cannot really call him pro-slavery, he was more neutral but supported the institution where he believed or saw a benefit in doing so (as opposed to Lincoln who was neutral but more inclined to oppose Slavery as it helped him personally with Northern Voters)
The reason for this split was that the hard-lined pro-slavery Southerners accused he Democratic Party of not protecting slavery enough and formed their own little clique with its own Presidential candidate to run against the others.
The Republican Party, in reality, won with a 39.8% of the vote with the major Democratic Party Candidates got 18.1% (Breckenridge) and 29.5% (Douglas) of the vote. This means that if the Democrats had not split their party just before the election they would have won 47.6% of the vote so it is possible to get a pro-slavery President in the White House in the 1860's.
I doubt that Breckenridge would campaign for a nation wide installation of Slavery but he would probably spend his time in office attempting to stop the North and South from tearing each other apart. He probably wouldn't find the time to do much else.
Of course Douglas was more likely to win the Presidents office for the Democrats but we cannot really call him pro-slavery, he was more neutral but supported the institution where he believed or saw a benefit in doing so (as opposed to Lincoln who was neutral but more inclined to oppose Slavery as it helped him personally with Northern Voters)
JohnJacques
Banned
However, even combining the Democratic candidacies, they still face an electoral defeat.
That's not implausible, though. If the Republican party is less well organized--it is a new party, after all, and it tries to run Fremont instead of Lincoln it could well lose the 1860 election. Or, you could have a "Whig" party attempting to reassert itself while the Republicans still remain on the fringe.
^ Essentially, the Whig Party was attempted by the Constitutional Union Party with John Bell.
You need an earlier POD. For my President Douglas TL, I used 1856, and had the Democrats not split over Kansas-Nebraska. This led them to have a united ticket in 1860 with Douglas/Breckenridge.
I see two things wrong with a Pro-Slavery President making slavery nationwide:
1. Going completely with states-rights ideology, no President would even think of such a thing. Political suicide would be the result. (Northern states wouldn't secede, it's against their ideology.) Take any southern President who might have had a chance at the Presidency: John Breckenridge, John Bell, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Johnson, Robert E. Lee, Stephen Douglas (a northerner, but a states-rights man.) All of them were in favor of compromise and the majority of them realized that slavery was a dying institution and would eventually have to be shut down. (In it's own good time of course)
2. There's too many northern states to make that happen. Anything that huge would have to go through the legislature, and as shown by the election of 1860, there were far too many northern votes (thus, anti-slavery votes) to allow slavery to be legally spread to the north. While the Dred Scott decision virtually made the entire country a slaveocracy, northern states would fight the decision and still promote anti-slavery laws through Congress.
Secession would not be the result. Again, against northern ideology. Although I do see violence erupting in border states: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri definitely. California might experience some, but Kansas would most definitely get a sequel. It would be the President's tough decision...
You need an earlier POD. For my President Douglas TL, I used 1856, and had the Democrats not split over Kansas-Nebraska. This led them to have a united ticket in 1860 with Douglas/Breckenridge.
I see two things wrong with a Pro-Slavery President making slavery nationwide:
1. Going completely with states-rights ideology, no President would even think of such a thing. Political suicide would be the result. (Northern states wouldn't secede, it's against their ideology.) Take any southern President who might have had a chance at the Presidency: John Breckenridge, John Bell, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Johnson, Robert E. Lee, Stephen Douglas (a northerner, but a states-rights man.) All of them were in favor of compromise and the majority of them realized that slavery was a dying institution and would eventually have to be shut down. (In it's own good time of course)
2. There's too many northern states to make that happen. Anything that huge would have to go through the legislature, and as shown by the election of 1860, there were far too many northern votes (thus, anti-slavery votes) to allow slavery to be legally spread to the north. While the Dred Scott decision virtually made the entire country a slaveocracy, northern states would fight the decision and still promote anti-slavery laws through Congress.
Secession would not be the result. Again, against northern ideology. Although I do see violence erupting in border states: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri definitely. California might experience some, but Kansas would most definitely get a sequel. It would be the President's tough decision...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Probably continued sectionalism, but no outright secession until the results of the 1864. There would probably be a greater degree of legislative gridlock.
What would add fire to the fuel would be if the President ordered the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act which most Northern states were completely ignoring - their own version of Nullification.
Wolfpaw
Banned
Yes, yes, I know; thread necromancy. But before you get your knickers in a twist, I'd like to say I've actually got something to add that could make this thing pull a Lazarus.
Here's something I've always wondered about. As SilverPhantom2 points out, secession would be against Northern ideology since the vast, vast majority were solid Unionists.
So here's my question; why we gotta have us a Civil War that involves secession? If yet more doughfaces get elected and sectionalism worsens, there could very well be a civil war. Only it's not the North that secedes; it's the North that rebels. Oh, they want the Union, but they're sick to death of the South's running rampant, pluse we've got hyper-abolitionist transcendentalists and Christians getting more influential. Maybe they say it's time God's Righteous Fury be visited on D.C. and the South? Maybe it's time they finally get a real Northern president, eh? By any means necessary, up to and including armed insurrection and coup d'etat.
Just an idea I had floatin' about. Whaddaya think?
Here's something I've always wondered about. As SilverPhantom2 points out, secession would be against Northern ideology since the vast, vast majority were solid Unionists.
So here's my question; why we gotta have us a Civil War that involves secession? If yet more doughfaces get elected and sectionalism worsens, there could very well be a civil war. Only it's not the North that secedes; it's the North that rebels. Oh, they want the Union, but they're sick to death of the South's running rampant, pluse we've got hyper-abolitionist transcendentalists and Christians getting more influential. Maybe they say it's time God's Righteous Fury be visited on D.C. and the South? Maybe it's time they finally get a real Northern president, eh? By any means necessary, up to and including armed insurrection and coup d'etat.
Just an idea I had floatin' about. Whaddaya think?
@Wolfpaw - While that is a novel idea, having a true civil war in the US instead of an attempted war of secession, it's still difficult. The North had enough clout in Congress to block any piece of legislation it cared to. The President could have attempted to enforce by military means the Dredd Scott Decision and Fugitive Slave Laws (something the supposedly States Rights proponents in the South wanted to do already) but it would have been extremely difficult. If say Massachusetts had nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and such and then been occupied by Federal forces it would have caused a dire crisis. Every free state would have rallied around MA and also declared the Fugitive Slave Act nullified. Once this happens the Federal government is stuck. Congress has dead locked thus no budgets are passed and while the President can declare martial law how does one deploy an Army, which is loosing hundreds of Northern deserters daily, through hostile states with no funds.
Because like it or not...while history has shown that the North could with enough wage war on and through the South the reverse is not plausible. And as others have said, the idea of Union had already become ingrained in the Northern conscious, but the Free States would not have been above forming a governor's council to coordinate their activities while ignoring the Federal government. The pro-slavery President would hve been impotent to do anything, but I doubt that the North would have marched on Washington. It would have been a tough four years followed by a blood bath once the galvanized North took the presidency in 1865.
Benjamin
Because like it or not...while history has shown that the North could with enough wage war on and through the South the reverse is not plausible. And as others have said, the idea of Union had already become ingrained in the Northern conscious, but the Free States would not have been above forming a governor's council to coordinate their activities while ignoring the Federal government. The pro-slavery President would hve been impotent to do anything, but I doubt that the North would have marched on Washington. It would have been a tough four years followed by a blood bath once the galvanized North took the presidency in 1865.
Benjamin
The idea that Breckinridge would have forced the Northern states to legalize slavery is just silly. The abolitionists were the ones who wanted slavery banned across the nation, and the South seceded because they feared a Republican administration would have banned slavery. Southerners simply wanted to preserve slavery in their states, as well as expand into territories. They could care less whether or not slavery was legal in Pennsylvania or Vermont.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that Congress could not prohibit slavery in federal territories. It did not override state laws banning slavery. However, the Supreme Court held that blacks could not be citizens, which was a dick move with absolutely no Constitutional justification.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that Congress could not prohibit slavery in federal territories. It did not override state laws banning slavery. However, the Supreme Court held that blacks could not be citizens, which was a dick move with absolutely no Constitutional justification.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Surely, everyone, nothing would change in the short run. The US had been getting one Pro-Southern President after another. What would be different? The South wanted the Fugitive Slave laws enforced, but not to the point of Civil War. One thing to note: The West and Northwest will be 4 years more settled, 4 years more developed. A Civil War starting with a (Say for the sake of arguement) Lincoln Administration in 1865? This will mean the South is going to have a slightly heavier burden to face.
However, God forbid, it could also mean a Civil War with Gatling guns.
However, God forbid, it could also mean a Civil War with Gatling guns.
Surely, everyone, nothing would change in the short run. The US had been getting one Pro-Southern President after another. What would be different? The South wanted the Fugitive Slave laws enforced, but not to the point of Civil War. One thing to note: The West and Northwest will be 4 years more settled, 4 years more developed. A Civil War starting with a (Say for the sake of arguement) Lincoln Administration in 1865? This will mean the South is going to have a slightly heavier burden to face.
However, God forbid, it could also mean a Civil War with Gatling guns.
Or worse. Confederate Dirigibles!
Wolfpaw
Banned
Well IIRC, Douglas promised the Southern Dems that if they agreed to nominate him and not split the party, he'd start a war with Mexico (not that difficult since Britain, Spain, and France invited us to occupy Mexico with them in '61) and annex bits of it as slave territory so as to keep the Congressional balance more or less even.
As unlikely as that is to have worked out (I really don't think the Mexicans would have gone for it; slavery had been outlawed for 30-odd years), we could see the North get really unhappy with a war/occupation that would basically just be one giant filibuster directly conducted by the federal government. That, plus more efforts put into enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act could perhaps incite a legitimate civil (rather than secessionist) war.
As unlikely as that is to have worked out (I really don't think the Mexicans would have gone for it; slavery had been outlawed for 30-odd years), we could see the North get really unhappy with a war/occupation that would basically just be one giant filibuster directly conducted by the federal government. That, plus more efforts put into enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act could perhaps incite a legitimate civil (rather than secessionist) war.
Last edited:
While Breckenridge would not have attempted to instate slavery in he Northern states, the Dredd Scott Decision effectively did so anyway. Scott was taken into Illinois by his slavemaster. By the terms of the Illinois State Constitution, which forbade slavery, he was then free. Scott's "master", Dr. Emerson, ignored this law and the uneducated Scott did not know the truth. So when Dredd Scott finally sued for his freedom the courts should have said "Mr. Scott, you're a free man."
Instead in a 7-2 decision, influenced by extreme and illegal political pressure on the part of President Buchanan, the Court striped away all and any rights from every black American. Slaves had no more rights than a hammer, which fit into the ideology of the slaveocracy, and any state laws saying otherwise were overturned. History has shown that the South was only concerned with "State Rights" when the idea helped to protect slavery and the cotton trade, but supported any authoritarian Federal law that worked in their favor. Given the growing power, both politically and industrially, of the North, Southern domination of the Federal government was on its last legs.
The best way to have a pro-slavery president in 1860 would be to have the Republican candidate die shortly before the election. This would throw the Republican Party into temporary turmoil and give the edge to the Democrats. While the North would be angered I think the nation would enter into one of the harshest nullification crisis ever seen. The fighting in the Territories would increase into a replay of Bloody Kansas X 10 and in 1862 the Republicans would take control of Congress. This alone may brig about Southern secession, but if not in 1864, when the Republican candidate wins, the South secedes.
Benjamin
The Supreme Court also ruled in Dred Scott that if a slave was brought into a free state, he still remained a slave. The Dred Scott decision is over 60 pages long.
Time was on the side of the North so the idea of the North seceding is a non-starter. They will simply wait until the GOP wins in 1864, having added another state or three, plus further industrial development favoring the North, especially the railroads annd another million or so immigrants.
WolfPaw, not only did Douglas never make any such promise he would have been killing himself politically by effectively calling for the death of the Monroe Doctrine. Neither could he have guaranteed any slave state as it takes time to develop and settle territories and only then can they apply for admission as a state, free or otherwise.
You might note that despite all the southern claims about New Mexico they were unable to introduce a credible population of slaves with more than a decade to do so. I believe the estimate just before 1860 was 12 slaves residing permanently and another 10 guests present.
WolfPaw, not only did Douglas never make any such promise he would have been killing himself politically by effectively calling for the death of the Monroe Doctrine. Neither could he have guaranteed any slave state as it takes time to develop and settle territories and only then can they apply for admission as a state, free or otherwise.
You might note that despite all the southern claims about New Mexico they were unable to introduce a credible population of slaves with more than a decade to do so. I believe the estimate just before 1860 was 12 slaves residing permanently and another 10 guests present.