If the Confederates chose Howell Cobb’s as a president

Hello everybody I am giving you a alternative history scenario if the Confederates at proper leader ship. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=confederate_farmers/detail=factbook

Well I’m myThe Confederates ignore The provocation of Lincoln Breaking the quasi armisticenot To rearm Fort Sumter. Well eventually war does break out and the confederate’s take Washington DC at bull run
it actually would’ve been possible So they probably will not be able to hang onto it too long.https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1404596

so in my scenario the union evacuate dc and under overwhelming pressure demand Lincoln has to accept the armistice.

Lincoln will do everything he can to stop Congress from making peace with the south .

if Lincoln can’t save himself in the short term to avoid Congressional override a veto to stop the war is lost .Alsoif the north refuses a armistice they CSA will destroy the capital buildings.

If Lincoln can some how avoid a override he can use this Devastating psychological defeat to his advantage

he will get Manny to want to unless to retake the capital and avenge The destruction of the buildings. He would have a lot of support for the war yet already significant peace movement.

please give me your thoughts and how canAbe continue the war? Remember before the attack fort Sumter and is called troops sept Yankeedom (New England,upstate New York, and the upper Midwest) most of America was willing to let the south go. I suppose Lincoln could Arrest some copperheads and peace Democrat’s outer suspension of habeas corpus in the Congress But what else can I do but what else can be do?
 

Ficboy

Banned
Hello everybody I am giving you a alternative history scenario if the Confederates at proper leader ship. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=confederate_farmers/detail=factbook

Well I’m myThe Confederates ignore The provocation of Lincoln Breaking the quasi armisticenot To rearm Fort Sumter. Well eventually war does break out and the confederate’s take Washington DC at bull run
it actually would’ve been possible So they probably will not be able to hang onto it too long.https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1404596

so in my scenario the union evacuate dc and under overwhelming pressure demand Lincoln has to accept the armistice.

Lincoln will do everything he can to stop Congress from making peace with the south .

if Lincoln can’t save himself in the short term to avoid Congressional override a veto to stop the war is lost .Alsoif the north refuses a armistice they CSA will destroy the capital buildings.

If Lincoln can some how avoid a override he can use this Devastating psychological defeat to his advantage

he will get Manny to want to unless to retake the capital and avenge The destruction of the buildings. He would have a lot of support for the war yet already significant peace movement.

please give me your thoughts and how canAbe continue the war? Remember before the attack fort Sumter and is called troops sept Yankeedom (New England,upstate New York, and the upper Midwest) most of America was willing to let the south go. I suppose Lincoln could Arrest some copperheads and peace Democrat’s outer suspension of habeas corpus in the Congress But what else can I do but what else can be do?
You really need to work on the grammar if you're going to have a productive thread. Just correct the spelling and you'll be fine.
 
Congress would have to impeach Lincoln in order to end the war like that. Not only Lincoln, but Hamlin too. There's also the fact that the Congress only met in July 4th because Lincoln called for them. If the situation is different Lincoln would simply not do so and continue to exercise his vaguely defined but extensive war powers, until the Congress assembled in December. Nonetheless, even if Washington falls, I think the Republicans would not surrender but would continue the war from Philadelphia. The pro-peace faction was not really a pro-peace one, but a pro-compromise one that sought to avert war, but once the challenge was issued they did not back from it. The North and the South applauded war, both believing it would be short and glorious. It would not be until later, when the truth that war was well was revealed, that Copperheads appeared. Washington falling certainly gives the rebs a psychological advantage, but I don't think it's quite the coup de grace you seem to think it is. Finally, I've always held that John C. Breckinridge is the best candidate for Confederate President, but Cobb is an interesting possibility too.
 

Ficboy

Banned
Hello everybody I am giving you a alternative history scenario if the Confederates at proper leader ship. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=confederate_farmers/detail=factbook

Well I’m myThe Confederates ignore The provocation of Lincoln Breaking the quasi armisticenot To rearm Fort Sumter. Well eventually war does break out and the confederate’s take Washington DC at bull run
it actually would’ve been possible So they probably will not be able to hang onto it too long.https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1404596

so in my scenario the union evacuate dc and under overwhelming pressure demand Lincoln has to accept the armistice.

Lincoln will do everything he can to stop Congress from making peace with the south .

if Lincoln can’t save himself in the short term to avoid Congressional override a veto to stop the war is lost .Alsoif the north refuses a armistice they CSA will destroy the capital buildings.

If Lincoln can some how avoid a override he can use this Devastating psychological defeat to his advantage

he will get Manny to want to unless to retake the capital and avenge The destruction of the buildings. He would have a lot of support for the war yet already significant peace movement.

please give me your thoughts and how canAbe continue the war? Remember before the attack fort Sumter and is called troops sept Yankeedom (New England,upstate New York, and the upper Midwest) most of America was willing to let the south go. I suppose Lincoln could Arrest some copperheads and peace Democrat’s outer suspension of habeas corpus in the Congress But what else can I do but what else can be do?
Just read your timeline. There is a lot of work to do if you want to have a plausible but entertaining timeline starting with reading books on the Civil War.
 
Just read your timeline. There is a lot of work to do if you want to have a plausible but entertaining timeline starting with reading books on the Civil War.

believe it or not I’ve read many books that would relate to these issues of the Civil War. As for my grammar I don’t have spellcheck here I don’t think.
 
Congress would have to impeach Lincoln in order to end the war like that. Not only Lincoln, but Hamlin too. There's also the fact that the Congress only met in July 4th because Lincoln called for them. If the situation is different Lincoln would simply not do so and continue to exercise his vaguely defined but extensive war powers, until the Congress assembled in December. Nonetheless, even if Washington falls, I think the Republicans would not surrender but would continue the war from Philadelphia. The pro-peace faction was not really a pro-peace one, but a pro-compromise one that sought to avert war, but once the challenge was issued they did not back from it. The North and the South applauded war, both believing it would be short and glorious. It would not be until later, when the truth that war was well was revealed, that Copperheads appeared. Washington falling certainly gives the rebs a psychological advantage, but I don't think it's quite the coup de grace you seem to think it is. Finally, I've always held that John C. Breckinridge is the best candidate for Confederate President, but Cobb is an interesting possibility too.
Well actually my timeline is different my bull runs Is inThe fall. Well Lincoln would probably have to make a armistice and have peace talks with the confederacy .If he refuses then the CSA will threaten to destroy the capital buildings(this would get a lot of Northerners who would believe that to restore the union isn’t through war ,but peace)

Lincoln would possibly even consider having peace with the south for a time at least. Why would change his mind possibly is a Eastern Tennessee 1861 rebellion. Lincoln would think hold on if there still Southerners wanting to rejoin the union that he should continue the war.


All he needs is to avoid a 2/3 of the house and senate not to override his veto. Well I’m thinking Lincoln could continue the war with the use of suspension of habeas corpus to arrest anti war politicians. The wisest course of action would be the south to wait a couple months at least not to destroy the buildings yet . Philadelphia will be used to resurrect the Union spirts of the revolution to continue th war. Lincoln uses the defeat to muster troops to liberate the capital! Most people and do you see were sympathetic to the union The other portion was neutral. Lincoln is seen as the aggressor twice trying to provoke war .
However accident order possibly occurs . The order was to wait and maybe somehow miscommunication happens and they immediately destroy the capital buildings like in January.
Lincoln no has far more public support particularly recruitment to restore the union. Greater then Fort Sumter as a matter in fact. Lincoln would be waving this bloody shirt to avenge DC!

in 1862 if not 1861 the south will probably recognize the csa .

Abe Lincoln would probably not go to war with Britain despite his threats to do so if they recognize the csa.

you would have just as many people supporting the war with just as many politicians open for reasonable peace talks though not at any price.

more like compromise ,but not copperhead
 
Congress would have to impeach Lincoln in order to end the war like that. Not only Lincoln, but Hamlin too. There's also the fact that the Congress only met in July 4th because Lincoln called for them. If the situation is different Lincoln would simply not do so and continue to exercise his vaguely defined but extensive war powers, until the Congress assembled in December. Nonetheless, even if Washington falls, I think the Republicans would not surrender but would continue the war from Philadelphia. The pro-peace faction was not really a pro-peace one, but a pro-compromise one that sought to avert war, but once the challenge was issued they did not back from it. The North and the South applauded war, both believing it would be short and glorious. It would not be until later, when the truth that war was well was revealed, that Copperheads appeared. Washington falling certainly gives the rebs a psychological advantage, but I don't think it's quite the coup de grace you seem to think it is. Finally, I've always held that John C. Breckinridge is the best candidate for Confederate President, but Cobb is an interesting possibility too.
Well Breckenridge Is a great choice,but not possible,because he’s from Kentucky. This would probably add legitimacy if he became president some how . He was the former vice president and a major presidential candidate.
 
I definitely think taking the union capital would possibly get foreign recognition achieved possibly in 1861.

because The longer they are at a armistice the most likely Foreign recognition will happen. The north has very competent ambassadors however. At least with a string of 62 victories I think Britain 🇬🇧 and France 🇫🇷 would decide to recognize thinking about if you’re strong enough to declare war on them.
 
The main problem is that with Fort Sumter is that the Confederacy couldn't ignore it. Basically as long as the US held it the south's claim to be an independent state couldn't be taken seriously as a " foreign" country held a fort in one of it's main harbors. As to taking the capital with a 1861 pod very unlikely especially with a fall Bull Run leading to it. Already by July 1861 they had began building fortifications and by the fall made it hard to impossible to take. The confederacy lacked the artillery and engineering knowledge to successfully take it. I seen the confederacy taking the capital compared to Operation Sealion from WW2.
 
Hello everybody I am giving you a alternative history scenario if the Confederates at proper leader ship. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=confederate_farmers/detail=factbook

Well I’m myThe Confederates ignore The provocation of Lincoln Breaking the quasi armisticenot To rearm Fort Sumter. Well eventually war does break out and the confederate’s take Washington DC at bull run
it actually would’ve been possible So they probably will not be able to hang onto it too long.https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1404596

so in my scenario the union evacuate dc and under overwhelming pressure demand Lincoln has to accept the armistice.

Lincoln will do everything he can to stop Congress from making peace with the south .

if Lincoln can’t save himself in the short term to avoid Congressional override a veto to stop the war is lost .Alsoif the north refuses a armistice they CSA will destroy the capital buildings.

If Lincoln can some how avoid a override he can use this Devastating psychological defeat to his advantage

he will get Manny to want to unless to retake the capital and avenge The destruction of the buildings. He would have a lot of support for the war yet already significant peace movement.

please give me your thoughts and how canAbe continue the war? Remember before the attack fort Sumter and is called troops sept Yankeedom (New England,upstate New York, and the upper Midwest) most of America was willing to let the south go. I suppose Lincoln could Arrest some copperheads and peace Democrat’s outer suspension of habeas corpus in the Congress But what else can I do but what else can be do?
Enjoyed reading your Confederate Farmer timeline.
 
Why would Congress want to? It is just as committed to the Union as Lincoln is.
Well yes and no. Fort Sumter changed public sympathy from letting the go peacefully to defending the union. Well Lincoln doesn’t really have substantial support because he is painted as the aggressor.
 
The main problem is that with Fort Sumter is that the Confederacy couldn't ignore it. Basically as long as the US held it the south's claim to be an independent state couldn't be taken seriously as a " foreign" country held a fort in one of it's main harbors. As to taking the capital with a 1861 pod very unlikely especially with a fall Bull Run leading to it. Already by July 1861 they had began building fortifications and by the fall made it hard to impossible to take. The confederacy lacked the artillery and engineering knowledge to successfully take it. I seen the confederacy taking the capital compared to Operation Sealion from WW2.
Actually they can ignore the provocation under a better president. By them not starting the war the upper south would not join the csa for a time being.However more people favor letting the south go . Lincoln would probably start the war with the revenue cutters going to port escorted by the union navy. Likely war would occur in a couple months .
Yes Capture of DC is possible after bull run.

Csa forces did have reserve troops not committed to battle for them to advance on dc. There were defenses,but it would not be enough to stop the confederacy.
The Confederates need to block the supplies and then the capital is there’s. Cobb’s quickly calls for a armistice to end the war over this great psychologically devastating defeat for the union . We want to be left alone we will give you the capital in exchange for peace and recognition.
Until Lincoln’s reply DC will be made temporary capital until a peace treaty is signed. Changing capitals improves legitimacy and will submit the confederate Declaration of Independence
If Abe refuses to end the war they will threaten to destroy the capital buildings.
At least if Abe was seen as the aggressor from day 1 it’s possible this could occur.
To encourage peace talks the csa will release all prisoners including captured politicians .

Lincoln is in a short term pickle. I think Lincoln would end up arresting some politicians arguing for peace just to avoid a congressional override.

once They destroy the buildings Lincoln has his needed support .
Britain and France 🇫🇷 at least will recognize the csa in 1862 after a string of battles won but at most perhaps 1861
 
Last edited:
Csa forces did have reserve troops not committed to batt for them to advance on dc. There were defenses,but it would not be enough to stop the confederacy.

Why not?The Potomac is wide enough to for a barrier, so it's just a matter of defending a few bridges.

In any case why would taking Washington matter? The War of 1812 wasn't called off when the British Army burnt it. The government just moves to Philadelphia until enough troops arrive to retake the Capital. Any CS forces that try to hold it will be fighting with their backs to a wide river.
 
I know this thread seems to be discussing everything but Howell Cobb (its ostensible subject) but I would like to note that IMO the idea that Howell Cobb was the leading alternative to Davis is a dubious one fostered by Howell's brother Thomas, who was much more anxious to see Howell be elected president than Howell himself was. I think Toombs is a more likely alternative. "By circulating the falsehood that Georgia had settled on Howell Cobb and expected to see him elected, Tom Cobb destroyed whatever small chance his brother may have had." https://books.google.com/books?id=dSzfHrv23JsC&pg=PA107
 
They couldn't let Fort Sumter stay in union hands because it dominated the harbor. It was also the perception that it doesn't control it's own territory that was critical. Until it's in their hands there claim to be independent wouldn't be taken seriously.
 
Well yes and no. Fort Sumter changed public sympathy from letting the go peacefully to defending the union. Well Lincoln doesn’t really have substantial support because he is painted as the aggressor.

It is not true that before Fort Sumter the majority of northerners favored letting the South go peacefully. There *was* some "good riddance--let them go" talk among some extreme anti-slavery men--but it is unclear how sincere it was. There is a good discussion of this in Stampp, *And the War Came*: "Charles Sumner advocated disunion--but only in private and largely as a kind of intellectual excursion into political theory. In practice he encouraged the movement to prepare the Massachusetts militia to defend Washington and enforce the laws. On November 27 Henry Ward Beecher boldly proclaimed that he cared little whether the South seceded. Two days later he preached a Thanksgiving Day sermon which raised the banners for a war against the Slave Power...For a proponent of peaceful disunion Garrison's Boston *Liberator* became surprisingly agitated about southern 'treason.' It charged that secessionists were determined to provoke a civil war and castigated the Democrats who allegedly opposed the punishment of 'traitors.'" Stampp also shows how Horace Greeley's alleged support of peaceful disunion was so qualified as to be meaningless. Most talk of voluntary disunion among anti-slavery men was really just meant to oppose the idea of saving the Union through yet another cowardly compromise with the Slave Power.

You may be misled by all the Northerners who said they did not advocate "coercion" of the South. Most of these people however supported "enforcment of the laws." To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine (sorry for any links that may no longer work):

***

In fairness, Buchanan in the same speech where he said that the federal
government could not force states to remain in the Union (even though he
not only averred that secession was illegal but IMO gave the best single
argument ever made against its legality [1]) did say that the federal
government had the duty to enforce the laws. This puzzling distinction
between "coercion of states" and "enforcement of the laws" was widespread
at the time--Republicans as well as Democrats used it. "Coercion" meant
marching an army into the South to compel the states to rescind their
ordinances of secession, return their Representatives and Senators to
Congress, haul down their flags, etc.; "enforcement of the laws" meant the
US government holding its own forts and other property and collecting the
tariffs. Furthermore, it was held that enforcement of the laws did not
mean using force against states, because federal laws acted upon
individuals (however numerous, and even if they included the governor, the
state legislators, etc.) not states.

For an example of a Republican using the same distinction, see Senator
Lyman Trumbull:

"This phrase, 'coerce a state,' is a phrase calculated to mislead the
public mind...Nobody proposes to declare war against a State. That would
admit at once that the State was out of the Union--a foreign Government.
Of course, we cannot declare war against a State. Nobody proposes to
coerce a State or to convict a State of treason. You cannot arraign a
State for trial; you cannot convict it or punish it; but you can punish
individuals...The Government has the power to coerce and to punish
individuals who violate its laws."
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm

So Buchanan here is at worst guilty of a sophistry--if that is what it
was--[2] shared by Northern Democrats and Republicans alike (and by some
Southerners; Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee made remarks to the same
effect). Of course, the Republicans didn't see it that way because they
viewed his words in the context of four years of a blatantly pro-Southern
administration--and also in the context of the rest of the speech, where
Buchanan put the whole blame for the development of sectional conflict on
the North for its agitation of the slavery question.

(Though I think Buchanan was clear enough, I must acknowledge that some
distinguished scholars disagree. Andrew McLaughlin in his *Constitutional
History of the United States* writes "If, as has been asserted, President
Buchanan made a distinction between coercing states and enforcing the
execution of the laws on persons, he succeeded in clothing his utterances
with obscurity." http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm)

[1] "In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any
other country, it never occurred to any individual, either among its
opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts
were all vain labor, because the moment that any state felt herself
aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would
this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the states
would be endangered by the Constitution!"
http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9398250 Indeed, if it had
been assumed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution that
there was a right to secede at will, the vehemence of the opposition to
the new document by the Antifederalists is utterly inexplicable.

[2] The distinction certainly looks like maddening hairsplitting to us
today, and seemed that way to most Southerners at the time. As Kenneth
Stampp wrote in *And the War Came,* it was not much comfort for
secessionists that the Yankee bayonet was a symbol, not of Coercion, but
of Law. Yet the distinction between the federal government acting on
states as such or on individuals did have firm roots in the intentions of
the Framers of the Constitution:

"Soon after the Convention adjourned Madison wrote to Jefferson: 'It was
generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any
system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A
voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members could never be
hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice,
and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent & the guilty,
the necessity of a military force both obnoxious & dangerous, and in
general a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration
of a regular Government. Hence was embraced the alternative of a
Government which instead of operating, on the States, should operate
without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence
the change in the principle and proportion of representation.' October 24,
1787. Madison, Writings (Gaillard Hunt, ed.), V, p. 19. Ellsworth,
addressing the Connecticut convention, said: 'Hence we see how necessary
for the Union is a coercive principle. No man pretends the contrary: we
all see and feel this necessity. The only question is, Shall it be a
coercion of law, or a coercion of arms? [Hamilton had used the same
expression in the Convention at Philadelphia, June 18] ... I am for
coercion by law--that coercion which acts only upon delinquent
individuals." Elliot, Debates, II, p. 197."
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm
 
Last edited:
It is not true that before Fort Sumter the majority of northerners favored letting the South go peacefully.

In particular, both Republicans and Democrats in the Old Northwest were not going to allow any of the Mississippi River to fall into the hands of a foreign power! Stephen Douglas said that "We can never acknowledge the right of a State to secede and cut us off from the ocean and the world, without our consent." http://books.google.com/books?id=eNg7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA228 Yes, the South assured the Northwest that it would never interfere with navigation of the Mississippi. As Kenneth Stampp explained in *And the War Came*, most Northwesterners rejected these assurances: "These were mere 'paper guarantees' which the West would enjoy by the sufferance of a hostile people. At any time navigation rights could be revoked or subjected to whatever taxes or tribute Southerners desired to levy."
 
Enjoyed reading your Confederate Farmer timeline.

tell me what can be improved on it? Iwill talk more about good ambassador picks once I have the time. I amhalted because of college work and the confederate’s takeover of DC. In all out reality that would improve the peace movement to say the least. Lincoln could overcome the defeat with public outcry for revenge of the destruction of the capital if he can avoid a override of a veto.
 
Why not?The Potomac is wide enough to for a barrier, so it's just a matter of defending a few bridges.

In any case why would taking Washington matter? The War of 1812 wasn't called off when the British Army burnt it. The government just moves to Philadelphia until enough troops arrive to retake the Capital. Any CS forces that try to hold it will be fighting with their backs to a wide river.

well it is a bit different when it is civil war and they just want to be let go of peacefully. Britain 🇬🇧 was not advocating let’s end the war during the early years of war of 1812 .

im notsaying Abe wouldn’t have union volunteers or supporters ,but if the csa is saying we want to end the warit’s different. You have been the aggressor from day 1 Lincoln let us go. He have tolerated being provoked and haveing foreign forts on our soil.(the Confederates need to wisely not attack union forts to do that) now conflicts could still occur like the camp Jackson affair and the Baltimore riot and Lincoln blockade in the south. Blockade particularly and invasion from the north is why would people see you as an aggressive act
 
Last edited:
Top