Lets Play "What If" with the Civil War

[tlockwood]

A question I often ponder is "What if JW Booth didn't kill Lincoln?" What difference would there have been in the South?

Before I give my opinion, I would like to hear yours.

 

[UAH]

A question I often ponder is "What if JW Booth didn't kill Lincoln?" What difference would there have been in the South?

Before I give my opinion, I would like to hear yours.

I tend to look at the surrender at Appomattox in terms of the deference Grant paid Lee and allowing the Confederates to keep their horses to enable to return home and farm. The solemnity of Lincoln's visit to Richmond and the fact that he maintained the attitude of holding the nation together and binding its' wounds throughout the war. In other words it was exactly the wrong thing for Booth to assassinate Lincoln as the south paid dearly through a seven year reconstruction that effectively lasted in the memories of southerners well into the 1900's. If Lincoln had lived we may well have been a different country today.

 

[81usaf92]

Reconstruction would probably be better for the South under Lincoln than Johnson. Johnson was often seen as a Southern sympathizer because he was Southern. Congress would have a more difficult time challenging Lincoln than they did with Johnson.

Lincoln’s main goal was to unify the Union. It would’ve been harder for senators like Sumner and Stephens from having the power to make the south pay for starting the war over accepting readmission to Union. More or less Lincoln was far stronger than Johnson at controlling Washington.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Reconstruction would probably be better for the South under Lincoln than Johnson. Johnson was often seen as a Southern sympathizer because he was Southern. Congress would have a more difficult time challenging Lincoln than they did with Johnson.

I tend to agree with this. My GGF, an Alabama native, who was a Unionist to the point all of his property was confiscated by the state of Alabama, had a very benign attitude towards the Union troops, as of 1867, according to his diary. I have nothing from Reconstruction, which I regret...

 

[Tideflyer]

IMO the South lost its best friend with Lincoln`s death.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I have a friend who's a buff and - to be blunt about it - hates Lincoln in the abstract. But he also says that Booth killing Lincoln was the worst possible outcome for the South and led to more of a punitive aftermath than a rehabilitative one.

 

[Tidewater]

I have a friend who's a buff and - to be blunt about it - hates Lincoln in the abstract. But he also says that Booth killing Lincoln was the worst possible outcome for the South and led to more of a punitive aftermath than a rehabilitative one.

I'm not Lincoln's biggest fan. I think closing 300 newspapers for publishing things he did not like was crappy. I think arresting a federal circuit court judge for issuing a ruling inconvenient to his administration and contemplating the arrest of a supreme court justice was awful. I think arresting members of a loyal state legislature before they can even vote the wrong way is horribly antidemocratic. Arresting and holding without charge 30,000 "political prisoners," was a horrific abuse of power.
That said, by April 1865, the damage was done. Only Lincoln had the influence to fend off the worst of his party in their hatred and malevolence. In fact, Lincoln's murder spurred them on to do their worst.

 

[Padreruf]

As a Southern history major (take it for what you want) I was taught that the CW was more about economics and less about slavery -- though that was for sure the igniting issue. The punitive actions of the North resulted in at least a century of resentment and bitterness...Lincoln would have been able to handle the transition much, much better imho.

 

[tlockwood]

My opinion...

Lincoln does not allow as much corruption to happen during reconstruction (though he allowed enough to happen during the war).

I also think Lincoln allows the South to rebuild and even helps industry move into the South.

I also think Lincoln tries to move the former slaves back to Africa. He mentioned doing so once not long before the end of the war, but was largely ignored.

 

[Crimson1967]

Does the war start four years earlier if Fremont wins in 1856?

 

[81usaf92]

Does the war start four years earlier if Fremont wins in 1856?

Buchanan was weak, but the 1860 election result had far more to do with the South taking federal properties. A more proactive approach could’ve ended the rebellion before it had a chance to form a real army.

 

[81usaf92]

I'm not Lincoln's biggest fan. I think closing 300 newspapers for publishing things he did not like was crappy. I think arresting a federal circuit court judge for issuing a ruling inconvenient to his administration and contemplating the arrest of a supreme court justice was awful. I think arresting members of a loyal state legislature before they can even vote the wrong way is horribly antidemocratic. Arresting and holding without charge 30,000 "political prisoners," was a horrific abuse of power.

But absolutely no one wants to beat up Davis for abusive powers that are pretty similar to Lincoln.

 

[Tidewater]

As a Southern history major (take it for what you want) I was taught that the CW was more about economics and less about slavery -- though that was for sure the igniting issue.

Not sure when you studied, but the Materialist of the 1930 attributed everything to economic cause. Charles and Mary Beard said that economics was what shaped the U.S. Constitution. Economics was the cause of the American Revolution. Of course economics was the cause of the Civil War, as well.

 

[Tidewater]

But absolutely no one wants to beat up Davis for abusive powers that are pretty similar to Lincoln.

Mark Neely does.
The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties
Then again, Jefferson Davis is not on the currency and does not have a pagan temple on the mall in Washington.

 

[tlockwood]

It is possible but I truly think Lincoln was destined to lead the US during the war.
No president wanted this war to come under their presidency, but it very nearly did for every POTUS after Jackson.

What I can offer as at least somewhat factual is that if Fremont is elected and the war happens during his presidency he would most likely have screwed something major up. He was very stubborn, often defied orders, and acted spontaneously on some very key items prior to and during the war.

 

[Tidewater]

Does the war start four years earlier if Fremont wins in 1856?

I do not believe so.
Bleeding Kansas was going on, but there were a lot of other acts of antislavery violence that happened after the election of 1856 that caused white southerners to come to the conclusion that the election of a Republican meant and overt endorsement of antislavery violence at the federal level. It is impossible to overestimate the impact that Harper's Ferry had on changing the attitudes of white southerners.
That change of sentiment was not yet there in 1856.

 

[Tidewater]

What if the Confederate army had not fired on Ft. Sumter?

First, the windup.

South Carolina left the Union on December 20, 1860. South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate the withdrawal of U.S. army forces and accounting for federal property in South Carolina. In the meantime, Ft. Sumter was unoccupied. Charleston officials assured the senior U.S. Army officer in the area, Major Robert Anderson in Fort Moultrie on the mainland, that, while the commissioners were discussing terms with Washington, they would not make any hostile move in Charleston harbor. Moultrie was too big for Anderson to defend, so, on Christmas Eve, Anderson spiked his guns and burned the gun carriages in Moultrie and moved his entire command to Ft. Sumter, where they were much less vulnerable (and thus much more threatening to Charleston).

On December 27, 1860, the bark Copernicus of the German city of Bremen, arrived at Charleston. The master of the ship proceeded to the customs house and attempted to pay the U.S. customs. The customs officials said that there were no U.S. customs officials in Charleston. They were now the customs officials of the state of South Carolina. The master of the Copernicus attempted to pay them, but they refused to accept any money from him. Now he was worried. If someone later came to him and accused him of not paying the customs duties, he was personally liable for a huge fine, so he wrote to the Bremen consul in Charleston, Mr. R. Schleiden. Schleiden wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Black asking what he must do to protect his citizens from liability. Black said he would discuss the matter with President Buchanan. The Charleston Courier of February 5, 1861 printed Schleiden’s correspondence with the U.S. Secretary of State. Merchant ships, both American and European, continued to enter and depart Charleston despite the presence of the Union garrison in Sumter.

On February 8, 1861, the Confederate Congress adopted the low federal tariff of 1857, and then expanded the list of items that could enter the Confederacy duty-free. The Confederate Congress adopted a law allowing duty-free transition of Confederate territory for goods from a foreign port destined for the United States. So British cotton cloth could land in Charleston, take a train to say, Richmond and completely avoid the high Morrill tariff.

The United States adopted on March 3, a large increase in federal tariffs, called the Morrill Tariff, to take effect 1 April. In late March 1861, a group of New York businessmen visited Lincoln and assured him of financial support for the federal government if a war broke out, the unstated premise was that Lincoln must not allow secession to happen peacefully. April 5th, Lincoln decides to send a military expedition to resupply Ft. Sumter (and, incidentally, Ft. Pickens outside Pensacola). When the federal relief expedition arrived off the coast of Charleston, the bombardment started and the war came.

As Jeff Davis was debating whether to bombard Sumter before the arrival of the Union military expedition, Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs urged the Confederates avoid firing the first shot. "Mr. President, at this time, it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions, now quiet, will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal… So long as the United States neither declares war nor establishes peace, the Confederate States have the advantage of both conditions."

So, what if the Confederates do not fire on Fort Sumter and just ignored it?

 

[tlockwood]

Not sure when you studied, but the Materialist of the 1930 attributed everything to economic cause. Charles and Mary Beard said that economics was what shaped the U.S. Constitution. Economics was the cause of the American Revolution. Of course economics was the cause of the Civil War, as well.

I truly believe that we get into pulling straws on the cause of the CW.

Economics: Less industry in the South and a the Tariffs the North were able to enforce are certainly a major cause. But at the basics of the Economics explanation is Slavery. Slavery certainly was more profitable for Southern farmers and the slave owners were not going to relinquish their labor force.

If we look at State's Rights (which Southerners love to claim started the War of Northern Aggression)...well what was one of the main State's Rights that Southerners were fighting to keep, Slavery.

 

[81usaf92]

Then again, Jefferson Davis is not on the currency and does not have a pagan temple on the mall in Washington.

Doesn’t matter. Davis’s suspension of civil liberties put a lot of Southerners in camps under military lock and key just because they were not “Southern” enough for their liking.

You don’t get to curse at one and not the other. Because both understood that democratic countries don’t do well under centralized governments in long wars.

 

[Tidewater]

I truly believe that we get into pulling straws on the cause of the CW.

Economics: Less industry in the South and a the Tariffs the North were able to enforce are certainly a major cause. But at the basics of the Economics explanation is Slavery. Slavery certainly was more profitable for Southern farmers and the slave owners were not going to relinquish their labor force.

If we look at State's Rights (which Southerners love to claim started the War of Northern Aggression)...well what was one of the main State's Rights that Southerners were fighting to keep, Slavery.

While Beard and the Materialists emphasized economics to the exclusion of all else, now the neo-abolitionists emphasize slavery to the exclusion of all else.
Reality is a bit more complex than that, although the "all slavery, all the time" school is morally satisfying.