Todayinah Ed. says, What if Lincoln had been assassinated long before his took office? If you're interested in viewing samples of my other work why not visit Todayinah site.
| October 8 |  |
Editor says, what if the House was Divided after the 1860 Crisis? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1860, having concluded that it was too late to save the Union peacefully, Abraham Lincoln unwisely chose to reply frankly to a request for a statement of his views from the editor of the Louisville Journal, George D. Prentice who contended that such a statement would "assure all the good citizens of the South and ... take from the disunionists every excuse or pretext for treason".
A House DividedIt would not be the first time that he had said too much and inflamed southern secessionists. For in his "House Divided Speech" he had stated unambigously that the Union was in the grip of a slaveholder's plot. His partner in his Springfield Law Firm, William Herndon had it right when he said "It is true, but is it wise or politic to say so?".
Lincoln was to learn that it was one thing to make an explosively controversial statement as an outside senatorial candidate, quite another when heading inexorably towards the White House. And yet with John Brown striking slaveholdings seemingly with impunity, and leading free African-Americans over the border into Canada, dodging Prentice's question might appear a fatal weakness in national leadership. "It seemed as if he suddently bore the whole world upon his shoulders, and could not shake it off" - William HerndonAnd after all, it was that frightful absence of national leadership that had inspired Lincoln to seek the highest office as he had told Herndon just two short years before.
That America might really be in the throes of a slaveholder's plot was in all reality, improbable. Yet whilst slavery had been terminated in the north for three decades, events surely appeared to show that some time very soon that might not be the case. It would be hard to interpret the drift of events otherwise since Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the Dred Scott ruling (1858) which confirmed that the General Government had no right to interfer in the state's rights to legalise slavery.
Very soon Lincoln would discover that his unwise choice of words had triggered a general secession prior to his inauguration And worse his judgement as to whether Northerners would fight for the Union, or rather bid the Southern States good riddance, would prove to be faulty. For the time being at least, the Union would be split into two nations, one free, one slave, precisely as Lincoln had warned.
Of course Herndon knew something that few others outside his inside circule knew in the late fall of 1860; the drive behind Lincoln's ambition was his deeply flawed character. Because Abraham Lincoln was a life-long manic depressive now gripped by a mid-life crisis, ingesting more than nine thousand times the recommended daily dose of mercury. "Gloom and sadness were his predominant state" concluded Herndon. On the day of his election Herndon remarked that "It seemed as if he suddently bore the whole world upon his shoulders, and could not shake it off". And so, Abraham Lincoln would lead a truly unqiue Presidency; for he was the first man to suicide in the White House, by shooting himself in the head whilst sitting in apparent peace, as if calmy watching the Theatre, perhaps.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Lincoln's Genius" Special Collector's Edition (2009)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Abraham Lincoln, Confederacy, America, 1860s, House Divided. Editor says, please note that extensive amounts of content have been repurposed from the source articles.
~ If he was eating that much mercury, I'd think that in the event of his death, embalming would be superfluous. That said..._how_ is John Brown doing all this stuff? There's hundreds of miles between the slave states and Canada, and if he was openly in rebellion, he'd lose a lot of sympathizers...a lot of the UGRR types were pacifists and did not approve of violence.
~ Bad analogy. Lincoln's 1858 Senate Race is a maze of contradicitions if one doesn't understand Midwestern politics of the late 1850's. House divided as a wink and a nod at the more extreme Abolitionist and Free Soil components of the Illinois Republican Party before Lincoln ran in the opposite direction against Douglas to get downstate Dixiecrat votes.
~ (1) The Dred Scott ruling (Scott v. Sandford) was handed down in 1857, not 1858. It argued not so much that the federal government could not intervene in slavery (indeed, it endorsed federal intervention to ASSIST slaveowners in reclaiming escaped human "property") as that blacks were never intended to be U.S. citizens or to have any constitutional protections.
(2) There is no question that a "slaveholder's plot" was in operation in 1860, aimed at forcing the election of a pro-slavery president whatever the outcome of the national vote. When it failed, Southerns reached for their guns. But:
(3) Far from being eager for a fight with the South, Lincoln dithered about ordering armed action--almost too long. He came to office in 1861 hoping a peaceful resolution to the crisis could be reached. Southern intransigence made that impossible.
~ One life to save 600,000 from the Civil War?
January 19
Editor says, what if the State of Georgia had voted against secession? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). Please also note that due to the large number of changes necessary to justify such a scenario, we have left a number of details quite vague.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1861, on this day in Milledgeville the cooperationists led by Herschel Johnson carried the vote at the inappropriately named Secession Convention; the State of Georgia would remain in the Union for the time being at least.
At any Cost and at all HazardsThe shift of just 19 votes to defeat the vote secession was due to in part to a decision take on New Year's Eve. "We are all for Secession" one observer advised Governor Joseph Emerson Brown (pictured). It was hardly a startling insight; Unionists candidates for the state convention were withdrawing from the race. Brown was a former Whig who had in fact been strongly in favour of the secession ever since the election; at the same time though, he was no fan of Jefferson Davis, and had little appetite for Georgian membership of a Southern Confederacy.
"Southern Civilization - it Must be maintained at any cost and at all hazards" ~ Mayor of SavannahActually Brown himself had been in favour of ordering the State Militia to occupy Fort Pulaski which was guardian the Port of Savannah. The history was that President James Madison ordered a new system of coastal fortifications to protect the United States against foreign invasion following the War of 1812. Construction of a fort to protect the port of Savannah began in 1829 under the direction of Major General Babcock, and later Second Lieutenant Robert E. Lee, a recent graduate of West Point. Though completed in 1847, Fort Pulaski was under the control of only two caretakers until 1860. Of course should the State of George secede, the strategic value of the Fort to the defence of the Union would be effectively zero. In short, it was a military white elephant not worth fighting over.
The preciptive action to occupy the Fort would be certain to cross the line of interference with private property should the State of George secede from the Union; but it did'nt. That very day, Federal Representatives arrived from Washington, delivering a persuasive letter from the President-elect; the Union's best interest lay in abandoning the Fort, at least for now, it said. The Federal Officials in charge of coastal roads were being withdrawn, and their threat to mobilize labour for defence was best disregarded by the State Government. It was timely advice; the Major of Savannah spoke at the convention, "Southern Civilization - It Must be maintained at any cost and at all hazards". Fortunately, since Lincoln's assassination, cooler heads had prevailed in Washington. Determined attempts were now being made to avoid any such "hazards" that could force the country on the road to a disasterous Civil War. At least for now, another flashpoint had been avoided.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Look Away! History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis (2002)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, America, 1860s, South Carolina. ~ Odds are the black belt secessionists would have attempted a coup and odds are further it would have worked. It did in Tennessee and came close in Missouri. The secessionists were organzied and determined while the Unionists were divided, dispirited and quite scared for their personal safety. However it is quite possible Brown could have pulled a 'Kentucky' - declare neutrality and de facto independence.
~ Without Georgia, the Confederacy would have had a much rockier time of it. Atlanta was a major railroad hub and industrial center. That said, as my learned colleague Scott said above, the secessionists were quite likely to pull a coup if they didn't get their own way.
~ A major result of pro-confederate coups coming into play is a lot more prospective fence sitters (i.e. Lee) joining the Union and far less tolerance for the 'Redeemers' after the war.
~ Scott Palter is probably right. At that point, secessionists were not about to take "no" for anm answe.
My understanding is that they certainly didn't in Virginia, the delegates to whose secession convention were more or less told they wouldn't be allowed to leave until a majority vote in favor had been cast. Of course, Virginia was even more important than Georgia t the nascent CSA: without it, the Confederacy was all but certain to fail. (Especially since Robert E. Lee, who would prove crucial to the CSA's military effort, had made clear that his loyalty was to his state, and that he would go where it did. Lee was so respected that before he declared for secession, President Lincoln actually offered him command of the Union Army!)
~ It would certainly increase the number of southern loyalists in Georgia especially if secsionists and neiboring seceding states moved to pull Georgia out of the union by intervention. Might also cause a number of fence sitters and undecideds to shift north in their sympathies. During the civil war the North had an entire batallion of whites from georgia in its service, perhaps with this they might form a regiment.
December 22
Editor says, what if the winter of 1860 had played out slightly differently in 1860 or was it already too late for cooler heads to prevail? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). Please also note that due to the large number of changes necessary to justify such a scenario, we have left a number of details quite vague.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1860, on this day Yankee soldiers quit the United States Garrison at Fort Moultrie in South Carolina just two days after the State had seceded from the Union. At the Charleston Convention that had ratified that historic decision, ardent secessionists had predicted that the Union would commit an act of "hostility and coercision". Because it was widely expected that troops would occupy Charleston Harbor, perhaps decamping for the artificial island of rubble upon which the Union had constructed the as yet unfinished Fort Sumter.
Cooler Heads Might PrevailThe hidden hand of the President-elect was behind the wise decision to pull Yankee Troops. And rightly so because the mood in the South had turned bloody ever since John Brown had begun to fuel a slave revolt with weapons seized from Harper's Ferry.
The citizens of South Carolina had welcome the secession decision made at the Charleston convention. "[South Carolina] had acted nobly and history will accord to her the noble part she had plated. We have been grossly cheated by the North and I would rather that every soul of us would be exterminated then we should be allied to her again. When our Southern Confederacy is formed and in full operation, we will be the gainers and the North the losers" said T.H. Spann of Woodlawn.
"Let them Commerce the war and we will wage it with them until the last drop of blood is spent before we will submit". ~ T.H. SpannQuite who would be the winners and who the losers was a decision that hung in the balance during the nightmarish US Government transition period of 1860-1. The election of Abraham Lincoln - with less than forty percent of the popular vote, and an electoral college result recording not a single state in the south - had been the catalist for the secession. And yet Lincoln was dead in the ground with an assassins bullet in his head, and maybe, just maybe, cooler heads might prevail and allow both sides to back off long enough to avoid a costly conflict.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Look Away! History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis (2002)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, America, 1860s, South Carolina. ~ Now a couple of things - one of which was in the original that confused me a little too...
1) As I mentioned earlier, the Prez-elect can't order anything. And I highly doubt Buchanan would have done anything anyway just to make life even harder for Lincoln...
2) And when is Lincoln assassinated? That isn't at all clear.
~ Until he took the oath, Lincoln couldn't order a buck private to clean the latrine legally---and he knew it.
~ Order, no. But as President-elect, surely he would be in a p[osition to exert influence, if it were done discreetly to avoid charges that he was usurping President Buchanan's authority.
~ Actually no. It just was not done. Even less so in the 1861 transition because of Buchanan's own particular approach to the crisis.
~ David Atwell raises an interesting point re: the Lincoln assassination reference.
~ How can every one be so sure that Buchanan hasnt already been assassinated himself at this point? Theres quite a few more posts to go yet so no peeking at the back chapters :-)
January 11
Editor says, what if the close secession vote in Alabama had gone the other way? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). Please also note that due to the large number of changes necessary to justify such a scenario, we have left a number of details quite vague.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1861, to the considerable embarrassment of the so-called "Fire-eater", the ardent secessionist William Yancey on this day, his home State of Alabama voted to remain in the Union by a margin of just 61 to 39.
Defeat of the "Fire-Eaters"The shift of just twelve votes was due in no small part to the slowing down of the momentum of secession, and Alabamians were starting to doubt mantra that "aye the Southern states all will stand together".
Robert Rhodes exulted that "Alabama is in a blaze, and we are all expecting a brush with the Federal Troops". Yet teversals in the plans for arming the South had begun to raise serious questions in the minds of many, particularly since the arrest of Jefferson Davis for gun-running on January 7th.
This harsh reality took the argument away from Yancey and his group known as the "Fire-Eaters", amongst the most effective agitators for secession and rhetorical defenders of slavery. Because determined attempts were now being made by Washington to dampen the blaze, the fire might yet blow over.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Look Away! History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis (2002)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, America, 1860s, William Yancey. ~ This would have thrown an interesting spanner into the nascent CSA.
~ It sure would, but it's hard to see how it might have happened without numerous prior historical alterations. On principle, I prefer alt-history where the divergence comes down to a single small event.
A better candidate iis Virginia, which was so divided over secession that a pro-Union portion of the state actually seceded from Richmond's control, becoming the present state of West Virginia. The secession convention in Virginia was a bitter affair which the pro-secession forces physically prevented from ending until they had bullied and browbeaten their way to a vote in their favor. If this effort had failed, Virginia would have stayed in the Union.
That, in turn, might have meant a much shorter war, which perhaps would have ended in Union victory without an emancipation Proclamation (which Lincoln had formally issued only in September 1862 after the Union victory at Antietam made it look less like a measure of desperation). Ironically, Southerners might actually have kept their slaves longer if they hadn't panicked themselves into attempted secession after Lincoln's election--for with the war over before its focus could shift from simply preserving the Union to eliminating slavery, there would have been less political support for anything like the Thirteenth Amendment. Slavery would have ended eventually in the Soouth, but perhaps gradually, on a state-by-state basis as had already happened in the North. Even today there might not be an actual constitutional amendment barring it. (As it was, the Thirteenth Amendment took a long, long time to be ratified in some states; Mississippi only did it in 1993!)
January 7
Editor says, what if Jefferson Davis had been arrested by the Union during the 1860 crisis? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). Please also note that due to the large number of changes necessary to justify such a scenario, we have left a number of details quite vague.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1861, on this day the United States Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis (pictured) was arrested in Washington attempting to purchase one thousand rifles from the manufacturer Eli Whitney. Davis' position in the Senate was mostly nominal, he had been preaching secession away from Washington for much of his term of office, and there was little doubt that he intended to resign his seat and ship the rifles back to Mississipi for the widely anticipated "War of the States".
Jefferson Davis ArrestedIn fact, the two gentleman had a long-standing relationship. Just before the Mexican War the Whitney plant began to use steel for gun barrels, and Jefferson Davis, then Colonel of the Mississippi Rifles, declared that the new guns were "the best rifles which had ever been issued to any regiment in the world". Later, when Davis became Secretary of War, he issued to the regular army the same weapon.
Yet attempts to fill southern ordinances were foundering, and badly. The United States Army Ordinance Office in Washington had wisely refused to sell five thousand guns from its Baton Rouge arsenal to the State of Mississipi. And Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb, and Secretary of War John B. Floyd had resigned; both politicians refusing to use their office to overtly assist the arming of the South.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Look Away! History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis (2002)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, America, 1860s, Jefferson Davis. ~ So how does Jefferson's arrest effect the future of the Confederacy?
~ Well for example he talked the conspirators out of the Baltimore snatch. Of course in this ATL Lincoln is already dead, so perhaps the President-elect is snatched and taked to the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia as they planned. This could be the coup Scott is talking about..
~ The CSA might actually be more effective without Davis as Prez. Davis was a micromanager's micromanager, and prone to quarreling with anybody who didn't agree that he was always right. A smooth politician and schmoozer might have done far better as POTCS.
~ Depends VERY much on who is chosen instead.
~ Indeed it does.
~ Interesting idea. He was a rallying point, but not a particularly good leader.
~ Without Davis as POTCS, things might actually have gone better. Davis was a micromanager who thought he was better-suited as a general, and couldn't get along with a lot of people he needed. They might have kept Braxton bloody Bragg at a desk job in Richmond, instead of out mishandling troops.
Comment from Jeff Mayers on Facebook: Politicially, I don't think much would have changed with the confederacy. Militarily, it might be a diffrent story
Comment from Patrick N. Washington on Facebook: The arrest of Jeff Davis would had just force the Confederacy to choose another president. It could had been Howell Cobb.
~ That certainly removes Jefferson Davis from the Southern presidency and probably puts somebody other than Robert E. Lee in charge of the Army of Northern Viriginia though that is no certainty considering Lee had seniority and reputation enough to guarentee him a high rank in the Confederate army under any Confederate government. On the other hand it also prevents Braxton Bragg from being put in charge of his command which would definately be a good thing for the south since most of Bragg's achievements were to save southern defeat from the jaws of northern Victory. Many of his leadership picks were disasters. Lionedes Polk for one was a disaster for the south. I can think of other picks that proved bad for the south. In the end, depending on who the southern leader is, Davis's arrest and imprisonment would benefit the South more than the North.
~ In defense of Jefferson, the short-term would have lost much of its organization and solidity. War could've ended even earlier as Confederate armies couldn't supply themselves from the start or political bickering tore them apart.
April 24
Editor says, what if the "coward of the Alamo" inspired the Confederacy? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1861, the Republic of Texas formally recognised the Confederate States of America in a keynote speech delivered by President William B. Travis on this day in Austin; whilst offering critical diplomatic support to his fellow South Carolinians, Travis carefully avoiding any direct comparison between the sieges of Fort Sumter and the Alamo.
Line in the SandNo longer the hot-headed twenty-six year old Lieutenant Colonel of the Texian Army, Travis had learnt a number of valuable lessons about leadership since he wrote the famous "Victory or Death" Letter on March 3rd, 1836.
Because having drawn a line in the sand, only one of the defenders of the Alamo had refused to cross it - Moses Rose, a French born former soldier in Napoleon Bonaparte's Grande Armée who insisted that he was not ready to die. And so during the late night hours of March 5th, Rose had snuck through enemy lines, broke into the Old Governor's Mansion and assassinated the Mexican general Antonio López de Santa Anna. Whereupon his successor, General Castrillon launched a disasterous strike on the east wall which was repelled by heavy cannon fire (that was in fact mostly shrapnel) but which caused the Mexican troops to despair and quit the siege.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Sam Houston, Confederacy, America, Texas, Civil War. ~ Taking out Santa Ana might not have been a good move---he was always the other side's secret weapon. Also, I do think that the tides of history were such that Texas would have joined the US before Ft. Sumter...the Republic of Texas was generally seen as an interim step IIRC.
~ Considering that the Alamo was not a real fort but a church surrounded by thick indefensible walls with not enough Texans to defend it let alone hold it from the massive Mexican army attacking it , the place was a death trap that could not be held.
No matter what General leads the Mexicans, the Alamo goes down. I don't see how this thing could go the way you are doing it here.
~ Kill Santa Anna [unlikely but...] and the Mexican Army probably goes home to fight out who is the next President
September 22
Editor says, what if Texan secessionists heeded Sam Houston's dire warning during the 1860 crisis? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1860, Texas Governor Sam Houston delivered a fiery speech, "The Folly of Disunion" on this day at an anti-secessionist rally in Austin.
Lone StarMany Texans heeded Houston's warning, narrowly voting to remain in the Union on February 23, 1861; Texas would not after all become the seventh star in the Confederate flag.
Born in 1793 in Virginia, Houston was a pivotal figure in the history of Texas. Not only did he sign the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico, but he also served periods as President of the Republic of Texas, Senator for Texas after it joined the United States, and finally as governor.
"Are we to sell reality for a phantom?"Although married to a Cherokee, and a slaveowner and opponent of abolitionism, he refused, because of his unionist convictions, to swear loyalty to the Confederacy and thus had a decisive role in preventing Texas from seceding from the Union.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Berg, Gordon. "Texas under the microscope. (The Seventh Star of the Confederacy: Texas in the Civil War)" reviewed in America's Civil War Magazine, September 2009Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Sam Houston, Confederacy, America, Texas, Civil War. Editor says, please note that extensive amounts of content have been repurposed from the source article which concludes: "On March 16, 1861, the Texas Secession Convention called for all the state's elected officials to take a loyalty oath to the new government. Sam Houston, twice president of the Republic, as well as U.S. senator, governor and slave owner, sat silent. He never did pledge allegiance to the Confederacy, and he died in 1863 still convinced that his fellow Texans had made a terrible mistake".
~ Unfortunately, it's been way too long since my last Texas history class, so I don't remember the sane Texans in the state who wanted to resist secession If you hadnt guessed already, the Reverend Robbie is a Texan.
~ Now this is an interesting scenario. I wonder how the civil war would be fought if a Union Texas lay to the south of the Confederacy. Either Texas would be occupied, by the Rebs, or the Union would base large scale operations out of the state to the detriment of the Confederacy.
~ My thoughts too sir. Because in OTL Houston refused to lead a rebel army to fight for the Union to avoid bloodshed, I assume that a Houston led Govt would have tried to stay neutral in the war of the states. But then again, what if the Confederacy launched a pre-emptive strike?
~ If you'd had more Germans, who tended to be strongly antislavery and actually furnished Texas regiments to the US Army, this might have worked. As it was, Texas was nearly as badly divided as Missouri or the other border states were.
If Texas had stayed Union, the war would have been much shorter---a lot of the CSA's best troops and officers came from there.
~ East Texas would have counterseceded. The rump of Texas probably would have declared neutrality in the manner of Kentucky.
~ Suggesting the possibility of a civil war within the Civil War, as Texan fought Texan. This would have taken the state out of the larger fight--at least until one side or the other tried occupying it, at which point the balance would have tilted, I think, to the would-be occupiers' opponent. In any event it would have been an extra burden for the CSA.
~ It would certainly secure the frontier for the north but no doubt Texas would have internal problems like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, as well Tennesse and Virginia with a population very much divided and each faction determined to fight.
~ Maybe Scott is on to something? A split up of Texas much like Virginia, the Unionist portion becoming a US State a la West Virginia. Where would have such a split occurred geographically? Maybe like the map of the Alt US on the last episode of Fringe?
~ Perhaps the C.S.A would have confined itself to itself. No Ken,Miso or Ten battles.
~ Geographically, the ole rule of thumb is I-35. East Texas and West Texas are pretty different places. Divide or not, this would definitely change the western theater for the Civil War, perhaps even enough to pull reinforcements from the East.
February 23
Editor says, what if the President-elect had taken the advice of his Head of Security? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). Please also note that due to the large number of changes necessary to justify such a scenario, we have left a number of details quite vague.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1861, on this day the President-elect proceeded in great secrecy straight through Baltimore, Maryland on his whistle stop tour of seventy towns and cities ending with his inauguration in Washington, D.C on March 4th.
Plums delivered nuts safelyAllan Pinkerton (pictured), who later founded the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, played a key role by managing security throughout the journey. On his orders, on the evening of February 22 telegraph lines to Baltimore were cut to prevent communications from passing between potential conspirators in Pennsylvania and Maryland. The most dangerous link in the journey was in Baltimore where a city ordinance prohibited night-time rail travel through the downtown area. As a result, the railcars had to be horse-drawn between the President Street and Camden Street stations.
Once the President-elect's rail carriage had safely passed through Baltimore, Pinkerton sent a one-line telegram to the president of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad: "Plums delivered nuts safely". With Lincoln dead in the ground from an assassins bullet in his head, Pinkerton was taking absolutely no chances at all.
Because as the momentum for secession began to recede, hot-heads in the South were now clamouring for coup d'etat. Their failed plan was to have several assassins, armed with knives, interspersed throughout the crowd that would gather to greet the party at the President Street station. When the President-elect emerged from the car, which he must do to change trains, at least one of the assassins would be able to get close enough to kill him.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Look Away! History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis (2002)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, America, 1860s, South Carolina. ~ So who is the President-elect if Lincoln is dead?
~ Something's missing here...did someone take Lincoln out before he could take office? In that case, the Prez-elect would be Hannibal Hamlin...and the shock of such an unheard-of thing would likely prevent the Upper South from seceding.
~ There's a constitutional crisis in the making here, quite apart from secession.
If Lincoln was killed after being elected president but before assuming office, it does NOT automatically follow that his running-mate would step up. The Electoral College is what counts here, and it cast not one vote for Hamlin for president.
Nor could the electors be reconvened, with the South on the verge of secession. Too many states would simply be unrepresented. Even if somehow Southerners were persuaded to send electors (which they might not choose to do, since doing so would undermine their claim that they had always been independent), the other states might challenge their legitimacy--especially if the reconvened electors eded up picking Stephen Douglas or some other pro-Southern figure over Hamlin. In that event, the South might be seen as havinfg hijacked the election at gunpoint, which would make war inevitable even with a pro-Southern president in place. (And he might not remain in place long, with passions raised so high.)
December 2
Editor says, what if the US Congressional Committees solved the 1860 Crisis before Lincoln was inaugurated? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the October 2009 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1860, seizing the initiative in the growing secessionist crisis, Congressional Committees boldly stepped into the dangerous power vacuum that had emerged between lame-duck President James Buchanan and the sinisterely quiet President-elect Abraham Lincoln. A "take it or leave it" offer was made to the would-be breakaway states: an amendment to the US Constitution that included a cast-iron guarantee of no further territorial expansion and a protection of the states rights to continue the institution of slavery.
Thirteenth AmendmentIn so doing, Congress beat a long retreat from the growth of republicanism that had surged through the Federal Government with apace since the election of Thomas Jefferson (pictured). Not that Jefferson was the guilty architect of course, because the states debts after the War of Independence had demanded a stronger central authority in order to protect the states from bankcruptcy. Those prophets (including many of the Founding Fathers themselves) who had advocated a Confederation with a weak General Government would now in hindsight be seen as presciently correct, it simply was not safe to place American freedoms in the hands of bankers and lawyers such as Lincoln.
The landmark decision would defuse the secession crisis, extending the state of the Union for a century. Secretary of State Seward would be legally required to decline Russian's unexpectedly generous offer for the "Alaska Purchase". Given the unlikelihood of slavery in the northern latitutes this seemingly unimportant decision would suddenly become a problem of apocalyptic dimensions for President Kennedy during the Alaskan Missiles Crisis one hundred years later.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Lincoln's Genius" Special Collector's Edition (2009)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Civil War AL Source: Wikipedia Labels: Abraham Lincoln, Confederacy, America, Thomas Jefferson, House Divided. Editor says, please note that extensive amounts of content have been repurposed from the source articles.
~ A century? I think you'd be lucky to avert the civil war by a decade...
~ Er no the century .. the story is subtedly suggesting (too subtle, doh!) America is destroyed in a nuclear war you see with the Soviets in control of Alaska! ie Cuban Missiles gone wrong.
~ That offer would have PO'd a lot of the North (who were good and tired of the Southerners throwing temper tantrums to get their own way) without appeasing the real hotheads and fire-eaters in the South. I believe Lincoln did propose some such compromise, although not as hardcore as this one, but the offer fell flat.
~ Ah, but Mr Editor, you're assuming Alaska would remain Russian/Soviet all of this time. It's probably a good bet that it wouldn't. Either the US still buys the place or it is occupied by the US in 1919 & annexed sometime thereafter ;)
~ Ah, you see what I'm saying (correct me if I'm wrong sir) is that to prevent the admission of free slave states who would tip the balance against the southerners, congress codifies an amendment guaranteeing no further territorial admissions (to allay that fear of being outnumbered in the future). Since by 1848 the US covered its current landmass, this was in hindsight a good solution. President Buchanan in fact sent an envoy to Lincoln with proposals at least to guarantee the institution of slavery as a states right (the first half of the deal). So my point here is the guarantee to stop further admissions (I'm assuming it wasnt timebound) prevents any future Alaska purchase prior to the Cold War, and hence the Soviets do have a footprint still in the America. I do tend to agree with Mr Oppen that such an offer probably wouldnt have succeeded, but my purpose here is to explore the gridlock in the Federal Government at this critical time. Interesting for example, that Congress considered Lincolns signature on the 13th Amendment to be unnecessary, so they did assert themselves later on and for sure, Congressional Committees were looking for a solution in the late fall of 1860. Or have I missed the point? :-)
~ The big argument against a promise to let slavery be in existing states was that the southrons were frequently insisting on overriding anti-slavery statutes elsewher in the Union and were the most expansionistic segment of U.S. body politic.
~ Right--as in the Walker affair, when in the 1850s William Walker overthrew the goverment of Nicaragua and reinstituted slavery there as part of a plan to annex that coountry to the U.S. as one or more slave states.
And Southerners, for all their talk of states' rights, demanded that the federal government essentially enforce slave-state laws in free states, at least pertaining to blacks who had aollegedly "escaped" from Southern owners while on free soil. Besides forcing Northerners to return actual slaves, this led to a number of incidents in which free blacks were essentially kidnapped into slavery, with the government's aid, by purported "owners." In essence, Southern slave-owners wanted there to be two classes of states: one whose members' laws must be enforced nationwide, and another whose laws could be trumped at will by states of the first class. This attitude virtually guaranteed that there would be war sooner or later, although whhite Southerners, smugly confident of their innate superiority not just to blacks but to white Northerners, were sure they would win wasily--"whip the Yanks in a month," as a popular saying had it.
~ Sort of like the Germans who were shouting "On To Paris!" in 1914... ;)
~ I generally liked it,but slavery was not the sole issue of the civil war.
Older Posts
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
