What if Ft. Sumter had not been fired upon?

[ole]

Fort Sumter prompted (or gave the excuse to) Lincoln to call for troops which prompted Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee to secede. What if Ft. Sumter hadn't been fired on?

How might Lincoln's government have beguiled the seceded states back? Would he have bribed? Ignored? Compromised? Applied economic pressure? How might they have responded?

[sean_harris]

Hmm, what if those states never secede, but also never rallied troops to Lincoln's call. Yes, what if they remained militarily neutral... never leaving the Union, but never answering the call? Then what? How would it look to Europe? How would Northern states felt about them not leaving the Union yet, claiming neutral pacifism?

I assume Virginia remains whole... and a new twist happens.

[johan_steele]

Heheh what if Jeff Davis had never called up those 100,000 troops and then fired upon Ft Sumter but had instead said "let's make a deal." He would still be a treasonous bastard but at least he wouldn't be a treasonous bastard that started America's bloodiest war. There might be a CSA sitting in the southeast today. Though I doubt their economic and financial survival. I wonder if England would have considered reaquiring some colonies?

[gary]

Major Anderson would be stinking from having starved to death.

[ole]

Shane:
That's where I was going. The south was ill-equipped to survive in the world as it was becoming. Cotton was depleting the soil so the planters moved west for new soil.

If they were a separate confederacy, then they certainly couldn't have moved into federal territories. Besides, how far west can you go and still grow cotton, sugar cane, tobacco and rice.?

I read an interesting set of stats in Stampp's 1847: there were more northern factories in 1857 than there were factory workers in the south. If the south never bought another thing from the north, they would have been dependent for machinery on European suppliers. But cash was hard to come by. With a cotton economy, the planters were "slave poor." What cash they could come by for the sale of their cotton went for more land or more slaves with the idea that if you're not making much, you'd better up the volume.

I don't believe they would have gone hat-in-hand to ask the Brits to take them back. Nor would the Brits have taken in slave-holding colonies. So we have a quandary.

I figure that about the time they were making no money at all, the planters would have pitched the fire-eaters into the ocean and started to make noises about trade with the north again.

Ole

[thea_447]

I believe there would have been a mutual agreement at some point that the two nations needed to do business with one another to survive. I do not for one moment believe that the South would have gone "hat in hand" to anybody begging. I don't believe that anymore than I believe Jefferson Davis should be called names.

We can all sit here and argue 'til the cows come home but the South and every Southerner on this board believes thoroughly that the South had a right to secede. By no means on earth does that make Davis a "treasonous bastard"!

[unionblue]

Thea,

I don't know about every Southerner this board agreeing with you, and I doubt if you know for sure yourself, but not even every Southerner of the South in 1860 thought the South had a right to secede, General Lee included. Don't count your Southerners until you know for sure they're willing to secede right along side you!

And why on God's green earth should you be upset at Shane's opinion if Davis committed treason or not? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and while I myself would hesitate to call Jefferson Davis a 'treasonous bastard' I do acknowledge that in my own opinion Davis did commit treason by his actions.

And remember, I have to sit at my keyboard and bite my tongue when someone calls Abraham Lincoln a 'dictator' or 'mass murderer' when I think that person is absolutely stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins. He/she is entitled to his opinion, whether I like it or not.

My own opinion is if Ft. Sumter was NOT fired upon it would have been tough for Lincoln to muster any kind of military or political support to force the South back into the Union. But, it would have been tough for the Deep South to go it alone as I also think the Upper South would NOT have joined the secession movement and the Deep South WOULD have to go begging 'hat-in-hand' for material and financial support. Hence part of the reason the South fired on Ft. Sumter in spite of the lack of threat from the troops stationed there.

But we'll never know, will we?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

On this note I read an article... frankly a terrifying "What If." Jeff Davis orders Ft Sumter not to be fired upon under any circumstances even to the point of not responding if the Fort fired into the city.

Using approx half of the 100,000 troops called up in June of 61 an assault is planned and executed upon Washington DC. Without the 75,000 troops called up to defend the Union the Union is all but defenseless. Only a few thousand Regulars stand in the way of the armed mob. While these troops fight well and blood the Confederate forces grevieously they are overwhelmed. Their resistance serves only to enrage Confederate political leadership. On 19 July Washington DC is captured, while much of the cabinet has fled President Lincoln has not. He stands to and faces the judgement of men he still calls his countrymen. Jeff Davis orders him shot and instates himself as President of the United States. Coup de tat.

The resulting victory is a disaster for the nation as very few view him as a legitimate president and his subsequent actions only serve to heighten this disaster. The Transcontinental RR is not completed due to his insistance that the route must be a southern one despite the four most expert engineers of the country telling him that it was not a feasible route. Slavery is made legal throughout the nation ignoring the wishes and votes cast by a clear majority. California secedes from the United States with much of the Upper Midwest following; however without the preparation of the former CS they are cut off from the ports of the Mississippi economically strangled and eventually subjugated. California is another matter, led by compettant soldiers who had escaped the purge of 63 they fight brilliantly and win. In 1870 the Free States of California encompassing modern California, Utah, Nevada, Washington and Oregan are recognized by Russia, France and Germany and enter the world stage as the chief opponent of the United States with an economic and industrial growth that quickly upstages it's eastern enemy. In 1915 in the midst of WW1 they strike, by 1917 they have seized all lands west of the Mississippi River, including the seizure of New Orleans. Arsistance in 1918 finds The California Free States bordered on the west by the Pacific and on the east by the great lakes and the Ohio Rivers.

That is just a short gist of the article but I have to admit it made me wonder... who was the more aggressive using only the proof of aggresive <u>ACTION</u> with the seizure of Federal assets and property, calling up of 100,000 troops and finally the firing on of Ft Sumter. I believe that answer is quite clear. Taken one step further who was the more candid about democratic policies; the answer is which was willing to stand an election knowing he might well lose. Finally, who was willing to face reality? That answer is blatantly clear to any who see the rantings of Davis... especially as the War was lost and CS armies disintegrated across the nation.

Upon rereading the history of West Point and understanding what kind of oathes he took I am convinced that Davis did indeed commit treason of the basest form. He betrayed those placed under his command in the Army/Navy by casting to the wayside the oath he took as Secretary of Defence. And he betrayed every fellow West Point graduate past, present and future with his actions. Finally, he betrayed the state he had been elected to represent by failing to defend it.

Just to qualify my "treasonous bastard" title I would also call George Washington one. The difference is that he won and managed to plant the seeds of a good thing and all things considered those seeds have sprouted one of the greatest nations in world history. The seeds Jeff Davis and his ilk sowed went stagnant, lasting only a few years. In short he was a dismal failure becoming an icon only to the Lost Cause.

[bill_torrens]

Dear Shane,

Your “alternative history” scenario is entertaining. Mind you, not as good as the plot of Harry Turtledove’s “The Guns Of The South”…the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47s proved so delightful a fantasy that I read the book five times. But I enjoyed your depiction of the Confederates capturing Washington in [presumably?] the late spring of 1861. You describe the scenario as terrifying….to me it is a delicious fantasy.

With the emphasis on the word “fantasy”. Here’s the thing. The Confederate forces at 1st Manassas numbered about 32,000. And they were outnumbered. So how could the Rebels have assembled a larger number of troops than this at an earlier date?

That’s my first objection. But my main problem is with the idea that Jefferson Davis would (a) have had Lincoln murdered and (b) have assumed the Presidency of the Union from which his own country (Mississippi) had departed some months earlier. Is there anything in the objective record of Davis’s life to suggest that he had a taste for murder? And why would the Southern people, having finally managed to rid themselves of their links to what they viewed as an obnoxious Yankee race, possibly be interested in reconstructing the Union with Jeff Davis as President?

And I also have a problem with your reference to “the rantings of Davis”. When did he rant about anything? Given that there are no audio recordings of his speeches, the “ranting” element can only be inferred from his words as they appear in cold print. If you can produce evidence to support your description I shall read it with interest.

And as much as anything I have a problem with your description of George Washington as a “treasonous bastard”. On two levels. First of all, Washington’s allegiance to the British crown ceased to be binding when the majority of the people in his country (Virginia) withdrew their own allegiance from the same. And secondly I am repelled by the suggestion that winners create their own morality and that losers stand condemned, regardless of the merits of their fallen cause. There is a moral nihilism about this argument – one much favoured by pro-Unionists – which stands in stark contrast to their expressions of pious outrage about secession and slavery. I would ask everyone on your side of the ideological divide to decide once and for all whether they want to be cynics or idealists…this constant changing from one position to the other is really wearying.

Bill

(Message edited by Bill_torrens on January 29, 2005)

[johan_steele]

Sorry Bill, someone will have to refresh my memory. Idealist me? Hardened Cynic and realist, oh yes... idealistic, absolutely not. Holier than though or pious... hardly. Better than the average slaveholder... christ yes.

I guess I just put more stock in an oath and the importance of my word than Jeff Davis and his ilk did... shocking that admission should come from a northerner eh?

Though I do have to ask, what is wrong w/ the average cynical idealist?

As to terrifying, you don't think it a terrifying spectre to have a rebel leader order murdered a President of the US... I guess it would be delicious fantasy if you were rooting for the other side. Just a thought.

It was not my scenario, simply one I noted and thought would entertain the "what if" crowd here.

Frankly, Jeff Davis lacked the competance to accomplish anything mentioned in the scenario. As to numbers... Lincoln called up the 75,000 volunteers <u>AFTER</u> FT Sumter had fallen, I can only assume that the author assumed the 75,000 troops would not have been called up to defend the Union/suppress the rebellion. I too question the level ruthlessness Jeff Davis was capable of. Though, there can be no doubt as to the level of his hate for Lincoln in particular. As to his rantings, most of his writings are quite full of them, particularly after the EP. I guess he took that document as a personal affront.

I do believe it was the British belief and policy well into the 19th Century that once an individual was a British Citizen they always were... hence the the repeated treatment of US citizens as essentially less than chattel when encountered on the high seas. My own opinion... Washington was a far better politician than a soldier. Just a personal opinion. Is there any doubt that had he failed in his endeavour of revolution that he would have been taken to England tried, convicted and then, my absolute favorite, drawn and quartered.