Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
Let us say Seward is elected President instead of Lincoln. He agrees to evacuate Fort Sumter and Pensacola and agrees to the secession of the Deep South.
If South Carolina, et al, are allowed to secede in peace, do Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Arkansas, etc., join the new Confederacy, or do they stay in the Union? Does a civil war break out in Missouri or Tennessee over whether to secede?
What would the new nation look like? Could it be economically viable, long term? Would it become an economic colony of the United States or Great Britain?
What would the remainder of the United States look like, with the lower Mississippi now a separate nation, closing the logical outflow of good from the Midwestern States?
Does Utah follow suit and secede itself, perhaps taking a big chunk of the West with it?
How about politically? The Confederacy, with its competing state's interests, almost imploded. Without the uniting influence of the war, could it have held together politically? How does the central Confederate government pass or enforce any laws when each state no doubt would claim the right to nullify any of the laws of the central government?
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
No fair! If you're going to ask a series of questions like that, you have to take a crack at answering them!
Even so, I'll cherry-pick and give you my thoughts on a few of them to get the ball rolling.
If President Seward had withdrawn from both forts, and if he had taken no other provocative steps (such as attempting to collect tariffs off shore), I do not think that Virginia, et al., would have seceded in the short run -- unless future events drew the two countries into conflict. I would qualify that by saying that I more confident about Virginia, NC and Tennessee (and the states to their north, Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky). I know less about Arkansas and Missouri.
As you suggest, there was still the possibility that war might have broken out in the short term because frustrated secessionists might have tried to mount a coup in one of the non-seceding states, or guerrilla war might have broken out in one of those states, drawing the two nations into conflict. (There is evidence that fire eaters in Virginia were thinking about mounting a coup rather than allowing the Virginia secession convention to adjourn without taking action. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates pp. 316 et seq.)
Would a Confederacy of the seven cotton south states have survived? I would say that it would have survived in the sense that they would not have voluntarily rejoined the North. Whether or not the country was economically and politically viable, I just can't see them returning.
What would the hypothetical Confederacy have looked like and how would it have fared? There I lose focus. I think they would have had a very tough time economically. Cotton demand leveled off in the 1860s. Assuming increasing production, prices would have declined dramatically. At best, the Confederacy would have faced a massive challenge to retool the economy away from production to increased manufacturing, shipping, etc.
Politically, as you suggest, it would have been a very odd country.
Even more difficult is to figure out what would have become longer term to the western states that remained in the Union if they were denied access to the Mississippi. I suppose the two countries might have negotiated a treaty, but more likely the north would have redoubled efforts to construct internal improvements -- railroads -- that would allow the lower midwest to transport its goods to market in the east.
[/quote]If South Carolina, et al, are allowed to secede in peace, do Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Arkansas, etc., join the new Confederacy, or do they stay in the Union? Does a civil war break out in Missouri or Tennessee over whether to secede?[/quote]
If Seward lets the Cotton South go in peace and evacuates Forts Sumter and Pickens, then I think it avoids the further secession of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee and the others are a little more hesitant to think about the idea. I don't see the Confederacy going beyond seven, possibly eight states (Arkansas possibly seceding.)
[/quote]What would the new nation look like? Could it be economically viable, long term? Would it become an economic colony of the United States or Great Britain?[/quote]
I honestly don't think it would have survived without Great Britain entering and possibly making it a commonwealth, which would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. I don't honestly know what Seward would have done, but when he was Secretary of State, he was sure willing to start a war with England to try and bring the Southern states back, so it is a possibility he would interfere.
[/quote]What would the remainder of the United States look like, with the lower Mississippi now a separate nation, closing the logical outflow of good from the Midwestern States?[/quote]
This I see as creating a problem. During the war, the Western states were increasinly unhappy as to the higher rates they had to pay to ship their goods by train, canal or riverboat to get them to eastern ports, instead of just shipping them down the Mississippi to New Orleans. I think there would have been a great outcry from the Midwest to either come to a trade agreement to allow them access to the Gulf, or to go to war to reopen the Father of Waters so that it would once more "flow unvexed to the sea."
[/quote]Does Utah follow suit and secede itself, perhaps taking a big chunk of the West with it?[/quote]
Possibly, but if the army isn't tied up fighting the CSA, then Seward would be able to put down the second Mormon rebellion.
[/quote]How about politically? The Confederacy, with its competing state's interests, almost imploded. Without the uniting influence of the war, could it have held together politically? How does the central Confederate government pass or enforce any laws when each state no doubt would claim the right to nullify any of the laws of the central government?[/quote]
I see the CS government imploding. I do not think they could have survived on a solely states rights doctrine. The Articles of Confederation were a failure and that is essentially what the CSA was wanting; autonomy for the states with strong state governments and a weak central government. They would have failed because of competing factions within each state trying to nullify a law that another state had proposed and tried to pass. I wouldn't give them ten years. I think they would have come back begging to be readmitted to the Union, realizing that it was, as George Washington had said, for their own good that they were part of a Union of states, instead of separate states trying to govern themselves and loosely allied.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
It depends. If the Federal government let the cotton states left without trying to hold on to them, for the crappy reason of preserving slavery, I don't think we've heard the last of secession. Maybe not just a CSA and USA, but a couple of others.
Sources of conflict: the border states: Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Eastern Tennessee. There would have been conflict, a calling in of reinforcements, and some battles.
The cotton states make up a huge territory, compared to, let's say France. So its big enough to make a nation. The economy is very underdeveloped, and as the cotton boom fades, alternatives will have to be found.
A CSA relationship with the USA is a key problem. A CSA facing a hostile USA with seek foreign allies, arm itself, centralize for survival in the face of its big and hostile neighbor.
A CSA relationship with the USA is a key problem. A CSA facing a hostile USA with seek foreign allies, arm itself, centralize for survival in the face of its big and hostile neighbor.
And then what are you left with? A CSA with a centralized government is nothing more than a mini USA. A confederacy cannot survive the conquestial (That's not even a word... I hope you know what I mean.) tendencies of the other participating states. They feud internally, and either attempt to leave the confederacy or are so weakened by their struggles that they cannot stand up to outside pressure. Stronger nations feed off the weaker, that's how it always was, how it is, and ever will be. Confederacies have been found over and over throughout history to be inadequate forms of government. The federalist papers address this, just don't remember which one right now.
__________________
"In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Last edited by Dred : 02-24-2008 at 08:32 PM.
Reason: added link
Post Secession you're going to see states entrenching their power. Essentially no law can pass that isn't ratified by the states since with secession entrenched as a right, states possess the ultimate power of nullification (ie. they can't nullify any single law, BUT they can simply nullify ALL of them); the Federal government becomes a nullity and the nation balkanizes. Without war, the Confederate government never really does anything.
The first sign that this wouldn't work well would be if Mexico decided to pick on Texas again or if the UK began picking at the Northwest.....
Thanks to all for participating. I did want to hear some other thoughts before weighing in. I think my questions betray my thoughts on the subject.
First, I think that allowing secession becomes political suicide for for Seward. The Republican party ends up as shattered as the Democrats after the Cotton States secede and the Congressional elections of 1862 and the presidential election of 1864 get very, very interesting.
I think that civil war breaks out in Missouri as groups to decide whether to join the Confederacy or stay in the Union, with the Confederacy supplying arms to the pro-Confederacy forces rather openly and the Seward weasling while Missouri burns. With more open support from the Confederacy, I think Missouri, or what is left of it, eventually joins the Confederacy.
Even with their large goups of pro-Union sentiment, I think North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia join the Confederacy within a year - two at the outside. Their economic and political interests are more closely aligned with the Confederacy than with the remainder of the Union. When Congress convenes in 1861 and they see how holdlessly outnumbered their causes are - on tariffs and slavery both, I think that the pressure to join the Confederacy becomes simply too great. Maryland is a good bet to leave as well, with a fight then brewing over whether the new Federal capital will be in Philadelphia, New York or, as a sop to the Midwesterners angry with the loss of easy access to the Mississippi, Chicago. Kentucky is a tossup. There is violent repression of pro-Union sentiment in Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina, with a large number of people eventually decamping from the Confederacy to move back to the United States.
The addition of Virginia and Tennessee add considerable economic viability to the Confederacy, but I think the economic policies of the Confederate government cripple emerging industry in the new nation as the government presses for free trade, especially with Great Britain, and without protectionist tarrifs nacent Confederate manufacturing simply cannot survive. Cheap manufactured goods from the US and England destroy any attempts to create home-grown industries, since government policies heavily favor agriculture over manufacturing.
There will be considerable tension between Texas the the rest of the Confederacy as Texas seeks help from the central government (such as it is) against Indians on the frontier and the French in Mexico. Texas receives moral support and that's about it. No other state is willing to send its state troops outside the state boundaries. Texas freebooters "invade" the Indian Territories to bring it into the Confederacy, as well as New Mexico and up into Colorado to "reclaim" the land seceded by Texas to the Federal government when it joined the United States. Thus a large chunk of the West joins the Confederacy, but there is tension in Texas as to whether to continue in the Confederacy, rejoin the Union since slavery is a minor factor in Texas, or to once again go it alone and become the Republic of Texas once again. I would bet on the Republic of Texas option.
Grandiose dreams of Confederate expansion into Cuba, Mexico and South America remain simply that - grandiose dreams. Without a strong central government or an external threat, there is simply not agreement for the military forces necessary for these "overseas" adventures. At best, Confederate freebooters follow the Texas model to stir up revolution in Cuba to gain its independance from Spain as a prelude to requesting to join the Confederacy.
As new sources of cotton are developed in Egypt and India, the Confederacy is not able to use cotton as an economic weapon and cotton prices remain low to moderate. Thus, Southern planters begin to amass large debts to "Yankee' and British bankers. The Confederacy is on the road to becoming an economic colony of either New York or London or both.
The United States passes constitutional amendments banning slavery and forbidding further secession. The Mormons in Utah being practical folk, see that they cannot be a viable country without access to the sea and remain in the Union. There is a concerted push to develop shipping options for Midwest grain to bypass the simple access of shipping down the Mississippi, but the majority of Midwestern produce still passes down the river. There is considerable tension between the states along the Mississippi and the Confederate government as to who gets to levy customs duties on this commerce. New Orleans thinks that all duties should belong to it as the final trans-shipment point.
Unless the conflicts in Missouri or the pro-Union parts of Tennessee or Virginia ignite a larger war, I do not see armed conflict breaking out between the United States and the Confederate States.
By 1900, I think you have a United States which still stretches from sea to sea. Alaska is still purchased from Russia. The Confederacy still exists, sans the Texas Republic (which includes Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico). The United States is strong economically, but not as strong as historically. However, without the economic drain of paying off war debts, there is increased expenditure of capital in railroads and other infrastructure. The Confederacy is a cripple, both economically as well as as politically. The Texas Republic is at least united and will soon become an economic "miracle" following the gusher in East Texas (financed by "Yankee" money) which leads to the Texas oil good.
Whew!
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I agree it would be political suicide for any president not to challenge secession.
However, I think states' right is less of a vital interest than national survivial, or it better become less vital, or any new government would have trouble surviving.
At first I doubted border states like Missouri, and Maryland would secede. The majority of residents were non slaveholders, and groups were actively hostile to secessionist elements. But if our imaginary president didn't resist the deep South secession, anti secessionists would have less federal help material and moral.
I agree it would be political suicide for any president not to challenge secession.
However, I think states' right is less of a vital interest than national survivial, or it better become less vital, or any new government would have trouble surviving.
At first I doubted border states like Missouri, and Maryland would secede. The majority of residents were non slaveholders, and groups were actively hostile to secessionist elements. But if our imaginary president didn't resist the deep South secession, anti secessionists would have less federal help material and moral.
I agree that national survival quickly would become the priority and I imagine that any resulting (smaller) United State would quickly pass amendments to the Constitution making clear that secession was not an option and which killed any arguments in favor of nullification. I think the president following our imaginary Seward would take a hard line and say, following the Constitutional amendments, that any attempted secession will be met by force.
I think you are also correct that Maryland is a close case. It could go either way. Missouri, however, I think would be under tremedous pressure from pro-secessionists with active and open backing from the Confederate government without a corresponding push/aid from the imaginary Seward (can't offend the neighboring Confederacy).
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
A new meaning for 'Sewards Folley' would have entered the history books. Letting SC and any other state that wanted to, We must remember Seward was a staunch Unionist. But he was too much a political opportunist and sometimes lost track of the trees of Union in a forest of political maneuverings. IMO the historical Seward would not have let SC go, in peace, no matter what he might have tried, for political purposes, to convince them otherwise.
However, in line with the actual 'What If' question: IF SC were allowed to secede, then Seward would face a firestorm with the newly created Republican Party, which would IMO, destroy Seward politically and the Republican Party.
SC, Fla, Ala, Miss, Tx, Ark and Ga. had already agreed to secede IF Any Republican were elected. The Gulf Squadreon, was already in the Process of Secesssion before the incumbent was even seated. They were determined to secede and no promise from a 'Black' Republican would deter them (Seward was hated and distrusted by the South, even more than Lincoln)
Seward, while Sec'y of State under Lincoln, wanted the war to start at Ft. Pickens, in Fla. not Sumter.
The real 'what if' would be if Seward was really serious bout starting a war with Great Britain as a ploy to help united the Country. Being a professional politician it was/is sometimes difficult to pin Seward down with logic or intelligence. Just my opinion, but with the crisis as described, I think Seward would be more likely to listen to his cabinent and his friends and supporters in the Gov't, that one enemy at a time, should be his M.O.
The upper South (it's leadership, anyway) was primed and looking for excuses to secede. It is likely that in the event of a weak president, allowing disunion, there would be a movement in Congress to outlaw any further acts of secession. Congress would be too divided to actually pass such a law, but it's suggestion would be all the upper south leaders would need to justify their secession.
Like history, showed, the second-tier secession would provoke a war. Which would reunite the Unionist sentiments of the North and the economically and politically handicapped South would still lose the war.
The advantages possessed by the North were so overwhelming that even a Seward or any person with staunch Unionist beliefs, would be difficult to defeat. Seward was not a Lincoln, but in the hard world of history, he would still have the bigger battalions and although not necessarily a guarantee of victory, it is the way to bet.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
The erring sisters go in peace 
Linear Mode
