What If... the south had been allowed to secede peacefully?

kevikens

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Location
New Jersey
I've already mentioned that Baltimore was very much sympathetic towards the Rebels (see James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom)band was already the site of the Baltimore. The thing is that having a band of secessionists making loud demonstrations wouldn't be exactly what Lincoln would want and neither would the Union Army.
The "Plug Uglies" who were the most vociferous of demonstrators, protesters and all around trouble makers in Baltimore had a reputation for raising Cain over just about anything a riot could be manufactured from. I dare say if Confederate troops had first marched north toward Pennsylvania through the streets of Baltimore they would have stoned those soldiers.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Then too, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment banning secession in 1861 0r 1862 would be an admission that there had been nothing in constitution banning it.
Thanks for your response.
Indeed. Some things are best not said: it opens up other difficulties.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
As the approval for peaceful secession roles towards Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas, I see a diminishing chance of peaceful acknowledgement. The odds begin to go down after Mississippi, if it gets that far. So what if seems to be the only territory in which that happens.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The trouble with these scenarios is the Confederacy is going to have virtually wall itself off from contact with the rest of the world. I don't see how that would be accepted in the border states. Nor is England going to buy cotton indefinitely from a closed, pariah state.
 

amweiner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Location
Monterey, CA
The trouble with these scenarios is the Confederacy is going to have virtually wall itself off from contact with the rest of the world. I don't see how that would be accepted in the border states. Nor is England going to buy cotton indefinitely from a closed, pariah state.
And I think the "all we ask is to be let alone" mantra will cause trouble with the Confederacy being fully accepted by other nations. Whether that would result in economic or political pressures....
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
The "Plug Uglies" who were the most vociferous of demonstrators, protesters and all around trouble makers in Baltimore had a reputation for raising Cain over just about anything a riot could be manufactured from. I dare say if Confederate troops had first marched north toward Pennsylvania through the streets of Baltimore they would have stoned those soldiers.
The Plug Uglies were already pro-Confederate and given their reputation for violence it's not hard to see them join with other groups such as the Copperheads' Maryland branch and start the Pratt Street Riots or some ATL equivalent of it.
 

Karen Lips

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Location
Waxahachie,Texas
No, even if in the unlikely chance the South does peacefully secede a war is likely to come a few years down the line. As I said even if the CSA (which was still comprised of the Deep South states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas prior to Fort Sumter) for a moment decided not to bomb Fort Sumter and the Union doesn't retaliate that would mean another event would have taken its place and something like the Baltimore Riots could still happen thus causing the secession of the Upper South states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and possibly Missouri and Kentucky given that the Baltimore riots occured in the border state of Maryland) from the Union and into the Confederacy.
Maybe
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The trouble with these scenarios is the Confederacy is going to have virtually wall itself off from contact with the rest of the world. I don't see how that would be accepted in the border states. Nor is England going to buy cotton indefinitely from a closed, pariah state.
Why would the Confedracy be a pariah state in the Nineteenth Century. Brazil and Spain had legal slavery well after the ACW. Portugal and Belgium had something very close to slavery in their African colonies from the Nineteenth Century well in to the modern era and they were far from pariah states.
Leftyhunter
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Why would the Confedracy be a pariah state in the Nineteenth Century. Brazil and Spain had legal slavery well after the ACW. Portugal and Belgium had something very close to slavery in their African colonies from the Nineteenth Century well in to the modern era and they were far from pariah states.
Leftyhunter
Spain, Cuba and Brazil, would also qualify as pariah states.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Why would the Confedracy be a pariah state in the Nineteenth Century. Brazil and Spain had legal slavery well after the ACW. Portugal and Belgium had something very close to slavery in their African colonies from the Nineteenth Century well in to the modern era and they were far from pariah states.
Leftyhunter
The British has abandoned slavery. They were the dominant power of the time. Russia freed the serfs in 1862, which was as much of an admission as a reform. But it created the vast chasms of poverty that were never solved until the system completely collapsed. The Confederacy would have been a lot like Russia.
The major investors in the US were in the NE, or the border states. They were unlikely to loan much money to Confederate debtors.
France, Prussia and Poland had all abandoned serfdom and domestic slavery.
So if you think being like the Congo or Cuba, or the Sudan, is not being in the category of pariah nation, I disagree.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The first 17 months of the war demonstrated that not only did the US have the political will to bar the Confederacy from the west, it had the naval and logistical power to enforce the will.
Any attempt by the Confederacy to extend southward would be opposed by the British. They might get help from the French. But Napoleon III's government was one of the least stable in Europe.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Why would the Confedracy be a pariah state in the Nineteenth Century. Brazil and Spain had legal slavery well after the ACW. Portugal and Belgium had something very close to slavery in their African colonies from the Nineteenth Century well in to the modern era and they were far from pariah states.
Leftyhunter

Which caused a very strong public reaction when the details came out including the transfer of the Congo Free State from King Leopold's personal rule to being a direct colony of Belgium. The political pressure from western Europe was increasingly against chattel slavery. Forms of debt bondage still existed [and unfortunately still do today in some areas ] but open slavery was something that the dominant European powers were increasingly cracking down on hard.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
The first 17 months of the war demonstrated that not only did the US have the political will to bar the Confederacy from the west, it had the naval and logistical power to enforce the will.
Any attempt by the Confederacy to extend southward would be opposed by the British. They might get help from the French. But Napoleon III's government was one of the least stable in Europe.

Also Nappy III was very reliant on good relations with London, hence that he never bit the bullet in recognising the south as sources seem to have suggested he would have likely to.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Which caused a very strong public reaction when the details came out including the transfer of the Congo Free State from King Leopold's personal rule to being a direct colony of Belgium. The political pressure from western Europe was increasingly against chattel slavery. Forms of debt bondage still existed [and unfortunately still do today in some areas ] but open slavery was something that the dominant European powers were increasingly cracking down on hard.
I would have to PM my response has the Belgium and Portuguese slave issue gets into modern politics.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Spain, Cuba and Brazil, would also qualify as pariah states.
Cuba would not be independent until after the Spanish American War . Not aware of any major or even minor sanctions imposed against Spain or Brazil in the Nineteenth Century .
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The North would have been absorbed into Canada. The South absorbed into Mexico. Win win.
The US ran a telegraph line to Sacramento by October 1861. Maritime traffic to and from San Francisco, through Aspinal's Panamanian railroad was never interrupted. California desert battalions "rangered" across Arizona and Colorado mountain battalions wrecked Confederate logistics in New Mexico. Connor was in the Nevada forts by late 1862. The US did not need rescuing. It just needed to eliminate the Confederacy as a competitor. The US was more likely to absorb British Columbia and Vancouver Island, then Canada absorb the US.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
If the 7 most southern states had been allowed to secede, their cotton crop would have been purchased by Britain. The US could have gotten most of its cotton from TN, AR, and NC. There would have been 8 coerced labor states in the US, and 19 paid labor states. Everyone would have been able to anticipate a 24:8 ratio eventually, and a constitutional abolition.
Some states or areas may have tried to escape emancipation and join the Confederacy.
However, the railroad, iron/steel and coal industries would have remained in the US.
The British would have been constantly pushing cotton expansion in India, Egypt, and most importantly in Texas.
There would have a railroad and military race to reach Sacramento, and to control what became Arizona and New Mexico, and the US was far ahead in that race.
The evidence from secession crisis is that the Confederate would have resorted to violence in the far west, and there would have been a war, rolling backwards from the west to the east.
The evidence is sufficient that the war had already started in Kansas and Missouri, by the time the candidates were chosen for the 1860 election.
John Brown was nutty. But there would have German and Hungarian and black imitators using much more planning and grab and run tactics. Peaceful secession would not have lasted past June 1860.
 
Top