Heard an interesting supposition concerning Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War and would like some input?

Heard an interesting supposition concerning Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War and would like some input. The question basically asked if Lincoln did not win reelection to his second term in 1864, or if the Confederates had been able to assassinate him earlier in the war, what would have happened to the US. Would the other leaders in the country sue for peace, keeping a divided country, the south continuing with slavery?

Would we have wound up like the European nations, a group of separate "state" nations and not the eventual united super power we became. I know it's speculation and quite a deep thought but it is so very interesting. Asked by Bear60 47 months ago Similar questions: Heard interesting supposition Abraham Lincoln Civil War input Society > story.

Similar questions: Heard interesting supposition Abraham Lincoln Civil War input.

The issue has been dealt with before. My guess is that what happened would have depended on when Lincoln left the Presidency. Since the new term began in March of 1865, had Lincoln been defeated for reelection, events would have gone to far along to have made much difference.

However, had Lincoln left the scene say in April of 1863, things might have been different. When I was in my teens, the country hit the century mark in commemorating the war. A historian was asked to pen a piece for a magazine--I think that it might have been Look.

Anyway, whoever wrote it, the author assumed that Sherman had stayed alive and had helped Lee win at Gettysburg. A Confederate sharpshooter had killed Grant, so that Vicksburg didn’t fall. The author’s guess was that had Lee won a major victory at Gettysburg, the federals would have sued for peace.

The author’s guess was that the US and the Confederacy would have evolved into separate countries. The Confederacy would have taken Mexico from France and Cuba from Spain. I agree with his conclusions, if we assume that Lincoln had passed on before Gettysburg as well.

Until the scent of victory was in the air, the war wasn’t that popular at home. Without Lincoln, the Copperheads would have gotten the upper hand and peace would have returned. The author of the magazine article sensed that the federals and the confederates would have eventually merged again, because of their economic ties and a commonality of history and language.

Slavery would have played itself out once there were no more cotton growing areas left to exploit. As to international affairs, things would have been different, but not necessarily better or worse. The British Navy would have grown even larger, since there wouldn’t have been a large American navy.My guess is that ties between the British upper classes and the Southern upper classes would have become so strong that the Brits would have not been as concerned with Europe and would have stayed out of World War I.

No disastrous WWI and no No no WWII. No Russian Revolution. Sources: personal opinion Snow_Leopard's Recommendations This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War Amazon List Price: $27.95 Used from: $16.76 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 6 reviews) The Killer Angels Amazon List Price: $7.99 Used from: $0.01 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 501 reviews) Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford story of the United States) Amazon List Price: $19.95 Used from: $9.00 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 169 reviews) .

Fragmentation George McClellan ran against Lincoln as a "peace" candidate. If he had won the election, he probably would have tried to do a negotiated settlement of the war with the Confederacy allowed to leave the Union. It would have been just a matter of time after that before the Confederacy broke up (their national government was deliberately kept weak) and possibly the rest of the Union as well.

Eventually North America would have ended up like Europe, a collection of petty states endlessly squabbling among themselves. If Lincoln had been assassinated earlier it might have been different. S Vice-Presidents were pretty weak and the hardliners in the Congress probably would have run roughshod over them as they mostly did to Johnson after the assassination.

They would have pushed for an even bigger bloodbath in the South and even more oppressive postwar regime. Retribution and punishment would have been the order of the day (Republicans haven't changed all that much). The South would have always considered itself a conquered and occupied country and it would have been just a matter of time until war broke out again.

Either way, there would have been no United States as we know it today.

It is an interesting question to think about, but I believe the war would have continued regardless of Lincoln... Lincoln’s Vice President during his first term was a man named Hannibal Hamlin. Hamlin was a former Governor and Senator from Maine and he was, as much as any politician of the day, a staunch abolitionist. Although he had little to do with the politics of the Lincoln administration, had Lincoln been killed during his first term Hamlin would have become President.

I strongly doubt that Hamlin would have sued for peace immediately. Now, he might not have been able to win the war, especially if Lincoln had died during or before about 1862, while the Confederates were on the attack, but I doubt he would have sought peace with a slaveholding nation. Had Lincoln died or been assassinated during is very brief second administration (from March of 1865 until his death in April, just over a month later) his new Vice President Andrew Johnson would have held sway over the country, but by that point the war was already a Union victory in all but name.As far as Lincoln not being re-elected, the election of 1864 was an interesting one.

There was some general feeling in the North, especially early in 1864, that the war had dragged on too long and cost too many men. Lincoln was running against Gen. George McClellan (the former general in charge of the Union Army who Lincoln had accused of having a case of the "slows") and a man named John C Fremont (who was upset because he and the other "Radical Republicans" did not feel that Lincoln’s post-war plans were harsh enough on the old guard of the South).

McClellan, oddly enough was the "peace candidate" put forth by the remaining Union Democrats. This was odd because McClellan himself believed in continuing and winning the war, while the party’s platform called for an immediate end to the hostilities. I think that this suggests strongly that the Democrats were unable to find a strong political candidate who would definitely oppose the war.

By November of 1864, the inevitable Union victory was becoming clear. Sherman was marching his men through Georgia and Grant was backing Lee into a corner in Virginia. McClellan’s chances of winning were becoming slimmer and slimmer and the war progressed.

Lincoln went on to win the election with 55% of the popular vote and with a landslide of the electoral votes (McClellan only managed to win Kentucky and Maryland, while Fremont dropped out early due to a brokered deal). So when you really look at the people who were poised to step into the Presidency should Lincoln die or be defeated in re-election, it seems that all of them were in some shape or form in favor of prolonging (and winning!) the war. Electoral map for 1864: Hanibal Hamlin (who had to have been somewhat pissed to have missed being President by a mere month): Gen.

George McClellan: John C Fremont: .

Well you have to keep in mind that Lincoln’s 1864 opponent was not a peace Democrat. George McClellan vowed during the campaign that he would see the war through to victory but there has always been a question as to whether or not he could have done so. Many leading Democrats were demanding peace negations and McClellan might have had no choice but to accede to their demands.

Of course it is also questionable just how long slavery would have existed once the war was over even if the South had won. By the time that McClellan would have taken office in March of 1865 the vast majority of slaves in the Confederacy would have already escaped and once negations started I imagine that there would have been a mass exodus to the North. That possible exodus of course brings up the strong possibility that the Northern people would have reacted so negatively to such a migration that Northern politicians might have had to return the former slaves to the South.

Even if slavery had survived the war however, the Confederacy would have been under a lot of pressure from their number one trading partner (England) to abolish slavery. Another thing that makes me think that slavery might not have even survived a Southern victory is that by March of 1865 blacks had been recruited into the Confederate Army and were drilling side by side with white troops in Richmond. It is ironic that the Confederacy had integrated regiments in 1865 and the United States wouldn’t have that until the Truman administration.By admitting that blacks would make good soldiers the Confederate government had already shot down their own arguments for the preservation of slavery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As part of the negotiations the South would have probably demanded that West Virginia, which had been unconstitutionally admitted to the Union in 1863 be returned to Virginia and that Kentucky and Missouri be allowed to decide for themselves which country to be a part of. After that I dare say that the Union would have made Constitutional changes to keep any other states from leaving the country so I would think that the 1862 US would look a lot like it looks today east of the Mississippi. The Confederacy would have also probably ended up with Oklahoma but other than that the west would probably look about the same too.

The Confederacy however would have probably broken up into several countries or into individual independent states by now. Georgia threatened to secede from the Confederacy while the war was still in progress. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other things that might have changed include a continuing French presence in Mexico, Cuba being a Confederate state and if the Confederacy had held together I imagine that the Confederacy would have been involved in WW I almost from the beginning.

Sources: my opinion .

Bear60 there have been whole what if books on this subject Read Harry Turtledoves alternate histories he has one on the CW if the South won Looking at your suposition historically if Lincoln had lost the 1864 election to Macellan the war would have ended with a negoitated peace leaving the CSA a seperate country. Macellan ran on a peace ticket. How long The CSA would have remained viable is up for grabs.

First of all they were bankrupt and impoverashed by the war. It took 75 years after the Union Victory to recover with Federal Government help. On ther own it would have been worse.

They would have to have massive help from Europe. The only thing they had of any value to England was cotton and it would have been at least 5-10 years to rebuild that crop. Investors would have been skittish.

They would have to turned to the north for help and assistance which with hard feelings that would have been difficult Slavery would have become economicaly unviable and obsolute as machines replaced costly labor. Machines do not get sick and have to have shelter and eat. They are way faster too.

The slaves would have been freed. The south would have to industrialize and become more like the north. The differences that caused the war would have fadded.

I think within 25 years the countries would have reunited for mutual benifit Now if Lincoln were assinated the war would have been prosacuted to the bitter end. Lincoln would have been made a marter and a hero. The nation state concept would not have happened the states in the Union and the confederacy would have stuck together.

There is protection in numbers.

Have you read the Bixby Letter from Pres. Lincoln to a Civil War Mother? Does it move you?

Here is a transcript :" "what did lincoln command sherman to do to end the civil war? " "Why was the american civil war an important event in history" "If lincoln hadn't been elected how might the civil war havebeen affected" "What is the most interesting fact about Abraham Lincoln? " "While Lincoln was freeing the black slaves during the Civil War period Native Americans were being enslaved.

How does" "Do you think Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War?

Have you read the Bixby Letter from Pres. Lincoln to a Civil War Mother? Does it move you?

Here is a transcript.

Why was the american civil war an important event in history.

If lincoln hadn't been elected how might the civil war havebeen affected.

While Lincoln was freeing the black slaves during the Civil War period Native Americans were being enslaved. How does.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.