"« Sic semper tyrannis ! »" Topic

Hello everyone,
In your opinion, could Lincoln's assassination before the war have prevented it?

Or could his assassination at the very beginning, say in 1861, have stopped the war altogether?

TMP link

There are two sides to this question. 1. Would Lincoln's assassination have been enough to satisfy the Southern states that the Republican agenda had been disrupted and slavery would not be threatened so that they would not secede? 2. If the South had seceded anyway, would Lincoln's successor, Hannibal Hamlin, have followed the same path as Lincoln and called for the raising of troops to put down the rebellion?

@ScottWashburn
Yes this question can be asked in two ways.

1.Would Lincoln's assassination have been enough to convince the Southern states that the Republican program had been disrupted and that slavery would not be threatened, so they would not secede?

Yes I think so.

2.If the South had seceded anyway, would Lincoln's successor, Hannibal Hamlin, have followed Lincoln's path and called for troops to suppress the rebellion?

No I don't think so, without Lincoln there would be no secession and possibly no war.

1. No, I don't think that would have ended it. The North would have been outraged and out for revenge.

2. I don't know much about Hamlin, but it's hard to believe he would have been as capable as Lincoln, and as a mere jumped-up VP would not have had the authority (gravitas?) to hold in check the radical wing of the Republican Party.

Hannibal Hamlin, Senator from Maine, had a consistent record in Congress opposing slavery and its extension. Lincoln came in as an outsider to lead the Republican ticket.
The South seceded because they perceived the Republican Party as abolitionist.
Assassinating Lincoln would have then made a known opponent of slavery the President. It would have enraged the Republicans and hardened even further their opposition to slavery. Lincoln would have become a martyr 4 years earlier.
The precedent for a Vice President becoming a true President, instead of an "acting President" had been set by Tyler on the death of Tippecanoe Harrison.
Ironically, he went on to become a Confederate congressman, but died before taking office.

So, assassination of Lincoln in 1861 would have removed an ambiguous abolitionist and replaced him with a fervent abolitionist.
I happen to think that "what if" speculation is fine for alt-historical novels, but for serious speculation is rather silly.
But I'll take the bait. PERHAPS Hamlin would not have been as clumsy as Lincoln in his war meddling and the Good Guys, the Union, might have won the war a lot earlier. After all, Hamlin was a lot more "connected" than Lincoln. But that's just idle 10 minute speculation.

I didn't know much about Hamlin either. So I cheated and Googled him and went straight to Wikipedia. In other words, "scholarly research". 😄

And I've never considered Lincoln all that capable. It took him the longest time to find capable generals and was prone to panic.

" No I don't think so, without Lincoln there would be no secession and possibly no war."
That is complete speculation. The South did not secede because of Lincoln. They seceded because he was a Republican, the party of Abolition. All and any Republicans were considered Abolitionist. The person was irrelevant.

I cannot think of any other single act that would be more likely to cause those in the loyal states to go to war with those in the seceding states than the murder of a sitting President or President elect. If the Confederates attacking Fort Sumter was enough to whip up enthusiasm in the north for going to war with the South, then imagine how much greater that enthusiasm would have been if those supporting secession were suspected of having murdered Lincoln.

It wasn't Lincoln's election per se that impelled the deep South states to secede. It was the Executive Branch passing into the control of the Republican party.

Hamlin was a staunch abolitionist--a proponent of the Wilmot Proviso who left the Democratic Party over their support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a much more experienced politician than Lincoln and a man who marched as an enlisted man when his militia company was called up. He supported the Emancipation Proclamation and advocated the arming of black soldiers. Not a man to flinch at slaveholders' secession.

And Bill N is quite right. The secessionists would have declared not war, but murder. You cannot imagine the outrage. Depending on the timing of the assassination and the degree to which secessionist involvement could be proven
there might well have been Virginia troops marching on South Carolina.

If you want to break up the US, you'll have to do better than that, hi EEE ya.

For more about Hamlin, and why he would have been a fine president, go to his Wikipedia article.
link

He would have certainly been a better president than that drunken sot Andrew Johnson.
Interestingly, it also noted that at the time, the vice president was not considered a part of the Executive Branch, but the Legislative. I didn't know that.

A theory ( not mine originally) is slavery would have ended slowly. Lincoln was a driving force being elected President, but the abolionists were gaining ground so eventually if it didn't end a fight was coming.

robert piepenbrink +1

Not only was Hamlin an ardent abolitionist, he also strongly supported the Radical Republicans. There's a alt-history story about Lincoln being shot on the ramparts when Early's troops were skirmishing outside of Washington DC in 1864 so Hamlin becomes president and the Union is now on a vendetta. Let's just say the South suffered much, much greatly due to this as per the story it is still occupied in 1942 (which complicates the Union's entry into World War II).

@donlowry
1. No, I don't think that would have ended it. The North would have been outraged and out for revenge. Not me.

2. You don't know much about Hamlin and I know even less but it's hard to believe that he would have been as relentless as Lincoln and that the war would have broken out.

If there were only 1 or 2% of abolitionists, the war would not have had to happen and it really took some people pushing the southerners to the limit to want them to leave the union…

@BillN
Sometimes everything often depends on just one person…

Also many massacres in the history of humanity could have been avoided that way.

@robert piepenbrink
My heart keeps swinging between the Yankees and the Rebels…

@14Bore
Slavery would have ended one way or another and Lincoln was a driving force in starting the extraordinary carnage that was the ACW.

@gamertom
Strange that there were no other attempts to assassinate Lincoln before John Wilkes Booth.

Assassinating him after the war was pointless since the carnage was over.

Your compass point is a smaller, weaker US, hi EEE ya. All one to you if it's achieved by southern independence or a Union which didn't have to fight a major war. It's not an uncommon desire. Tango prefers that we lose the Revolution.

But you might find, as others have, that having something is not so pleasant as wanting it.

The question of when slavery would have ended is a difficult one. It was not going to die out any time soon due to economic reasons. I've read studies which showed that in 1860 a dollar invested in a slave paid about the same return as a dollar invested in a northern factory. By the late 19th Century international disapproval would have forced the South to officially abolish slavery while in fact continuing it in some sort of slavery-like serfdom. Because keeping slavery was not just an economic issue for the South it was also about controlling the blacks. Southern slave owners and non-slave owners were terrified at the prospect of freed blacks running loose. So this quasi-slavery would certainly have persisted well into the 20th Century.

If there HAD been a war with the South winning then slavery as an institution would have persisted into the 20th Century simply because the veterans were not about to let the Damn Yankees have their way after all that blood was shed.

In either case it was going to be a very bad situation for the blacks and an ugly situation for everyone.

"@gamertom
Strange that there were no other attempts to assassinate Lincoln before John Wilkes Booth.

Assassinating him after the war was pointless since the carnage was over."

link

It's called REVENGE. Oh, I see. You approve of assassinations when there's a point to it.
I'll just point out that Booth was a fine physically fit young man, yet somehow he never bothered to VOLUNTEER for service in either the Union or Confederate army. Curious again, since you approve of patriotic volunteering for causes you believe in. Or perhaps he better served the Cause by being a dashing heartthrob actor.
I also see that you approve of JWB's Latin flourish after the shot. Can you please explain why Lincoln was a "tyrant"? Could it be that you approve of slavery?

EDIT. Yes, I know. "Sic semper tyrannis" is the state motto of Virginia, and appears on its flag. Again, I'm curious why Booth didn't serve in a dashing Virginia regiment.

@robert piepenbrink
I don't mind that the Americans fought their war of independence simply because it was a much less deadly war.

Easy to understand?

@ScottWashburn
Yes, quasi-slavery – serfdom in short – would certainly have persisted until the 20th century,but normally the South could not have won the ACW.

My Brittany was the first European nation to abolish serfdom in the 10th century, it is also practically the last country in Europe to practice the slave trade which continued in Nantes for more than twenty years after the abolition of 1848.

It should also be remembered that the true abolition of slavery as a direct action of the French state only took place definitively in 1962, during the liberation of Algeria, where the indigenous status still prevailed which forced the colonized peoples to various unpaid servitudes).

When you do a little research on the ACW and you see the extraordinary and incredible butchery – for me anyway – that it was, you say to yourself that it would have been better if it had not happened by any solution, that's all.

@All
It should be noted that seceding was completely legal since it was in the Declaration of Rights and in the Constitution of the United States of 1788, but Lincoln ignored all that, he even abolished habeas corpus.

He ignored the Declaration of Rights and had a new constitution drawn up to favor the federal centralizing state and not the confederal state, which is why many states decided to join the confederation.

For example, there were states like Maryland and Missouri that wanted to declare themselves neutral, but the North immediately set its sights militarily on these states.

So Maryland and Delaware have regiments in both camps as well as Kansas which became the 34th state of the Union on January 29, 1861.

Lincoln raised an army, so people rose up en masse to defend themselves because in the end who can accept that an army, whatever it is, can invade their territory.

Okay, so much wrong with your statements. I have no idea what these Declaration of Rights are that you mention. Certainly not from the US. No where in the US Constitution does it give the right to secede. In fact, a strong case was made by Daniel Webster that secession is illegal. Nor did Lincoln create a new Constitution. Following the Articles of Confederation the US has had only one constitution.

Missouri did not declare itself to be neutral. The then governor of Missouri tried to get Missouri to secede, but he failed. Badly. Kansas did not have any units fighting for the South. Only the North.

Kentucky did declare itself neutral, but it was Confederate forces that first violated that neutrality and entered the state.

Lincoln called for an army to put down a rebellion. A rebellion started by the South when it fired on Fort Sumter.
After the South, not the North, seceded from the Union causing the crisis in the first place.

I am not sure what your problem is with Lincoln, but you are trying to denigrate one of the greatest presidents in US history. He is considered our second greatest president…ever. I would suggest you do some more research on Lincoln.

^ @ hi EEE ya: YOUR FANTASY ACW HISTORY has left me aghast!!!
My reply is in Spanish: Ay DIOS mio!!!!

There was (and is) a great deal of debate on the question of whether secession was legal. In the 1820s a prominent Philadelphia lawyer, William Rawl, wrote a very influential paper stating that secession was legal. As noted above Daniel Webster felt differently. The Constitution does not definitively state one way or the other. However the issue was decisively settled on the battlefield during 1861-65.

"However the issue was decisively settled on the battlefield during 1861-65."

Which is exactly how the Supreme Court ruled.
They cynically ruled that had the Confederacy succeeded in winning the War, it would have been legal. They failed, so secession was illegal.

Joining others, I have to ask, what is this "Declaration of Rights"?
And where do you get the idea that Lincoln "had a new constitution drawn up"?
Please cite a source for this novel and extraordinary statement, instead of just asserting it.

You must tell us about this new constitution Lincoln wrote, hi EEE ya, and about the Confederate regiments from Delaware and Kansas. All knowledge of these things has been suppressed in the United States.

I wonder how hi EEE Yah would react to Americans starting inaccurate, silly and misleading topics on French history.
Then if we kept arguing and doubling down on the … less than accurate statements.

Hey! I have a good topic! "Was Napoleon really a mass murderer pedophile?"
"Was Louis XIII an alien?"
"Is everyone from Brittany Communist?"

"I don't mind that the Americans fought their war of independence simply because it was a much less deadly war.

Easy to understand?"

Bluntly, no. (1) we certainly didn't and don't need your approval. (2) that logic would permit the massacre of families and small villages, And (3) The US of the AWI had at most a tenth of the population of the US of the ACW. The US lost about one soldier in eight in the Revolution. Throw in Tory losses, and the AWI might not be as far behind the ACW as a percentage of the population as you seem to believe.

It wasn't Lincoln's election per se that impelled the deep South states to secede. It was the Executive Branch passing into the control of the Republican party.

The legislative branch did too.

Well, he's in jail now. 🤷
So I'll hold off for a few days. It's how Gentlemen behave. 😄

Agreed. The South had always been able to dominate the federal government and thus they were protected by the federal government not state rights as they will argue later. It was losing control of the government to the Republicans that led to secession.

^ Agreed and AGREED!!!

+1 Grattan54

In many ways the election of 1860 was a revolution by the North against Southern tyranny. Since the beginning of the country the North had given way to Southern demands. The 3/5th Rule, Censorship of the mail, the Gag Rule, all the various 'Compromises' on slave state-vs- free state, the Fugitive Slave Act, and the Dred Scott Decision, were all infringements on the rights of Northerners. In 1860 the North finally said that enough was enough and everyone was going to live under the same rules. The South wouldn't accept that so they tried to take their ball and go home.

What Scott said.

"Northerners. In 1860 the North finally said that enough was enough and everyone was going to live under the same rules. The South wouldn't accept that so they tried to take their ball and go home."

😉 you guys do read what you write? Do you wonder why the people in the South might have had an issue with that logic? Whose rules were those rules everyone was going to live under?

"So you hicks down south, we're taking your livelihood and we're deciding what is right and proper for you. Also how you are to live your lives from now on. Our morals are now yours as well. You don't like it, tough s#it!!"

Do you see why that might lead to an armed conflict? Do you not think if someone tries to force their values on some section of the country today, that another conflict will result?

I'm not arguing right or wrong, but normal human reactions to being forced to adhere to another's demand.

If the Chinese took over and tried to force communism on you, would you rollover on your knees and kowtow, or rebel against their rule and demands?

I do read what I write. Do you? The South was reacting just like those signs you see today: "For people who have lived in privilege all their lives, equality seems like oppression." Except for the Abolitionists (a tiny fraction of the population) no one in the North was trying to tell Southerners how to live. They were just tired of being told by the South how THEY could live.

The 3/5th rule: in essence a southerner's vote counted more than a northerner's vote.

Censorship of the mail: all mail coming from the North was opened and inspected to make certain there wasn't any abolitionist literature in it.

The Gag Rule: Northerners' right to petition Congress, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, was effectively prohibited if the petition had anything to do with slavery.

The Fugitive Slave Act: Southern slave catchers could enter any home they thought might harbor runaway slaves without warrant. Any Northerner refusing to cooperate could be charged with a crime.

The Dred Scott Decision, made by a Southern dominated Supreme Court ruled that not only did Scott have to remain a slave, but Northern states had no right to keep slavery out. So much for defending states' rights! Southern States had rights, but Northern ones did not.

It goes on and on. I strongly recommend reading William Freeling's "The Road to Disunion".

You do understand that the belief, right or wrong, that forcing these things on the South, was going to lead to resentment, animosity and conflict? You and others are giving the reasons as to why many in the North were fed up and upset. It was equally felt in the south.

Right or wrong, it's what one believes is happening or going to happen that matters to the person.

Case in point in modern politics. roe vs wade was overturned and moved to the States. Many believe if Trump is elected he plans on banning all abortions. He has said on multiple occasions he is happy with the current situation and does not plan on anything else. But there are many who believe otherwise and all their reactions, voting and even violence, are based on the belief he DOES plan to ban it. Denials to contrary don't matter, belief is all.

I don't agree with the reasons the south did what they did, but I understand their resentment and why they did do it. It is human nature and it will happen again.

If fugitive slave catchers showed up at my door in Pennsylvania, I would exercise my 2nd amendment Castle Doctrine rights.
Have you ever noticed that in over 120 years of cinema, there has never been a sympathetic portrayal of a Fugitive Slave catcher? Hmmm?
I've never seen Birth of a Nation, so I can't make a definitive statement.

PERHAPS "hi EEE ya" is an agent provocateur (self appointed?)?

What if the 1860 assassin was a Northern Democrat? Sorry if I missed a similar question.

@mahdi1ray
He's smarter than you are. Haven't you noticed?

So, let's look at Hannibal Hamlin. What was his stance on slavery and if he would go to war to preserve the Union? You might think that Lincoln and Hamlin had similar views since he was a fellow Republican and Lincoln's VP.

Hamlin, like Lincoln, was a staunch opponent of slavery. As a Senator, Hamlin had a strong record of opposing the expansion of slavery into new territories and advocating for the abolition of slavery. Hamlin would likely have been committed to preserving the Union, just as Lincoln was.

Several factors could have influenced whether he would have gone to war:

Political Pressure:
The secession of Southern states began almost immediately after Lincoln's election. By the time Lincoln took office, seven Southern states had already seceded. Hamlin would have faced similar pressure to respond to this crisis.

Military and Strategic Decisions:
Hamlin was less experienced than Lincoln in political leadership and strategy. His response to the secession crisis might have been influenced by his advisors, Congress, and public opinion. However, given the lack of compromise by Southern states and their seizure of federal forts, it's likely that war would still have occurred.

Fort Sumter:
If Hamlin were President, and the situation at Fort Sumter played out similarly, he would likely have been forced into making a similar decision as Lincoln—to call for volunteers to suppress the rebellion.

IMHO, considering Hamlin's political stance and the circumstances of the time, it is very likely that he would have gone to war to preserve the Union. The fundamental commitment to the Union and the political and military realities of the time would have led to war regardless.

Counterfactuals are fun!

John the OFM watch "Birth of a Nation" (the original) if you get the chance. Yes, of course, very pro-southern and pro-Klan, but that's part of the interest, if you will: it's the original action-adventure movie, full length and nicely filmed, with endangered innocents and cavalry riding to the rescue, told from the wrong side. (Note that it made a ton of money. When Griffith made the long, preachy politically correct "Intolerance" the next year the critics loved it, but the investors lost their shirts. No one wants to be told "you should be a better person" for 193 minutes. But locking up your characters surrounded by enemies and sending someone to rescue them moves a lot of popcorn.)

But no, no slave catchers. Overseers generally get a bad press in pro-slavery stories too--when they're mentioned at all. Well, pro-capitalist movies don't spend a lot of time on repo men and payday loan outfits, and Socialist Realism rarely focuses on censors and secret police.

I think it wasn't so much the North was going to tell the South what to do. It was more the other way around. Although the South was in the minority in regard to population, economic power and geography it dominated the Federal Government. Blocking many of the things the North wanted such as a transcontinental railroad and the Homestead Act. Then came all the issues over slavery with the South always getting their way. the Republican party was born as a Northern party saying "enough, we will no long let the South run everything. We speak for the North and its views on slavery expansion and economic/political issues". It never said it would force its views on the South. Just that they would represent the majority of people in the United States. IE the North.

"Hamlin was less experienced than Lincoln in political leadership and strategy."

Really???
Hamlin spent half his life in politics and was very skilled. Senator, Congressman and Governor.

Whereas Lincoln spent one 2 year term in Congress.
The only skillful politicizing that Lincoln did in the beginning was to maneuver the Confederacy into firing the first shots at Fort Sumter. One can legitimately ask whether Hamlin would have been so astute, but we'll never know.

+1 Grattan54

John,

Yes, I see your point about Hamlin, but it is hard to beat Lincoln who was a political genius. There have been countless books proving that point. A combination of innate skills and experience. His Mastery of political strategy, effective communication, emotional intelligence, empathy, adaptability, pragmatism, and Leadership has no equal. Just ask President Hamlin.

This thread is about Lincoln being assassinated in 1861.
All I'm saying is that President Hamlin would have acquitted himself well, with Lincoln not in the picture. 😄

I agree. The army had already designed the Anaconda Strategy and it would have been easy to implement it regardless of the president.

I agree with both of you.

Fully agree John. However I don't think it matters whether Hamlin would have been as good or better than Lincoln. The situation would have been far more favorable for the loyal states of the casus belli was the assassination of President-elect or recently sworn in President Lincoln than it was in the OTL. I believe there would have been far greater support for the war within the north. Robert points out the possibility that in the upper south there might have been less support for secession, especially in the border states. I could see Lee siding with the U.S. under those circumstances and others who ultimately fought with for the CSA might as well. Then consider how European nations that were willing to sell military supplies to the South would have reacted.

Imagine an ACW where Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina remain loyal to the U.S. Where the U.S. controls the resources of the Harpers Ferry Arsenal and Norfolk Naval Yard. Where the Confederate front line starts the war running from the mouth of the Cape Fear River to Memphis. How good does the U.S. leadership have to be to win under those circumstances?

Obviously, we're guessing and will never know. That's where SPI monster games come in, and we can start way south of the original starting point.
I can see one or two of the secesh states saying, "Uh, let's talk about this…"

On the other hand, if Hamlin was an abolitionist, he might have seriously irritated the borders states to the point of losing their support.