If Abraham Lincoln was assassinated before the war ended...

[The_McThief]

What would've happened? Do you think the Union would make a peace treaty with the Confederacy and let them officially establish the Confederate States of America? What would the effects be?

[Spartan262]

I think that they would have trouble with Politics , but still would have defeated the CSA due to superior manpower and supplies. Also it would have depended on what year he was assasinated.

[Poach]

If Lincoln was killed before he could pass the Emancipation Proclamation, and I'm not sure if his successor would have done it (US politics isn't my strongpoint), then the UK and France may have entered the war on the CSAs side (which was what the Emancipation was passed to prevent) and the Union would surely lose.

The result would be a CSA today.

If he died after the Emancipation, then it wouldn't matter. The UK and France would be unable to enter the war and the Union's superiority in manpower and industry would overwhelm the CSA as happened historically.

[conon394]

which was what the Emancipation was passed to prevent)

Something of a Myth - Union military victory and Russian support prevented intervention. The EP actually made UK intervention more likely until Russia backed the Union 100%.

then the UK and France may have entered

and the Union would surely lose.

I don't think so the Union might loose the CSA states for a while, but gain Canada and still retain the west and perhaps Mexico...

[QUOTE]

[Poach]

Up until fairly late in the war the South was soundly thrashing the North, indeed to the outside world it looked like the South was going to be the victor. Under these circumstances I doubt the Union would be capable of effecting any serious invasion of Canada. They certainly wouldn't have the manpower to hold it when the UK began the campaign to retake the lost ground.

You make a good point on Russian backing though, I'm not sure how willing the UK and France would have been to risk war with Russia, or if Russia would risk involving themselves militarily if the UK and France threw their weight in with the South.

[Angrychris]

Republicans were on lincolns back towards the final 1-2 years of the war. Huge death tolls, losses, and prolonged fighting had weaked their resolve. Lincoln did not have high approval either (i believe). Many assassination attempts were done but failed. Good chance the U.S. could of never been.

[Poach]

Um....the US existed before the Civil War. It was the War of Independence that birthed the US, Angrychris.

[Viking Prince]

Remember -- the reason the war lasted as long as it did was primarily due to mistakes by the north. Everything pretty much fell in the favor of the south in the first years of the war.

Some random thoughts on reading this thread:

If a nation's leader is killed by a sympathizer to the enemy, my honest guess is that the peace would have even been more brutal than it was. The war was over before it began. Even with the immense will to fight in the south and the very reluctant north throughout the war, the end was never in doubt. It was always a matter of time. Time to find the right commanders. Time to exhaust southern resources. Time to continue to build up industrial production in the north. Land, labor, and capital all worked against the south. Without the southern military tradition at West Point -- the south would have been finished in months -- even with the grave mistakes by the north.

The British were never going to intervene on the behalf of the south. They quickly began investing in Egypt for a source of cotton. The south's fate was never in the hands of foreign intervention in any case. Yes the French or the British could move a larger navy into North America, but how were they going to use it? If a major port was needed -- where would the port be. Part of the reason the north could not take out the south was that there was no single military objective worth a gamble by the north. Place a naval base in say Charleston and see what happens. Now the north has a goal worth driving for. Sherman's march was always a viable strategy -- give them a port to drive to and the south would have been finished.

Even if the death came before the emancipation proclamtion, the slaves were going to be free. Simple economics meant that machines were becoming cheaper to work agriculture than men. The institution of slavery was finished. It just took more time for the industrial revolution to catch up in the south. The war did not change that one bit.

I am not certain where the conversation came from about intervention into or from Canada. This would be folly for the north as well for Britain. If the north was successful, all of North America would be out of British colonial reach. If the north was unsuccessful, the result would be a larger Canada and independance for Canada. If the British intervened, there was a risk of French intervention as well against Canadian interests. I doubt there is a single credible source that suggests either an aggressive north or an aggressive British activation of Canada in the war was ever seriously discussed. This might have been some pipe dream of the south, but there was no thought of it in the north, in Canada, or in Britain.

[conon394]

Up until fairly late in the war the South was soundly thrashing the North, indeed to the outside world it looked like the South was going to be the victor. Under these circumstances I doubt the Union would be capable of effecting any serious invasion of Canada. They certainly wouldn't have the manpower to hold it when the UK began the campaign to retake the lost ground.

You make a good point on Russian backing though, I'm not sure how willing the UK and France would have been to risk war with Russia, or if Russia would risk involving themselves militarily if the UK and France threw their weight in with the South.

I disagree with this but, I'm going out of town for a week or so. When I get back I'll reply.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I shudder to think what would have happened if, say Lincoln was assassinated...OR if George B. McClellan would have been elected president in 1864.

I would be tempted to agree that the North was holding all the aces at the beginning of the war, and it was from an industrial, economic, and manpower standpoint. But from a political standpoint things were different. Lincoln had to deal with the Democratic party in the North, which was mostly aganist the war. The Copperheads are a good example of this.

But it's really hard to say what would have happened if Lincoln would have been martyred early on. Even if, say, McClellan was president, he wasn't necessarily anti-war, and neither was the Union Army. Plus, another Republican like John C. Fremont (the first Repub candidate for president) could have replaced Lincoln.

Up until fairly late in the war the South was soundly thrashing the North, indeed to the outside world it looked like the South was going to be the victor. Under these circumstances I doubt the Union would be capable of effecting any serious invasion of Canada. They certainly wouldn't have the manpower to hold it when the UK began the campaign to retake the lost ground.

You make a good point on Russian backing though, I'm not sure how willing the UK and France would have been to risk war with Russia, or if Russia would risk involving themselves militarily if the UK and France threw their weight in with the South.

Not long ago there was a huge thread about Britain, France, and Russia's involvement in the Civil War.

But the short of it is that there never was a huge threat of the US Civil War turning into an early World War of sorts. The tensions with Britain were mainly early in the conflict. By the time of the Emancipation Proclaimation, the British had no desire to directly help the south as they had struggled with the idea of supporting a slave holding faction themselves. Plus, as Viking Prince pointed out, the British replaced Confederate cotton, etc...with products from their colonies. Prince names Egypt, India is actually the big one.

France violated the Monroe Doctrine with its Mexican intervention, and some in France were somewhat sympathetic towards the South. Many believe that Napoleon III would have attempted to aid the South had he been able to quash the insurgency in Mexico. But, this is going pretty far with the infomation, the French were doomed in Mexico from the start in my opinion. Benito Juarez would have defeated them with or without help from the Americans. Arms shipments to Mexico post-Civil War by the US only hastened the outcome.

Plus, the French were not completely aganist the Union. French military observers accompanied the Union armies. French dignitaries were welcomed in Washington D.C., for the most part.

Russia's involvement was mainly motivated by self interest. The Russians needed warm water ports for their navy during the winter months, and the US allowed them to dock in New York City and San Francisco. This gave aid to a state that was sympathetic towards the U.S., as well as creating a buffer aganist the British and French.

[Ramashan]

Up until fairly late in the war the South was soundly thrashing the North, indeed to the outside world it looked like the South was going to be the victor. Under these circumstances I doubt the Union would be capable of effecting any serious invasion of Canada. They certainly wouldn't have the manpower to hold it when the UK began the campaign to retake the lost ground.

Part of the reason the north could not take out the south was that there was no single military objective worth a gamble by the north.

Both of these comments supports the trend of people, and foreign powers at the time of the war as well, to completely ignore the Western theater where the North was nearly always successful and had many objectives which they secured and moved onto the next. Fort Donaldson and Henry, Nashville, Vicksburg, New Orleans, Fort Hudson, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Mobile Bay.... etc.

Even though there was victory after victory in the west, everyone's focus was on the east because that's where the capitals were.

However Viking Prince makes the point that the British would have had a hard time getting into the south of the continent.

But, as for the OP. If Lincoln had been killed in 62' then there is a chance that south would have gotten its liberty, much to frustration of the western soldiers who were winning that whole year. But to the population at large it looked like things weren't going well. But we also must remember that Britain pulled back after the Battle of Antietam. But without Lincoln pushing his generals, there is a chance that the south could have capitalized on this and simply held out without major engagements until foreign powers stepped in.

[conon394]

Up until fairly late in the war the South was soundly thrashing the North, indeed to the outside world it looked like the South was going to be the victor. Under these circumstances I doubt the Union would be capable of effecting any serious invasion of Canada. They certainly wouldn't have the manpower to hold it when the UK began the campaign to retake the lost ground..

So I was away and never got a chance to follow up on this…

Ramashan more or less made the first point I was going to elaborate that aside form the much noted fight between the rival capitals the Union had rather deliberately exerted its will everywhere else.

I think that should not be lost in the understanding the Union war effort. A lot of people in the Union states and or their leaders might have disliked slavery in the abstract: it gave the slaves states extra political power, the use of slaves by industrialists in the South - likely scared both traditional guild trades and the general labor in the North, it certainly offended various vocal but minority abolitionists interests as well. By late 1862 however the Union had control of all contested land and enough CSA territory that it could demand terms for settlement on a favorable basis – particularly once Lee failed with offensive. If the core CSA left many of those interested parties aggravated with slavery would be satisfied – particularly given the fairly grey legal argument over the succession.

So I think it is easy to see why a continued Union war effort was rather divisive – the legalities were hardly clear and the facts on the ground solved most of the issues most people in the North had already (again by late 1862).

European intervention however would be bolt from the blue in my opinion.

Take the Midwest states riding a grain export boom – sure they redirected their exports via the Great Lakes (when the CSA first existed) – but a hostile Britain and a CSA mean no Union controlled trade outlet for their surplus… Invading Canada had been the objective of the US before and trade tensions continued (over fur with say Minnesota). To the extent the Europeans allowed or abetted offensive actions by the CSA the opinion of the Union would certainly change. How do suppose the Irish in NY would take a draft to fight England, invade Canada or raid Ireland vs. helping blacks (no offenses is intended here but the reality is that while many people in the North disliked slavery it does not translate into a desire to fight for black rights) in Georgia.

Altogether the Union vs. the CSA + France or UK is a very different war and I don’t think you can assume the same domestic opposition to a war of conquest of the Union vs. the core CSA.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Probably would have stirred such high anti-southern resentment that the war would have continued (in fact I think that the 1864 election would have been a lot easier had he been assassinated before that) and the war would have ended pretty much the same, as would reconstruction since Lincoln isn't around in either scenario. European intervention was more of a dream that the southerners kept in the back of their minds and historians like to play around with, in all reality it wasn't that realistic.

The American Civil War was far too large of a war for any European nation to think that supporting the South and entering the war with them would actually be profitable, short or long run. If the Trent affair wouldn't draw Britain into war, then the assassination of Lincoln probably would not have meant much to them, as that has little effect on how the outcome of the war would be and, as I stated, an assassination of Lincoln would probably only strengthen northern resolve, which was not ever very good. The fact that Britain only sent 11,000 troops to Canada in anticipation of a war after the Trent affair shows that they had no idea the vast scale that the ACW was taking place on, and that they were not all that willing to go to war for something that would not have been that profitable unless the US declared war on them. And certainly after Antietam any European intervention whatsoever, even that limited to naval assistance, all went out the window no matter what happened to Lincoln.

[Jan III Sobieski]

If that happens, whites would be more common than blacks and Slavery will be legal, etc

[Farnan]

The South would be more devasted than today.