The American Civil War

[grumbler]

Slavery was dead before the South took up arms. It was only a matter of time. Quick victory might have had the effect of dragging out the status quo though, IMO.

Agree, and would note a coupla things:
(1) Abolition would likely be in the form of compensation for the slaveholders, which would have entrenched the Southern aristocracy in power for another generation, IMO.  This would likely have made the citizenship aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment impossible, with some interesting consequences for the non-citizen non-slaves thus created.
(2) A short war would have precluded the need for the British to extensively develop cotton growing in Egypt and India, so the post-war South may well have been more prosperous for that reason, as well as the reason that no war would have been fought over its lands.  Result:  more entrenchment of the status quo/aristocratic government.

[Viking]

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Not all Slave States were in the CSA (Maryland and Delaware (nominally)), and not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists (Tennessee, although there was a parallel Convention in Bowling Green).

Those states are usually referred to as Border States. Bowling Green is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

[CountDeMoney]

4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

[CountDeMoney]

Would slavery have been so easily abolished if the war had ended there though?

No, quite frankly, I don't believe it would've;  Antietam was early enough in the war that the primary goal still was to unite the country as it once was, not to create a new Union.  While Lincoln was seriously considering it, the Emancipation Proclamatio was still months away.

[dps]

4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Yeah, for most of the war (maybe the entire war, I'm not completely certain) the garrison of DC was larger than the Army of the Potomac.  Sometimes considerably larger, and that's not just counting the time the AotP was essentiall part of the garrison.

[Razgovory]

Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

[jimmy olsen]

4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Yeah, for most of the war (maybe the entire war, I'm not completely certain) the garrison of DC was larger than the Army of the Potomac.  Sometimes considerably larger, and that's not just counting the time the AotP was essentiall part of the garrison.

I don't believe that's correct. I thought the garrison was in the 20-30k range.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, I'm with Little Timmy on that one.

[dps]

4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Yeah, for most of the war (maybe the entire war, I'm not completely certain) the garrison of DC was larger than the Army of the Potomac.  Sometimes considerably larger, and that's not just counting the time the AotP was essentiall part of the garrison.

I don't believe that's correct. I thought the garrison was in the 20-30k range.

What?  I thought it was in the 100-150k range.

[grumbler]

Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Perhaps, but the Corwin Amendment was meaningless.  An amendment to prohibit amendments can be amended as easily as any other portion of the Constitution. 

[Razgovory]

Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Perhaps, but the Corwin Amendment was meaningless.  An amendment to prohibit amendments can be amended as easily as any other portion of the Constitution.

Not all parts of the Constitution can be amended.

[dps]

Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Perhaps, but the Corwin Amendment was meaningless.  An amendment to prohibit amendments can be amended as easily as any other portion of the Constitution.

Not all parts of the Constitution can be amended.

Uhm, where do you get that from?

I'm aware that there are European constitutions that contain some sections that are supposed to be un-amendable (not sure if that's actually a word), but the concept isn't anywhere in the US Constitution.

[Razgovory]

Article Five.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Viking]

Article Five.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Easy, just change article 5 first.

[dps]

We're a bit past 1808 now.