The Blair Plan enacted, 1865

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Lincoln by David Donald (1995)
"Stephens' record would be highly suspect were it not confirmed by other, more contemporary evidence that Lincoln did not now insist upon the end of slavery as a precondition for peace. He told Representative Singleton that his 'To Whom it May Concern' letter to the Confederate commissioners at Niagara Falls had 'put him in a false position—that he did not mean to make the abolition of slavery a condition' of peace and that 'he would be willing to grant peace with an amnesty, and restoration of the union, leaving slavery to abide the decisions of judicial tribunals.' On the day before Christmas, Lincoln repeated these views to Browning, who was advising Singleton; he declared 'that he had never entertained the purpose of making the abolition of slavery a condition precedent to the termination of the war, and the restoration of the Union.'"​

No, the evidence says otherwise decisively.

If you look at the compromises Lincoln offered there, they all ended slavery. Slavery but we pay you an amount, slavery for 5 years, etc. None of these were about to allow slavery to continue. And his comment on judicial tribunals meant that he offered no guarantee that judges wouldn't determine the EP as having freed all the slaves.

There's no way slavery survives at this point.

On top of that, by the point of the Hampton conference, the 13th amendment had been passed. The only option would be to delay ratification by rejoining the union, at which point the writing is on the wall, as there was no time limit on ratification. That was one of the things Lincoln suggested, delaying ratification.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
If you look at the compromises Lincoln offered there, they all ended slavery. Slavery but we pay you an amount, slavery for 5 years, etc. None of these were about to allow slavery to continue. And his comment on judicial tribunals meant that he offered no guarantee that judges wouldn't determine the EP as having freed all the slaves.

There's no way slavery survives at this point.

I have looked at all the compromises, and among them were allowing slavery to continue as is where it remained as of the time; you haven't actually provided any evidence to the contrary either, and tacitly conceded your overall thrust that there is no way slavery can continue by noting Lincoln would let it continue for five years, which is contrary to the Emancipation Proclamation in of itself. Speaking of the courts, What Shall We Do With the Negro? by Paul Escott (2009)

"As a consequence of his view of the Constitution, he favored and repeatedly proposed a method of emancipation that would depend entirely upon state initiative and state choice, even if the federal government might help. For the same reason, he viewed his Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure, a step to be chosen only by the commander in chief, to be justified only by 'actual armed rebellion,' and to become inoperative as soon as the war itself ceased. Likewise, he told Confederate commissioners that in the judgement of the courts this war measure might apply only to 200,000 black Americans who had actually experienced its benefits."​

i.e. everyone else remains in slavery. That Lincoln suggested multiple different things besides complete emancipation proves the point I've made and what Historians have said on the matter; he preferred emancipation, but he was not tied to it such that it constrained him on making peace and was willing to be flexible on the matter.

On top of that, by the point of the Hampton conference, the 13th amendment had been passed. The only option would be to delay ratification by rejoining the union, at which point the writing is on the wall, as there was no time limit on ratification. That was one of the things Lincoln suggested, delaying ratification.

The 13th Amendment more accurately had been sent to the States, which by the end of February had seen 18 ratify the Amendment; they needed 27 to do so, which did not occur historically until December of 1865. If the Southern States rejoin the Union promptly-as both Lincoln and Seward suggested-their delegations could refuse to ratify the amendment and thus it would be dead. Also of note is that, while the Hampton Roads Conference was in February, the Blair Mission to the Confederacy started in December of 1864. It is thus entirely possible that, should the issue become a stumbling block to peace, more than few Representatives would change their votes to reflect that, valuing peace over the end of slavery.
 

Buba

A total creep
IMO Lincoln did not care about slavery (that much), what he cared about is the Union.
Back in 1861 Lincoln had no problem with the Corwin Ammendment.
The way I read quotes supplied by @History Learner is that in 1865 Lincoln was ready to backtrack on the EP.
 
Last edited:

Emperor Tippy

Merchant of Death
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Yeah, the Civil War wasn't about freeing slaves. The legal basis for the EP was that slaves who fell into Union hands were seized property and like any other property seized by the Union Army, became the property of the Union Army to dispose of as it saw fit. He, as Commander in Chief of said army, determined that the disposition of seized slaves was to be the slaves being emancipated.

No theoretical peace would return property (excepting perhaps physical territory) seized by the Union from the rebellious states to said rebellious states and thus any freed slaves would remain free (not to mention the legal issues involved in trying to re-enslave them).

The EP has zero legal force under any of the theoretically applicable legal systems to unconquered confederate territory. If they were states of the United States in rebellion then the US Constitution still applied and the President lacks the authority to simply seize property without due process of law (and Congress never passed any laws legitimizing the seizure of slaves). If relevant state law applied then, again, it wasn't within the Presidents legal authority to free the slaves. If the Confederacy was recognized as a de facto sovereign power and the customary laws of war applied, then the disposition of goods seized from the enemy is properly within the Presidents remit but the only legal grounds to dictate the disposition of unseized enemy property would be as part of the terms of a peace treaty/surrender.
 

Buba

A total creep
@Emperor Tippy
I'm afraid I'm not bright enough to understand your post ...
Are you saying words to the effect that:
1 - slaves freed under EP pre Hampton Roads - i.e. from 1.I.1863 up to hypothetical Hampton Roads Agreement - stay free?
2 - slaves in CSA controlled territory at the time of the Hampton Roads conference - stay slaves?

At least the poor buggers in WeeVee are and will stay free ...
 

Emperor Tippy

Merchant of Death
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
The only case where the EP isn't dubiously legal is if the states in rebellion are no longer part of the Union and thus no longer enjoy the protections & rights in the Constitution. Otherwise the seizure of confederate property of all kinds (including slaves) runs head long into the Constitutional protection against seizure without due process of law (and Congress never passed a law authorizing the seizure of said property irrc, nor does the Constitution give the President that power on his own authority).

If the rebellious states are a foreign, sovereign, entity then the above legal issues cease to matter as the customary laws of war would then apply and they authorize the invading army to seize the enemies property and dispose of it as they see fit.

In neither case would the EP legally apply to those slaves in territory not occupied by the Union Army until & unless a peace treaty (or surrender terms) dictated otherwise.

The legalities were basically ignored wholesale during the civil war itself and in the aftermath the Union basically imposed victors justice and held a gun to the rebellious states heads and forced them to essentially ratify it all as being legal & legitimate after the fact.

As a matter of law though? There is no credible case to make for the EP applying to slaves in Confed held territory.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
This is my first time trying to genuinely sound smart so... take it easy...

So apparently this Hampton Roads Conference, the one that took place on the Warship, was poorly documented in that only Alexander Stephens (the Vice President of the Confederacy at the time) and Confederate Emmissary John A. Campbell were the ones that had documented what was said in said conference?

Also apparently the new sources that Paul Escott uses were 'private letters in North Carolina' and a previously uncited recounting of the meeting published in the Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel, a Southern newspaper, based on an interview with Alexander Stephens.

From: Justin A. Nystrom "What Shall We Do With The Narrative of American Progress? Lincoln at 200 and National Mythology" Reviews in American History 38, no. 1 (2010): 67-71.

94VjE8A.jpg


Some of the other journal reviews I found seemed critical of the third portion of the book about how Lincoln would allegedly push the slaves back into slavery in exchange for peace and the United States would apparently cheerfully comply with such.

From: Darrel E. Bigham. The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, vol. 107, no. 1, 2009, pp. 109–110.

qZuoC8l.jpg


It seems to suggest that even around the time of the ending of the Civil War, Lincoln was rather strongly for the emancipation of slaves and that the Author mistakes persuasion for ambiguity which when politics is involved, can be rather mysterious.

From: Matthew Mason. Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, vol. 31, no. 1, 2010, pp. 66–69.


ei2yKoQ.jpg


According to this fellow (though obviously a LINCOLNITE) he's far less forgiving of the analysis of Lincoln in apparently portraying him as the White Racist (though that's at best anachronistic term I suppose) but more tellingly, a timid, pro-Southern and unprincipled President and strategist and that the Author interprets the maneuvering done at the Hampton Conference as Lincoln being conciliatory as opposed to both sides politically maneuvering into making the other appear rather unreasonable
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Well-known member
By 1865 the war had definitively turned from a mundane political conflict into the latter-day equivalent of a Crusade and the South had no real position from which to negotiate. I don't see this peace proposal being accepted at all.

IMO the only option the Confed. has for surviving is an overwhelming quick victory.
 

Buba

A total creep
IMO the only option the Confed. has for surviving is an overwhelming quick victory.
I thought that the whole affair was about the rebels negotiating terms of surrender and preserving slavery (which Lincoln seems to be OK with) and not the OTL unconditional surrender, and NOT about continued existence of the CSA?
 

Navarro

Well-known member
I thought that the whole affair was about the rebels negotiating terms of surrender and preserving slavery (which Lincoln seems to be OK with) and not the OTL unconditional surrender, and NOT about continued existence of the CSA?

I mean. Even presuming that Lincoln and Davis were in favour of it (and Davis wasn't), by that same account Lincoln's entire cabinet refused it, which makes sense when you consider that neither side's war aims were achieved by it.

The South wanted independence; they'd fought for four bloody years to gain it, shed innumerable drops of blood, sweat and tears. They wouldn't accept a deal that put them and their peculiar institution back again at the mercy of the US Federal Government as they became an increasingly smaller voting bloc in Congress due to Western expansion adding more states and a population that was an increasingly shrinking proportion of the overall American one.

The North wanted abolition. What had been a mundane conflict had been transformed, as I noted previously, into a holy crusade to free the slaves by the end of 1864. Lincoln may not have seen it that way, but the popular impression was otherwise. There are hymns and popular songs from this era that make it plain. The South was Babylon, or Canaan. They were heathens who were righteously being subdued. God Himself was marching with Sherman to the sea. Now it's true that many,. including abolitionists, had negative views about the African population; but that didn't stop them wanting abolition. The movement was at its strongest - indeed, at the very cusp of victory. They wouldn't see all their hard work come to nothing.
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
Posting here again because I learned of Donathan C. Olliff's Reforma Mexico and the United States: A Search for Alternatives to Annexation, 1854–1861 since I created this thread. Unfortunately, a Kindle or PDF version of it does not seem to exist given its age (1981), so sharing excerpts is rather difficult to do but this review of it should give all an inkling:

88-4-1067.pdf.gif


Once I get a new scanner, I'll try to use it to create some good copies I can share here if you all want? For me, the main take away has been that the Liberals were willing to accept (and even sought!) protectorate status. Now, this work is focused on the period between the end of the Mexican-American War and the Civil War, but that the Liberals were open to such is important for consideration on what the U.S. could achieve in 1865-1866.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
It ends the war months ahead of schedule, averts the need for Reconstruction and thus reduces the possibility of insurgency by the defeated Confederates and quite literally avoids tens of thousands of casualties on both sides in the final months; at the time, it was not apparent how long the war would continue on. It also, finally, deals with the major geopolitical strategic threat of the French Empire in Mexico in the process. Multiple wins here all around for the Lincoln Administration.
But Lincoln already won reelection by then, so he could afford to take risks!
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Still, the damage of the war and the already installed Reconstruction-governments in places like Louisiana or Tennessee means Slavery is definitely on the decline but it will end on terms more amendable to Southern Whites, for better or worse.
You mean like with compensation for slaveowners?

Also, if there's no 13th A, then that means no 14th A or 15th A either, right? This would certainly have a huge effect on US constitutional law and judicial rulings, especially later on, in the 20th century and beyond.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
But Lincoln already won reelection by then, so he could afford to take risks!

What risks do you mean? Killing tens of thousands of more Americans-on both sides-and the associated economic damage would only make putting the country back together all that much harder. A Confederate insurgency would only increase this; Lincoln very much was looking towards the future at this point in terms of putting the country back together, and wanted to achieve it as cleanly-and easily-as possibly.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
What risks do you mean? Killing tens of thousands of more Americans-on both sides-and the associated economic damage would only make putting the country back together all that much harder. A Confederate insurgency would only increase this; Lincoln very much was looking towards the future at this point in terms of putting the country back together, and wanted to achieve it as cleanly-and easily-as possibly.

I meant risks to his and his party's popularity. The next US federal elections won't be until November 1866, if I recall correctly.

And tens of thousans of additional deaths aren't that much from an overall statistical perspective when so much US blood has already been shed in the ACW.

BTW, why didn't the Confederates launch an insurgency in real life after their defeat?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
I meant risks to his and his party's popularity. The next US federal elections won't be until November 1866, if I recall correctly.

And tens of thousans of additional deaths aren't that much from an overall statistical perspective when so much US blood has already been shed in the ACW.

If the war continues to drag on and an insurgency happens, that will definitely damage his and his party's popularity with voters who want the conflict to end and, again, Lincoln's looking towards the long term at this point. If the South remains a hotbed of resistance, that negatively effects the entire country going forward. Tens of thousands of death might not mean much statistically, but that's rather hard to justify to the men being asked to die and their families.

BTW, why didn't the Confederates launch an insurgency in real life after their defeat?

Grant and Sherman crafted extremely liberal peace terms, which Johnson mostly abided by. Lee and other Confederate leaders as a result took up a reconciliation message. The James Gang and others, however, did start out as Pro-Confederate resistance fighters as an example.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If the war continues to drag on and an insurgency happens, that will definitely damage his and his party's popularity with voters who want the conflict to end and, again, Lincoln's looking towards the long term at this point. If the South remains a hotbed of resistance, that negatively effects the entire country going forward. Tens of thousands of death might not mean much statistically, but that's rather hard to justify to the men being asked to die and their families.



Grant and Sherman crafted extremely liberal peace terms, which Johnson mostly abided by. Lee and other Confederate leaders as a result took up a reconciliation message. The James Gang and others, however, did start out as Pro-Confederate resistance fighters as an example.
In regards to the latter part, while Northern peace terms towards the South might have been generous initially, they significantly hardened later on. Specifically the 14th and 15th Amendments. Heck, even in 1874-1875, the US Congress almost passed a bill by a two-thirds margin to ban school segregation throughout the entire US, if I recall correctly. (Back then, the filibuster requirement existed in the House of Representatives as well, if I recall correctly, thus requiring a 2/3rds margin to pass a bill in the House that was being filibustered; the school desegregation bill in 1874-1875 came just short of this two-thirds margin). Still, the 14th and 15th Amendments didn't spark any insurgencies in the South, and neither did the very serious 1874-1875 Congressional attempt at school desegregation. And while you could claim that the South made the 14th and 15th Amendments into a large part a dead letter for a long time, this didn't fully occur until the 1890s or so. In other words, over a decade after the end of Reconstruction. Yet, again, no insurgency.

The closest thing that the ex-Confederate US had to an insurgency was this:


But even then, the rollback of black rights in Mississippi was gradual over the next 15 years as opposed to it occurring all at once.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
In regards to the latter part, while Northern peace terms towards the South might have been generous initially, they significantly hardened later on. Specifically the 14th and 15th Amendments. Heck, even in 1874-1875, the US Congress almost passed a bill by a two-thirds margin to ban school segregation throughout the entire US, if I recall correctly. (Back then, the filibuster requirement existed in the House of Representatives as well, if I recall correctly, thus requiring a 2/3rds margin to pass a bill in the House that was being filibustered; the school desegregation bill in 1874-1875 came just short of this two-thirds margin). Still, the 14th and 15th Amendments didn't spark any insurgencies in the South, and neither did the very serious 1874-1875 Congressional attempt at school desegregation. And while you could claim that the South made the 14th and 15th Amendments into a large part a dead letter for a long time, this didn't fully occur until the 1890s or so. In other words, over a decade after the end of Reconstruction. Yet, again, no insurgency.

The closest thing that the ex-Confederate US had to an insurgency was this:


But even then, the rollback of black rights in Mississippi was gradual over the next 15 years as opposed to it occurring all at once.

By then, you already had leaders like Lee, Longstreet and urges acting to calm down passions and the Union had already taken up occupation duties. It's a lot easier to organize resistance when you still have control over ~190,000 troops in the field then a decade later when they've long since demobilized and returned to their homes, with the bureaucratic machine keeping them armed and officers commanding them having likewise been disbanded. Finally, by the mid-1870s several States had already exited Reconstruction and began the long legal march to re-asserting control; no need for a rebellion when you're gradually winning legally in most areas.

This is also ignoring the rather obvious issue of the Klan, which was a resistance network of sorts.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
By then, you already had leaders like Lee, Longstreet and urges acting to calm down passions and the Union had already taken up occupation duties. It's a lot easier to organize resistance when you still have control over ~190,000 troops in the field then a decade later when they've long since demobilized and returned to their homes, with the bureaucratic machine keeping them armed and officers commanding them having likewise been disbanded. Finally, by the mid-1870s several States had already exited Reconstruction and began the long legal march to re-asserting control; no need for a rebellion when you're gradually winning legally in most areas.

This is also ignoring the rather obvious issue of the Klan, which was a resistance network of sorts.

AFAIK, the Klan was mostly crushed by the early 1870s.

And the 14th Amendment was proposed in 1866, just one year after the end of the American Civil War. So, it wasn't anywhere near a decade after the war.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top