Benevento's History Blog

About

Recent Posts

Social Media

Category: What if?

  • The Growing Divide Between the American Colonists and the British Government: Was A War For Independence Inevitable Or Was Reconciliation Possible?

    Every year that I teach the American Revolution, I often ponder new questions related to the event.  One question that I’ve asked myself this year is:  Could have cooler heads prevailed in the lead up to the American Revolution?  The primary, foundational disagreement between the American colonists and the British government was the simple question: “Did the British Parliament have the right to tax the colonists?”  The colonists were so steadfast with an emphatic “NO” that they were willing to protest, boycott, destroy property and risk going to war.  The British responded with an empathic “YES”.  They were so steadfast that they were willing to tighten control over the colonies, send British troops to enforce its laws, close Boston’s port for trade, enact martial law in Massachusetts, and alter the justice system of the colonies.  The British were so committed to their power to tax the colonists that they were willing to go to resort to war. 

    There is no doubt that the colonists drew a line in the sand against British infringements on their rights as Englishmen.  There is also no doubt that the British officials were quite stubborn with their unwillingness to listen and work with the American colonists.  The British had a reputation to defend and were unwilling to give in to colonial demands.   There was a sense of arrogance in their responses to the colonists throughout the controversies that occured between 1763- 1775.  Had the British been more willing to negotiate, was it possible that war could have been avoided?  Or was an independence movement in the colonies inevitable? I explore these questions later in the blog post, but first, I’ll highlight the chain of events and laws that continued to build tensions between the two sides.

    Tensions Emerge at the Conclusion of the French and Indian War

    The French and Indian War (The American Theater of the global, Seven Years’ War) started in 1754 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. It was a conflict that emerged between the growing French Empire (along with Native allies) and the British Empire around the Ohio Country, the Great Lakes, and in Canada. The British emerged victorious and kicked the French out of their North American holdings. At the conclusion of the war, the British Empire in North America stretched from the east coast to the Mississippi River. In its aftermath, the British racked up a debt nearly double what it was before the conflict.

    The British passed the Proclamation of 1763 to ban new colonial settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains. This was an effort to limit conflicts between the American colonists and Native Americans. The British sent about 10,000 British troops to the frontier to regulate the ban and limit any future tensions with the French and Natives. The American colonists saw the British stationed in the colonies as a standing army in a time of peace, which was unacceptable according to 18th century norms.. The standing army only added to Britain’s debt.

    The British government believed that the American colonists should pay for their own protection and passed a series of laws that would extend the tax burden onto the colonists. Along with the taxes were a number of events that further led to tensions between the British government and the American colonists. Let’s take a walk through the timeline below to highlight the growing friction between the two sides:

    1763- The Treaty of Paris (Ends the French and Indian War)

    1763- Passage of the Proclamation of 1763- highlighted above.

    1764- The Sugar Act

    The British passed this law to address illegal smuggling by the colonists. The Navigation Acts, which had been passed throughout the colonial period, allowed the colonists to only trade with England. The colonists freqently smuggled goods into the colonies including tea, molasses, sugar and other items. The Sugar Act sought to do two things- split the tax on foreign sugar/ molasses in half, (with the hopes that the colonists would pay the lower tax) and strengthen the enforcement of the law, allowing prosecutors to try smuggling cases in vice-admiralty courts with only a British judge and not a jury. While the colonists were opposed to the act, there was not widespread anger or oppostion (like we’d see with the Stamp Act). The colonists understood that this act was written to regulate trade, not necessarily to raise revenue for the Empire.

    1765- The Stamp Act

    This law led to fierce, widespread anger throughout the colonies. The Stamp Act required all paper products: legal documents, newspapers, licenses, pamphelts, almanacs, playing cards, and even dice to be taxed. This was a direct tax that affected all colonists. Never before in colonial history had the British Parliament taxed the colonies in such a manner. The colonies had only been taxed by their colonial legislatures. The central argument from the colonists was “No Taxation Without Representation.” The colonists argued that because they were not represented in the British Parliament, that body did not have the right to take their property (in the form of a tax). This was an age old belief in England and the colonists wanted to be treated the same as people in the motherland.

    The British response was that the English colonists were virtually represented by the British Parliament. Most citizens in the England could not elect their representatives because of property requirements for voting. Just as those individuals were represented by Parliament, so too were the colonists. The American colonists did not buy this argument and continued to state that the taxes were unconstitutional. To them, only the colonial legislatures could tax the colonists because their local government was where they were represented.

    The rage of the colonists led to protests, boycots, riots, the tar and feathering of tax collectors, and the destruction of private property. These actions worked because the following year, the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, pressured by British merchants who were feeling the pinch of the colonial boycotts. However, the British also passed the Declaratory Act, stating that the British Parliament had the right to make laws “to bind the colonies and people of America… in all cases whatsoever.”

    1765- The Quartering Act

    The Colonies had to provide inns, alehouses, barns and other buildings to house British soldiers at the expense of the colonies. This was seen as another tax because the colonial governments had to foot the bill.

    1767- The Townshend Acts

    In response to the repeal of the Stamp Act, the British passed a series of acts referred to as the Townshend Acts (after British offical, Thomas Townshend). The acts included indirect taxes on goods arriving into the colonies from Great Britain, including glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. Widespread protests and boycotts followed with the same argument as the Stamp Act. Even though this was an indirect tax, the colonists argued that it was still a tax to raise revenue for the British crown, and was therefore, unconstitutional. In the next few years, the Townshend Acts were repealed, except the tax on tea. The primary reason that British Prime Minister, Lord North wanted to keep the tax on tea, was to prove to the colonists that the British Parliament had a right to tax the colonists.

    1768- The Liberty Affair

    The ship called the Liberty belonging to known smuggler and wealthy merchant, John Hancock, was seized by British officials. Hancock was accused of smuggling wine from Madeira without paying customs duties. The incident led to riots in Boston, encouraging the British to send 2,000 troops to the city.

    1770- The Boston Massacre

    On the evening of March 5th, a crowd gathered outside the Boston Customs House and began threatening a British soldier, who called for backup. After seven more soldiers arrived, the scene continued to escalate as the mob grew larger. Members of the mob even dared the British soldiers to shoot. The crowd threw snow, ice and other projectiles at the soldiers, until one British officer fell to the ground and then fired his gun. Other British officers fired as well, killing 5 and wounding six in what the colonists called “The Bloody Massacre”. An engraving of the event (an early form of propoganda) by Paul Revere published in the newspapers increased the anger that the colonists felt for the British. As a result of the soldiers’ trial, six were cleared of any wrongdoing while two were convicted of manslaughter and punished with a branding on the thumb. The soldiers were defended by John Adams, who wanted to prove to the British that the American colonists believed in the right to a fair trial.

    Image from the collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

    1772- Gaspee Affair

    A British ship called the HMS Gaspee ran aground as it was attempting to enforce the Navigation Acts. A group of colonists attacked, boarded, and set the ship aflame leading to anger from the British government. King George III called on the perpetrators to be caught and brought to Great Britain to stand trial. While the perpetrators were never actually caught, the idea of bringing colonists to Britain for trial only added to the anger and fear amongst the colonists.

    1773- The Tea Act

    Throughout the colonial period, the colonists were frequently smuggling cheap tea into the colonies from the Dutch. This, of course, was in direct violation of the Navigation Acts. In response, the British passed the Tea Act which allowed the British East India Company (which had tons of unsold tea and was nearly bankrupt) to sell their tea directly to the colonists. Prior to the Tea Act, the British East India Co. sold its tea at the London Tea Auction to tea merchants. The tea merchants then sold it to colonial tea merchants, who then sold it to the colonists. This process made British tea more expensive than smuggled Dutch tea.

    As a result of the Tea Act, the British East India Co. could now sell their tea directly to the colonists and take out the middlemen, the tea merchants. Even with the the additional tax on tea (which was the holdover from the Townshend Acts), Prime Minister Lord North was hoping that the colonists would simply purchase the cheaper British tea. Instead, the colonists reacted violently. The colonists knew that this was a sneaky way for the British to still force the colonists to pay the tax on tea.

    As the tea ships landed throughout the colonies, the colonists refused to allow the tea to be unloaded in the colonies. Through threats of violence by the colonists, the British officials were unable to unload the tea, and brought the tea ships back to England. An example of this is what is referred to as the “Philadelphia Tea Party”. The only British official who refused to give in to the colonists, was Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson. He would not allow for the tea ships to be brought to England, and therefore, three tea ships sat in the Boston Harbor.

    1773- The Boston Tea Party

    Boston colonists, likely led by the Sons of Liberty and many disguised as Native Americans, boarded the three ships and dumped all of the tea into the Boston Harbor. In today’s U.S. dollars, the British East India Company lost about $1.7 million worth of tea.

    1774- The Intolerable Acts

    King George III was enraged when he heard of the destruction of the tea. Even members of Parliament who had been sympathetic to the colonists before, had completely turned on them. Lord North wanted to punish Massachusetts, and Parliament passed a series of laws that the colonists called the Intolerable Acts (The Coercive Acts from the British perspective). The British shut down Boston’s port until the tea was paid for. This would stop all exports and imports to and from the port of Boston.

    The Massachusetts government was altered. Thomas Gage, the British Commander in Chief of armed forces, was the Masachusetts governor, and voting rights were taken away from the colonists. Town meetings were limited to no more than once a year.

    British officials accused of a crime in Massachusetts would have their trial in Great Britain. George Washington referred to this law as the “Murder Act” because now British soldiers could get away with murder by having their trial in a sympathetic British court.

    Finally, a stricter Quartering Act was passed, ensuring that the British were housed in vacant private homes and other public buildings.

    1774- The First Continental Congress

    The colonies were united in their outrage over the Intolerable Acts. They met in Philadelphia at the First Continental Congress to decide their next steps. They wrote a petition to the king, asking for a repeal of the Intolerable Acts, and a return to the prior harmony that the colonists and the mother country had previously shared. The petition was ignored. The Congress agreed to boycott British goods until the Intolerable Acts were repealed. The Congress also agreed that each colony should set up and train its own militia.

    April 1775- Lexington and Concord

    With heigtened tensions, the British learned that the colonists were stockpiling weapons and gunpowder in Concord, MA. The British planned to capture Sam Adams and John Hancock in Lexington and seize the arsenal in Concord. The famous “shot heard round the world” came on the village green in Lexington, and the Revolutionary War began.

    As we can see with the timeline, tensions continued to escalate from the end of the French and Indian War. But could they have been avoided? Could perpetual peace have been possible without the shedding of blood and a war that would last 8 years?

    Was Independence Inevitable Or Was Reconciliation Possible?

    Let’s take a look at the two sides: The colonists and the British government.

    The Colonists’ Viewpoints

    The colonists, as mentioned above, drew a line in the sand against British taxes. They were not willing to budge on the issue, especially ardent Patriots. But the long-term causes of independence goes back further- well before 1763. In the late 1600s and for most of the 1700s, the British approach to the American colonies can be described with the phrase, “Salutary Neglect”. The British generally left the colonies alone and did not strictly enforce their laws for the continued devotion of the colonies. Throughout this time period, there was relative peace between the two sides. However, the colonists were displeased with the Navigation Acts, which required the colonists to only trade with the British. While the colonies were growing, they were increasingly feeling a sense of independence. They elected leaders to their own colonial governments, and they felt they could fend for themselves and run their own affairs through brilliant and tenacious leaders, who would become the Founding Fathers. They were an ocean away from Mother England, and were capable of governing themselves.

    Therefore, when the British began enforcing laws more strictly and passing new direct tax laws, the colonists were understandably outraged. The colonists truly believed that the British government was acting in a way that was unprecendented. It seems that independence was inevitable, and the movement towards independence needed a spark of anger. This outrage came from British taxes.

    What about from the British side?

    Could the British have made peace with the colonists and avoided independence? To me, they could have done a much better job in their approach to the concerns of the colonists. But if they would have been more benevolent towards the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s, they may have been simply delaying an eventual indpendence movement.

    The British government after 1763 was quite headstrong in their belief of taxing the colonies. The British were not willing to negotiate with the colonists during the many controversies between 1765- 1774. The chasm between the colonists and the British grew wider and wider. It’s clear that the British looked down upon their American countrymen. This can be seen in the ways that the British military viewed American military leaders, such as George Washington, during the French and Indian War. An American could not work his way up to become a British general. If you view Mother England and her American colonies as a parent-child relationship, Mother England was in the driver seat as to how the relationship was to develop.

    There likely was a belief amongst the British leadership that if they continued to tighten controls over the American colonies, that perhaps the colonists would rebel. If that were to happen, the British would easily crush the rebellion, and maybe tighten controls over the colonists even more. The Americans had no navy. Their only military forces were inexperienced colonial militias. To the British, there would be no way that the Americans could defeat the mighty British army and navy, if they even dared to try.

    When the colonists began to protest against the Stamp Act, it may have caught the British by surprise. At the conclusion of the Stamp Act riots, it appears that the British had the idea that they really needed to prove to the colonists who was in charge.

    What if the British had more accommodating leaders?

    There could have been peace between the colonists and the British: but only for a time. The Englightenment ideals had spread to the American colonies, and led many to question the very idea of a monarchy. It is quite conceivable that even if the Revolution didn’t break out in the 1770s, there could have been later controversies in later decades that would have fueled an independence movement.

    If cooler heads prevailed, and if British leaders were more understanding of the American arguments, I believe there could have been peace between the British and the Americans in the 1770s. However, there was a widespread and growing independence movement in the Americas taking place. The very ideals that Americans were developing in this time period were completely incompatable with the British monarchy. These ideals included political freedom, voting rights, right to a fair trial, and protection from unlawful search and seizure. I believe that independence was inevitable because of these ideals. The British Empire had spread itself too thin at the end of the Seven Years’ War and felt that they needed more money to continue to build their empire. They wanted to force the American colonies into submission in the 1760s and 1770s. This was an approach that ended up backfiring on the British. They took a calculated risk while tightening controls over the colonies, and the result would be American independence and the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionry War in 1783. With that, the British empire lost its vast American colonies in North America.

    Reconciliation between the two sides was possible temporarily, but American independence would come sooner or later.

    Please let me know your thoughts in the comments or on social media.

    Check out related blog posts below:

  • America’s Forgotten War: The War of 1812

    When considering the United States’ most significant wars, you may immediately think of the American Revolution, the Civil War or the World Wars.  A war that you probably would not think of is the War of 1812.  Not only does the war lack a clever name, the United States failed to gain or lose territory as a result.  What were the causes and effects of this war?  Who was it against?  I’d imagine most Americans would have a hard time answering these questions.  While this war, often dubbed “the second American Revolution” is considered a stalemate by historians, it did lead to a growing sense of nationalism amongst Americans which propelled the country into a time period referred to as “The Era of Good Feelings”. So while the results and impact of the war are considered relatively minor, it did help mature the nation and propel it into a new age.

    Causes

    The American Revolution ended with the Treaty of Paris (1783). After the war and into the days of the early Republic, some Americans, often associated with the Federalist Party of Hamilton, wanted to maintain positive trade relations with the British.  Other Americans, often associated with the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson, looked upon the British with suspicion.  They believed that American Anglophiles wanted to turn the new US government into a British style monarchy.  The Democratic-Republicans often favored the French in international conflicts.  During both the French Revolutionary Wars of the 1790s and the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century, tensions remained between the United States and the superpowers of Britain and France.  Both Britain and France seized American ships who traded with their enemy.  Tensions with the French led to the XYZ Affair and the Quasi-War during the presidency of John Adams.  When the Democratic—Republicans came to power with the election of Jefferson in 1800, tensions with the British only increased.  During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain seized about 1,000 American ships and practiced impressment- forcing American sailors into the British navy.  Desertion was common in the British navy and they sought to replace manpower with captured Americans.  This practice continued into the presidency of James Madison, elected to his first term in 1808.  The practice of impressment angered Madison who believed that the British were trying to strangle American trade and disrespected American neutrality.  

    Another source of anger for Americans towards the British was the British supply of weapons to Native American tribes at war with the United States.  Tecumseh’s War was fought in the Indiana Territory between the United States and a confederacy of Native American tribes.  The confederacy was led by Shawnee chief Tecumseh and his brother, nicknamed by Americans as The Prophet.  A major victory for the Americans came in 1811 at the Battle of Tippecanoe.  At the conclusion of the battle, it was discovered that the Native confederacy was being supplied with weapons from British Canada.  This led to the “Warhawks” in Congress, led by Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun to call for war against Britain.  With Britain strangling American trade, impressing Americans into their navy, and now supplying weapons to Native allies, the United States declared war for the first time in the nation’s history, against Great Britain on June 17th, 1812.

    Events of the War

    The course of the war from 1812- 1815 could be considered a stalemate as neither side gained or lost much territory.  However, there were many significant events that took place throughout the war.  The fight along the Great Lakes went back and forth between British and American victories.  The American navy led by Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry won a major victory over the esteemed British navy at the Battle of Lake Erie.  The Americans maintained control over Lake Erie for the remainder of the war, and re-took Fort Detroit, which they had lost earlier in the war.  

    When Napoleon was defeated in Europe in 1814, the British were able to send more troops to the United States. They burned towns along the Chesapeake Bay, and then marched into Washington DC after a weak defense by the Americans.  The British proceeded to set fire to the White House, the Capitol building and other federal buildings.  They sought retribution for similar actions done by the Americans in Canada.  Within a couple days of the fires being set, an intense rainstorm, likely a hurricane, swept through Washington and helped put out the fires.  A possible tornado touched down and tore through the Capitol building.  While extensive damage was done to Washington, the storm helped limit the extent of the destruction.  

    After burning Washington, the British had their eyes set on Baltimore.  They bombarded Fort McHenry for 25 hours, an event witnessed by Francis Scott Key, who was captured by the British and watched from a boat.  After the American fort survived the bombardment, Key watched the Americans hoisting the American flag in the morning hours.  Key was so moved by this event that he penned the lyrics of our Star-Spangled Banner.

    Another impactful event took place in the last days of the war.  In late 1814-1815, the British sought to capture the important port city of New Orleans.   Andrew Jackson led American troops in a valiant defense of the city on January 8th, 1815.  The British suffered 2,017 casualties while the American suffered just 71.  The overwhelming victory boosted the morale of the country and a great sense of national pride swept the nation.  However, the victory at New Orleans came after the treaty of Ghent was signed in Belgium on December 24th, 1814.  With news taking a month to travel across the Atlantic, the participants of the battle of New Orleans had no idea of the peace.  Nonetheless, the battle was significant for boosting nationalism and unity in the country, and also increasing the fame and notoriety of Andrew Jackson.

    The Battle Of New Orleans, January 8, 1815. Final Battle Of The War Of 1812, Resulting In Victory For The American Forces Against The British. After A 19Th Century Work. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images)

    Impact of the War

    What if the United States was more successful in this war?  Would they have annexed part or all of Canada?  What if the British were more successful in the war?  Would they have gained territory in the United States?  Would they have seized New Orleans and cut off trade down the Mississippi River?  We can’t know for sure but what we do know is that the war did have an impact on the young country.

    As the first military test of the young nation, the Americans gained national pride.  The war showed that the United States could go toe to toe with the world’s superpower once again.  The country gained respect throughout the world and  propelled the country into the “Era of Good Feelings” a period closely associated with the presidency of James Monroe (1817- 1825). Partisanship was perhaps at its lowest point in the nation’s history.  Monroe won his elections overwhelmingly as the nation coalesced around the principles of the Democratic-Republican platform.  The two-party system was temporarily at an end with the demise of the Federalist Party (who were opposed to the war).  While a growth in nationalism and unity was a significant outcome of the War of 1812, other consequences of the war include the following:

    1. Andrew Jackson made a name for himself with his victory at New Orleans.  Later, he would go on to win the presidency and completely re-shape the office of President as well as the political system in early American history.
    2. The country gained the words of the Star-Spangled Banner from Francis Scott Key as he witnessed the British bombing of Fort Mchenry outside Baltimore.
    3. Years of peace between the United States and Britain followed with treaties following the war.

    So while the war of 1812 is known as the “forgotten war”, it is worth noting and acknowledging the impact that the war had on a young nation who was seeking to find its own identity.  

    Check out these similar posts:

  • The Lincoln Assassination (Part 3): The Death of Lincoln and the Hunt For Booth

    In (Part 1) and (Part 2) of my blog post on the Lincoln Assassination, I discussed the assassin, John Wilkes Booth, and the events that unfolded on the evening of April 14, 1865. Part 3 will focus on the death of Lincoln and the widspread manhunt for Booth. I also ponder the question: What if Lincoln had lived?

    After Booth shot Lincoln at 10:15pm at the Ford’s Theatre, he escaped out of a side door and mounted a horse for his getaway. At about 11:30pm, Booth met up with co-conspirator David Herold and headed south.  They arrived at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd whom examined Booth’s broken ankle.  Once Mudd realized that Booth was a fugitive on the run, Mudd asked the conspirators to leave. 

    They then moved on as fugitives in hiding, making a couple of stops at the homes of Confederate sympathizers.  (American Experience, PBS)  Booth was able to get his hands on local newspapers.  While he thought the country, especially the south, would be praising him, he found that the country was condemning him.  Throughout his escape, Booth kept a journal and in it he wrote, “I struck boldly and not as the papers say… our country owed all our troubles to him and God simply made me, the instrument of his punishment.” (American Experience, PBS)  Booth believed that the country would be singing his praise for his bold action.  However, Booth discovered that not to be true.

    At 7:22 A.M. on April 15th, 1865, Abraham Lincoln died.  Lincoln became the first president who was ever assassinated.  After the war ended on April 9th, the Union had reason to celebrate.  The bloody, four year struggle between the North and the South was finally over.  Lincoln had succeeded in preserving the Union and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.  But now just a few days later, the country was mourning its fallen hero.  The New York Herald said, “The sun set last night on a jubilant and rejoicing nation.  It rose this morning upon sorrow stricken people.” (American Experience, PBS)   The day after Lincoln died was Easter Sunday.  Preachers around the country devoted their sermons to the memory of Lincoln.  He was now seen as a martyr who died to unify the country.  (American Experience, PBS)  Besides mourning and grief, there was also anger in the North.  Mobs formed in cities around the country showing rage and violence towards anyone who identified with the Confederacy or the Democratic Party.  Most Southerners publicly expressed condolences, but privately did view Booth as the American Brutus that Booth believed he was.  (American Experience, PBS)

     By April 20th, 1865, most of the conspirators had been caught, but Booth and Harold were still on the run.  The hunt for Booth became the largest manhunt in American history, with a reward of $100,000 for his capture.  (American Experience, PBS)  During the manhunt, Booth wrote that he’d been hunted like a dog through swamps and woods, “for doing what Brutus was honored for, and yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than he ever knew, was looked upon as a common cutthroat.” (American Experience, PBS)  In his writing, we again see that Booth considered himself a hero, and yet, the public only viewed him as the murderer of a great man.

    On April 21st, 1865, Lincoln’s funeral train, draped in black, departed from Washington. For 12 days, the train travelled over 1,600 miles to major cities around the country. Approximately 7 million Americans, almost a third of the Union’s population turned out to mourn their hero’s death. (McDougal, p. 371) As they mourned the death of Lincoln, they were also mourning for the lives of the hundreds of thousands lost in the war. The funeral train made its final stop in Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield, IL where he would be buried. (American Experience, PBS) Lincoln had become a larger than life folk hero after his assassination. People respected and honored him for the way he courageously carried the country through the most trying times. The weight of the country was on his shoulders and he ultimately became a martyr for the cause of union, democracy and freedom.

    On April 26th, Union cavalry closed in on Booth and Herold at the Garret Farm in Virginia.  The cavalry surrounded a barn where the two men hid.  Herold surrendered but Booth refused.  The cavalry set the barn of fire.  As Booth tried to escape, he was shot by Sergeant Boston Corbett and died on April 26th, 1865.  (American Experience, PBS)  Booth is said to have whispered, “Tell my mother I died for my country.  I did what I thought was best.” (McDougal, p. 370)  Booth’s other conspirators were either sentenced to death or life in prison. 

    The manhunt was over.  While the country was relieved that Booth was caught, they still mourned for the life of Abraham Lincoln.  The country was never given an opportunity to see how Lincoln would have carried out the Reconstruction of the country.  That task would fall into the hands of his successor, Andrew Johnson.  Lincoln’s legacy and impact on the United States will always be in the minds and hearts of the American people.  He preserved the Union and fought for the passage of the 13th Amendment which emancipated the roughly 4 million slaves in the country.  When Lincoln died on April 15th, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was by his side and stated the famous line. “Now he belongs to the ages.” (American Experience, PBS)

    What If?

    Sometimes I wonder, what if Lincoln lived to serve out his second term? How would history have played out differently? We know that the Reconstruction Era under his successor, Andrew Johnson, went terribly to say the least. Johnson was impeached and was constantly at odds with the Radical Republicans in Congress. Would Lincoln have gotten along with and agreed with the Radical Republicans in Congress about how to handle Reconstruction? Lincoln was more moderate than many of them with his Ten Percent Plan for allowing the former Confederate states back into the country. Would many of the Radical Republicans bend to some of Lincoln’s views? How would Lincoln have helped freed African Americans after the war? We know that Johnson did virtually nothing to help them. It’s likely that they would have gained more opportunities under the Lincoln administration. How would Lincoln have handled post-war challenges? We can only speculate that a character like Lincoln would have done a much more effective job of carrying the country through the challenges of Reconstruction. How would Lincoln have been remembered had he lived? We know in reality that he was viewed as a martyr who saved the Union and has always been ranked either the best or in the top 2 presidents of all time. He definetely would have been revered for what he accomplished but he wouldn’t have been elevated to the status of a martyr. Assuming he had an effective second term, we can assume he would still be ranked amongst the best presidents, but what if his second term didn’t go well? Where would he be ranked then? These questions can’t be answered with certainty but it’s always interesting to the ask the, “What If”? Any thoughts on the matter, please comment below.

    Related Posts:

  • WHAT IF….. The Confederacy had won the Civil War?

    One of my favorite thought exercises when reading and teaching history, is the ‘what if’. What if events had gone differently than they actually did? Many people think that history was a series of inevitable events that brought us to the present day. But that simply is not the case. One minor aspect of an event or battle could have gone differently and changed the course of history. The Americans winning the American Revolution or the Union winning the Civil War were not foregone conclusions at the start of the conflicts.

    What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? They definitely had an opportunity to do so, even though the Union was by far the favorite to win at the start of the conflict. The North had four times as many free citizens, produced 90% of the nation’s manufactured goods, had 70% of the nation’s railroads, and a greater food supply. If this war happened today, Vegas would be betting on the North at the start of the conflict. However, the South had some advantages too. They considered this a fight for their independence, a fight to defend their homeland, and a fight to defend and hold onto the institution of slavery. They had greater motivation to fight. Many of the best generals in the country were from the South.

    There were two major moments in the war in which the Confederacy had an opportunity to strike a blow to the Union. The first instance came in the late summer of 1862. When command of the Confederate army fell to Robert E. Lee, he was able to win a string of impressive victories in the Seven Days Battles, and the Second Battle of Bull Run. Lee was confident enough to attempt to invade Northern soil. His goal was to win a major victory in the North, and turn Northerners against the war. He reasoned that if Northerners voted Peace Democrats into Congress, they would push to end the war, and the Confederacy would be independent.

    The major battle that Lee hoped to win was the Battle of Antietam in Maryland. Though nearly a stalemate in number of casualties, the Confederacy was forced to retreat. Antietam was the deadliest one-day battle in American history with total casualties at 22,720.

    The Confederacy’s second opportunity to strike a blow to the Union was the following summer of 1863. Once again Lee and the Confederates won a series of remarkable victories including at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863. Despite this victory, the Confederates lost one of their best generals in Stonewall Jackson. Had Jackson been a part of the Battle of Gettysburg two months later, the course of the battle may have turned out differently. After Chancellorsville, Lee was feeling invincible and decided to invade the North once again. The ramifications of such a Confederate victory could not be understated. His goal once again was to make Northerners so sick of the war that they would turn against the war effort and push for peace. Lee decided to invade Pennsylvania. But like Antietam, the Battle of Gettysburg was a Union victory because the Confederates were forced to retreat from the battlefield. While both sides had staggering losses, the Confederacy was not able to replace their losses. Gettysburg was the deadliest battle of the war. The Union had 23,049 casualties, and the Confederacy had 28,063 casualties. The twin victories at both Gettyburg and Vicksburg, Mississippi, are considered a turning point in the war. Even though the war continued for almost two more years, the Confederacy could not fully recover and did not again attempt to invade the North.

    But what if the Confederacy had won a decisive victory at Antietam or Gettysburg? While the Union had a larger army in both battles, it is quite possible that the Confederacy could have won either of these battles, especially with the confidence of Lee and his army. Lee had defeated larger Union armies time and time again. If the Confederates had won either battle, they could have continued marching North, possibly winning other battles on Northern soil. And like Lee had hoped, it is reasonable to believe that Northerners could have turned against the war. They might have considered it not worth it to keep fighting to keep the Southern states in the Union. While they probably would have been bitter about a loss, they may have decided that it would be better to let the Southern states become their own independent country.

    Had the confederacy won the war, would other foreign countries have recongized the Confederate States of America as an independent and soverign nation? While some countries would, I think the major countries around the world would not have, at least at first. Countries like Great Britain and France had strongly opposed the institution of slavery by 1861. The Confederacy was hoping to gain recognition from these countries throughout the war, but they refused. I think they would have stuck to their instincts and not recognized a nation that was still relying on slave labor. I also think the United States would have intimidated these countries not to recognize the Confederacy. A major question though, is how long would they not recognize the Confederacy? Would they have continued to not recognize the Confederacy for years or decades? It seems possible that these countries would have had internal debates. Do they recongnize a country that maintains slavery even if the Confederacy itself is friendly and is willing to trade? I think major countries would continue to not recognize the Confederacy as a separate, soverign nation because they didn’t want to be allied with a country that practices slavery.

    Would the United States and the Confederacy have gotten along? Simply, I don’t think so. There probably would be some debate in the U.S. government about how to approach and deal with the Confederate States of America. I suppose there would be some who would see the benefits of friendly trade relations with our neighbor to the South. However, I think the relationship between the U.S. and the C.S.A. would be tense in the long-term. I think most members of the U.S. government would not want to recognize the C.S.A. as an independent, soverign nation for the same reasons as other foreign nations, not wanting to be associated with the institution of slavery. They would feel animosity towards the country that fired the first shots of the Civil War. Because of these tensions, there’s a strong possibility that there would have been border conflicts out west as the two countries continued to expand. I think at some point there would be another armed conflict between the two countries. I’m not sure when that would happen but my guess would be by the end of the 19th century. If armed conflict did break out, the United States would have to decide if it was worth the effort to try to win back the South. This would depend on the size and might of the two opposing countries at that time. If the United States had progressed at a faster rate than the Confederacy (which is quite feasible) they may have taken the opportunity to try win back their former land. This conflict however would be close in size and scale to the first Civil War, which would have everyone second guessing.

    When would slavery have ended? This is probably the most intruging question of them all. If the Confederate States of America remained an independent nation up until the present, when would they have outlawed slavery and what would have been their process? Throughout the nineteenth century, the agitations between pro-slavery Southerners and Northern abolitionists only continued to grow. Pro-slavery southerners began digging in and presenting a growing number of justifications for slavery. Had they won the Civil War, I believe that they would have latched onto these arguments and would have been emboldened by the victory. They may have argued that Divine Providence had been on the side of slavery. Therefore, I think it would have taken decades before they outlawed slavery. I think what would eventually do them in would be the global outcry against the Confederacy and their institutions. There would be an alliance of countries that would refuse to trade with them until they abolished slavery, and the sanctions against them would pile up. At that point the Confederacy’s economy would do so poorly that they would have no other choice than to give into the pressures of the global community. Even if they decided to outlaw slavery, I think they would go about it in a very long, drawn out process of gradual emancipation. This would mean that current slaves would remain slaves, but their children would be freed (Or some other kind of similar method). Southern slave holders would demand payment for their emancipated slaves. The process would take a generation or longer before slavery was fully outlawed. So while I don’t believe slavery would have lasted forever in the Confederacy, the question is how long would it have lasted. I think it would have taken until close to 1900 for them to take any action, and then perhaps another couple decades for slavery to be conpleted eradicated.

    The last question I want to pose is: What would happen to the Northern states after the Civil War if the Confederacy had won? Would there be other states that attempted to secede if they disagreed with the federal government? While I don’t think this would happen, it is worth pondering. Whether or not states had a right to secede was a common debate in the 1800s, starting with founders like Jefferson and Madison. If Northern states witnessed the success of the Confederacy and their quest to leave the union, it is in the realm of possibility that other states would attempt to do the same. Luckily with the Northern victory, the debate on state secession was squashed, and we have not fractured into many small warring countries.

    What do you think? What would have happened if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? Please comment on any of the thoughts above. I’m interested to hear other perspectives.

    Related Posts: