Could The Confederacy Have Survived?

[Arawn1030]

I think we have all thought about the "What if the Confederacy won" alternate history question. But, let's focus on the aftermath if the Confederacy won, ie the Southern States seceded from the Northern States. Could the Confederacy have even survived? The South was very unindustrialized compared to the North, the only way I can see them surviving is by conducting a massive industrialization project across the now independent Confederate States of America. What are your thought? Could the Confederacy have survived, if so why or why not?

[Lance Rawlings]

I think we have all thought about the "What if the Confederacy won" alternate history question. But, let's focus on the aftermath if the Confederacy won, ie the Southern States seceded from the Northern States. Could the Confederacy have even survived? The South was very unindustrialized compared to the North, the only way I can see them surviving is by conducting a massive industrialization project across the now independent Confederate States of America. What are your thought? Could the Confederacy have survived, if so why or why not?

Well, there are a TON of factors, but on the issue of industrialization alone, yes, I think they would have pulled through. I think that ties between England and the Confederacy would have been very strong, with the South providing textiles, and England manufacturing it until the South had time to build up its own textile industry. You also have to realize that yes, the North had the factories, but the South had more product. Just a few thoughts.

[TrustyJam]

Well, there are a TON of factors, but on the issue of industrialization alone, yes, I think they would have pulled through. I think that ties between England and the Confederacy would have been very strong, with the South providing textiles, and England manufacturing it until the South had time to build up its own textile industry. You also have to realize that yes, the North had the factories, but the South had more product. Just a few thoughts.


Didn't England just simply rely on textiles produced in India instead when the CSA halted all shipments to England in order to put pressure on them to side with them? I don't know my textile history well enough to know if they made use of the southern states produce in large numbers again after the war - but might they not have continued to get their produce from India if the CSA had prevailed?

- Trusty

[Arawn1030]

Well, there are a TON of factors, but on the issue of industrialization alone, yes, I think they would have pulled through. I think that ties between England and the Confederacy would have been very strong, with the South providing textiles, and England manufacturing it until the South had time to build up its own textile industry. You also have to realize that yes, the North had the factories, but the South had more product. Just a few thoughts.

Absolutely. Funny enough the South would likely end up being the more successful. As long as they produced their agricultural products and industrialized while at the same time working out trade deals with England who was already supporting them under the table. The Confederacy could have surpassed the Union within 20ish years. Maybe the Confederacy would even work with Brazil as they did late into the war.

With all that it makes you think if they would have tried expanding into Indian territory. After all, most Native American tribes saw the Confederacy as their redeemer from the genocidal actions of the Union.

[Arawn1030]

Didn't England just simply rely on textiles produced in India instead when the CSA halted all shipments to England in order to put pressure on them to side with them? I don't know my textile history well enough to know if they made use of the southern states produce in large numbers again after the war - but might they not have continued to get their produce from India if the CSA had prevailed?

- Trusty

England was still trading with the Confederacy well into the war. Thanks to England the Confederacy had a pretty consistent supply of weapons and ammo...until the Anaconda Plan that is.

[TrustyJam]

England was still trading with the Confederacy well into the war. Thanks to England the Confederacy had a pretty consistent supply of weapons and ammo...until the Anaconda Plan that is.


Yes, but that does not answer my question. The British empire was huge enough to simply shift supplier of textiles when pressured by the CSA. What's to say they wouldn't continue doing so had the CSA pulled through.

- Trusty

[Arawn1030]

Yes, but that does not answer my question. The British empire was huge enough to simply shift supplier of textiles when pressured by the CSA. What's to say they wouldn't continue doing so had the CSA pulled through.

- Trusty

Sorry. I think the thing that would insure a textile trade between the CSA and the British Empire would be a common rival, the United States. It's no secret that the British wanted their old colonies back and were afraid of the United States growing success and power. As long as the United States is a rival to the British Empire, the Confederate States would be a friend of the British Empire.

[William F. Randolph]

I think the real question is would the north have survived. Anyone can build factories anywhere, but you can't farm crops everywhere.

[A. P. Hill]

The South was not slow regard industrialization. In the short time that the Civil War lasted, the South and made great strides in this field. If they would have been left alone and their resources not ravaged by the war and the Northern Aggressors, the South could have very easily made it into the industrial zone and survived quite fittingly.

[Arawn1030]

I think the real question is would the north have survived. Anyone can build factories anywhere, but you can't farm crops everywhere.

Indeed. If the Confederacy won could the Union have even survived? It's not like it wasn't already unstable after the war and the assassination of Lincoln certainly didn't help. The only way I can see them surviving is by expanding Westward much faster then they did in our timeline, and making a lot of farms. It's unrealistic but possible. I doubt they would have survived though. Maybe with an ally in North America, the British would have just declared war against an already weak United States. Mexico might even step in for some payback and take California.

The United States might just be a 100 year old experiment that collapsed and was conquered. That's really interesting to think about.

[thomas aagaard]

First of all it really depend on what states became part of the CSA and on how they won.

A military victory in 1862 that broke the north will would give one result.

Had McClellan won in 1864 and actually made peace* the south would have been much weaker and Slavery would already have been shaken to its core.


(*Should be noted that he was actually not saying he would do this, and even if he had won, Lincoln and grant still had until march 1865 to actually win the war... Would likely have resulted in a more aggressive war for the last few month.)


But about slavery: There is really no reason why factories can't use slave labor.
Not until the technological development get to a point where you need academically trained workers do you get a real problem.

[Arawn1030]

The South was not slow regard industrialization. In the short time that the Civil War lasted, the South and made great strides in this field. If they would have been left alone and their resources not ravaged by the war and the Northern Aggressors, the South could have very easily made it into the industrial zone and survived quite fittingly.

I have to ask. You are obviously Pro-Confederacy. Why did you buy the USA General of the Army?

[Arawn1030]

First of all it really depend on what states became part of the CSA and on how they won.

A military victory in 1862 that broke the north will would give one result.

Had McClellan won in 1864 and actually made peace* the south would have been much weaker and Slavery would already have been shaken to its core.


(*Should be noted that he was actually not saying he would do this, and even if he had won, Lincoln and grant still had until march 1865 to actually win the war... Would likely have resulted in a more aggressive war for the last few month.)


But about slavery: There is really no reason why factories can't use slave labor.
Not until the technological development get to a point where you need academically trained workers do you get a real problem.

What about a Gettysburg surrender? That's were a lot of Pro-Confederate alternate histories go. Gettysburg was such a heavy loss for the Confederacy especially with the death of Stonewall Jackson a very months earlier, he alone could have easily changed the outcome of the war. If the Confederates won at Gettysburg the Union would likely surrender shortly after.

[A. P. Hill]

I have to ask. You are obviously Pro-Confederacy. Why did you buy the USA General of the Army?

Because they didn't have a confederate general of the army .... in fact this badge is post civil war per the dev team.

[A. P. Hill]

... Had McClellan won in 1864 and actually made peace* the south would have been much weaker and Slavery would already have been shaken to its core. ...

First of all McClellan was washed up by 1864 ... he never made it past 1862's battle of Sharpsburg ...

You should really try to stay calm when you type. And you should always re-read your posts before hitting post quick reply buttons.

:)

[Conway]

The South was not slow regard industrialization. In the short time that the Civil War lasted, the South and made great strides in this field. If they would have been left alone and their resources not ravaged by the war and the Northern Aggressors, the South could have very easily made it into the industrial zone and survived quite fittingly.
Its a tad bit stupid to call them "Northern Aggressors" don't you think? Seeing the south seceded expecting a war and started the war by attacking a federal fort. Had the south succeeded when it seceded the neither them nor the U.S would likely become a major power in the world. There would almost certainly be a conflict eventually between the two nations as westward expansion continued. The USA would win this war still simply because it would still have the better equipment. Even if the south made big strides to industrialization during the war you need to keep in mind the north just didn't stop industrialization. The south would never make it into the 20th century even if they did succeed successfully.

[A. P. Hill]

Its a tad bit stupid to call them "Northern Aggressors" don't you think? ...

Nah, it's just a tad stupid for being offended by the statement and getting your panties in a knot about it.

And try using paragraphs when you type, it makes reading your posts way easier.

Have a nice day. :)

[Arawn1030]

Because they didn't have a confederate general of the army .... in fact this badge is post civil war per the dev team.

See I didn't know that. Thank you. I thought the USA and CSA had General of the Army badges.

[A. P. Hill]

See I didn't know that. Thank you. I thought the USA and CSA had General of the Army badges.

No Sir, the North did not have full generals at the time of the civil war ... the South however had 4 that I know of, and possibly up to 6 by the time it was over.

[Arawn1030]

Its a tad bit stupid to call them "Northern Aggressors" don't you think? Seeing the south seceded expecting a war and started the war by attacking a federal fort. Had the south succeeded when it seceded the neither them nor the U.S would likely become a major power in the world. There would almost certainly be a conflict eventually between the two nations as westward expansion continued. The USA would win this war still simply because it would still have the better equipment. Even if the south made big strides to industrialization during the war you need to keep in mind the north just didn't stop industrialization. The south would never make it into the 20th century even if they did succeed successfully.

But..the North was the aggressor though. Abraham Lincoln wanted war, this in clearly evident in the way he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.

[Arawn1030]

No Sir, the North did not have full generals at the time of the civil war ... the South however had 4 that I know of, and possibly up to 6 by the time it was over.

Wasn't Robert E. Lee unofficially the General of the Army though? I assume the key word is unofficially. Well thank you, now I know not to get General of the Army.

[thomas aagaard]

First of all McClellan was washed up by 1864 ... he never made it past 1862's battle of Sharpsburg ...

You should really try to stay calm when you type. And you should always re-read your posts before hitting post quick reply buttons.

:)

He was running for president in 1864 ;-)
And the democrats was running on a peace platform.

But yes, I should have added (won) "the presidency" to the line.




What about a Gettysburg surrender? That's were a lot of Pro-Confederate alternate histories go. Gettysburg was such a heavy loss for the Confederacy especially with the death of Stonewall Jackson a very months earlier, he alone could have easily changed the outcome of the war. If the Confederates won at Gettysburg the Union would likely surrender shortly after.

No he could not. Yes on a good day he was very good. But he had some very bad days also. (He was pretty poor during the 7day battles)
And there is no reason to think he would have been able to change Gettysburg that much. And even if the south had won the battle, it is very very unlikely that they would have forces the Union army to surrender. (since that simply didn't happen) And Vicksburg would still have fallen.

Could Gettysburg have ended in a peace where both sides sat down and made a deal? maybe, But not surrender.


But..the North was the aggressor though.
...
Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation.
...
sovereign sister Southern State.

The south started using force way, way before Lincoln even became president.
Firing on Star of the West in January for one thing.


In march when Lincoln became the president the CSA government start to raise 100.000 volunteers for 12 month.
And Naturally he did not meat with the "peace delegates", Any sort of meting would be a recognize.


And finally the common characteristics of a sovereign State are thing like.
Having an army.
Being able to enter into treaties with other stats. (states=Denmark, France, Russia)
Being able to send ambassadors to other states.

And the "states" in the USA could not do any of the things.
They where and are not sovereign. And have not been since the adoption of the Constitution.

[A. P. Hill]

Nope.

Lee was appointed General of the Army CSA Provincial in 61, along with 3 others, if I remember correctly, I can't find my reference at the moment

[thomas aagaard]

The CSA at first based the ranks of former US officers on their rank in the US army.

The following men where all made full generals in august 1861, with the ranks back dated.
Cooper, May 16,
Albert Sidney Johnston, May 30
Lee, June 14
Joseph E. Johnston, July 4
Beauregard, July 21,

So Samuel Cooper was actually the senior CSA general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cooper_(general)

But since he was not a battlefield general he is often forgotten. (I had to look up his name since I could not rembeer it)

[Conway]

But..the North was the aggressor though. Abraham Lincoln wanted war, this in clearly evident in the way he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.

Because the south illegally seceded from the Union, what kind of president lets half the country just up and leave? The south began to prepare for war the second they left because they knew what was going to happen.
The south left because they couldn't stand the outcome of a democratic election. It was just for Lincoln to restore the union just as it was just for the United Kingdom to attempt to quell the rebellion in the War for Independence.
Lincoln didn't want war, he wanted the south back in the union under his terms. Which the south did not want. The leaders of the confederacy did something that they would be hung for had it happened in other countries.
The civil war was a rebellion, just on a scale larger than any seen before in the US. He may have used Sumter as an excuse but the south were in the end the ones who fired the first shots not to mention they seceded in the first place.
If they hadn't seceded, then Lincoln wouldn't have wanted to attack. But they were foolish enough to try it anyways.

Also in regards to what you said about getting my panties in a knot Hill... Yes... as a Canadian I 100% was offended by what you say. (I just don't like people posting bullshit like that.)

[Arawn1030]

Because the south illegally seceded from the Union, what kind of president lets half the country just up and leave? The south began to prepare for war the second they left because they knew what was going to happen.
The south left because they couldn't stand the outcome of a democratic election. It was just for Lincoln to restore the union just as it was just for the United Kingdom to attempt to quell the rebellion in the War for Independence.
Lincoln didn't want war, he wanted the south back in the union under his terms. Which the south did not want. The leaders of the confederacy did something that they would be hung for had it happened in other countries.
The civil war was a rebellion, just on a scale larger than any seen before in the US. He may have used Sumter as an excuse but the south were in the end the ones who fired the first shots not to mention they seceded in the first place.
If they hadn't seceded, then Lincoln wouldn't have wanted to attack. But they were foolish enough to try it anyways.

Also in regards to what you said about getting my panties in a knot Hill... Yes... as a Canadian I 100% was offended by what you say. (I just don't like people posting bullshit like that.)

He could have easily met with the delegates who stayed in Washington for 30 days to discuss the situation. Instead he ignored them and caused the deaths of over 600,000 Americans.

That wasn't me...that was A.P. Hill.

[Conway]

Do you honestly believe the southern delegation would ever except the terms Lincoln would offer? He and any other president would accept nothing less than absolute surrender back into the union, as they should. After the south got a taste of freedom there was no bringing them back in, Lincoln would have known this. Diplomacy failed the second the south seceded, the delegation was going out on a limb at best but downright foolish to have expected something from it in reality.

[Arawn1030]

He was running for president in 1864 ;-)
And the democrats was running on a peace platform.

But yes, I should have added (won) "the presidency" to the line.





No he could not. Yes on a good day he was very good. But he had some very bad days also. (He was pretty poor during the 7day battles)
And there is no reason to think he would have been able to change Gettysburg that much. And even if the south had won the battle, it is very very unlikely that they would have forces the Union army to surrender. (since that simply didn't happen) And Vicksburg would still have fallen.

Could Gettysburg have ended in a peace where both sides sat down and made a deal? maybe, But not surrender.



The south started using force way, way before Lincoln even became president.
Firing on Star of the West in January for one thing.


In march when Lincoln became the president the CSA government start to raise 100.000 volunteers for 12 month.
And Naturally he did not meat with the "peace delegates", Any sort of meting would be a recognize.


And finally the common characteristics of a sovereign State are thing like.
Having an army.
Being able to enter into treaties with other stats. (states=Denmark, France, Russia)
Being able to send ambassadors to other states.

And the "states" in the USA could not do any of the things.
They where and are not sovereign. And have not been since the adoption of the Constitution.

See I'd disagree, Stonewall was a brillant general and if not shot by his own men and dying of pneumonia because of the failed operation. He could have changed the outcome of the war for the Confederacy.

Call it what you want, any reasonable leader as shown through history would have realized this is a civil war and he must take up the offer to peace talks to save lives. In this case over 600,000 lives

[Arawn1030]

Do you honestly believe the southern delegation would ever except the terms Lincoln would offer? He and any other president would accept nothing less than absolute surrender back into the union, as they should. After the south got a taste of freedom there was no bringing them back in, Lincoln would have known this. Diplomacy failed the second the south seceded, the delegation was going out on a limb at best but downright foolish to have expected something from it in reality.

All he needed to do was:

1. Take back the oppressive tariffs on the Southern States

2. Allow more autonomy to the Southern states

3. Let the slave trade devolve on it's own as it did in the other states

4. Help industrialize the Southern states instead of focusing so much attention to the North

That is all he would need to do. But no, he refused to even meet and hear Confederate demands.

[thomas aagaard]

Call it what you want, any reasonable leader as shown through history would have realized this is a civil war and he must take up the offer to peace talks to save lives. In this case over 600,000 lives
At that point in time there was no war. And Lincoln was hoping that the Union sentiment in the seceding states to get them back in the union.

He had no way of knowing how big or long a war would be. The CSA congress was only binding their soldiers for 12month. So clearly they also thought that there would be no long war.

Also do you seriously think that the only correct answer to aggression is surrender? then you must think that the US should have surrendered to Japan in december 1941.



All he needed to do was:

1. Take back the oppressive tariffs on the Southern States
2. Allow more autonomy to the Southern states
3. Let the slave trade devolve on it's own as it did in the other states
4. Help industrialize the Southern states instead of focusing so much attention to the North

That is all he would need to do. But no, he refused to even meet and hear Confederate demands.

1.You keep repeating the myth I already disproved in the other topic.
The south controlled the Tariff rates before the war. And is was very low. after it got lowered in 1846 and again in 1857.
(until after the south left the union, where the crisis and government deficit did make congress raise it)


2.He was not planning on any sort of interfering in their internal matters.

3. He had no plan to stop them having slaves. He was planning to stop its expansion into the territories. Something he could do and something the Founding Fathers had done in 1787 with the Northwest Ordinance. So if he did so he would be in good company.

4. Start out by actually proving that the south wanted to industrialize. Also the federal government was not responsible for that. This was not communism.


And how about actually proving exactly what the commissioners demanded?
Primary source please.

[FrancisM]

Lincoln didn't have to meet with any delegates. Secession was illegal and they had no right to make demands - there was a political process. Can you even source any of the claims you make here?

Of course the confederate states would have survived, just as the North would have survived the loss of the south. Prices may have gone up, wealth might have been lost, but that doesn't mean a country will cease to exist. They'd just have been poorer. I very much doubt the South would have seen industralization so rapidly it would surpass the north in twenty years or ever. Why would they?

[Arawn1030]

Lincoln didn't have to meet with any delegates. Secession was illegal and they had no right to make demands - there was a political process. Can you even source any of the claims you make here?

Of course the confederate states would have survived, just as the North would have survived the loss of the south. Prices may have gone up, wealth might have been lost, but that doesn't mean a country will cease to exist. They'd just have been poorer. I very much doubt the South would have seen industralization so rapidly it would surpass the north in twenty years or ever. Why would they?

Of course just type in "Confederate Peace Delegation 1861".

It's optimism mainly. Realistically it would take longer then 20 years.

[FrancisM]

So they wanted the Crittenden Compromise?


Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.[5]
Congressional resolutions[edit]
That fugitive slave laws were constitutional and should be faithfully observed and executed.
That all state laws which impeded the operation of fugitive slave laws, the so-called "Personal liberty laws," were unconstitutional and should be repealed.
That the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 should be amended (and rendered less objectionable to the North) by equalizing the fee schedule for returning or releasing alleged fugitives and limiting the powers of marshals to summon citizens to aid in their capture.
That laws for the suppression of the African slave trade should be effectively and thoroughly executed.[5]

Where exactly is the bit about the tariffs, autonomy, etc? Seems to be just about slavery.

It also never even reached the president; it wasn't even passed by the senate.

[Lance Rawlings]

Didn't England just simply rely on textiles produced in India instead when the CSA halted all shipments to England in order to put pressure on them to side with them? I don't know my textile history well enough to know if they made use of the southern states produce in large numbers again after the war - but might they not have continued to get their produce from India if the CSA had prevailed?

- Trusty

Wow. This has gotten a lot of attention since I last visited! Now I remember why I usually don't bother with too many off topic posts. ;)

Anyway, Trusty, back to you. I also am not too familiar with textile history other than generic history. Yes, the South did try the "King Cotton" diplomacy, with the plan being to create a cotton shortage in the South, reducing shipments to England, in an attempt to be officially recognized and supported by England. They forgot one very important thing, however. And that was the bumper crop from years of sending cotton to England. So while the South created a shortage, England was still able to last on their bumper crop. In fact, England had saved up 1 million cotton bales in preparation for the Civil War. This brought them through to 1862. That's when England started urging other cotton growers such as Egypt, Brazil, and India to supply their cotton.

So you do have a point, however, I think that if the South had one, they would have stopped the cotton embargo and resumed exporting to England. Cotton didn't disappear from the equation even during the war, however. Cotton was still used as a bartering tool for British manufactured arms, ammunition, and even ships during the blockade. A British ship could make 300-500% profit on one smuggling trip through the Union blockade. So cotton still remained the main form of currency for the South. Obviously after the war America regained its cotton supremacy and began exported unhindered again.

In summary, while the "King Cotton" diplomacy may have not forced England into supporting the South, there was still plenty of British support and textile trading under the table. India could have still been an option for England, but the South had the means of exporting so much more cotton, and with a growing economy and population, Englad could have certainly used that cotton.

Just a few of my thoughts. A lot of this info was found here if you want to check it out: http://www.mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/articles/291/cotton-and-the-civil-war

[thomas aagaard]

Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.

Also:
After the attack on Sumter were are in one of two legal situations:

1. There is an insurrection in process. The president got both a duty and right to suppress it under the Militia and Insurrection Acts.
or
2. An independent Country, have just attacked the USA.
And I sure hope we can agree that the US president have both the right and duty to defend the country from attacks from an enemy.

No matte if you accept secession as legal or not. The president had every right to move US troops true union states to solve the issue.

[Arawn1030]

So they wanted the Crittenden Compromise?


Where exactly is the bit about the tariffs, autonomy, etc? Seems to be just about slavery.

It also never even reached the president; it wasn't even passed by the senate.

No, and that document was never given to the Union by the Confederate states. As far as I'm aware. That document was proposed on December 18th, 1860 as an amendment. South Carolina, the first state to seceded didn't leave the Union until 2 days later.