Ninja’ed.
Another important issue was diplomatic recognition. If the CSA existed and the USA didn’t take action, Britain and France would have probably recognized the CSA.
The amazing thing is the decision to fire on the fort and start a war was made by a Colonel. He had been given broad discretion on how to handle the siege and he decided on his own initiative that the situation had reached the point where the south needed to force the issue.
Succession has never been fully resolved in our law. States originally voted to join the US and then petitioned for statehood. It makes sense that they could also vote to withdraw.
Had the South not attacked. Then I suspect the war might have never happened. Each state had legally voted for succession. Missouri very narrowly choose to stay in the Union. I can’t see Lincoln starting a war.
North and South would have quickly established trade much like countries in Europe.
Ok, I’ve thought of something that need’s a judge’s ruling as to whether the OP conditions allow it, though I think they do.
Dressed as a Confedrate soldier, I appear in Lincoln’s office in the midst of a whole bunch of high-powered Union witness (probably a Cabinet meeting, if they had such things back then) in a flash of lightning (or whatever kind of flash the time machine can generate). I’m in the room just for a couple of seconds, long enough to shoot Lincoln in the head, and drop a note to the floor before I vanish into thin air. The note is expertly forged to appear as written by Jeff Davis, and says, “We have developed a revolutionary machine that can send our troops anywhere, instantly, and get them back just as quickly. We killed President Lincoln as a demonstration. Unless you stop the war on our terms, we will do the same to every member of the Cabinet and every member of Congress who remains loyal to the Union. Time is short, make your decision quickly.”
Basically, a gigantic bluff that more or less throws a wild card onto the table. It might not work.
BTW, I can’t leave this post without saying I’d prefer by FAR to reverse the scenario, kill Jeff Davis, and bluff the South into giving up (or not starting the shooting in the first place).
I gave 2. Assassinate Grant before Vickburg and intercepting Special Order 191 before the Union Army found it.
Maybe delaying the Army of the Potomac before Gettysburg or preventing Stonewall Jackson from getting shot. Any of these can be completed by an officer in the proper position and would fall within the requirements of post #1.
That’s allowed. In fact if you could convince Jeff Davis you’re from the future there’s no reason you could drop off Bruce Catton’s collected works.
Oh, those were serious? 
I’d say neither would have made a major difference. Antietam was almost a victory for for the South even with the plans discovered, OTOH the lack of plans might have meant the battle wouldn’t have been fought at all instead of a huge Southern victory. Who knows?
As far as killing Grant – maybe, but Sherman was also around, and IMO as capable, or even more capable, than Grant.
Secession.
If a deal to free the slaves could have been made before the war, there would have been no reason for a civil war. The working compromise was to maintain the balance of power in Congress by restricting additional states to the addition of both a non-slave and a slave State at the same time. The voters from the various States were sending representatives to Congress that could not/would not change their positions under any circumstances.
Lincoln promised the slave states that had remained with the Union that there would be no effort to free their slaves. Half measures introduced later, like the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, didn’t actually free any slaves in the Union on Janurary 1st. It didn’t free any slaves in the rebel states that were currently under control of the Union Army on Jan 1st. The only slaves that “would” be freed were slaves being owned in rebel held territory as that territory was conquered by the Union Army.
The Executive Branch President didn’t have the authority to override state laws. Each State could change state laws that delt with slavery. The Legislative Branch Congress could, and eventually did, amend the Constitution to make slavery illegal, “after” the opposition in Congress had been removed.
In short, given the existing political climate, it was impossible to free the slaves before the war.
The Battle of Sewell’s Point, the Battle of Aquia Creek, the Battle of Philippi, etc proved that the Battle of Fort Sumter wasn’t a fluke. People were now dead set on shooting at each other. But that wouldn’t be known for sure until “after” both sides had begun lobbing shells at each other somewhere in the U.S./C.S.A. Too much bad blood existed and a compromise was impossible.
In order to convince Jeff Davis that a shooting war wasn’t in the South’s best interest, I would bring with me the most successful trial lawyers, North and South, who believed that the Union could yet be recontructed thru the court system. (Pro-secession lawyers might favor a shooting war as would the John Brown-types.) My goal would be to convince Davis that the CSA would survive a legal challenge if they were willing to make the effort.
However, given the current mindset in many parts of the country, I doubt that Davis, or anyone else, could have convinced every CSA field commander not to order his troops or ships to fire on “enemy” fortifications or vessels. I also doubt that Davis could convince southern civilians not to stage raids on “enemy” troops, ships, or fortifications, either. But it would certainly be worth a try.
What if I go back and “take out” Lee before he took command and saved the South? A Southern defeat early on would have kept the Civil War as a “limited war” that McClellan wanted and would have preserved slavery, the plantation system, and the Southern economy. It wasn’t '63+ that it started to become a total war that truly changed things.
Although if I could do anything I would figure out how to put Thaddeus Stephens in more power. I liked his view of Reconstruction.
Well, I don’t understand the hypothetical – we don’t have the power to affect policy, but we do somehow have immaculate credentials and the power to assassinate major figures? Is it just “what could one person do physically?”
I’m in the camp that says nothing one person could have done could have stopped the war or changed the outcome materially, except for perhaps Lincoln himself.
Explain to someone how to manufacture RPGs. With that knowledge, could they have been produced?
The problem was that the southern states wanted the President to override state laws. A major complaint made by the seceding states was that the federal government was allowing states and territories to pass laws against slavery. The south wanted the federal government to enforce slavery in places that didn’t want it.
A long-standing myth but not true. The Emancipation Proclamation did free thousands of slaves on the date it went into effect. The law said that any slave whose owner was in the specified rebellious territory was freed - and thousands of slaves had escaped to Union territory from owners such as these. Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, their eventual fate was an open legal issue - they might conceivably have been returned to their pre-war owners as part of a negotiated settlement. But the Emancipation Proclamation resolved the issue and declared all of these escaped slaves were freed.
Jurisdiction and authority. “Declaring” something is not the same as having that declaration recognized by the proper authorities. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to States that no longer recognized the authority of the POTUS, the U.S. Congress, or the U.S. military as a legal authority. Those States, being listed in the Proclamation:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
(Featured Documents | National Archives)
didn’t free any slaves on Jan 1, 1863 because the President of some “foreign” country said so.
As POTUS, Lincoln didn’t have the authority to override the slave laws of the States that remained in the Union, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri (and any I might have missed) either.
I believe he was claiming the authority as Commander-in-Chief, strictly as a military measure.
You say he lacked authority, but he claimed it, Congress backed him, the Court did not overturn him, the (Northern half) of the country backed him and gave him a mandate in the next election, and the Southern half of the country eventually yielded to his military measures.
Sum total of people saying he lacked the authority, as far as I can see: defeated Confederates, possibly some members of the minority party, and armchair second-guessers.
Yes, the States in rebellion eventually yielded to Lincoln’s proclamation. But not on Jan 1, 1863. As far as the CSA was concerned, Lincoln could also have freed slaves in Mexico, Canada, and Spain. None of those countries recognized Lincoln’s authority or jurisdiction over their government, laws, or citizens, either.
For example, you could “claim” to be the Emperor of room 321 of the Paris Hilton but that doesn’t mean anyone would recognize your claim. Should you be considered the Emperor based only on your claim?
The CSA didn’t recognize Congress’s authority, either.
Anything issued under “war powers” authority could be challenged in court. Which court addressed the legality of Lincoln’s proclamation?
It’s never been clear to me at what point an election victory becomes a mandate. Lincoln recieved 55% of the popular vote to McClellan 45%.
Lincoln swamped McClellan in the Electoral College 212 to 21, but the popular vote was much closer with 2,206,938 for Lincoln and 1,803,787 for McClellan.
http://www.trivia-library.com/a/president-abraham-lincoln-reelection-and-second-term.htm
Just for the record, I’m not arguing “against” the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation. I’m talking about it’s effectiveness on Jan 1st “63”.
I’m pretty sure that you would need something that explodes hypersonicly to get the plasma jet to form.
I’m sure that someone will come along with a much smarter answer.
Could a time traveler tell them how to make an AK-47 or similar weapon? I’ve heard for years how they can be supposedly copied by blacksmiths in Third World villages.
Set yourself up as a 100% accurate prognosticator. Once you have convinced everyone of your infallibility, simply tell Lincoln and his commanders that the nation will be destroyed unless they make peace and recognize the independence of the CSA.
I wouldn’t personally do that. I’d tell Davis and his commanders what was in store for them if they didn’t abandon slavery and reconcile with the Union. Can I bring a photo of Obama taking the oath of office?
Lincoln’s concern that the Emancipation Proclamation would be seen as a wartime measure that would have no legal effect after the Civil War ended, is one of the reasons why he worked so hard to get the Thirteenth Amendment ratified, permanently freeing the slaves.
I’d actually NOT help the CSA. Why would anyone want to? How would the CSA winning the Civil War affect the outcome of WW2 if the US was “divided” and could not bring a combined industrial might to bear on the Axis powers?
I would help the Union try and limit it’s loss of life at places like Gettysburg, Manassas etc…
Oh, and I would PERSONALLY travel to Andersonville and repatriate all the prisoners AFTER dealing with the war criminals running that place!
One of the strengths of the AK-47 is that it is intentionally designed to be easily manufactured using fairly cheap and simple machining. Even with the limited technology of the 1860s they probably could churn out a few AK-47s.
You’ve got a few problems though.
First of all, the Confederacy has very limited production capabilities. This was a problem for them during the entire war. You would probably have to convince someone else to make the AK-47 for them, and even then the AK is going to cost a heck of a lot more than a conventional musket.
A really good real world example of this is the German Tiger tank from WWII. If you put a Tiger and a U.S. Sherman face to face, you could even let the Sherman fire first. It wouldn’t matter. The Sherman couldn’t penetrate the front armor of the Tiger. The Tiger, on the other hand, could put a shell in through the front and out through the back of the Sherman. The Sherman didn’t stand a chance. It took on average four Shermans to kill one Tiger. But, the key thing is that the U.S. could crank out 10 Shermans for every German Tiger. The Tigers were in every measurable way the superior tank, but they lost on the battlefield because they cost too much to make.
Your AK-47 would suffer from exactly the same problem. The Confederacy would end up with far too few of them on the battlefield for them to have a significant impact on the war.
The second problem you have is ammunition. They actually had machine guns (well, technically hand cranked rapid-fire guns) during the Civil War. They didn’t use them for two reasons. First, they didn’t understand how effective they could be. You could say in that respect that they were just short-sighted. However, the second reason is much more valid. They couldn’t produce enough ammunition for them. Between the end of the Civil War and the end of the 1800s, there were two significant developments that both were required to make machine guns practical. The first was smokeless powder, without which even an AK-47 will get fouled up and jam, despite its (often exaggerated) ability to fire when dirty. The second development was the cheap mass production of brass. Without that, you can’t produce enough cartridges to make the AK-47 effective.
Even if you taught them how to make the right type of powder and how to make brass cheaply, you’ve still got the issue that the south just wasn’t that good at manufacturing stuff. That’s part of the reason we had a Civil War in the first place. The South was good at agriculture and wanted to stay that way. The North was good at manufacturing and felt that the South was holding them back. If you told the North what to do, they probably could have adapted and started cranking out AK-47s and the huge amount of ammunition required to make them work. The South would not have been able to ramp up its manufacturing capability to what was needed within a reasonable time frame.
Getting back to the OP, if you want the Confederacy to win, I think they need to hit hard and fast at the beginning of the war. The Confederacy’s lack of manufacturing ability made winning a long war all but impossible. They just didn’t have the resources. ETA: And they also need to plan it out better, instead of just rushing off to war as soon as Lincoln won the election.
As to the second part of the OP, what I am personally willing to do, the answer is nothing. I personally wouldn’t want the Confederacy to win.
What about the war criminals who ran Camp Douglas, or are you only concerned with atrocities on the Confederate side of the lines?