What if Abraham Lincoln was not elected President of the USA

I'm thinking John Bell becomes President, though Stephen Douglas or Joseph Lane could work too.

Probably tensions were pretty high. However there's a chance some compromise constitutional amendment meant could be passed, such as one protecting slavery in the South forever while preventing its expansion elsewhere. Or if the new Presidentantagonizes the north maybe several states could start an armed rebellion against the 'Slave Power' federal government. At the very least a delayed civil at would have important ramifications on the course of the war. And did Lincoln do anything as President other than the Civil War? Things to consider.

Indeed. However the most likely alternate Presidents, Bell or Douglas, don't seem that likely to antagonize the north. And I was thinking maybe some states formed a rebel army, declared a Republican President and ry to topple the 'Slave Power' government and put an anti-slavery government in place, though secession could work too. I wonder if ther's any chance of a compromise constitutional amendment being passed though? Like this one

Guys

I think by this time that the most likely result is that the war is only delayed, which would further discriminate against the south in any conflict as a later war would only increase the imbalance against it. Don't think that a northern rebellion is likely as the north will realise they have the numbers and time is on their side. Or that a political agreement to 'secure' slavery in the south will be lasting as opinion, both moral and practical, against it will continue to grow.

The 'best bet' for the south is something like a compromise candidate wins in 1860 and kicks the issue into the long grass, then in 1864 [say] a hard line abolitionist becomes President in a disputed election, possibly in reaction to Lincoln's failure in 1860. The new President antagonises a number of border states and also possibly some western ones and anti-slavery but not abolitionist feeling. [I.e. there were a lot of 'free labour' supporters who opposed competition from slave labour but weren't explicitly anti-slavery and possibly every bit as racist as the southern whites. Southern opposition is better lead, possibly even someone like Lee, who seems to have more vision than a lot of the southern politicians who starts talking about secession but doesn't start the fighting and the President does. This has the option of mobilising a lot of opinion in allowing the south to go peaceably rather than fight them over the issue. Possibly the north is deeply split and the President even ends up impeached.

I said 'best bet' because such a result is going to almost certainly mean slavery lasts a good bit longer, which won't be good for anyone really in the south. The CSA [if we call it that] is going to be socially and racially deeply divided, politically isolated and while the slavocracy are dominant is likely to become a regressive backwater.

Steve

So if the south had still succeeded with no strong president like Lincoln to put his foot down, would they have survived or fractured because they where only united on the issues of slavery.

Except all of this happening depends upon a candidate getting votes in North instead of Lincoln, and he had already been chosen as the Republican candidate because he was the most moderate. The *only* candidate capable of doing that was Douglas as he was the only candidate who got votes in both slave and free states. Not even Lincoln the moderate managed that.

You'd have to make Bleeding Kansas never happen or delay it, because that was what got the Republicans their foothold in national politics. The wikipedia article on the 1856 has a great maps of who voted which way and you can see how Republican support had not even fully penetrated the North.

Another key factor would be the Ostend Manifesto. When that became public knowledge, in addition to inciting the North into increased support of the Republican Party as it was seen as an attempt to expand slavery, and in Europe was seen by the Great Powers as a threat to monarchical control across Europe, quickly denounced in Paris and London. We all know what the CSA felt about King Cotton and Europe 5 years later, so how I'm sure you can see how that contributed to the fracturing of the Democratic Party that we see in the 1860 election.

Control those two initially and you have a plausible way of getting a Doughface Douglas elected in 1860 through the Republicans still not being popular enough in the North and the Democrats not splintering. However, Douglas' support for popular sovereignty will cause issues. He'll no doubt weigh in on the Wyandotte Constitution for Kansas, as well as any conventions the new Colorado, Dakota, Idaho and Montana Territories that would be created during this presidency, causing new "Bleeding Wherevers" to sectionalize the ATL 1864 election just as the OTL 1860 one was. (Nevada State acceptance was rushed because of in-war factors that wouldn't happen, IMO, in this ATL.)

As for a Northern general who could be Lee's counterpart, what about Fremont?