quote:
even had the Democrats controlled the House, they would not have had the power to cut off war funding without enacting legislation, which would have required the Senate and Lincoln to approve. But partisan control of the House was still hugely consequential for the second half of Lincoln’s presidencycomment:
A cursory answer would appear to be "no". But it could have had some significant consequences, as the article points out. A number of initiatives would have been stalled, most likely.
On the other hand, if any of these initiatives had contributed towards a significant political defeat somewhere else, as in his second election, there could have been a difference. Two years later, McClellan ran against Lincoln for the Presidency. Now, if the Democrats had managed to bottle up some legislation in the interim that Lincoln wanted, and assuming all other things were equal, then maybe McClellan would have won. For, the Democrats were badly divided. If the Democrats were more unified, with the possible help of events adverse to Lincoln's interests, it could have been decisive. That would have changed history, perhaps in a way more favorable for the South.
History can turn on small things. A little thing like the Kentucky vote mentioned in the article could have led to a different kind of history and a different kind of country. History has its cautionary tales and its lessons. The lesson here is avoid dividing your party. Democrat division led to the war and to an unfavorable peace for the South. It exacerbated racial tensions as the South chafed under bayonet rule. No war means no bayonets. No division means no Lincoln victory. Once the bayonets were gone though, the high minded aims of the war were lost for nearly a century.
From the huge demand for physical gold from Asia to repatriation demands, and from