Cadets from the Citadel fire on resupply ships headed for Ft. Sumter on Jan. 9.

Seven states secede by February.

Bombardment starts April 12.  About three hours later, Ft. Sumter started firing back.  

April 15, Lincoln calls for troops.  Four more states secede.

So, once again there was a confederacy, followed by war.

No. The confederacy itself caused the war, the Union just failed to respond quickly. The war started whit the seven states' secession

It is like saying the Falkland War didn't start with the argentine invasion of the islands, but it began with the british counter-attack.

A war starts when one of the belligerent factions starts hostile actions (just like seceding from a federation unilaterally); it doesn't matter if the other faction(s) fail to respond, they are still at war.

J, it would help you greatly if you actually read more on the subject. It is very obvious that you have not.

South Carolina seceded in December. Missisippi, the 9th prior to the Star of the West getting fired on that day while trying to resupply the fort. Florida the next day, probably without hearing of events in Charleston. Likely the same for Alabama the day after that.

All of these secession bills were "on the table" long before the Star tried to resupply the fort. And threats to do them were out there before the election was even fully counted.

Firing on - and damaging it enough to convince the captain to turn around - the Star of the West would have been an act of war. Quite frankly, it was one.

Gal is correct.

OK.  I agree there is a lot more I could read on the subject.  And I concede that war was probably inevitable.  However, what about the possibility that the Confederacy could have survived a war with a North led by Douglas?  This would allow me to start writing an Alternate History where we eventually get two American nations: one slave and one free heading into the late 19th century and eventually the 20th century.

That is when world affairs would begin to spiral in new ways.

The odds of a Confederacy surviving a war led by Douglas? Non-existent, though there wouldn't be an anti-slavery amendment.

Douglas in power means the upper south, at worst, goes to the same status as otl Kentucky. Kentucky remains Union outright.

The Confederacy gets crushed, easily.

And, of course, all that ignores that with Douglas elected, there would be no Confederacy.

Hmm.  I see how a smaller Confederacy, especially without a Virginia, for instance, would be much more vulnerable.  However, a U.S. with slavery lasting much longer?  That is almost as interesting as having two Americas.  

So, under the USA without a 13, 14, 15th amendment, we have greater states rights, I imagine.  

Would slavery have "died on the vine"?  If it did, I bet we would still have had some sort of Apartheid or Jim Crow system, but it might have extended into the far west, as well as the deep South.  

If slavery didn't die -- there would have been a lot of friction with the free labor forces: unions and the like.  

I am still looking for a way for a Douglas victory to leave some change in the U.S. that would have an impact on the 20th century.  For instance, an earlier intervention in World War I, for instance -- before Russia crumbled.

Should have worded that better - there would not have been such an amendment passed at the same time as otl - it'd have taken longer, but still happened. Same goes for all those other ones.

"State's rights" is a concept that really does not, nor did it ever, exist. It's a "concept" that Confederate apologists try to convince the rest of the planet that the ACW was about - not true whatsoever, of course. Slavery was the cause, without question.

Slavery was more or less dying by the time of the ACW. Only in areas of the Deep South was it viable anymore - the Upper South, in many ways, served as "breeding farms." Nor was it remotely an option in the west - just not profitable in nay way, shape, or form.

..."Jim Crow" was in place through the entire country, just in two mildly different forms.

There isn't a way for him to win. For that matter, if he did become president, then WWI as we know it doesn't happen.

I know I haven't won you over to my position, but I would really like to know why you would agree with me that IF Douglas had won, "then WWI as we know it doesn't happen."  What are your reasons for saying that?

Thanks

Was kind of obvious that the anon post was you - you don't need to remove your posts like that.

As for your question, it's called the Butterfly Effect. Simple as that.

OK.  Thanks on both counts.