If The South Never Rises

In Discussions of The American Civil War, I am Often Struck by The Sheer Incompatibility ...

Of a South Strong Enough to Actually Win The War, Seceding in The First Place!

So, I was Left Wondering:

What would it Take to Butterfly Away The Conflict ...

Leaving The Southern States Confident Enough to Try their Luck, within The Union ...

Perhaps Simply a Unified Democratic Party, Not Split Along Regional Lines, or am I being Too Naive?

My thoughts:

John Fredrick Parker said:

No Kansas-Nebraska Act likely would keep the Union together, at least for a good time (extension of a decade or so would be very conservative, I think).

Also helpful might be keeping Zachary Taylor alive, which would not only prevent the Fugitive Slave Act (meaning less mobilized anti-slavery forces in the North) and possibly a more settled question of slavery in the Mexican territories, but likely a Whig President (Taylor himself) elected in 1852, which also prevents the KNA. Other potential PoDs that might help are John Brown dying during his raid, and, to a lesser degree, a less sweeping Dred Scott

If Lincoln doesn't win in 1860, the secession crisis as we know it doesn't happen -- mind you, that doesn't come close to solving the underlying problems, but it does kick the can down the road, giving the US time to unwind the crisis (or make it worse, which TBT is more likely).

Click to expand...

Making it Worse, is Part of What I was Wondering about ...

I Mean, Lincoln May Not have been Popular in The South, But he was No John C. Frémont ...

What I'd Really Like to Know, However, is What would Make The Southern States Feel Like they Still had a Voice, and What would be The Repercussions of That?

Keep the Senate balanced, an official compromise that states must enter the Union in slave/free pairs.

Find a way to repeal the Constitution's ban on the slave trade, probable need a convention for that.

Perhaps my "Electoral Reform in 1820" goes through.

If each Congressional district has an electoral vote, then Lincoln could fall short of the necessary 152. Then, in all probability, you get Breckinridge elected in the HoR.

After that, of course, it depends what happens in 1864 et seq. But the free-state victory in Kansas is beyond Breck's power to reverse. It is probably admitted in a "pair" with New Mexico, and conceivably expanded to include all or most of OTL's Nebraska, so putting off the next free state for a good many years. At the same time, NY in particular seems to have become notably less Republican during the 1860s, so the Dems' chances may be better at the next few elections.

There could still be wrangling over "sojourn" and related matters, but this at least defuses things to some degree..

Note the Slave owners HAD ALWAYS had substantial representation and in fact got most of their wishes until 1860.

Mikestone8 said:

Perhaps my "Electoral Reform in 1820" goes through.

If each Congressional district has an electoral vote, then Lincoln could fall short of the necessary 152. Then, in all probability, you get Breckinridge elected in the HoR.

After that, of course, it depends what happens in 1864 et seq. But the free-state victory in Kansas is beyond Breck's power to reverse. It is probably admitted in a "pair" with New Mexico, and conceivably expanded to include all or most of OTL's Nebraska, so putting off the next free state for a good many years. At the same time, NY in particular seems to have become notably less Republican during the 1860s, so the Dems' chances may be better at the next few elections.

There could still be wrangling over "sojourn" and related matters, but this at least defuses things to some degree..

Click to expand...

Never Thought I'd See a District-Based Electoral Vote, whose Likely Results I could Actually Stomach ...

But was The Generation before The Civil War, Really as Blundering as Revisionist Historians have Argued ...

Or, was Lincoln Right about The Country, Not being Able to be Both Slave and Free?

Derek Jackson said:

Note the Slave owners HAD ALWAYS had substantial representation and in fact got most of their wishes until 1860.

Click to expand...

Which is Why I Wonder if Averting The Civil War, is Really going to have Consequences Much Different than The Mixed Results of The Reconstruction Era ...

Is The Recovery of a Generation, Maimed and Killed, Actually going to Lead to a Gradual End to Slavery?

ZaphodBeeblebrox said:

Never Thought I'd See a District-Based Electoral Vote, whose Likely Results I could Actually Stomach ...

But was The Generation before The Civil War, Really as Blundering as Revisionist Historians have Argued ...

Click to expand...

The Southern leadership certainly was. At times they showed a distinct talent for getting it wrong.

In 1821, it was a big block of votes from Virginia, more than anything, which prevented the adoption of a district system for choosing Presidential Electors. The Virginians failed to spot that their state was fast losing its ascendancy, and that the general ticket system would open the way for a purely sectional (Northern) party to elect a POTUS.

In 1850 they pushed for the largest possible Texas, at the expense of New Mexico. The smart course would have been to extend NM as far eastward as possible, to ensure that it would eventually become a slave state.

In 1854 they secured the splitting of Kansas and Nebraska Territories. Had they not done so, they would probably have got a "Nebraska" which included Kansas as well, ie one free state instead of two.

This whole Nebraska business may also have cost them their best chance to acquire Cuba, which could have made a real slave state.

Or, was Lincoln Right about The Country, Not being Able to be Both Slave and Free?

Click to expand...

Probably right in the long run, but it might have been a longer one than he thought. The South got away with a heck of a lot in the way of convict leasing and other forms of slavery in disguise, without the North showing any particular concern. This suggests to me that, so long as they didn't have to compete directly with slave labour, northerners might have tolerated the Peculiar Institution for several generations more.

I think you'd have to go back a long ways in time to get this to come about. It wasn't as if the problems that led to the ACW popped up all of a sudden in the 1850's, they'd been brewing since before the ARW. You have to somehow get the south to be more populated so they have higher representation in the House, more industry so they are not so beholden to the northern factories, etc. Most of all, you have to stop the decades of demonization that both sides did to each other... and that's a tall order...

Dave Howery said:

I think you'd have to go back a long ways in time to get this to come about. It wasn't as if the problems that led to the ACW popped up all of a sudden in the 1850's, they'd been brewing since before the ARW. You have to somehow get the south to be more populated so they have higher representation in the House, more industry so they are not so beholden to the northern factories, etc. Most of all, you have to stop the decades of demonization that both sides did to each other... and that's a tall order...

Click to expand...

Yet as late as 1848, Zachary Taylor could carry seven free states and eight slave states - and Lewis Cass vice versa! A bit different from 1860 or even 1856.

North and south had always differed about slavery, but it was quite abruptly, in the '50s, that they got really polarised. Was that inevitable?

Mikestone8 said:

Yet as late as 1848, Zachary Taylor could carry seven free states and eight slave states - and Lewis Cass vice versa! A bit different from 1860 or even 1856.

North and south had always differed about slavery, but it was quite abruptly, in the '50s, that they got really polarised. Was that inevitable?

Click to expand...

the 1850's was when the population differences really started to matter, and the conditions that led to that started long before that. Immigrants went to the north (that's where the factory jobs were) and went out west to set up free states. The first took equality in the House away from the south, and the second threatened equality in the Senate. Not to mention, the population difference put the Presidential election squarely in the free states. So, to do away with the war, you have to address that issue somehow, which will have to be done long before the 1850s...

Dave Howery said:

the 1850's was when the population differences really started to matter, and the conditions that led to that started long before that. Immigrants went to the north (that's where the factory jobs were) and went out west to set up free states. The first took equality in the House away from the south, and the second threatened equality in the Senate. Not to mention, the population difference put the Presidential election squarely in the free states. So, to do away with the war, you have to address that issue somehow, which will have to be done long before the 1850s...

Click to expand...

Agreed - which is why I suggested a change to the electoral system in 1820/1.

Mind you there may have been an opportunity later. I understand that an Amendment to divide each state's Electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote was introduced in 1848, but I haven't found the voting figures (if indeed it came to a vote) so can't say what its chances were.

Interesting Thoughts, Both of you ...

But, What if your Musings had Managed to Come to Pass?

What Kind of World would The *Victorian Era have Brought ...

Would Slavery be Surrendered, as The Century Drew to a Close ...

Or, would it Still Darken our Own World Today, Not in The Shadows as it does, But, Right out in The Open?

ZaphodBeeblebrox said:

Interesting Thoughts, Both of you ...

But, What if your Musings had Managed to Come to Pass?

What Kind of World would The *Victorian Era have Brought ...

Would Slavery be Surrendered, as The Century Drew to a Close ...

Or, would it Still Darken our Own World Today, Not in The Shadows as it does, But, Right out in The Open?

Click to expand...

Afaics, if it were not possible for a purely Northern party to capture the White House or a Congressional majority, then emancipation would need to come in a form acceptable at least to the Border States, if not to the South proper. That probably puts it off to the turn of the century or maybe aven a bit beyond.