DBWI: Liberia declares independence from the US
- Thread starter Nagisaki
- Start date
OOC: It's OK, you can go back into the "Before 1900" menu and double-click on the thread title to edit it. No harm in doing it.
OOC: thanks, didn't know that. Note to self: always check the features before starting a thread.
Yuelang
Banned
Could the Independence of Liberia caused Americans to undergo Civil War instead?
I know this is near ASB, but without Liberia to sent their Black Slaves and get manumission bond (periodic payment financed by Liberian taxes), The Southren Slaveowners will clash with Northren Abolitionists (who still decry manumission bond program as merely moving Slave Plantations from America to Africa, at least they are not cotton but foodstuffs)
I know this is near ASB, but without Liberia to sent their Black Slaves and get manumission bond (periodic payment financed by Liberian taxes), The Southren Slaveowners will clash with Northren Abolitionists (who still decry manumission bond program as merely moving Slave Plantations from America to Africa, at least they are not cotton but foodstuffs)
Interesting question: Liberia was not only the first U.S. Associated Commonwealth, but also functioned as a critical safety valve. I mean, yes, the sad side effect was that slavery was not eliminated until 1890(and some of that was due to economics; it was beginning to hurt the nation's finances.), but if Liberia had been independent, could there have been a civil war after all?(Victor Sobel seems to think so.)
Here's one POD I can think of-James K. Polk wins the election of 1844. That not only means no Liberia, in all likelihood, but quite probably no war with Mexico, either; remember, Polk's only objective at that time, other than Texas, was to go for Oregon; California did not personally interest him, and quite a few slaveowners did not want to war with Mexico for a territory which would almost certainly become a free state, when Texas was already available.
OOC: No problem, this is an interesting topic IMHO.
IC: Also, another question I've had: What might have become of the famed Supreme Court Justice Abraham Lincoln? Might he have remained a Senator, or even become President(like in my favorite collab AH TL from the '90s, America!)?
OOC: No problem, this is an interesting topic IMHO.
IC: Also, another question I've had: What might have become of the famed Supreme Court Justice Abraham Lincoln? Might he have remained a Senator, or even become President(like in my favorite collab AH TL from the '90s, America!)?
Doubtful. No U.S. President has ever worn a beard, and Lincoln for whatever reason was very attached to his facial hair.
Anthony J. Roosevelt from New Jersey did come *very* close to winning in 1948, though; true, his beard was more of a goatee than a full-on beard, but still, people didn't care so much about personal appearances anymore at that point: it was his poor performance in the Dallas, Texas debate in late October that sunk him.
OOC: Think of Mr. Roosevelt as an ATL son of Teddy Roosevelt.....also, I'm not convinced that not electing a Prez with facial hair would be anything other than a historical coincidence after a certain point.
Lets keep this on topic guys.
Anyway, I do think Polk winning is a good start, after all Clay was a leading figure in the early ACS and so had a vested interest in making it work. I think a worse early settlement period would be another option, tensions between ACS men and the Freemen were nearly at a boiling point for a while.
Anyway, I do think Polk winning is a good start, after all Clay was a leading figure in the early ACS and so had a vested interest in making it work. I think a worse early settlement period would be another option, tensions between ACS men and the Freemen were nearly at a boiling point for a while.
But why would the USA not support them.
Anyways, I doubt whether we would still see US colonialism in Africa. They might get Congo though. The USA was denied Congo in OTL, and both Britain and France wanted it too, andand the Congo went to Sweden as a compromise. It could be that the USA takes Swedens role in this TL.
Anyways, I doubt whether we would still see US colonialism in Africa. They might get Congo though. The USA was denied Congo in OTL, and both Britain and France wanted it too, andand the Congo went to Sweden as a compromise. It could be that the USA takes Swedens role in this TL.
OOC: Why would the U.S. be involved in African colonialism?
IC: That was an interesting trade. Of course, even under President Parker*, the Congo venture was really only half-serious, and mainly only supported by corporate types who wanted as many extra sources of profit as possible; and guess what happened when that fell through? It touched off the Crash of 1901.
OOC: *Alton B. Parker, btw.