Always seems to be much discussion regarding the South/Confederacy if either a civil war is averted or won by the CSA, but not nearly as much speculation of how the Northern states would have developed in the 1860s-1900, had something happened in the years leading up to 1861 that allowed the couintry to have avoided war. And I am seeking opinions regarding all manner of life in the North. Economic and Industrial progress, immigration, cultural aspects of life, political and social life, etc. I will hang up and listen.
If the ACW was averted indefinitetly, how would the Northern states developed?
- Thread starter President Sam Houston
- Start date
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
Think East and West Germany, with the CSA as the less developed state both economically and in terms of political freedom, though the stream of refugees from it won't be quite as great. The distances are far greater, and the modern day travel means often aided East Germans.
Without a Great Migration you'd likely see even more Eastern and Southern European immigrants brought in as labor.
And with migration from southern states cut off, some western states would be quite different in their political culture. Imagine an Arizona where Goldwater, if he goes into politics, is elected as a moderate or even left of center as most US Jews tend to be.
For that matter, if the CSA holds onto OK Territory, imagine a California with no Okies, and thus quite a few Country musicians from Bakersfield being elsewhere. Try to imagine Blues music with no migration from the Delta to Chicago as well.
Without a Great Migration you'd likely see even more Eastern and Southern European immigrants brought in as labor.
And with migration from southern states cut off, some western states would be quite different in their political culture. Imagine an Arizona where Goldwater, if he goes into politics, is elected as a moderate or even left of center as most US Jews tend to be.
For that matter, if the CSA holds onto OK Territory, imagine a California with no Okies, and thus quite a few Country musicians from Bakersfield being elsewhere. Try to imagine Blues music with no migration from the Delta to Chicago as well.
MrP
Banned
I might be misreading the OP, old boy, but I think he's after an America that neither experiences the ACW nor a peaceful separation.
There would probably be a slower, more gradual settlement of the great plains. I find it likely that any homestead act or analog would be watered down by southern interests, in order to slow the expansion of free states. This will probably mean a bit less "middle class" immigrants from northern europe. But even without the homestead act, land is still cheap and plentiful.
In the immediate term, this will probably mean slightly more rapid urbanization on both the east coast and along the great lakes, as it would be harder for the 2nd or 3rd son to pack-up and start a homestead of his own. Those individuals, who lacked the financial means to go west, would likely try their hands at industrial jobs. The great lakes will still most likely become America's traditional industrial region, given its geography/geology. I think it is very likely that its cities will have smaller black populations, depending on when or if emancipation occurs. The threat of slave catchers will do much to dissuade too much settlement by escaped slaves, especially if Canada is just a boat ride away.
With or without the civil war, the South's agricultural economy is still on the losing side of history. While the south was not without industry, I wonder how it will emerge without the auspices of reconstruction. This could easily mean more or less industry, depending on which way the sands of history go.
In the immediate term, this will probably mean slightly more rapid urbanization on both the east coast and along the great lakes, as it would be harder for the 2nd or 3rd son to pack-up and start a homestead of his own. Those individuals, who lacked the financial means to go west, would likely try their hands at industrial jobs. The great lakes will still most likely become America's traditional industrial region, given its geography/geology. I think it is very likely that its cities will have smaller black populations, depending on when or if emancipation occurs. The threat of slave catchers will do much to dissuade too much settlement by escaped slaves, especially if Canada is just a boat ride away.
With or without the civil war, the South's agricultural economy is still on the losing side of history. While the south was not without industry, I wonder how it will emerge without the auspices of reconstruction. This could easily mean more or less industry, depending on which way the sands of history go.
We are assuming there is compromise regarding slavery that everyone can live with correct? the Union stays together and Slavery is gradualyy ended?
I think a lot of what you are asking comes down how slavery is wound down in the US. I think you will see a US with similar immigration levels. Politics we may not see the rise of the Republican Party. If the Whigs don't fracture over slavery we could see Whigs V Democrats till the 1900s. Any situation like this will see the maintenance of isolation but reduction in Tariffs so Agricultural goods coming from a gradually manumitted South will be able to gain traction in the global market. I think industrialization will be sporadic with 1870s levels reached in the 1880s or 90s, without the ACW to spurn factory development it will be slower. Govt. finance will be even slower to develop and regulation of business will proceed slowly and will probably be spurned by several more devastating panics than OTL, and a rise in radicalism, detailed below.
Culturally and Politically, I imagine that alot of politics and business will be kept in the hands of the elites. Because Politically in this TL we have developed the ability for North and South political elites to talk to each other we will see attempts to concentrate that power and marginalize the working class (regardless of skin color). So I think by the turn of 20th century we will see real Socialist politics in this country led by WASP middle and lower class populations and not the foriegners (like OTL).
Check out Oafaloaf's TL for an idea of the vision I have here.
Assuming it was inevitable that slavery would eventually be abolished, how would it happen?
without a civil war? gradual manumission most likely, with the Federal Government picking up the bill.
Perhaps cooler heads come together after bleading Kansas. Both sides place national unity over slavery expansion. Bot sides give a little.
In such a way, the North allows Kansas to be slave, and divides New Mexico into with a northern and southern half. The North is New Mexico, free and the South is Arizona, slave. All other territories are free. A contitutional ammendment prohibits the US governmet from ending slavery in states where it is already exists. The South gives up on stringent fugitive slave laws (how effective were they in the first place, and the natural child birth of slave children was more than the runaway loss). Call this the Great Compromise of 1856. This should end the expansion ofslavery debate as the rest of the nation is marked slave and free. In the Great Compromise, the tariffs are lowered.
The North and Midwest responds by rapid expansion in the west of railroads. The transcontinental railroad is started sooner. Just think of the Northerners that do not parish from the war. Lincoln or another Republican is still elected in 1860 more on other items than on slavery expansion. The republicans were for free land. What if they pass homestead laws for free land. That encourges more people to move west sooner. The Plains Indian is screwed sooner. With improved infastructure, the North is also ok for lower tarrifs. The North responds to low tariffs by expanding into new markets, Japan and China.
Also, the north will bring the textile and other industry south. As more industry is brought to Maryland and Virginia and then to Tennessee and Georgia, slavery should start to phase out on its own. A question for the South is will US cotton still out compete Egypt and India? Will Europe ever place a ban on cotton harvested with slave labor? Instead of agitating the North and South over slavery, maybe the Northrn abolitionists go after England, France, and the rest of Europe for buying cotton used with slave labor ad leave the South and the expansion of slaver alone.
In such a way, the North allows Kansas to be slave, and divides New Mexico into with a northern and southern half. The North is New Mexico, free and the South is Arizona, slave. All other territories are free. A contitutional ammendment prohibits the US governmet from ending slavery in states where it is already exists. The South gives up on stringent fugitive slave laws (how effective were they in the first place, and the natural child birth of slave children was more than the runaway loss). Call this the Great Compromise of 1856. This should end the expansion ofslavery debate as the rest of the nation is marked slave and free. In the Great Compromise, the tariffs are lowered.
The North and Midwest responds by rapid expansion in the west of railroads. The transcontinental railroad is started sooner. Just think of the Northerners that do not parish from the war. Lincoln or another Republican is still elected in 1860 more on other items than on slavery expansion. The republicans were for free land. What if they pass homestead laws for free land. That encourges more people to move west sooner. The Plains Indian is screwed sooner. With improved infastructure, the North is also ok for lower tarrifs. The North responds to low tariffs by expanding into new markets, Japan and China.
Also, the north will bring the textile and other industry south. As more industry is brought to Maryland and Virginia and then to Tennessee and Georgia, slavery should start to phase out on its own. A question for the South is will US cotton still out compete Egypt and India? Will Europe ever place a ban on cotton harvested with slave labor? Instead of agitating the North and South over slavery, maybe the Northrn abolitionists go after England, France, and the rest of Europe for buying cotton used with slave labor ad leave the South and the expansion of slaver alone.
Last edited:
Remembre the South went Bankrupt in the 1830's with the collapse of the Canal Company's.
By the 1850's the south had recovered, and had free capital to invest in development, This was stopped by the ACW that devastated the south,
It took till the 1880's for the south to recover again, and have the rise of the Cotton Barons.
Without The ACW the south would become the richest region of the Country 20 -30 years earlier that OTL. With a lot of this moneys then being invested in Northern industrialisation.
Also it must be remembered that most Middle and Upper class Northern Blacks were very opposed to the migration of Lower class uneducated Blacks into the north.
So whe will see a lot more southern money and a lot less southern blacks flowing north.
By the 1850's the south had recovered, and had free capital to invest in development, This was stopped by the ACW that devastated the south,
It took till the 1880's for the south to recover again, and have the rise of the Cotton Barons.
Without The ACW the south would become the richest region of the Country 20 -30 years earlier that OTL. With a lot of this moneys then being invested in Northern industrialisation.
Also it must be remembered that most Middle and Upper class Northern Blacks were very opposed to the migration of Lower class uneducated Blacks into the north.
So whe will see a lot more southern money and a lot less southern blacks flowing north.
David S Poepoe
Banned
There would also be some industrialization of the South. There was historically.
The settlement of the Great Plains would be interesting. Free soil usually meant land for whites free of blacks in the late 1850s. There would have to be some revision of the Fugitive Slave Act, but also held the North responsible for returning Southern property. As mentioned the tariffs would have to be revised too.
The transcontinental railroad would probably be completedly by a private company, which is likely and accomplishable. There wouldn't be any wasteful and extravagent government spending.
The settlement of the Great Plains would be interesting. Free soil usually meant land for whites free of blacks in the late 1850s. There would have to be some revision of the Fugitive Slave Act, but also held the North responsible for returning Southern property. As mentioned the tariffs would have to be revised too.
The transcontinental railroad would probably be completedly by a private company, which is likely and accomplishable. There wouldn't be any wasteful and extravagent government spending.
Hubris Incarnate
Banned
Better off whether you mean secession or avoidance of war, I think.
For one thing, they won't suffer the financial burden of war, repairing the South, or the migration of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged community in the modern USA- descendants of Southern blacks.
Indeed, rather then the North pumping money into reviving the South, it might well be the other way around as Du Quense suggested.
Further down the track, this means no significant(racial) civil rights movement in the North(due to small and relatively properous Northern black population, and presumably a continued consensus to ignore the South), which also means avoidance of the riots/poverty in big cities and the resultant "white flight". I rather suspect Detroit for example wouldn't suffer the decline it did.
On the other hand, the North would be deprived of Texan oil. But a small price to pay, paticularly if the South secedes. Just think: the USA less CSA states would basically develop into a European-style social democracy. Nothing like the modern Republican movement would exist, as the only significant conservative bloc would be the Mormon community
For one thing, they won't suffer the financial burden of war, repairing the South, or the migration of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged community in the modern USA- descendants of Southern blacks.
Indeed, rather then the North pumping money into reviving the South, it might well be the other way around as Du Quense suggested.
Further down the track, this means no significant(racial) civil rights movement in the North(due to small and relatively properous Northern black population, and presumably a continued consensus to ignore the South), which also means avoidance of the riots/poverty in big cities and the resultant "white flight". I rather suspect Detroit for example wouldn't suffer the decline it did.
On the other hand, the North would be deprived of Texan oil. But a small price to pay, paticularly if the South secedes. Just think: the USA less CSA states would basically develop into a European-style social democracy. Nothing like the modern Republican movement would exist, as the only significant conservative bloc would be the Mormon community
Thanks for all the replies. Although my POD was purposely vague, I was envisioning a fully "united" states with no southern secession, and thus no civil war. Of course, I don't believe the status quo could have been maintained much longer and so some type of great compromise would have to have come about to satisfy both the southern slavocracy and their northern counterparts. However, I don't think that in the late 1850s, that the political leadership of the southern slave states would have accepted any type of gradual manumission of slaves. So the only non ASB compromise could have been a defined expansion of slave territories restricted to southern New Mexico territory and the Indian territory. The Northern political leaders could have been persuaded to accept this, if the slave issue was off the table in Kansas, if the notion of popular sovereignty did not get passed, and the Dred Scott decision had come out differently. So throughout the 1860s and 1870s, the issue of slavery is somewhat tabled by the political leadership from both halves of the country, the Union stays together and war is averted. So what happens in the country during this period, especially in the North?
Immigration: The 1850s saw really the first decade of the great waves of immigration. In OTL, the war really disrupted the waves of immigration and immigration didn't pick back up until the 1870s. Obviously with no war, immigration in the 1860s is probably similar to the 1850s, and so the cities in the Northeast grow that much faster, as do the midwestern states like Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, and Minnesota, where there was lots of cheap farmland and where immigrants had started pouring into in the 1850s. Does the question of restrictions on immigration get raised earlier in this ATL?
Politics: With a great compromise that somehow tables the slavery issue, I don't think that we would have seen the rapid rise of the Republican party and obviously without a war, no radical Republicans. Waht party comes in to be the minority party to the Democratic party? What about the business, industry, banking, and railroad interests that were carried by the Republican party? Are they taken up by another party?
Culture: What about the status of free blacks in the North? What about abolishonists? What about the status of women? What about religion - is there another "great awakening" in America in the 1860s similar to what was taking place at that time in Britain?
Business and Industry: Without the war, does the growth of industry slow down in America? Are railroads built at the same pace?
I thank everyone for their opinions and would love to see more.
Immigration: The 1850s saw really the first decade of the great waves of immigration. In OTL, the war really disrupted the waves of immigration and immigration didn't pick back up until the 1870s. Obviously with no war, immigration in the 1860s is probably similar to the 1850s, and so the cities in the Northeast grow that much faster, as do the midwestern states like Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, and Minnesota, where there was lots of cheap farmland and where immigrants had started pouring into in the 1850s. Does the question of restrictions on immigration get raised earlier in this ATL?
Politics: With a great compromise that somehow tables the slavery issue, I don't think that we would have seen the rapid rise of the Republican party and obviously without a war, no radical Republicans. Waht party comes in to be the minority party to the Democratic party? What about the business, industry, banking, and railroad interests that were carried by the Republican party? Are they taken up by another party?
Culture: What about the status of free blacks in the North? What about abolishonists? What about the status of women? What about religion - is there another "great awakening" in America in the 1860s similar to what was taking place at that time in Britain?
Business and Industry: Without the war, does the growth of industry slow down in America? Are railroads built at the same pace?
I thank everyone for their opinions and would love to see more.
While I agree that such a US would be more to the left in many ways, I disagree about the "social democracy" or "Mormons being the only conservative bloc". Much of the Midwest and Great Plains will still probably be socially conservative, if economically leftist. The conservatives in the north developed with little connectio to modern southern ones, and I doubt they'd stop developing here. They'll certainly be changed in policy, but it would probably still be recognizable to us as, say, a "sane Republican" party(probably a little more to the left, but probably still way more conservative than many Euro conservatives).On the other hand, the North would be deprived of Texan oil. But a small price to pay, paticularly if the South secedes. Just think: the USA less CSA states would basically develop into a European-style social democracy. Nothing like the modern Republican movement would exist, as the only significant conservative bloc would be the Mormon community
Depends on what POD you're using. For example if the Jefferson Plan in 1780 passed then it would have band slavery from any future state. And with gradual emancipation in the remaining slave states then slavery might not be a problem at all by 1860. Though abolishing slavery alone may be enough to butterfly away a civil war from happening but I think it would definitely be a possibility, it certainly butterflies away THE civil war at least.
Well I don't believe that the south has ever been the richest region of the country, not even during the heady days of king cotton. While you can make a very good case for the sun belt, in the modern era, the sunbelt also includes the west coast and southwestern states which have never been culturally southern.
I go so far as to argue that in this time line, the sun belt phenomia will be butterflied away. One of the driving factors behind the rapid growth in the sunbelt was it was more or less a blank slate for development, in terms of population and infrastructure. Land was cheap, regulations were limited, and advanced modern infrastructure could be built out of whole cloth. The north during this time had to largely make due with paying for the sunk costs of the previous generations infrastructure. This expansion was super charged by billions of dollars in government spending on infrastructure, and war industries which was predominately located in the underdeveloped sun belt. This meant that the region got a head start in the manufacturing and development of high tech industries.
If the South developed on a more normal pace with the north, the conditions which led to the birth of the sunbelt wouldn't exist, because the South would have an industrial infrastructure more or less equally mature as the north.
Slavery would be on the demise, everywhere, as the underground railroad only needs to go to the US/CS border.
As for Oklahoma, its history is dependent on the 1889 land rush that would be very different if the Kansas-Oklahoma border was an international one. Ebonic music started with ragtime, then came jazz and blues. Ragtime was created by Scott Joplin in Sedalia, MO, some 60 miles east of Kansas City. The name jazz was coined in Chicago. Memphis and St. Louis both hosted the blues. Missouri's influence would keep the music on track.
Freed slaves might migrate north, encouraging more European immigration to go south. More immigration means more skilled craftsmen and more industrialization in the independent south. It took a while for the frontier to "fill up," so you might not restrict immigration until 10 or 15 years before OTL.
I disagree, IIRC No compromise with compensated Manumission was ever discussed pre-1860 (at least not as a political debate, maybe in Newspapers, bars, or at the Constitutional Convention, etc. Never in Senate chambers). I think if the terms are generous you could get something through; but I will agree for the sake of your scenario
I think the Whigs will be discredited in the upper midwest (Iowa, Illinois, Ohio) and you get the Republicans as usual. I think a lot of abolitionist and northern intellectuals feel the Whigs are done because of this compromise and bolt and form the Republicans similar to OTL. In addition the Whigs continue to dwindle because and may hang on the NE for awhile but should be gone as a party by the 1868 election. Therefore the Democrats and the Republicans will be fighting for farm votes in the Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, ITTL Dakota, Montana, Colorado etc) These will be the battlegrounds and I bet the R's win this one b/c they didn't compromise on slavery ( I am betting by the '72 election there will be international pressure to do away with the system) or on the tariffs which are hurting American grain and beef exports. In the N.E. (NY, PA, New England) there Republicans will be taking command because of the concerns about exports and the effects on the shipping industry. The North becomes increasingly interested in compromising an end to slavery and the South which is beginning to see the economical impossibility as well as the strengthening position of Northern industry will seek some sort of financial remedy.
Immigration: The 1850s saw really the first decade of the great waves of immigration. In OTL, the war really disrupted the waves of immigration and immigration didn't pick back up until the 1870s. Obviously with no war, immigration in the 1860s is probably similar to the 1850s, and so the cities in the Northeast grow that much faster, as do the midwestern states like Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, and Minnesota, where there was lots of cheap farmland and where immigrants had started pouring into in the 1850s. Does the question of restrictions on immigration get raised earlier in this ATL?[/QUOTE?]
Immigration is a sticky question. I think that you will end up with compensated manumission allowing the plantations to mechanize (as much as possible, I know nothing about 19th century farm tech) their operations. eventually they will have to accept the fact that they will have to pay their former free workforce. I think immigration levels will be reduced because the govt. feels it doesn't need the upheaval (I doubt this is said explicitly but it is understood by the parties involved) and the debate of immigration between the entrepenurial North and the xenophobic South; both of which have there own reasons for/against immigration. This stunts industry but I think the freed slaves will see salavation and an opportunity in filling the homesteads of the Great Plains, possibly this is part of the compromise (for instance, US govt. buys slaves, pays owners and then uses slaves to fill midwest and eventually say around 1900, the Northern industry and Southern Farming comes together and starts allowing Northern Europeans in as labor i.e. Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Irish)
I think you end up with a Republican analogue regardless (they will call themselves Republicans too, I will for the purpose of this post
Good question, Free Northern Blacks will stomach the compromise and will be ecstatic that their brethern will be sent west and not brought north. I think Abolitionists will agitate for Europe to take a stand and we will see Embargo Threats and high tariffs. I DONT think we will get a shooting war but the first, to my knowledge, trade war btw American and Indian Cotton will exist. How much of the religious awakening was related to the ACW and the Crimean Wars respectively? War makes you find g-d.
I think industrialization slows down. Yes there is more capital but that will have to be used for compensated Manumission (this is the only way slavery will end without a war). As a result, business is stunted but then picks up after the 1880s to 1890s and the trans-national railways get going (the first will probably be southern to help transport the slaves to their new homes). As I stated earlier before the Northern Industry and Southern Agriculture will be starved for workers because of the exodus (forced? possible bordering on probable) to the Great plains by ex-slaves and so the North and South will begin allowing Northern Europeans in to take the place of OTL sharecroppers (south) and OTL meatpackers, matchmakers, steelworkers etc. (north).
Northern vs. Southern industrial development will be interesting. I think development becomes much more even and we will see Birmingham become a major steel center (just like TL-191), and Atlanta will be a southern Financial center (b/c of rails and cotton exchanges). New Orleans will be the major import/export center for the south.
As I stated before I think because of the compromise that has to be reached, this country will be much more elitist because of an overriding desire to maintain the status quo. So Progressivism will become much more forceful and more interracial when it comes on to the scene in the 1910s-20s, probably more violent as well. (for my vision of this Militant Progressivism read Oafaloaf's War of the Classes, set in the 1870s but this is what could happen in the 1910s-20s).
Your Welcome
Why would immigrates move to America specifically to engage in sharecropping, especially when industrial jobs or high quality European like farmland lies for the taking north of the mason Dixon line? I don't think an aristocratic, largely agrian south will bring in to many European immigrants. That being said, Mexico might be a good source pf migratory farm workers if the slaves get sent out west...
Without the ACW, there will be no action on slavery on a national level - for more than a generation, probably forever. However, slavery can and will be abolished on the state level - the South is not a monolithic bloc, and the Confederacy was created at probably the point in its history when the South was most united. Maryland and Delaware would have gone with immediate and probably uncompensated emancipation during the 1860s without an ACW; slavery had ceased to be profitable there and popular support for it was low. Missouri will also emancipate during the 1860s, uncompensated, but gradual rather than immediate (basically, Missouri slaveholders have 5 years to sell all their slaves to out of state buyers). I would peg Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1870s and Arkansas and Virginia in the 1880s. KY, TN and AR will probably go with the Missouri model; Virginia will be different, because it's the first state with large numbers of slaves and slaveholders capable of mustering popular support for their position. Virginia does gradual compensated manumission, and the expense is enough to break the VA state government for a generation or two. With that example, the remaining 8 slave states probably aren't going to be interested in manumission soon - they may not abolish it until the early 20th century. But basically, "State's Rights" is not the same as "Slavery Forever", and abolition will march on even if the Democrats retain control of the national government indefinitely. Private foundations in the North set up to pay for manumission in the remaining 8 may be a necessary feature, and a potentially fascinating precedent.
With no ACW, we see a hiccup in immigration I think; anti-immigrant agitation was a large and nasty part of local politics in the Northeast during the late 1850s and early 1860s, until suddenly everyone had something more important to worry about. Immigration is likely to see a slight overall drop, with new immigrants headed to the Northwest (by which I mean Ohio, Illinois and the like) because they are limited and unwelcome for a while in New York and New England.
With no ACW, we see a hiccup in immigration I think; anti-immigrant agitation was a large and nasty part of local politics in the Northeast during the late 1850s and early 1860s, until suddenly everyone had something more important to worry about. Immigration is likely to see a slight overall drop, with new immigrants headed to the Northwest (by which I mean Ohio, Illinois and the like) because they are limited and unwelcome for a while in New York and New England.
Internationally isolated from the North, the South would be more inclined to industrialize, creating a demand for skilled labor and European craftsmen. Some of the less skilled might go to farming, but they would be the people who settled the Northern farms in OTL.