No US Civil War

MrHola

Banned
Is there any way the American Civil War can be prevented? With prevention, I mean that southern states voluntarily stay in the Union. One way to reach that is to prevent Lincoln from becoming President. Maybe if Seward get's the Republican Nomination instead of Lincoln. But then what? What are the consequences for Latin America? And what about slavery?
 
I believe that in 1860 Seward was seen by many as at least as radical as Lincoln. His election would not have prevented the Civil War.
 
Hmmm after some reasearch ACW's casulities are equaled by American troops in WWI, WWII, KW, VW This could really screw up world history.
 
In 1802 the Governor of the Indiana Territory, william Henry Harrison organized a convention to ask Congress to repeal or suspend the anti-slavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance. congress' response was, "at the very momenmt that the progress of reason and general benevolence is consigning slavery to its merited destination...must the Territory of Indiana take a retrograde step into barbarism?" The petition was denied.

To avoid the Civil War, more people need to arrive at the conclusion that slavery is barbaric and belongs in the dustbin of history. There would also need to be some economic changes made in farming and changes made in the hearts and minds of people regarding people of color (Africans, Indians and Asians).
 
There was actually talk about abolishing slavery as early as Jefferson's time in office. The problem there was that Eli Whitney's cotton gin really started to come into widespread use, thus making cotton a major crop.

There was one obvious solution to the issue of slavery: The federal government buys up all the slaves and sets them free. There was enough in the federal budget to do so and with westward expansion, they could have given familes the 40 acres and a mule.
 
Easy, prevent the part of the Constitution that prohibit Congress from legislating on slavery from being passed. Once that's done, you'll likely see slavery die a legal death in the very early years of the 19th century, likely as cra describes (it may, in fact, be the first thing on the Federal government's list of things to do after they get their finances in order and pay off loans).
 
With the flash of my hand I can probably prevent the civil war.

The Boll Weevil, which feeds primarily on the cotton plant devestated south crops in the early 1900's. Say in 1830 something, maybe even 40's or late 50's, the Weevil is transported to say New Orleans.

From there is spreads and by say 1858 it is ravaging all the primary cotton growing areas, and almost single handedly destroying the economies of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Because no pesticides exsists then, large scale plantation cropping simply is no longer fesible. If it's not profitable, there certainly is no incentive to go to war and die for slavery like in OTL when slavery was the foundation of peoples livelihoods.

If the Civil War is prevented, maybe civil rights isn't as big of a deal. That one is always hard to predict, would racism and jim crow laws exsist to their extent if hundreds of thousands of ancestors hadn't died in a civil war based around African American slaves? I say it would, but probably not to the huge extent it is today. Their certainley would segregation and anti-black voting laws after a large scale freeing of the slaves. But who knows where they go from there.

You also have to remember that slaves weren't all on plantations. What of the slaves working the cattle trails of Texas? The homes of the rich in New Orleans and Charleston? The Tobbacco crops of Virginia? The Boll Weevil didn't detroy their industires, while a widespread desire to see slave states spread across the west would diminsh, it wouldn't go out entirely and who knows how long until slavery is offically throw out by the states themselves, 1870's? 1880's? I could see some diehards holding out until the 1890's!.

Looking past slavery and civil rights though, suddenly thousands upon thousands of Americans aren't dead. I see the west populating faster, I see a modern American population around 400-500 million instead of 300 million. Industrialization and nationalism probably begin earlier and I could see an earlier Spanish-American War, probably in the 1880's instead of 1898. Does this mean the US to this day would own Cuba and the Phillippines, probably not but maybe. Maybe the US goes to war with another dumb power for no good reason? Maybe the US establishes colonies in the race for Africa? Maybe the US gets involved in world politics earlier and finds itself in WWI from the onset. I don't see US involvment hurrying the defeat of Germany and Austria and I certainley don't see them getting involved in the Russian Civil War more than they did, so more than likely the timeline would revert back to what we have today.

Then again im rambling so what do i know:p
 
Is there any way the American Civil War can be prevented? With prevention, I mean that southern states voluntarily stay in the Union. One way to reach that is to prevent Lincoln from becoming President. Maybe if Seward get's the Republican Nomination instead of Lincoln. But then what? What are the consequences for Latin America? And what about slavery?

The rift between North and South existed since America's very beginnings. It was by constant negotiation and compromise that the nation was held together for so long. By the time Lincoln was elected it was probably already too late for peace. To prevent the nation from being aflame by 1860 you need to stomp out the sparks earlier on. The two previous presidents (Buchanan and Pierce) basically lacked the will to stomp out the sparks.

I think a good POD would be in 1852. Have Cass nominated instead of Pierce (Cass was the strongest candidate). Cass was a military man who strongly believed in the union. He would not have allowed Bloody Kansas to have taken place, he would have kept forts in the South better manned and supplied. On the flip side he would also use troops against any violent abolitionist. If Cass was in power for eight years then the North and South would probably have continued to settle their differences through non-violent means.

----

Avoiding Bloody Kansas might be enough to prevent the ACW. So other PODs could be to get rid of David Atchison somehow - he was a primary instigator of the tragedy. Or you could have railroads decide to invest in the southern route instead of the northern rout. Railroads going via the northern rout are a major reason Nebraska and Kansas were advanced into states so early.
 
There was actually talk about abolishing slavery as early as Jefferson's time in office.

If you try and get rid of slavery in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, or some early time like that, you will probably prevent the US from having a strong federal government and end up with the nation split in two very soon.
 

MrHola

Banned
Thanks for the suggestions, everybody. But what about foreign policy? I assume that Benito Juarez stays President of Mexico because the US isn't distracted by the Civil War and manages to threaten Napoleon III with the Monroe Doctrine.
Any other suggestions?
 

Hapsburg

Banned
With regards to Big Tex's point- the thing about the possibility of American Nationalism forming earlier than OTL, is that the Civil War was really the beginning of full-on nationalism. It was the threat of the nation falling apart that forced states on the Union side to think of themselves less and less as autonomous, individual entities, and more as integral parts of a national machine. When that happened, the people followed, and American nationalism began in full, and the War was the catalyst.

Remove that catalyst, and you ain't got much of an American Nationalism thing going.
 
Nat Turner is trampled by a horse, bitten by a snake, dies of food poisoning, or decides for some other reason not to start his rebellion.

In the early thirties a coalition of small tobacco farmers and industrials manages to pass a bill which demands a gradual emancipation. The other states of the upper south view this experiment with interest, the states of the deep south with alarm.

Virgina gets industrialised more quickly than IOTL, this results in a great demand of workers, so many of the freed blacks find work, and racial tension are kept low. As the "experiment" works quite well, Maryland and Delaware beginn to consider similar laws.

As the mexican war beginns, many freed blacks enlist. Virgina decides to create mixed regiments, first this creates some promblems, but during the it became obvious that the blacks aren't worse soldiers than whites. And fighting together let people forget about things like the coulor of skin.
The war ends like IOTL, but many important persons like Robert E. Lee are impressed at how well the mixed regiments worked and slavery loses further support.

After the War Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey enact laws similar to the one of Virginia, ending slavery in these states.

In Texas where only few slaves lived anyway and people still remeber the black troops which fought for them also passes a bill ending slavery. This is a major setback for the remainig slave states which hoped to spread slavery to the west.

Over the next decade, Kentucky and Missouri pass legislation which end Slavery in these states.

Due to all this new free states, Kansas is (mostly) peacfully addmitted as a free state.
Shortly after this Florida passes anti-slavery acts.

After this slavery perists only in the states were it is very profitable. It is likely to stay there for the following decades - although Tennesse which had a abolitionist east could maybe abolish slavery. But when King Cotton is dethroned slavery will fade away there too.
 
I don't remeber where I read these three things, but just after the first states seceded, Seward proposed to Lincoln to provoke a war with France, or Austria, or somebody, and use the war to unify the nation. Delays but not solves problem. Also, someone proposed that Constitution be changed to make for two presidents, one from North and one from South, each looks out for regional interests, do foreign policy together, kinda like Austria-Hungary. Third, there was some law proposed just before war forever banning slaver above certain latitute, and forever protecting below. Died b/c Lincoln said "It would amount to a perpetual declaration of war on all peoles b/t Rio Grande and Tierra del Fuego." If it had worked, maybe Us own all Western Hemisphere?
 
It would have come anyhow. I really personally believe that the Civil War ideas began in 1776. It was just gonna happen.
 
It would have come anyhow. I really personally believe that the Civil War ideas began in 1776. It was just gonna happen.

it was before 1776, there was always a rift between the south and the north. Remember is took alot of convicing for the southern states to even join the revoltuion, they were mostly loyalist. What would be interesting is if they didn't join, maybe the south is a big British colony and America is a small regional republic comprising of New England, the southern Great Lakes area, the tidewater-chespeake, and the plains until the Mississippi. Maybe there would be more than two Anglo-American wars in our history.
 

Glen

Moderator
Thanks for the suggestions, everybody. But what about foreign policy? I assume that Benito Juarez stays President of Mexico because the US isn't distracted by the Civil War and manages to threaten Napoleon III with the Monroe Doctrine.
Any other suggestions?


Perhaps, perhaps....certainly we see it resisted on the part of the US. Hmmm....the Franco-American War of Mexican Independence?:rolleyes:
 
The rift between North and South existed since America's very beginnings. It was by constant negotiation and compromise that the nation was held together for so long. By the time Lincoln was elected it was probably already too late for peace. To prevent the nation from being aflame by 1860 you need to stomp out the sparks earlier on. The two previous presidents (Buchanan and Pierce) basically lacked the will to stomp out the sparks.

I think a good POD would be in 1852. Have Cass nominated instead of Pierce (Cass was the strongest candidate). Cass was a military man who strongly believed in the union. He would not have allowed Bloody Kansas to have taken place, he would have kept forts in the South better manned and supplied. On the flip side he would also use troops against any violent abolitionist. If Cass was in power for eight years then the North and South would probably have continued to settle their differences through non-violent means.

----

Avoiding Bloody Kansas might be enough to prevent the ACW. So other PODs could be to get rid of David Atchison somehow - he was a primary instigator of the tragedy. Or you could have railroads decide to invest in the southern route instead of the northern rout. Railroads going via the northern rout are a major reason Nebraska and Kansas were advanced into states so early.


There is no way in hell the railroads are going to invest in a southern route rathern then a northern one barring PODs that give the South far more cities. If you are a railroad tycoon would you rather go between large cities or go between plantations?
 
Top