"A House Divided": USA without a Civil War TL

(Another thing I have to go research . Geez, who would have thought that working on an involved timeline would be so much research. )
I never studied as hard in College as I have when writing a time line.
While the Irish Exclusion act was fairly mild compared to later ones, it did pave the way for the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese Exclusion Act, and the Slavic Exclusion Act. These acts have kept the culture of America to its Northern European roots, and have played a major role in shaping American culture today.
This means that the great emmigration from Italy and east Europe will go into Mexico and South America,
IOTL Argentina got almost as many Itailians as the US. ITTL Argentina will be #1, with Brazil or Mexico being second,
You are also going to get a lot more europeans into Africa.

With the US taking Cuba in the 1870's, the Phillipines will be left out on a long limb, waiting for some European power to cut it off.

With Mexico declaring bankruptcy in the late 1850's, Europe will be slow to reinvest, there.
but with the US closing off, Europe will slowing start back into reinvesting.
Espesically as the closing America becomes a less attractive investment .
Probally about the time the first waves of eastern European Immigrants arrive. in Mexico.
1. Slavery is not economically viable as machines become invented and cheap labor is more economically sound to the employer than slavery. (this was shown in the decision of displaced southern farmers in Brazil which had slavery choosing cheap labor over slaves for their plantations in Americana)
There is a big debate over the ecomony viability of Slavery, and Industrialization
But Slavery is not about ecomonic viability, but is about control of your labor force,
Which is why slavery today is concentrated in Sweatshops, Domestic workers, and The White Slave trade.
The United States would be split into two “Economic Unions”, one Northern, and one Southern. Each economic union would be independent from the other, and able to raise tariffs to their own satisfaction. The unions would have no tariffs with each other, but with outside powers they would set their own rates and import duties. These import duties would be set by two new Senate committees made up of Senators from their respective states.
In the 1780's Shippers would sent their products into Roade Island, or Delaware, who had no Tariffs, from there it would be summgled into New York, Pennsylvania, Conneticut, and Massucessut, who did have tarriffs.
This was boosting the small states ecomonies, and ports, while killing the large states ports, [& tariff revenue]
Unless there is a Tariff wall between the two EU's for Foreign Goods, this will happen again.
Even so i would expect a lot of Smuggling.
In Baltimore, strikers marched through the city. Worried by the demonstration, the mayor called for the National Guard, which arrived on the fifth day of the strike. The crowd threw stones at the soldiers, and the soldiers responded with gunfire. After it was done, 4 men died, and 15 were injured.
No National Guard, this should be Marysland State Militia.
Also Forrest would not have to raise a privite milita for his fillibusting in Cuba, as the southern states would send their State Militia.
These are not subject to Federal control.
There is no US Army to stop them, nor OTL would there be till Spainish American war.
The Army of the United States has not been vastly enlarged due to an ACW, and is mostly stationed in the Great Plains engaged in the Indian Wars.
The Federal Government has not been enlarged and unified by an ACW,
So whe are still the United States and not the United States.
People are still Citizens of the States
Pass ports still read --Citizen of [name of State] in the United States.
Post ACW they began to read Citizen of the United States.
1861
Russia:

February - Serfdom is abolished in Russia.
1862 after a revolt by the serfs againt the abolishishing of serfdom, serfdom is reimposed.

While whe today regard Serfdom as having the Peasants tied to the land,
From the 1860 Russian Serfs viewpoint, It was a matter of the Land being tied to them.
They revolted believing something like the Scottish clearances where about to happen.
 
Last edited:

maverick

Banned
Maximilian as King of Spain! I love that...it was actually one of the things I used to do in my 19th century TLs...

I do wish this was continued though...
 
Mexican civil War
There was no War till after the French tried to impose Maximilian in ?1863?.

England, France & Spain met in London in Octobre 1860 [pre POD] and agreed to coordinate their response to the Mexican Debt Crisis.

The Mexican Church had no Money to be confiscated, as it had already been spent paying for the 1820's debt Crisis,


Santo Dominga
IIRC Dominga Had requested the Spanish reannex Them. This gets around the Monroe Doctrine.
Course Santo Dominga had also asked the US to Annex them. [All part of a internal political power play] never expecting either to really do it.

Remembre with out the Civil war, the "Army of the United States" [no US Army yet]is a small profession Group of less than 50.000, organized for Indian Fighting on the Frontier.

?What does Haiti do about this invasion next door? It can't complain Diplomatically as the US didn't recognize its independence from France.
[OTL the US didn't recognize Haiti till 1865, after the Civil War was over.]
 
People want this continued?

I'll see what I can do. Now that I'm at Uni, there are lots of resources to look at.
 
If you do chose to continue the TL, you might consider revising this point:

1867 was the turning point for the American republic. The seventh year of President Seward's presidency, this year would see the passage of the Economic and Tariff Act of 1867, one of the most important pieces of legislature of the time.

The United States would be split into two “Economic Unions”, one Northern, and one Southern. Each economic union would be independent from the other, and able to raise tariffs to their own satisfaction. The unions would have no tariffs with each other, but with outside powers they would set their own rates and import duties. These import duties would be set by two new Senate committees made up of Senators from their respective states
Such a proposal at the very least comes close to being unconstitutional. IMO it's blatantly so for the following reasons:

1) Article I, Section 9: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." It'd be hard to argue that a tariff is not a regulation of commerce or revenue. Saying that goods entering one state would have a different price than goods entering another is the essence of your plan and contradicts this pillar of the Constitution.

2) Article I, Section 7: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." In the 19th Century, the tariff was one of the primary mechanisms by which the US Gov't raised revenue. And in any case "bills for raising Revenue" has consistently been interpreted to mean any form of taxation. Hence, the Senate couldn't be given the task of setting tariff rates.

3) Furthermore, even if you had a committee of the House perform the task, the committee couldn't set those rates without referring the matter for confirmation by the whole House (and thus the Senate and the President). Congress can't legislate away its authority to make laws.

There are other reasons which would make such a plan impracticable, beyond any notion of constitutionality: say item X carries a 50% tariff in the "Northern Union" but only a 10% tariff in the "Southern Union." A merchant in Boston could easily contract with a merchant in Charleston to import item X through Charleston harbor (and thus pay only a 10% tariff) with the promise that the Boston merchant will then buy the goods from the Charleston merchant at a price above what that merchant could get in Carolina, but below the rate produced by the tariff in Boston. In other words, unless you can impose a tariff between the two unions, the differential tariff rates only encourage merchants to game the system and thus destroy any reason for it.

The flipside of these objections is that such a plan would be a very neat solution to the very prickly problem of the tariff and the entrenched northern and southern interests for and against it.
 
Last edited:
If you do chose to continue the TL, you might consider revising this point:

Such a proposal at the very least comes close to being unconstitutional. IMO it's blatantly so for the following reasons:

1) Article I, Section 9: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." It'd be hard to argue that a tariff is not a regulation of commerce or revenue. Saying that goods entering one state would have a different price than goods entering another is the essence of your plan and contradicts this pillar of the Constitution.

2) Article I, Section 7: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." In the 19th Century, the tariff was one of the primary mechanisms by which the US Gov't raised revenue. And in any case "bills for raising Revenue" has consistently been interpreted to mean any form of taxation. Hence, the Senate couldn't be given the task of setting tariff rates.

3) Furthermore, even if you had a committee of the House perform the task, the committee couldn't set those rates without referring the matter for confirmation by the whole House (and thus the Senate and the President). Congress can't legislate away its authority to make laws.

There are other reasons which would make such a plan impracticable, beyond any notion of constitutionality: say item X carries a 50% tariff in the "Northern Union" but only a 10% tariff in the "Southern Union." A merchant in Boston could easily contract with a merchant in Charleston to import item X through Charleston harbor (and thus pay only a 10% tariff) with the promise that the Boston merchant will then buy the goods from the Charleston merchant at a price above what that merchant could get in Carolina, but below the rate produced by the tariff in Boston. In other words, unless you can impose a tariff between the two unions, the differential tariff rates only encourage merchants to game the system and thus destroy any reason for it.

The flipside of these objections is that such a plan would be a very neat solution to the very prickly problem of the tariff and the entrenched northern and southern interests for and against it.

Thanks,

I had thought that it was unconstitutional, but I wasn't sure. I'll have to rework it some, in order to fix those problems.

Income tax or sales tax 50 years early? (;))
 
Top