Your first border state to give up Slavery will be Delaware. the Marysland debate will be lead by he Western 3 counties, which would spill over into western Virginia, leading to a debate over West Virginia. I see the west Virginia Succession movement being put down, but at a political cost of Virginia moving toward the Abolishist position. this woll upset the other southern states and push them to supporting the flibuster moves in the Carribean
"A House Divided": USA without a Civil War TL
- Thread starter Kidblast
- Start date
Salmon P. Chase, a runner-up at the 1860 convention, former Democrat, and Treasury Secretary under Lincoln could work.
Already have him as the opposition candidate. Maybe Simon Cameron of Pennslyvania?
Some background info that I thought was important....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Economy of the 1860s
As the 60’s continued it was apparent that the economic trends of the 50’s continued. Despite the contraction of 1862 – 1863, the agriculture of the South was marked by the monocultures of cotton, rice, and sugar. Tobacco and hemp production already declining declined further over the next ten years. Hemp production almost became non-existent in Kentucky, where in earlier years it had been a valuable cash crop. This decline was due to foreign competition especially Indian and Scottish cordage. Tobacco only slightly declined and in the years 1868-1870 increased due to unrest in the Caribbean.
Chewing tobacco factories increased, though these almost exclusively employed slaves. The number of cotton mills also declined due to Northern competition as well as local conditions. The average worker of the south was much less productive than northern workers, whether they were free or slave. The low tariffs continuing from the 1850’s did not help to encourage manufacturers and many like mills, like those of William Gregg in South Carolina (who established the first cotton mills of the South) were shut down. Pig Iron was another industry in decline, battered into submission by Northern competition.
A few bright spots were evident however. The Tredegar Iron Works was prosperous throughout the decade, supplying much of the South with finished iron. Other bright spots of Southern industry included lumber and the milling of cereals. The fact was that the Southern capitalist could make more money in agriculture. In fact, at the eve of 1870, the South was less industrialized than it was in 1850. An insightful person would have seen that this state of affairs could not have continued, but to the platers of the 1860s, Cotton was King!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Economy of the 1860s
As the 60’s continued it was apparent that the economic trends of the 50’s continued. Despite the contraction of 1862 – 1863, the agriculture of the South was marked by the monocultures of cotton, rice, and sugar. Tobacco and hemp production already declining declined further over the next ten years. Hemp production almost became non-existent in Kentucky, where in earlier years it had been a valuable cash crop. This decline was due to foreign competition especially Indian and Scottish cordage. Tobacco only slightly declined and in the years 1868-1870 increased due to unrest in the Caribbean.
Chewing tobacco factories increased, though these almost exclusively employed slaves. The number of cotton mills also declined due to Northern competition as well as local conditions. The average worker of the south was much less productive than northern workers, whether they were free or slave. The low tariffs continuing from the 1850’s did not help to encourage manufacturers and many like mills, like those of William Gregg in South Carolina (who established the first cotton mills of the South) were shut down. Pig Iron was another industry in decline, battered into submission by Northern competition.
A few bright spots were evident however. The Tredegar Iron Works was prosperous throughout the decade, supplying much of the South with finished iron. Other bright spots of Southern industry included lumber and the milling of cereals. The fact was that the Southern capitalist could make more money in agriculture. In fact, at the eve of 1870, the South was less industrialized than it was in 1850. An insightful person would have seen that this state of affairs could not have continued, but to the platers of the 1860s, Cotton was King!
Decades of Darkness style slaves in factories combined with a industrial goods tariff wall to bring up industrialization, perhaps?
After a massive depression occuring in the 1870s, yes it will. Though slaves in factories will never become too common except in places where unskilled labour is used. Slaves tended to be harsh on the equipment, and many planters in OTL eschewed the newer agricultural implements of the antebellum era as not being slave-proof.
I don't know the Nazi's did ok with slaves and I think it can be argued that slaves, or better yet indentured workers, would do ok. I think Jared has argued fairly persuasively that slaves in factories work just fine.
Maybe a corporate transition structure? The planters get stuck into slaves and cotton and what have you while a few large Southern corporations (because my guess is that there would only be a few large Southern corporations) do an end run and bring in the indentured servitude model?
Maybe a corporate transition structure? The planters get stuck into slaves and cotton and what have you while a few large Southern corporations (because my guess is that there would only be a few large Southern corporations) do an end run and bring in the indentured servitude model?
I'm not quite sure slaves don't work in factories, it's just that I don't think the planters of the day had trust in their slaves to handle delicate machinery properly. Whether or not this was true is something I don't know.
Also, I figured this would take away jobs from whites, not a very popular move.
On the other hand, indentured servitude would probably be a practice rarely used. Why free a valuable skilled worker when you can keep him for life and take his earnings for yourself?
As to big industrial corporations, that does make alot sense. The Southern idea of non-interference from the government would make it easy for monopolies to occur.
1865:
Land Grant Act
One of the most enlightened acts passed by Congress during the 1860s was the Morrill Land Grant act. Originally vetoed by President James Buchanan, the act was passed by both houses of Congress in March.
Under the provisions of the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (121 km²) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions such as colleges and universities.
This was later responsible for our present day Agricultural and Technical schools. Many of the prestigious universities of the South such as the University of Atlanta, and the Mississippi Agricultural Institute were land grant colleges, while the North benefited from universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Michigan State Polytechnic Institute.
The act was supported by both Northerners and Southerners. Northern business man believed that the technological institutes would benefit Northern research while Southerners believed that the agricultural colleges would reform many of the unsound farming practices of the time.
Elections in Dominica
Dominica held its first election in June of that year from the capital of Sewardo, and elected its first legislature and president. The government of Dominica was modeled on that of the United States having a bicameral congress, and a chief executive. The first president of Dominica was a free black, Hiram Revels. Revels, an ordained minister had never run or voted for political office, but was well respected for his oration and competence. In many instances this was the first time blacks had been allowed to vote. The election was no different from many others in the 19th century, and while vote fixing did occur, the efforts of both sides tended to cancel each other out.
Despite this good news, there were other problems for those of color. In August of 1865, the legislature of Arkansas voted to expel all free blacks from the state. This was mostly symbolic however, as Arkansas had a very small free black population. This was due to the fact that most free blacks had been expelled 30 years before.
Labour trouble in New England
Later in the year, New England was paralyzed by a strike conducted by the newly formed Workman’s Brotherhood. Consisting mostly of textile workers, and other industrial occupations, the 35,000 workmen struck for over a month until their wages were raised by ten cents.
The formation of labor unions was facilitated by the Liberty Party ideal of nativism. In places where immigrants were common, workers could not strike without losing their jobs to other workers. In places without many immigrants, workers could strike in safety, knowing that their jobs would not be taken by others.
Land Grant Act
One of the most enlightened acts passed by Congress during the 1860s was the Morrill Land Grant act. Originally vetoed by President James Buchanan, the act was passed by both houses of Congress in March.
Under the provisions of the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (121 km²) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions such as colleges and universities.
This was later responsible for our present day Agricultural and Technical schools. Many of the prestigious universities of the South such as the University of Atlanta, and the Mississippi Agricultural Institute were land grant colleges, while the North benefited from universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Michigan State Polytechnic Institute.
The act was supported by both Northerners and Southerners. Northern business man believed that the technological institutes would benefit Northern research while Southerners believed that the agricultural colleges would reform many of the unsound farming practices of the time.
Elections in Dominica
Dominica held its first election in June of that year from the capital of Sewardo, and elected its first legislature and president. The government of Dominica was modeled on that of the United States having a bicameral congress, and a chief executive. The first president of Dominica was a free black, Hiram Revels. Revels, an ordained minister had never run or voted for political office, but was well respected for his oration and competence. In many instances this was the first time blacks had been allowed to vote. The election was no different from many others in the 19th century, and while vote fixing did occur, the efforts of both sides tended to cancel each other out.
Despite this good news, there were other problems for those of color. In August of 1865, the legislature of Arkansas voted to expel all free blacks from the state. This was mostly symbolic however, as Arkansas had a very small free black population. This was due to the fact that most free blacks had been expelled 30 years before.
Labour trouble in New England
Later in the year, New England was paralyzed by a strike conducted by the newly formed Workman’s Brotherhood. Consisting mostly of textile workers, and other industrial occupations, the 35,000 workmen struck for over a month until their wages were raised by ten cents.
The formation of labor unions was facilitated by the Liberty Party ideal of nativism. In places where immigrants were common, workers could not strike without losing their jobs to other workers. In places without many immigrants, workers could strike in safety, knowing that their jobs would not be taken by others.
Slaves work just fine in factories, as demonstrated by the fact that they were used in a variety of factories in OTL. The classical example is the Tredegar Iron Works, which at one point had up to half its workforce as slaves. And the owner was disappointed that rising slave prices meant that he couldn't afford more. Slaves were also widely used in a variety of industrial pursuits related to some of their cash crops (steam sugar presses, and in factories for spinning hemp into rope, for instance).
In terms of planter resistance to using slaves in machinery, nope, it wasn't significant. A few individual planters preferred an agricultural lifestyle, but that's not the same thing.
Well, yes and no. Free whites in the South mostly didn't work for wages, and slaves thus couldn't take their jobs off them. Native-born whites tried to be self-employed, for the most part. In both the North and South, most of the labour for the early factories came from immigrants. So slaves would be competing mostly against immigrants, at least at first. Guess who's likely to win that particular battle?
Yup. Indentured labour was gradually turned into a system of slavery back in the early colonial era. Slavery offered greater control and was self-sustaining in a way which indentured servitude wasn't.
Oh, and I have a few general thoughts about broader aspects of slavery development in your TL, I have a few suggestions.
Firstly, the South is still going to be concerned about any threat to slavery, come what may. No matter what protections are given now, the moment that it looks like those protections are going to be compromised, there's trouble afoot.
Conversely, the North is going to be suspicious about anything which looks like a move to extend slavery. This is precisely why the Kansas-Nebraska Act was so divisive, and it was that, more than anything else, which led to the Civil War in the first place.
So, in your timeline, it doesn't look like those tensions have really been stopped. In other words, I disagree with the statement in one of your earlier posts that the issue of slavery has stopped becoming divisive. It still is, and it still will be for a long time. Suitable distractions (especially a foreign war) may help to put it to one side for a while, but it's going to be coming back every election. So while I don't have any particular problem with the picture of the civil war being averted in 1860, that doesn't mean it's been averted forever. Or that slavery has really been resolved.
More generally, you had this description of what happened with cotton slavery:
This bit looks rather difficult, since it's already plain that the South is going to be outnumbered by free states in the Senate very quickly. Splitting Texas isn't actually that good an option, since unless slave prices crash, slavery's only going to viable in the south-eastern portions of the state. (This was why Texas wasn't split in OTL). There's all sorts of free states going to be formed out of the northern territories... and the South has already had its numbers unbalanced in the Senate by California and subsequent northern states.
In other words, the South will be pressing very, very hard for expansion into somewhere which will give them extra slave states. This basically means that Caribbean, and allowing U.S. ruled territory in the Caribbean to become free-soil sets a very, very bad precedent. The South wants Cuba, for starters, preferably Puerto Rico as well, and possibly other areas. They don't want a free Dominican Republic as an example.
To nitpick, this would probably happen in 1861, not 1863. In 1861, Britain already had a year's worth of cotton sitting in its warehouses. If not for the outbreak of the Civil War, cotton prices would probably have slumped anyway.
Actually, I'd expect the reverse: slaves to move out of the cotton south, either back north or into urban pursuits. This is what happened every other time there was a slump in cotton prices. During every cotton boom, slave prices rose high enough to suck slave labour out of the cities and, to a certain degree, out of other cash crops as well. (It's actually a bit more complicated, in that it was mostly the growth in slave labour which was sucked out.)
So, if cotton prices fall, and slave prices fall right along with them, this is actually very good news for Virginian tobacco planters. Ditto Maryland. I suspect that slavery is moribound enough in Delaware that it won't matter much for production there, although I'd still expect slavery to hang on in Delaware for a very long time anyway.
Apart from tobacco, rice planters may get a bit more of a chance, although rice prices were in a long-term slide too. Some of the more marginal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida will be converted to sugar, rather than cotton. This may even prolong the slave hemp industry a bit.
The other big use for slaves will be industrial pursuits, of course. The Tredegar Iron Works will start buying up slaves again, and this won't be the only example. Virginian slave wheat plantations may even get a bit of a boost, although that's not a given.
Okay, cotton prices are going to slump in the 1860s - they did in OTL, due to oversupply, and nothing's appeared to change things ATL. Cotton production is likely to decline in relative terms.
Tobacco, though, is a different story. Demand for tobacco started to rise after the Crimean War with the introduction of cigarettes, and it is going to continue going up. I'd expect to see more slaves employed in tobacco production, not less.
Hemp is iffy. Hemp as an export crop is going to be in trouble, due partly to competition from other hemp producers but also other tropical fibres. What may save it is, ironically enough, the mechanization of wheat farming. Once the reaper-binder's been invented, hemp will have some potential use in making binder twine, and conveniently near to the wheat farming areas, too. Kentucky may have some small-scale revitalization of hemp for that industry, but the biggest days of hemp production are over.
Why? This wasn't remotely the case in OTL; what's changed here?
Iron production in areas of the OTL South (mostly Kentucky and Tennessee) was exhausted in OTL due to running out of supplies of iron ore, not so much the Northern competition. Birmingham, Alabama is the best site in the USA for production of cheap steel - it should be cheaper than anything made in Pittsburgh or elsewhere in the North.
This part, I really, really doubt. From 1840 to 1860 in OTL, during the height of the cotton boom, Southern manufacturing and commerce actually grew twice as fast as agriculture. The South isn't going to industrialise as fast or as intensively as the North, but it's still going to industrialise.
Hmm. This isn't the way the planter mindset worked in OTL. They were businessmen looking to maximise their rates of return. They planted cotton because it gave them the best rates of return. When that changed, they planted something else, or sold/rented their slaves to someone else who would. Virginian planters switched back and forth between wheat and tobacco depending on what world commodity prices were like. Indigo was mostly abandoned for the same reason.
Thank you Jared. I appreciate your insight and I hope you contribute in the future.
The reason I had written that bit was to set the tone for the growth of the South. I am going to do one for the North as well.
As my sources weren't economic histories, I had to extrapolate a little bit. This is why there are the errors inherent in the economics of the South. I will revise my section so it makes more sense.
I was going to have Southern fire-eaters pressing for Ostend II. The annexation of Cuba will occur very soon. Slavery hasn't ended it's decisiveness, and I was hoping to write about a Northern attempt to impart humane conditions for the slaves. Like meat for slaves everyday, and little things like that.
The book I was using only went to about 1858 in economic terms, and described the trends of the 1850s. That's why I had tobacco production declining, as my book said it did decline during the 1850's. I will change it.
My mistake.
Perhaps I should have written that differently. I meant to say that despite the slump, cotton would have had the highest rate of return during the 1860's.
Another question I have is could Virginia wheat production have continued with competition from the Midwest. IIRC McCormick's reaper worked best in the flat lands of the Midwest, not in the hilly regions of Virginia. How would this have affected wheat production there?
The reason I had written that bit was to set the tone for the growth of the South. I am going to do one for the North as well.
As my sources weren't economic histories, I had to extrapolate a little bit. This is why there are the errors inherent in the economics of the South. I will revise my section so it makes more sense.
I was going to have Southern fire-eaters pressing for Ostend II. The annexation of Cuba will occur very soon. Slavery hasn't ended it's decisiveness, and I was hoping to write about a Northern attempt to impart humane conditions for the slaves. Like meat for slaves everyday, and little things like that.
The book I was using only went to about 1858 in economic terms, and described the trends of the 1850s. That's why I had tobacco production declining, as my book said it did decline during the 1850's. I will change it.
My mistake.
Perhaps I should have written that differently. I meant to say that despite the slump, cotton would have had the highest rate of return during the 1860's.
Another question I have is could Virginia wheat production have continued with competition from the Midwest. IIRC McCormick's reaper worked best in the flat lands of the Midwest, not in the hilly regions of Virginia. How would this have affected wheat production there?
1866
Though Seward himself was an honest man, the Seward presidency was not without corruption.
The only major corruption scandal of time involved Seward's Postmaster General Roscoe Conkling. Conkling had become Postmaster General in a deal that secured New York State for Seward in the election of 1864.
A minor scandal that would be eclipsed by those of later years, Conkling had siphoned off money from the post office, and used it to buy favor with custom house officials. The officials in turn had under reported the amount of taxes on liquor. This collusion stole about 300,000 dollars before being discovered. Conkling resigned soon after, and returned to New York in disgrace.
In the summer of 1866, members of a group of influential planters from Cuba met with high-ranking Southern Democrats. Offering to deliver Cuba into the hands of the US, the Democrats revived the idea of filibustering their way into possession. Under the guidance of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the senator of Tennessee, influential Southerners such as Wade Hampton and Jefferson Davis raised a group of 5,000 men to invade Cuba.
Though Seward himself was an honest man, the Seward presidency was not without corruption.
The only major corruption scandal of time involved Seward's Postmaster General Roscoe Conkling. Conkling had become Postmaster General in a deal that secured New York State for Seward in the election of 1864.
A minor scandal that would be eclipsed by those of later years, Conkling had siphoned off money from the post office, and used it to buy favor with custom house officials. The officials in turn had under reported the amount of taxes on liquor. This collusion stole about 300,000 dollars before being discovered. Conkling resigned soon after, and returned to New York in disgrace.
In the summer of 1866, members of a group of influential planters from Cuba met with high-ranking Southern Democrats. Offering to deliver Cuba into the hands of the US, the Democrats revived the idea of filibustering their way into possession. Under the guidance of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the senator of Tennessee, influential Southerners such as Wade Hampton and Jefferson Davis raised a group of 5,000 men to invade Cuba.
great stuff
This is a fascinating idea for a TL; what if there was no US Civil War? Great stuff so far, kidblast.
Kudos to Jared as well, and kid's response to his (?) commentary. I don't have much more than a high school-level grasp of the historical period in question. So I appreciate the opportunity to learn a few things.
Sail on, sail on!
This is a fascinating idea for a TL; what if there was no US Civil War? Great stuff so far, kidblast.
Kudos to Jared as well, and kid's response to his (?) commentary. I don't have much more than a high school-level grasp of the historical period in question. So I appreciate the opportunity to learn a few things.
Sail on, sail on!
Bah, humbug! Another ameriwank attempt and you know it!
...JUST KIDDING! Anyhow, interesting concept. One often sees the whole 'South wins' thingamajig. But this is new...
...JUST KIDDING!
Anyhow, interesting concept. One often sees the whole 'South wins' thingamajig. But this is new...Hmm. If you want some sources about slavery in the late antebellum period (and, indeed, about the struggle to abolish slavery), you can't go past Robert William Fogel's "Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American
Slavery". He offers a detailed analysis of many aspects of slavery and the political conditions which led up to the ACW. If you're looking for this book, though, be careful in that there's actually four volumes of it. It contains an "interpretative volume" which is probably the only one you need to read, unless you want to go into an awful amount of detail.
The other handy writer on this period is Gavin Wright. He has two relevant books: "The Political Economy of the Cotton South: Households, Markets and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century", which has more technical information, and "Old South, New South" which is more readable but has less detail. Take your pick there.
For information on urban and industrial slavery, there's also a couple of other good books on the subject. Claudia Goldin: "Urban Slavery in the American South, 1820-1860: A Quantitative History", and Robert Starobin "Industrial Slavery in the Old South". These could give some useful insights into the likely course of urban industrial slavery in the United States in a no-Civil-War context.
Hmm. The problem is that the South has backed itself into a corner over slavery. By insisting that slavery was a "positive good", they'd actually made it very hard for themselves to institute any reforms of the slavery system, since that meant admitting that the system needed tweaking. So they got extremely defensive over even the most modest reforms, even if they would have helped prolong slavery. What's interesting is that once the South seceded, they actually passed a variety of reforms quite quickly, which they weren't prepared to consider while part of the USA. (Things like laws regulating the leasing of slaves, laws on literacy, laws forbidding slave children under ten years to be sold except with their mother, and various other things).
Also, re: Cuba, don't forget the reason the Crittenden Compromise of OTL was rejected (not a single Republican voted for it, in either House). The thing which made it objectionable was three key words out of the following paragraph:
"In all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter
acquired, situated north of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes, slavery or
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited
while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all
the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is
hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by
Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the
territorial government during its continuance."
The objectionable words were "or hereafter acquired". They had no real relevance to existing territory - most of which, except possibly New Mexico and *Oklahoma, was going to be free. But this phrasing amounted to a license for the South to go acquiring territory anywhere from Cuba to Tierra del Fuego. And the North absolutely hated it, for just that reason. There is no way, none whatsoever, that the Republicans would back any compromise which includes that phrase. I presume that your ATL version of the Crittenden Compromise didn't include that phrase; it's not vital that it did. Just remember that any snarfling of Cuba or similar Southern adventurism is going to produce a strong Northern reaction.
Hmm. I'm not sure if it would or not. Depends how far cotton prices fall, and how quickly they recover. Once they've recovered, cotton will become king again, but for a few years it might look like tobacco and sugar are better deals.
Mechanization would have made wheat slavery more profitable, not less. The problem with wheat plantations in OTL was because wheat was much more of a seasonal crop than cotton or even tobacco - more hands were needed at the harvest, but much less at other times. The advantage of the reaper would have been along the lines of "sell some slaves, buy a reaper" and run the whole wheat plantation at an acceptable profit.
In terms of being overall hilly country, well, that affected how big the wheat farms could grow, but the wheat fields themselves tended to be flat even in Virginia, for the obvious reasons. Reapers themselves would still work there.
Yes. Yes it will. It would take considerable political will on the United States side to bring it off, and finding such political will could be difficult, if the North dislikes the idea.