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

[DuQuense]

In the 1820's the south over invested in the Canal projects spring from the success of the Erie Canal. As such the South went Bankrupt in the1830's.

The South didn't object to industrialization & development, They just didn't have the Money. By the late 1850's this had changed, as the last effects of the Bankruptcy finally worked themselves out. The 1860's would have been a time of new Investment.

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.

I think your force is a little small there, unless you are looking for a Defeat to mobilize a larger effort.

This will end badly. Free Blacks make up 20% of the Cuban population, Bound Blacks [30%] have a lot more Freedom, than anything the Southerners are use to, and most of the Lower class, and Lower middle class, Whites will support the Blacks.

 

[Kidblast]

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.

Thanks, I'll check my local library.

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).

I didn't expect it to pass immediatly, and such things take time to become acceptable. I think that at first it would be championed by Abolitionists, and then by moderate Southerners such as Stephens. I envisioned reforms like what you mentioned, though I only expect them to occur in the mid 1870s. Perhaps at the pressure of Great Britain?

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.

I think I added that slavery was only allowed from the 36 to the 15th parallel. This would include most of Mexico and Cuba, but would allay Lincoln's fears that the bill "would amount to a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and state owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego [at the far end of South America]." However it would allow slavery in Cuba and other Carribean islands thus pleasing Southerners.

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.

I expect it to fail at first. But help from landowners like Carlos Manuel de Cespedes (Cespedes himself probably wouldn't help as he freed his slaves) might turn the tide. (Another thing I have to go research . Geez, who would have thought that working on an involved timeline would be so much research. )

 

[Kidblast]

More 1866 while I work out the kinks in my TL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1866

In 1866, the Fenian brotherhood decided to stage raids in order to advance the cause of Irish independence. The purpose of these raids was to seize the transportation network of Canada, with the idea that this would force the British to exchange Ireland's freedom for possession of their Province of Canada.

Unfortunately, this did not occur. While the brotherhood scored some initial victories, in the end the invasion was stopped by the US authorities’ subsequent interruption of Fenian supply lines across the Niagara River and the arrests of Fenian attempting to cross into Canada. It is unlikely that with such a small force that they would have ever achieved their goal.

The main effect of this was the Irish Exclusion Act of 1866. It was sponsered by the Liberty Party and passed in October of that year. The act stipulated the amount of Irish that could immigrate to the United States each year which was 75,000.

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.

 

[Kidblast]

A revised economy of the South.......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economy of the South: 1860 - 1870​

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. 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 became more profitable, as the years went on especially due to increased consumption.

Chewing tobacco factories increased, though these almost exclusively employed slaves. 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. Southern industrialization continued apace, and enterprising immigrants from the Midlands in England founded Sheffield in Alabama, which would alter become one of the world's greatest producers of steel. The industrialization of the South continued apace, and the ever increasing yields from Agriculture made the South flourish.

 

[Kidblast]

Alright guys, I have been on vacation so there haven't been any updates. I have some questions though, and I'm hoping y'all could help me.

As Jared pointed out, slavery will be a big issue for years to come. There are a couple ways to keep the balance of free and slave states.

1. Annex Cuba
2. Annex Hawaii
3. Annex one of the other islands in the Caribbean

I'm personally in favour of having the US annex Hawaii. It is prime sugar cane country (perfect for slaves), and in the 1860s, there was still relatively few white living there. Instead of importing Chinese and Japanese workers, planters could import slaves. It also would fit the Crittenden Amendments of this timeline, since the Hawaian are situated from 18 to 29 N.

Any ideas?

 

[Nicksplace27]

Alright guys, I have been on vacation so there haven't been any updates. I have some questions though, and I'm hoping y'all could help me.

As Jared pointed out, slavery will be a big issue for years to come. There are a couple ways to keep the balance of free and slave states.

1. Annex Cuba
2. Annex Hawaii
3. Annex one of the other islands in the Caribbean

I'm personally in favour of having the US annex Hawaii. It is prime sugar cane country (perfect for slaves), and in the 1860s, there was still relatively few white living there. Instead of importing Chinese and Japanese workers, planters could import slaves. It also would fit the Crittenden Amendments of this timeline, since the Hawaian are situated from 18 to 29 N.

Any ideas?

Aqquiring Puerto Rico and to other Islands of the Carrebian from the lesser powers wouldn't be too hard but thier feasiblity as states wouldn't be too great.

Although Mexico is aliied and therefore can't be invaded and land-grabed, Central America would look nice for slave territory. (Looking ahead to the future, a Nicuraguan Canal built by slaves...)

 

[Redem]

Although Mexico is aliied and therefore can't be invaded and land-grabed, Central America would look nice for slave territory. (Looking ahead to the future, a Nicuraguan Canal built by slaves...)

Can someone explain to me Why an Alt-Canal always in Nicaragua?

 

[Nicksplace27]

Can someone explain to me Why an Alt-Canal always in Nicaragua?

Becuase its wayyyy cooler that way.

 

[Redem]

Becuase its wayyyy cooler that way.

Well wouldn't be Costa Rica be more logical choice I mean on the world map the distance between pacific and Atlantic look smaller (too me at least)

 

[DuQuense]

Mostly it is because a Nicaragua Canal could be built using 18th~ 19th Century Equipment. You dredge two rivers, Build a Simple 20 mile canal, and two sets of Locks.

 

[SkyEmperor]

Well wouldn't be Costa Rica be more logical choice I mean on the world map the distance between pacific and Atlantic look smaller (too me at least)

It's a short distance, but a short distance of malarial mountains.

I really dig this TL, but I dont see where you're getting the southerners working with the Liberty Party. Noone south of the Mason Dixon line would make eye contact with William Lloyd garrisson, much less caucaus with him. But thats kind of a detail.

But maybe if you have a crazy abolitionist third party, it can siphon off the more fundamental "I love John Brown" elements of the old republican party.

 

[Jared]

As Jared pointed out, slavery will be a big issue for years to come. There are a couple ways to keep the balance of free and slave states.

1. Annex Cuba
2. Annex Hawaii
3. Annex one of the other islands in the Caribbean

Cuba would have to be at the top of that list, by a large margin. It already had plenty of slaves, which was a great help. The idea of having Cuba free its slaves was also a frightening prospect, leading to the potential for intervention on the behalf of the slaveholders. And most of all, Cuba has the prospect of being insanely profitable under slave plantations. So much good tobacco and sugar land (and other crops, but mostly too) that it's almost impossible to pass up. If not for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Cuba would likely have been acquired in the 1850s. And since it was an existing slaveholding territory, it wouldn't have antagonised the North as much as some of the other prospects would (although it would still cause considerable discomfort).

For other Caribbean islands, Puerto Rico had slavery until 1870-1873, and it had similar potential to Cuba in terms of agriculture. Outside of Puerto Rico, there's not much worthwhile in the Caribbean which can be taken due to substantial British opposition. (Taking existing slave territory would still aggravate Britain, but nowhere near as much as the extension of slavery to free soil would.)

There's also the Yucatan - slave labour in sisal/henequen would rival cotton as a cash crop. Of course, the racial wars in the Yucatan would be bloody, bloody, bloody - there's a reason the USA never acquired Yucatan in OTL despite being invited in.

Outside of that, well, certain parts of northern Mexico - mostly southern Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and parts of northern Durango - are about the best cotton-growing country on earth. Also relatively underpopulated at the time. A tempting target.

Hawaii, well, maybe. The biggest obstacle is the British, who would be Not Happy at the prospect.

Although Mexico is aliied and therefore can't be invaded and land-grabed, Central America would look nice for slave territory. (Looking ahead to the future, a Nicuraguan Canal built by slaves...)

Actually, having it built with slaves would probably be prohibitively expensive, until someone figures out the mosquito vector of disease. The slaves would drop dead far too fast. It'd be cheaper to use local labour - it's not as if there was a shortage of it, and the locals would be somewhat more resistant to the tropical diseases.

Can someone explain to me Why an Alt-Canal always in Nicaragua?

Because it's far and away the most logical place for it. It took a series of unfortunate events for it not to be picked in OTL, involving, of all things, a Nicaraguan postage stamp showing an erupting volcano.

Basically, most of the land in southern Nicaragua is flatter and easier to build a canal on, especially if they canalize the San Juan River, which extends most of the way. They just need to dig a relatively short canal near Rivas on the western side of Lake Nicaragua, and that's about it.

And the other reason is that since the canal will need locks, this requires a large supply of fresh water. Lake Nicaragua is the perfect source for that, and doesn't even require a dam.

Well wouldn't be Costa Rica be more logical choice I mean on the world map the distance between pacific and Atlantic look smaller (too me at least)

Too mountainous, basically. The three routes which were discussed in OTL were the Nicaragua route, the Panama route, and across the Isthmus of Tehantupec.

 

[PXZ]

I like this TL.. and wish it had really happened this way, would have saved about 600000 lives and unmeasurable suffering on both sides.

Consider this however...

I would like to see slavery phased out in the south, likely by the 1870's.
I say this for a few reasons.

(Obviously Slavery is immoral, but putting that aside)

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)

2. The CSA constitution had provisions for the phasing out of slavery, which indicates that there was some consideration to such.

3. If you read the personal papers of Jefferson Davis, including letters to Lincoln you find that he was anti-slavery, as well as Robt. E Lee, indicating that some realized the institution would not last and should not last.

Anyway my 2 cents.... great TL so far

 

[Jared]

1. Slavery is not economically viable as machines become invented and cheap labor is more economically sound to the employer than slavery.

This is not at all clear-cut. The invention of some machines made slavery more profitable, not less. Cue the cotton gin, steam presses in sugar plantations, and rope spinning machines in the hemp areas of Kentucky. The various wheat harvesting machines - especially the combine harvester - would have the effect of making a smaller number of slaves more profitable.

(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)

The southern farmers in Brazil chose immigrant labour over slaves because they couldn't compete with other Brazilians for a limited number of slaves. Basically, slavery in Brazil had always seen natural decrease in the number of slaves (more died than were born), and it relied on the slave trade to maintain the number of slaves in Brazil. When Britain forced Brazil to end that trade in ~1850, slavery's days in Brazil were numbered.

What happened post-1850 in Brazil was that slaves became concentrated in the most profitable crops. This meant sugar. And sugar is a very nasty crop to work with, and most sugar plantations had nasty enough conditions that slaves were, again, in a net rate of natural decrease. Now, it turns it that it's possible to have even sugar slavery with a net rate of natural increase of slaves, but it requires some substantial reforms to the conditions they work under. These reforms were made in the sugar islands of the British Caribbean once the slave trade there was abolished, and slavery would have continued there indefinitely if not ended by government fiat in 1833. In Brazil, the sugar slaveowners didn't bother to implement similar reforms because it was cheaper to suck in slave labour from the non-sugar areas. Even then, ending slavery in Brazil required an imperial decree, and the emperor was deposed by coup as a result.

In the historical South, however, sugar was only a minor crop. There was a net rate of natural increase in slaves, which meant that they became more profitable over time. There was also a chronic labour shortage due to the local white attitudes (who viewed working for wages as a bad thing) and a shortage of immigrants. This made slavery much more profitable, and damn near impossible to eradicate short of military action. If not for such action, I have trouble seeing slavery being eradicated until either the boll weevil or, more likely, the spread of the mechanical cotton-picker. And this is post-1900 territory, if not post-1940.

2. The CSA constitution had provisions for the phasing out of slavery, which indicates that there was some consideration to such.

It does? What section? The main section I remember from the Confederate Constitution relating to slavery is this one:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4).

This hardly looks like getting rid of slavery will be easy.

3. If you read the personal papers of Jefferson Davis, including letters to Lincoln you find that he was anti-slavery, as well as Robt. E Lee, indicating that some realized the institution would not last and should not last.

Is this Davis's pre-1865 or post-1865 papers? It's amazing how many Confederate leaders after 1865 decided that they had been against slavery all along, when their earlier writings and speeches supported it. Davis himself had tried to introduce resolutions into the U.S. Congress protecting slavery; hardly the actions of an anti-slavery man.

As for Lee, he had old-fashioned views. Like most Southerners of his generation, he thought of slavery as a necessary evil; something which was bad, but which getting rid of would have been worse. This point of view was, quite literally, dying out in the South - the younger generation thought of slavery as a positive good for slaveowners and slaves.

 

[Redem]

Too mountainous, basically. The three routes which were discussed in OTL were the Nicaragua route, the Panama route, and across the Isthmus of Tehantupec.

Thank you

(Poor Jared not only must he explain DoD but he have to explain that one too )

 

[Kidblast]

I have an idea...

Would selling slaves to Brazil be against the ban on trans-atlantic slave trade?

I'm going to the library tommorow and will have 1867 - 1868 within the next two days.

 

[Kidblast]

Here's a rough 1867. My question is this even constitutional? Likely? ASB?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Tariffs had always been a major issue throughout the history of the young American republic. Traditionally, the North had favored a high tariff to protect industry while the South wanted a low tariff to buy European manufactured goods and get preferential trading rights for their agricultural products. In 1832, South Carolina had even attempted to secede over the issues of the tariff. Besides the issue of slavery, the issue of the tariff was one of the most decisive in American politics at the time.

Until now the country had kept the low tariff policy of James Buchanan, but as the economy grew Northern businessmen clamored for higher tariffs. This united Northerners across party lines, and the Southern democrats were totally against it. After months of deadlock, where neither side could make a deal, a novel solution was struck.

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.

 

[Kidblast]

I really dig this TL, but I dont see where you're getting the southerners working with the Liberty Party. Noone south of the Mason Dixon line would make eye contact with William Lloyd garrisson, much less caucaus with him. But thats kind of a detail.

But maybe if you have a crazy abolitionist third party, it can siphon off the more fundamental "I love John Brown" elements of the old republican party.

Hmmm...

Where did this occur???

 

[David bar Elias]

Seward is still going to purchase Alaska in TTL, right?

 

[Kidblast]

Seward is still going to purchase Alaska in TTL, right?

In 1868, though. A bad harvest in Russia occurs and the Tzar needs money.

On the subject of land I was thinking and discovered something interesting. If one takes the territories in the North at the time (Utah, Nebraska, and Washington) that's 3 free states. Now if the US divided the New Mexico territory into two states, gave Indian territory statehood, and Cuba was made into two state (or Puerto Rico or Hawaii becomes a slave state) there would be almost a parity of slave to free states, which would calm Southern fears.