Let us assume for the sake of discussion that the South would not at any point independently abandon slavery(certain states might, but not the whole lot). Let us further assume that if/when the North attempted to force abolition on them, the South doesn't cooperate- making it quite clear that if the North persists a civil war will occur, but if they halt their efforts then the South will stay within the union.
I think the historical consensus regarding Lincoln(or pretty much any other plausible Republican president at the time) is that they would have acted to limit slavery in new territories, but wouldn't have been willing(or able) to start an actual war to abolish it where it already existed. Rather the war was about preserving the union.
I doubt that would be the case today. If "magically" some Southern states still had slavery in 2013, their would without a doubt be a war to abolish it.
My point being: at what point did this shift occur*? Even in the 1930's their was reluctance to impose anti-lynching laws on the South, but by the 1960's they were willing to impose civil rights. Slavery of course provokes a stronger moral reaction then lynching does, but I'm having a hard time seeing the North willing to use force for the sole purpose of liberating slaves until some time into the 20th century.
*Of course I'm making a false assumption here that history and free state cultural/moral attitudes would progress as they did OTL, despite no civil war taking place. Needless to say the trajectory would be completely different- it might even speed up racial enlightenment in the North if the continuation of slavery radicalizes the anti-slave movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note, what about slavery in Brazil? It's easy enough to see slavery continue there- the revolution against the emperor was in part sparked by the landed elite's resentment against him for abolishing slavery. So let's say that he dies before his abolition of slavery. In his absence the abolition either doesn't happen, or leads to a coup before it can be enforced(since the politician responsible would lack the emperors popular support and moral authority).
After said coup the land owning/military elite holds persistent dominance in Brazil as per OTL. For the sake of discussion assume that internal revolution does not succeed in abolishing slavery, and Brazil doesn't get into any stupid/avoidable wars. At what point would international powers be willing to use military force to abolish slavery in Brazil? I don't mean sanctions either, I mean an actual invasion.
I think the historical consensus regarding Lincoln(or pretty much any other plausible Republican president at the time) is that they would have acted to limit slavery in new territories, but wouldn't have been willing(or able) to start an actual war to abolish it where it already existed. Rather the war was about preserving the union.
I doubt that would be the case today. If "magically" some Southern states still had slavery in 2013, their would without a doubt be a war to abolish it.
My point being: at what point did this shift occur*? Even in the 1930's their was reluctance to impose anti-lynching laws on the South, but by the 1960's they were willing to impose civil rights. Slavery of course provokes a stronger moral reaction then lynching does, but I'm having a hard time seeing the North willing to use force for the sole purpose of liberating slaves until some time into the 20th century.
*Of course I'm making a false assumption here that history and free state cultural/moral attitudes would progress as they did OTL, despite no civil war taking place. Needless to say the trajectory would be completely different- it might even speed up racial enlightenment in the North if the continuation of slavery radicalizes the anti-slave movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note, what about slavery in Brazil? It's easy enough to see slavery continue there- the revolution against the emperor was in part sparked by the landed elite's resentment against him for abolishing slavery. So let's say that he dies before his abolition of slavery. In his absence the abolition either doesn't happen, or leads to a coup before it can be enforced(since the politician responsible would lack the emperors popular support and moral authority).
After said coup the land owning/military elite holds persistent dominance in Brazil as per OTL. For the sake of discussion assume that internal revolution does not succeed in abolishing slavery, and Brazil doesn't get into any stupid/avoidable wars. At what point would international powers be willing to use military force to abolish slavery in Brazil? I don't mean sanctions either, I mean an actual invasion.
Last edited: