Regarding Burr, I agree, but it wouldn't have no effect. Especially if he does something concrete like actually getting suffrage passed in New York (which he tried to do OTL, as stated). That would give us New York and New Jersey as women voting states, then once the Mexican states start being added we get even more. The Mexican government's idea of voting rights was whether or not you owned land, not specific man vs woman thing which is why Texas was pretty friendly to women's rights IIRC.
As I said, I bow to your knowledge of Burr, not being an American specialist, but my point about suffrage and the waves of Feminism is that, in the early 1800s when Burr would be doing this you would not necessarily get a knock on into a demand for equality just by enfranchising women. Not every women, enfranchised or not, will agree with equality and many more will be divided as to what equality means. Many female rights campaigners in the mid 1800s, before the suffrage movement, argued instead for support for women's "natural" role as wife and mother, wanting state support for homes, children, marriage etc but not necessarily employment rights. You would need a movement that would develop FROM this POD. The point of departure itself would not, I feel, be sufficient.
I would tend to argue that, actually. The United States is the sort of country where it just makes sense to build a railroad. The push to build a railroad stepped on a lot of people which led to the Strikes in 1877. I'm not saying the timing would be exactly the same, but I don't particularly think ending slavery would remove the railroad.
My point was not that you wouldn't have socialism, but that it would develop differently. Whilst I agree with you that this board nurtures butterflies better than a f**king butterfly farm, the changes you are discussing in ending slavery in the mid 1800s would have a huge impact on the late 1800s/early 1900s for your socialist movement.
to quote:
One thing that I brought up while discussing this on another website is if we establish a semi-independent Indian state in the Ohio Basin area. This would push white settlers (who OTL settled the Midwest) into the Kentucky and Tennessee areas where they would set up the industries that IOTL made slavery not very practicle in the Midwest (speaking very generally here).
You are now talking about an industrial US that in c1870 is different in key ways:
*A greater concentration of industry across a broader area, from mid-west into Appalachia, down into the upper bits of the South (and maybe into the deep South too depending on what the economic upshot of ending slavery is)
*Black workers, spread across a wider area (less Great Migration to the midwest in the post-bellum), who have been a large section of the industrial workforce for longer - with possibly the attendant racism of OTL happening earlier. Remember OTL it took until the 1920s for a black trade union to gain recognition from the AFL: a union only necessary because black workers felt excluded from established unions.
*A wider spread of that 1870s-1910s wave of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe across this industrial area - so more pockets of Italian/Slav/Hungarian/Russian/Polish communities etc etc in towns. This knocks on into the trade unionism movement as OTL but more broadly. In Pittsburgh in the 1890s you have factory foremen, men you would expect to be organizing forces for unions and the backbone of the socialist movement, complaining about having to work with all "the Hunkies (Hungarians)".
My point was that socialism would form in different ways, and different places, than OTL. Railroads don't automatically breed strike action - just look at all the Chinese Labour trodden on in the West to build railroads. Many white workers didn't care about that at all.
Hence my point about grafting modern ideas onto the past - thats fine is that marks out your end point, but you've got to hone in on those that you think would gravitate to such positions, how they would evolve, and where and why they would develop.