Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Challenge: Have the Crittenden Compromise succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise
What happens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise
What happens?
The main reason that the proposal was rejected by the Republicans was that slavery would not only be guaranteed in all existing US states and territories south of the 36° 30′ parallel, but also in all territory south of that line "hereafter acquired."
Many foresaw a Southern aim to conquer more lands south of the line, just to expand their slaving empire, leading to "a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and state owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego." (And considering groups like the Knights of the Golden Circle, and fillibusters like William Walker, such a notion was not so far 'out there' at all...)
However... both Northern and Southern representatives largely recognized that slavery was unlikely to ever flourish in New Mexico. So might it be possible to alter the Compromise, so that slavery would be guaranteed in all states south of the line, New Mexico and the Indian Territory (later Oklahoma)... but not in any territory gained by the USA at a later point in time?
I know that's not exactly what you're asking for, but that's the only way I can see the Compromise being accepted. If this alt-Compromise should be accepted, it will also include the constitutional provision that prohibits further amendments undoing it. This effectively adds an 'eternity clause,' much like Germany's constitution contains (although in that case it's to prevent nazism from ever coming back, and in this case it would serve to prevent a similar evil from ever being defeated). That guarantee appealed to the slaveholders.
So, should that be accepted, you have contained slavery, but made it far more entrenched. I can see it lasting a good long time (except instead of 'good', read: 'very, very terrible'). Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri will eventualy abolish slavery. The Compromise also advocated strict adherence to the prohibition on international slave trade, so the Deep South will buy slaves from the Upper South, slowly transforming the Upper south states into mostly free states. When Virginia and Maryland go free, so does DC.
But in the Deep South, below the line... the slaver elite will continue to hold on to power. They will not accept an end to their 'way of life'. I can see the US turning into two cultural regions, north of 'the line' and south of it. In the long term, it's not impossible that the North secedes from the USA, abandoning the South in disgust, just so they can adopt a new constitution that doesn't command them to obey fugitive slave laws.
If that happens, the "USA" (meaning the slave states) becomes a pariah state, and dirt poor. When it collapses, or slave rebellions break out, the North ("Federal States of America"?) could conceivably launch a military intervention and abolishes slavery by force. Or the system collapses like Apartheid. But there is no possible way this ends well. A slave economy is not viable in the modern world, nor is it morally acceptable.
What will Southerners do when they find that British and European dockworkers refuse to unload ships that carry their cotton, Lancashire mills refuse to spin and weave slave cultivated cotton and stores in Europe --and in the North stop carrying garments made from slave cultivated cotton?The main reason that the proposal was rejected by the Republicans was that slavery would not only be guaranteed in all existing US states and territories south of the 36° 30′ parallel, but also in all territory south of that line "hereafter acquired."
Many foresaw a Southern aim to conquer more lands south of the line, just to expand their slaving empire, leading to "a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and state owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego." (And considering groups like the Knights of the Golden Circle, and fillibusters like William Walker, such a notion was not so far 'out there' at all...)
However... both Northern and Southern representatives largely recognized that slavery was unlikely to ever flourish in New Mexico. So might it be possible to alter the Compromise, so that slavery would be guaranteed in all states south of the line, New Mexico and the Indian Territory (later Oklahoma)... but not in any territory gained by the USA at a later point in time?
I know that's not exactly what you're asking for, but that's the only way I can see the Compromise being accepted. If this alt-Compromise should be accepted, it will also include the constitutional provision that prohibits further amendments undoing it. This effectively adds an 'eternity clause,' much like Germany's constitution contains (although in that case it's to prevent nazism from ever coming back, and in this case it would serve to prevent a similar evil from ever being defeated). That guarantee appealed to the slaveholders.
So, should that be accepted, you have contained slavery, but made it far more entrenched. I can see it lasting a good long time (except instead of 'good', read: 'very, very terrible'). Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri will eventualy abolish slavery. The Compromise also advocated strict adherence to the prohibition on international slave trade, so the Deep South will buy slaves from the Upper South, slowly transforming the Upper south states into mostly free states. When Virginia and Maryland go free, so does DC.
But in the Deep South, below the line... the slaver elite will continue to hold on to power. They will not accept an end to their 'way of life'. I can see the US turning into two cultural regions, north of 'the line' and south of it. In the long term, it's not impossible that the North secedes from the USA, abandoning the South in disgust, just so they can adopt a new constitution that doesn't command them to obey fugitive slave laws.
If that happens, the "USA" (meaning the slave states) becomes a pariah state, and dirt poor. When it collapses, or slave rebellions break out, the North ("Federal States of America"?) could conceivably launch a military intervention and abolishes slavery by force. Or the system collapses like Apartheid. But there is no possible way this ends well. A slave economy is not viable in the modern world, nor is it morally acceptable.
The problem with dropping the "hereafter acquired" language is that, as Kenneth Stampp noted in *And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis 1860-61* "Southerners repeatedly asserted that without this provision for further expansion his [Crittenden's] compromise would be as worthless as the rest."
What will Southerners do when they find that British and European dockworkers refuse to unload ships that carry their cotton, Lancashire mills refuse to spin and weave slave cultivated cotton and stores in Europe --and in the North stop carrying garments made from slave cultivated cotton?Never mind the rank hypocrisy that the conditions under which cotton is cultivated in India, the Sudan and under the "head tax" system in Cape Colony and Natal are tantamount to slavery by other names.
.
At that point, somewhere around the 1890s or the 1900s, after Brazil has abolished slavery, the US will sheepishly comply with international opinion and abolish de jure slavery while retaining de facto slavery in the South as it did IOTL until 1942 (see Slavery By Another Name by Douglas Blackmon). In fact, as we all know, the US still has illegal slavery going on,ITTL and not only in the sex industry. It isn't widespread, but it does exist.![]()