AHQ: Latest Possible American Civil War?

The politics of the antebellum USA is notable for kicking the problem of slavery down the line or trying to maintain the status quo and satisfy both sides. How late do you think an American civil war can break out? Could the South get rid of slavery peacefully in any case?
 

jahenders

Banned
The South generally believed that, if they didn't go in 1861, things were going to get progressively worse for them. Lincoln's election was a seminal event for them, though realistically he couldn't have summarily ended slavery in peacetime.

If the South had just bided their time, there would likely have been slow progress toward some form of abolition as more opposed it and new states were eventually allowed in. So, it's possible that significant limitations might have been put in effect by 1880 or so. However, that would be at least 15 years longer than they wound up with and might have included some kind of restitution.

Had the South waited until the mid-late 70s and then gone to war, things would have gone worse for them as Northern industrial growth continued.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
The reason the south bit the bullet in 1861 was that it was the last time they could hope to pull it off before northern industrial growth went totally out of control, king cotton was deposed forever, and the generation of military geniuses produced during the Mexican-American War retired or died. If a secession crisis had occurred in, say, 1855, luck might have been more on their side. The question of "now what?" after successful secession is a different one entirely though.

I would say that, if they were too chicken in 1861 and continued to try and bide for time, barring a major industrial revolution in the south (which might have spelled the end for slavery anyway and defeated the whole purpose of secession), they would have become overwhelmed quicker with each passing year and with fewer potential allies. The last time I could see them trying in this scenario is maybe 1875, by then they're totally outmatched economically, slavery is dying, their great generals would be dying, and they would be totally isolated in the rest of the world.
 
While the North's industrial superiority was growing, advances in weapons technology were making defence increasingly superior to attack so the war would have become bloodier for the North regardless.

Instead of fighting a war of manoeuvre with advances into the North the Confederacy could remain on the defensive. Imagine the Union trying to break through entrenched Confederate armies equipped with breech-loaders. Start the war a decade later and rifles such as the Chassepot, Martini-Henry etc are available in number. Pickett's Charge would pale behind the kind of losses those could inflict on advancing infantry.
 
The reason the south bit the bullet in 1861 was that it was the last time they could hope to pull it off before northern industrial growth went totally out of control, king cotton was deposed forever, and the generation of military geniuses produced during the Mexican-American War retired or died. If a secession crisis had occurred in, say, 1855, luck might have been more on their side. The question of "now what?" after successful secession is a different one entirely though.

I would say that, if they were too chicken in 1861 and continued to try and bide for time, barring a major industrial revolution in the south (which might have spelled the end for slavery anyway and defeated the whole purpose of secession), they would have become overwhelmed quicker with each passing year and with fewer potential allies. The last time I could see them trying in this scenario is maybe 1875, by then they're totally outmatched economically, slavery is dying, their great generals would be dying, and they would be totally isolated in the rest of the world.

Yeah. People like to describe the secession as irrational, or at least an overreaction; pointing out that slavery would have lasted for decades without the war, but we only think that because we see slavery itself as repugnant and irrational. If the sole goal is the preservation of slavery, forever, (in other words the preservation of the planter class) then secession in 1861 was perfectly rational, even if they misjudged their actual odds of winning. If anything it was too late, the South should have seceded 20 years earlier if they wanted to have a decent chance at victory, but the North was not nearly so abolitionist 20 years earlier. By 1861 they had only the slimmest chance of winning, one that would require incredible luck or very incompetent Union leadership, of which they had neither.
 
Yeah. People like to describe the secession as irrational, or at least an overreaction; pointing out that slavery would have lasted for decades without the war, but we only think that because we see slavery itself as repugnant and irrational. If the sole goal is the preservation of slavery, forever, (in other words the preservation of the planter class).


They didn't do themselves justice. The Planter class survived a generation even without slavery, and despite a devastating defeat in war. They didn't know their own strength.
 
The South generally believed that, if they didn't go in 1861, things were going to get progressively worse for them. Lincoln's election was a seminal event for them, though realistically he couldn't have summarily ended slavery in peacetime.

If the South had just bided their time, there would likely have been slow progress toward some form of abolition as more opposed it and new states were eventually allowed in.


Though, ironically, apart from WV and NV, neither of which wd have been admitted without the war (and wouldn't necessarily have been anti-Southern even if they were) only three new states - KS, NB and CO - came in between 1861 and 1888. On that point they were jumping at shadows.
 
The politics of the antebellum USA is notable for kicking the problem of slavery down the line or trying to maintain the status quo and satisfy both sides. How late do you think an American civil war can break out? Could the South get rid of slavery peacefully in any case?


What do we mean by "get rid of slavery"?

Given another generation or so, I could imaging the South going over to something like the "Black Code" system which they tried to adopt in 1865, ie with "labour contracts" whose terms differed little from enslavement, so that the only change would be that, in law, only the contracts could be bought and sold, rather than the actual person. But the Blacks might notice only a slight difference, esp if the contracts allowed "moderate and reasonable" corporal punishment. Would the North object to this? Could the South have gotten away with just ceasing to call it slavery?
 

jahenders

Banned
True, but that would affect both sides unless the South was convinced to go entirely defensive. Some battles would look more like WWI.

While the North's industrial superiority was growing, advances in weapons technology were making defence increasingly superior to attack so the war would have become bloodier for the North regardless.

Instead of fighting a war of manoeuvre with advances into the North the Confederacy could remain on the defensive. Imagine the Union trying to break through entrenched Confederate armies equipped with breech-loaders. Start the war a decade later and rifles such as the Chassepot, Martini-Henry etc are available in number. Pickett's Charge would pale behind the kind of losses those could inflict on advancing infantry.
 
What do we mean by "get rid of slavery"?

Given another generation or so, I could imaging the South going over to something like the "Black Code" system which they tried to adopt in 1865, ie with "labour contracts" whose terms differed little from enslavement, so that the only change would be that, in law, only the contracts could be bought and sold, rather than the actual person. But the Blacks might notice only a slight difference, esp if the contracts allowed "moderate and reasonable" corporal punishment. Would the North object to this? Could the South have gotten away with just ceasing to call it slavery?

I think this would have continued to kick the can down the road. If these codes were accompanied by laws that gave "freed" black families legal protection and some status in courts of law, moderate abolitionists in the North would probably have seen this as a partial victory and a portent of eventual future changes. Also with "slavery" ended, the difference between the actual (not de jure) freedoms of plantation workers in the south and "free" textile and industrial workers in the north would be reduced, possibly widening the abolition movement into a broader workers rights movement...one that lost its racial overtones.
 
I think this would have continued to kick the can down the road. If these codes were accompanied by laws that gave "freed" black families legal protection and some status in courts of law, moderate abolitionists in the North would probably have seen this as a partial victory and a portent of eventual future changes. Also with "slavery" ended, the difference between the actual (not de jure) freedoms of plantation workers in the south and "free" textile and industrial workers in the north would be reduced, possibly widening the abolition movement into a broader workers rights movement...one that lost its racial overtones.


Which would, I suspect, lead to the Republican Party losing a lot of its more respectable members - the ones who owned or hoped to own factories - to a recovered Democratic Party.
 
Which would, I suspect, lead to the Republican Party losing a lot of its more respectable members - the ones who owned or hoped to own factories - to a recovered Democratic Party.

Interesting. Or perhaps the existence of unjust and exploitative conditions for industrial workers in the north and sharecropping plantation laborers in the south would help mold the distinctive late 19th century form of US socialism ("Agrarian" or "Christian" socialism) into a unified national party, leaving both the Democrats and Republicans to represent different sides of the power elites - one industrial/capitalist, one agrarian/aristocratic.
 

Buzz

Banned
By 1870, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee would have become free states

Both Kentucky and Maryland got rid of it before the war ended

1861 was the last chance to get all the slaves states on their side, and even then some didn't go
 
By 1870, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee would have become free states

1890 maybe. I don't see them abandoning it any time soon.

Both Kentucky and Maryland got rid of it before the war ended
I think you mean Missouri and Maryland. and in both cases this was a result of the war, which gave rise to political upheavals in those states that wouldn't have been remotely likely otherwise.

1861 was the last chance to get all the slaves states on their side, and even then some didn't go
That's something I've wondered about. There seems to have been a lot of trouble in VA about over-representation of Tidewater Counties, and demands for redistricting on a basis of white population only, which would have increased the influence of Western counties. Had this been accepted in the next decade or so, might secession have been defeated there, which would have made it a more doubtful proposition in NC and TN as well?
 
True, but that would affect both sides unless the South was convinced to go entirely defensive. Some battles would look more like WWI.

After a few battles have demonstrated just how badly attacking forces get mauled by the new weaponry the manpower-poor South, which just can't afford the losses anyway, is bound to go on the defensive first.

The problem for the North is that has to fight an offensive war in order to bring Johnny Reb back into the Union, conversely the South just has to hold on and bleed the Damn Yankees until they stop coming.

The hope for Richmond would be that rapidly mounting casualty figures for insignificant gains in territory by the Union Army are not going to be politically sustainable for Washington DC in the long term.

If they'll take the losses the North still wins of course, just like the Entente eventually ground down the Central Powers, but it could take a while and the butcher's bill will be high.
 
The reason the south bit the bullet in 1861 was that it was the last time they could hope to pull it off before northern industrial growth went totally out of control, king cotton was deposed forever, and the generation of military geniuses produced during the Mexican-American War retired or died. If a secession crisis had occurred in, say, 1855, luck might have been more on their side. The question of "now what?" after successful secession is a different one entirely though.

What was the state of Egyptian cotton at the time? I know that the British developed it largely in response to the difficulties in getting Southern cotton during the Civil War, but one presumes that they would have preferred their "own" source of the cloth anyway, as the years continued. Was the Southern leadership concerned about this possibility, lending more strength to the 1860ish date?
 

jahenders

Banned
You're right that the North has the greater impetus to go on the offensive, but IOTL the manpower-poor South, which just can't afford the losses anyway, did not really go on the defensive first. They suffered some devastating losses in attacks even though losses against strong defensive positions were already shown to be severe.

After a few battles have demonstrated just how badly attacking forces get mauled by the new weaponry the manpower-poor South, which just can't afford the losses anyway, is bound to go on the defensive first.

The problem for the North is that has to fight an offensive war in order to bring Johnny Reb back into the Union, conversely the South just has to hold on and bleed the Damn Yankees until they stop coming.

The hope for Richmond would be that rapidly mounting casualty figures for insignificant gains in territory by the Union Army are not going to be politically sustainable for Washington DC in the long term.

If they'll take the losses the North still wins of course, just like the Entente eventually ground down the Central Powers, but it could take a while and the butcher's bill will be high.
 
Top