American southern states don’t make ‘clunk’ move of Civil War?

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
“ . . . From the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 until 1861, slaveholders from states that joined the Confederacy had served as Presidents of the United States during 49 of the 72 years—more than two-thirds of the time. Twenty-three of the 36 Speakers of the House and 24 of the presidents pro tem of the Senate had been southerners. The Supreme Court always had a southern majority before the Civil War; 20 of the 35 justices down to 1861 had been appointed from slave states. . . ”

So, the South couldn’t envision a future other than its dominant position?

Any cataclysmic day of reckoning is decades and decades away. And as far as continuing to justify slavery within the south itself, even as it goes the route of a growing and modernizing economy— well, the sad truth is, is that otherwise smart persons are quite good at coming up with reasons and justifications for the status quo. I mean, South Africa had apartheid until the 1990s for crying out loud!

By ‘clunk’ move, I mean an abrupt, all-at-once move before you need to. The poker equivalent is ‘donk’-ing off your chips (playing like a donkey).
 
Last edited:
Despite the fact that the majority opinion in the north was to contain slavery, not eliminate it, the elites of the south were paranoid that their position of power had a timer on it. As more and more of the country became free states, the less influence the slave owners would have.

And the less influence they had, the more scared they became that abolition was getting closer and closer.

The north was always going to overwhelm them eventually, both demographically and economically. Which means that the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the White House are going to slip further and further away from their control.

Maybe if Texas had been admitted as more states, and the west is admitted as fewer, larger states, to preserve the balance in the senate for longer?
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
As more and more of the country became free states, the less influence the slave owners would have.

And the less influence they had, the more scared they became that abolition was getting closer and closer.
But we’re talking maybe 80 years, right?

And as much as I wish things were different, I think abolition was viewed as the position of small numbers of do-gooders.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Perhaps a pro Slavery California and Kansas would delay the thought that "abolition was inevitable"
From the above James McPherson article, yes, southern politicians were royally pissed that California came into the Union as a free state. But they could have taken a deep breath and reminded themselves that Texas had entered the Union as a slave state on Dec. 29, 1845.

Plus, Congress had “ . . divided the remainder of the Mexican cession into the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and left to their residents the question whether or not they would have slavery. (Both territories did legalize slavery, but few slaves were taken there.)”

No reason to panic.
 
But we’re talking maybe 80 years, right?

And as much as I wish things were different, I think abolition was viewed as the position of small numbers of do-gooders.

No one knew. You have to recall, only a few decades before the UK (the mightiest empire on earth and a political trend setter) had banned slavery in their colonies. Also, the Slave Power was a fragile thing. Even something as minor as not getting a Fugitive Slave Act would have been deemed an unacceptable failure.
 
I still think the Civil War and the run up to it was a massive hysterical overreaction by Southerners, even given their pro-slavery perspective. I think it may have partly been because of a guilty conscience.

A lot depends on whether southern slavery makes a widespread transition to industrialism or not. If it doesn't, then I think the most likely outcome is a slow decline of slavery. It first gets limited and then pretty slowly reversed under abolitionist pressure and with more difficulties keeping slaves from running away and with slavery gradually becoming less economic. Given the US political system it will still hang on for awhile which probably gives places like Cuba and Brazil more cover to keep up slavery for longer to. Abolition still occurs but more gradually and with more stuff like peonage, semi-slavery, than OTL. Not necessarily a pretty picture.

If @Jared style industrial slavery takes off, hoo boy. Not at ALL a pretty picture.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Even something as minor as not getting a Fugitive Slave Act would have been deemed an unacceptable failure.
The southern did just fine without the fugitive slave act for years and years. In fact, it was part of the Compromise of 1850, and basically was thrown to the south as a sop.
“ . . The fugitive slave law angered many northerners who were compelled to watch black people—some of whom had lived in their communities for years—returned in chains to slavery. . ”
The south may have been more strategic to stand pat. Find a face-saving reason, at the very beginning, to say no thank you, because you don’t want to needlessly whip up abolitionist sentiment.
 
I still think the Civil War and the run up to it was a massive hysterical overreaction by Southerners, even given their pro-slavery perspective. I think it may have partly been because of a guilty conscience.

A lot depends on whether southern slavery makes a widespread transition to industrialism or not. If it doesn't, then I think the most likely outcome is a slow decline of slavery. It first gets limited and then pretty slowly reversed under abolitionist pressure and with more difficulties keeping slaves from running away and with slavery gradually becoming less economic. Given the US political system it will still hang on for awhile which probably gives places like Cuba and Brazil more cover to keep up slavery for longer to. Abolition still occurs but more gradually and with more stuff like peonage, semi-slavery, than OTL. Not necessarily a pretty picture.

If @Jared style industrial slavery takes off, hoo boy. Not at ALL a pretty picture.

There is a phrase being Convicted in your own Heart. When you know you doing something wrong, it hurts to hear someone call out what your doing. Having a president, who would criticize the institution of slavery was just too much shame to bare. Breeding, selling, lashing, exploiting, terrorizing, and molesting human beings is morally indefensible, being called out on it by a president would only convince more Americans of this obvious truth. The Slave Holding Culture could see the writing on the wall.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
I still think the Civil War and the run up to it was a massive hysterical overreaction by Southerners, even given their pro-slavery perspective. I think it may have partly been because of a guilty conscience. . .
There is a phrase being Convicted in your own Heart. When you know you doing something wrong, it hurts to hear someone call out what your doing. Having a president, who would criticize the institution of slavery was just too much shame to bare. Breeding, selling, lashing, exploiting, terrorizing, and molesting human beings is morally indefensible, . . .
I certainly think it’s morally indefensible. A strong majority of us in modern times think it’s morally indefensible.

But, people have a way of justifying the status quo, whatever that status quo might. And sadly, people used the Bible and didn’t even have to work that hard at it. I understand that a couple of places even in the New Testament can be used to justify slavery.

My question is . . .

Why didn’t elder statesmen southern politicians take the line— Hey, we always have nullification in our hip pocket. We can use that if we face any unjust federal law, but I don’t really anticipate having to use it. Yes, I am disappointed in whatever convoluted process gave us a minority president. But the state of Mississippi is doing just fine thank you very much. There is absolutely no need to panic.

Maybe too many up-and-comers thought they could ride the horse of secessionist talk, and control it. They couldn’t.
 
Last edited:
A lot depends on whether southern slavery makes a widespread transition to industrialism or not.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t tbh. It’s not like slaves could only grow crops. The reason that’s what they were largely engaged in was because it was most profitable. If making textiles becomes more profitable, they’ll get switched over to that. A slave industrial proletariat would be incredibly interesting from a Marxist POV (and potentially very dangerous for the south)
 
A substantial number of white Southerners were deathly afraid of slave insurrections - in whch they might all be killed. As long as the US government stood behind the state governments, which stood behind the individual slaveholders, no slave insurrection could succeed, and so almost none were attempted. If that backing was withdrawn, white supremacy in black majority areas could evaporate.

A comparable situation would be the Communist governments of eastern Europe. Those regimes were detested by nearly all citizens of those countries. But everyone in those countries knew that overthrowing their Communist rulers would be answered by Soviet intervention with overwhelming military force. When Gorbachev showed that the USSR wasn't going to act - all of the Communist regimes evaporated.

What the more paranoid slaveowners feared was that Republicans would use the Federal government to infiltrate "abolition fiends" into the South to foment slave insurrections, while at the same time denying Federal support to any slave state government facing insurrection.

In the longer term, "Deep" Southerners (from South Carolina and Mississppi, where slaves outnumbered whites, and Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana, where the slave population approached 50%) feared that if anti-slavery Northerners controlled the Federal government, they would inevitably destroy slavery, regardless of constitutional restrictions. That would leave white Southerners submerged in a free black population whose supposed natural tendencies to vice and corruption would run wild. Lower-class whites especially feared this, as they would lose any superiority of position. (Slaves were a minority in Texas, but the white settlers there were largely from the Deep South and shared its attitudes.)

Whites in the Upper South were generally much less fearful - of slave insurrection and of "nigger equality". There were exceptions: areas such as the Virginia Tidewater where many counties had slave majorities. The plantation owners in these areas were among the wealthiest and most influential men in those states, and pulled the states with them.

The South acted in 1860 because the extreme paranoids feared immediate disaster, and secession advocates generally thought it was the right moment. There was widespread fear of Lincoln, which would ebb after he took office and governed like the moderate ex-Whig he was. The ex-Whigs of the South were the mainstay of Unionism there, but as of 1860, they were a disorganized rabble, with no party or real leaders.

If Lincoln was allowed to take office and govern, he would use the considerable patronage power of the presidency to recruit Southern ex-Whigs to the Republicans, or at least to organized Unionism. This would build up a powerful anti-secession faction. Secession was a hard sell, even in 1860-61 (outside South Carolina). If the Republicans had time to consolidate power, it could become impossible.
 
Last edited:

Jasen777

Donor
I do wonder how things would have gone if someone hit the planter class over the head with a clue-by-four about what a civil war would mean. So they just did politics where they still had SCOTUS and the filibuster in the Senate, just how long they could have kept slavery.
 
I certainly think it’s morally indefensible. A strong majority of us in modern times think it’s morally indefensible.

But, people have a way of justifying the status quo, whatever that status quo might. And sadly, people used the Bible and didn’t even have to work that hard at it. I understand that a couple of places even in the New Testament can be used to justify slavery.

My question is . . .

Why didn’t elder statesmen southern politicians take the line— Hey, we always have nullification in our hip pocket. We can use that if we face any unjust federal law, but I don’t really anticipate having to use it. Yes, I am disappointed in whatever convoluted process gave us a minority president. But the state of Mississippi is doing just fine thank you very much. There is absolutely no need to panic.

Maybe too many up-and-comers thought they could ride the horse of secessionist talk, and control it. They couldn’t.

Yes people will defend what puts money in their pockets. Not to hit the Bible too hard but there were limits on slavery. A slave was a human being, who couldn't be killed, or abused without good cause. Also a person couldn't be a slave for life. I believe one could only be a slave for 7 years. Biblical Slavery was usually the result of debt, and was more akin to being an Indentured Servant. American Chattel Slavery was a totally different system. Based on race, without limit, or duration it could only be enforced by cruelty, and terror. It left slaves with no hope of basic human rights, or any chance of developing their talents, or as the Founders said to seek happiness. To make human beings live their lives in despair shows the ultimate lack of Empathy. The one common element the psychiatrists studying the Nazi leaders at Nuremburg found was a lack of human empathy. When a person feels nothing they can do anything.
 
I certainly think it’s morally indefensible. A strong majority of us in modern times think it’s morally indefensible.

But, people have a way of justifying the status quo, whatever that status quo might. And sadly, people used the Bible and didn’t even have to work that hard at it. I understand that a couple of places even in the New Testament can be used to justify slavery.

My question is . . .

Why didn’t elder statesmen southern politicians take the line— Hey, we always have nullification in our hip pocket. We can use that if we face any unjust federal law, but I don’t really anticipate having to use it. Yes, I am disappointed in whatever convoluted process gave us a minority president. But the state of Mississippi is doing just fine thank you very much. There is absolutely no need to panic.

Maybe too many up-and-comers thought they could ride the horse of secessionist talk, and control it. They couldn’t.
Indeed, slavery was and is morally indefensible. So is making treaties with the American Indians and then breaking the treaties when they found something valuable the Indian lands. That did not seem to bother people at the time.
While slaves were counted as counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purpose American Indians were not even counted as people voting purpose.

If they wanted to keep slavery they would have been better being obstructionist in the house and senate and slowing down legislation or blocking in by continuously taking bills out of time in the senate. If they brought the legislative process to a halt maybe they could get the northern states to secede.;)
 
Last edited:
I do wonder how things would have gone if someone hit the planter class over the head with a clue-by-four about what a civil war would mean. So they just did politics where they still had SCOTUS and the filibuster in the Senate, just how long they could have kept slavery.

In my TL they do until 1880 during an Article V Convention.
 
being obstructionist in the house and senate and slowing down legislation or blocking in by continuously taking bills out of time in the senate.
Even with Lincoln in the White House the Democrats did hold the Senate until secession.

Would it calm Southern fears to have the Senate openly promising to make Lincoln a one term president?
One problem is some of the modern tools of obstruction, like having to raise the debt limit, didn't exist yet.
 
Top