Best way to prevent the US Civil War

Which is the best option to prevent the Civil War?

  • 1800 POD

    Votes: 22 62.9%
  • 1824 POD

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • 1828 POD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1841 POD

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • 1844 POD

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • 1850 POD

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • 1852 POD

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • 1853 POD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1860 POD

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Total voters
    35
Which of these PODs is best to prevent or delay the American Civil War?

1. 1798. The Alien and Sedition act never happens, so John Adams is re-elected in 1800.

2. 1824. Henry Clay wins the Election over Adams and Jackson.

3. 1828. Adams is re-elected over Jackson.

4. 1841. William Henry Harrison makes a shorter speech at his inauguration so completes at least a term and preventing John Tyler from ascending to the Presidency.

5. 1844. Clay wins or the Mexican-American War doesn't happen in another way.

6. 1850. Zachary Taylor doesn't die.

7. 1852. Winfield Scott wins the election.

8. 1853. Benjamin Pierce does not die in a train crash, so Franklin Pierce is less depressed in his Presidency.

9. 1860. Somehow the Democrats don't divide and Stephen Douglas win election.
 
Your 1860 option would work, but the "somehow" is the kicker.

Its hard to think of good obvious PODs.
 
Last edited:
Your 1860 option would work, but the "somehow" is the kicker.

Its hard to think of good. obvious PODs.

Douglas being elected in 1856 could work as well, but I think that 1854 is the absolute latest you could prevent the war because the country was split apart too much by then.
 
One of the problems with (9) is that if every Douglas and Breckinridge (and Bell) vote were cast for a single anti-Lincoln candidate, Lincoln would still get a majority in the Electoral College. (Of the states he carried, he would lose only California and Oregon and the four electoral votes he won in New Jersey.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860 Of course things aren't quite that simple, and perhaps a unified Democratic Party could attract some people who were non-voters in OTL; and perhaps Lincoln got some votes from people who were worried about the potential "chaos" if the election went into the House, etc.

And then, too, there is the question of how in 1860 you could unify a party whose major factions had opposing views on slavery in the territories. Recall that Douglas did attempt a compromise in the platform; instead of insisting that the party accept his views on popular sovereignty, he suggested "let's just follow what the Supreme Court says." ("Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic Party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional law." http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3950 The Southerners rejected it, insisting "That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends." http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3951 In other words, "if necessary" a slave code for the territories...
 
You forgot 1832: South Carolina tries seceding and Andrew Jackson proceeds to march into Calhounistan and puts John C Calhoun's head on a stick. In the meanwhile, the destruction and chaos results in the slaves of the state rising up.

After that, nobody ever bothers trying to secede again.
 
One of the problems with (9) is that if every Douglas and Breckinridge (and Bell) vote were cast for a single anti-Lincoln candidate, Lincoln would still get a majority in the Electoral College. (Of the states he carried, he would lose only California and Oregon and the four electoral cotes he won in New Jersey.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860 Of course things aren't quite that simple, and perhaps some a unified Democratic Party could attract some people who were non-voters in OTL; and perhaps Lincoln got some votes from people who were worried about the potential "chaos" if the election went into the House, etc.

And then, too, there is the question of how in 1860 you could unify a party whose major factions had opposing views on slavery in the territories. Recall that Douglas did attempt a compromise in the platform; instead of insisting that the party accept his views on popular sovereignty, he suggested "let's just follow what the Supreme Court says." ("Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic Party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional law." http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3950 The Southerners rejected it, insisting "That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends." http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3951 In other words, "if necessary" a slave code for the territories...

I don't think that is the best POD myself. In my opinion the best chances were in 1824, 1828 and 1841. The events of 1845-1854 made it inevitable. The only thing that could've prevented it after Kansas-Nebraska is Douglas winning in 1856.
 
POD would have to be before 1800 IMO. Even at this point slavery was a deep ingrained part of southern culture. The South wouldn’t give up slavery in 1776, more time that passes the harder it would be. After the cotton gin the economic benefits promote the spread of slavery. More slave owners, more slave states, more who view the end of slavery as their economic ruin. More territory more conflict over the free state/slave state so pre 1803 and Louisiana purchase and 1794 and the invention of the cotton gin. Our national original sin I fear could never have been cleansed without blood.
 
POD would have to be before 1800 IMO. Even at this point slavery was a deep ingrained part of southern culture. The South wouldn’t give up slavery in 1776, more time that passes the harder it would be. After the cotton gin the economic benefits promote the spread of slavery. More slave owners, more slave states, more who view the end of slavery as their economic ruin. More territory more conflict over the free state/slave state so pre 1803 and Louisiana purchase and 1794 and the invention of the cotton gin. Our national original sin I fear could never have been cleansed without blood.
This IMO, you would need to build a mercantile class along the southern coast that was both even (or larger) in size to the slave owners while also having more lucrative careers that way a southern block made up of people with money and influence who didn't get that way through slavery (thus doesn't see an attack on slavery as an attack on their livelihood.) You don't need to go too much further back than the revolution for this, you just need the mercantile class to be at least a large minority (of the wealthy, that is) by 1800 and have some of them start investing in the industrial revolution early on thus curbstomping the slaveowners grasp on power in the south.

Other than that I just don't see it being possible to prevent a powerful, slave owning, class from becoming ingrained enough in the political culture that a civil war becomes inevitable.
 
Sometime in the 1800s, there is a serious fallout between the British and the Americans that results in bad or outright aggressive relations between the two nations. Possibly a limited conflict over the Oregon territory. This results in the British finding alternative sources for cotton imports and the Americans industrialising earlier to compensate for lack of British manufactured goods. The lack of a major market to sell cotton to results in the collapse of the slave-based cotton industry in the South. So the South is far less keen to go to war over an industry that is no longer profitable. The North implements a policy of gradual emancipation of slaves, resulting in an outright ban sometime after 1860.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
1630 The King bans lifetime slavery in his colonies in favor of increased seven year indenture of local non conformists.
 
Okay interesting answers. Let's say March 4 1841 was a bright and sunny day, so Harrison survives a whole term. What happens next?
 
need a earlier POD, American revolution fails and American colonies remains part of British Empire, when slavery is outlawed in rest of the Empire American colonies go along
 
1630 The King bans lifetime slavery in his colonies in favor of increased seven year indenture of local non conformists.

Does that mean the Irish become the main minority in the Americas?

need a earlier POD, American revolution fails and American colonies remains part of British Empire, when slavery is outlawed in rest of the Empire American colonies go along

Or what if it succeeds only in part and the states that go free are more likely to ban slavery? I read a while back a proposal in which the British keep Maine, NYC, South Carolina and Georgia while the rest form a new nation. This probably means NYC joins the US later as a stand-alone State, Maine goes to Canada, and SC and GA either join later or form a new nation.
 
Patriots lose War of Independence. Britain bans slavery, South attempts to rise but because of different system of government, and lack of republicanism, revolt fails, quickly.
 
Top