What if the whole slavery debate had erupted into civil war? What would the likely outcome be? Who would have joined the secessionists, who would have stayed with the US government?
DBWI: A US Civil War
- Thread starter Thermopylae
- Start date
If Stephen A. Douglas hadn't been elected President in 1860, I think there might have been a very bloody war indeed. Though, if the lawayer, Abraham Lincoln hadn't argued, successfully in the Supreme Court case of Ezekial Porter vs. Benjamin, there still might still have been a war.
So the POD has to be involving slavery? OK, then the POD is before the 1875 compromise which phased out slavery in the remaining states which still had slaves.
Can we assume it is at least a few years after the Mexican War, which ended in 1848?
Can we assume it is at least a few years after the Mexican War, which ended in 1848?
I read an excellent book that I recommend to all of you: Nat Turner and John Brown. For those who don't know, it was written by Prof. James Buchannan, one of the most brilliant political theorists of his day. He actually got into PA state politics for a while before people suspected him of homosexuality.
Anyway, Prof. Buchannan was a biographer of John Brown, the famous abolitionist. His book claims that John Brown was inspired to enter abolition based on the example of Nat Turner, a slave who lead a massive rebellion in the 1840s where thousands of slaves sat down and refused to work. Not too radical -- every schoolchild learns that Nat Turner invented nonviolent resistance. But here's the wild part -- Prof. Buchannan talked to some of the slaves that survived The Great Martyrdom and learned that up until the last few days, Nat Turner was still considering a violent slave rebellion. Well, you don't need to read the book to imagine the kind of radicalizing effects that a violent rebellion would have had on both sides of the debate!
Anyway, Prof. Buchannan was a biographer of John Brown, the famous abolitionist. His book claims that John Brown was inspired to enter abolition based on the example of Nat Turner, a slave who lead a massive rebellion in the 1840s where thousands of slaves sat down and refused to work. Not too radical -- every schoolchild learns that Nat Turner invented nonviolent resistance. But here's the wild part -- Prof. Buchannan talked to some of the slaves that survived The Great Martyrdom and learned that up until the last few days, Nat Turner was still considering a violent slave rebellion. Well, you don't need to read the book to imagine the kind of radicalizing effects that a violent rebellion would have had on both sides of the debate!
Personally I doubt that secession would have been considered.
After all, where would it have stopped? Texas from the south? New York breaking with a New England Confederacy? It's not as if most of the political leadership of the time couldn't see what the long-term results would be.
What else would they do? Have a bunch of states secede and then declare that none of them could in turn secede from the new grouping?
Personally I think President Douglas was most important in inviting Abraham Lincoln and other, more moderate, Republicans into his cabinet. Once the South's fears were eased and the GOP forced to asume a more conciliatory approach or face their brand new party shattering...
After all, where would it have stopped? Texas from the south? New York breaking with a New England Confederacy? It's not as if most of the political leadership of the time couldn't see what the long-term results would be.
What else would they do? Have a bunch of states secede and then declare that none of them could in turn secede from the new grouping?
Personally I think President Douglas was most important in inviting Abraham Lincoln and other, more moderate, Republicans into his cabinet. Once the South's fears were eased and the GOP forced to asume a more conciliatory approach or face their brand new party shattering...
Consider This...
Well consider that the Compromise of 1875 was only ironed out after the devastating British-American trade embargo which started in 1862, after the HMS Trent "liberated" the USS Ticonderaga of its shipment of slaves, 25 nautical miles off the coast of Charleston, SC. Could America have dropped the institution of slavery without the foreign pressure of European nations of France and Great Britain?
Another issue to consider is the 1864 Atlanta Insurrection wherein Frederick Douglass led over 5,000 slaves in an armed insurrection until they were granted passage on board the HMS Amistad for "repatriation". During a civil war, would the issue of slavery been seen as a "evil instituion" rather than an "archaic and dying breed"?
Well consider that the Compromise of 1875 was only ironed out after the devastating British-American trade embargo which started in 1862, after the HMS Trent "liberated" the USS Ticonderaga of its shipment of slaves, 25 nautical miles off the coast of Charleston, SC. Could America have dropped the institution of slavery without the foreign pressure of European nations of France and Great Britain?
Another issue to consider is the 1864 Atlanta Insurrection wherein Frederick Douglass led over 5,000 slaves in an armed insurrection until they were granted passage on board the HMS Amistad for "repatriation". During a civil war, would the issue of slavery been seen as a "evil instituion" rather than an "archaic and dying breed"?
hum well just think the long term consequence of a civil war. People who keep arguing on the meaning, reason and fact so much that you keep thinking they'll start another out arguing and overall confusion since the thing took place hundreds of years ago and that are no reallly reliable precise information from that time (or from any thime)
Anaxagoras
Banned
I suppose if a civil war had split the United States into two nations (with perhaps a third nation out west), then the American Empire would never have risen to challenge Russia for world domination?
Well, if we have a Civil War starting in 1860, the US Army probably ends it by 1863 or so. General George McClellan was an excellent commander. President Douglas is probably not elected in 1860, so in 1864 there would have been no way for him to defeat that Republican major, Ulysses S. Grant. Probably the Whig Party isn't resserected and they don't win in 1876 with Rutherford Hayes. Now, what about long-term effects? A civil war in America probably makes us less likely to want to get involved in international conflicts, and there is likely no Anglo-American War in 1896 or a US conquest of Mexico in 1911. Possibly the Germans are allowed to go to war with the Allies in 1914 and a bigger war then the Third Balkans War develops. Probably better Anglo-American relations or a stronger alliance between the two in 1914.
That sounds pretty good, though you left out the Ami-Jap Pacific War of 1915 as being something unlikely to happen (probably in TTL we'd see a US that stays out of the Pacific dur to internal troubles, instead of dominating that ocean as in OTL). And no Mexican War is interesting... maybe it still happens in a form, but we only take some of the northern provinces instead of leaving only enough in the south to form that puppet state?Evil Opus said:
This just occurred to me -- if we have a civil war over slavery and the North wins, there's no way that they can kill or oppress all of the Southerners, so they probably will go through a very long period of bitterness and self-destructive behavior, probably even violent racism. George Washington Carver probably doesn't become the secretary of agriculture, Josephine Baker probably doesn't win all of those Academy Awards, and Gov. Cassius Clay probably doesn't do all those action films and end up as the governor of California.