Demographics of a U.S. that Avoid a Civil War Over Slavery?

As the tin says, what effect do yall think the avoidance of the civil war would have on the demographic landscape of the United States as they continued to develop up until an alternate present?
 
As the tin says, what effect do yall think the avoidance of the civil war would have on the demographic landscape of the United States as they continued to develop up until an alternate present?

The West, and particularly the Southwest, is likely to have more Southerners in it. Unlike OTL, they'll have been free to go there between 1861-5, and afterward there'll be a lot more Southerners around with the means to do so, as they won't have been impoverished by the War.

So the West Coast states, which were pretty marginal even OTL in the post-ACW generation, are probably Democratic more often than not.
 
It really depends on how a "war over slavery" was avoided. Was slavery abolished peacefully? How and when? Or was slavery never formally abolished but just allowed to gradually die out as economically untenable?
 
It really depends on how a "war over slavery" was avoided. Was slavery abolished peacefully? How and when? Or was slavery never formally abolished but just allowed to gradually die out as economically untenable?

Let's go with abolished peacefully eventually with compensated emancipation for the slaveholder?
 
Let's go with abolished peacefully eventually with compensated emancipation for the slaveholder?

OK, I'll try this.

(1) The US (or US whites at least) will remain basically racist and uncertain about how to handle millions of emancipated slaves, who may well not be automatically considered citizens of their respective states of the US since the slavocracy was not overturned in a war of conquest. I suspect "back to Africa" African emmigration policies will be more aggressive pursued by the US government and northern abolition societies, as might the idea of a promoting a "black state" in the west for freedmen who do become citizens. The end result might be a smaller african-american population in the US and one that sees black population shift westward.

(2) It is reasonable to presume the emancipation of slaves might be accompanied by an intentional shift in the old south to small farm holdings and increased industrial/mercantile businesses in the cities and towns - ie something more like the midwest and northern plains. European immigration patterns to the north should remain unchanged, but the south (or at least the main coastal cities) might see an increase in Irish/southern/eastern European immigration, reducing the predominance of English and "Scotch-Irish" (actually predominantly Scottish) ancestry among white southerners.

(3) With "emancipation and no civil war" American Indians are even more screwed than before. There will be no legal mechanism to force the slave-holding Southern tribes relocated to Indian territory to emancipate their slaves, gradually adding this to the litany of reasons tribal sovereignity must be eliminated. Also, Indian Territory and other unorganized Indian lands might become sought after for african-american settlements protected by the US Army and encouraged by the US Government and Eastern States.

(4) I don't see any great increase in Anglo (southern or northen) immigration to the New Mexico territory (modern Arizona and New Mexico), but a united USA might see a larger number of white southerers settling westward into Colorado, Utah, and especially California, and black freedmen (citizens or something not quite) may assume more of the hard labor tasks historically taken by Chinese immigrants. This could have later impact on Asian migration patterns to the west coast, resulting in a smaller east Asian population.
 
(4) I don't see any great increase of Anglo (southern or northen) immigration to the New Mexico territory (modern Arizona and New Mexico), but a united USA might see a larger number of white southerers settling westward into Colorado, Utah, and especially California, and black freedmen (citizens or something not quite) may assume more of the hard labor tasks historically taken by Chinese immigrants. This could have later impact on Asian migration patterns to the west coast, resulting in a smaller east Asian population.

If blacks remain a largely disenfranchised minority disproportionately employed in hard labor tasks, it is actually more likely that Asian immigration will be welcomed or accepted by whites. Asian immigrants would be competing much more with black labor rather than white, and racial division could very easily inhibit the development of labor organization on the west coast that otherwise might provide political support for exclusion.
 
Well, without the Civil War there are several hundred thousand more men in both the North and the South, so I expect Western states to be populated more quickly, especially the Southwest.

Native American tribes on the Great Plains and some in the Southwest like the Navajo are in for a world of hurt as more settlers move west more quickly and as the government isn't distracted militarily.
 
Let's go with abolished peacefully eventually with compensated emancipation for the slaveholder?

This is a fun experiment.

OTL blacks tended to stay in the South for a while after the Civil War, for a few reasons: it was the only home they knew, their families and friends were there, and they had the numbers to build a community. The one-two combo of extreme racial violence and the booming economy in the North convinced many blacks that leaving their homes and families (usually with the goal of bringing them up North after jobs were secured) was worth it for employment and a fair(er) shot at making it.

TTL, the one-two combo is in doubt. Assuming a peaceful abolition, the Southern economy would not be so utterly devastated as it was post-Civil War. Adding on to that compensated emancipation, and the South now has actual capital to invest in industry and infrastructure. Whether they use it for that is another matter, but lets assume they do. In TTL, the South, while certainly not as economically strong as the North, would at least start on a better base than it did OTL, which might provide more economic opportunity than blacks found OTL.

The second issue, racial suppression, probably isn't going to go away. However, it cannot be overstated how much of the South's racial violence was due to the suddenness of emancipation and the shame of defeat. Southerners, utterly broken, clung on to the one power source they had left after the war: white power. TTL, emancipation is gradual, peaceful, and expected, meaning people have more time to adapt. Will this butterfly racism? No. But it might lessen the brutality of it compared to OTL.

All of these things, in addition to OTL familial and social ties, might convince more blacks to stay in the South compared to OTL, which may mean that blacks stay a majority in many Southern states for longer. It would also mean a larger and overall richer (depending on the South's policies) Southern society.

There's also the issue of millions more men being alive and not physically/mentally scared, of course.
 
Latest estimates were that there were >700,000 military deaths during the CW, and of course many folks maimed who died early after the war and were too ill to have any children. Nobody has a good handle on civilian deaths, for example it is well documented that there were significant epidemics in contraband camps. What this means is you have probably 1,000,000 mostly young men who are there in 1865 who were not OTL.
 
Latest estimates were that there were >700,000 military deaths during the CW, and of course many folks maimed who died early after the war and were too ill to have any children. Nobody has a good handle on civilian deaths, for example it is well documented that there were significant epidemics in contraband camps. What this means is you have probably 1,000,000 mostly young men who are there in 1865 who were not OTL.

Well that could certainly lead to a lot more babies
 
How would the cost compare with that of the ACW?

The face value of U.S. slaves was something around $3-5 billion (in 1860 currency), on the order of 50-100% of yearly U.S. GDP. It's the equivalent of if the modern U.S. had to spend $10 trillion and essentially destroy it as a financial asset. Furthermore, taxation as a fraction of GDP was much lower back in 1860 for obvious reasons, and so spending so large a fraction of GDP would be a far more difficult task than in the present day.

In comparison, the estimated cost of the American Civil War to the federal government was perhaps $1 billion. Much of this was paid using unconventional funding mechanisms such as the greenbacks that would presumably be far less feasible in peacetime.

For obvious reasons, a governmental purchase program would also greatly increase the market price of slaves, making the final cost far more than the face value.

An earlier buyback program would not have solved this issue. The aggregate value of U.S. slaves as a fraction of GDP never went below ~1/3 of GDP during this period.

figure72.jpg
 
So really, the secessionists did the Yankees a favour, by enabling them to get rid of slavery on the (relatively) cheap.

Rhett Butler was right. They were real thickos.
 
Last edited:
Well that could certainly lead to a lot more babies

So the South in particular would have a significantly larger population.

So would the North, of course, but the South got fewer immigrants, so depended more on natural increase. It would also have borne the brunt of the civilian deaths.

So overall the South is more populous (and much richer) relative to the North, so more politically influential than OTL, even if maybe less than ante-Bellum. Maybe there are more Presidents of Southern background in the hundred years post 1850.
.
 
If the Southern planters did reinvest their money from emancipated slaves into industry, would we see a Southern rust belt or the rise of unions in the South rather than in OTL where unions are see as anathema down here?
 
The face value of U.S. slaves was something around $3-5 billion (in 1860 currency), on the order of 50-100% of yearly U.S. GDP. It's the equivalent of if the modern U.S. had to spend $10 trillion and essentially destroy it as a financial asset. Furthermore, taxation as a fraction of GDP was much lower back in 1860 for obvious reasons, and so spending so large a fraction of GDP would be a far more difficult task than in the present day.

In comparison, the estimated cost of the American Civil War to the federal government was perhaps $1 billion. Much of this was paid using unconventional funding mechanisms such as the greenbacks that would presumably be far less feasible in peacetime.

For obvious reasons, a governmental purchase program would also greatly increase the market price of slaves, making the final cost far more than the face value.

An earlier buyback program would not have solved this issue. The aggregate value of U.S. slaves as a fraction of GDP never went below ~1/3 of GDP during this period.

figure72.jpg

All of this presumes that slaves retain that value. If one takes the view that "no civil war" means slavery persists in the South until (1) the economics of plantation agriculture and maintaining large slave populations becomes an economic burden, and (2) cultural attitudes globally and in the US against slavery become even more widespread, Southern slave owners may be looking for a way to dump their expensive property for a government buyout and then hire them back as laborers paid next to nothing.
 
I imagine that most African Americans would remain in the rural South, and most Northern cities' labor would be filled with immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, more so than OTL.

In the long run there may be a deeper demographic divide between the North and the South due to the sheer proportion of Southern African Americans relative to their Northern counterparts, and its effects on the local White population.
 
All of this presumes that slaves retain that value. If one takes the view that "no civil war" means slavery persists in the South until (1) the economics of plantation agriculture and maintaining large slave populations becomes an economic burden, and (2) cultural attitudes globally and in the US against slavery become even more widespread, Southern slave owners may be looking for a way to dump their expensive property for a government buyout and then hire them back as laborers paid next to nothing.

There is no reason to believe that slavery was on the way out. Slaves were increasing in value as a fraction of GDP in 1860. For them to drop in price to the point where a buyout becomes even slightly feasible would require a more than 90% drop in value. There's no reason to expect that such a price collapse would occur. On the contrary, it's likely that industrial slavery would become increasingly prevalent and profitable.
 
Top