How long can the American Civil War be delayed?

Many seem to think of the ACW as an inevitability, citing the natural consternation between the North & South over the issue of slavery among other factors. With a POD of 1850 (Ill leave it up to you to change the 1850 compromise or not) how long can the ACW be plausibly delayed and what might be the effects, not only for the war but for *reconstruction and the US in general?
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
You'd have to avoid the rise of Jackson and the Democrats(sounds like a band:D). This prevents the Spoils System(or at least delays it). The Spoils System was basically the concept of the winner in an election giving political supporters government jobs. Ultimately a political party, in order to win, would have to promise more and more government jobs. This, over time, increased the size and scope of the federal government.

One thing the South needed for the continued perpetuation of slavery was a small docile federal government, which Jackson certainly wasn't:rolleyes:. The (relatively)massive federal government created by the spoils system, in the right(or wrong, depends on your point of view) hands could see the destruction of slavery. This, in the eyes of the South, happened in 1860.
 
The Federal government was tiny in 1860. It might have grown a little since Jackson's time, but it was "massive" in no sense that word can honestly be used.
 
Yeah. Plus the Spoils System was never an official policy, and was pretty much destined to be de facto practice thanks to a pesky little thing called 'human nature', whether Jackson got elected or not.
 
Between 1850-1861, you could have had a number of PODs to change the course of history and at least delay a major conflict between the slave and free states. The situation could have been diffused under several scenarios where popular sovereignty isn't implemented over the old Missouri Compromise and so you butterfly away Bleeding Kansas, and probably the Dred Scott case. Had free soilers not seemed so powerless you might have not seen the rise of the Republican Party. Maybe Texas is divided into multiple states as new free states are added to continue the balance of power.

However, some kind of conflict was bound to happen sooner or later. As the North industrialized and its population and wealth continued to threaten the slaveholding south's way of life, and as abolitionist movements continued to grow, conflict became inevitable.

So maybe a conflict is delayed by 5 to 15 years. Certainly by 1875, things like slave uprisings begun by the likes of John Brown and other abolitionists will have probably caused many slave states to want to isolate themselves by seceding. But there is no guarantee that the President at the time that states start to secede will do anything other than negotiate a peaceful exit with the state purchasing federal property, etc. But even if a couple of years go by after a confederacy of slave states is formed, it would still only be a matter of time before something starts an armed conflict. My guess would be some kind of confederate military outfit crossing into US territory to hunt down runaway slaves and "bring to justice" their northern abolitionist co-conspirators. Once a conflict between the two armies begins it could easily scale up to a full fledged war.
 
By 1850 I think it can only be delayed, as Sam Houston says, not prevented. I think it will happen within 30 years of that date, regardless of circumstance.
 
Pressure from the British and New England cotton buyers, the primary market for the South and financed in New York City and London, would be just as likely to end slavery the ways the British had some years earlier (or for that matter the Mexican government had already ended slavery decades before without triggering a Civil War (well other than the Texas War of Independence to retain slavery for the East Texas plantations just forming.) Either a direct purchase of slaves by the Federal Government or perhaps as a tax credit against cotton, tobacco, etc. excise taxes would have gone a long way in defusing the situation, as usual it's probably more about the money than the principle with slaves representing perhaps a third of the business assets in the US. Even now a do-gooder demanding others impoverish themselves to satisfy the do-gooder's opinion of what's right causes considerable tensions around the world and abolitionists were a small, very radical bunch.

Often after 30-50 years what were radical social proposals become very mainstream ideas and increasingly implemented policies so given more time, abolition or manumission would have gained much broader acceptance and been far easier to phase in peacefully, albeit more likely in the 1880's-1890's so another generation under the yoke.

There are some claims with the farm mechanization revolution begun in the 1850's with the McCormick Reaper that vast amounts of farm labor were about to be no longer needed by the 1870's so manumission to escape the operating costs of slaves amid a dwindling market would have eroded slavery considerably over several decades while retaining the large operations instead of breaking into thousands of subsistence tenant farming operations. Selling the slaves to other markets like sugar cane plantations, hard-rock or coal mines, ship's crews, railroad construction crews, etc. would have been at least as likely I think, the demand for cheap labor in awful locations and terrible working conditions was shifting location and industry, not disappearing.

POD's could be cotton harvesting equipment coming out a few decades earlier, the British developing Egyptian cotton plantations in the 1850's instead of during the Civil War, British & New England textile mills agreeing to no longer buy slave-harvested cotton (surprising a boycott wasn't organized in hindsight), John C. Calhoun of South Carolina dies in 1850 as he led the first state out of the Union and is a major rabblerouser throughout the preceding decades, Harriet Beecher Stowe doesn't write "Uncle Tom's Cabin", Lincoln's re-elected over and over to Congress so he becomes part of the establishment and a colleague of Stephen Douglas, Frederick Douglas doesn't escape slavery, William Lloyd Garrison or other major abolitionists focus on women's suffrage and temperance more so than slavery, James Buchanan never becomes President or perhaps Henry Clay does, lots of minor things often betting on someone being more passive or less effective than they were at a particular moment.
 
Either a direct purchase of slaves by the Federal Government . . .

Like the one rejected by the Border States when Lincoln offered it in the ACW?

The South did not want to give up slavery. On any terms.

I don't get why people keep bringing up the idea of ending slavery by money to the slave owners when the slave owners were so opposed to the idea.
 
If you delay it for long enough, the South will realise at some point that slavery can't really dominate further West than Texas anyway, so they might accept that the end of slavery is inevitable.
 
If you delay it for long enough, the South will realise at some point that slavery can't really dominate further West than Texas anyway, so they might accept that the end of slavery is inevitable.

The end of the Expansion of slavery perhaps, but they would be dead set on keeping it where it already existed.

This brings up an interesting point though, what is slavery is actually contained? Wilmot Proviso (A tad ASB but still) or something else could halt the admission of new slave states, how long would this delay conflict though....
 
Many seem to think of the ACW as an inevitability, citing the natural consternation between the North & South over the issue of slavery among other factors.

There are no other factors of any comparable importance. On every other national issue, the geographical sections of the country were divided. And none of those issues were regarded by anyone as an existential threat.

Many Southerners regarded abolitionism as the prelude to a slave uprising and the general massacre of whites in the South. (The spectre of Haiti loomed large.)

Tariffs and railroads and banking and so on were by comparison insignificant.

With a POD of 1850 (Ill leave it up to you to change the 1850 compromise or not) how long can the ACW be plausibly delayed and what might be the effects, not only for the war but for *reconstruction and the US in general?

The trick is both to keep the war from starting in 1860, and have it start later. The trigger was the election of an anti-slavery President, which initiated the panic. But it was also the rise to power of the Republicans, the first real anti-slavery party. Southerners were initially very worried by the Republicans, but over time that fear could be moderated with familiarity.

So Republicans have to be more militant than OTL. Here's a try.

Justice Taney dies in early 1857, before the broader Dred Scott decision is issued. The Court does not overturn the Missouri Compromise restriction on slavery in the Territories.

The Douglas doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty" remains acceptable to the Deep South (as they have not been given anything better). Douglas wins the Democrat nomination in 1860. The VP nominee is Sen. Benjamin Fitzgerald of Alabama. A smaller than OTL faction of Deep South Democrats bolt, and nominate Robert Toombs of Georgia.

The Buchanan administration makes a last effort to force the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution on Kansas. As in earlier years, thousands of armed "Border Ruffians" from Missouri enter Kansas to rig the election. However, this effort meets resistance. 50 Ruffians and more than 100 Free-Soilers are killed, many in the Lawrence Massacre.

But it succeeds. Between suppression of Free-Soil votes and fraudulent ballots, there is a very narrow majority for approval of the Lecompton constitution, and this result is certified by the Territorial governor, appointed by President Buchanan.

William Seward of New York wins the Republican nomination. The convention, goaded by Kansas to fervent anti-slavery feeling, nominates abolitionist Cassius Clay of Kentucky for Vice President.

The remnants of the Whigs assemble as the Constitutional Union Party, but cannot agree on a candidate. Most Southerners finally agree to endorse Douglas, but a northern faction nominates Edward Everett of Massachusetts.

Douglas comes out swinging to both sides. He savagely denounces the Kansas fraud - which has shocked even many Southerners. He also attacks Seward's alleged "radicalism". Clay's unquestionable radicalism on slavery is also alarming.

In November -

Douglas carries TN, NC, VA, LA, KY, MD, DE, NJ, IN, IL, CA, OR, and OH, and PA (154 EV), and becomes President. This is in due to significant old-Whig voters in the North supporting Everett instead of Seward, old Whigs in the South backing Douglas, and the failure of Toombs to unite southern Democrats.

Congress fails to act on Kansas statehood before the term ends.

Rep. Owen Lovejoy, whose brother was a famous abolitionist martyr, is appointed to succeed him by the Republican governor of Illinois.

In the summer of 1861, Douglas dies suddenly of typhoid fever.

Fitzgerald as President adopts a strong pro-slavery line. The Supreme Court upholds the Lecompton vote. In the 1861-1862 session, which starts in December, Fitzgerald musters enough votes from Southerners (including ex-Whigs), and northern "Doughface" Democrats to get Kansas admitted as a slave state. (Additional Democrats were elected in 1860 on Douglas' coattails.)

Outrage over Kansas sweeps the North. In the 1862 elections, Republicans gain hugely in the House (assisted by the 1860 reapportionment) and also in the Senate. The lame-duck Congress passes a law which would prevent a state from altering its initial constitutional position on slavery without the consent of Congress (based on the idea that the state's first constitution is a contract with Congress, and aimed at preventing such a change in Kansas).

In the 1863-1864 Congress, the House repeatedly votes to repeal that law, but action is blocked by the Senate. The law is upheld 5-4 by the Supreme Court. Northern opinion is increasingly outraged, and open abolitionism more widely preached.

Southern Fire-Eaters warn of the increasing dominance of the increasingly hostile North.

In early 1864, the Supreme Court decides Pickens v. Cameron, ruling that slaveowners have a "right of sojourn" in any state or territory with their slave property. This massively inflames Northerners, who are now convinced that slavery will be made national.

With the Democratic Party in near collapse outside the South, it is dominated by Southerners, who nominate Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. (They recognize that President Fitzgerald is tainted by the Kansas issue.) In an effort to win over Whigs, they choose Reverdy Johnson of Maryland for VP.

Davis, though not a secessionist, is too punctilious to disclaim his party's hard-line pro-slavery platform, which calls for enforcement of Pickett, even though he realizes that he can't win on it and Lovejoy's election will trigger secession. No third-party candidates appear to split the vote.

In 1864, the Republicans nominate Lovejoy, and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts (himself a more recent martyr).

Despite the surge in abolitionist sentiment in the North, Lovejoy doesn't sweep the free states: there is enough alarm at his radicalism to throw California, New Jersey, and Oregon to Davis. He still collects 179 of 309 electoral votes.

11 slave states declare secession - all but Delaware, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland. The last three elect conventions to debate secession. In all three states, there are non-slaveholding elements that are opposed to secession and block action (German immigrants in St, Louis, mountaineers in western Virginia and Maryland).

The war is on!
 
Something important to remember is that South seceded only because it figured it would win any civil war. South Carolina only seceded because it thought it could get other states to secede with them. Many of the Fenderal officials and officers in important southern arsenals and posts were southerners themselves. The fire eaters were organized as a result of the last secession crisis. The southern unionists were not because they were complacent. Secession was all dependent on the fire eaters thinking they could get away with it because enough of them would leave at the same time. This is an important point to make - if people think that secession will fail, they won't do it.

The situation in 1860 allowed this. Whether the situation would be as equally beneficial for secession in future years is highly debatable.

Any number of decisions and events can begin stripping away the comfort level the fire eaters had in 1860 that made them think secession would be successful. An argument can be made they struck in 1860 precisely because they did not think the future would be so beneficial to them.

Once Lincoln is elected in 1860, Republican patronage can build a Republican Party in the south. At the very least, it'll happen in the Border States and Upper South where the Republicans got almost no votes. After one or two terms, the Republicans are established in those states, meaning it will be almost impossible for anyone to think they would ever secede.

Not having a dithering idiot like Buchanan means the Federal government will act more decisively should any southern state even attempt to secede. You won't have pro-southern military commanders surrendeing their arsenals and forts to the states.

All of this will in turn strengthen the southern unionists, even those in the Deep South, since they see secession as being the height of folly. They won't believe any fairy tales that they could secede and get away with it. South Carolina might be stupid enough to secede, but no one else will join them. And being isolated, it is highly likely the crisis will be resolved and South Carolina rejoin the union without fighting.

And the longer secession is delayed, the more likely it is that it never happens.

Elfwine makes a good point that the even the Border States of 1860 won't accept compensated emancipation in 1860. That does not mean they won't be the case in 1870, 1880, or 1890. I could see a situation where Delaware accepts compensated emancipation in 1870. Missouri agrees in 1880. Kentucky by 1890. The Upper South would follow suit afterwards. As slaves become less important to the economic elites in a world of industrial corporations, the political elites will be less deferential to them.

By 1890, secession is dead in the water no matter what kind of abolitionist pressures are made. Too many people in the South will not be dependant on slave holders as the political elite to follow them. Republican businessmen and farmers will have their own powerbase throughout the south. And there will be even more free states in the Union.

I think there is a very large danger zone from 1850-1870 where civil war is highly likely. However, after 1870, there are many, many things going on that makes that threat less likely. If the country is able to avoid it during those twenty years - hard, but not impossible - chances are increasingly good it will avoid it entirely.
 
I think it'd be rather easy if you change a few things earlier in the road. Somebody brought up Popular Sovereignty not replacing the Missouri Compromise. And dividing Texas. These two things by themselves I think would probably be enough, but they'd imply other things that would be a bit difficult.

First, the Compromise of 1850 has to go differently. I'd say California has to be split with the Missouri Compromise either officially extending or not. If the former, it makes things easier later.

Then we'd have to avoid Popular Sovereignty with the Kansas-Nebraska act. If the Missouri Compromise Line was extended before, this is very easy. If it wasn't, it's at least easier than OTL.

At this point I think the entire issue is solved. There'd be no replacement of the Missouri Compromise. If Slave States feel they need more states, they can split Texas at least. There'd be no Bleeding Kansas, and then we can avoid the Dredd Scott case. That that case even showed up is something of a fluke in OTL anyway. Overall, the main problem here is gone (expansion of slave states in relation to free states. Once the US has set in stone how it's going to divvy up the land, and so long as it gets no more land, the problem's over).

If there's no war in the 1860's, things continue on their way. Slavery will slowly die as public attitudes change. I'd agree with Blackfox5's general sentiment. Slavery will slowly erode in places where it had already eroded, until it's gone. Erosion will catch on further south. And such a general trend will continue until slavery itself has ended.

The only problem is I think this might be difficult to accomplish without getting one side or the other to split off and declare war. But it's doable, and once you get past a certain point things will stabilise.
 
Last edited:
What about getting rid of ghe Haitian revolution and getting the abolitionists to adopt a gradualist approach? Eg improving the rights of slaves rather than seeking to outright end it (at least not immediately).
 
Top