Much worse civil war or balkanization if the US Civil War in 1861 was crushed quickly?

[Berkeley2017]

If the US Civil War ended quickly after a Union Victory at Bull Run, might the US, decades down the road, be at a greater risk of collapse from something like akin to a Great Depression?

 

[UCB79]

If the US Civil War ended quickly after a Union Victory at Bull Run, might the US, decades down the road, be at a greater risk of collapse from something like akin to a Great Depression?

The immediate problem is that slavery would
have been CONTINUED(remember IOTL the
Republicans won the 1860 election on a plat-
form of CONTAINING, not abolishing slavery
with Lincoln quite specifically saying he would not interfere with slavery where it al-
ready existed). The North only moved to end
it after the war had been going on for almost
two years & it was seen that they had to do
this to defeat the South(it has been said that
emancipation was something the North fought WITH, not for). Obviously slavery
would not have gone on forever- but the South would have done everything it could
to continue it, like Brazil IOTL did(& they
didn't end slavery until 1888).

So I see slavery- unfortunately- continuing
into the late 19th Century. This would of
course have HUGE effects on subsequent U.S. development & of course on the econ-
omy. I don't know, though, if the U.S.
economy would have then suffered an
economic depression because of this as the
changes beyond our timeline are so major
(I do doubt The Great Depression of 1929
would have been avoided since IOTL it was
a world-wide phenomenon). I do feel pretty
sure in stating that once slavery was dis-
posed sufficient stresses & strains to create
Balkanization would have been avoided(un-
less of course the North somehow got angry
enough again @ the South re slavery to
provoke a SECOND Civil War).

 

[Berkeley2017]

The immediate problem is that slavery would
have been CONTINUED(remember IOTL the
Republicans won the 1860 election on a plat-
form of CONTAINING, not abolishing slavery
with Lincoln quite specifically saying he would not interfere with slavery where it al-
ready existed). The North only moved to end
it after the war had been going on for almost
two years & it was seen that they had to do
this to defeat the South(it has been said that
emancipation was something the North fought WITH, not for). Obviously slavery
would not have gone on forever- but the South would have done everything it could
to continue it, like Brazil IOTL did(& they
didn't end slavery until 1888).

So I see slavery- unfortunately- continuing
into the late 19th Century. This would of
course have HUGE effects on subsequent U.S. development & of course on the econ-
omy. I don't know, though, if the U.S.
economy would have then suffered an
economic depression because of this as the
changes beyond our timeline are so major
(I do doubt The Great Depression of 1929
would have been avoided since IOTL it was
a world-wide phenomenon). I do feel pretty
sure in stating that once slavery was dis-
posed sufficient stresses & strains to create
Balkanization would have been avoided(un-
less of course the North somehow got angry
enough again @ the South re slavery to
provoke a SECOND Civil War).

The reason I'm wondering about this is that a lighter Civil War might mean less fear of the consequences of seccessionism, and encourage groups later on to either secede or rebel against the US. The South, in particular, would not have been scarred and traumatized by the OTL Civil War, which can lead to interesting effects down the road.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

No, if the central government was somehow able to scrape together enough votes for emancipation (the numbers suggest abolition amendments is impossible, there needs to be more free states or bribed legislatures), then the precedent established by a quick 1861 crush would make revolt untenable.

 

[UCB79]

The reason I'm wondering about this is that a lighter Civil War might mean less fear of the consequences of seccessionism, and encourage groups later on to either secede or rebel against the US. The South, in particular, would not have been scarred and traumatized by the OTL Civil War, which can lead to interesting effects down the road.

Very good points Berkeley2017! I most certainly can easily see people dis-affected
with the U.S. ITTL saying "Why don't we just
secede- after all, it didn't work out so badly
for the South did it?" You would still have to
couple such thoughts, though, with grievances that would anger enough people
in a state/region for them to want out. With
slavery out of the way what could it be? I've
done some thinking since my 1st post above & I have to say I've changed my mind. There
could well have been an issue ITTL that could have broken up the U.S. Say ITTL, as
IOTL after slavery white southernors delib-
eratly place the former slaves in an inferior
position both socially & legally. Say that also
ITTL, as IOTL, this provokes, starting in the
1930's or 40's, a black civil rights movement
aimed @ ending this. IOTL white southernors
fiercely resisted, & when the U.S. govern-
ment came to the aid of the Civil Rights
movement, @ least some southern whites
talked secession. Memories of the ACW in-
sured this was never taken seriously IOTL.
ITTL the situation would of course be
different. Furthermore, it might be possible
that other, quite conservative parts of the
country(Utah for example?)would feel the
Feds are getting too big for their britches &
they'd better leave too. I must thus say that
trying, ITTL, to give blacks equal rights
would lead, per the OP, to the Balkanization
of the U.S.(I know, VERY depressing but un-
fortunately, to say the least, history IOTL
is all-too often anything but jolly)

 

[Luminous]

It not necessarily would mean that there would be more encouragement for future succession. The Union could have won the war quickly, but at best it might have taken months. I'd put the low end at a year if the Confederate forces meet defeat after defeat.

And the South would take a bit longer to fall than immediately after First Manassas, as the entire event wasn't done on a lark. Besides, I can't tell you if the North had the ability to occupy all of Virginia at that time, or even occupy Richmond, in the immediate aftermath of a smashing success (even then, there will still be a reduced army which could fortify in the area).

So, in this case, you don't have the South managing to put up a good fight for year after year, meeting the Federal forces and giving them all they had and putting up an honorable fight. For the Union to win so quickly, they must make decisive victory after decisive victory, sustaining few losses and causing disproportionate ones in their enemy. So the narrative would be, more likely, that the Federal forces were able to whoop and secesh that even dared to look the wrong way. I'm not sure how a narrative such as that would necessarily lead to more secessionist spirit.

One other thing to note is, with the war ending so soon, is that the casualties will not nearly be as fierce. Compare the death of 1.994% of the prewar US population using the lowest figures for total combat deaths (627000) compared to, say, the deaths of 1.956% of the prewar population by the highest combat death for Britain and her colonies (total of 887858, both via Wikipedia; they may be off, of course). This is just to underscore the effects of such a large loss of population on the nation; the Lost Generation earned its name for a reason, after all. Losing so many has a drastic effect on the psyche of a nation; without such casualties, you alter the very fabric of the national mindset.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Um, many officers of the CSA said if Richmond fell in the Peninsular Campaign, the morale would have been shot and most would have deemed resistance is futile. Maybe if Richmond fell later some units might struggle, but that was early enough that some were still doubting the possibility of winning (and of course if Richmond fell after Gettysburg, that would also have made them think winning was impossible). So a First Manassas Northern victory followed by a quick capture or Richmond might make the south thrown in the towel.