Need some help with an idea

[herricks]

Ok I've had this idea for a while now of dividing the US much earlier and an earlier civil war. The jist of what I've been thinking is that the North move much harder to contain the expansion of slavery. Maybe less compromises or at least make the compromises less favoring the South.

Some ideas I'm thinking of trying to do were like to have the US basically refuse anymore slavery expansion past Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. The US focusing more on northern expansion to further decrease the south"s power.

The rough idea for a TL I've thought of is that tensions are so high because of the Norths refusal to allow southern expansion that the US refuses to annex Texas and instead focuses on Oregon eventually leading to war with Britain. When war breaks out the southern states refuse to participate (or something) eventually leading to secession and civil war. Like I said its only an idea and I've just begun to do any research on it but ny input or information any of yall may have would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Anaxagoras]

You could always pull the trick of conjuring up an extraordinary individual who didn't exist IOTL. Perhaps some Congregationalist preacher will come out of Boston whose combines spellbinding oratory with an abolitionist fervor, thus causing a stronger and more organized abolitionist movement to emerge in the North earlier than it did IOTL.

 

[herricks]

You could always pull the trick of conjuring up an extraordinary individual who didn't exist IOTL. Perhaps some Congregationalist preacher will come out of Boston whose combines spellbinding oratory with an abolitionist fervor, thus causing a stronger and more organized abolitionist movement to emerge in the North earlier than it did IOTL.

Hmm i hadn't thought of actually making someone up.

 

[herricks]

You could always pull the trick of conjuring up an extraordinary individual who didn't exist IOTL. Perhaps some Congregationalist preacher will come out of Boston whose combines spellbinding oratory with an abolitionist fervor, thus causing a stronger and more organized abolitionist movement to emerge in the North earlier than it did IOTL.

i wonder what recending the three-fifths copromise at the Hartford Convention would do for this?

Hey your from Manor? Did they ever finish that damn road construction in town?

 

[herricks]

Anybody got any thoughts?

 

[herricks]

Bump

 

[Landmass Wave]

The first secessionist talk came from New England about 200 years ago, when the Federalists disappeared from the political scene. I don't see that becoming a shooting war.

Maybe 1820. Jefferson thought that was the death knell of the Union. No Compromise of 1820, free states insist on admitting Missouri as a free state or not at all? That might lead to secession at an earier date as slave states are hemmed in.

 

[herricks]

The first secessionist talk came from New England about 200 years ago, when the Federalists disappeared from the political scene. I don't see that becoming a shooting war.

Maybe 1820. Jefferson thought that was the death knell of the Union. No Compromise of 1820, free states insist on admitting Missouri as a free state or not at all? That might lead to secession at an earier date as slave states are hemmed in.

I was thinking a little bit about the Compromise of 1820. Thought maybe it could be enforced that no new States above the 36-30 parallel will become slave states. And with a refusal two Annex Texas they pretty much end-all the expansion of slave states outside of Arkansas in the Indian Territory

 

[herricks]

Anybody got anything else

 

[herricks]

What about some things like this? During Hartford Convention the Federalist succeed in removing the Three-Fifths Compromise and taking away a lot of power from the Southern States. Then there is no Missouri Compromise and aside from states that already practice slavery no new slave states would be formed north of the 36-30 parallel. Then Washington refuses to Annex Texas do to Texas being a slave nation and not wanting to further expand slavery thereby reducing any chance of new slave states to just what would be Arkansas in Oklahoma.

At the same time Washington's interest in expanding is looking more towards Oregon in Canada instead of the Southwest. Eventually sometime in the 1840s the u.s. and Britain go to war over Canada and other territorial disputes and during which the southern states refused to support or fight in the war. Then one thing leads to another eventually leading to secession where this new early Confederacy fights with Britain against the US probably with Texas on their side and maybe Mexico on the United States not wanting Texas to join the Confederacy if the Confederacy were to win

 

[herricks]

bump

 

[drewmc2001]

I think you should explore the Hartford conversion. IOTL the handful of states that sent delegates kept some of the more radical federalists from showing up, change that and have a more muddled war of 1812 or one that goes worse for those states that were part of the Hartford convention. I think someone earlier in the thread said that they didn't think that it would lead to war, and I'm inclined to agree and think that if the Hartford Convention led to secession they would likely be allowed to go.

The imbalance that this creates would elevate, to the US's detriment the slave states' power.