President Winfield Scott

In the Election of 1852, War hero General Winfield Scott running as Whig Party canidate, defeats Democratic Canidate Franklin Pierce. President Scott assumes his office.

What does the former military govenor of Mexico do as president? Would there be an American Civil War still or does the CV get pushed up or back..
Would the U.S attempt to occupy the rest of Mexico, make a grab at Cuba?
 
Whigs generally did not support expansion of the US especially at the expence of other countries. They were against the war with Mexico. If Scott did become president, there may be no Gadsden purchase.

A split between the North and the South is very unavoidable. There can be a variety of POD's in the 1800's and all of them wind up with an attemt at seperation. The only way that I see no secession happening is for the North to continue to placate the South until more of a national economy is developed. This was something that the North was not going to do though.
 
Kansas-Nebraska will never likely come to fruition (either it will die in Congress or Scott will veto it). Scott will also likely pursue repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act included with the Compromise of 1850 with much the same effect that Kansas-Nebraska had on sectional harmony. Scott's election may also hold-off the inevitable implosion of the Whig party simply by showing the party is still capable of competitively fielding candidates on a national level, though his anti-slavery leanings will still alienate the southern lobby.
 
Whigs generally did not support expansion of the US especially at the expence of other countries. They were against the war with Mexico. If Scott did become president, there may be no Gadsden purchase.

If that's the case, there may be no Confederate adventure in the Southwest, assuming the Civil War still comes. The Confederate attempt to take the Southwest was motivated, in large part, by the perception that the people there supported the Confederacy. And that perception came from the activities of the people in the Gadsden Purchase area. The population north of the Gila River was pretty much solidly pro-Union. That south of the river was very pro-Confederate.

A split between the North and the South is very unavoidable. There can be a variety of POD's in the 1800's and all of them wind up with an attemt at seperation.

That's not actually true. It was a very specific set of circumstances which led to Southern secession in 1861. Were there people in the South continually advocating secession? Yes. But they were never in the majority, and it took a specific set of things happening to change that in 1861. There are a good number of PODs that can result in a different election of 1860 which would prevent secession from happening in 1861, and if the crisis can be avoided in 1861, it may be avoided altogether, until slavery dies a natural death in the 1890s or early 1900s.

You may disagree with the likelihood of this. But your assertion that there are no PODs that can lead to a timeline with no secession and no Civil War is simply unsupportable.
 
I did not say that no POD's would avoid the Civil War. In fact, I actually gave a set of circumstances which would have avoided the issue.

Another one would be to have no second great awakening in the USA. Without this, the abolition movement would probably not be as strong.

I did not say that the likelihood of averting the split of the Union is impossible, just not that good. The states, the sections of the country, had been negotiating since the 1770's. Slavery was always the elephant in the corner that the North did not want to address out of not wanting to agitate the South. And then there is the notion of States Rights.
 
I did not say that no POD's would avoid the Civil War. In fact, I actually gave a set of circumstances which would have avoided the issue.

Another one would be to have no second great awakening in the USA. Without this, the abolition movement would probably not be as strong.

I did not say that the likelihood of averting the split of the Union is impossible, just not that good. The states, the sections of the country, had been negotiating since the 1770's. Slavery was always the elephant in the corner that the North did not want to address out of not wanting to agitate the South. And then there is the notion of States Rights.

You said, "A split between the North and South was very unavoidable. There can be a variety of POD's in the 1800's and all of them wind up with an attemt (sic) at seperation (sic)."

So are you trying to say that only a POD before 1800 could have prevented secession and/or civil war? Because if so, you're wrong there as well. There are PODs right up to 1860 which could have prevented the secession and the war. Just a couple off the top of my head...

--Martin Van Buren gets the Democratic nomination in 1844 instead of James K. Polk. No Texas annexation, no Mexican war, which changes the entire dynamic of politics in the 1850s.

--John Brown dies in Kansas in 1858. No John Brown's raid in 1859, no Southern paranoia going into the 1860 election, less extreme Southern demands, Lincoln probably loses the election.

There are many others.
 
So are you trying to say that only a POD before 1800 could have prevented secession and/or civil war? Because if so, you're wrong there as well. There are PODs right up to 1860 which could have prevented the secession and the war. Just a couple off the top of my head...

Let's try to douse these flames before they exist. Saying something like "you're wrong" when it concerns Alternate History simply doesn't work unless you have a cross-dimensional portal. So let's tone it down, thanks.

--John Brown dies in Kansas in 1858. No John Brown's raid in 1859, no Southern paranoia going into the 1860 election, less extreme Southern demands, Lincoln probably loses the election.

I don't understand how LESS Southern paranoia contributes to Lincoln losing the election. With an enormous amount of Southern paranoia, Lincoln won while not even on the ballot in most Southern states. The real reason he won was because the electoral strength was too strong in the north giving him the most populous states.

Lincoln won the northern/manufacturing states. The Democrats won the southern/agricultural states. I don't see what you're arguing about. The Civil War was ALMOST inevitable. There are many PODs which can avoid it, but all-in-all, the North and the South were so different economically and culturally that it was almost bound to happen. Just saying it's impossible or it's inevitable clearly doesn't work until Quinn Mallory shows up and tells us.
 
Top