South does not secede

And also, a few successes does not overall profitability make, regardless. Of course, if you'd like to offer up some sources, feel free to do so.

I highly recommend Gavin Wright's essay "Slavery and American Agricultural History", which thoroughly refutes the idea that there was some geographic constraint on slavery which stopped it operating further north or on crops other than cotton and tobacco. It is fortunately available online as a pdf here.
 
if the number of free states was getting to the point that they could ratify an abolition amendment then the south would have countered by splitting Texas into 5 slave states. (Since the treaty by which the joined gave them that right)
 
if the number of free states was getting to the point that they could ratify an abolition amendment then the south would have countered by splitting Texas into 5 slave states. (Since the treaty by which the joined gave them that right)

Texas itself may not have been too keen on that. Also, about two-thirds of Texas (geographically speaking) were pretty full of Unionist sentiments during the Civil War. (And those sentiments would only have grown stronger with each passing year; German immigration played a role.) Only the southeastern coastal areas were solidly Confederate. Whatever Jared might say about there not being a geographic constraint on slavery, that southeastern coastal area had all the good plantation land. The rest of Texas had mighty few slaves, and next to no plantations.

Some areas are, it turns out, not that great for chattel slavery after all. So basically, splitting Texas would create a bunch of extra states... but they would very likely end up being free states.
 
I highly recommend Gavin Wright's essay "Slavery and American Agricultural History", which thoroughly refutes the idea that there was some geographic constraint on slavery which stopped it operating further north or on crops other than cotton and tobacco. It is fortunately available online as a pdf here.

I'll take a look at it. And let you know what I gain from it.

Texas itself may not have been too keen on that. Also, about two-thirds of Texas (geographically speaking) were pretty full of Unionist sentiments during the Civil War. (And those sentiments would only have grown stronger with each passing year; German immigration played a role.) Only the southeastern coastal areas were solidly Confederate. Whatever Jared might say about there not being a geographic constraint on slavery, that southeastern coastal area had all the good plantation land. The rest of Texas had mighty few slaves, and next to no plantations.

Some areas are, it turns out, not that great for chattel slavery after all. So basically, splitting Texas would create a bunch of extra states... but they would very likely end up being free states.

This actually makes sense, TBH. South Texas in particular barely had any slaves at all; and I'd be willing to venture that at least a fair number of the Hispano Tejanos were at least ambivalent on slavery, if not outright against it.
 
Texas itself may not have been too keen on that. Also, about two-thirds of Texas (geographically speaking) were pretty full of Unionist sentiments during the Civil War. (And those sentiments would only have grown stronger with each passing year; German immigration played a role.) Only the southeastern coastal areas were solidly Confederate. Whatever Jared might say about there not being a geographic constraint on slavery, that southeastern coastal area had all the good plantation land. The rest of Texas had mighty few slaves, and next to no plantations.

Actually, I'd agree that at existing slave prices, slavery was only viable in the south and east of Texas. That was a big part of the reason why the option of dividing Texas was not taken up in OTL.

The geographic constraints on plantation slavery, such as they were, were about "good plantation land" not "good plantation land below a certain latitude". And falling slave prices would have made the institution more viable in other crops (e.g. wheat) which could be grown over a greater part of Texas.

But I also, seriously, recommend that you read the article I linked to from Gavin Wright. Because, with all due respect, this is a subject I happen to have read a fair bit about. And I'm happy to point to sources for anyone who's not prepared to take my word for it.
 
Actually, I'd agree that at existing slave prices, slavery was only viable in the south and east of Texas. That was a big part of the reason why the option of dividing Texas was not taken up in OTL.

The geographic constraints on plantation slavery, such as they were, were about "good plantation land" not "good plantation land below a certain latitude". And falling slave prices would have made the institution more viable in other crops (e.g. wheat) which could be grown over a greater part of Texas.

But I also, seriously, recommend that you read the article I linked to from Gavin Wright. Because, with all due respect, this is a subject I happen to have read a fair bit about. And I'm happy to point to sources for anyone who's not prepared to take my word for it.

BTW, I just went through Wright's piece. And while he does raise a few interesting points, there's nothing there that's convinced me that I need to re-evaluate anything I've said, TBH. He leaves out a few key elements, not the least of which is the fact that slaves tended to be rather less productive, per capita, than your average free worker, for a variety of reasons(such as less motivation, etc.). And given that a not insignificant number of slaveholders owned fewer than perhaps a dozen slaves, this is a real problem. So yes, on top of the political considerations, there was also indeed an inherent economic logic as well: however true it may be that slavery often made substantial profits for those few wealthy enough to dig themselves deep enough into that hole, it actually held back the South as a whole. In the long run, the South was actually far better off without slavery, and probably would have done even better if not for sharecropping and all the other things that came around with the premature end of Reconstruction.
 
it is possible to delay secession for a while. The states that voted for it saw secession winning the vote by pretty thin margins; TX was the only state that had a pretty solid majority in favor. It was also an open secret that pro-secessionists went all out in trying to supress anti-secession voters; tone this down some, get some more people out to vote, and secession would likely have failed. If the first few states to vote on it see secession going down to defeat, chances are the others won't try it at all. However...
A failed secession vote does nothing to fix the problems. The south is still irked about losing political power in DC, the abolitionists are still in full cry, and the distrust and outright hate between north and south is still in place. Furthermore, many of those voting against secession were not full bore Unionists, but people who wanted to 'wait and see'. It's hard to see what Lincoln could do to stop the tension from boiling over later. The slavery question simply had to be solved one way or another...
 
Last edited:
Not that extreme, do you really think that the historic number of states out west are the maximum number of viable states that could have been carved out? Even 3 or 4 more would make a difference.

In the context of the times, it would be extremist to use the state-creation procedure for the purpose of getting an abolitionist amendment through, and will be seen as such.
 
In the context of the times, it would be extremist to use the state-creation procedure for the purpose of getting an abolitionist amendment through, and will be seen as such.

You don't do that for that reason, you would do so to gerrymander Republican seats, which would be business as usual. That it would help the abolitionists is just a bonus.
 

Maur

Banned
I must say, I find your worldview to be overly bleak. If the "rise of scientfic racism" is your evidence, allow me to point out that this was merely a new way of justifying the same racism that had existed before.
Now, thats bleak...

No, it was a way to justify new (Africa) colonialism and from that it sort of spilled over into classifying every "race" and some ethnic group on a ladder. It was not needed earlier. Well, not to such extent, both England and Spain had some forms of it, but it was different.


No-one is saying that racism was gone by 1890, or 1900, or even 1990... or even today, sadly. But it has declined, day by day and year by year. And by the mid-19th century, that decline had started. Slavery was being abolished, and your reasoning that this was essentially meaningless (you call it a "joke") is, frankly, insulting. It was a slow process. Too slow. But it was happening, and it was important. The very fact that people who had just 50 years before believed that slavery was the natural order were now ending the institution tells you a lot about the development of attitudes.

Somehow, I cannot translate the abolition of slavery into an "increase of racism".
I am not sure if you are talking only about since XIXc or not, but if not, thats certainly not the case. "Colour" racism (of traditional variety) started in XVI-XVIIc anyway, before that it was non-existent, and similarily appeared to justify economic exploitation). I find your view on it much too deterministic.

Sorry for the joke comment, its just a comment about abolishing slavery and jumping almost right over into Jim Crow. Its not like the abolition created happy land of equality (and its not like the progress is steady and constant, i would like to rant on war on drugs or bring up a photo of prison labor gangs, but that should belong in chat)
 
Top