The North secedes over slavery.

Before the civil war in America their were some in the North who believed that the Northern states should leave the Union over slavery due to the fact that it forced them to respect the property rights of slave owners. Obviously nothing came of it since the non slave states became a majority and in the end the south attempted to secede. But by what pod can we have the non slave states quitting the Union over the issue of slavery? Perhaps if more states end up as slave states those that do not will eventually find their position intolerable and attempt to leave? And if possible how feasible does a reverse civil war sound?

Edit if more supreme court decisions go against the abolitionists could that effect it?
 
It would have to be real early, maybe before 1830 or so. After that it becomes increasingly clear that the North is pulling ahead of the South and time is on its side. Why secede when it is clear it is only a matter of time before you control the government.
 
An earlier Dredd Scott case?

Federal troops enforcing the Dredd Scott decision and/or supporting the Border Ruffians?

Charles Sumner dies of his injuries?

Federal policy criminalizes advocacy of abolition [as most southern state policies did]?
 
Really I didn't know that. Wouldn't it be unconstitutional or something.
The Constitution required only that a state have a 'republican form of government'; that is to say, the leader of the state had to be elected.

It was only after the 14th Amendment sort of backhandedly required states to follow Constitutional rights (the First Amendment- 'Congress shall make no law...' the Fourteenth says that states cannot infringe upon rights and privileges) that you'd see such a case. Of course, it wouldn't really have mattered, considering the Supreme Court was, for most of the thirty years before the Civil War, solidly in Southern hands anyway.
 
I can see it happening if the U.S. goes with the "All Mexico" policy (ipso facto integrating that under the Mason-Dixon line) and did NOT push for "All Oregon" to balance that out. As more Mexican (now slave again) states join, the scales would tip and we could see something happen.

It's probably a little ASB, though.
 
From what I know of the era, I believe the Southerners controlled the government. That could be used as part of the reasoning for the secession.
 
I can see it happening if the U.S. goes with the "All Mexico" policy (ipso facto integrating that under the Mason-Dixon line) and did NOT push for "All Oregon" to balance that out. As more Mexican (now slave again) states join, the scales would tip and we could see something happen.

It's probably a little ASB, though.
Wasn't all the mexican population against slavery?, or at least a great portion of it.
 
Wasn't all the mexican population against slavery?, or at least a great portion of it.

Yes, it was. Almost all of it by that time. However if conquered by the US I doubt the US population would care much what they thought. It was generally assumed at the time that any states carved out of Mexico would be slave states.
 
Seems as simple as having slavery explicitly allowed in the Constitution. That'd delay any possible legal abolition (with an amendment) way into the future (the South'd fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the free/slave state ration from being to imbalanced) and the North might just get impatient and leave.
 
The problem with this scenario is that the free states dominate demographically. They are in the majority, and given time their population will become so big that they'll end up controlling what happens. Lincoln won in 1860 because the electoral votes given to each state finally made up for the ones gives just because they have 2 Senators, so that a candidate could finally win with northern electoral votes alone. The North does not have the urgency to secede that the fire eaters. Time works in favor of the North and against the South.

I don't think the scenario can happen.
 
I don't think the scenario is impossible. Anyone saying 'time is on the side of the North' or whatever clearly don't know what they are talking about within the POV of the time period.

In the South could be more successful in defeating North backed tariff schemes than its possible.
 
If there had been no Louisiana purchase (or one limited to the area around new orleans, something they originally wanted), would the north seceding been a more real possibility?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
A Doughface government in Washington that actually supports filibusters might cause some shaking. Imagine if the US had supported Walker during his brief success in Nicaragua, or if Douglas had managed something like the Crittenden Compromise.

Something will have to give eventually, and the North was getting increasingly restive as the reality of Slave Power became more and more apparent. Sumner, Stevens; there are any number who may lead the charge if things only worsen.
 
I don't think the scenario is impossible. Anyone saying 'time is on the side of the North' or whatever clearly don't know what they are talking about within the POV of the time period.

In the South could be more successful in defeating North backed tariff schemes than its possible.

Tarrifs might have made some difference but not much. Free labor is going to beat out slave labor in the long run. Slaves don't give a damn.
 
Top