The South Doesn't Secede

[Nicole]

The year is 1860. Sanity prevails in Columbia, South Carolina, and the state stays in the union. No other southern states secede, though some angry declarations are made against the new President.

How does Lincoln's term go without a Civil War? What happens to the country? Unfortunately this also likely means slavery lasts longer... but how long can it really last? (thus inciting the age-old debate on it's effects on the economy, I guess)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Well, it would take two-thirds of the states to declare slavery unconstitutional and there were fifteen slave states although only Oklahoma was a likely addition in the far future. Further, Delaware and Missouri were probably going to give it up in a few years.

So. You'll need at least 39 states and that won't be until Benjamin Harrison and 1890.

 

[King Gorilla]

The year is 1860. Sanity prevails in Columbia, South Carolina, and the state stays in the union. No other southern states secede, though some angry declarations are made against the new President.

How does Lincoln's term go without a Civil War? What happens to the country? Unfortunately this also likely means slavery lasts longer... but how long can it really last? (thus inciting the age-old debate on it's effects on the economy, I guess)

Slavery is effectively halted from expansion on the continental United States and both politically and economically the North increasingly begins to supercede the South. However the Republicans lose the opportunity to ram through unopposed legislation favoring northern industrial interests so you could very likely see a somewhat slower American industrial development although at the same time you could end up avoiding some of the resulting social problems as well.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

Obviously there would have been no Civil War. The Civil War was a defining period in American history and in the development of who we are as a nation. That's something we wouldn't have.

There is an almost cult like following or whatever to The Civil War, it's a big thing to a lot of people, and obviously without The Civil War we wouldn't have all the things about it that we have.

I'm not sure what it would have done to American Government, American society at the time that sort of thing had there been no Civil War.

Had there been no Civil War I think Lincoln would still have been re-elected in 1864, but he would not have been assassinated. I don't know if healthwise he would have survived both terms, but he would probably not have been shot.

I think slavery would have ended certainly by the beginning of the 20th Century. It was already beginning to move in that direction. I think a lot of Southerners, including those who owned slaves, were beginning to question slavery both morally and economically. Even without The Civil War, I don't think slavery would have lasted a lot longer.

I think Civil Rights would have come with much less strife and difficulty, I think it would have come maybe slower, but it would have come easier than in OTL.

I think one of the problems with Civil Rights in the 1960's that made it so difficult and stressful was this. When the Civil Rights movement began in the late 1950's and early 1960's we were less than a century from the end of The Civil War. We were too close to it in time, the feelings about it were still too close, too raw. The Federal Government imposing Civil Rights in the South, it was like The North imposing itself on an already defeated South and over the same issues it had only a century earlier, and I think that's why it was such a raw issue. Had there been no Civil War, that feeling would not have been there in the same way.

Also, we wouldn't have the history, the monuments, the re-enactments, the stuff like that we have from The Civil War.

 

[Wendell]

Would some state have tried to secede later on over another silly squabble?

 

[Kidblast]

The South would be richer, as the destruction of the South never would have occured.

 

[Filo]

Why not?
The Pod may lead to a south-dominated USA if not the south will leave the Union when it belive its power is Trathned

 

[Reveilled]

Would some state have tried to secede later on over another silly squabble?

I don't know about a "silly squabble", but without a Constitutional amendment to forbid secession, feelings on the issue of whether it is allowed are going to be divided for a long time, and all the while you're going to find that secessionist movements don't have the civil war to show how the US will react to their success. If no Civil War actually occurs at any point over this issue, I see more successful movements in Utah, Jefferson and California; and in the 20th century (in addition), Alaska, Cascadia, and possibly Texas. Of course, the success of any of these movements is highly variable (by success, I mean that the movement gets its government to issue a declaration of independence), and I imagine that any sucess of the movements in the 19th century is met with a civil war of some sort, but the later one goes into the 20th century, the more difficult the political climate becomes for a war, and the more likely that the US will have to let a seceding state go.

 

[Straha]

A POD for this could be the annexation of mexico in 1848

 

[Verence]

The year is 1860. Sanity prevails in Columbia, South Carolina, and the state stays in the union. No other southern states secede, though some angry declarations are made against the new President.

How does Lincoln's term go without a Civil War? What happens to the country? Unfortunately this also likely means slavery lasts longer... but how long can it really last? (thus inciting the age-old debate on it's effects on the economy, I guess)

With no Civil War then Ken Burns wouldn't maked that massive documentary of his

 

[Straha]

After a mexican annexation north mexico could be slave states while inner mexico becomes free states.

 

[oberdada]

Had there been no Civil War I think Lincoln would still have been re-elected in 1864, ...

So maybe, the South seceedes in 1865, after 4 yeas of hard political fights.
Secretly preparing for war all this time.

Our, more likely, Lincoln is defeted by a compromise candidate.

 

[Straha]

1860 is too late of a POD to avoid it. 1848(taking of mexico) is the latest I think one can get and avoid the secession.

 

[Faeelin]

The South would be richer, as the destruction of the South never would have occured.

Hold up.

Sure, the civil war was damaging. But plenty of other nations have gone through damaging wars, and recovered. (Look at Japan and Germany in 1945).

 

[1940LaSalle]

Slavery was pretty well cordoned off by 1860. At that point, it was pretty well confined to Sussex County in DE (with maybe one or two isolated instances elsewhere), and was on its last legs in MD as well as that state industrialized. It might not have been as far gone in MO or KY, but it wasn't doing well in either of those states. I could suggest maybe it would have been politically dead in those four states by about 1864, which would have yielded (in effect) 23 states of 35 (including NV; excluding WV, which wouldn't have had the driving force to break away--yet). The admission of NB and CO (Colorado nearly gained statehood as early as 1868) would put the antislavery forces over the top, with 25 of 37. That would be enough to do it, although the deep south would go down kicking and screaming.

Legally, slavery would probably have been abolished by amendment in 1870 or so, but in practicality, it wouldn't be surprising to find a few isolated plantations in backwater areas of MS that held out illegally until the Centennial year or possibly even afterward.

 

[Ghost 88]

Hold up.

Sure, the civil war was damaging. But plenty of other nations have gone through damaging wars, and recovered. (Look at Japan and Germany in 1945).

Not the same these two countries were given aid to rebuild. The south was looted,the profits from her minerals went north. It wasn't till the "New Deal " that major Federal projects happen in the South. Had she not succeded this wealth may have stayed in the region.This
is where the South's opposition to the tariffs arose she was paying two-thirds of it but only a third was being spent on her.

 

[robertp6165]

Hold up.

Sure, the civil war was damaging. But plenty of other nations have gone through damaging wars, and recovered. (Look at Japan and Germany in 1945).

Two words: Marshall Plan. Germany and Japan had it. The South didn't. Were it not for the Marshall Plan pumping billions of dollars of capital into those countries, they might still not be recovered from World War II.

 

[Wendell]

I don't know about a "silly squabble", but without a Constitutional amendment to forbid secession, feelings on the issue of whether it is allowed are going to be divided for a long time, and all the while you're going to find that secessionist movements don't have the civil war to show how the US will react to their success. If no Civil War actually occurs at any point over this issue, I see more successful movements in Utah, Jefferson and California; and in the 20th century (in addition), Alaska, Cascadia, and possibly Texas. Of course, the success of any of these movements is highly variable (by success, I mean that the movement gets its government to issue a declaration of independence), and I imagine that any sucess of the movements in the 19th century is met with a civil war of some sort, but the later one goes into the 20th century, the more difficult the political climate becomes for a war, and the more likely that the US will have to let a seceding state go.

Well, Alaska in our timeline did have an Independence Party governor, but he was really a Republican...

 

[SkyEmperor]

If the south satyed in the Union, the US may never have militarized in quite the way it did. However, without the civil war distracting it, might the US have neforced the Monroe doctrine in Mexico?

France sent in an army, and put a European on the Mexican throne in OTL. Might the US have tryed to stop it in this TL?

 

[Wendell]

Good point....

If the south satyed in the Union, the US may never have militarized in quite the way it did. However, without the civil war distracting it, might the US have neforced the Monroe doctrine in Mexico?

France sent in an army, and put a European on the Mexican throne in OTL. Might the US have tryed to stop it in this TL?

And in the process, pick up additional land?