Was the Civil War Unavoidable?

The best way to avoid it is to find some means of handling the spread of slavery issue *other* than the Missouri Compromise. The decision to split the USA on geographic lines into slave and free did not produce much good, and it created a potential ticking time bomb that blew up IOTL. If this factor doesn't change, at any point where either section sees the system as no longer being democratic/representing its interests enough, the likelihood of a war of some sort rises exponentially. It's this issue where slavery became inextricably linked with the origin of the war, and it's this issue that ensured slavery was most likely to find resolution *in* a war.
 
I see some pretty interesting topics going on here that I'm interested in hearing, but you guys who are talking about the American Revolution are derailing. I'm talking about 1840 at the earliest, but that's a stretch. I specified to stick to 1840's-50's
 
I see some pretty interesting topics going on here that I'm interested in hearing, but you guys who are talking about the American Revolution are derailing. I'm talking about 1840 at the earliest, but that's a stretch. I specified to stick to 1840's-50's

Too late, barring something where the North backs down and lets the South dominate - so slavery is not merely accepted but protected by the Constitution in such a way as to Southern plantation interests entrenched into the highest laws of the land.
 
As a monarchist and a big-state skeptic, I should be one of them, if people fit simple patterns.

But I think the US is cohesive enough to hold together, barring something breaking that.

Which is to say, there would have to be a pretty powerful force working to undermine it. Even the OTL ACW would only cut in two very uneven pieces (if the Union failed), not leave it splintered like what had been Austria-Hungary before 1918.

That might happen from some particularly nasty string of events, but I wouldn't count on it.

There's just not a lot of reason to break it up - especially when there's no "_____ fighting for ____'s wars." sort of thing that would divide Germany and Italy (not necessarily disunite, but certainly cause friction) in even the best HRE scenario, for instance.

So barring slavery, what else is there? The West may be hostile towards the East, but that's not something that would be better with the Midwest as an independent country - in all ways it would be worse to deal with a foreign power in that position.

And a civil war in the sense of trying to take over the government in the classic sense...the US's republicanism was not oligarchical enough for that. Not truly democratic for some time, but socially sufficiently supportive of anyone with the will and luck succeeding (or just about anyone) to undermine that.

Looking at the country on the whole, obviously.

My best idea is the native black americans and their autonomist movements provide the greatest separate push then, but now you could try to butterfly it where the latino population in the US southwest is more likely to fit in with trying to get a civil war. Basically 'Reconquista' as envisioned by The Minutemen and Aztlan a la 'civil war II' scenario or whatever that book series that features that irredentist movement

Honesstly, having the US control all of North America in the most violent manner possibly guaranteed colonisation sentiments and an easier breakup. If the annexation is more peaceful its less likely to work (eg Mexico isn't conquered like OTL the US feeds separatist movements or ignites them and gobbles the territories up)
 
Last edited:
Well, slavery did seem to be ebbing a great deal in the South - Delaware and Maryland had very small populations, along with Kentucky and what became West Virginia.

Maryland had 87,000 slaves. Kentucky had 225,000. Delaware and Maryland were the only slaveholding states whose slave population was decreasing. At the rate they were decreasing, slavery would have ended in Delaware in about 30 years and in Maryland in about 300 years.
 
Star Wars Fan

I urge you to delete your post. Or at least edit it and remove the first paragraph. I urge you to do this in the strongest possible terms.:(
 
My best idea is the native black americans and their autonomist movements provide the greatest separate push then, but now you could say the latino population in the US southwest is more likely to fit in with trying to get a civil war.

Honesstly, having the US control all of North America in the most violent manner possibly guaranteed colonisation sentiments and an easier breakup. If the annexation is more peaceful its less likely to work (eg Mexico isn't conquered like OTL the US feeds separatist movements or ignites them and gobbles the territories up)

What do you mean 'native black Americans'? Are you talking about the descendents of Indians and escaped slaves?
 
Star Wars Fan

I urge you to delete your post. Or at least edit it and remove the first paragraph. I urge you to do this in the strongest possible terms.:(

I edited it so it doesn't seem as I am doing/pulling a teabagger or w/e.

Nah, I'm a touch Francophobic. Now, a Hohenzollern restoration, that would be my pet cause if I was a simple person.

What do you mean 'native black Americans'? Are you talking about the descendents of Indians and escaped slaves?

Protestant or Atheist/Agnostic/Buddhist/Islamic, Ebonics/AAVE speaking, self-identified blacks with at least partial ancestry dating from enslaved Africans that were imported into the US until the international slave trade was abbolished in the US. Or at least some of those criteria, it is a bit 'loosely' defined.

I am being specific to refering to native blacks as I am excluding recent African Immigrants as well as blacks from say Haiti or Guyana, As I am not so sure about them banding together in a unified black separatist or nationalist movements. Also there is internal dissension between descendants of slaves and recent african immigrants over culture, history and class. Realistically this is ethnic chuvinism on the part of native blacks, but it still exists.

Note that yes, recent africn immigrants and carribean blacks can and often do integraaate into native black american culture, And I do see changes in the future and a less chauvinist black nationalism, but It depends on when the POD happens for resurgent or never-waned black nationalism.

Edit: also some mixed race (those with recent mixed ancestry, as in parents or grandparents) and creole peoples like those in Louisiana might not count due to any 'alternate identites' other than 'black', given they'd identify as 'multiracial' or 'creole' or 'mixed' or w/e..
 
Last edited:

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
The closer to 1860 one gets, the harder this is. But a simple POD can, I think, do the trick. Just delay the invention of the cotton gin for 15 or so years.

In the fervor following the Revolution, there was a movement starting to gain momentum to free all the slaves, with some Southern states considering manumission laws. But the cotton gin rolling around made cotton hugely profitably and money beat out morality in this case.

No cotton gin: little, if not no, slavery around 1815. Interestingly, this will have a huge impact on the rest of the Industrial Revolution, not just the South. Eventually thought, the South will get the idea to grow slavery because somebody was going to invent a way to harvest it cheaper eventually. But without slaves, they might have to look elsewhere for the labor.

Maybe ASB, but the image of Irish immigrants working as paid workers on Southern cotton plantations is...interesting and fun

EDIT: Just realized the OP said 1850s or 1840s. Feel free to disregard what I said.

Now I don't disagree with your logic, in fact I agree with it 100%, where I disagree is the timeframe. The last Northern State(if you could tell me which state it was I'd be happy) to abolish slavery did so during the 1830s. For the South to abolish slavery on its own would take longer, by decades in fact. That's because slavery was never as popular in the north than it was in the south due to agriculture. Northern agriculture was small scale substance farms while the south was famous for large scale commercial plantations and therefore needed the extra labor. But eventually the cost of maintaining your slaves keeps going up(your buying more slaves to increase your production basically) Production's going up but not at the same rate as the costs. Eventually you either find more efficent ways of doing things or you go bankrupt. Now there are other forces on the outside affecting this as well. Cotton prices dropping and the soil being tapped out are two of these. The latter is the major, other than political, for the geographic expansion of slavery. If the ground gives out, which it inevitably does, you have to move on. But if the only place good enough for growing cotton is in a Free State then you're SoL. It's all basic economics. If Slavery was subject to market forces(and it wasn't it was enabled by Government compromises), no matter about racism, it would have died, even with the cotton gin. Slavery would not have seen the 20th century.
 
Now I don't disagree with your logic, in fact I agree with it 100%, where I disagree is the timeframe. The last Northern State(if you could tell me which state it was I'd be happy) to abolish slavery did so during the 1830s. For the South to abolish slavery on its own would take longer, by decades in fact. That's because slavery was never as popular in the north than it was in the south due to agriculture. Northern agriculture was small scale substance farms while the south was famous for large scale commercial plantations and therefore needed the extra labor. But eventually the cost of maintaining your slaves keeps going up(your buying more slaves to increase your production basically) Production's going up but not at the same rate as the costs. Eventually you either find more efficent ways of doing things or you go bankrupt. Now there are other forces on the outside affecting this as well. Cotton prices dropping and the soil being tapped out are two of these. The latter is the major, other than political, for the geographic expansion of slavery. If the ground gives out, which it inevitably does, you have to move on. But if the only place good enough for growing cotton is in a Free State then you're SoL. It's all basic economics. If Slavery was subject to market forces(and it wasn't it was enabled by Government compromises), no matter about racism, it would have died, even with the cotton gin. Slavery would not have seen the 20th century.

Don't forget the boll weevil.:D And the dust bowls.:(

However, considering the resistance (ACW) to deconstructing slavery, as well as to desegregation and civil rights, I wonder if slavery in all but name would not have continued (again, in all but name) for a long, long time. At least until the invention and wide distribution of television.:(:eek::(
 
Now I don't disagree with your logic, in fact I agree with it 100%, where I disagree is the timeframe. The last Northern State(if you could tell me which state it was I'd be happy) to abolish slavery did so during the 1830s. For the South to abolish slavery on its own would take longer, by decades in fact. That's because slavery was never as popular in the north than it was in the south due to agriculture. Northern agriculture was small scale substance farms while the south was famous for large scale commercial plantations and therefore needed the extra labor. But eventually the cost of maintaining your slaves keeps going up(your buying more slaves to increase your production basically) Production's going up but not at the same rate as the costs. Eventually you either find more efficent ways of doing things or you go bankrupt. Now there are other forces on the outside affecting this as well. Cotton prices dropping and the soil being tapped out are two of these. The latter is the major, other than political, for the geographic expansion of slavery. If the ground gives out, which it inevitably does, you have to move on. But if the only place good enough for growing cotton is in a Free State then you're SoL. It's all basic economics. If Slavery was subject to market forces(and it wasn't it was enabled by Government compromises), no matter about racism, it would have died, even with the cotton gin. Slavery would not have seen the 20th century.

Given OTL they were using Slaves in industry in Birmingham, and finding other ways to use them I doubt only market forces will kill it off completely.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
I see some pretty interesting topics going on here that I'm interested in hearing, but you guys who are talking about the American Revolution are derailing. I'm talking about 1840 at the earliest, but that's a stretch. I specified to stick to 1840's-50's

There was nothing stopping a civil war by 1840. The institution of slavery was already too well entrenched by then. If you want to avoid the civil war you have to deal with slavery. The hatreds between the North and the South was already well entrenched as well. By 1850? You must be joking. You could avoid Lincoln(and give the South a man from the north of southern principle) but that would only delay the inevitable. The differences between the North and the South were too entrenched along with their hatreds. Only a PoD of the 1790s or earlier would really have the greatest chance of succeeding. Maybe a PoD of the 1830s at the latest but that's pushing it.

@ usertron2020: You're assuming that the southern view of slavery pre-1800 was the same as the 1840s and that's not simply the case. Southerners of the Revolutionary period, such as Washington and Jefferson, considered slavery a necessary evil and fully believed it would be dead or dying by the 1830s. As opposed to southerners of the 1840s who considered slavery a necessary good.


@Star Wars Fan: That's a good point and I concede that, to an extent. Slavery as we know it would definitely die off and industrial slave labor would suffer the same malady that slave labor would: Machines. Factory owners would have to feed and house the slaves and that costs money and that cuts into their bottom line. "Free" laborers would actually cost less as all they have to do is pay them a wage. The practice won't last long.
 
The last Northern State(if you could tell me which state it was I'd be happy) to abolish slavery did so during the 1830s.

New Jersey was the last northern state to abolish slavery. This was gradual, not total emancipation, and there were still 18 slaves in New Jersey when the 1860 Census was taken.

But eventually the cost of maintaining your slaves keeps going up(your buying more slaves to increase your production basically) Production's going up but not at the same rate as the costs.

Why would the cost of maintaining slaves go up more rapidly than production?
 
For reference, abolition by State:

Vermont: Abolished 1777

Massachusetts: Abolished 1780, confirmed by 1783 court ruling

Pennsylvania: Gradual abolition, 1780.* Officially abolished 1847

*Importation of slaves was banned and children of slaves born after the 1780 law were free, any remaining living slaves (~100) were freed in 1847, with the same procedure in other states with gradual abolition

New Hampshire: Gradual abolition starting 1783

Connecticut: Gradual abolition starting 1784

Rhode Island: Gradual abolition starting 1784

New York: Gradual abolition* starting 1799

*remaining slaves freed 1827. The slave population of the New England states had apparently dropped to zero within a decade or so of their abolition acts

New Jersey: Gradual abolition* starting 1804

*there were apparently 18 remaining slaves in New Jersey in 1860

Importation of Slaves into the United States banned, 1808

-The cotton gin was invented in 1794

All other states either had slavery until the civil war, or were admitted as free states from their inception.
 
Amistad

The Amistad Affair occurred in Connecticut because at the time it apparently was the only state left in the area (Long Island Sound/Long Island) that still officially had slavery on the books. Not to mention the strongest proslavery sentiment of any New England state.:(:eek:
 
Top