WI: NO ACW

Hello,

I see it argued all the time what would have happened if the South had won and if some general had taken a left turn or eaten an apple for breakfast (although less lately I'll concede)

However I haven't seen yet a thread about what would have happened if the South hadn't fought. Listening to one of the latest Askhistorian podcast it seems like it's a very political problem, and political problem can be worked out.

See how WWI was adverted several times before actually erupting at some point.
 
Tanc49, this is a good point, and I think historians tend to over-explain or over-determine the ACW.

The elements for an additional compromise to avoid Southern secession were there. As early as 1820, the problem of free states eventually outnumbering slave states in the Senate could have been delayed by a decade or too just by not admitting Maine. Otherwise, a deal to exchange a constitutional guarantee of slavery in the states that allowed it in exchange for no spread of slavery (and no fugitive slave) law was available, and southern politicians didn't take it since they were going through a collective fit of insanity.

After secession of the six southern states, the President meets with the Confederate commissioners, and works about a deal exchanging recognition and Fort Sumter and Pickens with unrestricted navigation rights to the Mississippi and compensation for federal property. The other seven slave states stay in the Union. No war.

If either of these events happened, the federal government is alot weaker than IOTL and slaverly lasts alot longer. I actually think it could last well into the twentieth century. As the US becomes the last country with legal slavery, the US position in the world is greatly weakened.

Butterflies secession of the West Coast, or New England out of disgust for the compromises needed to avoid war, a more aggressive US attitude towards Canada and worse relations with the UK, or some mixture of both.
 

jahenders

Banned
Tanc49, this is a good point, and I think historians tend to over-explain or over-determine the ACW.

The elements for an additional compromise to avoid Southern secession were there. As early as 1820, the problem of free states eventually outnumbering slave states in the Senate could have been delayed by a decade or too just by not admitting Maine. Otherwise, a deal to exchange a constitutional guarantee of slavery in the states that allowed it in exchange for no spread of slavery (and no fugitive slave) law was available, and southern politicians didn't take it since they were going through a collective fit of insanity.

After secession of the six southern states, the President meets with the Confederate commissioners, and works about a deal exchanging recognition and Fort Sumter and Pickens with unrestricted navigation rights to the Mississippi and compensation for federal property. The other seven slave states stay in the Union. No war.

If either of these events happened, the federal government is alot weaker than IOTL and slaverly lasts alot longer. I actually think it could last well into the twentieth century. As the US becomes the last country with legal slavery, the US position in the world is greatly weakened.

Butterflies secession of the West Coast, or New England out of disgust for the compromises needed to avoid war, a more aggressive US attitude towards Canada and worse relations with the UK, or some mixture of both.

I think you're right that various things and compromises could have pushed the slavery issue farther out. This could potentially have led to negotiation on a slavery 'sunset' date, possibly including compensation for slave owners.

The only scenario I can see where secession happens and the US doesn't intercede militarily would be if those states announced they were seceding and then took no direction action except to file in court for the right to secede. In some twists and turns the Supreme Court might decide that they had the right provided they paid off all debts and paid the US government for all expenditures.

If ACW is avoided, slavery does last longer, though I don't think it would be THAT much longer -- perhaps into the 1880s.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
It all depends very, very much on how, why and when the armed conflict is avoided. I do not believe that the north would ever tolerate secession occurring without a fight. Keep in mind, despite what some people like to claim in a rosy-coloured image of history... the war was fought to preserve the Union. Not to free the slaves. Many people in the North would at that time prefer to end slavery, but few would have fought purely to end it. "Save the Union!" was the rallying cry. So even if the South had magically decided to free all slaves before seceding... there would have been war. The only way to prevent war is to prevent (or quickly undo) secession.

Now, I don't think that compromise at the eleventh hour is unthinkable, but it is a long shot. Remember that the Crittenden Compromise was rejected by Lincoln quite explictly. Less well-known (partially, I think, because people don't like to talk about Lincoln's less-than-perfect actions) is the fact that Lincoln in fact offered tacit support to the proposed Corwin Amendment... if that turned out to be a workable compromise. Lincoln's views certainly evolved over time, but before the war, he had been a bit of a period-typical racist: he did not believe in black equality, avidly supported ideas like mass deportation of all blacks to Africa (an idea he never mentioned again after the 1850s, but never actually renounced, either) and in the middle of the war, it was still his view that if he could preserve the Union by freeing no slaves at all, he would do it (even though he abhorred slavery). So, much as we may all despise slavery, it is not unrealistic to consider a scenario wherein Lincoln actually allows slavery to get constitutional guarantees, if this looks like the best and easiest way to preserve the Union and (permanently) end the threat of secessionism.

The key difference between the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment was that the Crittenden Compromise would have extended the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific, making everything south of there slave soil (which ran counter to the Republican platform), whereas the Corwin Amendment aimed to protect slavery in states where it already existed, and guaranteed that Congress would not interfere with slavery without Southern consent. (The idea was also that this Amendment would be an eternal guarantee, I think, meaning it could never be altered thereafter in any way, including via another amendment.) Essentially, the Crittenden Compromise was unacceptable to Lincoln, and the Corwin Amendment was unacceptable to the Southern fire-eaters.

The Corwin Amendment had, however, already passed Congress before Lincoln came into office and was awaiting ratification by the states. Lincoln was also open to the possibility of a new Constitutional Convention to make further amendments to the Constitution. If either side had suffered a "loss of nerve" at this crucial stage, I think war could have been avoided still. A possible compromise would be for the South to forego demands that California become open to slavery (as under Crittenden) and to accept that only the Southern half of New Mexico Territory (corresponding to "Confederate Arizona") would become slave soil, along with Indian Territory. This would allow for limited future expansion of slavery, and a guarantee of its continued existence. If the Southern slavers had been sane, they would have accepted this at once. Personally, I think they would have rejected it. Because they were not being rational about the issue at all. But there is a chance they would have gone for the deal, and then... well. Lincoln's proposed new convention would certainly have been interesting, because his own aim in return for making slavery guaranteed was very obviously to make secession explicitly impossible. (And if an earlier deal had been reached, I think the South would not object to banning secession. there is a certain historical irony here, in the fact that Lost Causers like to claim that the South fought over secession, not slavery, while avid supporters of Lincoln like to claim the war was fought to free the slaves. The truth was reversed: it was almost entirely about slavery for the South, and almost exclusively about preserving the Union for the North!)

Anyway, that kind of compromise is a long shot. If it is reached, slavery will last for quite some time still. The exact nature of the compromise, however, does not mean that states' rights are going to be more of a thing. Just slavery. Lincoln will still be working to strengthen central authority, and history is working against the idea of states' rights. Also, regarding slavery: do keep in mind that this is not a "CSA wins"-scenario. The Confederate constitution made abolishing slavery more or less impossible. The Corwin Amendment "merely" means the states have to do it themselves. In the Deep South, this will mean slavery lasts for a long time. In the Upper South... I think not. I know, there are people on this board who like to argue that Upper South states had been "on the verge" for decades, and never actually went ahead with ending slavery. But keep in mind that cotton prices historically had an up-and-down cycle. By the early 1860s, cotton prices had been enjoying an all-time long "high" period, lasting several decades. Cotton prices were due for a crash. When that happens in this ATL, cotton (and slaves, since the southern slave economy had increasingly gone to 100% cotton plantations) would certainly become worth less. At that point, the abolition of slavery would become more realistic in certain states, at least.

Far more realistic than a last-ditch compromise, however, would be an earlier POD that leads to an earlier lasting compromise. This would work to remove tensions, so that secession would nver become a serious option. In that kind of scenario, the eventual end to slavery at a relatively early stage becomes even more realistic. The same economic factors apply, and because fighting a war over slavery is never even considered, the idea is slightly less militantly ingrained, I think. Consider the fact that every other Western nation managed to abolish slavery during the nineteenth century. Brazil did it in the 1880s. No other Western country needed a civil war to get it done, and none of them held on to slavery into the 20th century.

I think people who think the CSA, if independent, would have held tight to the institution are right. I think the people who think the USA would have done so in a "no civil war"-scenario are wrong. Especially if we are talking about a scenario with no secession and an early compromise. In such a scenario, slavery would have faded out, state by state in the Upper South, throughout the 1870s and 1880s. Eventually, in the late 1880s or early 1890s, only the Deep South would still have slavery, and at that point, it just becomes possible for the increasing number of free states to amend the constitution without Deep South consent and simply abolish slavery outright.
 
Last edited:
I mostly agree with what's been said but I think that an outright and clearcut abolition of slavery is very unlikely even with a large majority of free states who can act on an amendment without slave states' consent. There's too much money and too many interests involved to just end it. I think some kind of gradual emancipation is most likely, probably drawing it out as long as possible.
 
I'm wondering what the impact on global diplomacy would be.

I mean, it was an economic disruption but on the other hand it re-armed the US.

What would the impact be on the French expedition in Mexico?
 
I mostly agree with what's been said but I think that an outright and clearcut abolition of slavery is very unlikely even with a large majority of free states who can act on an amendment without slave states' consent. There's too much money and too many interests involved to just end it. I think some kind of gradual emancipation is most likely, probably drawing it out as long as possible.


What counts as "emancipation"? Would it be something like the Black Codes of 1865?

IOW would they really do away with slavery, or just stop calling it slavery?
 
What counts as "emancipation"? Would it be something like the Black Codes of 1865?

IOW would they really do away with slavery, or just stop calling it slavery?
Go into indenture instead you mean?

That would regardless be a first step as they would at least be nominally citizen with, in theory, the same rights as the others
 
No ACW, no Fenian invasion of Canada.

No Fenian invasion of Canada, slower confederation of Canadian provinces.

Slower Confederation, potential for left hand side not to be incorporated, but instead form its own entity.
 
Go into indenture instead you mean?

That would regardless be a first step as they would at least be nominally citizen with, in theory, the same rights as the others


Not necessarily. No ACW almost certainly means no Fourteenth Amendment.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Not necessarily. No ACW almost certainly means no Fourteenth Amendment.

But again, the history of all other Western countries does serve to illustrate the general tendency of history in this regard. The notion that, barring a war, the USA would somehow be uniquely dystopian seems somewhat contrived. To be fair, there are examples of white minority ex-colonies that became racist and repressive (see: South Africa), and one may argue that a substantial black minority would lead the USA to perhaps be worse than other Western countries, which had far fewer blacks within their borders. But to expect that the USA would beciome apartheid-like seems very biased, to me. A lot of OTL's developments in this regard took their shape in the shadow of the Civil War, which seems to me as having been psychologially formative to the nation. Without a Civil War - especially without one ever being threatened - such events would take a different course.

No Fourteenth Amendment? Probably right. The vast majority of the states adopting laws of similar intent on their own? More than likely. Certainly, this development will radiate from the north southward, and there will be Deep South resistance. I'll gladly take into account @Escape Zeppelin's view that direct abolition would be unlikly for social reasons, but I have to add that this wasn't even that big of a deal, ultimately, in Brazil. Even if a more gradual approach is chosen, it will have become increasingly clear that slavery is done. By 1890, the USA would be the only Western slaveholding nation in the world. Criticism would not be incidental anymore. Everyone would know that the institution was living on borrowed time (and as I outlined, more likely than not, only in the Deep South).

So what would that mean? Every child born after 1900 is born free, and an end to all slavery in 1910? A law like that would be plausible. Stretching it out beyond that would be pointless. Even if the Deep South would moan about it, they could not stop it. And I remain confident that other southern states would have already abolished the institution by that point. Most states would have state law provisions that ensure at least some semblance of equality. without the Civil War, the whole issue would ultimately less divisive. There would be no "Lost Cause"-mythology for the Deep South to abuse.

None of this is to say that there will be no abuses, especially in the Deep South. There will be situations where slavery is replaced by a thinly-veiled equivalent. But these will not be universal, and I suspect that with a gradual abolition of slavery (state by state, until the final step to end it in the Deep South) and without the utterly divisive legacy of armed conflict, such situations will actually be considerably less pervasive than in OTL. I don't see Jiw Crow and segregation picking up speed in this scenario. No "resurgence" of such racist evils in the 20th century. They'll fade out more slowly in the late 19th and very early 20th century, but when they are faded out, they stay faded out.

It is not for me to judge whether such an alternative would ultimately be better or worse than OTL. I merely wish to point out that "no ACW" does not plausibly mean that the South will retain slavery well into the 20th century, or that the post-slavery situation will become like Apartheid or even like segregation.
 
Quite possibly that the Taiping win in the civil war in China, or at least that the Qing government collapses outright without the U.S. Civil War. The British only intervened on the side of the Qing after the collapse of the cotton and green tea market forced them to restore stability to one of their key markets. With an uninterrupted flow of cotton, the British can afford to stay neutral in China.
 
One important knock-on which has been mentioned but not explored: if there is no Civil War, there is no 14th Amendment. And the 14th Amendment has had gigantic consequences in areas wholly unrelated to race relations or the civil rights of non-whites. In particular, its first article:

Amendment XIV

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Just to start with, the first sentence of the Amendment establishes citizenship for any person born in the U.S., a principle confirmed by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Without it, there would be no "birth tourism", no "anchor babies", and the descendants of non-white, or non-Christian, or non-Protestant immigrants could be excluded from citizenship to the latest generation. Nativism would be much more effective.

An even larger effect is the absence of the second sentence, which for the first time imposed Constitutional restrictions on the states, through the "privileges and immunities" clause, the "due process" clause, and the "equal protection" clause. This sentence has been read as "incorporating" the Bill of Rights so that it applies to the states. That doctrine has been the basis for such important decisions as Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule), Baker v. Carr (apportionnment of legislatures), Miranda v. Arizona (the Miranda warning), Roe v. Wade (abortion), Bush v. Gore (the 2000 election), Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), and many more.

The legal and political landscape of the United States would be radically different.
 
For what its worth, considering that the institution was only becoming stronger and more ideologically entrenched as the years went on, there is no way whatsoever that slavery ends in the 19th century without a civil war. It will be alive and well in 1900, only more concentrated in the hands of the oligarchy.
 
Top