What about this: Shortly after the British Empire abolishes slavery and begins it's "War on Slavery" some upper-class anti-slavery Brits remember the adage "follow the money" and decide to finance an early incrudoction of cotton plantations to India in order to eliminate Britains dependancy on Southern Cotton. Might this hurt the slave based economy in the South badly enough to force them to look for alternatives to their plantation economy?Now, if Britain and France stopped paying so much for cotten and putting money into the slave-holders pockets, during the period of economic turbulence while slaves were shifted over to industry perhaps it would be easier to make a compromise.
It has nothing to do with the Slave patrol: the international slave trade was outlawed in 1808. Southern Planters firmly supported it because they though that newly minted slaves would be more unruly.
A few ideas:
1. The Whig Party may still be around, since it primarily self-destructed over slavery.
2. Fremont, Lincoln and the Republican Party will disappear - or at least Lincoln will.
3. The loose interpretation of the Constitution endorsed by the North would run into opposition from the South. The national bank, major government improvements etc. will all be blocked by the South.
4. Some agreement on low tariffs or even no protectionalist tariffs will have to be agreed upon to the detriment of Northern companies in order that the free-trade South will continue onboard.
6. No pesky 14th and 15th Amendments.
Not really. Cotton is cheaper and better in the US anyways, and as long as the US is stable (and, really, it was and would be without a Civil War), then "follow the money" really translates into "invest in American cotton." Even during the Civil War, when Britain's cotton imports were cut and the idea to start trying to grow cotton in India took shape, British stores of surplus cotton held out. No Civil War, and you'd actually see the cotton-oversupply that happened post-Civil War happen a bit sooner, killing the profits to be made in Indian cotton. Why set up costly parallel infrastructure and investments when they already exist inside a friendly country who you already have a huge economic investments in?What about this: Shortly after the British Empire abolishes slavery and begins it's "War on Slavery" some upper-class anti-slavery Brits remember the adage "follow the money" and decide to finance an early incrudoction of cotton plantations to India in order to eliminate Britains dependancy on Southern Cotton. Might this hurt the slave based economy in the South badly enough to force them to look for alternatives to their plantation economy?
That's kind of wierd. If you secede, you are a different nation.First of all, states will still have the right to secede.
Let us suppose that during the 1820s to 1830s, men of good intent come together in the United States and bring about a peaceful agreed solution to the slavery issue that sees slavery ending in a way that both North and South can accept.
As a result, there is no American Civil War. So, what are the effects inside the United States and elsewhere?
Spanish American War in the 1860's over the Ostend Manifesto.
Right. Because it was profitable for them.I don't know that that first sentence is really possible. Think about it- Southerners didn't want slavery to end.
Lincoln wouldn't be a problem, if conspiracy nutters on the level of "McCain will bring the draft for a hundred years of constant war!11!!1!" weren't convinced that Lincoln was going to end slavery by force. Lincoln wasn't supportive of making slavery constitutionally legal, but a regular legislative compromise on securing te South's rights to slaves wasn't impossible either.I think the best way to avoid the ACW is to have someone other than Lincoln elected in 1860, although that may just postpone instead of avoiding it altogether.
While OTL it was the South that pushed to annex Cuba, the northern business interests were also in favor.Spanish American War in the 1860's over the Ostend Manifesto.Wouldn't that precipitate a civil war? There was interest in Cuba just because it would make the South stronger. This is merely 15-20 years after the Mexican-American War which was made mainly for the same reason, and originated a lot of protests in the abolitionist camp (including Lincoln).
It has nothing to do with the Slave patrol: the international slave trade was outlawed in 1808. Southern Planters firmly supported it because they though that newly minted slaves would be more unruly.
Actually, it's far more likely if Garrison never does anything and it become purely a southern issue, but I think it best to agree to disagree.
Have you seen the movie Amazing Grace? It's about the British parliamentarian William Wilberforce. He was responsible for banning slavery in the British Empire. Unfortunately, aside from William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and other abolitionists,
there weren't any men of good intent, in New England, or the South, who were willing to stand up to the slave trade. Why? Northerners were making money off the importation of slaves. Which, after 1807, was in effect, smuggling. If
there were men of good intent, or at least one, man of good intent, in Congress then, we could have ended slavery the same way the British did.
Let us suppose that during the 1820s to 1830s, men of good intent come together in the United States and bring about a peaceful agreed solution to the slavery issue that sees slavery ending in a way that both North and South can accept.
As a result, there is no American Civil War. So, what are the effects inside the United States and elsewhere?
I was very impressed with the movie Amazing Grace. What you are saying about Northerners - particularly New England shipowners - making money off of the importation of slaves is correct. I believe there were incidents of slave importing up until the ACW. I think the last trial was in New York City and it involved a Northerner ship captain.