WI Northern Nullification is Challenged...1843
- Thread starter robertp6165
- Start date
I haven't tried to turn this into a debate over the causes of the Civil War. I'm well aware of your views there and have no interest in trying to persuade you otherwise. (And for the record, I do think that the South would have abolished slavery eventually.)
I have already offered several points along those lines, but I've yet to see you respond to them. Where the best cotton land is in Mexico, for instance, or an easy way to organise funding for a transcontinental railroad ahead of OTL (a copper boom in Sonora), or the best way for the USA to hold down Mexico (get the big landowners onside and keep 'em that way).
If you want another one, the method you picked to abolish slavery, as per version 2.0 of the timeline, has some problems as it stands, but could be modified slightly to work.
Slave prices are only going to rise as high as someone's willing to pay, which means enough to turn a profit from the most profitable crop. (Mostly cotton, with sisal in Yucatan if that area's pacified). But this will mean more concentration of slave labour in those areas which grow cotton, and reduced support for slavery elsewhere. (Since they have few slaves around, most of them having moved to the cotton belt.) From Durango to Alabama, there's cotton slaves at high prices (but still turning a profit.) The Upper South and whichever parts of Mexico get held onto would be likely to turn into free-soil states. With Durango-Coahuila to move into, even Florida may be seen as unprofitable for the most part for slave agriculture, and so that could end up as a free soil state too. Having so many free soil states around would make it a lot easier to push the abolition of slavery through later.
Personally, I'd welcome constructive criticism of Decades of Darkness if you want to do so. I've modified the timeline in the past based on people's input, and no doubt will do so again. That doesn't mean that I'll automatically change things (there's a lot of research gone into working things out, and there's reasons why most things in there happen as they do) but I do listen.
Last edited:
I have to admit that I am a bit behind on my reading of recently published histories, and I haven't read that one yet. It is on my list, though.
Yes, they will be playing a greater role in the ATL than in OTL. Since settlement of the West as a whole is going to be slowed down, the proportion of Mormons to "Gentiles" in the West is going to be greater. However, this is probably not going to work in favor of the Mormons and I am not thinking there will be a State of Deseret, at least not one recognized by the F.S.A. The reason for this is the resolution of the slavery issue in the ATL is going to leave a lot of extremists who focused their energies on the slavery issue in OTL in need of a new issue to fixate upon. They will find that issue in Mormon polygamy, which lead to increased hatred and fear of Mormons in the F.S.A., and increased conflict between Mormons and non-Mormons over the government of the West.
If I have mistaken your intentions, I do apologize.
I can see your point that this would be a viable mechanism for the elimination of slavery in the U.S.A. I had wanted to avoid having a lot of "free soil" states arise prior to the collapse of the cotton markets and the breakup of the plantations, because then we are simply replicating what happened in the old Union and we quite possibly end up with a Civil War within the U.S.A. However, I will consider your suggestion and may incorporate it in a revision later.
One factor which your reply did bring to mind was this...you mention the very valid point that the price of slaves is only going to go as high as someone's willing to pay. However, there is the possibility that we might gradually see the small and medium-scale slaveholder priced out of the market, with only the richest men able to afford slaves. This in turn, might, over time, actually lead to the breaking of the power of the plantation class over U.S. politics. In OTL, non-slaveholders in the South often supported slavery because they envisioned a time when they might become slaveholders themselves. Therefore they allied themselves with the planters and their political agenda. The prices of slaves by 1860 in OTL were already making it a real challenge for entry-level prospective slaveowners to enter the market. Push those prices up a bit higher, and it becomes virtually prohibitive. As gradually the realization sinks in to the average non-slaveowning Southerner that he has no chance of ever entering the slaveowning aristocracy, might we not see more Hinton Helpers arise among the non-slaveowning majority in the South, and an erosion of support for the political agenda of the aristocracy?
I have been thinking about another factor that might go along with this...conflict between Anglophones vs. Spanish-speakers. As more Mexicans move north to work in the growing industrial cities, and Mexicans become the largest and most threatening ethnic minority (possibly, given high birthrates in Catholic families, even a majority over time), might it not be possible that English speaking whites might be gradually drawn to view the other large group of English speakers in the U.S.A....blacks...as less of a threat and a possible ally against the "Mexican menace?" If that happened, there might be increasing pressure in some quarters for the abolition of slavery and the extension of political rights to the former slaves. Of course, then they would have to either extend political rights to the Mexicans, or redefine citizenship in a way as to include blacks but exclude Mexicans.
Decades of Darkness is such a large and detailed work at this point that any modifications you made to the earlier portions of the timeline would necessitate a re-write of most of it. If it were still at an early stage, I'd consider taking up your offer. As it is, it's probably not a good idea. But you have mentioned that you are finishing up DoD and will be moving on to something else in the near future. Perhaps I will make myself a gadfly there.
Last edited:
More Kulturkampf thoughts
It seems to me the mechanisms for denying Mexicans the right to vote in the US is going to start breaking down at some point. More likely in stages. This could be extremely polarizing. Now one indiividual to look at is Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore. He could become extremely powerful in TTL and I don't think you have good reason to butterfly him away.
An American analog of the German Catholic Center Party is a distinct possibility IMO--both FSA and USA.
It seems to me the mechanisms for denying Mexicans the right to vote in the US is going to start breaking down at some point. More likely in stages. This could be extremely polarizing. Now one indiividual to look at is Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore. He could become extremely powerful in TTL and I don't think you have good reason to butterfly him away.
An American analog of the German Catholic Center Party is a distinct possibility IMO--both FSA and USA.
No doubt they will. But given that it over took 100 years for blacks to achieve civil rights in OTL, Mexicans might have to wait quite some time before that happens. It will be, no doubt, extremely polarizing, just as you say.
Just read a bio on him in Wikipedia. I don't exactly see why you find him so significant?
Hmm...Interesting, I do rather seeing this as plausible...But Several questions would still probably arise...With An earlier date for the Aboliton of Slavery and a push for full citzenship for blacks, Is that population still that signifciant to where if they do grant the citzenship for Blacks that its really going to end up making a difference? Maybe after conditions in the US ease up for Blacks, we can seen a possible emigration from Liberia back to the states?
Also...The whole Including Blacks but exculding Metizos shouldn't be that hard to come up with. Either an Act firmly state that annoyne whether Free or in Bondage that has a drop of Black Blood in them and who was born before the Annexation of Mexico be considered now and forever more a citzen of the United States of America.
Couldn't the USA or the states themselves make English the official language to prevent Spanish from taking over. I would imagine it is English speakers from the south that have direct control over the new Mexican territories/states. They wouldn't ban Spanish, but all citizens or residents must speak English. Say maybe a heavier tax on those who cannot prove they are fluent in English.
In a sense this would make it easier on the ex-slaves, since English is the only language they know. In the eyes of white southerners it would create almost a caste system: white, then English speaking African-Americans and Mexicans, and then Spanish speakers. This could evolve into something similar to the castes in India, but not as complex.
How do the various native American peoples play into this altered USA, especially now that those in Mexico add to the population?
In a sense this would make it easier on the ex-slaves, since English is the only language they know. In the eyes of white southerners it would create almost a caste system: white, then English speaking African-Americans and Mexicans, and then Spanish speakers. This could evolve into something similar to the castes in India, but not as complex.
How do the various native American peoples play into this altered USA, especially now that those in Mexico add to the population?
Gibbons
Cardinal Gibbons was only the most influential American Catholic prelate ever. Council of Batlimore, the Baltimore cathecism. Even an ardent antireligionist who also lived in Baltimore and was n=known by his initials was impressed by Gibbons. With an increasing share of the electorate Catholic and a political incentive for Catholics to press for Mexicans to be allowed to vote, his power reaches a whole new level. The repurcussions could go all the way back to the Vatican. During the papacy of Leo some French prelates argued a new heresy had arisen they called Americanism. Leo looked into the matter and concluded there wasa little bit of truth in the French allegations but only a little. This is thought to be what prevent Archbishop Ireland from getting a red hat.
I would see a lteracy in English strategy was becoming the schwerpunkt of the disenfranchisers. As long as Mexcan Americans cannot pass a literacy test in English then they cannot vote. But Gibbons was the great advocate of the parochial school so the obvious counterstrategy fits him to a T.
I make Gibbons Rampolla's succesor in my WI Rampolla Becomes Pope TL.
Tom
Cardinal Gibbons was only the most influential American Catholic prelate ever. Council of Batlimore, the Baltimore cathecism. Even an ardent antireligionist who also lived in Baltimore and was n=known by his initials was impressed by Gibbons. With an increasing share of the electorate Catholic and a political incentive for Catholics to press for Mexicans to be allowed to vote, his power reaches a whole new level. The repurcussions could go all the way back to the Vatican. During the papacy of Leo some French prelates argued a new heresy had arisen they called Americanism. Leo looked into the matter and concluded there wasa little bit of truth in the French allegations but only a little. This is thought to be what prevent Archbishop Ireland from getting a red hat.
I would see a lteracy in English strategy was becoming the schwerpunkt of the disenfranchisers. As long as Mexcan Americans cannot pass a literacy test in English then they cannot vote. But Gibbons was the great advocate of the parochial school so the obvious counterstrategy fits him to a T.
I make Gibbons Rampolla's succesor in my WI Rampolla Becomes Pope TL.
Tom
All this assumes that Catholic voters become a large enough factor to matter in the ATL United States. The number of Catholics in the antebellum South in OTL was rather small, and Catholic immigration from Europe is, so far, going almost exclusively into the F.S.A. in the ATL(although, if the Know Nothings gain power and enact rigid immigration controls, that could change). The annexation of Mexico likely won't add enough Catholic voters for them to become a major factor. The population of Mexico consists of about 60% Mestizos, about 30% full-blooded Indians (both of which groups are excluded from voting by combined effects of the 1790 Naturalization Act and the 1848 Citizenship Act), and about 10% people of pure (or mostly pure) European descent who could be defined as white by the Supreme Court. Given a Mexican population of about 6 million at the time of annexation, this means about 600,000 new voters added to the American polity, once all the Supreme Court wrangling gets sorted out...and once the Mexican Territories are admitted as States...certainly a significant block, but is it enough to give Gibbons the sort of power you are envisioning? I am not sure.
That would be one reason why simply using a literacy test as the means of disenfranchisement would likely not be the path the ATL U.S.A. would choose, and why racial categorization is more likely to be used instead.
Well, by 1911 (when slavery is finally abolished in the U.S.A.) we are probably going to have at least 4 million blacks in the U.S.A., even assuming my theory about the rise in the number of escapes holds true. So yes, I would think it would make a difference, at least temporarily.
That could be possible, but I view it as unlikely.
The problem with that is that many, if not most, Mestizos are a mixture of white, Indian, and black. There are very few black people in Mexico today, but there were a lot of African slaves taken there during colonial times. The reason why there is not a large black population there is because the attitudes toward race mixing were more relaxed in Mexico, as compared to the United States, and black slaves, especially after emancipation, mixed with the existing Mestizo population and were assimilated. Therefore, to say that anyone with black blood in them automatically gets citizenship means that the majority of Mexicans are now citizens...which is what the white establishment in the U.S.A. will most want to avoid.
As I pointed out elsewhere, simply using language as a barrier to citizenship might be a temporary solution, but one that could be defeated. A racial barrier would be more effective in the long term. Your idea of an informal caste system based partly on race and partly on language could very well happen, however. Indeed I view it as somewhat likely.
They too are excluded by the "free white persons" requirement for citizenship.
They are on the original map. In most cases Congress simply combined smaller existing Mexican States to form the new territories. The larger Mexican States were organized as Territories "as is" without modification of their borders.
Hrm.... I think at that point in their history Mexicans associated "nationalistic" feeling as much with their estados as they did with Mexico itself, if not more so (not unlike, say, Lee's view of OTL). The USA may live to regret all those neat and tidy borders...