An interesting topic I came across recently was (American) Western expansion and its role in the South-North divide leading up to the Civil War. Particularly interesting was the case made that while we tend to view the (Mid)West as more Northern than Southern, such was not the case in the early period of Western expansion during the period period 1815-1830s. This was due to geography: The West needed to export crops, and there were two avenues for doing so: the South and the North. The South held the advantage during this period because of the Mississippi River trading route. The North(east) was blocked by the Appalachian mountains and the Great Lakes were not a viable trading route at the time. Southern ports such as (and especially) New Orleans were the main recipients of Western exports, and Southerners were colonising the West (though the character of the peoples who settled the West is perhaps not that important - regardless of their background, they would vote based on perceived interest. The matter hinged on getting the West to have more interests in common with one side of the Mason-Dixie line than another). And it seems the two have things in common culturally: Both are agrarian, export-based regions with experience of life on the frontier (in the 1820s, the Old Southwest still had large tracts of Native country. Contrast this to the North which generally was far more settled). The steamboat only adds to the Southern advantage... until the railroad and canal-building spree bears fruit. The railroad allows the North to start catching up, with routes opening across Pennsylvania. The South, oddly enough, does not counter the new competition (even though a railway from the South was perhaps more practical than one running across the Appalachians). Yes, there were Southern railways servicing the West. However, it was the North who gained most of the transportation market. The Erie Canal further improved communications between North and West. These economic ties allowed northern labour to co-operate with the West on cheap land grants, a key issue, and smooth over differences regarding tariffs. Thus, while the Ohio Valley continued exporting to the South, the Great Lakes and particularly the areas west of the Mississippi fell into the Northern camp (and even the Ohio River valley was soon pentrated by Northern interests). This in turn caused the South to fear domination by the North in Congress and made issues of Western state admission an issue of South versus North. Cue the 1850 crisis, Bleeding Kansas, Civil War.
The first issue to be raised is how would we arrest the alliance of North and West, and create a South-West alliance instead. The South and West can certainly have common interests - states' rights and tariffs can be turned to benefit the West as well (and would a stronger South even rely so often on states' rights?), and the Southern position on homesteading was caused in part by a fear of the expansion of free states in the West. A Southern West would allow cheap land to be more palatable to the South. I would say that creating the alliance and perceived common interests really relies on keeping the South's dominant position in the Western market. The South was not going to beat the North in industry, but railways could have been funded by outside capital. Once the South had enough railways connecting Tennessee and New Orleans with the West, any northern attempt to tap into the market would face severe competition (and still have the OTL difficulties of crossing the Appalachians). It would thus be more likely that once the South had more of an initial hold on Western railway links, it would keep them. The Great Lakes region would probably still look to the north more (you can't really replace the Erie Canal), but if the Ohio and upper Mississippi were doing business with the South they would not need to use the Great Lakes ports. Interestingly this probably means a bit weaker US since Western exports aren't directly going to the Northeast industrial centres. And that may mean less immigration, and perhaps less labour pressure to send Northeasterners west. However, we do not need to replace immigration: the West, no matter who peopled it, would still have an alliance with the South and those settlers would vote for Western interests (which would be in tandem with the South's). There may be a couple of holes that need to be patched, however, such as how the South increases railways (though some argue that it was due to a lack of vision, not capital, on the part of Southern business). As for slavery, I think that it would not really be an issue in the South-West alliance.
Without being threatened by Northern domination and "abolitionism," slavery would never be truly threatened (at least on the political front). Therefore, there would be no need to create slave states in the West.
The other issue is what happens once we have achieved a Southern West. How does further American expansion into the Mexican Cession (I doubt that this would be altogether avoided, though does a stronger South lead to more of Mexico being ceded, with all the ramiactions of such an action?) take place? Does a South-West alliance in Congress alleviate Southern fears of Northern domination, and make secession by the SOUTHERN side less likely? What happens, meanwhile, with the North-east, which is weakened industrially and being dominated by this Congressional alliance? What happens to immigration and industralisation in such a timeline where economic policy likely favors the South?
Interestingly enough, if previously I was contemplating "OTL South secedes with Midwest, what happens?" now I see that the ramifications may be more interesting. A world where the North is an annoying festering sore against American national unity, championed by the South? But I may be postulating the best-case scenario for the South, and ignoring possibilities where the changes are more subtle and we still see Southern secession. Let us discuss all the possibilities of South-West alliance, and the ways to create such an alliance.
The first issue to be raised is how would we arrest the alliance of North and West, and create a South-West alliance instead. The South and West can certainly have common interests - states' rights and tariffs can be turned to benefit the West as well (and would a stronger South even rely so often on states' rights?), and the Southern position on homesteading was caused in part by a fear of the expansion of free states in the West. A Southern West would allow cheap land to be more palatable to the South. I would say that creating the alliance and perceived common interests really relies on keeping the South's dominant position in the Western market. The South was not going to beat the North in industry, but railways could have been funded by outside capital. Once the South had enough railways connecting Tennessee and New Orleans with the West, any northern attempt to tap into the market would face severe competition (and still have the OTL difficulties of crossing the Appalachians). It would thus be more likely that once the South had more of an initial hold on Western railway links, it would keep them. The Great Lakes region would probably still look to the north more (you can't really replace the Erie Canal), but if the Ohio and upper Mississippi were doing business with the South they would not need to use the Great Lakes ports. Interestingly this probably means a bit weaker US since Western exports aren't directly going to the Northeast industrial centres. And that may mean less immigration, and perhaps less labour pressure to send Northeasterners west. However, we do not need to replace immigration: the West, no matter who peopled it, would still have an alliance with the South and those settlers would vote for Western interests (which would be in tandem with the South's). There may be a couple of holes that need to be patched, however, such as how the South increases railways (though some argue that it was due to a lack of vision, not capital, on the part of Southern business). As for slavery, I think that it would not really be an issue in the South-West alliance.
Without being threatened by Northern domination and "abolitionism," slavery would never be truly threatened (at least on the political front). Therefore, there would be no need to create slave states in the West.
The other issue is what happens once we have achieved a Southern West. How does further American expansion into the Mexican Cession (I doubt that this would be altogether avoided, though does a stronger South lead to more of Mexico being ceded, with all the ramiactions of such an action?) take place? Does a South-West alliance in Congress alleviate Southern fears of Northern domination, and make secession by the SOUTHERN side less likely? What happens, meanwhile, with the North-east, which is weakened industrially and being dominated by this Congressional alliance? What happens to immigration and industralisation in such a timeline where economic policy likely favors the South?
Interestingly enough, if previously I was contemplating "OTL South secedes with Midwest, what happens?" now I see that the ramifications may be more interesting. A world where the North is an annoying festering sore against American national unity, championed by the South? But I may be postulating the best-case scenario for the South, and ignoring possibilities where the changes are more subtle and we still see Southern secession. Let us discuss all the possibilities of South-West alliance, and the ways to create such an alliance.
Last edited:
