WI - No American Civil War

[Bill Garvin]

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?

 

[NKVD]

First of all, states will still have the right to secede.

 

[sonicwind123]

Without the slavery issue, then I would have to say, that Texas would be annexed into the Union earlier and thus the Mexican American War would of happened sooner, and the expansion west occurs sooner.

 

[Nicomacheus]

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?

It's an interesting WI, but to truly asses the consequence we'd need to be more specific on how slavery ends. IMO, the most likely sources is a successful adoption of the Floyd plan in the 1830s (Gabriel Prosser's Rebellion is never launched). This anti-slavery movement would be native to the south, not connected to the issue of states' rights. It would also be heavily connected to a move in industrialize the South. I can't remember though what they proposed to do with the freed slaves (a big question, though). You might also have a different scheme, one that focused on compensating slave owners; this might be effective if the slave owners received Treasury bonds managed by a renewed Bank of the United States. Such a move betokens a big change for the Southern Planters' typical fear of Banks, however. Making the movement in any way a national one has the potential to create resistance in the South.

The first question is what happens to the politics of Western Expansion. The Floyd Plan POD isn't enough, IMO, to stop the dynamics of the Texas' Revolution in 1836. If the Texans win, you have a new slave-holding republic whose only realistic chance of survival is the backing of the US. Great Britain and France are possible, however. Having Texas join the Union while Virginia seems to spawning a gradual manumission movement drastically alters the landscape. The Lower South will defintely want more slave states, the Upper South probably is okay with it (since most of the Texians come from this region), the North is against it, as OTL. Is this enough to alter events such that Texas joins in 1836-8 rather than 1845? Furthermore, Texas might demur from joining the Union for long enough to make idea unpalatable.

If the annexation of Texas is altered, so too is the Mexican-American War. If such a war comes before the South has adopted manumission, then slavery will still become an issue.

It's conceivable also that the Lower South choses not to adopt manumission: most likely the Upper Southern states sold large numbers of their slaves southward, increasing the concentration of African-Americans even beyond their OTL numbers. This probably only further incentivizes racial attitudes that motivate the defense of slavery, but the Lower South has no chance of numerically protecting itself in the US Congress. Virginia may well come to resent the 3/5s clause when South Caroliana manages to punch so far out of its demographic weight. This may be the moment for your "group of men of good intent" to settle the issue.

Manumission so adopted, however, will have more to do with economic change than political ideals. The radical abolitionist who so doggedly pursued the cause of civil rights will not emerge, since the Manumissionists will make the former seem even more extreme. However, the South will probably not be the monolithic block it became as the interests of lower class whites and planters begin to palpably diverge without the need to unite "in defense of race." Without the weight of Northern aggression, the restrictions of free blacks may evolve to less than those of Jim Crow (eventually). Certainly Lousiniana will be central to this evolution, given the history of the free black population there.

Without the Civil War, the issue of secession probably dies down but the primacy of the federal government will not have been confirmed in the crucible of the war. Western settlement (if it comes) may be troubled by the lack of a strong a Federal establishment as the war produced. This may, however, provide incentive to establish such a system.

Without the Mexican American war, Mexico may develop into some sort of stable regime, either tolerating Texas or re-absorbing it. Without the tensions of the Civil War, the history of Canada might be altered as well.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Correction: Some states might claim they have the right to secede. The government would claim they don't. And since no states would have proven the right to secede by, well, seceding, it would be as hypothetical as it always has been.

Assuming on gradual emancipation, the South is much richer (if not better off for the blacks) ITTL. No total war to destory the economy and infrastructure, no total end to trade, still maintains a strong say in Congress and business (so no industrial trampling on the South as OTL).

Blacks would still be pretty bad off, and the government won't be as interested as OTL.

The South will be undergoing a cotton-crisis soon as an overabundance of cotton in the market makes the price plummet. Part of the economic crisis could be part of the reason for the dissolution of slavery, I guess.

The US as a whole probably exits isolationism a bit earlier, with no rebuilding and occupation to distract them. Possibly some adventuring in the Caribbean and Central America, where it may or may not get its fingers burned (or both).

 

[Nicomacheus]

Without the slavery issue, then I would have to say, that Texas would be annexed into the Union earlier and thus the Mexican American War would of happened sooner, and the expansion west occurs sooner.

But would the Texans still be as disposed to join a Union devoid of slavery? Sentiment is probably for it, but there will be a bit more resistance, I think. There are still constitutional issues in the US and New England still has good reason to be concerned about the loss of its influence.

Historically, it was the South that was the most expansionist part of the Union, even during the War of 1812, when the object of conquest was Canada!

 

[Dean_the_Young]

But would the Texans still be as disposed to join a Union devoid of slavery? Sentiment is probably for it, but there will be a bit more resistance, I think. There are still constitutional issues in the US and New England still has good reason to be concerned about the loss of its influence.

Texas and its government was more or less by and of American settlers, was constantly under threat (and nearly broke trying to defend from) from Mexican incursions/border skirmishes that Texas wasn't equiped to face, and without American support, money, and troops, Texas would have lost its Rio Grande border. At the same time, though, slavery is near worthless in Texas. A few elites might support it on the general principle, but there's really no economy for slavery in the state anyways. What Texas needed (money, guns, safety), and what it would have to give up (non-existent slaves) genrally don't change the formula significantly.

Historically, it was the South that was the most expansionist part of the Union, even during the War of 1812, when the object of conquest was Canada!

More or less true, but for the purpose of this discussion remember that the South was being politically outweighed by the North each decade, and their abilities to push through wars more and more restrained.

That said, no Civil War period would almost certainly see a few more adventures by the US during the 19th century.

 

[sonicwind123]

But would the Texans still be as disposed to join a Union devoid of slavery? Sentiment is probably for it, but there will be a bit more resistance, I think. There are still constitutional issues in the US and New England still has good reason to be concerned about the loss of its influence.

Historically, it was the South that was the most expansionist part of the Union, even during the War of 1812, when the object of conquest was Canada!

Good point, I think it would matter when the south agreed to give up slavery. If it had been before Austin came to Texas, then slavery wouldn't of been a issue. If it would of been between say 28-30, then I would say questionable. If the act came after 36, then I would say that slavery would be come a issue.

If it is not a for New England to be that worried about losing influence. If you looked at the historic example of when the first new states came into being, it didn't really matter. I just can't see it mattering in this situation. Plus, it is known Houston worked to become a state from the word go. If the Mexican war would of occurred in say 37, you have to wonder how the instability of Mexico with rebel states like the Yucan would of played into the war. Also if a war would of been a chance for the federalist in Mexico to take power.

If Texas does independent, you still have the attempted invasion in 42 by Wall. With the large growth in population during what normally would be the the time of the late republic. Texas would of been more of challenge to take over. Especially with the internal problems Mexico always seemed to have.

 

[panzerjay]

still, wonder how western migration plays out. without the diaspora caused by the destruction of american south, would it have taken longer for the settlement of the west?

my theory is that its the losers/downtrodden of society who become pioneers of expansion first

 

[sonicwind123]

still, wonder how western migration plays out. without the diaspora caused by the destruction of american south, would it have taken longer for the settlement of the west?

my theory is that its the losers/downtrodden of society who become pioneers of expansion first

Expansion was more of a result of Lincoln signing the homestead act, the war itself. The population in the east was large, and the Homestead act allowed them to claim land for free. I am sure something like this would of happened even without a civil war.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Good point, I think it would matter when the south agreed to give up slavery. If it had been before Austin came to Texas, then slavery wouldn't of been a issue. If it would of been between say 28-30, then I would say questionable. If the act came after 36, then I would say that slavery would be come a issue.

If it is not a for New England to be that worried about losing influence. If you looked at the historic example of when the first new states came into being, it didn't really matter. I just can't see it mattering in this situation. Plus, it is known Houston worked to become a state from the word go. If the Mexican war would of occurred in say 37, you have to wonder how the instability of Mexico with rebel states like the Yucan would of played into the war. Also if a war would of been a chance for the federalist in Mexico to take power.

If Texas does independent, you still have the attempted invasion in 42 by Wall. With the large growth in population during what normally would be the the time of the late republic. Texas would of been more of challenge to take over. Especially with the internal problems Mexico always seemed to have.

All very true. Houston was dead bent on statehood, but he was frequently opposed. Remember there's also Lamar's faction that wants its own Empire of the west. As you say, depending on when slavery is phased out, things might very well be different.

Note that "the internal probelms Mexico always seemed to have" are mostly each other's causes. There is some geographic prediliction to conflict, because the two mountain ranges cutting off the center from the coast and the jungle in the south create convient places to raise a guerrilla / rebel force. The demographic legacy of Spanish colonialsim doesn't help either. But I'd say the uncertain beginning of the Republic in 1824 is more to blame. That uncertainty lead to rise of the centralistas and then to the Zacatepa revolts that allowed Santa Anna to come to power and abrogate the constitution. Eventually, the cycle of revolution erroded the rule of law and created an escalating burden of debt and an infrastructure gap. The trajectory of Mexican development that we know is by no means assured or necessitated.

 

[bard32]

That would require the one thing America in the 1820s wasn't going to do: Allow the Royal Navy to board American ships in order to look for slaves.
The anti-piracy patrol in the Caribbean was more popular than the anti-slavery
patrol off Africa. At its peak in the 1850s, the anti-slavery patrol, in concert
with the Royal Navy, captured many slave ships and freed many slaves. Sending them to Liberia and Sierra Leone. What this country needed was someone similar in stature to William Wilberforce, the British abolitionist.
Who did we have like that? William Lloyd Garrison. Unfortunately, William Lloyd Garrison, was never elected to Congress.

 

[Nicomacheus]

That would require the one thing America in the 1820s wasn't going to do: Allow the Royal Navy to board American ships in order to look for slaves.
The anti-piracy patrol in the Caribbean was more popular than the anti-slavery
patrol off Africa. At its peak in the 1850s, the anti-slavery patrol, in concert
with the Royal Navy, captured many slave ships and freed many slaves. Sending them to Liberia and Sierra Leone. What this country needed was someone similar in stature to William Wilberforce, the British abolitionist.
Who did we have like that? William Lloyd Garrison. Unfortunately, William Lloyd Garrison, was never elected to Congress.

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.

 

[Dave Howery]

still, wonder how western migration plays out. without the diaspora caused by the destruction of american south, would it have taken longer for the settlement of the west?

my theory is that its the losers/downtrodden of society who become pioneers of expansion first

in OTL, the west was settled after the war not so much by the losers as the bored.... a lot of men who served in the war just weren't willing to go home and do what they'd done before, having seen and done so much. They went west with a lot of immigrants fresh from overseas. What isn't often realized is that a lot of people went south too... the south had a lot of empty territory, and early settlers went there too.

Without the war, yes, the west would definitely fill up slower. Free land would draw some Americans, but they'd be outnumbered by the immigrants from overseas. With a peaceful settlement and abolition of slavery, I wonder if the freed blacks might just move into empty land in the south and not so much out west... that way, they'd still be in lands they knew and understood, but still on their own land. I'd think that with Americans not so willing to pack up and go west, the US would encourage more immigration to fill up those empty lands and make states out of them.... the west just might be overwhelmingly German, Irish, and Hispanic...

 

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

No, you're pretty much right. The British slave patrols had nothing to do with slavery in the US, because the US was one of/the only places in the world where the domestic slave population was self-replacing and self-increasing. The US banned the imports of slaves rather early on in a move supported by the Southern slave owners, in fact, because it made their slaves more valuable and profitable.

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.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

in OTL, the west was settled after the war not so much by the losers as the bored.... a lot of men who served in the war just weren't willing to go home and do what they'd done before, having seen and done so much. They went west with a lot of immigrants fresh from overseas. What isn't often realized is that a lot of people went south too... the south had a lot of empty territory, and early settlers went there too.

Without the war, yes, the west would definitely fill up slower. Free land would draw some Americans, but they'd be outnumbered by the immigrants from overseas. With a peaceful settlement and abolition of slavery, I wonder if the freed blacks might just move into empty land in the south and not so much out west... that way, they'd still be in lands they knew and understood, but still on their own land. I'd think that with Americans not so willing to pack up and go west, the US would encourage more immigration to fill up those empty lands and make states out of them.... the west just might be overwhelmingly German, Irish, and Hispanic...

Good thought, but there's one thing to consider that eventually spurred major land rushes, indian wars, and westward expansion well after the Civil War.

Gold and silver. Canada was far from the only source, you now.

 

[David S Poepoe]

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?

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.

5. Any transcontinental railroad will probably be done more by private enterprise than government grant. The South is right in that government grants squander public funds.

6. No pesky 14th and 15th Amendments.

7. Federal government overall will be better with the correct balance maintained between the Federal and State governments. Things many change with the Progressives.

 

[Dave Howery]

Good thought, but there's one thing to consider that eventually spurred major land rushes, indian wars, and westward expansion well after the Civil War.

Gold and silver. Canada was far from the only source, you now.

gold and silver will spur movement to a few places.... Virginia City in NV, Alder Gulch in MT, the Black Hills, etc.... but to fill up the rest of the west, it'll be slower... you have to have people wanting to go settle on their own land, and without an ACW, this is slowed down a lot...

 

[Jasen777]

At the same time, though, slavery is near worthless in Texas. A few elites might support it on the general principle, but there's really no economy for slavery in the state anyways. What Texas needed (money, guns, safety), and what it would have to give up (non-existent slaves) genrally don't change the formula significantly.

Slavery wasn't worthless in Texas, it was thriving. East Texas (which just about all of the settled land at the time was) is environmentally very much like the rest of the deep south. Texas grow cotton, and in fact, the areas that had more slaves were better off economically.

There were 5,000 slaves in Texas in 1836, with a total non-Indian population of about 38,000, despite slavery being against Mexican law. By 1845, there were 30,000 slaves in Texas and by 1860 there was over 180,000. Slavery was very economical in Texas.

 

[Dave Howery]

despite slavery being against Mexican law.

technically, yeah, but the Mexicans found ways to get around that. It was legal in Mexico to sign people up for 99 year contracts, effectively making slaves of them. And in spite of the law, out and out slavery did exist among the Mexican elite... not the 'black slaves on plantations' type, but the house servants type. There was a thriving trade in Apache/Pueblo children, stolen as infants from local tribes, and raised to be exotic looking servants...