how would American history go if the south didnt secede, im curious what you all think

The South conquers Mexico and asks for concessions on labor and gets them claiming Mexico is a territory.
No they won’t. The North will oppose such a conquest, and no insignificant parts of the South would oppose it as well, as they didn’t want to bring a Mexicans into the country:

“To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.”
-John C. Calhoun

There might be a path for the South to force a conquest of Cuba, but even under Buchanan and Pierce such plans were not well supported.
Anyhoo, to the question: slavery lasts at minimum another 20 years. How long depends on how long the South can bluster and threaten to keep things paralyzed. Eventually some kind of gradual emancipation plan is agreed to simply because the political power of the North has grown too large to resist, and secession is far too late.
 
The South conquers Mexico and asks for concessions on labor and gets them claiming Mexico is a territory. Many of the Mexicans are little more than bonded servants. There are incursions into Canada and Toronto becomes a territory of the United States. There is a kind of legal maneuver with the conquest of Mexico, where more rights are given to southern African Americans creating a bonded cast different than a complete slave society. With the introduction of mechanization slavery becomes an inefficient institution and many African Americans are freed into a sharecropping type situation. Slavery is becoming more of a social institution than an economic activity. It will take a social revolution to end slavery as it is not practical financially. Increasingly, the north is becoming more competitive with salaried employees and automation.
probably slavery would be replaced by a tenant farmer /landlord model like in Ireland and England.
Taking all of Mexico would be a big war.
Long-term forcing the population to speak English would take a long time.
 
Last edited:
The South conquers Mexico and asks for concessions on labor and gets them claiming Mexico is a territory. Many of the Mexicans are little more than bonded servants. There are incursions into Canada and Toronto becomes a territory of the United States. There is a kind of legal maneuver with the conquest of Mexico, where more rights are given to southern African Americans creating a bonded cast different than a complete slave society. With the introduction of mechanization slavery becomes an inefficient institution and many African Americans are freed into a sharecropping type situation. Slavery is becoming more of a social institution than an economic activity. It will take a social revolution to end slavery as it is not practical financially. Increasingly, the north is becoming more competitive with salaried employees and automation.

No they won’t. The North will oppose such a conquest, and no insignificant parts of the South would oppose it as well, as they didn’t want to bring a Mexicans into the country:

“To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.”
-John C. Calhoun

There might be a path for the South to force a conquest of Cuba, but even under Buchanan and Pierce such plans were not well supported.
Anyhoo, to the question: slavery lasts at minimum another 20 years. How long depends on how long the South can bluster and threaten to keep things paralyzed. Eventually some kind of gradual emancipation plan is agreed to simply because the political power of the North has grown too large to resist, and secession is far too late.
I have previously written a thread where the USA conquers Mexico and keeps it. If the South sees it as a way to get a whole bunch more slaves and slave plantation land, they may go for it. If the North sees it as a way to get the other resources of the Mexico like gold, they may go for it. If both the Northern and Southern faction in the USA both decide that conquering Mexico and holding it is a good idea, it may get enough support. Mexico is divided up and sliced into half a dozen slave states, with the Mexicans as slaves. To balance, parts of the Deseret territory are sliced off and made No Slave No Polygamy states. Brigham Young gets a dozen senators in Congress, quite a power block. The Slave states pick up a dozen senators. Brigham Young was notoriously bigoted so his power block may well join the Southern block. Everyone lives happily ever after, except all the slaves of course.
What change would this have on slavery? I haven't decided. It could extend it. It could make it less economically viable. That really depends upon how the timeline plays out. I could easily see a "One drop of Indian blood makes you an Indian, and Indians aren't people under the constitution, so if you can't prove that you have no Indian blood you aren't a person and are a slave" happening. [1] I could see free former slaves moving into Mexico to basically start their own plantations with Mexicans as the slaves.
As for the conquest of Cuba, I suspect that the Spanish-American War might happen pretty much on schedule but with the USA incorporating both the Philippines and Cuba as part of the USA, like Puerto Rico. US Territories, not allowed to vote.
[1] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many Americans would move to Mexico during the move to the sun belt after air-conditioning becomes common.
Would a canal go through Mexico instead of Panama?
The US now has a border with British Honduras.
 
Last edited:
The imperial ambition of this America knows no bounds. America attacks Canada to create a land bridge between Seattle and Ketchikan. It also demands parts of Siberia from Russia. The territory of Alaska must have easy access to the northern United States. It expands south claiming Cuba, Jamaica, and Haiti describing how it is the manifest destiny of the United States to grow. These are all designated as territories with no voting rights. The right to create bonded labor contracts. It will be many years before things change. The territories have high incarceration rates where people are used for forced labor. Bonded labor contracts and incarceration serve as a substitute for slavery as wage labor is more efficient. Bonded labor is often the result of debt created by various means.

Many of the former slaves and southerners move south creating large plantations.
 
Last edited:
The imperial ambition of this America knows no bounds. America attacks Canada to create a land bridge between Seattle and Ketchikan. It also demands parts of Siberia from Russia. The territory of Alaska must have easy access to the northern United States. It expands south claiming Cuba, Jamaica, and Haiti describing how it is the manifest destiny of the United States to grow. These are all designated as territories with no voting rights. The right to create bonded labor contracts. It will be many years before things change. The territories have high incarceration rates where people are used for forced labor. Bonded labor contracts and incarceration serve as a substitute for slavery as wage labor is more efficient. Bonded labor is often the result of debt created by various means.

Many of the former slaves and southerners move south creating large plantations.
I am not sure how practical war with Canada is due to the high dependence the US had on investment from the banks and institutions in London.
 
The United States has always had some reactionaries inside it. If you let the extreme right take over America. They could have invaded Canada easily. With the focus on slavery, the United States would probably have been a lot more to the right than it is now. This would mean a lot more imperialism and other things.
There was a plan to invade Canada in the 1930s called War Plan Red. This has always been a bit of an issue.
 
The United States has always had some reactionaries inside it. If you let the extreme right take over America. They could have invaded Canada easily. With the focus on slavery, the United States would probably have been a lot more to the right than it is now. This would mean a lot more imperialism and other things.
There was a plan to invade Canada in the 1930s called War Plan Red. This has always been a bit of an issue.
That would result in a blockade by sea of the USA by the royal navy and cut off the USA from capital markets and insurance Markets in London.
Plus the royal navy taking control of the Mississippi river.
 
Last edited:
Err.... no Civil War means Lincoln is never elected, sure.

The US remains the dysfunctional mess it was in the 50s, with neither side able to enact much legislation. Transcontinental rail waits for 5 years or more, and when it does happen, there are two lines, northern and southern, to balance regional factions. Lincoln loses a bundle on his Council Bluffs properties, as he won't be able to push OTL's central line through.

A northern route will be WAY too close to the 49th parallel for the comfort of politicians in *Ottawa and London.
(Yes, Bytown is unlikely to be the capital.)
I think.poster meant Lincoln still elected but no secession or civil war.
 
If the North sees it as a way to get the other resources of the Mexico like gold, they may go for it.
No, they won’t. Flat out they will not. Even the OTL war was deeply unpopular, so unpopular the Whigs won control of the House (the Senate still being appointed by state legislatures.) And that was the north less powerful than the South since there were fewer free states. Conquest of Mexico will not happen. Period.


There was a plan to invade Canada in the 1930s called War Plan Red.
So what?

War Plans exist in case they’re needed, both to keep strategists in practice and to have ready if war breaks out. There were a variety of War Plans, that doesn’t mean the US planned to actually put them into place on a whim.

The modern US military developed a plan to fight a girl scout insurgency (see the bit about keeping strategists in practice). That doesn’t mean the US government plans to start a war with the girl scouts.


The imperial ambition of this America knows no bounds.
That’s nonsense. The US created its empire mostly via soft power and indirect control. Conquest was not something the public stomached. The only exceptions being the Indian Wars (which was on territory that the US viewed as its own), and the Mexican-American War. Which was very widely opposed.
That would result in a blockade by sea of the USA by the royal navy and cut off the USA from capital markets and insurance Markets in London.
Plus the royal navy taking control of the Mississippi river.
In the 1800s probably. By the 1930s of the plan? Not a chance.
 
No, they won’t. Flat out they will not. Even the OTL war was deeply unpopular, so unpopular the Whigs won control of the House (the Senate still being appointed by state legislatures.) And that was the north less powerful than the South since there were fewer free states. Conquest of Mexico will not happen. Period.
I cannot see them taking Mexico. That would take too long and use too many resources and Mexico has too many roan Catholics to fit in with the wasp culture of the USA.
As you say America probably has a plan for invasions of lots of places but without any real intention of doing them in the real world.
War Plans exist in case they’re needed, both to keep strategists in practice and to have ready if war breaks out. There were a variety of War Plans, that doesn’t mean the US planned to actually put them into place on a whim.

The modern US military developed a plan to fight a girl scout insurgency (see the bit about keeping strategists in practice). That doesn’t mean the US government plans to start a war with the girl scouts.
indeed.
That’s nonsense. The US created its empire mostly via soft power and indirect control. Conquest was not something the public stomached. The only exceptions being the Indian Wars (which was on territory that the US viewed as its own), and the Mexican-American War. Which was very widely opposed.
true.
In the 1800s probably. By the 1930s of the plan? Not a chance.
Probably not later than 1880.
 
I don't see how you can possibly prevent secession if Lincoln is elected.

It’s not that hard to have a cooler temperature in the country even with Lincoln’s election… meaning a situation where no secession occurs.

There are a number of famous congressional speeches and events like John Browns raid that had they not happened for one reason or the other would have had a major impact on how frenzied the pre-election atmosphere was.
 
Last edited:
It is not far from the time that the United States conquered the Philippines in the Spanish American war in 1898 which was a war of conquest. Separating Spain from its colonial possessions was something that the United States very much wanted to do. With the right spin, the Americans could be convinced that the British Imperialists were being separated from their Canadian territories.

In the 1890s America had an expansionist policy meant to open business in foreign ports. It was not that different from opening Japan in 1853, march in with guns and demand that foreigners open for business. If in 1871, the Expedition to Korea had succeeded, there would have been an even more aggressive posture. If Canada did not do what the United States wanted at the time, with the right people in power, it would have been treated no different than the Banana Republics in South America. Americans conquered territory for United Fruit. I can also imagine a much more aggressive earlier annexation of Hawaii in the 1880s.

If the aggressive policy of opening places for business and getting rid of other imperial powers around the United States was more successful, this could have gone on for a much longer time period. With more territory, there could have been a much more aggressive, less soft powered oriented United States. Open the world for business, destroy empires and monarchies would be the line. Conscript people from all over the growing United States. I could imagine there being a concession from Canada forcing the removal of the commonwealth status with a much more aggressive version of the United States. The classic picture of speak softly and carry a big stick.
 
Last edited:
A lot of the votes were very close, and some of the prominent Southerners warned that secession was a fool's errand. Just need cooler heads to prevail.
And several votes weren't close at all.

Could VA, NC, AR, and TN stay in the Union? Sure.
But how do you stop SC through MS from seceding?

Edit: 'cool heads' and 'South Carolina ' are mutually exclusive in this era.
'too small to be a country, too big to be an insane asylum '
 
Last edited:
The conventions were much more lopsided than the public vote. In Louisiana, for example, secessionist candidates captured 52.7% of the vote:


Some of the non secession candidates were willing to consider secession later, and there was a drop in turnout from the presidential election. But this indicates that support for secession was geographically broad but not very deep. A shift of a few points toward even "wait and see" would have made a difference.

Georgia had low voter turnout on a rainy day, and elected a slight majority of immediate secessionists:


So we don't need a large scale change for cooler heads to prevail. If South Carolina ends up going it alone it becomes a repeat of the nullification crisis.

From there, you could see a Compromise of 1861 or you could see OTL happen later. Although the former is more in the spirit of the question.
 
It is not far from the time that the United States conquered the Philippines in the Spanish American war in 1898 which was a war of conquest. Separating Spain from its colonial possessions was something that the United States very much wanted to do. With the right spin, the Americans could be convinced that the British Imperialists were being separated from their Canadian territories.

In the 1890s America had an expansionist policy meant to open business in foreign ports. It was not that different from opening Japan in 1853, march in with guns and demand that foreigners open for business. If in 1871, the Expedition to Korea had succeeded, there would have been an even more aggressive posture. If Canada did not do what the United States wanted at the time, with the right people in power, it would have been treated no different than the Banana Republics in South America. Americans conquered territory for United Fruit. I can also imagine a much more aggressive earlier annexation of Hawaii in the 1880s.

If the aggressive policy of opening places for business and getting rid of other imperial powers around the United States was more successful, this could have gone on for a much longer time period. With more territory, there could have been a much more aggressive, less soft powered oriented United States. Open the world for business, destroy empires and monarchies would be the line. Conscript people from all over the growing United States. I could imagine there being a concession from Canada forcing the removal of the commonwealth status with a much more aggressive version of the United States. The classic picture of speak softly and carry a big stick.
Any war between the USA and the British empire over Canada I think would be a big war in large part fought at sea between the RN and the USN.
At sea, I think the RN would win before wwi in direct fleet actions.
The USN might go for commerce raiding and the use of qships.
 
Last edited:
We probably view the civil war too deterministically. I think because it is so important to American cultural myths, the idea is the civil war must happen. Yet almost any other civil war/succession crisis regularly get butterflied away on this site, many of which had just as many factors leading to them.

Ultimately I think your best pod to avert a civil war would take place sometime in the 40s. Butterfly the frankly astounding American military success in the Mexican-American war (Winfield Scott was a genius, and a lucky one at that), and you might end up with less land for the US to digest- and you may maintain the free/slave state balance as well*.

Another idea, perhaps counterintuitively, is to avert the vast institutional success the south gained in the 40s and 50s. They got used to pushing their desires practically unilaterally on the rest of the country, and the Republicans formed in response. When the Republicans demanded the North's fair share of institutions, the South reacted as if they were being marginalized. So prevent the South getting such an upper hand in the first place, and a more balanced north-south dynamic will seek normal, therefore avoiding prompting secession.

*As a rough idea, let's suppose mexico keeps southern California, Arizona, and new mexico- you have a free state out of north California and Nevada balanced out with a slave state in a rump texas. The pressure is less on for the south to secede. Or they may look for future wars against mexico, keeping their focus external.
 
Top