Suppose there had never been a Civil War?

[Brigid]

Suppose that, even after the provocation of Fort Sumter, the North had simply let the South secede and let them deal with the consequences, whatever those may have been? Would we still be divided? Would slavery still exist? After all, for some the war never did end.

[apnu]

1. Yes and Yes.

The South would be a shit hole, 3rd world country with slave uprisings ever 10-20 years. Possibly Mexico would have, at a moment of Southern weakness, jumped in and seized back a bunch of land (probably Texas and Arizona). Plus they way the South wanted to run their "national" government would have ensured a weak central system so that when great catastrophes happened, they would not have been able to appropriately respond to them. The South would be the embodiment of the Conservative's rallying cry of "Fuck you, I got mine"

Not that the North would be much better, but it would be better than the South.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Too many variables to predict with any accuracy and the repercussions

would've been felt world wide, one effect may have been Hitler not rising to power.

Thanks for the thread, Brigid.

[Yavin4]

3. There Would Still Be A War or Multiple Wars

Remember we were expanding westward, and if the South were allowed to secede, then there still would have been conflicts with westward expansion. Also, more than likely, the South would have formed an alliance with a foreign power in order to survive.

IOW, there would have been at least one more war and more likely additional wars if the Civil War was never fought.

[forty6]

5. Yes, great point. westward expansion and slavery were very..

controversial topics since 1820 at least.

There were European nations who would have benefitted from slavery's continuance in the South, too, Spain and England, to name two.

[Brigid]

6. But no other country ever did come to the aid of the South,

as the South had hoped. Not even after it was clear that without such aid, the South was doomed.

[forty6]

15. When did the UK and France and Spain, (the only major military powers)

ever interfere with a civil war in another nation?

Italy was just unifying after over a hundred years of internal struggle between various states..did France interfere there? Spain? Countries didn't get involved militarily unless they saw a threat to themselves, or a threat to their sea power.

Les than 50 years earlier, England had tried to re-establish dominance over the North American continent, and suffered enough losses not to try anything like THAT again. Final Canadian/US borders were established then. England was no military friend to the Northern states during our Civil War, either.

And, actually, England had it's own major political events going on,internally. Research border conflicts with the Irish and the Scots.

Are you aware of what was happening between and within England and France and Prussia in the 1860's?

What benefits would aiding the South have given any of them at that time in their own history?

[happyslug]

20. But France, Britain and Spain did interfere with Mexico in 1862

All three powers moved into Veracruz in 1862, during the fighting between the Reform elements in Mexico and the Conservatives, to force Mexico to honor some outstanding debts, Spain and Britain left after a few months, France further intervened, sitting up the "Empire of Mexico" and importing a Hapsburg to be its Emperor.

In 1864, Both France and Britain moved into China to put down a massive Peasant Revolt for the Chinese Government. France also entered Indochina during one of its Civil Wars, also in the 1860s.

Sorry, France, Britain and Spain had a long history of intervention in countries undergoing Civil Wars. Both France and Britain supplied ships and money to the Confederacy even AFTER AFTER Lee's Surrendered. Aid only stopped when it was clear the South was Surrendering (April 9, 1865 for Lee, the other major Army of the South East of the Mississippi, the Army of Tennessee surrendered on April 26, 1865, Nathan Bedford Forrest surrendered his troops on May 4, 1865, and finally the Confederate Command in Texas surrendered in May 26, 1865 (Through the Cherokees, part of the Southern Army did not surrender till June 23, 1865). The Last Confederate Raider Surrendered to the British Navy, after landing in England on November 6, 1865 (Thus there were good reasons for President Johnson to wait till August 20, 1866 to state that the Rebellion had ended).

End of the Civil War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War

[Yavin4]

16. That's Because the Industrial Power of the North Went to War with the South

The OP's question is what if the North allowed the South to secede. Without a war with the North, maybe a foreign power would have formed an alliance with the South which then would have lead to a war.

Or another scenario could be that a foreign power would invade and conquer the South after a period of time.

[happyslug]

21. The problem is the Mississippi is one of the best Highways in the World

Rivers unit people, mountains divide people. One of the problems with the US is that rivers were given to the Federal Government in the US Constitution and thus could become useful as administrative borders, but were NEVER intended to be National Borders.

People tend to forget that by 1862, except for Vicksburg, the Mississippi was completely in US Hands. Any peace treaty after 1863 would have had to recognize that fact. If a treaty was signed BEFORE the fall of Vicksburg, free navigation on the Mississippi would have had to be a requirement of the treaty, so that the Midwest, Pittsburgh to the Dakotas would have the best access to foreign and Eastern ports. Nothing less would have been acceptable to the Mid-West.

If you get over the hurtle of the Mid-west, then the actual border has to be decided on. When Virginia succeeded, West Virginia succeeded from Virginia. does it become a northern state? or does West Virginia return to Virginia? If West Virginia returns to Virginia you cut off Pittsburgh from full access to the Ohio River, in fact the best train route west from Pittsburgh to Ohio would require entrance of another country, then to exit that country. Furthermore the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia was even more pro-union then the North (And opposed the whole idea of Succession). Would Virginia want to retain it?

Now, the Southern Part of West Virginia seems to be more pro-south (Through anti-Virginia), but as you go down the Appalachian Mountains, the Mountains were notarized for being the most pro-union area of the whole south (if we do not count the Slaves in many almost all African American Counties in the Cotton Belt). Would the South accept these Areas staying in the North (Where they wanted to stay)?

The "Best" Border given the problems of how inter-related the South West of the Appalachian and the Mid-West were and are has to be an arbitrary line, some people would hate it, but if is the best that could have been done given the circumstances in the Country.

Lets State with Delaware, where it went dependent on where Maryland went. If Maryland went south, Delaware had that option, if Maryland stayed with the North, so did Delaware.

That gets us to Maryland, Baltimore and the surrounding coastal plains wanted to go with the South. On the other hand Fredrick and Western Maryland wanted to stay with the North. DC is right on the Potomac River, a River that drains Western Maryland, but also the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The South for that reason would demand all of Maryland, permitting some of the Western Counties to Join West Virginia. Fredrick and Hagerstown Maryland are in the Drainage area of the Potomac River, but on themselves NOT on the Potomac itself, both areas would want to stay with the North.

A side issue would be Maryland's domain of the Potomac River. Unlike every other river in the US that is a border between states, Maryland's border is the SOUTH bank of the Potomac NOT the middle of the River (i.e. The Potomac is a MARYLAND RIVER, not a Virginian-Maryland River), Virginia border with Maryland is the same south Bank of the Potomac. It is a unique situation in the US. If the Coastal areas go with the South, that rule would remain, but I see Virginia demanding land on the NORTH Bank, so that the Potomac is 100% in the South, not a border between the two nations.

West Virginia would want to stay with the North, except for its Eastern Panhandle, which was only given to West Virginia as part of the politics of the Civil War. I see the Eastern Panhandle going with Virginia. Western Kentucky was another pro-union area. Thus I see the Shenandoah Valley staying with Virginia and the South, but the present West Virginia and Virginia Border becoming the national border between the two nations.

Kentucky will also want to stay with the North, for it would want full access to the Ohio, thus the National Border would be the present Kentucky-Tennessee border. Once away from the Appalachian Mountains Kentucky became more and more pro-south, but the need for access to the Ohio will over rule all other considerations.

St Louis will be an issue, St Louis and Missouri was pro-South, but as you headed North in Missouri it became less and less pro-south. Cairo Illinois was a pro-North City SOUTH of St Louis on the Mississippi River. Thus do you want pro-union Cairo part of the South, or pro-South St Louis in the North? Access to the Missouri and Ohio Rivers would be the real issue. Is suspect the North would demand both areas to stay in the North, forcing the border to be the Northern Border of Arkansas.

Texas was pro-South, but sparely settled West of the line from Dallas-Austin-St Antonio. Mew Mexico and Arizona were pro-south, but the population was so low that if the Native Americans counted, both sides would have lost to an Independent Native American Nation (By 1860, the native Mexican population had fallen to the third place in this population contest, but it also show how few people where in the area west of Dallas and Austin Texas).

California was solidly pro-north, with the possible exception of Southern California (A backwater at that time of history, which if anything was pro-Mexico, given its large Native Mexican Population). Nevada had even less people, but Silver was found in 1859, and the North was NOT going to give that up. The big issue would be does Texas keep its Panhandles? In many ways El Paso is more important to New Mexico then to Texas and thus to hold New Mexico you need El Paso.

I skipped Oklahoma for in the 1860s that was "Indian Territory" that was to be an Native American controlled territory. The Cherokees and other tribes had been re-settled in Oklahoma from the 1830s onward. These tribes tend to support the South. The Red River separates Oklahoma from Texas and as I stated above, Rivers tend to unite people not divide them, thus I see the South Giving up West Texas for Oklahoma. Texas would probably keep its Northern Panhandle, but the western border would continue straight south when it came to the Western panhandle. An alternative situation would be the Northern Panhandle also stays with the North, and the Western Border of Texas would go straight south from where the Eastern Border of the Northern Panhandle crosses the Red River, south. This is still while west of Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. In this later scenario the Panhandle of Oklahoma would also stay with the North, while the rest of Oklahoma would join the South.

Yes, the South would be much smaller then the North, but that was the situation in 1861 anyways. The big issue would be the access to the Mississippi River and to New Orleans. The mid-west would demand free access and passage, the South would see such Northern River barges and ships as a source of revenue, conflict built right into any such division. That combined with the North abolishing slavery after the South left, thus refusing to permit South Slave owners to come north to claim their slaves, Tension would slowly build till a war of annexation would have been undertaken by the North. The South position would have been strong, till the Boll Weevil started to attack Cotton in the late 1870s, but then you would have seen a slow deterioration of the South compared to the North as what did happen after the 1880s and did not reverse till the New Deal in the 1930s (TVA was start of the transformation of the South from an cotton based economy to the more balanced southern economy of today). After WWII, the South would NOT have had the military basis the south had from WWII onward, the North would want that money to stay in the North and the South would have no way to put those bases in the South for the south would be a different Country. If the South survived as an independent Country till today, it would be a backwater, more like Mexico and Central America then the American South of Today.

[Yavin4]

28. Brilliant Analysis

Well done.

[jwirr]

12. One only needs to look at the situation in Missouri during and after

the Civil War to see the turmoil that would have happened between the two countries if that would have happened.

[Johonny]

26. I agree

You look at the history of Europe after that time period and it is hard not to see the various fractions of the US openly warring with each other.

[GSLevel9]

4. Ridiculous posts so far...

I believe that the US would have been reunified within 10 years... Out of neccessity. I also believe that Southern Emancipation was possible in that same 10 year window. The world was changing and the South's trade partners would have demanded resolution to the slavery issue.

[forty6]

9. What "necessity"????

Refresh your studies with the Maine Missouri Compromise, and the Kansas Nebraska Act, and Harper's Ferry, W V, John Brown's "insurrection", (and rapidly subsequent hanging).

The fact is that southern rural agrarian states prospered BECAUSE OF slavery, and if you do some research on how black people in the South were treated for the next 50 years, the next 100 years, you will find that the institution of slavery was gone but there were many ways that black folk lived in a "de-facto" slavery, with low wages, debt, restriction of rights, arrests, prison farms, etc. Study up.

England was QUITE happy with low prices for cotton, Spain benefited much from slave labor in the New World.

(By the way, one c and two ss's in "necessity".

[Nye Bevan]

7. No way would slavery still exist. Even South Africa let apartheid go, eventually.

The British had abolished slavery many years earlier. It's impossible to believe that this institution would have been able to survive alone in the backwards and impoverished confederacy.

I'm no historian but I would be amazed if any credentialed historian has expressed the belief that slavery would still have existed today absent the civil war.

[forty6]

10. Care to read some "history" from a real "historian"? Here you go

"The Untold History of Post-Civil War 'Neoslavery'


A young man is punished in a forced labor camp in Georgia in the 1930s. Click to see more images from the "Age of Neoslavery."

Slavery By Another Name
March 25, 2008
In Slavery by Another Name, Douglas Blackmon of the Wall Street Journal argues that slavery did not end in the United States with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. He writes that it continued for another 80 years, in what he calls an "Age of Neoslavery."

"The slavery that survived long past emancipation was an offense permitted by the nation," Blackmon writes, "perpetrated across an enormous region over many years and involving thousands of extraordinary characters."

More at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89051115

Excerpt: Slavery By Another Name
by DOUGLAS A. BLACKMON


I am constantly amazed at how little real history is studied in American history clases. More is taught in the UK, I have to say, when it comes to slavery history in the USA.

[happyslug]

22. 2010? Maybe not, but it would have survived till the 1970s

People tend to forget that the Slavery was on its way out in the 1790s, then the Cotton Gin was invented and made cotton and slavery extremely profitable. From 1800 till 1860 Slavery in the South become worse and worse, do to the need for greater and greater profits from the Cotton Trade. This is Unique in history, in the rest of the World, whenever slavery is found, over time the rights of slaves increase, while the burden goes down. The classic example if Ancient Rome. At the time of the Republic when slavery replaced small farmers, it was an inhuman cruel condition to be in, but over time owners found that slaves only reproduced if they conditions were improved. This improvement happened slowly, but by the Dark Ages the Roman Term for Slaves, Servus, had become the Dark Age term Serf. A Serf was a free man to everyone but his master, and to his master he only owned certain clearly defined obligations (and the Serf's master owned the Serf clearly defined obligations). In effect Serfdom was much more like being in the Army, then being owned by a Slave master.

This improvement in Conditions did NOT occur in the South prior to the Civil War, in fact condition went down hill, for it was more profitable to buy new slaves and work them to death, then to treat slaves decently. Now, most master did try to treat they slaves decently, but at the same time had to watch out for slave revolts as while as slaves escapes (And to prevent escapes, any escaped slave captured had to be severely punished, thus many slave masters ended up killing at least one of their slaves during their life time, it was part of keeping the slaves in line). Cotton was that valuable a product, and remained so till the invention of the Automated Cotton Picker during WWII. Even after WWII, picking cotton by hand was still profitable, for the automated cotton pickers were huge, used a lot of fuel and needed really large farms to break even (But once the machine was paid for, including gas and water used by such machines, the profit was much higher then picking cotton by hand).

The Switch from manual picking to machine picking was slow, the main reason even with large fields, manual labor was competitive till Congress expanded Minimum wage to farm workers in 1966. It was this last price increased in Labor Costs that made manual picking of Cotton a thing of the past.

With Slaves, manual picking of cotton would have stayed profitable till the 1970s, slaves were paid even less then field hands (i.e. Field hands were paid per pound of cotton, slaves had to pick and pick and only had to be feed). Thus not till the 1970s would cost of Manual picking of Cotton would have become unprofitable. I remember reading in the 1980s that in the Central Asiatic Republics of the Former Soviet Union, Schools closed down, so the students could go out into the fields to pick cotton, From what I have gathered it is still being done today. Thus it is possible that slavery could have lasted till today, for it may have been profitable to keep slaves to pick Cotton, rather then buy a huge cotton picking machine.

Sorry, slavery would have continued till it was unprofitable, and given the low cost of slaves, that may the case even today had the South NOT lost the Civil War.

For more on the invention of the Cotton Picking Machine see:
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_36.shtml

Previous post on this subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x805812

[Nye Bevan]

23. I've actually been second-guessing myself since writing the last post.

The reason for this is the death penalty. It would have been just as easy to write something along the lines of it being inconceivable that alone in the Western world one country would still be strapping prisoners to gurneys and injecting them with lethal chemicals. But we are.

[happyslug]

27. Some commentators have written that the death penalty is a result of US and European political syste...

When the founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution, they wanted to avoid the problem of "parities". Madison's solution to the six year long Parliament of England was twofold, first while Congress could determined how many Congressional seats they were, the number per state was to be based on a National Census AND how those districts were to be drawn was to be at the State level not by Congress itself.

The second thing he did was REQUIRE an election every two years, not the six years of Parliament AND the founding father rejected the right of the President to dissolve Congress and ask for new elections AND rejected even giving this power to Congress, Congress MUST serve for two years then run for re-election.

Europe followed England's Parliament in that their legislature last for six years but the Queen/King/President can call for early elections at any time. In practical terms the Majority in control of the Legislature sets the time for new elections, it is NOT a fixed date, known years before as is the case in the US.

The Two "reforms" of the Founding Fathers prevented the development of European style parities in the US, US Political parties are coalitions of people who work together to get people elected, as opposed to Europe where parties are more narrowly focused and any coalition is formed once the election is held.

In simple terms, Americans run for Congress as individuals representative of their party, but raise money themselves, and plan for an election every other November. While a good bit of money comes to the Candidates from the National Party (Which is the single biggest change in the last 100 years, in 1900, it was the locals that ran, and raised most of the money to run for elections and then send that money upward to the top of the party, thus in 1900 both parties were much more bottom up then they are today).

In Europe, people who want to run, must be prepared to run on six weeks notice, the time between most calls for elections and the actual elections. To do so you must rely more on the National Party to support you (and you support the national party for that reason) and to get the people out to campaign for you and your party. Thus European parties tend to be more top down then American parties.

The Significance of this is that once an election is held, the elected officials must work together. In the US that means forming a Majority party, of people whose base can be different, but who had agreed to be one party BEFORE the election. In Europe, the parties get together and form coalitions that is agreeable to members of the Coalitions. Even if you have regional parties, the parities get together and form some sort of Majority, each party gives in on something to get others to join the coalition.

In the US, people run locally and do NOT need to compromise to form a ruling Government. In fact you can have people from the same party saying opposing things AND voting against each other, something that would wreck most parliamentary coalitions.

What this means, is a single item party can get elected and if needed to form a Coalition, the other members of that Coalition will also vote for that single item. The Death Penalty was one such item, smaller parties wanted it, and when those parties were needed to form a Coalition, the other members of the Coalition voted for it. Thus almost all of Europe has banned the Death penalty

In the US, you do not have smaller parties, but you have members in each parties running in districts where opposition to the death Penalty will help them get elected. You also have members in both Parties where support for the death penalty will get them elected. Since we have no coalition Government to force such people to vote the way the Coalition wants to, it is left up to the individual elected representative. In such situations, the death Penalty has failed in many states for until you have an overwhelming support for such a reform, it just does NOT even get to the floor to be voted on.

Gay rights is another area where we see this difference, opposition to Gay rights is as deep in Europe as in the US, but European Legislatures have passed Gay Marriage laws, why? It became a requirement of a smaller party, when that party was needed to form a Majority. When the Coalition adopted Gay Marriage as a goal of the Coalition, even members of that Coalition that opposed Gay Marriage had to vote for it.

In the US, no state has passed a gay marriage bill UNLESS that state's Supreme Court ruled the existing ban on such marriages was unconstitutional and forced the State Legislature to fix the law. In California Gay Marriage went up to a vote, and the majority of California's voted against it. You may disagree with that vote, but it happened.

My point is Coalitions often pass laws that the Majority of the people of that Country does NOT want, but it is what was the cost to form a Coalition. In the US, Congressmen and State Representatives are elected every two years and as such much more attentive to what their voters want, and tend to vote that way (i.e. against Gay Marriage AND against the Death Penalty). Some observers have reported Polls of Europeans that support the Death Penalty, and if it was put up to a vote, most Europeans would vote for the Death Penalty. Thus the reason for the difference is the basic form of legislature, our Presidential System with individuals elected by districts, each running their own campaign, to Europe's, where the Candidates run in a short six week campaign every five to six years and then forming a new Coalition. It is the best explanation of why we continue to have the Death Penalty, i.e. our electing people every two years on an election date know years before.

[Javaman]

8. You sound like a candidate for one of the Harry Turtledove series of

alternative histories.

He has a 10 book set on what if the south won. It's a very interesting take.

[Brigid]

11. I may have to check those out.

Is he an actual historian?

[Shiver]

13. He has a PhD in Byzantine history.

And he's a very prolific writer. The ten book series mentioned (called Timeline-191 by some fans, as the series has no name) is one of my favorites in all of alternate history. It doesn't avoid the war, but there's a small change that makes a huge difference. The books mainly deal with World Wars 1 and 2, fought between the north and the south.

Fantastic books. The Socialist Party is one of the two dominant parties in the country, and was started by Abraham Lincoln. :fistbump:

[Javaman]

14. He is. nt

[FLPanhandle]

17. Cooler heads would have prevailed eventually

Lincoln should never have reinforced Fort Sumter prompting the attack on it, he could have just evacuated it instead.

Four states only seceeded after Lincoln called up the Army, so those wouldn't have left.

Even in the state that voted for secession, it wasn't popular until the shooting started. Many states were split about secession (e.g. Northern Alabama, Panhandle of Florida, Eastern Tennessee, etc). Eventually, the southern states would have faced an internal fight to return and would have.

England was the wildcard in this. If they were aggressive about recognizing and signing a treaty with the South, then the North would probably have to react. Lincoln would have been smarter to wait out the South while keeping England warned.

[damntexdem]

18. Well, Harry Turtledove has interesting novels about what if the South had won the war.

But had the North just given up without fighting -- that would not have been so interesting. Likely, the fragmenting mini-states that would have ultimately resulted would then have been scooped up by European powers.

[spanone]

19. suppose humans have had no wars....

[moondust]

24. Some risk

of slavery spreading to the North and West for the same reason/excuse some corporations use today to move jobs offshore: "We can't compete with the cheap labor so we're going to have to join them."

Before the war much of the Great Plains and Southwest were territories already "open to slavery" as seen on this map: http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/index.html (Note that the red and brown areas correspond very closely to today's "red states.")

[MrScorpio]

25. Interestingly enough, there was a movie which postulated what the US would look like today...

Had the South won the war. It's called C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/

Storyline

Set in an contemporary alternative world where the Confederate States of America managed to win the American Civil War, a British film documentary examines the history of this nation. Beginning with its conquest of the northern states, the film covers the history of this state where racial enslavement became triumphant and the nation carried sinister designs of conquest. Interspersed throughout are various TV commercials of products of a virulent racist nature as well as public service announcements promoting this tyranny. Only at the end do you learn that there is less wholly imagined material in the film than you might suspect. Written by Kenneth Chisholm ([e-mail])

[craigmatic]

29. The war had to happen. Even if we had let them go there would've been a cold war situation

over the expansion of slavery in the territories. If it hadn't happened when it did it could've been a much bigger conflict later on.