No Civil War

[wkwillis]

Hmmm....

This time we'll have the Republicans select a Missouri politician as the candidate. The guy gets Missouri a bare Republican majority.
When the Confederate states secede, Missouri stays in the Union by a very close vote.
Then the Republicans outlaw slavery after the southern congressmen and representatives leave, and the border states (except for Missouri) join the Confederacy. The Republicans let them go.
The Republicans hatch a plan. A few Republican state legislators in Missouri sniff around for bribes to vote for secession. They get a response, and some money, and lo and behold, Missouri joins the Confederacy!
The Union armed forces in Missouri promptly leave. The Confederacy just as promptly moves in. And then the legislators change sides, and there is a majority for leaving the Confederacy and joining the Union!
The Union forces promptly move back into Missouri and dare the Confederacy to do something about it. The Confederate government is about to fight a war and then realises that the state's rights types are more powerfull than it expected and they are not about to allow the Confederacy to keep states from seceding. War is averted and Confederate politics is polarised between states's rights and slavery.
The right of a state to leave the Confederacy is now a precedent. This infuriates the slave owners. Not that there's anything they can do about it, considering that in the next election the state's rights people wind up running the government because they have most of the voters and they turf out the plantation owners from office and the militia commands.
And then things go along more or less peacefully as Confederate states join the Union over time and abolish slavery over the next two generations. By 1900 there is no slavery.

 

[Max Sinister]

Why should the Republicans go so far and forbid slavery? Lincoln didn't IOTL either...

 

[Smaug]

Seems to me that thats why the "Articles of Confederation" failed. States
Rights and what not. Isn't that what the Civil War was really all about?

 

[wkwillis]

Why should the Republicans go so far and forbid slavery? Lincoln didn't IOTL either...

Lincoln didn't want to forbid slavery for fear that the South would leave the Union. After they had left the Union and the North decided that they didn't want them back, why not forbid slavery?

 

[wkwillis]

Seems to me that thats why the "Articles of Confederation" failed. States
Rights and what not. Isn't that what the Civil War was really all about?

Not precisely. It was the balance of states rights, specifically whether the states could have slavery, etc, that was the cause of the civil war. The South needed to have the North enforce slavery or face bleeding to death as the slaves escaped North. When the North welshed on their part of the deal by allowing the underground railway to spirit escaped slaves to Canada, the South decided that they might as well leave and dump the tariffs, too.
At root it was about slavery. It was a North-South split about slavery, not an East-West split about tariffs. Tariffs were just an excuse and a might as well sort of thing.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Tariffs did have a sort of indirect effect. High tarriffs meant that the only market the South had for their cotton was the North, which made them an economic colony and prevented their industrialisation.

The tariff basically beat them to death for being slavers and made slavery necessary at the same time.

 

[wkwillis]

Tariffs did have a sort of indirect effect. High tarriffs meant that the only market the South had for their cotton was the North, which made them an economic colony and prevented their industrialisation.

The tariff basically beat them to death for being slavers and made slavery necessary at the same time.

What are you talking about? Most cotton went to Britain before the civil war. Britain had cheap labor for factories. The North had some of the highest labor costs in the world. Only huge tariffs of 40% of the price kept the North's factories moving. That's one of the things the South was complaining about.
There was nothing to stop the South from industrialising. After the civil war the South got easier access to Northern capital (because the Federal government could ensure that it got repaid instead of confiscated) and then they took over the textile industry. The South had cheaper labor and hydroelectric power and land, so it immediately grabbed the labor intensive part of textiles as soon as their policies were changed. That's what happened in OTL. In some other ATL it could have been different.
My cousin Rachel writes books about this sort of thing. She's an economist specialising in the North Carolina textile industry. I can ask her for a good book on the subject if you are interested. I don't think she's finished hers, yet. Hers is I think mostly about the modern (post 1950) textile industry.

 

[Jared]

Tariffs did have a sort of indirect effect. High tarriffs meant that the only market the South had for their cotton was the North, which made them an economic colony and prevented their industrialisation.

The tariff basically beat them to death for being slavers and made slavery necessary at the same time.

Um, not really. The objections which the South had to tarriffs were at heart pragmatic. If the USA put up tarriffs on imports on manufactured goods, then Britain tended to retaliate by putting tarriffs on American goods it imported, i.e. cotton.

The tarriffs didn't really stop Southern industrialisation, either. Nor did slavery, for that matter. The South did have less industry than the north, but it was ahead of most of Europe. If you mentally divide the United States into North and South, then the South in 1860 had the third or fourth largest industrial base of any nation in the world, behind the UK (first) and the North (second). (I forget if it was ahead or behind Belgium).

Slavery, incidentally, was used for industry. It wasn't used more because cotton was so damn profitable that it sucked the slaves out of industry. But then it also sucked the slaves out of other crops, too, not just industry.

 

[wkwillis]

Um, not really. The objections which the South had to tarriffs were at heart pragmatic. If the USA put up tarriffs on imports on manufactured goods, then Britain tended to retaliate by putting tarriffs on American goods it imported, i.e. cotton.

The tarriffs didn't really stop Southern industrialisation, either. Nor did slavery, for that matter. The South did have less industry than the north, but it was ahead of most of Europe. If you mentally divide the United States into North and South, then the South in 1860 had the third or fourth largest industrial base of any nation in the world, behind the UK (first) and the North (second). (I forget if it was ahead or behind Belgium).

Slavery, incidentally, was used for industry. It wasn't used more because cotton was so damn profitable that it sucked the slaves out of industry. But then it also sucked the slaves out of other crops, too, not just industry.

Britain did not put tariffs on Southern cotton, but on Northern corn, and got rid of those after the Irish famine in 1845. In 1860 the British had no tariffs on Southern cotton.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

Perhaps easier and earlier Civil Rights.

I think one of the problems with the early Civil Rights movement in the
1950's and early 1960's, one of the reasons there was so much white resistance was because of the Civil War and because the South lost that war.

Civil rights began less than a century after the Civil War and even though no one from then was still living, the collective and societal memories were too close and too fresh.

The Federal Government imposing Civil Rights in the South was like the victorious North imposing those Civil Rights on a vanquished South, it was like fighting or re-living The Civil War and the things that caused it all over again.

Had there been no Civil War, the South wouldn't have had those same feelings of anger and hurt and defeat and of having been vanquished by the North that they had. My sense is the lack of those negative feelings would have made it easier for the South to accept Civil Rights and to have accepted Civil Rights earlier than in OTL.

 

[Jared]

Britain did not put tariffs on Southern cotton, but on Northern corn, and got rid of those after the Irish famine in 1845. In 1860 the British had no tariffs on Southern cotton.

I don't recall offhand whether Britain had tarriffs on cotton in 1960. I do know, though, that the South were really worried that high tarriffs would provoke that, and thus fought whenever possible to lower tarriffs.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Tariffs were a part of the larger economic issues that were the main underlying cause of the Civil War. Essentially, the North wanted high tariffs and paid laboure, which is much better for industrial production. The South wanted low tariffs and slavery, which is ideal for the cotton production that was the main cash cow of the South. National policy had to favor one or the other, and the South was increasingly angered by the fact that the North, with more population, tended to have more control over economic policy.

Also, Missouri strikes me as an odd choice for a border state playing around with the Confederacy; staunchly unionist Delaware would be a much better choice. Missouri, much like Maryland, would have joined the Confederacy if not for prompt Union military action. A vote taken shortly before the outbreak of hostilities showed a large majority of Missouri citizens favoured seccession.

If for whatever reason hostilities are avoided and the Confederacy is allowed to go in peace, there probably is a very gradual re-integration over time. Eventually the Southern economy will have to shift to a more industrial model, thus resulting in some form of gradual emancipation. Likely by World War I (assuming it is not butterflied away; very possible given the US's relative isolation) the US and CS have the basics of a strong alliance worked out, which would probably end up being at least as close as that of the US and Britain in OTL.

 

[Jared]

Tariffs were a part of the larger economic issues that were the main underlying cause of the Civil War.

Oh, best not to get into that argument again. Must... resist...

Essentially, the North wanted high tariffs and paid laboure, which is much better for industrial production.

Says who? About the paid labour part, that is; tarriffs did help domestic industrialisation during early days. Slaves, though... The South did use slaves in industry. The Tredegar Iron Works, for instance, was up to half slave in its labour force at various times. And the owners would have used _more_ slaves if they could, only the cotton boom pushed slave prices up too high for them to compete with the cotton growers.

The South wanted low tariffs and slavery, which is ideal for the cotton production that was the main cash cow of the South. National policy had to favor one or the other, and the South was increasingly angered by the fact that the North, with more population, tended to have more control over economic policy.

(Cough). The declarations of secession make almost no mention of economic issues, and considerable mention of the North's hostility to slavery. Although oddly enough, the South's envoys to Europe talked very loudly about economic issues being the main reason behind secession (funnily enough, they noted that Europe was anti-slavery), amongst themselves at the time, the discussion was all about slavery. And they saw slavery as being as much a social system of control as it was an economic system.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Says who? About the paid labour part, that is; tarriffs did help domestic industrialisation during early days. Slaves, though... The South did use slaves in industry. The Tredegar Iron Works, for instance, was up to half slave in its labour force at various times. And the owners would have used _more_ slaves if they could, only the cotton boom pushed slave prices up too high for them to compete with the cotton growers.

Slaves can do industrial work, but as I recall paid labour was generally preferred because in industrial work it is far too easy for a single person who wants to resist to cause problems. Also, if a slave gets injured in factory work the owner still has to maintain his property; a labourer can just be fired and replaced with someone healthy.

(Cough). The declarations of secession make almost no mention of economic issues, and considerable mention of the North's hostility to slavery. Although oddly enough, the South's envoys to Europe talked very loudly about economic issues being the main reason behind secession (funnily enough, they noted that Europe was anti-slavery), amongst themselves at the time, the discussion was all about slavery. And they saw slavery as being as much a social system of control as it was an economic system.

Well, I tend to lump slavery in under the category of economic issues; it was a foundation of the Southern economy after all. You do have a valid point that it was a social institution as well, perhaps I should have made myself a little more clear in the original post.

 

[wkwillis]

Hmmm....

This time we'll have the Republicans select a Missouri politician as the candidate. The guy gets Missouri a bare Republican majority.
When the Confederate states secede, Missouri stays in the Union by a very close vote.
Then the Republicans outlaw slavery after the southern congressmen and representatives leave, and the border states (except for Missouri) join the Confederacy. The Republicans let them go.
The Republicans hatch a plan. A few Republican state legislators in Missouri sniff around for bribes to vote for secession. They get a response, and some money, and lo and behold, Missouri joins the Confederacy!
The Union armed forces in Missouri promptly leave. The Confederacy just as promptly moves in. And then the legislators change sides, and there is a majority for leaving the Confederacy and joining the Union!
The Union forces promptly move back into Missouri and dare the Confederacy to do something about it. The Confederate government is about to fight a war and then realises that the state's rights types are more powerfull than it expected and they are not about to allow the Confederacy to keep states from seceding. War is averted and Confederate politics is polarised between states's rights and slavery.
The right of a state to leave the Confederacy is now a precedent. This infuriates the slave owners. Not that there's anything they can do about it, considering that in the next election the state's rights people wind up running the government because they have most of the voters and they turf out the plantation owners from office and the militia commands.
And then things go along more or less peacefully as Confederate states join the Union over time and abolish slavery over the next two generations. By 1900 there is no slavery.

The Union is dominated by the Republican party in this ATL. They pretty much do the same things as on OTL.
1. Land Grant Colleges. The Union becomes a bastion of science and engineering because almost alone in the world it has publically financed colleges.
2. Transcontinental Railroads. The Union builds not one but two, a central route to California, and a northern route to the Oregon territory. There is also a route connecting the Oregon terrritory, California, and the Colorado.
3. Overseas Acqusitions. Alaska is purchased from the Russians, and then explored. Gold is soon found and a rush begins. Baja California is also purchased. Hawaii is annexed later.
4. A strong navy. The Union builds two significant naval forces, one for each ocean. Britain worries. The Union builds commerce raiding cruisers and some blockade breaking submarines.
5. A stong militia/national guard. In 1840 the state of New York had more cannon than the federal government and two fifths of all the cannon in the US, but no regular troops. This policy continues.
6. A fiat currency. Gold is no longer the standard of value in the Union. All the gold reserves wind up in Britain or other countries. This is a small but significant advantage to the Union.

 

[Jared]

Slaves can do industrial work, but as I recall paid labour was generally preferred because in industrial work it is far too easy for a single person who wants to resist to cause problems.

Nope, not even slightly. At least with industrial slavery of the sort practiced in the Old South. Factories made things very easy to monitor. Again, the owners of the Tredegar Iron Works preferred slaves to free workers, largely because slaves could be made to work longer hours, and were more reliable. Slaves can't quit whenever they feel like it and go work somewhere else, which is what free labour tended to do.

Also, if a slave gets injured in factory work the owner still has to maintain his property; a labourer can just be fired and replaced with someone healthy.

That's what insurance was for, oddly enough. Slaves could be insured. And in practical terms, slaves were also likely to be injured in various kinds of agricultural work. Didn't really stop them being used there either.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Nope, not even slightly. At least with industrial slavery of the sort practiced in the Old South. Factories made things very easy to monitor. Again, the owners of the Tredegar Iron Works preferred slaves to free workers, largely because slaves could be made to work longer hours, and were more reliable. Slaves can't quit whenever they feel like it and go work somewhere else, which is what free labour tended to do.

I concede your greater knowledge on the subject. I don't suppose you could produce your source so I can learn a bit more about Old South Industry?

That's what insurance was for, oddly enough. Slaves could be insured. And in practical terms, slaves were also likely to be injured in various kinds of agricultural work. Didn't really stop them being used there either.

I never thought of having slaves insured, yet now that you mention it that does make a certain amount of twisted sense. As I recall, industrial work is usually more hazardous than agricultural labour, though the cotton gin was known to take arms off if one was not wary.

 

[Jared]

I concede your greater knowledge on the subject. I don't suppose you could produce your source so I can learn a bit more about Old South Industry?

A couple of sources. The harder one to get a hold of, but which goes into the most detail, is Robert S. Starobin's "Industrial Slavery in the Old South" (Oxford University Press, 1970). I don't own a copy of that one, alas, but Amazon lists it and it should also be available in most uni libraries (which was where I read my copy). For a broader overview of slavery, see Robert William Fogel's "Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery". He even offers some counterfactual speculation on what a successful seceded CSA would have been like, incidentally.

I never thought of having slaves insured, yet now that you mention it that does make a certain amount of twisted sense. As I recall, industrial work is usually more hazardous than agricultural labour, though the cotton gin was known to take arms off if one was not wary.

I'm not sure about accident rates in agriculture versus industry, although it varied per crop (e.g. sugar was really hazardous, through deaths through disease as well as through injury). But this was just a matter of what level the insurance premiums were set at. Slaves could also be used as security on debts, too.