America without the Civil War

[Mechaman]

This is a topic that I think is very rarely discussed in American history but what do you think American history would've looked like if there was no secession of the Southern States and therefore the Civil War?  Furthermore, if it was possible for a Lincoln presidency that didn't result in the secession of the Southern states, what would it look like.

I don't have any ideas right now, so please contribute.

[Earth]

I think slavery would've stayed for maybe a decade longer, but eventually, it would've resulted in it's abolishment. Lincoln would've survived the presidency, and not being given the historical 'great man' treatment we see today. Maybe the south would've maintained their economic upswing, too, resulting in a different demographic than under the reconstruction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is going to require a South that is far less cocky in 1860 to have a shred of a chance of happening.  The most obvious way for that to happen is for there to be a less severe Panic of 1857.  Ways for that to happen would include the bill to reestablish the Second Bank of the United States not being vetoed by Tyler in 1841 and/or the SS Central America doesn't sink (with a lot of specie aboard).

With a North that was more obviously stronger economically and a less cocky South, there might not have been secession resulting from Lincoln's election.  With Southerners remaining in Congress, it is doubtful that much, if any, of the Republican platform would pass into law during the 37th Congress, since the Democrats would have retained control of the Senate.

No chance that slavery is abolished in only a decade.  Absent secession, likely Texas splits into multiple States in an attempt to keep the sectional balance going and the Corwin Amendment is ratified.  (Especially if South Carolina secedes but fails to get other States to leave with it and the Corwin Amendment is used to lure it back in.)  Indeed, slavery likely lasts into the 20th Century without a Civil War.

If there is a Spanish-American War, it happens sooner so as to add Cuba as a slave State.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Slavery would have ended anyway within a few years, hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved, the country would be freer and stronger economically, especially in the South. Also there would be less sectionalism and regional hostility.

[Earth]

Indeed, slavery likely lasts into the 20th Century without a Civil War.

That's an even bigger stretch than my own interpretation, particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution.

[Bo]

Indeed, slavery likely lasts into the 20th Century without a Civil War.

That's an even bigger stretch than my own interpretation, particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution.

Many areas of the South were hardly touched by the Industrial Revolution, with the exception of cotton factories. I could also see slavery lasting about several decades longer than it lasted in RL, as the South was very slow in changing it's ways and traditions. In fact, I could see slavery being abolished during/after WWI in this scenario. Women got the suffrage in RL due to their service in the war effort. If slavery was still around, I could see blacks getting more rights after WWI also as a sign of appreciation for their wartime service.

[Bo]

Slavery would have ended anyway within a few years, hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved, the country would be freer and stronger economically, especially in the South. Also there would be less sectionalism and regional hostility.

Keep dreaming. There's no way the South would have voluntary abolished slavery unless massive social/economic changes or a war would have occured. The Southern economy was very dependent on slavery.

[President Mitt]

Well that's the thing. Massive economic changes did occur in the real world, which would have made keeping slaves highly unprofitable.

[Mechaman]

Mechaman, you mind answering my thread about Kerry/Iraq now, please?

Why should I spend special time of my day going to your special Kerry/Iraq thread to make an elaborate post that will take 5-10 minutes out of my day to create?
What makes your thread so special to warrant informing me about it and begging for an answer?  Just curious.

[The Mikado]

Outmoded systems don't die on their own, they have to be killed.  Slavery may have been on a declining profitability slide, but that wasn't going to end slavery by itself: the prospect of Emancipation would've been too terrifying to Southern Whites to voluntarily go through.  Even if certain states where slavery had become more or less completely outmoded like VA, MD, and DE eventually abolished it, I could see it surviving in the Deep South until the end of the 19th century if not longer.

There sure as hell wouldn't have been a 14th Amendment equivalent: Giving ex-slaves citizenship would've been an impossible sell without a South that didn't have a say in the matter.

[ag]

Given the federal nature of the US, absent a major national upheaval, slavery would be going slowly, not fast. Yes, some states would have gradually been moving towards abolition (or else the slavery itself would have become rudimentary there). But vestiges of slavery could have easily stayed around well into the 20th century. After WWI sounds as a plausible abolition date in places like South Carolina, if then, in fact. Post WWII wouldn't have been impossible, I would think.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Indeed, slavery likely lasts into the 20th Century without a Civil War.

That's an even bigger stretch than my own interpretation, particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution.

Not really.  Take for example cotton. Mechanical cotton pickers didn't become commercially viable in this country until the labor shortages of World War II led to their adoption.  In some third world countries, cotton cultivation is still done by hand rather than using expensive machinery.  With cheap and abundant slave labor, there is little economic incentive to mechanize most agricultural production.  While slave labor is inefficient if one includes the slaves in computing per capita GDP, exclude them and you can get the same or higher results for the elites that remain.

Imagine if you will a county in which jobs now done by illegal immigrants are instead done by slave labor.  While morally repugnant, economically it is roughly equivalent and maybe even more advantageous to those who currently hire illegals.  The case against slavery is not based on economics, but on morality.

[cpeeks]

The civil war would have taken place. It was the divide over so many tarrifs and taxes, it wasnt about slavery.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The civil war would have taken place. It was the divide over so many tarrifs and taxes, it wasnt about slavery.

As I pointed out earlier, if the southern States had not seceded, the Republicans would never have been able to enact their economic platform into law as the Democrats would have had solid control of the Senate. The tariff couldn't have gone up in 1861 without secession.

However, there is a small kernel of truth to what you say.  Were it not for the economics of plantation slavery, the South would not have been as opposed to tariffs as it was.  The economic system the South preferred had the South specializing in slave labor production of agricultural commodities (as agriculture was and still is the economic area in which slave labor suffers the least disadvantage in comparison with free labor).  High tariffs were disadvantageous to an economy dependent upon the use of slave labor to produce agricultural commodities for export.  Southern opposition to tariffs was because they correctly saw them as negatively impacting slavery, not because of any high-minded devotion to free trade.

[Barnes]

The civil war would have taken place. It was the divide over so many tarrifs and taxes, it wasnt about slavery.

As I pointed out earlier, if the southern States had not seceded, the Republicans would never have been able to enact their economic platform into law as the Democrats would have had solid control of the Senate. The tariff couldn't have gone up in 1861 without secession.

However, there is a small kernel of truth to what you say.  Were it not for the economics of plantation slavery, the South would not have been as opposed to tariffs as it was.  The economic system the South preferred, with the South specializing in slave labor production of agricultural commodities (as agriculture was and still is the economic area in which slave labor suffers the least disadvantage in comparison with free labor).  High tariffs were disadvantageous to an economy dependent upon the use of slave labor to produce agricultural commodities for export.  Southern opposition to tariffs was because they correctly saw them as negatively impacting slavery, not because of any high-minded devotion to free trade.

Exactly. The War was, in many ways, brought on by the South's fear that their economy, and, basically, their way of life, would be eradicated. And, of course, slavery was the corner stone of their economy.

[Ameriplan]

Slavery would have been abolished anyway. It was its ultimate fate.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Slavery could have remained until the 80's if not the 90's, or even Today. Of course "Slavery" would be very different. There would be rules as to what you could or could not do to your slaves, and likely, the idea of a life-long slavery, and of race-based slavery would have been done away with. Slavery would be more like "You have to be my butler for 20 years"

[Bo]

Slavery would have been abolished anyway. It was its ultimate fate.

You're probably right, but the timing would have been massively different, and that would have directly affected the lives of several African American generations.