|
|
Post by germanbread on Oct 15, 2022 17:29:09 GMT
In our timeline Thomas Jefferson wrote in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence that slavery would be abolished, however that was removed, but what if it wasn't?
It is decided that slavery will not be a thing in the USA. This angers the Southern Colonies, along with the Northern Colonies leaning more towards the ideas of the constitution, while the Southern Colonies leaning towards the ideas of Articles of Confederation. This causes what we call the 'American Civil War,' to happen immediately after the USA gets its independence. The South wins as the US is still young, and the CSA is created early. The CSA, USA, and Britain now are in a race to the west coast. The War of 1812 happens and the results are the same. The US purchase of Louisiana cuts of the CSA from further expansion westward. With the CSA cut off from westward expansion the CSA turns to the Caribbean, and starts trying to build a big navy to expand into the Caribbean. An series of wars called the Caribbean Wars occur for 10 years. The result is that CSA own all the Caribbean Islands, the Yucatan Penusula, Central America, and some South American coastline. The rest of the powers in North America are now really tired of the CSA, and form a coalition against the CSA. The result is that Colonies are restored, and the US is now reunified with the South. The rest of history continues on as normal.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710 
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 15, 2022 17:36:35 GMT
In our timeline Thomas Jefferson wrote in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence that slavery would be abolished, however that was removed, but what if it wasn't? It is decided that slavery will not be a thing in the USA. This angers the Southern Colonies, along with the Northern Colonies leaning more towards the ideas of the constitution, while the Southern Colonies leaning towards the ideas of Articles of Confederation. This causes what we call the 'American Civil War,' to happen immediately after the USA gets its independence. The South wins as the US is still young, and the CSA is created early. The CSA, USA, and Britain now are in a race to the west coast. The War of 1812 happens and the results are the same. The US purchase of Louisiana cuts of the CSA from further expansion westward. With the CSA cut off from westward expansion the CSA turns to the Caribbean, and starts trying to build a big navy to expand into the Caribbean. An series of wars called the Caribbean Wars occur for 10 years. The result is that CSA own all the Caribbean Islands, the Yucatan Penusula, Central America, and some South American coastline. The rest of the powers in North America are now really tired of the CSA, and form a coalition against the CSA. The result is that Colonies are restored, and the US is now reunified with the South. The rest of history continues on as normal. Question, what time period is this. Also saying the rest of history continues on as normal is not going to be the case, especially with all the things you have described in your first post.. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Oct 17, 2022 17:22:39 GMT
In our timeline Thomas Jefferson wrote in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence that slavery would be abolished, however that was removed, but what if it wasn't? It is decided that slavery will not be a thing in the USA. This angers the Southern Colonies, along with the Northern Colonies leaning more towards the ideas of the constitution, while the Southern Colonies leaning towards the ideas of Articles of Confederation. This causes what we call the 'American Civil War,' to happen immediately after the USA gets its independence. The South wins as the US is still young, and the CSA is created early. The CSA, USA, and Britain now are in a race to the west coast. The War of 1812 happens and the results are the same. The US purchase of Louisiana cuts of the CSA from further expansion westward. With the CSA cut off from westward expansion the CSA turns to the Caribbean, and starts trying to build a big navy to expand into the Caribbean. An series of wars called the Caribbean Wars occur for 10 years. The result is that CSA own all the Caribbean Islands, the Yucatan Penusula, Central America, and some South American coastline. The rest of the powers in North America are now really tired of the CSA, and form a coalition against the CSA. The result is that Colonies are restored, and the US is now reunified with the South. The rest of history continues on as normal. Interesting idea germanbread. The part that definitely intrigues me is "CSA turns to the Caribbean, and starts trying to build a big navy to expand into the Caribbean." At first thought I really doubt the CSA, as you have defined it, has the infrastructure, ship building iron foundries etc. or the trained maritime population to build that "Big Navy". At this time period the major maritime industry is concentrated in the Northern Ex-colonies. I also wonder where the needed capital is to fund this project? Under the Articles of Confederation the Federal/national government does not have the legal power to levy any more taxes than the individual states choose to provide. Unlike New England and the Coastal Cities Philadephia PA, the south is an agricultural economy.
As I remember it and I could be wrong But I doubt it, the entire 13 colonies were in terrible economic state by the needs of the war of independence. The South alone's capital was tied up in land. Furthermore, the population has little interest in anything but their agricultural for the job.
So I would be very interested in how you would overcome these critical inadequacies?
Just a last point, fleets historically got themselves sunk with massive loss of life in the prevalent Caribbean hurricanes.
I have to go along with Ben Franklyn's hard headed view of reality that to win independence from Mother Britain the abolition of slavery would have to wait. Time would prove his dire prediction slavery would eventually tear the new nation apart was all too true..
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 22, 2022 2:16:11 GMT
Elsewhere on the web, Kaiser Wilhelm III / Jared wrote his big TL "Decades of Darkness". Which is more about New England plus NY/NJ parting ways with the rest, though.
Theoretically possible, but slaveholders from then weren't the same slaveholders as in 1860. It makes a difference whether you think "Slavery is a necessary evil" and "Slavery is our way of life, our god-given state right, and drapetomania is a real thing!"
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,378
Likes: 11,997
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2022 12:45:39 GMT
Elsewhere on the web, Kaiser Wilhelm III / Jared wrote his big TL "Decades of Darkness". Which is more about New England plus NY/NJ parting ways with the rest, though. Theoretically possible, but slaveholders from then weren't the same slaveholders as in 1860. It makes a difference whether you think "Slavery is a necessary evil" and "Slavery is our way of life, our god-given state right, and drapetomania is a real thing!"
Well you could get New England breaking away with a different 1812 conflict but New York/New Jersey would probably be more difficult.
I'm not sure that there was that much difference in attitudes between say 1780 and 1860 in terms of how the south saw slavery? It was immensely profitable - at least for the large plantations - and few whites wanted a lot of free blacks competing with them for jobs, land etc. The 19thC probably some it more aggressively expressed as opposition to slavery in both Europe and increasingly the northern and western states and territories made them feel more vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 22, 2022 17:28:43 GMT
Elsewhere on the web, Kaiser Wilhelm III / Jared wrote his big TL "Decades of Darkness". Which is more about New England plus NY/NJ parting ways with the rest, though. Theoretically possible, but slaveholders from then weren't the same slaveholders as in 1860. It makes a difference whether you think "Slavery is a necessary evil" and "Slavery is our way of life, our god-given state right, and drapetomania is a real thing!"
Well you could get New England breaking away with a different 1812 conflict but New York/New Jersey would probably be more difficult.
I'm not sure that there was that much difference in attitudes between say 1780 and 1860 in terms of how the south saw slavery? It was immensely profitable - at least for the large plantations - and few whites wanted a lot of free blacks competing with them for jobs, land etc. The 19thC probably some it more aggressively expressed as opposition to slavery in both Europe and increasingly the northern and western states and territories made them feel more vulnerable.
In "Decades of Darkness", politicians made a deal: If Aaron Burr supports the secession, he'll become VP under Pickering first and second president of New England later.
And as said: The material facts were similar enough, but the attitude had changed. Both opponents and fans of slavery had become more radical. On the average. Think about it: Would Washington or Jefferson have risked unity for slavery?
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Oct 23, 2022 2:09:26 GMT
Jefferson's rough draft doesn't quite come out in favour of abolition. He condemns it quite stridently: he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.htmlThat doesn't amount to an absolute prohibition of slavery so much as the slave trade. However, let us assume that your original notion, that 'slavery will not be a thing in the USA' is viable. From there, we have a clash between concepts of the AoC and Constitution. Not out of the realms of possibility, however unlikely. A split after a conflict is possible, but here is where you perform the triple pike off the cliff - establishing a CSA in the 1780s and then having everything happen exactly the same. It would be sufficient to leave the scenario at the point of split and ask what happens next. By decreeing that everything progresses merrily along, including 1812 and the Louisiana purchase, you lose all sense of logical coherence. Rather than everything going as @, we now have two small and vulnerable collections of former colonies with a great deal of interdependence and a lack of funds, wherewithal and power. Should a rump North become involved in a war with Britain, then they will likely lose, or at least see New England break away. The notion of the Caribbean Wars are utter, utter nonsense. You try and go too far and include too much in your scenarios and cross into the territory of the impossible. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,378
Likes: 11,997
|
Post by stevep on Oct 23, 2022 13:12:40 GMT
Well you could get New England breaking away with a different 1812 conflict but New York/New Jersey would probably be more difficult.
I'm not sure that there was that much difference in attitudes between say 1780 and 1860 in terms of how the south saw slavery? It was immensely profitable - at least for the large plantations - and few whites wanted a lot of free blacks competing with them for jobs, land etc. The 19thC probably some it more aggressively expressed as opposition to slavery in both Europe and increasingly the northern and western states and territories made them feel more vulnerable.
In "Decades of Darkness", politicians made a deal: If Aaron Burr supports the secession, he'll become VP under Pickering first and second president of New England later.
And as said: The material facts were similar enough, but the attitude had changed. Both opponents and fans of slavery had become more radical. On the average. Think about it: Would Washington or Jefferson have risked unity for slavery?
Must admit I never found DoD that realistic. A bit too much like the Draka in terms of a slave state going on a conquest spree and becoming a massive world power. Doubtful of the idea of slavery being that competitive compared to a free economy while for an agricultural one that requires both suitable land and the willingness of the bulk of the free whites to be shoved aside by the greater economic power of the plantocracy.
If there was tension in the 1780's over slavery it sounds like the idea would be the north seceding. In that case probably Washington, both as a Virginian planter and someone who wanted unity would probably be willing to oppose such a move by force so it could well lead to civil war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 25, 2022 3:01:56 GMT
Well, it was inspired by the Draka, but with the plan to be more realistic. If you call DoD unrealistic, which words are you going to use for Draka?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,378
Likes: 11,997
|
Post by stevep on Oct 26, 2022 13:47:17 GMT
Well, it was inspired by the Draka, but with the plan to be more realistic. If you call DoD unrealistic, which words are you going to use for Draka?
How about totally bats**t insane?  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,790
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 26, 2022 13:51:05 GMT
Well, it was inspired by the Draka, but with the plan to be more realistic. If you call DoD unrealistic, which words are you going to use for Draka? How about totally bats**t insane? Stupid virus at the extreme. |
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 201
Likes: 257
|
Post by belushitd on Nov 14, 2022 22:52:25 GMT
The first problem with the OP is that if the elimination of slavery is a part of the declaration of independence (DoI), then the south walks. At LEAST the Carolinas and Georgia, and quite possibly Virginia. The two choices at the time, to also quote Franklin were to "hang together or hang separately". If the south is not part of the DoI, then they stay as colonies of Great Britain, they don't go it alone. You don't end up with a confederacy that declares independence from the newly formed USA some years later.
Second problem is trying to make Georgia and the two Carolinas into a country. If Virginia is part of the mix, it might be better. However, if the south is not part of the revolution, the odds are very good that the north doesn't end up independent either.
What you're basically positing is that the south swallows its hatred of the slavery lines of the DoI, but then declares independence once the convention is ready to vote upon. I am assuming that the constitution would include verbiage explicitly banning slavery, not just the slave trade. Or they vote to accept the constitution, but then decide to secede. Neither one makes a whole lot of sense, and both pretty much end up with the south being the three or four previously mentioned states. They might end up claiming some of Kentucky, Tennessee, as well as Alabama, but I strongly suspect that's it. At best. And this depends on them getting Virginia to join them. There's not enough people or treasure to turn those states into a country.
Finally, until the invention of the cotton gin in 1794, slavery was not nearly as profitable as one might think. The major invention that allowed slavery to flourish and the southern planters to become rich was the cotton gin. Remember the phrase "Cotton is king". So you've got roughly 10 years where not only were the states in the confederacy impoverished, they were underpopulated and had little industry outside of single person blacksmithing operations.
Belushi TD
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,378
Likes: 11,997
|
Post by stevep on Nov 15, 2022 18:49:37 GMT
IIRC slavery was a lot more widely spread in this period. In fact wasn't New York the state with the largest holdings of slaves or was that earlier in the century. Know I recalled reading of it at some point. Checking wiki this image shows that other than Pennsylvanian and the existing New England states all held slaves in 1789, with New York ending the institution in 1799. New Jersey following in 1804 and they were the last of the original states that ended slavery before the OTL civil war.
What I mean is that if somehow a resolution was passed in the 1780's banning it its going to be markedly more divisive than I think some people are thinking.
If the south does break away then I suspect it would include Virginia - given it was a significant slave state and the stance of George Washington on the issue. I don't think it would become a British colony again but your likely to see a slower western expansion. Both because the two nations would each be weaker with lesser resources and because there's likely to be tension between the two, on their common borders and perhaps in terms of their planned westward expansion.
Not sure if it would be the north or the south that would be most interested in Louisiana? The south is more likely to be interested in the New Orleans region, which is the key to the region and might initially have the most cash if cotton production has taken off as OTL. [Which it might not]. Plus it would have easier access to the region as its nearer by sea. If either side gets the entire region then its likely to trigger a lot of tension between the two if not actual war as it blocks the expansion of the other.
Not sure if the 1812 conflict would occur. The north would be looking too cautiously at the south and some of the most belligerent were actually from 'southern' states like Kentucky - which is likely if it exists as a separate state to have been colonized from Virginia which had a claim on the area. As such unless there's some unholy alliance between the two probably bitter rivals. If one does go to war its quite likely the other will be friendly to Britain to some degree and could even become involved against the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpaceOrbisHistory on Nov 16, 2022 1:14:41 GMT
In our timeline Thomas Jefferson wrote in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence that slavery would be abolished, however that was removed, but what if it wasn't? It is decided that slavery will not be a thing in the USA. This angers the Southern Colonies, along with the Northern Colonies leaning more towards the ideas of the constitution, while the Southern Colonies leaning towards the ideas of Articles of Confederation. This causes what we call the 'American Civil War,' to happen immediately after the USA gets its independence. The South wins as the US is still young, and the CSA is created early. The CSA, USA, and Britain now are in a race to the west coast. The War of 1812 happens and the results are the same. The US purchase of Louisiana cuts of the CSA from further expansion westward. With the CSA cut off from westward expansion the CSA turns to the Caribbean, and starts trying to build a big navy to expand into the Caribbean. An series of wars called the Caribbean Wars occur for 10 years. The result is that CSA own all the Caribbean Islands, the Yucatan Penusula, Central America, and some South American coastline. The rest of the powers in North America are now really tired of the CSA, and form a coalition against the CSA. The result is that Colonies are restored, and the US is now reunified with the South. The rest of history continues on as normal. As much as I enjoy any timeline that has the south form the CSA this is just too much to think could ever happen outside of some major ASB doing some work to see it done. First off if the south left as it no doubt would following this move the war is likely lost. More likely the loss of the south sees the war never happen at all because England just uses the south to base troops and match north and end it in less than a year. So the United States never exists in the first place and thus everything else is moot. No slaves means the south more than likely walks away and if that happens the war may just be called off because nobody there is stupid. It was some level of luck that we won with them. Without our odds are next to zero I feel. So a neat idea but one I just don't think works without some crazy level of ASB. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,378
Likes: 11,997
|
Post by stevep on Nov 16, 2022 19:50:17 GMT
In our timeline Thomas Jefferson wrote in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence that slavery would be abolished, however that was removed, but what if it wasn't? It is decided that slavery will not be a thing in the USA. This angers the Southern Colonies, along with the Northern Colonies leaning more towards the ideas of the constitution, while the Southern Colonies leaning towards the ideas of Articles of Confederation. This causes what we call the 'American Civil War,' to happen immediately after the USA gets its independence. The South wins as the US is still young, and the CSA is created early. The CSA, USA, and Britain now are in a race to the west coast. The War of 1812 happens and the results are the same. The US purchase of Louisiana cuts of the CSA from further expansion westward. With the CSA cut off from westward expansion the CSA turns to the Caribbean, and starts trying to build a big navy to expand into the Caribbean. An series of wars called the Caribbean Wars occur for 10 years. The result is that CSA own all the Caribbean Islands, the Yucatan Penusula, Central America, and some South American coastline. The rest of the powers in North America are now really tired of the CSA, and form a coalition against the CSA. The result is that Colonies are restored, and the US is now reunified with the South. The rest of history continues on as normal. As much as I enjoy any timeline that has the south form the CSA this is just too much to think could ever happen outside of some major ASB doing some work to see it done. First off if the south left as it no doubt would following this move the war is likely lost. More likely the loss of the south sees the war never happen at all because England just uses the south to base troops and match north and end it in less than a year. So the United States never exists in the first place and thus everything else is moot. No slaves means the south more than likely walks away and if that happens the war may just be called off because nobody there is stupid. It was some level of luck that we won with them. Without our odds are next to zero I feel. So a neat idea but one I just don't think works without some crazy level of ASB.
Whoops! Mis-read the OP and was thinking it was when the constitution was drawn up in the 1780's rather than the initial Declaration of Independence. Agree that would really screw over the rebels.
|
|
