|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 21, 2023 3:11:37 GMT
The alternate history challenge this time is to have North - South sectional tensions, likely over slavery, or issues related to and inseperable from slavery, get so bad that southern states secede from the USA [sound like OTL so far], but with the following proviso: In this timeline, there is no US-Mexican war, no resulting US annexation of Mexico's northern provinces/territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico from between the Rio Grande and the Pacific Ocean, and thus no debate between Slave states and Free states in the east on whether slavery should be legal in those lands.
The debate over legality or lack of legality of slavery in lands acquired in the Mexican war was not the first thing to make slavery a sectionally divisive issue, but it catalyzed debate over slavery and defensiveness and paranoia over protection of slaveholder property rights in a way that had been put on ice since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, reopening and restoring an issue to national political salience that the Whig-Democrat divide was almost designed to ignore. The debate over slavery extension, starting over California and New Mexico (then Utah) territory, spurred the limitationist Wilmot Proviso, the forerunner of the 'Free Soil' movement, which turned out to be a far broader and more influential political argument and coalition for antislavery and abolitionist folk to align themselves with than the pure abolitionism the Liberty Party represented. The Wilmot Proviso spurred southern reaction to keep open first, Mexican Cession territories open to slavery via the mechanism of Popular Sovereignty (Compromise of 1850), and later the Great Plains by the same means (1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act), and then all territories by judicial fiat (Dred Scott).
I am not saying you cannot have a southern secession in the 1860s or later) without the annexation of the American southwest from Mexico, but you would have to construct an alternate path to substitute for some key catalysts and milestones at a minimum. So you "win" the challenge if you can make a southern secession happen by no later than 1880. And you double win it if you can have the southern secession rebellion get crushed by the north and result in the forceful abolition of slavery, but within all the parameters outlined above.
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 24, 2023 12:05:59 GMT
No expansion into the Caribbean either?
Let's see. Until 1858, the slave states weren't outnumbered in the senate. IOTL, thanks to gaining Texas, they were even one state ahead for short time. But when Wisconsin got in, the free states got even. Without Texas, they'd be ahead even. Earlier Secession/ACW?
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 25, 2023 1:39:47 GMT
No expansion into the Caribbean either? Let's see. Until 1858, the slave states weren't outnumbered in the senate. IOTL, thanks to gaining Texas, they were even one state ahead for short time. But when Wisconsin got in, the free states got even. Without Texas, they'd be ahead even. Earlier Secession/ACW? Without an American California, I wonder if settlement and development, and statehood, of Oregon (statehood 1858), and especially Washington (statehood only 1889!) would have been more rapid since those areas, agriculturally rich and with a wealth of marine and forestry resources, would have been the full extent of the US Pacific coast? On the other hand, they lacked one element that accelerated the rush to settle/develop California, gold!
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 25, 2023 9:59:35 GMT
There is another possible basis for secession which doesn't actually involve slavery and hence could actually have had broader support. That is the opposition in much of the south and west - which initially meant basically along the Mississippi valley - against the very high tariffs applied on imported goods to support the early industrial interest in the NE states. That was the basis for the initial clash between S Carolina and President Jackson in the Tariff of Abominations clash. A lot of other states had opposed the high tariffs and if something had been different you might have had a secession, still largely based in the south in this period. This would be before Texas became independent, let alone the war against Mexico that added the current US SW to the country so that wouldn't be an issue and depending on events such a conflict may not have occurred.
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 25, 2023 22:03:25 GMT
There is another possible basis for secession which doesn't actually involve slavery and hence could actually have had broader support. That is the opposition in much of the south and west - which initially meant basically along the Mississippi valley - against the very high tariffs applied on imported goods to support the early industrial interest in the NE states. That was the basis for the initial clash between S Carolina and President Jackson in the Tariff of Abominations clash. A lot of other states had opposed the high tariffs and if something had been different you might have had a secession, still largely based in the south in this period. This would be before Texas became independent, let alone the war against Mexico that added the current US SW to the country so that wouldn't be an issue and depending on events such a conflict may not have occurred. A tricky thing about a tariff based civil war, at least one provoked by the tariff of abominations at the time of the Jackson Administration, is that South Carolina was pretty isolated in its extreme talk of championing its anti-tariff preferences by extreme measures such as nullification or secession, and even it had some internal divisions. Jackson was personally popular in so many of the western and southern states where tariffs were less popular. There were exceptions/defections from a southern anti-tariff front. Louisiana, with its internationally uncompetitive sugar sector, favored the tariff. Western states in general, while less fond of the tariff did appreciate the need for raising federal revenue, and certainly for expending it on internal improvements like canals and turnpikes. I don't know, maybe if one gets the same northeastern based Congressional majority in favor of the tariff, but in a situation where a contested election has put a non military, northeastern man in the White House, you could end up with a secession around this time over the tariff, and possibly Indian Removal Act as well?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 25, 2023 22:32:06 GMT
There is another possible basis for secession which doesn't actually involve slavery and hence could actually have had broader support. That is the opposition in much of the south and west - which initially meant basically along the Mississippi valley - against the very high tariffs applied on imported goods to support the early industrial interest in the NE states. That was the basis for the initial clash between S Carolina and President Jackson in the Tariff of Abominations clash. A lot of other states had opposed the high tariffs and if something had been different you might have had a secession, still largely based in the south in this period. This would be before Texas became independent, let alone the war against Mexico that added the current US SW to the country so that wouldn't be an issue and depending on events such a conflict may not have occurred. A tricky thing about a tariff based civil war, at least one provoked by the tariff of abominations at the time of the Jackson Administration, is that South Carolina was pretty isolated in its extreme talk of championing its anti-tariff preferences by extreme measures such as nullification or secession, and even it had some internal divisions. Jackson was personally popular in so many of the western and southern states where tariffs were less popular. There were exceptions/defections from a southern anti-tariff front. Louisiana, with its internationally uncompetitive sugar sector, favored the tariff. Western states in general, while less fond of the tariff did appreciate the need for raising federal revenue, and certainly for expending it on internal improvements like canals and turnpikes. I don't know, maybe if one gets the same northeastern based Congressional majority in favor of the tariff, but in a situation where a contested election has put a non military, northeastern man in the White House, you could end up with a secession around this time over the tariff, and possibly Indian Removal Act as well?
I think it would need someone other than Jackson who was known for his hard line on disputes and also as you say popular across much of the south and west. Possibly also less of a firebrand in S Carolina who instead seeks to gain alliances with other states unhappy with the tariff. - Ironically reading the link I posted I hadn't realized that some southern politicians actually supported the tariff and deliberately made it as extreme as it was in the expectation that it would be so unpleasant to such a large proportion of the population that it would be totally rejected. As a result they basically shot themselves in the foot when it was still passed.
Didn't know about Louisiana being less productive in sugar production and hence supporting the tariff. From what I've read most of the opposition was against tariffs on manufactured goods because European products, especially but not solely from Britain were so much cheaper at this point. Know the US has a long history of protectionism on both manufacturing and primary products however.
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 26, 2023 1:25:57 GMT
No expansion into the Caribbean either? Let's see. Until 1858, the slave states weren't outnumbered in the senate. IOTL, thanks to gaining Texas, they were even one state ahead for short time. But when Wisconsin got in, the free states got even. Without Texas, they'd be ahead even. Earlier Secession/ACW Going by what you say, I will roll forward and assume there is a mid-nineteenth century southern secession and Civil War, even in the alternate timeline where William Henry Harrison lived through his Presidential term and consecutive Whig presidencies in the 1840s opposed to Texas annexation prevented annexation long enough for Texas to lose interest in being annexed, thus negating the Mexican-American war. Let's imagine that southern paranoia about imbalance in the Senate by the late 1850s forces through something like the Kansas-Nebraska Act and 'Popular Sovereignty' and 'Bleeding Kansas' proxy warfare, and Taney Court overreach provoking the emergence of 'Republican' Free Soil politics in the north. The Republic of Texas cites the emergence of Free Soil and abolition politics as one reason for its loss of interest in being annexed into the USA by the 1850s [the key factor enabling this stance is simply the growth of its agricultural export profits, above all cotton, but also cattle products, providing sufficient revenue to make republic financially solvent]. If not in 1856, by 1860 at the latest we have the no slavery expansion, 'Republican' candidate win the Presidency and their party get the House majority. This causes secession and Civil War. Under these circumstances, I would ask: Could the existence of an independent Republic of Texas as a pro-CSA tilting neutral, not supporting the US blockade, significantly increase the CSA's chances for survival? Presuming not, and the Union still prevails in about four years or less, would a lot of slaveholders have transferred or sold their human property or purchased lands in Texas, with a rush of Confederate supporters fleeing the falling Confederacy for asylum in Texas at the end of war? Could the availability of the 'outlet' of Texas, still under old familiar southern laws on slavery, tariffs, and other questions, weaken the Ku Kluxers and redeemers in the south and the overall resistance to reconstruction? What timescale would Texas be on for its own emancipation?
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 26, 2023 14:37:38 GMT
Could the existence of an independent Republic of Texas as a pro-CSA tilting neutral, not supporting the US blockade, significantly increase the CSA's chances for survival? Three-cornered war with a larger chance of Franco-British intervention. And that could metastasize. This could spiral out of control with the European idiots in power at the time into a world war. Russia and Britain were still sore at each other, over the Crimean War. The French in Mexico would obviously put Texas between two fires and an angered Union might feel encircled. It would be "ugly".
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 26, 2023 15:21:32 GMT
Could the existence of an independent Republic of Texas as a pro-CSA tilting neutral, not supporting the US blockade, significantly increase the CSA's chances for survival? Three-cornered war with a larger chance of Franco-British intervention. And that could metastasize. This could spiral out of control with the European idiots in power at the time into a world war. Russia and Britain were still sore at each other, over the Crimean War. The French in Mexico would obviously put Texas between two fires and an angered Union might feel encircled. It would be "ugly".
Russia wouldn't get involved in such a conflict as its leadership realised it was still too weak. It might seek to use distraction of Britain and/or France to make a move somewhere else, although it would be difficult to tell where. Possibly in the Far East with an earlier move toward the Amur border while Britain is distracted?
Its possible that such a three sided war could pull in either Britain or France or possibly both. Either because here Lincoln/his equivalent doesn't have the sense to back down if something like the Trent incident happens or possibly because Texas is an internationally recognised state [other than by Mexico] if the union was to take some act of war against it and that causes a wider conflict. The other issue, assuming butterflies doesn't prevent Napoleon III's intervention in Mexico and interactions between the pro-French conservatives in Mexico and Texas is drastically different, which might mean close relations between the two prompts Paris to aid the latter if its attacked.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 26, 2023 15:41:28 GMT
Russia wouldn't get involved in such a conflict as its leadership realised it was still too weak. It might seek to use distraction of Britain and/or France to make a move somewhere else, although it would be difficult to tell where. Possibly in the Far East with an earlier move toward the Amur border while Britain is distracted? A bit of history.Every little bit helped Mister Lincoln. In those days, God looked out for fools, drunks and the British Empire.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 26, 2023 15:41:41 GMT
A pig almost caused the US and UK to go to war I must point out to miodern people that the British government and ruling class was actually America's ENEMY in those days. Adams had to work British working class public opinion to keep the misruling meddling British upper class in check and out of American affairs.
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 27, 2023 0:02:15 GMT
The other issue, assuming butterflies doesn't prevent Napoleon III's intervention in Mexico and interactions between the pro-French conservatives in Mexico and Texas is drastically different, This is a big assumption. Remove Mexico's defeat at America's hands from the historical equation, and French military intervention in Mexico becomes far from a certain thing at all.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 27, 2023 13:46:10 GMT
Russia wouldn't get involved in such a conflict as its leadership realised it was still too weak. It might seek to use distraction of Britain and/or France to make a move somewhere else, although it would be difficult to tell where. Possibly in the Far East with an earlier move toward the Amur border while Britain is distracted? A bit of history.Every little bit helped Mister Lincoln. In those days, God looked out for fools, drunks and the British Empire.
As your own source says
Note that in such a case, if war breaks out the Russian fleet is still bottled up effectively because if it takes hostile action against Anglo-French forces supporting the Polish rebellion, if such a war came about, that could well mean war with the union as its operating from their bases. Probably Lincoln would be forced to disarm the ships
Britain didn't issue an ultimatum to the US at this period and a lot of the rest of that reference is the sort of BS that American exceptists often spout without actual facts supporting it. About the only thing it does get kind of right was the widespread anger in Britain when the USN stopped a RN mail steamer to seize 4 passengers. It does fail to mention that this act prompts complaints about the US actions from just about every other major power, including Russia. This crisis was only ended when Lincoln saw sense and despite popular support for Wilkes's piracy backed down and released the hostages.
Given that Russia had 'freed' its serfs, albeit with some limitation while Lincoln was still in the early years of the war committing himself to maintaining slavery, as your source also mentions that doesn't suggest a basis for a liberal alliance.
It could be said Britain did make a major error in terms of not finding a basis for war with the north and seriously crippling a state that had a long history of open hostility to the UK. At this period god did seem to look out for the American empire.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 27, 2023 14:14:04 GMT
A pig almost caused the US and UK to go to war I must point out to miodern people that the British government and ruling class was actually America's ENEMY in those days. Adams had to work British working class public opinion to keep the misruling meddling British upper class in check and out of American affairs.
As the author states the basic problem was American imperial desires. It was the one seeking war and conquest with the exception of the Pig War crisis, which as the source notes the British commander de-escalated because he thought the entire situation pointless. On the other hand some Americans were pushing for a war with Britain to 'unit' a nation increasingly divided over the issue of slavery. He also doesn't mention the situation in 1844 when a Presidental campaign was made on the basis of annexing by force the entire Columbia/Oregon region currently under joint UK-US administration.
While a lot of the article is clearly tongue in cheek one factual error should be pointed out. The Canadian plan for hit and run raids was not to trigger a war but to in the event of a US attack seek to disrupt as much of it as possible by destruction of infrastructure so that as much as possible of Canada could be protected until British aid arrived. As quoted
Hence its somewhat misleading to have part 4 headed with "Canada wanted to provoke a war".
To correct your own point. Much of the American leadership viewed Britain as a target to be attacked, which meant it was often painted as an enemy by them. Rather like Putin's behaviour in regards to Ukraine and its backers. As the article points out the threat to peace invariably came from the US.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 27, 2023 16:19:50 GMT
The basic problem is perception. Mister Lincoln was not fooled. All that mattered was that Palmerston and Napoleon III were.
|
|