| Since I raised the question I will offer some speculation.
Southward expansion into Central America under the urging of the
Southron States.
A less central government, more "States Rights"
A slower rate of industrial growth.
Slavery existing until the beginning of the 20 Century, then some form
of manumission of Blacks and compensation of the former owners. This
because mechanized farming would make slave owning less attractive.
(BTW it could also go the other way, after all it was the Cotting Gin
that "saved" the institution of slavery)
Germany getting the upperhand in Europe and dominating Britain as a
colonial power.
No Bolshevic Russia emerges, and Communism never becomes a world
problem.
A greater Japan annexes China because Britain is in no shape to stop it.
Fewer nations in the world, a few big imperialistic powers control the
world:
Britain, U.S. (expanded into Central America),
Germany, Japan, Imperial Russia, and a combined Brazil and
Argentina control South America. Australia annexes Malaysia since
Britain can't prevent it, all other countries becomming clients of
the "biggies".
The good news is there never would have been a Nazi Germany or a
Stalanist Russia.
|
| With less Central Government I'm not certain that the U.S. would get
into Southward expansion at all. The country had the opportunity in
the Mexican War to do just that and didn't. Since the Southern states
seemed to lean more and more (just before the war) away from a more
powerful centralized government, "My" (Emphasizing MY) conclusion,
based only on my reading and thoughts are that in all likelihood
the U.S. wouldn't be one of the powers. I do think that there would've
still been a Hitler and Nazi Germany as well as Stalin and so on,
because they were offsprings of Worldwar I to some extent, and
the resulting Revolution in Russia as well as the World Depression
would've at least opened the potentials for these types of things to
have occured. Without the U.S. as a World Power (again "MY" Conclusion)
perhaps those wouldn't have occurred quite that way as who knows what
the outcome of WWI might've been.
One bit of good news might be though, with less centralized Government
we might not have an IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALthough I'm sure we'd still
get the Income Taxed on a State Level. (Considering I'm in Mass that
might've been worse right?).
Just some thoughts....
J
|
|
Since the commencement of the war was accompanied by the election
of Abraham Lincoln as President and subsequent secession, for the
war NOT to have happened, we would have to presuppose two things:
(1) "Someone Else" winning the 1860 election - Bell, Breckenridge
or Douglas.
Breckenridge was a sectional (southern) candidate, and his
victory would have led to a stronger continuance of some
trends evident in the Buchanan administration. This would have
been active connivance at the spread of slavery, and (to the North)
would have been meant growth of the "Slave Power" to its
detriment. May even have meant Northern secession at a
later stage. Could have meant the annexation of Cuba as
a slave state, or parts of Central America.
A Douglas victory would probably have led to a succession
of "Bleeding Kansas" episodes as he looked to "popular
sovereignty" in each territory to keep out slavery. Thus
instead of a major civil war, there would have been
several mini-wars, with less loss of life.
A John Bell victory would probably have meant the same as a
Douglas win. Slavery would have persisted far longer as it
would continue to be the cause of conflict, and Southern
honour would not permit them to surrender under duress.
Bell stood for the "status quo", which was basically pro-
South, and would not have satisfied the Republicans.
In either of the above cases, the conflict about slavery
would have persisted far longer without a clear settlement.
No war and no Republican administration would have meant a
slower economic growth for the USA meaning German dominance
in industralisation at the turn of the century, and probably
victory for her in World War I.
Another scenario is that Republican defeat would have led to
a "fusion" of the main elements of that party with Douglas Democrats
(their positions were not that far apart), and victory in the 1864
election.
I am not sure if a Douglas victory would have satisfied the
South, and seeing "Black Republicans" throwing him their
support (in 1860 or 1864), might also have led to secession
at a later stage.
The fact was that Northern power was growing at the expense of
the South - whether the South would ever have accepted that
peacefully is an open question.
(2) A Lincoln victory with a subsequent patched-up compromise
to avoid secession. Lincoln would probably have had to accept
popular sovereignty to accomodate the South, but this may
not have satisfied the Southern "fire-eaters".
Lincoln would have tried to build up the Republican party
in the South, where federal patronage, and a large white
non-slaveowning population would have given him ample scope.
This was of course what the slaveowners feared, but if it
had occurred, it would have meant the death of slavery
by the mid 1870s (probably), but with compensation.
Douglas could also have accomplished this.
It is moot how industralisation would have progressed
under a peacetime Republican administration, probably
more slowly, because with Southern Democrats in the
house, low tariffs would still have been the norm.
Also, it was the war itself that accelerated
industralisation.
(3) A Lincoln victory, but either secession allowed to take
place peacefully, or a Confederate victory in the Civil
War. I think we have covered this elsewhere (see "Civil
War" topic in the History notesfile.) The most distastrous
scenario for everyone.
An interesting scenario: if Douglas won the election, it would
have meant a "breathing space" for the South. Now Douglas died
in 1862 (?) so he would not have completed his term. Who was
his VP, and would he have been more friendly to the South, as
Fillmore was after Zachary Taylor died?
Toby
|