President Jefferson Davis

No. I do believe there would have been much argument between the North and the South, but that was already happening.

I know your question is hypothetical, but hypothetically I do not believe Jeff Davis could have won the election.

 

It would never have happened. They would have had to reach some type of compromise. Abolitionism was thankfully on the rise and the great scourge of racial human slavery never would have garnered enough votes for it to be ratified.

 

An exercise in futility. None of us could ever know what would have happened.

 

Slave states?

In reality, the real "slave states" were started in 1865 when the war ended, and the carpetbaggers and northern henchmen were given control over the local southern goverments in order to punish the south for the war.

The southern states became slaves to Washington, and have remained so ever since.

As far as slavery goes, yes, it was the burning issue of the day. But, the actual conflict that caused the war was two conflicting philosophies of government. One side favored strong local governement, and the other favored a strong central government.

In reality, both sides were driven by money. The south was afraid of losing the wealth of cheap labor that slavery brought. (Yes, cheap, not free, it still cost alot of money to clothe feed and house the slave families). And the North was driven by greed and envy. The products the northern factories produced were expensive to make because they had to import most of their raw materials to produce them, then, they had to compete with other countries to sell them on the world market which drove the prices down even further. The south, though, had raw materials that needed little if any processing. They had an abundance of cotton, sugar cane, soy beans, and rice, which the rest of the world was willing to pay dearly for. So the south prospered while the north faltered, economically.

The northern states felt that we should have a strong central government, and that all the states should share the wealth. In other words, they wanted more and more export taxes put on cotton, sugar, ect. Of course the south opposed this.

I have three points to make on this.

1. Even without slavery, the opposing political philosophies would have clashed sooner or later. The difference was just too great.

2. The extreme polarity in our modern day politics shows that this problem has still not been solved. Today, we have states passing thier own laws that the US is suing to block, and we have the US government passing laws that some states are sueing to block. We have far left liberals that want the federal to control every aspect of our society, and we have far right conservatives that want Washington to only conduct international affairs and stay out of the states affairs.

3. The Democrats and the "occupy wall st" crowd are still looking for the redistribution of wealth, just like the northern states wanted back in 1860.

The class warfare and envy that fueled the Civil War is live and well today. The war has simply changed venues from the battlefield to the congressional chambers and courtrooms of our nation.

Do any of you really think that slavery would still be legal today, even if we never went to war? Slavery was dieing a slow death way before the first shot at Fort Sumter. Slavery was simply the spark that set off the war, the real issues went much deeper than slavery. And still do.

John

 

I did above

 

I am in agreement with the entirety of this quote

As far as the issue of slavery ------ it was a "back burner" issue between the states-----barely even a trickle of a notice taken from the northern agressors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:saint::saint:

As far as the issue of slavery----the inventions of Eli Whitney, McCormick, and Deereing would soon have made slavery obsolete!!!:wavey: