IF the Union allowed the CSA to form w/o a war.....

[Salty]

From Quorm:
Do you agree with Bill?

Bill Esker
·
Updated June 29
Studied at University of Akron

What would have happened if Lincoln had allowed the Confederacy to leave and there was not a civil war? What would each country have become in the long term?

Excellent question , and one I have extensively considered . Let's just say in union is strength.

First the South: It is left to go it's own way, and maintains slavery for another 50 years. It's already mainly agrarian, and successful at selling the world cotton and tobacco. That would continue. It would have its own Army and Navy, but without a Civil War, they would remain small. The industrial revolution would be less important, and little in the way of Industry would move South, because of the animosity with the North, and it's revulsion towards slavery. It probably would depend on England for most of it trading, but England would be loath to move any industry there because it had outlawed slavery too. I think it would have been basically the 19th century version of South Africa.

Second, the North: Before the Civil War the industrial revolution was in full swing up north and growing at a prodigious rate. That would continue. Most European immigrants would go there because of opportunity. Trade with the South would end completely for a decade or more, and US goods would be more widely exported. The Northern Army and Navy would continue to grow a little, but would remain fairly small. Midwest and western agriculture , would ramp up even more to make up for southern imports. The St Lawrence seaway would be built sooner as the Great Lakes replaced most of the traffic on the Mississippi. Most of the states West of the Mississippi River would elect to join the US for greater opportunities, other than Texas, which would stay CSA . Railroads from the North would assure that.

After the turn of the century it gets a bit hazier. If slavery ends in the South, the US might even recombine in some form. Think of East and West Germany. So perhaps it once again becomes a world power after a couple of World Wars. One thing for certain , is a divided US/CS would be far weaker than a United States of America. Thank you Mr. Lincoln !

 

[carpro]

Secession was not unconstitutional until four years after the war.

That decision was finally made to justify the illegal war that proceeded the ruling. Lincoln actually had no constitutional right to conduct such a war.

 

[Salty]

Secession was not unconstitutional until four years after the war.

That decision was finally made to justify the illegal war that proceeded the ruling. Lincoln actually had no constitutional right to conduct such a war.

The USA could not declare war on the CSA - because if they did- then they would be admitting that the CSA was a legal country.

 

[robycop3]

The USA & CSA woulda both been vulnerable to foreign intervention, especially by Britain, France, & even Mexico.

Several British observers watched some of the battles and/or observed armies of both sides preparing for battle. While acting innocently, their real mission was to see how vulnerable each side was to a British invasion. They drew two conclusions from their observations:
1. A British invasion would likely cause both sides to set aside their quarrel for awhile to deal with the British.

2. While the British Navy was still supreme, it could not land enough troops to have a chance against the Americans. They had enough to worry about with France & the Austro-Hungarian Empire, & its allies Germany & Prussia. Queen Vicky & most of her PMs knew the USA was rapidly becoming a world powerhouse, & they'd best have her as an ally, not an enemy.

When the importance of cotton would fall off, the South would be in trouble, once her old money would begin to run out. And I believe peoples' attitude toward slavery would have changed. I believe the seceded states would eventually be forced to seek re-admission to the Union, some earlier than others, but those recalcitrant states would've come around upon finding themselves isolated.

 

[Marooncat79]

Agree sir

 

[Salty]

:
..1. A British invasion would likely cause both sides to set aside their quarrel for awhile to deal with the British. ...

Excellent observation!
That's how Americans are - we love to quarrel among ourselves - but dont let an outsider say one bad thing about other Americans.

 

[robycop3]

Mexico might've tried to take back Texas, California, etc. but not while there was a strong Confederate army ptrsent. Besides, Mexico was very unstable while the Civil War was ongoing here, & when Maximilian was appointed emperor, he had no desire to engage his northern neighbor an any hostilities. Neither did Benito Juarez, who overthrew Max & became President.

 

[Centrist]

Roby, you are partially correct, except....
You are missing that while slavery was predominant in the South, the North also had slaves even during the Second Revolutionary War (you call it the "Civil War"). If you wish to argue that they didn't, then please explain the Corwin Amendment. In the North, which passed the Amendment, slaves were slaves for life. Whereas in the South slaves usually had the opportunity to earn their freedom. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of slavery no matter how you dress it. But the facts remain the same. And when you start talking about the French and the Spanish, you really aren't covering the story well. Both had slaves, except instead of being black and from Africa, they were Native Americans. Both the Spanish and the French were notorious for their cruelty, which was actually outlawed in the then-US (North & South both).