Firelock76 A straight Lincoln-Douglas match-up would have seen Douglas in the White House. How things would have turned out then is anyones guess.
A straight Lincoln-Douglas match-up would have seen Douglas in the White House. How things would have turned out then is anyones guess.
Wayne,
And an interesting guess it would be. Stephen Douglas strongly supported Union, so much so he held Abe Lincoln's hat on inauguration day. But he wasn't called "The Great Compromiser" for nothing. Throughout his political life he had been able to resolve issues between northern and southern Democrats. If he remained true to form and had become President he would have tried to resolve this one too.
Are you aware that in early 1861 including after the inauguration William Seward was secretly communicating with Confederate Commissioners for an armistice? Several weeks into the term he wrote Lincoln a long memo where he stated there was no policy on dealing with the Confederates and proposed to cede Sumpter to them while holding on to Fort Pickins in Florida. Lincoln sent it back with a note written on it to the effect that there was a policy which was to "Hold, occupy and possess" Federal property such as Customs Houses and Forts. At that point Seward realized there would be no armistice and stopped communicating with the Commissioners.
John
John, I had heard about Sewards negotiations with Confederate Commisioners about the "nuts-and-bolts" of a permanent separation and how to make it as painless as possible. Seward also wrote a memo to Lincoln where he proposed a set up where he would function as a "prime minister" of sorts and Lincoln would be a "figurehead" chief of state. Apparantly Seward didn't think much of Lincolns abilities. Lincoln responded quietly but firmly there was only going to be one president and head of state and it was going to be himself. A lesser, more high-strung man would have fired Seward but ol' Abe wasn't that type. In the end, Seward turned into one of Lincolns strongest supporters.
Another Seward idea after Fort Sumter was to provoke a war with a "third party" (Britain? France?) to try and re-unite the country against a common enemy. Lincoln quietly shot that one down too. "One war at a time Willie. OK?"
Wayne
Seward really should have gotten the nomination. But 10 years earlier he had made a speech where he spoke of the Constitution allowing slavery and went on to say "But there is a higher law...." meaning the Bible. Substitute the Bible for the Constitution? There was a real uproar. And in 1860 Seward's words came back to haunt him. The Republicans wanted someone without that baggage which would help them win the free-soil vote. Lincoln impressed eastern Republicans when, in February 1860, he spoke at Cooper Union. And ultimately he won the nomination.
When Lincoln was elected Seward was not the only one with a low opinion of Lincoln's abilities. Everyone in government shared that view. After all, Abe's only prior experience in national government was one 2 year term in the House and he botched that. In is farewell address to his Springfield neighbors he said he did not know what he was going to do and he asked them to pray for him and in his First Inaugural Address he practically begged the Confederates to return to the Union. Jefferson Davis had been in the Senate for years and had been the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce must have been pretty contemptuous of him. And at the beginning Lincoln just agonized and dithered and did nothing. Finally, Davis, knowing that it would take at least 3 months for Lincoln to get Congress to Washington so he could declare war and would have to do nothing in the meantime, gave General Gustav P. T. Beauregard permission to fire on Fort Sumpter. The next day Abe declared a national emergency and called up 75,000 troops. He never looked back. Nor did Seward.
Oh sure John, in the beginning Lincoln agonized as to what to do because he didn't have a clear mandate from the American electorate. refer to my earlier post about the election of 1860. Fort Sumter and it's aftermath gave him a "mandate", as it were, so he could act with a pretty good assurance of the support of the people.
Interesting to compare resume's between Lincoln and Davis: Lincoln's formal education basically stopped at the third grade level, he was self-educated after that. He did have some experience in local politics in Illinois, was a lawyer on retainer for a Mid-Western railroad, and did have that one term in Congress, losing his seat over his opposition to the war with Mexico. By 1860 he was making a VERY good living as a lawyer, but aside from his Republican Party activism hadn't made much of an impact on anything.
Then there's Jeff Davis. West Point graduate, and remember West Point was one of the best schools, if not THE best school in the country, sucessful businessman, Mexican War combat veteran and commander of the Mississippi Regiment of Rifles, Secretary of War, then senator from Mississippi. If you were going to pick someone to be president based on a resume', who would YOU pick?
Pretty ironic huh? Especially the way things turned out in the end.
Firelock76Pretty ironic huh? Especially the way things turned out in the end.
I agree with everything you say but there is more.
I believe that more than a little of Abe Lincoln's motivation was jealousy of Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas began in Illinois politics about the same time Abe did and my the middle 1850's had become the best known Senator in the country. Abe just couldn't accept the fact that Douglas with only a little better education and who came to the state as a stranger had gone so far while he had not. Of course Douglas was a Democrat in a Democratic state. Lincoln, on his part, was a Whig but the Whigs were the upper crust and they never really accepted Abe with his country twang and rural manners. Abe never fit in and they let him know it. But they did tolerate Abe because he could do one thing. He could win elections in the center of the state where Whigs almost always lost an Democrats won. So he could be one of them as long as he did not expect social acceptance. I think this bothered him to. But he never spoke of these things because to do so would be to reinforce those factors.
In 1856 Abe got the Republican nomination for Senator. James Shields was Illinois' junior Senator and a close ally of Stephen Douglas. Abe wanted very much to be Senator and campaigned hard for it. However, after many ballots he had to let Lyman Trumbull, a Free Soiler, win or see another Douglas Democrat win so he went with Trumbull. It was a bitter defeat for him.
They guy who gave Trumbull his vote was Ned Judd, a Free Soiler who was actually pledged to Abe but who backed out and went for his fellow Free Soiler Trumbull. But Abe maintained his relationship with Ned Judd. There is a story--I don't know how true it is--but the story is that one night Lincoln and Judd were sitting in a box car waiting for the train to Springfield when Judd asked Abe if he ever thought of being President. Abe laughed. "A sucker like me?" he said. Judd pressed him and he said he thought there were people much better suited to the office and the first person was William Seward. Judd pointed out Seward was an abolitionist and that was a real barrier with eastern Republicans. The conversation ends there. Judd later became the leader of the Illinois Republican Party and as party leader he went to Washington when the convention was being planned. He made a strong pitch that the convention should be held in Chicago because it was a neutral city and would have no candidate running for President. And the national leaders brought the idea so the convention was set for Chicago. Judd came back to see that a place was built and worked for Lincoln along with David Davis, also a leading Republican. They sabotaged Seward's efforts, manipulated the convention and made all sorts of political promises to get Abe nominated. Meanwhile Abe was back home in Springfield. He didn't know at that time of all of the political trading that had been done. He was at the telegraph office waiting for news and when he came he went home and said, "Mary, we're running for President."
Perhaps this is more than you ever wanted to know. John
About a year ago The New York Times published a story about Samuel Ballton, a slave who was a railroad worker, escaped, continued to work on the railroad for the Union and the rest of his life. Here is a link: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/been-workin-on-the-railroad/
That's a great story John, and definately NOT more than I wanted to know.
Seward did have one other problem which kept him from being totally accepted by the Western Republicans. He WAS a bit of an Eastern snob who had a habit of rubbing people the wrong way.
Here's one of my favorite Lincoln storys: In 1862 a young man named Christopher Spencer had invented a repeating rifle (I'm sure you've heard of it) and was going around Washington trying to get someone interested. The rifle was a good one, a VERY good one, but ol' Chris couldn't get an audience with anyone. Somewhat understandable, there were a lot of people shopping war winning ideas around, some good, some harebrained, so it was hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
In desparation Spencer sent a note to Lincoln at the White House telling him about his rifle. To his surprise he got an answer back from Lincoln saying he was very interested in seeing it demonstrated, come to the White House on such-and-such a date and at a certain time.
True to his word Lincoln was waiting for Spencer on the appointed date, and they rode in Lincolns carriage to the Marine Barracks rifle range. Well, here's a very nervous 25 year old Chris Spencer sitting in a carriage with the most powerful man in the country. He tried making small talk: "Mr. President, it must be very diffcult running the country with a war on."
Lincoln looked him in the eye and said, "It sure is with the kind of help I'VE got!"
Well, Lincoln loved the rifle, the Marines present loved the rifle, some Navy officers tried it and they loved the rifle as well. So, Spencer got his contract. Ironically the Naval Services got a great gun before the Army did!
Firelock76ell, Lincoln loved the rifle, the Marines present loved the rifle, some Navy officers tried it and they loved the rifle as well. So, Spencer got his contract.
Thanks for the story. I've certainly heard of the Spencer repeating rifle but I never hear about how Abe learned about it. I know that he very actively searched for better weapons so it all makes sense.
With regard to his remark about "the kind of help I'VE got," do you think he was referring to Seward? It is no surprise to learn that Seward was a snob but once they got to know each other Lincoln and Seward seem to have worked well together. However, Lincoln was pretty unhappy with some of his generals.
As I understand it, the concern about nominating him was that he was an abolitionist. Abolitionism was really a social movement rather than a political movement and many Republicans regarded abolitionists as rolling cannons, people who could do a lot of harm with intemperate rhetoric and could not do any good at all. As Lincoln pointed out, while slavery was a moral wrong it was also a legal right under the US Constitution and the legality of slavery had to be respected. And it was respected up until very late into the war when the 13th Amendment was passed.
The topic of the adequacy of Confederate railroads has been discussed. However, I think Christopher Gabel (who has been mentioned for Railroad Generalship in the Civil War) sheds more light on it with a second article, Rails to Oblivion. http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gabel6.pdf
Gabel argues that at the beginning of the war the Confederate rail system was quite good for its time, was used by the Confederacy and worked well. However, as time went on it became increasingly worn down. By 1864 little was left of it. The Confederates simply ran their railroads into the ground and ignored repairing them or maintaining them. That was the real problem.
Glad you liked the story John! I suppose Lincoln was refering to his generals, he hadn't found a war-winner yet.
And yes, once Seward realized Lincoln was a LOT more intelligent than he let on, he got along just fine with him. Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, didn't think much of Lincoln either at the beginning but turned into one of his biggest fans.
Hiding his light under a bushel was a favorite Lincoln tactic. A great way to get his opponents to underestimate him.
Firelock76And yes, once Seward realized Lincoln was a LOT more intelligent than he let on, he got along just fine with him.
I agree, Wayne.
But I think that is a tribute to Seward also. Despite being Republican and an abolitionist Seward worked well with southern Democrats, especially with Jefferson Davis who led them. At the War's beginning he really wanted to come to terms with the Confederates and have a mutual agreement that would have allowed them their own country. He really had to change his whole position because of Abe and he did so quite gracefully.
Today no one takes seriously Horace Greely's argument that we should say to the Confederates "Errant sisters, go in peace." But in those days a lot of people did. Lincoln, of course, would have none of it.
Well John, at the beginning a lot of people up North were more than willing to "let the errant sisters go in peace." The average Yankee though secession was a shame, but wasn't willing to go to war to force the seceded states back in the Union. Some Abolitionists were furious the slave states were out of their "power", fo lack of a better term, but more Abolitionists felt "good riddance!"
The firing on Fort Sumter changed all that, of course. What was an act of questionable constitutionality, and remember a lot of people, North or South, couldn't decide if secession was legal or not, became an act of flat-out rebellion, an insult to the rest of the United States and an act of agression that could not stand. Without that attack Lincoln couldn't have taken the country to war no matter what his opinion of secession, the rest of the country wouldn't have supported him. Remember, no mandate.
Firing on Fort Sumter was the dumbest thing the Confederates could have done.
PS: Anyone else want to weigh in on this? I'd hate to see this thread turn into the "John WR and Firelock 76 Show." Or maybe it's gone as far as it should.
Firelock76:
"PS: Anyone else want to weigh in on this? I'd hate to see this thread turn into the "John WR and Firelock 76 Show." Or maybe it's gone as far as it should. "
Go ahead. I'm enjoying the discussion.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Firelock76 Well John, at the beginning a lot of people up North were more than willing to "let the errant sisters go in peace." The average Yankee though secession was a shame, but wasn't willing to go to war to force the seceded states back in the Union. Some Abolitionists were furious the slave states were out of their "power", fo lack of a better term, but more Abolitionists felt "good riddance!" The firing on Fort Sumter changed all that, of course. What was an act of questionable constitutionality, and remember a lot of people, North or South, couldn't decide if secession was legal or not, became an act of flat-out rebellion, an insult to the rest of the United States and an act of agression that could not stand. Without that attack Lincoln couldn't have taken the country to war no matter what his opinion of secession, the rest of the country wouldn't have supported him. Remember, no mandate. Firing on Fort Sumter was the dumbest thing the Confederates could have done. Wayne PS: Anyone else want to weigh in on this? I'd hate to see this thread turn into the "John WR and Firelock 76 Show." Or maybe it's gone as far as it should.
Fort Sumter & Pearl Harbor - tactical victories for the agressors, the ultimate in strategic mistakes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bingo, BaltACD! You could throw 9/11 into that group as well.
There is no way I can improve on Balt's analysis or his writing style about Fort Sumpter.
With regard to the legality of secession, the Confederates might have chosen a legal action to claim the right. The Chief Justice was Roger Taney and I think it is likely they would have won and been home free. Had they lost they still could have seceeded.
Rather than a legal solution the Confederacy chose a political solution. Ultimately they were unable to prevail.
To continue in the vein of non-railroad posts on this thread, some time back there was mention made of Confederate troops who ran out of lead ammunition during the Second Battle of Manassas and had to resort to using local ammunition they found lying on the ground, until they were succored by fresh troops--I learned yesterday that it was men in a Louisiana regiment who were so resourceful.
Johnny
Deggesty, there's a story about those rock-throwin' Louisianians, probably apocryphal. The Yanks on the recieving end were furious and started yelling "HEY REBS! QUIT IT! SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET HURT AROUND HERE!"
Combat soldiers can put up with a lot of things, but throwing rocks? Oooh, that's playing dirty!
DeggestyConfederate troops who ran out of lead ammunition during the Second Battle of Manassas and had to resort to using local ammunition they found lying on the ground,
At Gettysburg Joshua Chamberlain's 20th Maine Infantry were on the left flank of the Union line on LIttle Roundtop. It was a difficult position to hold. The Confederates knew it and made repeated assaults. Finally the 20th out of ammunition. Chamberlain ordered his men to fix bayonets and repel the Confederate charge. They did. Without it left flank protected the Union Army would have suffered large losses.
Firelock76 Deggesty, there's a story about those rock-throwin' Louisianians, probably apocryphal. The Yanks on the recieving end were furious and started yelling "HEY REBS! QUIT IT! SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET HURT AROUND HERE!" Combat soldiers can put up with a lot of things, but throwing rocks? Oooh, that's playing dirty!
Northern manufacturers' demands for import duties were another source of friction. It reflected different economic systems. The Confederate economy was export agricultural commodities to Europe and import manufactured goods.
The Northern rail network reflected a wide distribution by rail. It has been mentioned the South's rail system reflected run to the nearest port.
Did the South use coastal shipping more for internal trade than the North. Port to port and then rail to the interior. If so, the North's naval blockade would have been doubly crippling.
Firelock76 Well John, at the beginning a lot of people up North were more than willing to "let the errant sisters go in peace." The average Yankee thought secession was a shame, but wasn't willing to go to war to force the seceded states back in the Union. Some Abolitionists were furious the slave states were out of their "power", fo lack of a better term, but more Abolitionists felt "good riddance!"
Well John, at the beginning a lot of people up North were more than willing to "let the errant sisters go in peace." The average Yankee thought secession was a shame, but wasn't willing to go to war to force the seceded states back in the Union. Some Abolitionists were furious the slave states were out of their "power", fo lack of a better term, but more Abolitionists felt "good riddance!"
This begs the question, "What if there had never been a Civil War?"
A book was written pondering what would have happened if the South had won the war, but what if the south quietly went their way?
One might assume some initial animosity, but might the two countries have eventually forged a working relationship, a la US & Canada?
Extending the expansion of the country, would the Mason-Dixon Line have been essentially extended on westward? Or might Texas have become it's own country (again). The book surmises that our west coast might have even come under the control of Russia, although I suspect Mexico would have been the more likely candidate.
Keeping the railroad involved, one could also ponder whether the transcon would have been built, or if it would have been done differently.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 This begs the question, "What if there had never been a Civil War?" A book was written pondering what would have happened if the South had won the war, but what if the south quietly went their way?
I have some things to say on these subjects.
I don't think it's really appropriate to speak of the South 'winning' the war. What they understood, rightly I think, is that a diplomatic recognition of the CSA as a nation, by enough legitimate governments, would lead to a negotiated settlement... perhaps even the sort of doublethink and 'containment' that typified our relations with "Nationalist China" all those years before Nixon. Yes, there would have been trade between the two nations, perhaps even on a preferred basis; it would be in both countries' interest to do so. Fair to assume your continuation of the Mason-Dixon line, and I'd also expect a hard partition of Kansas and perhaps of the Territories west to... well, Utah. Westward from there might have been interesting! (I suspect guarantee of local option would have worked out better than in Bloody Kansas, if for no other reason than knee-jerk return of slaves would no longer be Northern policy...)
Meanwhile, the 'elephant in the room' is that all that would have been required to preclude the 'Civil War' would be a continuance of Southern influence over the institutions of the United States. People tend to forget WHY the Dred Scott decision doesn't represent some weird anomaly in an otherwise-freedom-loving nation...
As previously noted, anything by the Democrats to pull together would have forestalled Lincoln's election -- which was almost certainly the trigger that led South Carolina to take the steps it did.
Also pays to remember that it was some *Northern* states rumbling about secession in the early 1850s -- remember Boston and the resistance to enforcing the (again, legal U.S. law at the time) Fugitive Slave law? Be interesting to see how THAT would bounce -- the North leaving the 'United States' to Southern interests, and seeking its own path -- including westward to the Pacific as Connecticut declared its right to do (a cause of the Yankee-Pennamite war - but I digress...)
A question associated with this involves "what if the Whigs hadn't been destroyed as a party" in the 1840s. Think for a bit about what would have changed, and how.
I would think much closer than that, particularly if there hadn't been as much bloodshed or cost -- say, via British intervention by 1862. One thing the South would bridle at, sooner rather than later, would be its being used as a pawn or tool of British hegemony, and I would suspect mutual trade agreements and cooperative ventures, including 'multinational corporations' devoid of carpetbagging, would have become the 'norm' for internal trade.
We'll leave out the "S-word" in deference to our hosts, but as I've said I would expect it to die away comparatively peacefully, for a number of reasons. Might also have avoided the bitter-backlash racism that the 'defeated South' nurtured and clung to for so long...
... might Texas have become it's own country (again).
Why? It would have been a powerful state in the CSA, and would have 'defense' issues with Maximilien III and the French puppets. Whether the CSA would establish a joint task force from other States to aid in Texas defense is another question, of course.
The book surmises that our west coast might have even come under the control of Russia, although I suspect Mexico would have been the more likely candidate.
Well, Russia WAS on the west coast of the continent, and had settlements south into "British Columbia" -- I suspect very strongly that in the event of Confederate 'prevailment' any further Russian colonization would have been nipped in the bud, diplomatically or otherwise. (Remember this is only a decade after British adventure in the Crimea, and with the Mutiny still very clear in Palmie's mind...)
Mexico? Mexico?? Under a French puppet government, with gold discovered in California and the Gadsden Purchase showing clearly where things would go? Far more likely that some of Mexico, perhaps most of its northern territory, would have wound up in the (Confederate) States --- another justification for Texas to remain a State, but we can leave that argument running.
Two names: Gadsden and John Henry. The easiest way to build a Pacific railroad was, and is, via what is now the Sunset Route. No particular need to import Chinese when you have a more available source of inexpensive labor. Expect to see it built QUICKLY, probably with European capital participation, commencing soon after armistice or whatever. Expect to see it built up the California coast as far as the mountains PDQ, just as much of an Octopus as the SP turned out to be, but under nominally Confederate corporation control. Profits and prestige from this anchor the strength and legitimacy of the CSA. (Look at all the fun the Union would have with a Pacific Railroad to compete with it!)
To anyone mentioning bad blood between North and South -- ask any Tory you happen to see how THAT affected US-Canada relations. (OK, OK, Torontonians still nurture massive anti-American prejudice, and I can't blame them, but much of this is Canadian nationalism rather than a revanchist spirit...)
RME
.
Overmod - great analysis. I was just throwing a few thoughts out there. Thanks for the insight. I'm not a history major by any stretch of the imagination.
tree68 Firelock76 Well John, at the beginning a lot of people up North were more than willing to "let the errant sisters go in peace." The average Yankee thought secession was a shame, but wasn't willing to go to war to force the seceded states back in the Union. Some Abolitionists were furious the slave states were out of their "power", fo lack of a better term, but more Abolitionists felt "good riddance!" This begs the question, "What if there had never been a Civil War?" A book was written pondering what would have happened if the South had won the war, but what if the south quietly went their way? One might assume some initial animosity, but might the two countries have eventually forged a working relationship, a la US & Canada? Extending the expansion of the country, would the Mason-Dixon Line have been essentially extended on westward? Or might Texas have become it's own country (again). The book surmises that our west coast might have even come under the control of Russia, although I suspect Mexico would have been the more likely candidate. Keeping the railroad involved, one could also ponder whether the transcon would have been built, or if it would have been done differently.
Victrola1Did the South use coastal shipping more for internal trade than the North. Port to port and then rail to the interior. If so, the North's naval blockade would have been doubly crippling.
You are certainly right about the tariff as an issue. In the 1830's John Calhoun argued the tariff was an attack on the southern way of life and should be abolished. Ultimately that produced the nullification crisis.
My understanding is that the north and south did not have a lot of trade. Mostly, the south traded with Britain and preferred British goods to American ones as the American ones were often inferior. One purpose of southern railroads was to connect plantations with ocean and river ports.
Your question isn't all that hypothetical. William Seward was the front runner for the Republican nomination in 1860. He wanted to come to an agreement with the Confederacy to avoid war and had begun that process before the inauguration. He continued to hold the option open to the Confederates after the nomination until it became clear to him that Abe Lincoln would never accept it. But had he been elected President or even been more influential with Abe Lincoln the Confederacy could have just walked away without a fight. Of course there would have been issues but those might have been negotiated.
What if there had never been a Civil War, and the South had gone it's way in peace? Well, it's a guessing game, so I'll keep this brief.
Certainly there would have been a continuance of the "staus quo" trade situation between the South and Europe, but that would have changed after a while. As the 19th Century wore on, and IF the South had kept the institution of slavery, it would have eventually aquired the status of a "pariah nation" , much the same way we view North Korea or Iran today. Slavery would have been seen as morally inconsistant with a nation that considered itself part of Christian civilization. There would have been growing international pressure to get rid of it. The South would have had to change or wind up as an outcast, no matter how valuable its agricultural commodities were.
Just a guess on my part as I said. The Marines didn't issue me a crystal ball, and if they did they'd have wanted it back when I left, just like my .45!
Firelock76Certainly there would have been a continuance of the "status quo" trade situation between the South and Europe, but that would have changed after a while.
Be interesting to see whether the British push to plant cotton in Empire possessions would have proceeded with the same 'despatch' it did when the urge to geld King Cotton became so significant in the early days of the blockade. Several sources have noted that British textile demand was essentially satisfied, from India and perhaps other sources, by 1864.
As the 19th Century wore on, and IF the South had kept the institution of slavery, it would have eventually aquired the status of a "pariah nation" , much the same way we view North Korea or Iran today.
You may recall that one of the reasons for the 'brilliance' of the Emancipation Proclamation was that Britain had only abolished slavery in 1835. I am by no means of the opinion that 'enlightened British opinion, etc.' would have acted as a push to abolish slavery in the CSA -- remember it was written in as a constitutional right. We certainly have a more recent example of British 'attitude' in the run-up to the apartheid regime in South Africa, don't you think?
I have said before that I would think 'wage slavery' and general yellow-doggedness would have supplanted slavery extensively, as (a bit like sharecropping) it removes any particular obligation on the part of the 'master' to care for or even provide living conditions for the 'workers' -- and reduce effective out-of-pocket costs while so doing (if experience in New England mills was any guide!) You'd neatly address any particular fear of 'servile insurrection' (one of the great Unspoken Terrors Of The South, if you know where to look to find it expressed) by putting any 'difference of opinion' squarely into that delicious 'Socialist' middle-ground that led to typical strike-breaking use of State power... completely 'legitimately' instead of being racially based.
Slavery would have been seen as morally inconsistant with a nation that considered itself part of Christian civilization.
You seem to have forgotten (unsurprisingly, because it's been well-covered-up by apologists!) the very well-honed "Christian" theology justifying the peculiar institution. Fully Biblical in both old and new testaments. Rationalization via the children of Ham and all that. It's interesting, if a bit frightening, to watch how this evolved during the period from 1808 to the late 1840s when the 'peculiar' form of chattel slavery was developing in the South.
There would have been growing international pressure to get rid of it.
From whom that would have mattered to the Confederate Government? France? Germany? the remaining United States? The phrase 'full of sound and fury...' comes to mind. Do you honestly think that in the period after the 1860s there was a nation or consortium of nations that would have effectively boycotted Southern trade in order to secure abolition? (Individual voices, yes. Individual politicians, yes. Effective directed action 'for the continuation of speechifying by other means' -- far less so.
The South would have had to change or wind up as an outcast, no matter how valuable its agricultural commodities were.
Would they have cared any more than the South Africans did?
I really don't see Southern attitudes changing much -- after all, there's a well-established history of racial discrimination AFTER Radical Reconstruction and effective demolition of the industrial and transportation base in the South. You're talking a 'ruling' or 'influential' class that in large part honestly had convinced themselves that they were racially superior to everyone else. Fix THAT with 'enlightened world opinion' or whatever...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.