Avoiding the ACW?

[The Witch-King]

Let's not make too much of the slavery issue here, shall we? It was a big issue of the time, but not a cause for the Civil War (though the issue was certainly useful to the North in diplomacy and propaganda). Lincoln himself even said he would never have started a war over the slaves.

As I see it the Civil War should be avoidable in one way only: by allowing the southern states to secede peacefully.

The problem with it all was that the constitution defined the Union as a federation of independent states, while in reality the main powerbrokers in Washington wanted to see it as a unified nation-state. When the economic policies of the federal government were destroying the economy of the southern states, and the latter wished to exercise their right to leave this "union of independent states", war was made to force the so-called rebels back into the fold.

When you think about it, the process is really very similar in origin and purpose to the European unification wars of the same period. And just like those wars, this one should only be avoidable at the price of having to pass on the glory of creating a new and strong nation.

 

[The Witch-King]

Originally posted by EnPeaSea
The civil war should at least be avoidable in the Grand Campaign. By the time that the 1860's roll around, the politcal landscape of North America might be very ahistorical.


EnPeaSea

True. If the Union is by that time much more integrated, politically and economically, than it was in reality, there should be less reason for the southern states to wish to secede.

So industrialising the south and creating a more homogenous Union should be able to do the trick.

As long as the divisions in society do not also follow geographical boundaries, territorial integrity will be a lot easier to maintain.

 

[The Witch-King]

Originally posted by Mettermrck


Now, would this have avoided civil war by itself? No. Like 1820, 1850, and 1854, it would've only put off the issue. Yet, in the 1870s and 1880s, I think economic forces would've come into play. Cotton, and to a lesser extent rice and other crops, were the prime source of slavery's wealth - its what made it lucrative.

England imported three-fourths of its cotton from the American South. "What would happen", asked James Hammond in his famous prewar "King Cotton" speech of 1858, "if no cotton was furnished for three years?... England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South."

Yet the situation in say, the 1870s or 1880s was not the same as 1858. England no longer looked to the South for the bulk of its cotton. Egypt and India were being cultivated as cotton-growing territories. Slavery would be much less lucrative. What happens now? Southern slaveowners would find that their "property" is worth much less. They get less return on their crops. Something's going wrong. I think there would be an economic downturn in the South as the slave economy so wrapped up in cotton begins to decline.

Well, the problem here is that the primary reason for the shift in British cotton imports was in fact the Civil War and the resulting drop in cotton coming out of the Confederacy with the blockade and everything. So if there had been no Civil War before then, Great Britain would most likely still be buying their cotton.