Abraham Lincoln is in aggregate ranked as America's greatest president

Quote: Wizard

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Lincoln let the Confederate states split off. We will never know, but I wonder if choosing the Civil War was the greater sin.

The greater sin was fighting the war poorly. Had the Union deployed better people to command its forces, the war would have been over quickly.

Had Lincoln allowed the south to go, two things would have happened: 1) he'd have served just one term, and 2) the confederacy would have turned into an apartheid state like South Africa eventually, only poorer.

You'd also have had conflicts within North America akin to XVIII century Europe, instead of the mostly peaceful coexistence we've known for over 150 years.

Lincoln chose evil, no doubt, but it was by far the lesser long-term evil.

One of my favorite alternative history books is 1632
Its a real fun read
A modern West Virginia town is plopped right into the middle of the 30 years war in 1632 Europe
The cover is kind of dumb looking but I really enjoyed the book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_(novel)

"Grantville, led by Mike Stearns, president of the local chapter of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), must cope with the town's space-time dislocation, the surrounding raging war, language barriers, and numerous social and political issues, including class conflict, witchcraft, feminism, the reformation and the counter-reformation, among many other factors. One complication is a compounding of the food shortage when the town is flooded by refugees from the war. The 1631 locals experience a culture shock when exposed to the mores of contemporary American society, including modern dress, sexual egalitarianism, and boisterous American-style politics."

In return for the Democrats' acquiescence to Hayes's election of 1876, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South to end the Reconstruction Era of the United States.

The 11 states of the confederacy in 1890 would have half the population of the Union

1890 population
11 states 15.71 million Confederacy
32 states 46.14 million Union
--------
6 million in Upper South ( 4 states Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee)
8 million black people

Quote: AZDuffman

Germany would dominate Europe. Japan would be an empire in the Pacific.

Had slavery been outlawed in the latter part of the 19th century and USA been reunited 30 years later, it is difficult to see how 20th century global politics would have changed that much. The USA would not become a world power until the 20th century.

Quote: AZDuffman

Germany would dominate Europe.
Japan would be an empire in the Pacific.

Slavery would have died out by 1880, for sure 1900. Slaves would have probably been shipped to Africa or "Negro Reservations" similar to Indian Reservations.

I think Slavery would have died out, but not sure by 1900. I'm not sure if there'd have been less of a cultural hangover without the reconstruction and the following Jim Crow laws. Maybe, but there'd still be the problem of one colour of skin having been enslaved by another.

I think a CSA would have failed as a state after a while, but would have kept going. I -don't- think you'd have had a perpetual tension along the border. The two sides shared a lot of history, and while the divide was deep, I don't think it was actually wide. Maybe there'd have been a drift over time, but I feel that some CSA states would have split off and maybe rejoined North. Texas, for example, I can't see staying in the CSA beyond the first constitutional crisis.

I don;t agree with Japan dominating the Pacific, as that implies a vastly weakened, insular US 100 years later, with not net change across the world. I don't see Japan's rise as inevitable. But maybe Hawaii is not a US domain. I think the civil war did weaken the old colonial powers... as it became clearer that the USA was self determining, and their interference was less.

That may also change WW1 (does it blow up, does it happen), and if that changes, then who knows about World War 2... and who knows if the core US industrial base that won the second world war in logistics and material would not have been there with an independent CSA (even if only for 30-50 years).

I think if the CSA had tried to create a reservation system, they may well have ended up with a ex-slave revolt and maybe even their own nation? Depopulating the south would have been disastrous. Who knows, maybe they'd have been forced to integrate faster once slavery ended and if the economy collapse?

Quote: Pacomartin

Had slavery been outlawed in the latter part of the 19th century and USA been reunited 30 years later, it is difficult to see how 20th century global politics would have changed that much. The USA would not become a world power until the 20th century.

But the US was a regional power long before then. 1812 aside, Britain already knew making war in the Americas wasn't easy, there was the Monroe Doctrine, various conflicts within the continent, the Mexican War, the Spanish American war, and don't forget why the French left Maximilian the Gullible alone and without support.

I don't see how much of that would still take place with two nations. If anything, the south would have supported the French in Mexico, perhaps angling for Chihuahua and Sonora in exchange, in order to gain access to the Pacific ocean. Perhaps they'd have taken Baja as a favor to their allies, too. Later on, inevitably the USA would necessarily go to war with the wayward states, too. Over what? Take your pick: European powers playing them against each other, European interference in the continent, trade, interference in Latin America, etc. etc.

Quote: Pacomartin

Had slavery been outlawed in the latter part of the 19th century and USA been reunited 30 years later, it is difficult to see how 20th century global politics would have changed that much. The USA would not become a world power until the 20th century.

This assumes reunification. Remember the USA was not 90 years old at the start of the war. Also remember that the CSA had other divisions besides slavery. We do not know if the CSA would even want to reunite, the chances might at best be 50/50. I lean towards them not wanting to reunite.

Quote: TheCesspit

I think Slavery would have died out, but not sure by 1900. I'm not sure if there'd have been less of a cultural hangover without the reconstruction and the following Jim Crow laws. Maybe, but there'd still be the problem of one colour of skin having been enslaved by another.

I think easily by 1900. First, there was the psychological impact of the new century. But more important there was mechanization. With serfs and slaves free in most of the rest of the world the pressure would be there to end the institution. There would still be separate but equal though I think it would have been a more gentle version.

Quote:

I don;t agree with Japan dominating the Pacific, as that implies a vastly weakened, insular US 100 years later, with not net change across the world. I don't see Japan's rise as inevitable. But maybe Hawaii is not a US domain. I think the civil war did weaken the old colonial powers... as it became clearer that the USA was self determining, and their interference was less.

That may also change WW1 (does it blow up, does it happen), and if that changes, then who knows about World War 2... and who knows if the core US industrial base that won the second world war in logistics and material would not have been there with an independent CSA (even if only for 30-50 years).

I think if the CSA had tried to create a reservation system, they may well have ended up with a ex-slave revolt and maybe even their own nation? Depopulating the south would have been disastrous. Who knows, maybe they'd have been forced to integrate faster once slavery ended and if the economy collapse?

Japan attacked the USA because the USA was approaching them in the Pacific. The USA was that far in the Pacific because we had the Philippines, which we had because of the Spanish-American war, which we had because we were near Cuba. We were there because Cuba was and is the key to the Gulf of Mexico, which would have been a CSA problem.

WWI would have still happened most the same IMHO as it happened independent of the USA, though Germany winning means no WW2. As to the reservation system, not sure on a revolt. They might have looked more like the South African "Homelands" and might have lasted near as long.

In the end, North America might look more like South America, namely a few nations on a continent with none able to get a lasting dominant position.

Quote: Pacomartin

The constitution was over 70 years old, and the South had only one moderate size city. Slavery was vanishing over most of the world

It's funny how perceptions change with
time. When I was a kid in the 50's, there
were still people alive born before the
war into slavery. There were still CW
widows collecting their husbands pensions.
Frequently soldiers would would marry
a much younger girl years after the
war was over.

So the CW was still in the news sometimes,
which made it seem not all that long ago.
It's been over for 150 years now. WWII is
the same way. When I was a kid the war
ended 10 years ago, it was right there is
peoples minds. Now it's 70 years ago and
nobody even mentions it anymore.

Quote: AZDuffman

This assumes reunification. Remember the USA was not 90 years old at the start of the war. Also remember that the CSA had other divisions besides slavery. We do not know if the CSA would even want to reunite, the chances might at best be 50/50. I lean towards them not wanting to reunite.

Japan attacked the USA because the USA was approaching them in the Pacific. The USA was that far in the Pacific because we had the Philippines, which we had because of the Spanish-American war, which we had because we were near Cuba. We were there because Cuba was and is the key to the Gulf of Mexico, which would have been a CSA problem.

You make a solid argument.
I may have to go back to a fifty year old history book and reread that part of history to see if it makes sense

Quote: Nareed

If anything, the south would have supported the French in Mexico, perhaps angling for Chihuahua and Sonora in exchange, in order to gain access to the Pacific ocean. Perhaps they'd have taken Baja as a favor to their allies, too.

Nareed is probably right, as the CSA would have probably tried to take Mexican territory to open up a path to the Pacific. It would be easier than taking California which had been a state since 1850. But most of the population was in northern California before 1900.

Quote: Pacomartin

Nareed is probably right, as the CSA would have probably tried to take Mexican territory to open up a path to the Pacific. It would be easier than taking California which had been a state since 1850. But most of the population was in northern California before 1900.

It depends when and how the south wins.

The French were in Mexico, propping up Napoleon III's puppet, Emperor Maximilian I. I'm sure they'd have appreciated a friendly neighbor to the north of their new colony. This assumes at some point the traitor states manage to get French support, either diplomatic or military. I'm not sure what the British would do. IN real life, they didn't interfere much with the lesser Napoleon in the Americas.

Although Lincoln is given credit for freeing the slaves little is made of the fact that he is responsible for in effect enslaving the Indians.

He signed the bill to build a railway across the country. It started getting bogged down because of attacks by Indians. He just happened to have a large battle hardened army without much to do. He sent the army out to make it safe for the railway workers and started the country down the road of ruthlessly clearing the land of Indians.