[Oxymoron]

Lets say, either Lincoln isnt elected, or perhaps the events at Harpers Ferry never happen, or some compromise allows for a continuation of the Union. What possible scenarios would have resulted?

Conflict with Anti Slavery Europe?
Communism takes stronger root?

Or other ideas?

[Le Rouge]

The North industrializes slower and the South's economy grows weaker. Slavery wasn't as productive as industrial capitalism. Probably a lot of slave owners would start manumitting their slaves and only keeping on hand a few personal servants while going into either economic ruin or investing in capitalist enterprises. The real consequence of the Civil War was political: the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. If this did not pass, I figure the Black population would have done a number of things: a large portion would move out West, another large group would move to the industrial centers, and a small bit would move back to Africa.

[Oxymoron]

Moving west? Hmm would that mean an all black state?

[Smilin' Dave]

If the Civil War proper had not taken place, it is likely to would have taken place in some other form. After all before the Civil War even started the same tensions had already produced the conflict in Kansas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

I'm not sure I can believe there would be large scale manumission in the South without some kind of significant push. The continuation of slavery after all wasn't just about economics, but about the social dimension. Even if you didn't have slaves in the United States at that time, you probably didn't want freed slaves wandering around either. If they did go west as Le Rouge suggests, we can easily imagine the Kansas situation above, but this time fought by the former slaves rather than free soilers.

[MB.]

The American Civil war was very likely to occur, considering the significant contradiction that had formed within the Union between the free-market anti-black liberty south and the protectionist pro-liberty north.

[Order]

A solution (of some kind) to the slavery problem had to occur, but was the Civil War a necessity? What about a peaceful seperation or some kind of agreement that could have phased out slavery over time?

[Dr House]

Slavery bore little relevance to the motivations for the civil war. The causus belli was growing resentment from the South about the tariff wall that enveloped the US, which forced them to buy Northerner goods. Northerners in reality could not give two shits that Southrons owned slaves, and they in fact made a pretty penny trafficking them. They abolished slavery themselves to avoid amalgamation, given that it was not economically necessary.

[MB.]

Slavery bore little relevance to the motivations for the civil war.

Quoted for fail.

The fundamental contradiction between pro and anti liberty forces north and south of the mason-dixon line cannot be selectively sidelined like that, House.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Quoted for fail.

The fundamental contradiction between pro and anti liberty forces north and south of the mason-dixon line cannot be selectively sidelined like that, House.

Yes and no. There were many deep differences apart from slavery. The south and the north were two different worlds by the 1850's and if even if the south was no longer relient on slaves it was highly likely that another flash point would have given the two a cause for war.

[MB.]

The south and the north were two different worlds by the 1850's

Obviously, otherwise the republic would have compromised (no doubt there is a good deal to be said about the agency of Lincoln in the affair). Anyway, being anti-liberty was part of the southern culture if I can use the Margret Mitchel terminology.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Yes and no again MB. Most of the differences were social and came down to pride. The south was falling behind economically and sooner or later it would have had to have got rid of slavery or wither, but the real problem was the south seeing the uncultured north as barbarians who were dictating terms to them. There are still many people in the US that think the federal government has no right to interfere in their way of life - which is their perogative - but when a whole chunk of states feel like that then sooner or later a rebellion will happen no matter what the issue.

[Oxymoron]

The causus belli was growing resentment from the South about the tariff wall that enveloped the US, which forced them to buy Northerner goods.

False, that has no historical basis.

[MB.]

The south was falling behind economically and sooner or later it would have had to have got rid of slavery or wither

This is not the case at all. Not only was the north suffering from an economic recession in 1861, but southern cotton chattel plantation slavery was incredibly wide spread, popular and immensely valuable. Independent of the Union's moral and legal restrictions the CSA could have expanded itself into an immense and nightmarish slave empire, stretching from the pacific ocean to the Caribbean islands.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

This is not the case at all. Not only was the north suffering from an economic recession in 1861, but southern cotton chattel plantation slavery was incredibly wide spread, popular and immensely valuable. Independent of the Union's moral and legal restrictions the CSA could have expanded itself into an immense and nightmarish slave empire, stretching from the pacific ocean to the Caribbean islands.

A dream and nothing more:

Union Confederates
Transport (1860)
Railways: 22,000 miles 8,500 miles
Horses: 4,400,000 1,700,000
Draught animals: 1,700,000 1,650,000


Agriculture (1860)
Improved farmland: 106,000,000 acres 57,000,000 acres
Unimproved farmland: 106,000,000 acres 140,000,000 acres

Industry (1860)
Industrial establishments: 110,000 18,000
Capital investment: $950,000,000 $101,000,000

The only thing that the South could match the North in was draft animals and unimproved farmland, and the gap everywhere else was widening because of the Southerners distaste of industry. A recession in the North would still leave them many times richer than the South during a boom.

[Order]

A dream and nothing more:

The fact that the Union was so much stronger doesn't imply that the Confederates couldn't have been successful on their own as a state.

[Dave]

Modern economic analysis has shown that slavery was economically efficient in the antebellum South. What was not efficient was the effects of free trade on the North that the antebellum South, due to their economic system, demanded. Smilin' Dave is correct. Conflict was inevitable, but I suppose it's possible that the peaceful secession would've been one outcome.

[Oxymoron]

Well thanks for the responces, but I was trying to get a different answer.

For all intents and purposes lets say the civil war didnt happen, the Union stayed together, and slavery continued. What effects would it have on US history, its relations with Europe, its industrial growth, racial relations.

[Dave]

The dominant question then, Oxy, is whether or not the North were to succeed in instituting protectionism. If not, the United States would not have become an industrial superpower. We would've grown into a powerful but slightly backwards country. We would've entered WWI much earlier, which might've had the bizarre effect of preserving the existence of the Russian Empire. European colonial empires would still exist as we wouldn't have become Europe's banker. If we succeeded in instituting protectionism, I'm not sure that our pre-1960s history would be all that different outside of the South.

[KurtFF8]

Slavery bore little relevance to the motivations for the civil war. The causus belli was growing resentment from the South about the tariff wall that enveloped the US, which forced them to buy Northerner goods. Northerners in reality could not give two shits that Southrons owned slaves, and they in fact made a pretty penny trafficking them. They abolished slavery themselves to avoid amalgamation, given that it was not economically necessary.

This argument certainly isn't a new one. Marx actually directly responded to this (as much of the London press printed the same argument):

The war between North and South -- so runs the first excuse -- is a mere tariff war, a war between a protectionist system and a free trade system, and Britain naturally stands on the side of free trade. Shall the slave-owner enjoy the fruits of slave labour in their entirety or shall he be cheated of a portion of these by the protectionists of the North? That is the question which is at issue in this war. It was reserved for The Times to make this brilliant discovery. The Economist, The Examiner, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti expounded the theme further. It is characteristic of this discovery that it was made, not in Charleston, but in London. Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place. When South Carolina had its first attack of secession in 1831, the protectionist tariff of 1828 served it, to be sure, as a pretext, but only as a pretext, as is known from a statement of General Jackson. This time, however, the old pretext has in fact not been repeated. In the Secession Congress at Montgomery all reference to the tariff question was avoided, because the cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern states, depends entirely on protection.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

The fact that the Union was so much stronger doesn't imply that the Confederates couldn't have been successful on their own as a state

That I am not disputing. I was disputing that they had the power to create and hold a Caribbean empire:

Independent of the Union's moral and legal restrictions the CSA could have expanded itself into an immense and nightmarish slave empire, stretching from the pacific ocean to the Caribbean islands