Elennsar
Colonel
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Location
- California
Well, I'm not entirely sure that something special would happen to Lincoln. He'd probably be regarded as a failure, yes, but that's not the end of the world.
I think the very fact that the Union fought the war and gave it everything they had created a bond between the states that would be difficult to shatter. Win or lose, the Union was forged in the fire. But if the Union hadn't fought, or hadn't fought hard, it would have shattered like a dropped porcelain doll.
...the C.S.A. becomes apart of the British Empire and slavery soon ends peacefully in the late 1870's."
It is now 1863 and the Union has been defeated. Would Lincoln be able to continue his term as President? Would he be blamed for the loss? Would he be reelected in 1865? Would he continue to live in the U.S.A? What would he do after his Presidential term was over?
Think about this though: What if the Potomac river and the northern borders of Tennessee and Arkansas (or even the Ohio and the northern border of Missouri ) had become an international border? No more Supreme court mandate for enforcement of the fugitive slave laws. Unless the northern states took drastic steps to prevent it any slave that could swim or walk could be free any time he wanted, at least in the upper South. Once slavery became untenable in the upper South the rest of Southern Slavery would have inevitably fallen like dominoes.
I'm of the opinion that, even had the southern states seceded legally (through the courts) and peacefully (through the courts), the very situation O'Buadair describes would have led to war. There would have been no incentive for US states to assist in the perpetuation of that awful institution, and trespasses by groups of patrollers would have been inevitable. Also inevitable would have been the stringing up of some of these groups.I will take that then as a confirmation from you that the Fugitive Slave Law was being enforced and working, and I'll hold you to it. Even so, the logic here is fatally flawed. "Any slave that could swim or walk could be free any time he wanted"? Really?? So slaves had no problem escaping the posses and bloodhounds of the South (assuming they could escape their masters in the first place)? Yet somehow the Northerners were able to catch them and send them back?
The 1860 census showed that 803 slaves successfully escaped that year. That's out of a total of almost 4 million, for a total of 0.02%. That's nothing more than a dribble. Even if that number doubled after secession, it would have been no more than a... double dribble.
I'm of the opinion that, even had the southern states seceded legally (through the courts) and peacefully (through the courts), the very situation O'Buadair describes would have led to war. There would have been no incentive for US states to assist in the perpetuation of that awful institution, and trespasses by groups of patrollers would have been inevitable. Also inevitable would have been the stringing up of some of these groups.
Bullies that are used to picking on people held to be defenseless do not, as a rule, react well to being resisted, with the result being incursions of TN or AR militia into free states of a free country in order to retrieve the unfree and return them to an unfree country.
That would be a cause of war.
Add to that, the inevitable hardening of the northern position. The convenient middle ground would disappear, and activities like John Brown's would have found many willing donors.
No, the deep affection for the peculiar institution, the rejection of democracy, and the insane levels of vanity by elements of the leadership were going to propel the southern states into war. Few things were more certain.
I got the impression that 803 slaves were at large when the census was taken -- not necessarily escaped that year.The 1860 census showed that 803 slaves successfully escaped that year. That's out of a total of almost 4 million, for a total of 0.02%.
Sounding like a broken record here, but I still believe that the slave-owner meant Central America and the Caribbean when he talked about territorial expansion, and complained about not being able to take their slaves into the territories. Watch the other hand.Yep, I agree completely. And I'll add to that the need for territorial expansion to accomodate the rising slave population. Where were they going to get that territory from? War was inevitable, peaceful secession or not.
Sounding like a broken record here, but I still believe that the slave-owner meant Central America and the Caribbean when he talked about territorial expansion, and complained about not being able to take their slaves into the territories. Watch the other hand.
Independence for the Southern States would have inevitably helped hasten the natural death of the institution of slavery but the "Emancipation Proclamation" would have had nothing to do with it.
lincoln's proclamation freed not a single slave. It did not apply to States or parts of States "not in rebellion".