In the few decades or so leading up to the Civil War DC did pretty much anything to keep the South from raising to much of a fuss. The Missouri Compromise, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, The Fugitive Slave Act, Dredd Scott. All in an attempt to keep the country from tearing itself apart. In the end however, it failed and the resulting five year long war killed more Americans than every other war before or since. However, could the War Between The States be delayed any more than it was? To the 1870s even? 80s? Godforbid the 1890s?
How long can the Civil War be delayed?
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Indeed. To elaborate, you need to establish a compromise that placates Slave State fears of losing power in the Senate while still keeping "Free Soilers" content enough with the Democratic party or a "soft" Whig party that they dont feel the need to establish a separate sectional party out of fear/frustration with perceived and actual cases of overreach for the sake of Southern/Minority interests. One possible, if highly distasteful to some, possible case of this I can think of could even come as late as Scott vs Stanford: namely, perhaps to counter the possability of slaves being brought North,present a fair accompli to Federal Fugative Slave catchers ect. the Whigs adopt the Illinous and Oregon approach to handling blacks and push for "Sunset Laws" in various states: making it a state crime for African decended Americans to even be in their states. This would allow them to arrest and handle them under their own judicial systems and create a barrier to slaves being brought in under a wider interpretation of Scott vs Stanford by presenting the South with a poisoned well of dangerious judicial precident (IE giving authority to Congress to overule states on weather or not slaves can be allowed under state laws). It would lead to smoldering disagreement on both sides, but that gives time for cooler heads to hammer out a tolerable settlement elsewhere and possibly allow Popular Sovergeinty to stick.
Following that, slavery lingers on for a few more decades until international pressure starts cranking up and conicides with a sufficent enough depression in the Southern economy that you get a voter uprising from poor Southern whites getting muscled out of work by slave labor. You aren't going to get compensated emancipation, but by the early 1900's something is going to have to give unless you want to see a Great Migration north by Southern whites, which will eventually lead to a hollowing out of the voter base enough that the House and Presidency will both be beholden to Northern interests
Max Sinister
Banned
How much would it cost to buy the freedom for all black slaves? Certainly less than making the war, me guesses.
BlondieBC
Banned
A good healthy male slave cost about 3 years wages of a semi-skilled freeman. Women and older made you fetch less.
So 4 million slaves at say a 1 or 2 multiple gives you you 4 million to 8 million wage years.
600K men killed, say 25 years left of work gives you 15 million wage years.
3.5 million soldiers at 2 years lost work gives you 7 million wage years.
Easy, Easy to afford to pay for the slaves' freedom over 25 years.
Might want to check my math. Late at night.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
A good healthy male slave cost about 3 years wages of a semi-skilled freeman. Women and older made you fetch less.
So 4 million slaves at say a 1 or 2 multiple gives you you 4 million to 8 million wage years.
600K men killed, say 25 years left of work gives you 15 million wage years.
3.5 million soldiers at 2 years lost work gives you 7 million wage years.
Easy, Easy to afford to pay for the slaves' freedom over 25 years.
Might want to check my math. Late at night.
The trick is how do you get your hands on that kind of money in peacetime,especially to explicently fund a project few people care particularly much for,there'd be a vocal cadre against, and to head off something you can only claim might happen if you don't act (doomsaying)? Any politician who suggests cranking up that kind of Federal tax in antibellium America is going to get run out of town on a rail.
People will accept high taxes, major inflation, and pressuring massive government loans out of their own pocket to save the Republic in a time of dire crisis. They never would in peacetime, and the opposition party will ride that popular dissent into a landslide victory
Most slaves cost between $200 and $2000. A slave with a trade like smithing or bricklaying might be in the $3000 to $5000 range. That is why the 20 slave law was worse than the northern conscription acts. A man might have $300 dollars for a substitute, and not be rich. But if 20 slaves cost $200 each, and probably more, then owning 20 slaves would be $4000 at least!
The ideal solution would be for the federal government to purchase all slaves and then set them free. Henry Clay suggested this for the District of Columbia in 1850 and Lincoln offered for the four slaves states in 1862, but the war was already underway. The Civil War cost, in money alone, at least twice as much what it would have taken to purchase all slaves and then give every freed family 40 acres and a mule.
Even after South Carolina and the other Deep South states seceded, there was still a time for compromise but everyone wanted an immediate solution when further dialogue was needed. The Crittenden Compromise would have extended the old Missouri Compromise boundary of 36 degrees 30 minutes across the country so that slavery would be illegal north of it and permitted south of it. The only territory that would be slave would be New Mexico (today New Mexico and Arizona) and that area was unsuited for plantation agriculture. Basically it would give cooler heads a chance to come to a rational agreement perhaps setting a future date to when all slave could be set free, maybe even reaching a purchase agreement. Unfortunately Lincoln wouldn't accept any extension of slavery and refused to either endorse the plan or allow it to be voted on as a referendum.
One of the major problems concerning the slavery issue was the stubbornness on both sides. Lincoln and the Republicans' adamant stand on stopping the advance of slavery aroused deep suspicion from slave owners that they were out to eradicate slavery altogether. The Southern aristocracy refused to accept that the nation could no longer tolerate slavery and couldn't go on as half-free and half-slave anymore and instead dug in their heels and tried to protect their own economic interests. Lincoln made the worst decision possible in his first inaugural address by basically throwing down the gauntlet and saying to the seceded states "either come back to the Union or fight to stay out". The next four states to secede (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas) did so because they refused to invade the states that had seceded.
Essentially what needed to happen was to keep the negotiations going because the longer they went on the more isolated the Deep South states would become and the citizens of said states would insist on going back to the Union. Even the hardliners on keeping slavery would be willing to let them go if slavery was no longer economically sustainable. Basically when the costs of owning slaves (purchasing them, feeding them, clothing them, providing medical care) outweighs the benefits (free labor), why would you keep slaves?
Even after South Carolina and the other Deep South states seceded, there was still a time for compromise but everyone wanted an immediate solution when further dialogue was needed. The Crittenden Compromise would have extended the old Missouri Compromise boundary of 36 degrees 30 minutes across the country so that slavery would be illegal north of it and permitted south of it. The only territory that would be slave would be New Mexico (today New Mexico and Arizona) and that area was unsuited for plantation agriculture. Basically it would give cooler heads a chance to come to a rational agreement perhaps setting a future date to when all slave could be set free, maybe even reaching a purchase agreement. Unfortunately Lincoln wouldn't accept any extension of slavery and refused to either endorse the plan or allow it to be voted on as a referendum.
One of the major problems concerning the slavery issue was the stubbornness on both sides. Lincoln and the Republicans' adamant stand on stopping the advance of slavery aroused deep suspicion from slave owners that they were out to eradicate slavery altogether. The Southern aristocracy refused to accept that the nation could no longer tolerate slavery and couldn't go on as half-free and half-slave anymore and instead dug in their heels and tried to protect their own economic interests. Lincoln made the worst decision possible in his first inaugural address by basically throwing down the gauntlet and saying to the seceded states "either come back to the Union or fight to stay out". The next four states to secede (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas) did so because they refused to invade the states that had seceded.
Essentially what needed to happen was to keep the negotiations going because the longer they went on the more isolated the Deep South states would become and the citizens of said states would insist on going back to the Union. Even the hardliners on keeping slavery would be willing to let them go if slavery was no longer economically sustainable. Basically when the costs of owning slaves (purchasing them, feeding them, clothing them, providing medical care) outweighs the benefits (free labor), why would you keep slaves?
Lincoln intended to float the cost in federal bonds.
Excerpt from a proposed amendment:
"ARTICLE-.
"Every State wherein slavery now exists which shall abolish the same therein at any time or times before the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit:
"The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State bonds of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of ____ per cent. per annum, to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of ____for each slave shown to have been therein by the eighth census of the United States, said bonds to be delivered to such State by installments, or in one parcel at the completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have been gradual or at one time within such State; and interest shall begin to run upon any such bond only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid, and afterward reintroducing or tolerating slavery therein, shall refund to the United States.
The key to prolonging the peace lies with the slave states maintaining control of at least one branch of the federal government.
First, by sheer population the House fell under northern control (and a gag rule had to be compromised); the Senate fell with the compromise of 1850 and California; the presidency with Lincoln, then came secession.
The Supreme Court could have filled the roll of a pro-slave 'veto' but the failure of the North to acknowledge the validity of the Dred Scott decision (if even just rhetorically) negated that solution.
The South would have stayed in the Union had there been any avenue still available to block a federal assault on slavery, or at least the belief that regaining some control of the federal government was still possible, but Lincoln's election dispelled that notion.
But keeping faith with the OP:
Had the North been willing to accept a provision (by legislation or court decision) that slavery could be abolished only via a constitutional amendment, and not by mere legislation or judicial action, the South may have hung around a little longer to see if they could regain some clout within the federal government.
First, by sheer population the House fell under northern control (and a gag rule had to be compromised); the Senate fell with the compromise of 1850 and California; the presidency with Lincoln, then came secession.
The Supreme Court could have filled the roll of a pro-slave 'veto' but the failure of the North to acknowledge the validity of the Dred Scott decision (if even just rhetorically) negated that solution.
The South would have stayed in the Union had there been any avenue still available to block a federal assault on slavery, or at least the belief that regaining some control of the federal government was still possible, but Lincoln's election dispelled that notion.
But keeping faith with the OP:
Had the North been willing to accept a provision (by legislation or court decision) that slavery could be abolished only via a constitutional amendment, and not by mere legislation or judicial action, the South may have hung around a little longer to see if they could regain some clout within the federal government.
That's OTL. All but the most radical of Republicans were willing to entertain the Crittenden amendments.
The Compensated Emancipation case seems to be vastly underestimating the cost of such a scheme.
At The Great Slave Auction, in March 1859 the average price paid was over $700. And this was for all categories, skilled labour, field hands, house slaves, men, women and children. And bare in mind that this was at a Bankruptcy Sale! The creditors were simply after anything they could get, the amounts bid would have been at the low end of typical, people travelled from half a dozen states looking for a bargain.
For 4 Million Slaves, even at Bankruptcy Prices, you could be looking at close to $2.8 Billion as a low estimate. The Union's entire Military Budget for the Civil War was $3.1 Billion. The Confederacy spent about $1 Billion.
At The Great Slave Auction, in March 1859 the average price paid was over $700. And this was for all categories, skilled labour, field hands, house slaves, men, women and children. And bare in mind that this was at a Bankruptcy Sale! The creditors were simply after anything they could get, the amounts bid would have been at the low end of typical, people travelled from half a dozen states looking for a bargain.
For 4 Million Slaves, even at Bankruptcy Prices, you could be looking at close to $2.8 Billion as a low estimate. The Union's entire Military Budget for the Civil War was $3.1 Billion. The Confederacy spent about $1 Billion.
I was't calling for an amendment to protect slavery, I knew that was already floating about and would not ratify and therefore not placate the South.
The Crittenden amendment was meant to protect slavery, and because we must assume passed both houses by a 2/3rd majority it would seem your assessment is correct regarding the radicals only point - of course that effort had no chance at ratification
What I was thinking was for the northern (non-radicals) to have made it clear that there would be no attempts to abolish slavery via any act short of an amendment. That absolute promise wasn't coming from the moderates mouths, and only the loud radicals were being heard. I am suggesting that if the moderate had gotten loud about their recognition of slaves as property and promised that only by amendment would slavery be abolished the South might have been willing to abide the radical rhetoric for a few more years. The key was in the rhetoric, the verbal commitments the moderates wouldn't give the South.
The likely hood of an amendment abolishing slavery had as little chance at ratification as did an amendment protecting slavery and this political dynamic could have calmed down Southern fears enough that they would abide radical rhetoric a touch longer.
Why would the feds buy all the slaves? What happens if the Feds buy all the slaves, at a premium, in any state that abolishes slavery? Assume the planters are still saavy enough to figure out sharecropping, and their calculus quickly becomes “if we abolish slavery at a state and get a good price for our slaves, and then we vote for uncompensated emancipation nationwide, we’ll be miles ahead of the other planters, financially.”
Cut-throat, sure, but its not too dissimilar to the logic the southern states had in supporting the ban of slavery in the Old Northwest: fewer competitors.
Cut-throat, sure, but its not too dissimilar to the logic the southern states had in supporting the ban of slavery in the Old Northwest: fewer competitors.
Max Sinister
Banned
Once I thought about solving the problem in a US wank TL.
1861: Lincoln elected POTUS. Southerners threaten secession. Lincoln states: "If I could save the union by emancipating all the slaves, I'd do it. If I could save it without emancipating a single slave, I'd do it too." The rebels learn of that, send a delegation who takes Lincoln by his word, ask him whether he'd tolerate slavery if this'd preserve the union. So they make a compromise: Slavery as a state right is written into the constitution, but the slave states give up resistance against laws in northern interests.
1861: Lincoln elected POTUS. Southerners threaten secession. Lincoln states: "If I could save the union by emancipating all the slaves, I'd do it. If I could save it without emancipating a single slave, I'd do it too." The rebels learn of that, send a delegation who takes Lincoln by his word, ask him whether he'd tolerate slavery if this'd preserve the union. So they make a compromise: Slavery as a state right is written into the constitution, but the slave states give up resistance against laws in northern interests.
I think that a gradual emancipation without compensation is the most workable solution. Something like "everybody born after this date is free". It would be horrible for civil rights and would mean that slavery probably lasted well into the 20th but it would be a cheap, comparatively inoffensive to slave states, and would avoid war.
Lincoln might agree to it but there's no way that makes it past the northern states.
The logistics seem difficult . . . what of a new born, born to slave parents, who becomes financially responsible for the child? If it is the planter/owner than the whole thing, regarding the free children of slaves, will beg to slip into some other form of servitude: indenture; serfdom; sharecropping.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
The devil would be in the details there though; for example, let's say a slave is born free to a slave parent. Who's going to pay for his upkeep? The Master shoulden't have to, they might very well argue, and the parents don't have any resources of their own by which to care for the child. I suppose you could impose an "apprenticeship" program in which children are obliged to work until their majority. Another detail would be that slaves in the old age are likely to get booted out in this case, or would their masters tell their children that they'd either be obliged to continue working in order to pay for their older family's room and board or (with no capital/land of their own) take care of their older parents? Or are we going to be giving land to the newly-freed slaves?
Define the last part of this statement. Because unless you get some concreate gurantees, all you've told the South is they can get what they want by throwing a temper tantrum. How long until they threaten to secede unless the Feds go to war with Mexico or Spain to get more land, for example? Or support Southern-lead filibusters? Or pull back any objectionable raise to the tariff?
This amendment would never get past. The prospect to your average voter: of taking on a larger tax burden so money can be given to large planters so that they can let loose a bunch of low-skilled, low cost competition for jobs, is going to go over horribly. Exepect the new Republican voter base to either jump back to the Northern Dems or establish a kind of proto-Populist party in response.
But they knew he was only hoping in limiting slavery in the territories. That still was unacceptable to the South. They were politically, culturally, and economically invested not just in slavery but the expansion of slavery.