US Politics if the Upper South transitions away from slavery

[Japhy]

An American Civil War a decade earlier would go better for the South because the North had fewer factories and railroads in 1851 than in 1861.

That is also true of the Southern states.

 

[Ricardolindo]

That is also true of the Southern states.

Yes, but the South had few factories and railroads even in 1861. The North's main advantage in the Civil War was its industry and transportation which they had far less of in 1851.

 

[Japhy]

Yes, but the South had few factories and railroads even in 1861. The North's main advantage in the Civil War was its industry and transportation which they had far less of in 1851.

Not to the extent your claim demands. The means to fight the industrial war did not magically spring up in the last decade before Fort Sumter.

As happened in the actual war the North will also benefit from foreign imports while the South is inevitably blockaded. The north may have to rely more on water transport as well. The "main advantage" was not, by far the only advantages the North had. The war will presumably look different but the idea that somehow the South gains on the North in such a scenario is baseless.

 

[Ricardolindo]

An American Civil War a decade earlier would go better for the South because the North had fewer factories and railroads in 1851 than in 1861.

That is also true of the Southern states.

Yes, but the South had few factories and railroads even in 1861. The North's main advantage in the Civil War was its industry and transportation which they had far less of in 1851.

Conversely, if the American Civil War was a decade later, it would have gone worse for the South because the North was more heavily industrialized in 1871 than in 1861. In 1861, the North was still not that heavily industrialized, there were a lot of small workshops. In 1871, there were far more factories and immigrants.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Not to the extent your claim demands. The means to fight the industrial war did not magically spring up in the last decade before Fort Sumter.

As happened in the actual war the North will also benefit from foreign imports while the South is inevitably blockaded. The north may have to rely more on water transport as well. The "main advantage" was not, by far the only advantages the North had. The war will presumably look different but the idea that somehow the South gains on the North in such a scenario is baseless.

I wasn't saying I thought the South would win, just that they would do better than in our timeline, with the Civil War lasting longer.

 

[Japhy]

Conversely, if the American Civil War was a decade later, it would have gone worse for the South because the North was more heavily industrialized in 1871 than in 1861. In 1861, the North was still not that heavily industrialized, there were a lot of small workshops. In 1871, there were far more factories and immigrants.

This is a nothing statement though as it ignores that a large part of the industrial growth of the 1860s was driven by the war. And in fact that's another point in the Norths favor in 1850. The crash industrialization of 1861-1864 could just as easily been created in the same time frame a decade earlier.

 

[Japhy]

I wasn't saying I thought the South would win, just that they would do better than in our timeline, with the Civil War lasting longer.

And I am saying there is no basis for that.



The critical logistical difference between 1850 and 1861 is that Western Armies for the Union would have to count on more inland sea supply movement via the Great Lakes and the Ohio River. Meanwhile the South simply has no meaningful rail logistics outside of one line from North Carolina to Virginia.

There is no reason at all to claim that the Norths comparative weakness and the Souths comparative weaknesses tilt at all in the favor of the rebellion.

 

[Ricardolindo]

This is a nothing statement though as it ignores that a large part of the industrial growth of the 1860s was driven by the war. And in fact that's another point in the Norths favor in 1850. The crash industrialization of 1861-1864 could just as easily been created in the same time frame a decade earlier.

And I am saying there is no basis for that.

View attachment 64781

The critical logistical difference between 1850 and 1861 is that Western Armies for the Union would have to count on more inland sea supply movement via the Great Lakes and the Ohio River. Meanwhile the South simply has no meaningful rail losticis outside of one line from North Carolina to Virginia.

There is no reason at all to claim that the Norths comparative weakness and the Souths comparative weaknesses tilt at all in the favor of the rebellion.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

So, if I understand correctly, if Virginia does manumission, Delaware could potentially do so as well (since it only failed by a vote in 1847 OTL) but Maryland likely would not.

Florida being two states and Texas being two states would balance out Virginia and Delaware as Free States. Kentucky and Missouri potentially following suit would become a dilemma for the Solid South politically however. Florida could be divided along the Suwanee River.

Without the prospect of Virginia joining a rebellious Confederacy, who is to say there is a Civil War at all? The slave states are even more outnumbered population-wise and in terms of industry even if the Senate parity continues.

The Delaware example may be instructive here, however- what led to the decline in enslaved persons as a percentage of the population was, in large part, a ban on intrastate sales that, along with the economics of the region, kept slave prices low relative to anywhere else in the South. Delaware banned exportation to Georgia, the Carolinas and the West Indies in 1787 and to Virginia, Maryland and others in 1789. (It was legal to export slaves to other states with a court order later in the era, but the decline had set in by that time).

Did you mean ban of interstate sales?

I wonder if exodusting to 'southern' non-state territories is possible, like to Florida territory (pre-1845) or Arkansas territory (pre-1836).

It's also instructive in that Delaware did not avoid Black Codes- they had a number of restrictions meant to keep black laborers tied to the land prior to Reconstruction (including a vagrancy and forced labor component as early as 1849). There was also dubious legality to many of the state's own voluntary manumissions- enslaved persons were simply released, without the surety bond from former owner proscribed by law, and were vulnerable to reenslavement.

A sizable peonage / black code system existing Virginia as well as Delaware could spark an exoduster equivalent. They would probably pop up in areas where individuals have sufficient distance from potential slavecatchers who would try to kidnap freedmen. But it's also worth accounting for how the OTL exodusters were from states along the Mississippi, so going to Kansas, Oklahoma, or Colorado wasn't too much of a trek. Going from Virginia to Arkansas seems difficult.


Florida closer to lowland Virginia where people would be emancipated, but is probably too close to the slave states for comfort. What freedman would want to risk being recaptured? The barrier islands in the South and Southwest of Florida might work though. I suppose there would be somewhat friendly relations with the nearby Seminole too.




Ohio or Pennsylvania seem like the more probably places for exoduster communities to emerge though. In the 1830s, there would still be empty areas to set up communities in.