The US Civil War: why was the North so adamant about holding the Union together?

[Damien Evans]

If both unions had survived, I wonder how it would've changed the outcome of the two world wars.

I doubt it would have done much, if anything to WW1.

 

[Damien Evans]

I think that Lincoln's Gettysburg address touches on this topic very well.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure"

We often forget that even at this point and time in history most of the world viewed "democracy" as an "unnatural thing" and as Lincoln says an experiment.
If The south succeeded there would be no US. I don't really think that there would be anything left of the original 23 colonies and democracy would be a footnote in history

Sticking purely to the British Empire, we have: The British North America Act, 1867, which formed the Dominion of Canada, which, last I checked, was pretty democratic.

The Australian Colonies Government Act 1850 granted representative constitutions to New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. New South Wales gained a fully elected lower house in 1856, and universal male suffrage and the secret ballot in 1858. Victoria had the Eureka Rebellion in 1854, and Universal Male Suffrage in 1857. South Australia gained Universal Male Suffrage in 1855. Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania introduced the Secret Ballot in 1856. Queensland became a Colony in 1859 and immediately granted the secret ballot and full voting rights to all white males (Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales actually allowed, but discouraged, Aboriginals voting).

New Zealand gained representative government in 1852 and responsible government in 1855. They gained the secret ballot in 1866 and universal male suffrage in 1879. New Zealand and Australia, incidentally, were the first two countries to grant Women's Suffrage, in 1893 for New Zealand and 1902 for Australia.

The UK itself, of course, has the Westminster parliament, which gradually through a series of acts became more democratic through a long process starting with the Glorious Revolution (or as long ago as 1215) culminating in Universal Suffrage in 1928.

So yeah, that's why the laughing dog. One laughing dog for one laughable claim.

 

[Loss Leader]

Economic interests counted for something. Just about everything the South produced was milled in the north and shipped out of New York. The Northern economy could have withstood secession, but those Southern resources were much better utilized in united hands.

 

[lpetrich]

We often forget that even at this point and time in history most of the world viewed "democracy" as an "unnatural thing" and as Lincoln says an experiment.

If The south succeeded there would be no US. I don't really think that there would be anything left of the original 23 colonies and democracy would be a footnote in history

It's 13 colonies, and I doubt that I'd want to go that far. But modern representative democracy had not progressed very far in 1860.

Switzerland was a republic since the Middle Ages, but it was a nice little place in the mountains that nobody thought worth imitating.

France was a *very* bad advertisement for republicanism. Its Revolution was a bloody mess with large numbers of people guillotined.

Holland was once the Dutch Republic, but it gradually turned into a de facto monarchy, and after the defeat of Napoleon, the last stadholder's son became that nation's king.

Britain's Parliament was gradually getting more and more power, turning the nation's monarch into figureheads and professional celebrities.

 

[Craig B]

I think that Lincoln's Gettysburg address touches on this topic very well.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure"

We often forget that even at this point and time in history most of the world viewed "democracy" as an "unnatural thing" and as Lincoln says an experiment.
If The south succeeded there would be no US. I don't really think that there would be anything left of the original 23 colonies and democracy would be a footnote in history

And yet, Jefferson, who wrote these stirring propositions that men are created equal, owned slaves; and the Civil War was History's stern way of correcting this anomaly. In 1772 an English court judge declared that

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.

And there being no such positive law in force in England, he declared a slave to be free, and that precedent ended chattel slavery in England.

The English parliament was even then elected, and the extension of the suffrage between 1832 and the present time (16 year olds have recently received voting rights in Scotland) has not been inspired entirely by the example of the USA. Where do Americans get such pretentious ideas?

 

[barehl]

Louisiana and Arkansas were probably the most ridiculous in terms of claiming secession since these territories were part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Their claims of sovereignty were just wishful thinking. Florida was part of the Spanish Cession of 1819. Tennessee was formed from the Southwest Territory which was a Cession of North Carolina to the Federal government in exchange for debt.

George Washington was from Virginia. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution was also from Virginia. The Siege at Yorktown Virginia led to the surrender of Cornwallis. Virginia was probably too entwined with the history and identity of the US to have it leave.

The 13 original colonies included Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. They all signed the Articles of Confederation and all ratified the US Constitution. They would have difficulty claiming that they were not part of the US.

In 1795, Spain gave up claim to the Mississippi Territory with the Treaty of Madrid. This became Mississippi and Alabama after Georgia gave up its claim and the area was separated from Western Florida.

That really only leaves Texas as a secession candidate.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there was no provision in the Confederate Constitution for secession. It's really hard to argue that you have an established right while you are denying it to your own member states.

You wonder why the Federal government would go to war to prevent the Confederate states from leaving.

First of all, Thomas Jefferson was prepared to go to war with France over New Orleans. The British tried to take New Orleans in late 1814 and early 1815 because it was a strategic asset. And, it was defended by Andrew Jackson for the same reason. It was no less of an asset 45 years later. There was no possibility that the Federal government would have let the Confederacy take the lower part of the Mississippi and control access to shipping.

Secondly, Virginia was equally unrealistic to think that it would be allowed to control access to the Chesapeake Bay. This was important to the city of Baltimore which was the 4th largest city in the US. Control of the Chesapeake would also have given Virginia control of access to the Potomac River which led to Washington DC. Virginia would never have been allowed to keep that kind of control. Virginia could probably have just given up the peninsula to Delaware and Maryland but New Orleans was the largest city in the Confederacy and the loss of the Mississippi would have cut the Confederacy in half. I don't see any solution there.

 

[Craig B]

Louisiana and Arkansas were probably the most ridiculous in terms of claiming secession since these territories were part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Their claims of sovereignty were just wishful thinking. Florida was part of the Spanish Cession of 1819. Tennessee was formed from the Southwest Territory which was a Cession of North Carolina to the Federal government in exchange for debt.

Far be it from me to support the Southern States, but did they not argue that the right to secede was inherent in the rights possessed by States of the Union? Not inherited from the previous condition of these territories, but acquired on admission to the Union.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Far be it from me to support the Southern States, but did they not argue that the right to secede was inherent in the rights possessed by States of the Union? Not inherited from the previous condition of these territories, but acquired on admission to the Union.

Yeah, but it turned out that they didn't have this "right". They lost that argument.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, but it turned out that they didn't have this "right". They lost that argument.

Yes. It wasn't a good argument anyway, but such was their argument. And slavery was abolished too.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes. It wasn't a good argument anyway, but such was their argument. And slavery was abolished too.

"I like my analogy of a gentleman's club..."

 

[catsmate]

A joke from a few years ago: Czecho-no-Slovakia.

The thing about the Confederacy is that even if they had succeeded in seceding it would not have held together. One affront and a state would have seceded from the other seceders. The borders states would have fallen one by one to the Union as the North "reclaimed renegade territories." I can easily picture one Confederate state "inviting" Northern troops in to "protect us from that aggressive state to the west."

Didn't the CSA Constitution prohibit secession?

If the North had not fought the South during the Civil War, the two sides would have warred over the subsequent westward expansion. Who's citizens get to settle the new lands? Who has sovereignty over the new towns and cities? Who has control over discovered resources?

Yep.

If both unions had survived, I wonder how it would've changed the outcome of the two world wars.

It would depend I think on if they'd become involved in the alliance systems; I could see a Confederacy becoming quite tied to the UK and eventually the Entente.

There's an alternate history book that describes the CSA surviving to the start of WWII, then merging with the USA for the purposes of making a stronger defenses.

Which one? I know of one where TR reconquered the CSA after an alt-WW1 and of course Turtledove's TL191.

Or, you'd end up like Turtledove's "Great War series" where both the CSA and the USA have implemented conscription and are historical rivals on the same lines as France and Germany.

It's OK writing but not plausible. He was consciously aiming for a recreation of the European problems in North America.

 

[catsmate]

We don't need Turtledove's fantasies for that!

Ah the Draft riots, when the New York Times took up arms against the mob and manned Gatling guns.

 

[Craig B]

Sticking purely to the British Empire ... New Zealand and Australia, incidentally, were the first two countries to grant Women's Suffrage, in 1893 for New Zealand and 1902 for Australia.

Isle of Man 1881.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Didn't the CSA Constitution prohibit secession?

So?

Which one? I know of one where TR reconquered the CSA after an alt-WW1 and of course Turtledove's TL191.

I read it in the '70s or '80s, all I remember is a Gooney Bird with the stars-and-bars on it being attacked by an ME-109.

 

[lpetrich]

Didn't the CSA Constitution prohibit secession?

It didn't, and it kept the lack of addressing this issue that the US Constitution had and continues to have. In fact, most of it is a word-for-word copy of the US Constitution of back then: Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?

There were some changes regarding government spending, and also about slavery. Its original had referred to slavery indirectly, with euphemisms like "other Persons". The Confederate one was not only explicit, it defended a right to own slaves and to transport them from state to state.

Article I, Section 9:

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article IV, Section 2:

(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

 

[Meed]

Here is a lecture by a civil war historian on the importance of the concept of "union" to the north during the civil war (starts at 6:20):

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

many in the northern states also tended to see the Constitution (and the Union it created) as guaranteeing their liberties. An attempt to destroy the union was also therefor an attempt to destroy their liberty as well.

 

[Belz...]

We often forget that even at this point and time in history most of the world viewed "democracy" as an "unnatural thing" and as Lincoln says an experiment.

In a thousand years, it might still be a footnote in history.

 

[Belz...]

It would depend I think on if they'd become involved in the alliance systems; I could see a Confederacy becoming quite tied to the UK and eventually the Entente.

Which raises the hilarious possibility of the Union fighting on the side of the central powers.

 

[Meed]

You can laugh, but I think Magyar's post pretty accurately expresses how northern Americans felt at the time.