AHC: A US Civil War, war of secession, happens NLT 1869-1873, with no annexation of Texas, nor Mex-American War beforehand

[raharris1973]

Here is the challenge: Have, in parallel to OTL, the rise to Presidential. House and possibly Senate majority power the rise of a Party (like the OTL Republicans) drawing support from the northern, "free" states only, and none from the south, that panics the southern states, and leads to their secession in the 19th century, and thence a war to force them back into the Union.

The deadline for such a war to start is no later than 1869, but if you can project a plausible scenario, you could have this secession, Civil War, and political polarization precursors happen in parallel with OTL's schedule: 1861. Or even earlier.

But additional necessary conditions your scenario must conform to are the following:
a) PoD in 1837 or later only
b) The USA cannot have annexed Texas
c) The USA cannot have gone to war with, nor purchased territory, from Mexico, Spain, nor any other Latin American countries

 

[raharris1973]

Here's a start at an answer.

PoD is 1843 or 1844. Former President Martin Van Burn makes a strong run for the Democratic nomination. He never publicly volunteers his personal viewpoint that he is against the annexation of Texas, and without that holding him back, is able to secure the Democratic nomination based on his cultivated political networks and name recognition, preventing the emergence of any dark horse Presidential candidate like James Polk of Tennessee.

Meanwhile, Henry Clay is the nominee of the Whig Party.

Clay wins, advantaged by the salience of economic issues and outside of committed Democratic partisans, memories of Van Buren's association with the Panic of 1837.

Clay, at least in the early years of his term, has a working Whig majority and passes elements of the Whig program, the American system. He declines to annex Texas. Outgoing President Tyler fails to secure a resolution annexing Texas, and seeing it unlikely to succeed in passing Congress, probably does not make the attempt.

While President, Clay also declines to alter the status quo in Oregon, continuing the status quo of Anglo-American condominium, to the dissatisfaction of American expansionists.

However, Clay cannot and does not really seek to squelch internal expansion, and Florida is admitted as a slave state in 1845. This is followed by admission of Iowa as a free state in 1846. With that, parity between free states and slave states in the Union and Senators in the Senate is maintained.

The Democratic Party, unlike the Whigs, is in the main, supportive of expansion both in Texas and Oregon, and seem ready to make an issue of it in their 1848 campaign.

In 1848 Wisconsin is admitted into the Union as a free state, giving the free states a one state, two Senator advantage over the slave states. Meanwhile, for the Presidential election, Henry Clay is lame duck, pre-pledged to not run for a second term by Whig Party ideology. The Whig Party seeks its next nominee, whom I have not figured out yet.
Daniel Webster would likely be a competitor for this nomination but is not assured of winning it.

On the Democratic side, the alarmed reaction of southern Democrats to the admission of Wisconsin and loss of Senate Party, voiced by old John Calhoun in particular, turns the Party's expansionist plank, formerly uniting the Party, into a divisive intra-Party issue. Lewis Cass is the leading northern and western candidate for the President, and favors expansion in both Texas, and possible points beyond in the southwest, and in Oregon, to the parallel 54-40. However, southern Democrats, while supporting Texas annexation and possible additional southwestern annexation, recoil from annexation in Oregon, or certainly annexation of the entire territory to 54-40, or risking war with Britain , their main cotton market, for purposes of annexation. Southern delegates coalesce around a candidate of their own for the Presidency in competition with Cass.

As a result of divisions in Democratic ranks, if nothing else, the Whig nominee carries the electoral college in 1848 and wins the Presidency. Their territorial policy, ultimately, is to refrain from annexation of Texas, but to work out the peaceful division of Oregon along the 49th parallel (less Vancouver island) with Britain.

Meanwhile, in 1848, a Mormon migration to Great Salt Lake in northern Mexico has occurred, and gold is discovered at Sutter's Mill in northern California, leading to to an influx of prospectors and other migrants, from the USA, Mexico, and the world over, to northern California for the rest of 1848, 1849, and into 1850.

The Mexican Republic is unable to control the influx, and newly springing up communities make their own law via vigilance committees. The Mexican government does try to expand its troop and naval presence to the Presidios and to collect revenue, for near non-existent services, which serves to irritate local communities. This serves to provoke a local California Republican revolution likely in 1850, or 1851 at the latest.

The resulting map of the area north of Mexico looks like below.

....ignore how it portrays the US Canada border.

Mexico retains control over the Rio Grande Valley and its traditional settlements of Santa Fe, and southern Alta California, and the deserts and mining districts in between.

The Whig Administration does not entertain any petitioning from the California republic to join the USA, like it has not with Texas. Mexico has not recognized California independence and is still contesting it. And California may not be hungrily petitioning as much as Texas because of its remoteness, the lesser realistic Mexican military threat and California high revenue compared with low debt ratio given its abundant gold strikes. and port revenues.

....and that's all I have for now...

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I am going to try for something similar.

There is no Polk administration, and annexation of Texas and the Mexican War doesn't happen. There is still an Oregon settlement, but Oregon doesn't become a state. The southern states push for and get Kansas as a slave state, or failing that Florida is divided into two states, to maintain sectional balance, but in exchange the status quo is maintained on the fugitive slave law. And the Supreme Court doesn't butt in with something like the Dredd Scott decision. So there is nothing like the American Civil War nor the section tensions of the 1850s.

The Republic of Texas survives until Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte becomes President of France. His OTL foreign policy was somewhat random, and he takes an interest in Texas and it becomes a French client state. The Second Empire underwrites Texas financially, so the republic survives. As a result, France is much more active in the Americas and their Mexican client state lasts longer.

Due to the normal swings of politics, an expansionist administration takes power in the USA in the 1860s, and gets into a war with either or both France and Spain. This is successful, with Prussia allied to the USA and Russia keeping Britain from joining in, and the USA gains a number of territories to the south suitable for slavery, meaning Cuba at a minimum.

So the exact same sectional conflicts that the USA got OTL as a result of the Texas annexation and the successful war with Mexico happen ITTL in the 1860s, but with Cuba instead of Texas. As a bonus, the USA probably will wind up with Texas and that can of worms anyway as a result of the war with France.

 

[raharris1973]

I am going to try for something similar.

There is no Polk administration, and annexation of Texas and the Mexican War doesn't happen. There is still an Oregon settlement, but Oregon doesn't become a state. The southern states push for and get Kansas as a slave state, or failing that Florida is divided into two states, to maintain sectional balance, but in exchange the status quo is maintained on the fugitive slave law. And the Supreme Court doesn't butt in with something like the Dredd Scott decision. So there is nothing like the American Civil War nor the section tensions of the 1850s.

The Republic of Texas survives until Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte becomes President of France. His OTL foreign policy was somewhat random, and he takes an interest in Texas and it becomes a French client state. The Second Empire underwrites Texas financially, so the republic survives. As a result, France is much more active in the Americas and their Mexican client state lasts longer.

Due to the normal swings of politics, an expansionist administration takes power in the USA in the 1860s, and gets into a war with either or both France and Spain. This is successful, with Prussia allied to the USA and Russia keeping Britain from joining in, and the USA gains a number of territories to the south suitable for slavery, meaning Cuba at a minimum.

So the exact same sectional conflicts that the USA got OTL as a result of the Texas annexation and the successful war with Mexico happen ITTL in the 1860s, but with Cuba instead of Texas. As a bonus, the USA probably will wind up with Texas and that can of worms anyway as a result of the war with France.

Neat idea -

The southern states push for and get Kansas as a slave state,

So maybe without Texas annexation or other immediate southwest prospects the southerners push for the end of the 36-30 limit earlier than OTL, rather than later? Interesting. Sort of an earlier demand for a Kansas-Nebraska Act. Could mobilize Free Soiler sentiment earlier.

or failing that Florida is divided into two states,

Always a available as a last resort, and more "reliable" for slavery if done to a Deep South state rather than hiving off the mountain portion of an upper south state like western Virginia, western NC, or eastern Tennessee.

So the exact same sectional conflicts that the USA got OTL as a result of the Texas annexation and the successful war with Mexico happen ITTL in the 1860s, but with Cuba instead of Texas. As a bonus, the USA probably will wind up with Texas and that can of worms anyway as a result of the war with France.

You know, if the US expansionist conflict is just with Spain and the prizes won are just Spanish territories like Cuba and Puerto Rico, and there is not that bonus of a France war resulting in a Texas annexation, it could create an interesting situation during and after an alternate Civil War.

Supposing events have raised up sectional tensions to the breaking point and there is a secession and Civil War, more or less on schedule, the Union will try to reclaim the south. But Texas, almost certainly a republic with legal slavery, will be a "leak" in the Union blockade. That will be helpful for the Confederate war effort. But, presuming the Union can still make its historic progress occupying New Orleans and all of both banks of the Mississippi, the Texas leak in the blockade should become less relevant after the Union forces bisect the CSA at the Mississippi, since at that point, only less populous, less wealthy, less militarily and politically important trans-Mississippi western CSA rump can benefit from Texas blockade running, not Lee and Johnson's Armies and Jeff Davis' central government to the east.

As Union forces strengthen their occupation of Louisiana, the Texans will also probably become more circumspect in their behavior and cooperation with the CSA. Toward the end of the war, as the CSA cause begins to appear hopeless, many, many Confederate troops and politicians and leading citizens may be inclined to flee to Texas with as much of their property as they can carry. Texas, with plenty of land, will be grateful for militarily useful manpower and labor power, to help definitively defeat the Comanche threat and guard against any potential resurgent Mexican or US threats.

When occupying the south, the US may be inclined to sentence some of the most hated, resented CSA figures to exile in Texas, or offer to commute anyone under threat of prosecution or sentencing for rebellion related crimes who is willing to move to Texas. Perhaps many would voluntarily prefer to live under a Texan legal slavery and white supremacy regime rather than radical reconstruction governments that on paper adhere to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment.

It is not at all guaranteed, but by giving ex-Confederates an "escape valve" to a congenial regime, although one where post-occupation, they cannot drag slaves anymore, it may dampen determine to fight and resist Reconstruction in each and every state and county of the occupied south where it is tried. If the anti-KKK act is tough, and exit to Texas is easier, maybe Klan minded whites will yield Louisiana and Arkansas for instance to Republican inclined Freedmen, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

In the OTL war, federal forces never really succeeded in cutting off Texas from the rest of the world, and they tried. The last battle of the war was a failed federal attempt to cut the line of communication between Texas and Mexico. Of course, it didn't matter for the rest of the Confederacy, since Texas was cut off from the rest of the Confederacy with the fall of Vicksburg, as you noted.

However, a later attempt at southern secession changes a good deal. In general, the earlier the southern states try to secede, the better their chances if a war start, since the northern states' industrial expansion will keep expanding. I think this version of the American Civil War ends earlier. But if the Confederacy includes Cuba, that is another place the north will have to divert resources to conquering. Texas could manage to keep its independence, but will find itself having to go through with abolishing slavery to keep international support.

 

[Reisen Storm]

The Mexican government does try to expand its troop and naval presence to the Presidios and to collect revenue, for near non-existent services, which serves to irritate local communities. This serves to provoke a local California Republican revolution likely in 1850, or 1851 at the latest.

I thought the Californian Revolt happened due to the Mexican-American War. If that's butterflied away, wouldn't the revolt also disappear? Since it seems like the Mexican government would crush the revolt since they only had like 300 men

 

[raharris1973]

I thought the Californian Revolt happened due to the Mexican-American War. If that's butterflied away, wouldn't the revolt also disappear? Since it seems like the Mexican government would crush the revolt since they only had like 300 men

My thought here is that the California Revolt would not happen with its OTL timing, but gold is discovered like OTL - Johann Sutter owned his farmland/ranchland and mill and would find gold in '48, word would get, people would arrive by tens and hundreds of thousands, and a couple years later there would be a revolt.

Most discussion of California in a no-Mexican War situation projections Mexican control as very tenuous already, with even local Governor Pio Pico as dubiously loyal. But if you've got contrary info and heard/read contrary argumentation, fire away with it.

In the OTL war, federal forces never really succeeded in cutting off Texas from the rest of the world, and they tried. The last battle of the war was a failed federal attempt to cut the line of communication between Texas and Mexico. Of course, it didn't matter for the rest of the Confederacy, since Texas was cut off from the rest of the Confederacy with the fall of Vicksburg, as you noted.

Yeah, in an ATL of Civil War where Texas was never a state and not involved as a belligerent, cutting it off from Mexico would never be an issue. Texas would have have long border with southern pro-slavery areas west of the Mississippi that would be a gaping hole in the blockade and would be painful and inefficient to garrison and "seal up" with Union troops, but bisecting the CSA along the Mississippi, seizing the most economically productive cotton lands along the river banks and port cities, and of course New Orleans, leaves only relatively unimportant CSA rural areas and small left over to the west to receive goods through the Texas blockade hole, and prevents the vastly more important CSA areas and forces east of the river from benefitting from the Texas loophole.

In general, the earlier the southern states try to secede, the better their chances if a war start, since the northern states' industrial expansion will keep expanding. I think this version of the American Civil War ends earlier.

Sure -

But if the Confederacy includes Cuba, that is another place the north will have to divert resources to conquering.

Sure - more ground to occupy and cover. But with Union naval superiority throughout, it can also isolate the island and reduce it at leisure. When reconquered, it would be interesting to consider the racial and mother tongue ratios on the island, and the depth of commitment of American mainland born Anglos to remain on the island if they can no longer benefit from slavery. The Reconstruction and Jim Crow story might work out differently there from other southern states.

Texas could manage to keep its independence, but will find itself having to go through with abolishing slavery to keep international support.

Yes, while I think during the war and in its immediate aftermath, Texas could be a haven for slavery and slavers, within a not too long period after the war it will have to advertise internationally some sort of program for the abolition of slavery, to avoid international isolation and sanctions, or at worst, invasion by a Radical Republican and/or Mexican government.

I imagine that during the US Civil War, as long as the outcome remains in doubt, Texas would be accepting of immigration by CSA slaveholders, with their slaves, or leases or CSA slaveholders slaves, no questions asked. This would continue until relatively late into the war. However, when the CSA is truly on its last legs, the US government has made repeated protests about Texas accepting imports of slaves/human contraband [complaints that will get louder the longer the Emancipation Proclamation has been in effect, the larger the US Colored Troops have gotten, and the more real discussion has begun about a 13th amendment so that abolitionist leaders see Confederates absconding slaves to Texas as stealing their future freedom], Texas will ban imports of slaves to appease the USA while continuing to accept migration of Confederate whites.

At the end of the war and afterward, Texas' closure of the border to movement of slaves, and effectively, all blacks, will not mean the end of overland immigration to Texas; many white southerners, thinking themselves unable an unwilling to abide Yankee rule, will try to move to Texas, even if they previously were used to maintaining their lifestyle with slave help in the past. They'll worry about remedying that problem when they get to their new home, either through purchase, or adaptation to hired labor of Mexicans, or whatever solution they can afford.

After the defeat and occupation of the Confederacy, Texas probably puts forth a gradual emancipation program, with partial compensation, after a few years, starting with a free birth law. If including any compensation, it would be tiered to entitle pre-ACW resident slaveholders to payments only, or certainly before post ACW resident slaveholders, to save on expenses.

To keep control over labor, and assuage voting public demands for white supremacy, thorough apartheid, Jim Crow, Black Codes systems would probably be emplaced that would include significant convict labor and leasing that includes sentences at hard labor for such crimes as: "being black with an expired labor contract", "being sassy while black", "being black and self-employed while a white enterprise owner is really shorthanded for labor" and so on.

 

[raharris1973]

After the defeat and occupation of the Confederacy, Texas probably puts forth a gradual emancipation program, with partial compensation, after a few years, starting with a free birth law. If including any compensation, it would be tiered to entitle pre-ACW resident slaveholders to payments only, or certainly before post ACW resident slaveholders, to save on expenses.

To keep control over labor, and assuage voting public demands for white supremacy, thorough apartheid, Jim Crow, Black Codes systems would probably be emplaced that would include significant convict labor and leasing that includes sentences at hard labor for such crimes as: "being black with an expired labor contract", "being sassy while black", "being black and self-employed while a white enterprise owner is really shorthanded for labor" and so on.

When able to do so, and it would be easier to do so post-formal emancipation in Texas, many Texan blacks would probably migrate to the less racist Mexico and California and possibly Deseret. And if the effect of any CSA white exodus is sufficient to maintain Reconstruction level civil rights in parts of the USA, like Louisiana, the USA as well.