Like the US and Canada? Yeah, that's been a source of constant tension since 1812. :)
That was the most atypical situation imaginable. Britain was the greatest power on the planet. But it couldn't bring all its force to bear on North America. Both the US and Canada could expand westward, rather than into each other's territory. Therefore, there was peace.
A division of the US into two countries would have massively complicated things on the continent, with frictions between the USA and CSA, the USA and Canada, and the CSA with Mexico and the Caribbean. Not to mention the problem with the fate of the western territories.
Not at all. The era after Lincoln was considered the worst period of corruption in American History. Big Government and Crony Capitalism were constantly scratching each others backs in an effort to enrich both Big Government and the Crony Capitalists.
Compared to what came later, the size of government in the late 19th century was still small potatoes.
Don't forget, Lincoln's political philosophy was "Mercantilism", and the 1860s saw the ascendance of this "Mercantilist" philosophy.
Nonsense. Some people like to use "mercantilism" as the opposite of some laissez-faire that they imagine exists or existed and label every government economic policy as mercantilist. Historically, mercantilism was something different indeed. Tariffs alone didn't make for anything one could legitimately call mercantilism.
For that matter, your own thinking -- if that's what it is -- isn't untouched by mercantilist concepts: trade is a zero-sum game, one nation prospers at the expense of others, the goal is a positive balance of payments. Only you give to cotton the leading role that gold and silver had for the mercantilists.
I think slavery would have eventually collapsed on it's own. As soon as the economic benefits of it waned, suddenly everyone in the South would have developed an instantaneous moral opposition to it.
70 years later? There was still the fear Whites had of Blacks. And the planters' need to control their workforce. That wasn't going away, even if you got rid of slavery. There was still going to be some form of control or repression, most likely based on race. Not very conducive to liberty.
I read through threads until I see something to which I wish to respond. What do you do? Only respond to messages addressed to you? Do you never originate any to other people?
That was the most atypical situation imaginable. Britain was the greatest power on the planet. But it couldn't bring all its force to bear on North America. Both the US and Canada could expand westward, rather than into each other's territory. Therefore, there was peace.
We actually did try to expand Northward into Canada, and the British came down and kicked our @$$es. After that, we pretended we were too civilized to invade a peaceful country like Canada, and by the time we eventually developed the Strength to do it easily, it would have been embarrassing to do it.
A division of the US into two countries would have massively complicated things on the continent, with frictions between the USA and CSA, the USA and Canada, and the CSA with Mexico and the Caribbean. Not to mention the problem with the fate of the western territories.
Now i've thought about this for a bit, and one possible scenario that I see is that the Southern confederacy could have become economically dominant in the Mid West by supplying them with goods and services through the Mississippi river.
Economic contact and profit would have eventually resulted in these states joining the orbit of the Southern confederacy.
It all depends on the money capitalization that the South could have gotten from Europe, and how they used it, but the potential threat of them taking over territory that in our timeline became state of the United States is real, and I think the Businessmen of New York, Chicago and Washington DC could see it. I think the threat of the South supplying the Midwest territories with products was one of their motivations for pursuing a war to stop Southern Trade with Europe.
Southern independence would have been also seen as a territorial threat to the United States.
Compared to what came later, the size of government in the late 19th century was still small potatoes.
Yes, but the principle of the Government acting in ways that benefits business was established, and the seeds of crony capitalism were thereby planted. Teddy Roosevelt pruned them back a bit, but Wilson watered and fertilized them.
Nonsense. Some people like to use "mercantilism" as the opposite of some laissez-faire that they imagine exists or existed and label every government economic policy as mercantilist. Historically, mercantilism was something different indeed. Tariffs alone didn't make for anything one could legitimately call mercantilism.
Tariffs were only one piece of the puzzle. There were also public laws favoring certain businesses, (such as the Navigation act of 1817, or the Warehouse act of 1846) there were subsidies such as US Government contracts for mail and shipping (going exclusively to North Eastern shipping companies) and there were other protectionist laws. There were government land grants given to railroad Industries, and so forth.
For that matter, your own thinking -- if that's what it is -- isn't untouched by mercantilist concepts: trade is a zero-sum game, one nation prospers at the expense of others, the goal is a positive balance of payments.
My understanding of trade is that it is synergistic. It is greater than the sum of it's components. That's why so much wealth is tied up in port cities like New York or Los Angeles.
70 years later?
I am thinking between 20 years and 80 years. I think the moral forces fighting it would have continued to gain strength in Slave states, and over time it would have become socially awkward for the rich families to practice it. Social opprobrium was already sweeping through a lot of the wealthy families at that time. It was becoming "declasse" and that trend would have continued.
One only need look at the progression through the Northern States to see that it was a social force that would eventually eradicate slavery anyway. It was just harder in places where it was far more profitable, but that would have changed over time.
There was still the fear Whites had of Blacks. And the planters' need to control their workforce. That wasn't going away, even if you got rid of slavery. There was still going to be some form of control or repression, most likely based on race. Not very conducive to liberty.
I think most people's plan at the time was to give them their freedom and ship them elsewhere. Lincoln certainly explored various possibilities for what to do with freed people.
It was probably impractical, and no matter what else happened, race relations would have probably been difficult for a long time. It might have worked out better, but it also could have worked out worse.