I disagree slavery would have ended in a generation. The very fact that post-1876 southern social system effectively cast black residents into a virtual slave condition, those "clear eyed southerners" itching for economic development would have pivoted quickly and utilized their slavery in much the way they did Jim Crow. Jim Crow was certainly not a factor in any development in the former confederated states. I think with this aspect of the counter-factual we actually have historical proof to inform us. (We can add the history of South Africa's apartheid to our evidence box).
Had Lincoln let the slave states secede the southern states would have become even more fascist and armed than they already were to keep their captive labor from escaping.
Had Lincoln allowed the secession I think we'd still have had a war. The southern (Confederate) states were as expansionary on their slavery as the USA was at the time on "Manifest Destiny" Southern politicians already were looking to expand into Cuba, Mexico and even Brazil. They certainly wanted to expand westward and did so into Texas forcing a war to create an eventual new slave state there. At some point their attempt to expand would have run into the USA's political and geographic barrier.
Quite possibly, and yet slavery was gone everywhere in the western world by 1900.
I suppose the question raised by your comment was implicitly raised in Professor Brands' post - were the "Southern States" that were so expansionist inherently that way, given that they, too, where democracies among the whites? Before the war, their expansionism was driven at least in part by fear that the Senate would become too anti-slavery. Once freed of that concern by secession, would they have worried so much about spreading slavery to other American states? In that context, they might not have wanted to interfere with the internal affairs of another potentially hostile country. Just a thought.
It is also interesting to wonder whether Black migration north wouldn't have happened sooner. Had succession occurred unchallenged, there would have been no argument for policing fugitive slaves in free states. Just as it was hard to sustain slavery in Texas anywhere near the Rio Grande - it was too easy to flee - it would have been very hard to sustain it along the northern border of the Confederacy.
This sounds like a conversation better had over beers. A good one, though.
I disagree slavery would have ended in a generation. The very fact that post-1876 southern social system effectively cast black residents into a virtual slave condition, those "clear eyed southerners" itching for economic development would have pivoted quickly and utilized their slavery in much the way they did Jim Crow. Jim Crow was certainly not a factor in any development in the former confederated states. I think with this aspect of the counter-factual we actually have historical proof to inform us. (We can add the history of South Africa's apartheid to our evidence box).
Had Lincoln let the slave states secede the southern states would have become even more fascist and armed than they already were to keep their captive labor from escaping.
Had Lincoln allowed the secession I think we'd still have had a war. The southern (Confederate) states were as expansionary on their slavery as the USA was at the time on "Manifest Destiny" Southern politicians already were looking to expand into Cuba, Mexico and even Brazil. They certainly wanted to expand westward and did so into Texas forcing a war to create an eventual new slave state there. At some point their attempt to expand would have run into the USA's political and geographic barrier.
Quite possibly, and yet slavery was gone everywhere in the western world by 1900.
I suppose the question raised by your comment was implicitly raised in Professor Brands' post - were the "Southern States" that were so expansionist inherently that way, given that they, too, where democracies among the whites? Before the war, their expansionism was driven at least in part by fear that the Senate would become too anti-slavery. Once freed of that concern by secession, would they have worried so much about spreading slavery to other American states? In that context, they might not have wanted to interfere with the internal affairs of another potentially hostile country. Just a thought.
It is also interesting to wonder whether Black migration north wouldn't have happened sooner. Had succession occurred unchallenged, there would have been no argument for policing fugitive slaves in free states. Just as it was hard to sustain slavery in Texas anywhere near the Rio Grande - it was too easy to flee - it would have been very hard to sustain it along the northern border of the Confederacy.
This sounds like a conversation better had over beers. A good one, though.
I enjoy what if history very much. Keep them coming.