I think tom’s analysis is astute. There was a seperate secessionist movement in California as the War began (sort of to go back to the old “Bear Republic”), but it lost most of its steam when the Union scored a series of victories in the Western territories over the Confederacy. (I don’t have details in front of me, but I recall there was a series of major battles in Arizona and New Mexico early in the war which the Union prevailed in, and the South determined it wasn’t worth it to continue to press the issue in the territories.) This is why I don’t think further factionalism would have been rampant. Had the South gotten support from England and France et al (though doubtful because of the slave issue), and fought the North to a standoff, the peace hammered out would have been a bitter, difficult process. The Confederacy’s hope early in the war that other areas of the Union would also break away (there was hope for California, and for the former Northwest Territory), but these areas proved most loyal to the Union. I believe the Confederacy would have continued without further addition from the any other Union factionalism, BUT, the Confederate big-wigs did have their own manifest destiny plan, aimed at Mexico and Latin America. A sort of warm-weather slave empire, in partnership with the hispanics in control with africans as the slave labor. That would have been an interesting turn of events.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
On second thought, I will eschew the effort on Dred Scott… I forgot just how long winded Taney was in that decision.
I also loved his justification for his obiter dicta.
The bottom line was: Dred Scott wasn’t a federal citizen, regardless of if he was free or slave, so he couldn’t sue in federal court to establish that the man claiming to be his owner was without right to manhandle him.
That’s just why it didn’t happen. Originally the South was a major player in the Union. As the North became industrialized and the West came in as Free States, the South became less and less influential. Secession was a last resort when it became obvious that their days of major political power within the Union were over.
That’s an Interesting point, remembering that Lincoln was opposed to the 1848 war with Mexico. Certainly the Confederacy couldn’t expand to the North or Northwest but it certainly could have looked West and South. The Texans didn’t have any problem with kicking the Mexicans around whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Given that the French controlled Mexico at the time, an alliance with England in the war could could have led to payback in terms of kicking the French out. The Rebs would get all of Mexico as new slave territory and the Brits would get an exclusive on the cotton supply for their mills. It was only the Brit’s hostility to slavery (not counting Ireland) that kept them out.
JBENZ: I also think the Confederates made some effort at playing the “Mexico Card” in international relations with both the French and the British; as you intimate, they could use Mexico as a way to lure the British in because of thier animosity towards France, while wooing the French interests in Mexico with promises of restoring the territory lost in the Mexican War.
Jefferson Davis, to his dying day, believed that the Confederacy would have succeeded if they had been able to get a foothold in Latin America.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”