Gawdzilla wrote:If the ACW was fought in 1841-1845 I doubt we'd have gone filibustering in 1848.Coito ergo sum wrote:I think that the south might have had to secede earlier than it did. There would be no way to make a compromise and have some of the Canadian states enter as slave states -- the south would have been overwhelmed. I wonder if we would have had a civil war in the 1840's instead of the 1860s and if that early civil war occurred, then that would have changed the dynamic relative to the Mexican War.Gawdzilla wrote:Russia needed money. The deal would have gone through.
Mexican-American War, I think it would have been fought regardless. The seeds were there before 1812.
The concern over the imbalance of free vs. slave states was a major issue in the antebellum US. This would have made it even worse.
Madison -- wins the War of 1812, and expands the size of the US far more than Jefferson did. Becomes a hero of the nation, for having beaten the bloody British again, instead of the miserable result of what actually happened. Does he run for a third term in 1816? Hmmmm..... let's assume not, and let's assume Monroe comes into power in 1817. He and John Q. Adams are expanding the nation with the Canadian provinces -- new States enter the union, perhaps, shifting the balance of power. The south weakens and starts rumbling.
Jackson -- does he resign from the Senate in 1825, or does he stay in to keep fighting? Let's assume he does run for the Presidency against John Q. Adams in 1828, right -- so -- he beat Adams in real life -- but, with the addition of Canada to the Union, is it enough to give JQA a second term? If it is, Jackson never becomes president, and likely neither does Van Buren.
I think that would then guarantee an early Civil War.
Now, the question becomes - is it a better thing to fight the War sooner, or is it worse? Can the South avoid the mistakes Lee made in the real war, and perhaps win?
