- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,831
- Reaction score
- 1,625
- Location
- Miss-uh-Sippie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You're making some VERY big assumptions. The first is that slavery would have been abolished. The value of slaves had grown to a point where their value to a plantation holder was second only to the value of his land. Now if that value went down over time, it would be abolished. However, the value increased greatly between 1820 and 1860. If it had increased at a similar rate between 1860 and 1900, there's no way until the 1930s.
Your second assumption is that only 2 nations would exist. If the South had been allowed to secede, what would stop Vermont. Or say Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan forming their own Union. I also think it's very doubtful that the Confederacy stays together. That whole union was based on the idea that anybody could leave any time, so it's very likely that at least one of the States would have seceded from the Confederacy by 1920 if not before that.
Then you build the "close allies" assumption on the other 2. Unless those other 2 assumptions played out, it's hard to say that the 3rd would
So if you make a those assumptions, then no. If you make different assumptions, then maybe. I'd have to say yes because I'm not prepared to make assumptions, and things worked out OK.
I stand by his first assumption. It's basically a simple question of economics. The rest of the civilized world had, for the most part, outlawed slavery and the slave trade.....and that means many of our potential trade partners. Simple supply and demand would have dictated an end to slavery. As other nations began to industrialize and find ways to produce commodoties such as sugar, tobacco and cotton more efficiently (and cheaply) .....the United States would have been forced to adapt or die economically speaking in the world markets. Nations that we supplied with cotton and other agricultural products would simply find cheaper sources for their goods.
The Industrial Revolution was happening with or without the U.S. Question is....do you think that our free-market ideals and laissez faire mentality would have allowed us to lag that far behind by simply holding on to an outdated and inefficient method of production?