The Meaning of the Gettysburg Address

[Thomas Thorne]

(08-29-2012 06:11 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  When the issues led to a war that cost this nation between 600,000 to 700,000 casualties how can one overstate those issues?

Can we do a counter-factual that might illuminate the issue of civil war causation?

Suppose that there was a political consensus in the 1850's that recognized that the slavery issue threatened the destruction of the nation. To avoid catastrophe the Missouri Compromise line and principle are extended to the Pacific. Apart from a handful of eccentric abolitionists and flamboyant Southron fire eaters, no American seriously seeking political office dares challenge it.

The consequences:no Kansas-Nebraska Act and no Republican party,no bleeding Kansas,no Dred Scott decision,no fear that the Slave Power would make slavery national or fear that a sectional party would incite slave insurrections and would use the executive powers of the presidency to undermine the peculiar institution.

Under this alternate history, I believe the American Civil War of 1861 would be the creation of imaginative 21th century science fiction writers.

But let us alter our counter-factual speculation with an additional twist. Let us suppose the only big issue of the 1860 presidential election was the economic policies of the Whig party and its chosen presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln and the Whigs call for the full implementation of Henry Clay's American System. This includes high tariffs, internal improvements,a transcontinental railroad, homesteads in areas north of the Missouri Compromise line and land grant colleges. Perhaps they would call for the establishment of a central banking system.

Lincoln and his party are swept into power. Would the South have seceded?

We can not know for sure but the results of prior and future elections give me confidence to answer "no."

I will discuss this aspect of the question in future posts.
Tom