AHC: Southern secession from the USA, without the Mexican war/Mexican cession as a catalyzing issue?

[raharris1973]

The alternate history challenge this time is to have North - South sectional tensions, likely over slavery, or issues related to and inseperable from slavery, get so bad that southern states secede from the USA [sound like OTL so far], but with the following proviso: In this timeline, there is no US-Mexican war, no resulting US annexation of Mexico's northern provinces/territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico from between the Rio Grande and the Pacific Ocean, and thus no debate between Slave states and Free states in the east on whether slavery should be legal in those lands.

The debate over legality or lack of legality of slavery in lands acquired in the Mexican war was not the first thing to make slavery a sectionally divisive issue, but it catalyzed debate over slavery and defensiveness and paranoia over protection of slaveholder property rights in a way that had been put on ice since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, reopening and restoring an issue to national political salience that the Whig-Democrat divide was almost designed to ignore. The debate over slavery extension, starting over California and New Mexico (then Utah) territory, spurred the limitationist Wilmot Proviso, the forerunner of the 'Free Soil' movement, which turned out to be a far broader and more influential political argument and coalition for antislavery and abolitionist folk to align themselves with than the pure abolitionism the Liberty Party represented. The Wilmot Proviso spurred southern reaction to keep open first, Mexican Cession territories open to slavery via the mechanism of Popular Sovereignty (Compromise of 1850), and later the Great Plains by the same means (1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act), and then all territories by judicial fiat (Dred Scott).

I am not saying you cannot have a southern secession in the 1860s or later) without the annexation of the American southwest from Mexico, but you would have to construct an alternate path to substitute for some key catalysts and milestones at a minimum. So you "win" the challenge if you can make a southern secession happen by no later than 1880. And you double win it if you can have the southern secession rebellion get crushed by the north and result in the forceful abolition of slavery, but within all the parameters outlined above.

 

[ATP]

The alternate history challenge this time is to have North - South sectional tensions, likely over slavery, or issues related to and inseperable from slavery, get so bad that southern states secede from the USA [sound like OTL so far], but with the following proviso: In this timeline, there is no US-Mexican war, no resulting US annexation of Mexico's northern provinces/territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico from between the Rio Grande and the Pacific Ocean, and thus no debate between Slave states and Free states in the east on whether slavery should be legal in those lands.

The debate over legality or lack of legality of slavery in lands acquired in the Mexican war was not the first thing to make slavery a sectionally divisive issue, but it catalyzed debate over slavery and defensiveness and paranoia over protection of slaveholder property rights in a way that had been put on ice since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, reopening and restoring an issue to national political salience that the Whig-Democrat divide was almost designed to ignore. The debate over slavery extension, starting over California and New Mexico (then Utah) territory, spurred the limitationist Wilmot Proviso, the forerunner of the 'Free Soil' movement, which turned out to be a far broader and more influential political argument and coalition for antislavery and abolitionist folk to align themselves with than the pure abolitionism the Liberty Party represented. The Wilmot Proviso spurred southern reaction to keep open first, Mexican Cession territories open to slavery via the mechanism of Popular Sovereignty (Compromise of 1850), and later the Great Plains by the same means (1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act), and then all territories by judicial fiat (Dred Scott).

I am not saying you cannot have a southern secession in the 1860s or later) without the annexation of the American southwest from Mexico, but you would have to construct an alternate path to substitute for some key catalysts and milestones at a minimum. So you "win" the challenge if you can make a southern secession happen by no later than 1880. And you double win it if you can have the southern secession rebellion get crushed by the north and result in the forceful abolition of slavery, but within all the parameters outlined above.

Slavery was only a pretext,nobody cared about that.
Real reason was North factories,which produce stuff which could be buyed fro England cheaper - so,they created tariffs on that.
South wanted free market,rest was History.

Here,even without slavery,many states would prefer buing from England.

P.S USA jumped on Mexico,becouse they were weak - so,they would do so here,too - unless somebody create strong Mexico.
Possible,if Some general made putch and purged masons,which fucked country.

 

[raharris1973]

I’ve heard most Presidents before Kennedy were masons. Why didn’t they eff America? Or do masons have a love affair for Anglo countries and hate Latin countries as a matter of principle?

 

[S'task]

I’ve heard most Presidents before Kennedy were masons. Why didn’t the eff America? Or do masons have a love affair for Anglo countries and hate Latin countries as a matter of principle?

Two options:

1. Because the idea that the Masons were a widespread conspiracy to dominate things is not really supported by actual historical records or events, and while there is evidence they're a bit of a gnostic cult, they never had as much influence as people seem to think they did. However, the Masons were a very popular "old boys club" for the rich and well connected all through the 18th and 19th centuries thus many Presidents, who tended to be from wealthy or prestigious backgrounds, also often were Masons.

OR:

2. The USA itself was created by the Masonic Conspiracy to act as their agent in world affairs and was so successful it took over the Illuminati to act as agents for the interests of this Masonic Conspiracy and the United States. Evidence for this is that you have Masonic symbols in US symbols, and to US' adoption of the Eye of Providence as a national symbol predating the Eye of Providence's adoption as a symbol by the Illuminati (thus the Illuminati's adoption of it indicating their loyalty to the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" AKA the "New Order of the Ages"). So of course the Mason's wouldn't mess with the US....

 

[ATP]

I’ve heard most Presidents before Kennedy were masons. Why didn’t they eff America? Or do masons have a love affair for Anglo countries and hate Latin countries as a matter of principle?

Which masons?
Becouse masons from 1717 was tool of English Crown,later becomed tool of England ,later USA - but,they basically served first England,and then USA.

Of course,that they destroyed latin countries - becouse England/USA wonted it.


But ,french masons are another story,they are tool of french republic.
And,they destroy latin countries,only if it serve french Republic.

 

[raharris1973]

Which masons?
Becouse masons from 1717 was tool of English Crown,later becomed tool of England ,later USA - but,they basically served first England,and then USA.

Of course,that they destroyed latin countries - becouse England/USA wonted it.


But ,french masons are another story,they are tool of french republic.
And,they destroy latin countries,only if it serve french Republic.

Apparently this author has all the Masons stuff figured out: Turkey's Global Strategy against the Freemasonic Anglo-French elites: the Afro-Asiatic Alliance - Shamsaddin Megalommatis

 

[DarthOne]

Slavery was only a pretext,nobody cared about that.
Real reason was North factories,which produce stuff which could be buyed fro England cheaper - so,they created tariffs on that.
South wanted free market,rest was History.

Here,even without slavery,many states would prefer buing from England.

P.S USA jumped on Mexico,becouse they were weak - so,they would do so here,too - unless somebody create strong Mexico.
Possible,if Some general made putch and purged masons,which fucked country.

Was going to argue and point out just how much bullshit this is…until I realized who I was going to argue with. I’d rather bang my head against a brick wall.

 

[ATP]

Was going to argue and point out just how much bullshit this is…until I realized who I was going to argue with. I’d rather bang my head against a brick wall.

England factories produced things cheap enough for South buing it instead of North shit.That is why North wonted tariffs,and get one.
And why England considered helping South.

You could belive in noble USA myth if it made you feel better,but not blame me when reality hit you again.

P.S Yep,i am Ming Mercilless.
@raharris1973 - masons exist ,and had their own secret plans to made our lives worst.But,they are not omnipotent,and they never were independent,only served real Powers.

 

[raharris1973]

@raharris1973 - masons exist ,and had their own secret plans to made our lives worst.But,they are not omnipotent,and they never were independent,only served real Powers

Yeah, but it seems their alliances with which states are debated. Shamsaddin Megalommatis for example says that rather than being aligned with all Anglo countries against Latin countries, the Masons were/are aligned with Britain and France and their agents, against true American interests, Islamic interests, European, Chinese, Russian. Seems a little similar to the drift of the American LaRouche-ites.

 

[ATP]

Yeah, but it seems their alliances with which states are debated. Shamsaddin Megalommatis for example says that rather than being aligned with all Anglo countries against Latin countries, the Masons were/are aligned with Britain and France and their agents, against true American interests, Islamic interests, European, Chinese, Russian. Seems a little similar to the drift of the American LaRouche-ites.

He mistaken french masons,who works for french republic,with scots,working for England and USA.

And those kind of masons of course do not like each other.