Originally Posted by KWCrazy
Had the South won the Civil War several things could have happened. A less unified America not so bent on "manifest destiny" may not have consolidated its forces in the eradication of the Indian nations. The South, having more in common with Mexico than the industrialized north, would probably have strengthened relations with that nation, increasing the divide between north and south. I think the westward expansion would have still happened, but it may have been delayed another 20 years.
Definatelty can see that occurring - although Mexico had actually abolished Slavery.
On this day in 1829, the Guerrero Decree, which abolished slavery throughout the Republic of Mexico except in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, was issued by President
Vicente R. Guerrero.
He was a major military leader during Mexico's war For Independence and as president ended slavery in his nation on September 15, 1829. In his words:
The President of the United States of Mexico, know ye: That desiring to celebrate in the year of 1829 the anniversary of our independence with an act of justice and national beneficence, which might result in the benefit and support of a good, so highly to be appreciated, which might cement more and more the public tranquility, which might reinstate an unfortunate part of its inhabitants in the sacred rights which nature gave them, and which the nation protects by wise and just laws, in conformance with the 30th article of the constitutive act, in which the use of extraordinary powers are ceded to me, I have thought it proper to decree:
1st. Slavery is abolished in the republic.
2nd. Consequently, those who have been until now considered slaves are free.
3rd. When the circumstances of the treasury may permit, the owners of the slaves will be indemnified in the mode that the laws may provide.
And in order that every part of this decree may be fully complied with, let it be printed, published, and circulated. Given at the Federal Palace of Mexico, the 15th of September, 1829. Vicente Guerrero To José María Bocanegra.
The decree reached Texas on October 16, but Ramón Músquiz, the political chief of the Department of Texas, withheld its publication because it violated colonization laws which guaranteed the settlers security for their persons and property. The news of the decree did alarm the Texans, who petitioned Guerrero to exempt Texas from the operation of the law. On December 2 Agustín Viesca, Mexican minister of relations, announced that no change would be made respecting the status of slavery in Texas. Though the decree was never put into operation, it left a conviction in the minds of many Texas colonists that their interests were not safe under Mexican rule.
By 1810, boldened by the American Revolution and the French Revolution, Mexicans sought their own revolution...but it'd take time. 1810-1821, the War of Independence, was very big...
Henry Louis Gates spoke in-depth on the subject in his documentary entitled "Black in Latin America" when it came to exploring the history of blacks in Mexican history..and being Black Hispanic myself, it's a big deal.
Black in Latin America E03, Mexico and Peru: The Black Grandma in the Closet
Mexico itself seemed to be a land that many Native Americans and Blacks fled to for refuge.
The book "Black Indians" by William Katz is one of the best addressments on the issue around. Although there were many Native Americans who had already been forced out of the south/other areas colonized and forced to relocate out west on reservations (many dying in the process of the journey)m there were others present in the west who had never encountered settlers. ....and this was significant in light of the battles happening in southern territories against both blacks/Native Americans who held their ground.
Black Seminoles are
one group that comes to mind amongst many others - with people like the legendary resistance fighter Billy Bowlegs II (1810–64) being one prominent example amongst many.
The Seminoles were a union of Southeastern Indian peoples—especially Creeks—who had lost their lands to English colonists and moved into Spanish-controlled Florida, along with independent communities of escaped black slaves, who became known as Black Seminoles.
John Horse was a powerful figure in the war that the Seminoles waged with the United States to fend off forced removal from Florida to Oklahoma. Unwilling to accept a restricted life of defeat in Indian Territory, he led a band of Black Seminoles into Mexico, where he died in 1882. There were, of course, many others
who resisted/fought when it came to Indian removal...
As William Katz wisely noted, almost all of the slaves who sought the protection of the Seminoles in Florida also left with them for Oklahoma when that was opened up. Many of their descendants are there today, organized as "Freedmen's Bands," and still living under the aegis of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. A few, who left Oklahoma in 1849 with the famous Florida warrior, Cowák:cuchî or Wild Cat, to fight other Indians in Mexico, returned to Texas and their descendants now live in the tiny town of Bracketville, near the Mexican border.”
As Katz explains, Wild Cat led the offshoot Seminoles into Mexico because politically the pro slavery group held sway in Oklahoma in 1849 even though it was originally an area many blacks had fled to/hoped to gain dominance so that slavery wouldn't be so powerful. They were so effective in helping the Mexican President Santa Ana to police the Rio Grande border that the U.S. army sent Captain Frank Perry to negotiate the black Seminoles crossing into Texas in 1870. In return for their young men pacifying the previously uncontrollable Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, United States and Mexican bandits along the United States side of the border, the Seminoles were promised, ”food, necessities and, eventually, good farming land.” ( page 76) “Seminoles remembered signing this ‘treaty’ with Perry, but the piece of paper, which soon became a bone of contention, disappeared. (page 78).
Although many who went to Mexico were blacks/slaves and Natives seeking freedom from colonial expansion, there were MANY men/women in great numbers who moved to the Texas territory as colonizers who came in search of wealth and adventure, eager to grab up the land Mexico was handing out by the acre. To those in the U.S colonies, as far as they were concerned, Mexico and anything West was up for grabs and simply needing to be cultivated...and in doing so, they agreed to convert to Catholicism and become Mexican citizens. Few did either. Once in Texas, they also realized there was much money to be made in Mexico's cotton industry. Their problem of labor involved was quickly solved through slavery which Mexico had banned.
Shocked by the rapidly rising rate of white immigration and disgusted by their use of slavery, the Mexican government started slapping on restrictions, which were ignored. The battle of the Alamo was fought over issues like Federalism, slavery, immigration rights, the cotton industry and above all, money. General Santa Ana arrived at San Antonio; his Mexican army with some justice regarded the Texans as murderous barbarians. Many of the American settlers ("Texians" they were called) were Southerners who believed in and practiced slavery. ..with them, again, seeing expansion west as a means of promoting their livelihood of slavery..
Through a series of battles on April 21, 1836 Santa Anna's force of about 1,200 was over-run in broad daylight by a sudden attack on its camp by Sam Houston's entire Texan force, then numbering 918. With the Texan camp only about a mile away over open terrain, Santa Anna had apparently posted no sentinels before retiring for a siesta and letting his tired troops do the same. The Texans lost nine dead and 30 wounded. Houston, who led from the front, lost two horses and was shot in the foot.
Santa Anna, captured the next day in the bushes, agreed to recognize Texas independence and ordered all Mexican forces to evacuate the lone star state. And as said before, it was anything but "just" in the way things were taken.
So fast forward to the early 20th century. America would be even more isolationist, given that its influence in the Western Hemisphere would be diluted. Slavery would have been abolished anyway as technology replaced manual laborers and the aged slaves became increasingly a financial liability.
There was a big need for labor in other areas - specifically in farm labor - and the North was where the Industrial Revolution was occuring. There was already markets demanding the use of hands - as there still are - so perhaps the market itself may've gone from slavery in one area to something else....
The US would not have entered WW! and the great economic might of America in the industrial age would have been slowed by increased prices of southern agricultural products due to a disproportion in the wealth of the north and south. Given that the north would be more industrialized and more wealthy, the south would have to use their industry; agriculture; to try and improve their standard of living to more or less an equal level. There could have even been tariffs imposed. Regardless, when WW! began the US would have politely declined to join.
I would think that the involvement in WWI would have required the Confederacy to develop a different kind of involvement - as it concerns economic goods with the things they had (which were a big deal) - and expanding the market to other nations in the Caribbean/Latin America or having to join with other nations/expand influence in order to stay strong (As they were planning in the Golden Circle )
Without the US involvement, the war would become a bloody stalemate and a truce would be signed. It would later be harder for Hitler to come to power. If he did Germany most likely would have won the war because Austrian and German scientists were working on the atomic bomb even before the Einstein–Szilárd letter was sent to Roosevelt in August of 1939. With the isolationist US either abstaining or acting as a bit player in a supporting war for the Second World War, Hitler would have achieved his goal of world conquest. His madness would have eventually led to its collapse, but not before he tested the bomb on the "inferior" races in the far east.
I would think Japan may've done some things as well - seeing that they got dominant in Asia in our time and in another reality may've gone unchecked without the Chinese getting involved with the Railroad in the U.S - and other places like Spain would've been able to expand power seeing that they didn't go to war with America after the Civil War..thus keeping a strong hold in the Atlantic/Caribbean and keeping the U.S from ever developing the Monroe Doctrine which led to the U.S policing the Western hemisphere and keeping Europe out of it.
