|
instead of one, and I don't think our interests would necessarily align. I agree that the U.S. would have a vastly different relationship (though there could be sources of contention there as well).
Confederate leaders had plans to expand into Cuba, Mexico, and Central America. It wouldn't be in our interests to allow that to happen, and so the U.S. would have to compete with the C.S. over influence in Central America, which would naturally be a source of tension. I agree with you about Europe and getting involved in European Wars, but we'd have enough intracontinental cause for conflict. For the U.S., control of the Panama Canal would certainly be worth going to war for.
Fugitive slaves would continue to be a huge problem between USA and CSA, and could also be a source of contention with respect to the territories as well. Abolitionists would likely continue in their efforts to free slaves through various means, and this too would be a source of conflict. Again, the south wasn't merely upset at the federal government meddling in their affairs, they were also upset that the feds didn't meddle enough (in their view) in northern states. That kind of tension wouldn't just disappear.
Although I'm sure slavery would have changed form, I don't think it at all absurd to posit that the institution would have continued through the year 2000. (The truth, of course, is that there are people in slavery today.) What form that would take is certainly an open question. Perhaps it would have been peacably abolished. But then again, if the reigning power in the hemisphere still embraced slavery, would Brazil have abolished it in 1888? Doubtful. (Incidentally, the royal decree that abolished slavery in Brazil led to the overthrow of the monarchy one year later.)
Really, however interesting alternate histories may be, there's really no way to tell what would have happened--with slavery, with nroth america, with the nuclear bomb ...
|