Math people: How would the USA's population differ if Civil War never occured?

[Q]

My buddy and I were watching TV the other day when we flipped through the History channel on the Civil War. About 620,000 Americans died, and it got us wondering what would the population effect be if that never occurred?

Rough estimate wise, how much more people would we have today? I could take the time to do the math, but I'm sure there are math whizzes here on ATOT that would like to help

And before we go there: I know there have been many other...incidents...with more causalities, but I'm just interested in this one at the moment.

 

[HAL9000]

Good question!

*sits back with popcorn*

 

[HamburgerBoy]

We would still have slaves and the morally-evolved UK would attack us for a third time, slaughtering all of our ancestors.

 

[gophins72]

too hard to say, the political policies affected population growth more than base population. for example, after the civil war, more immigration than natural birth caused the population to hit 100 million by the first world war. the population pre-civil war was about 31 million (from 1860-1914ish).

 

[sandorski]

too hard to say, the political policies affected population growth more than base population. for example, after the civil war, more immigration than natural birth caused the population to hit 100 million by the first world war. the population pre-civil war was about 31 million (from 1860-1914ish).

Most likely this.

 

[arkcom]

Not much different, I'd guess. Apparently half of all American's ancestors immigrated to the US since 1892 (when Ellis Island opened).

http://www.ellisislandimmigrants.org/ellis_island_immigrants.htm

 

[FoBoT]

i don't think there would be much difference. most of the dead were men. a few men can make a lot of babbies with a lot of womans

millions of sperms per man. a few hundreds eggs per woman , and that whole 9 month cooking time, thing

 

[FoBoT]

Not much different, I'd guess. Apparently half of all American's ancestors immigrated to the US since 1892 (when Ellis Island opened).

http://www.ellisislandimmigrants.org/ellis_island_immigrants.htm

and that, good point, we had a lot of n000bs come in after the civil war

 

[zerocool84]

Population is the last thing I'd worry about if the Civil War never occurred.

 

[Bignate603]

i don't think there would be much difference. most of the dead were men. a few men can make a lot of babbies with a lot of womans

millions of sperms per man. a few hundreds eggs per woman , and that whole 9 month cooking time, thing

I read an article about this a while ago and they came to the same conclusion. The number of women in a population is more of a limiting factor than the number of men. If there are excess women they can end up having kids out of wedlock, marrying a man that is a widower (many women died during childbirth anyways), or marrying men that would have gone unmarried if there had been more desirable options.

Basically, the article's point was if a woman wanted to have sex there was always some male willing to help her out.

 

[Leros]

We would still have slaves and the morally-evolved UK would attack us for a third time, slaughtering all of our ancestors.

Slavery was going away anyway. The civil war just accelerated the process by a handful of years.

 

[Bateluer]

Slavery was going away anyway. The civil war just accelerated the process by a handful of years.

This. Slavery was already a dying institution.

FYI, I can highly recommend Harry Turtledove's alternative history fiction on this subject, very good series.

 

[mmntech]

I doubt slavery would have remained. One point I agree with the south on is the cause of the war. It was a states' rights issue, with slavery being the main sticking point. Industrialization would have killed it eventually though, as slavery isn't as cost effective as you might think.

It's hard to say how the population would have been different. Too many variables. Lack of a civil war would have changed the political landscape greatly though. Canada would likely have entered confederation much later, as Australia did. So North America as a whole would definitely be different.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

can't really know for sure, war can cause population booms (lots of baby making afterwards) just as much as it can wipe them out

"When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural."

 

[Newbian]

We would have had more black people pissed off at us whities.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

black people would still be slaves and the teen birth rate might be lower?

 

[Q]

and that, good point, we had a lot of n000bs come in after the civil war

 

[DesiPower]

Good question!

*sits back with popcorn*

 

[Train]

i don't think there would be much difference. most of the dead were men. a few men can make a lot of babbies with a lot of womans

millions of sperms per man. a few hundreds eggs per woman , and that whole 9 month cooking time, thing

this

I saw a historical study back in school that showed that killing off large chunks of a population's males has almost zero effect on birth rates. If a woman wants to get preggers, she will, even if it's in a severe man shortage.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Slavery was going away anyway. The civil war just accelerated the process by a handful of years.

This. Slavery was already a dying institution.

FYI, I can highly recommend Harry Turtledove's alternative history fiction on this subject, very good series.

What?!?

Sorry, there was no indication of this (maybe in the northern states, but that was the whole point of the Civil War). In fact, the South was only becoming more of a power and it was largely due to slavery (it drove their economic strength). There was no reason for them to give it up of their own accord. It took a very long time for the South to get back to equal footing with the north as far as economic/industrial prowess, and that was largely due to similar "mechanism" as what fuels outsourcing (wherein you put factories where its economically feasible for you to do so).

Even industrialization would not have changed much. Remember all the kids they used to use in factories? That needed another drastic societal change in many ways similar to the slavery issue, in order to get past the robber barons and get women and children rights as well.

Definitely, the Civil War did not just "accelerate by a handful of years" the end of slavery in the US.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

What?!?

Sorry, there was no indication of this (maybe in the northern states, but that was the whole point of the Civil War). In fact, the South was only becoming more of a power and it was largely due to slavery (it drove their economic strength). There was no reason for them to give it up of their own accord. It took a very long time for the South to get back to equal footing with the north as far as economic/industrial prowess, and that was largely due to similar "mechanism" as what fuels outsourcing (wherein you put factories where its economically feasible for you to do so).

Even industrialization would not have changed much. Remember all the kids they used to use in factories? That needed another drastic societal change in many ways similar to the slavery issue, in order to get past the robber barons and get women and children rights as well.

Definitely, the Civil War did not just "accelerate by a handful of years" the end of slavery in the US.

from what i understand most of the leadership of the north didn't care about slavery. its kinda like how we get into wars with the pretense of bringing 'freedom and democracy'.

 

[BladeVenom]

this

I saw a historical study back in school that showed that killing off large chunks of a population's males has almost zero effect on birth rates. If a woman wants to get preggers, she will, even if it's in a severe man shortage.

But what about civilian deaths during the Civil War?

 

[Train]

What?!?

Sorry, there was no indication of this (maybe in the northern states, but that was the whole point of the Civil War). In fact, the South was only becoming more of a power and it was largely due to slavery (it drove their economic strength). There was no reason for them to give it up of their own accord. It took a very long time for the South to get back to equal footing with the north as far as economic/industrial prowess, and that was largely due to similar "mechanism" as what fuels outsourcing (wherein you put factories where its economically feasible for you to do so).

Even industrialization would not have changed much. Remember all the kids they used to use in factories? That needed another drastic societal change in many ways similar to the slavery issue, in order to get past the robber barons and get women and children rights as well.

Definitely, the Civil War did not just "accelerate by a handful of years" the end of slavery in the US.

You also have to realize that, just because slavery existed in the south, doesn't mean everyone was cool with it. The majority of the non-slave owners, which made up the vast majority of people, did not like slavery, they simply tolerated it.

Once the tiny percentage of slave owners died off or had their slaves replaced by non-human means (think cotton gin and tractor) what little bit of lavery was left would have been snuffed out.

 

[mizzou]

Interesting question.

France and Germany both seem to be doing fine given 2 world wars

I have no clue actually what the real statistics are. If you cull an entire generation or two of fertile men, the short term impact must be immense. The real question is, what did all those widowed women do?

 

[Leros]

What?!?

Sorry, there was no indication of this (maybe in the northern states, but that was the whole point of the Civil War). In fact, the South was only becoming more of a power and it was largely due to slavery (it drove their economic strength). There was no reason for them to give it up of their own accord. It took a very long time for the South to get back to equal footing with the north as far as economic/industrial prowess, and that was largely due to similar "mechanism" as what fuels outsourcing (wherein you put factories where its economically feasible for you to do so).

Even industrialization would not have changed much. Remember all the kids they used to use in factories? That needed another drastic societal change in many ways similar to the slavery issue, in order to get past the robber barons and get women and children rights as well.

Definitely, the Civil War did not just "accelerate by a handful of years" the end of slavery in the US.

Owning a slave cost more than hiring a low class worker. People were starting to realize this and slavery was already on the decline before the civil war.