Personally, I’m not entirely sure that things would be all that different. I suspect that someone else would have attempted a similar journey by the mid 1500’s or so.
I wonder about the whole disease thing - would old world diseases have spread a bit slower (having been introduced by Columbus, but not exacerbated by the hundreds of others who would come in the next few decades), maybe giving some time for immunity to build up so that fewer people would have died?
War can definitely be devastating, but I doubt any wars in history have come close to the mortality rate of the old world diseases spreading across the new world. I don’t think Columbus’ presence would have significantly decreased that spread though - it would have happened much like it did, just 50 years or so later.
Yes - more Euros would have died if the native populations hadn’t been softened. The Euros still would have won, eventually.
Genoan (Genoese?), I don’t think Italy existed at the time. Ironically the American-Italians who celebrate his legacy typically have family who would have been from the Kingdom of Naples, or of the Two Sicilies, which wouldn’t have exactly claimed ownership over some guy from Genoa.
“First off, I don’t see how someone can get 1.3 million votes and NOT get elected President!!” (Even worse, come in FOURTH!)
So, before we discuss the consequences, how does this plausibly happen? None of Lincoln’s electoral states were gonna flip. And if they did, it would go to the HoR. And, they’d vote for Breckenridge as the “compromise” candidate? More likely to choose Bell.
Anywho, Civil War delayed another 4-12 years.