US Capital After CSA Victory

The AH question itself is in the last two paragraphs, but the other paragraphs give valuable background information on the timeline itself.

I am writing a timeline for a nation sim in which the Confederacy manages to win the Civil War. In this timeline the US ends up firing the first shot of the war (not exactly sure how at this point, open to suggestions), provoking an even more stronger backlash from the border states. The Maryland draft riots end up being more violent and deadly than in our timeline, with the rail lines through Baltimore being burned down to disrupt troop movements into DC. Delaware attempts to declare neutrality in the war, but it is seen as being vulnerable to secessionist influences and ends up under a strong US military occupation like Maryland did in real life.

You can see a map of the world in 1950 (when the game starts) here. The North American nations include Canada (which includes the Alaska Purchase), the Confederacy (which keeps West Virginia and includes Maryland and other border states allowed to join the CSA after the end of war by referendum), Texas (an early 1900s breakaway from the CSA) and Pacifica (a breakaway from the US during the Civil War era). As another important note for the timeline, North America does not suffer any war after the end of the American Civil War. The Great War still happens along similar lines to real life except for a Central Powers victory and the nonintervention of the US and its breakaways.http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w289/ubermatt3/1950WorldMapv8.png

One of the issues that the US must solve after the end of the Civil War is where the new capital for the United States will be located. It seems likely that the United States will still maintain the practice of having the federal capital be located in a federally owned and administered enclave in order to help balance regional tensions. Combined with the close proximity of Pennsylvania to the CSA and New York's dominant and despised (by Midwesterners) position as the center of US finances and industry it seems unlikely that the capital will return to one of the former Northeastern capitals from the Revolutionary era. In addition the new regionalist tensions are going to come from an East-West divide instead of a North-South divide, and the Midwest is going to play a greater role in the US economy.

The US during the 1860s had an expansionist and westward looking bent, so it seems likely that Detroit or Chicago could be selected as a new capital. If fear of the UK is a major factor than Des Moines or perhaps Kansas City or St. Louis become an attractive option. Any ideas on where the US would be likely to put a new capital, and which states might be willing to give up land?

It seems to me that the US would follow the same pattern as when they set up Washington DC. They built a "model" city in the best political location (which happened to be in a malarial swamp). They would probably do so again, either to the west, perhaps near Toledo, Ohio or Fort Wayne, Indiana; or perhaps in a more defensible position, away from the CSA, in the mountains like Ithaca, New York or Scranton, Pennsylvania.

I doubt any state, espescially a new one in the west, would think getting the federal capital in their region would not be worth giving up a county or two.

Metropolis, IL. For a time, it was talked about to be the new western Capitol prior to the civil war. Losing DC would me a good time to make it official.

thekingsguard said:

Metropolis, IL. For a time, it was talked about to be the new western Capitol prior to the civil war. Losing DC would me a good time to make it official.

Click to expand...

Just as bad, especially if the CSA includes Kentucky. St. Louis is too close as well.

My suggestion would be the Hyde Park and Calumet River, or maybe further south near Gary, area in the south of Chicagoland. It was just beginning to be developed in the post-war era. Close enough to an urban area that brand new development wouldn't be hard, but not yet developed enough so a new federal capital could be designed freely. Also, being on the border of two states probably helps too.

EarlofChatham said:

It seems to me that the US would follow the same pattern as when they set up Washington DC. They built a "model" city in the best political location (which happened to be in a malarial swamp). They would probably do so again, either to the west, perhaps near Toledo, Ohio or Fort Wayne, Indiana; or perhaps in a more defensible position, away from the CSA, in the mountains like Ithaca, New York or Scranton, Pennsylvania.

I doubt any state, espescially a new one in the west, would think getting the federal capital in their region would not be worth giving up a county or two.

Click to expand...

If look at each state in the US at the time as a point and take the central position, you end up right near Toledo (weight by electoral college you end up in Cleveland; by population and you end up somewhere around Erie). Toledo's area was also disputed until 1837, so it could be detached from Ohio to fulfill the role of a district not belonging to any state. Toledo is also on the railway between Cleveland and Chicago, and has a major canal going from Erie to the Mississippi. The Toledo area would be a fine place for a new capital.

Toledo sounds like a good choice Tsochar. A new Federal district could be carved out from Lucas County, encompassing Toledo proper and its immediate environs. Then of course, that portion of Western Lucas County along with the parts of Henry & Williams Counties lying within the Toledo Strip could be returned to Michigan.

Lord Grattan said:

Toledo sounds like a good choice Tsochar. A new Federal district could be carved out from Lucas County, encompassing Toledo proper and its immediate environs. Then of course, that portion of Western Lucas County along with the parts of Henry & Williams Counties lying within the Toledo Strip could be returned to Michigan.

Click to expand...

Since this scenario is accepting a Confederate Kentucky and a belligerent British Empire, a capital on water directly adjacent to hostile territory may not be the best idea...

I like the whole idea, but in american not being involved in WW1 would not of made much difference. You're overenthusiastic about the US. By 1917-18 germanys civilian morale was at a all time low. Still i'm sure you can make some butterflys up

As noted previously, the Confederates are along the Ohio and the Brits/Canadians are along the Great Lakes. So I would guess one of the inland cities of Ohio or Indiana (though Chicago is possible, since being at the southern end of Lake Michigan it may be somewhat safer than cities on Lake Erie). So maybe Terra Haute or Fort Wayne (IN), or Youngstown, Akron, or Dayton in Ohio.

thekingsguard said:

Metropolis, IL. For a time, it was talked about to be the new western Capitol prior to the civil war. Losing DC would me a good time to make it official.

Click to expand...

...

I just had this mental image of President Clark Kent.

Nietzsche said:

...

I just had this mental image of President Clark Kent.

Click to expand...

Might not be so lucky as a President Clark Kent
http://io9.com/5198611/science-fictions-presidents-of-the-21st-century

I'm afraid your TL has serious problems you should know about:

There was a consistent pattern in OTL of the slavery side ALWAYS starting the violence, as I said yesterday to my wife, from abolitionist lynchings to Bloody Kansas to Fort Sumpter. Only the pro-slavery side wanted violence.

You'd need to come with a good reason for that to change, with a correspondingly early POD, no doubt.

They'd likely lose the eastern river states, too, as OTL.

And the Southwest beyond Texas mostly liked the Union, and would've likely stayed, because of the far better trade and defensive advantages. And, Texas would've been far likely cast our evil expansionary tastes at the far easier Mexico than the US, because we would've failed even worse than our embarrassing OTL try at annexing Arizona.

And, also, for general information it was an era of the defensive adantage except on the water that Union owned, meaning lines in the battlefield moved slowly and armies were never captured wholesale til the end, and it was a slow war of mostly attrition.

Sorry! I'm afraid you'll have to rethink somewhat.

Since many people are saying that it is unrealistic, the West coast is going to be remain part of the US. Would that have any impact on the choice of location for the new US capital? That opens up California and Nevada as choices although they are somewhat off the beaten trail.

jkay said:

I'm afraid your TL has serious problems you should know about:

There was a consistent pattern in OTL of the slavery side ALWAYS starting the violence, as I said yesterday to my wife, from abolitionist lynchings to Bloody Kansas to Fort Sumpter. Only the pro-slavery side wanted violence.

You'd need to come with a good reason for that to change, with a correspondingly early POD, no doubt.

They'd likely lose the eastern river states, too, as OTL.

And the Southwest beyond Texas mostly liked the Union, and would've likely stayed, because of the far better trade and defensive advantages. And, Texas would've been far likely cast our evil expansionary tastes at the far easier Mexico than the US, because we would've failed even worse than our embarrassing OTL try at annexing Arizona.

And, also, for general information it was an era of the defensive adantage except on the water that Union owned, meaning lines in the battlefield moved slowly and armies were never captured wholesale til the end, and it was a slow war of mostly attrition.

Sorry! I'm afraid you'll have to rethink somewhat.

Click to expand...

That hardly means its impossible for the Union to fire the first shots. Accidents happen; all it takes is one trigger happy commander (or one trigger happy soldier) somewhere in a rather vast country. Suppose Jeff Davis holds off on Fort Sumter; then Lincoln will still need to mobilize (if only because the Confederates are doing so already) and get troops in position for when the balloon goes up. If that's the case, the likelihood of an incident increases dramatically, and its certainly possible for Union troops to fire the first shots.

Delta Force said:

Since many people are saying that it is unrealistic, the West coast is going to be remain part of the US. Would that have any impact on the choice of location for the new US capital? That opens up California and Nevada as choices although they are somewhat off the beaten trail.

Click to expand...

I think they're too far off the beaten track for 1860s. Besides, not that many people live in the far west at that time. So even if you decide the POD is unrealistic, if the CSA winds up with the borders you describe, then I think the locations mentioned earlier still work. And even if the Confederates don't get Maryland, Washington will still be vulnerable to artillery fire from across the Potomac. So even then the US may move the capitol; or keep DC as the formal capital but actually have the government set up shop elsewhere (much as I hate to give Harry Turtledove credit for that series)

That hardly means its impossible for the Union to fire the first shots. Accidents happen; all it takes is one trigger happy commander (or one trigger happy soldier) somewhere in a rather vast country. Suppose Jeff Davis holds off on Fort Sumter; then Lincoln will still need to mobilize (if only because the Confederates are doing so already) and get troops in position for when the balloon goes up. If that's the case, the likelihood of an incident increases dramatically, and its certainly possible for Union troops to fire the first shots.

Click to expand...

But, an accidental shooting still would hardly be the same thing to public opinion. Lincoln, not being a diplomatic idiot, would've disavowed it quickly like with Trent, and started a murder investigation of the man responsible. That's hardly like the OTL big attack on Sumter, approved to the top.

And, the Southerners would've eventually started a real war, even if not at Sumpter. because violence is what the proslavery side DID IOTL. There was also the Bleeding Kansas that the South started, and countless lynchings, at least 95% started by the proslave side.

That's why I suggested he'd meed an earlier POD. early enough to at least make the North as violent as the South was IOTL.