AHC: A American Civil War where the North secedes instead of the South

Just what it says on the tin. Create a scenario where the North, rather than the South, secedes from the Union.

Are there any plausible PODs for such a scenario?
 
Have the War of 1812 go much worse for the US and the New England states vote to secede at the Hartford Convention. OTL this was not a serious consideration but it was talked about amongst more radical elements within the Federalist Party who were fed up with Madison's management of the war and the impact it was having on their state economies.
 
Have the War of 1812 go much worse for the US and the New England states vote to secede at the Hartford Convention. OTL this was not a serious consideration but it was talked about amongst more radical elements within the Federalist Party who were fed up with Madison's management of the war and the impact it was having on their state economies.
*Cough.*
 

DougM

Donor
For a while the south was starting to try (and in some cases succeed in ) passing various laws that tended to be pro south pro slavery. If this trend continued and if the south managed to hold on to its domination of the national government I think it would not be impossible to see the north start the Civil war.
The south had an advantage that I am surprised that the north tolerated and that is that the slavers counted as far ar representation went. So being as they did not vote then effectively the other white population was over represented and effectively their votes were worth more.
This historically seamed to give the south an advantage in the national government. And when they pushed the north enough that they finally got fed up and voted in mass against them the south got pissed and took its toys and went home.
If you have the south push harder for more laws that piss off the north and if they find a way to continue to be the dominant force on the national level and if they find more ways to push slavery into the north. Say they keep control of the presidency and get pro slavery judges into control of the Supreme Court and then if the Supreme Court starts using its position more like the current courts tend to to set policy as much as to just rule on things you could easily see the country split.
The problem is that if the North Splits there is a very good chance that the South would go along with it and just break the country,
 
You need to start with a series of states that lopsides the Senate in favor of the South. Assuming we're not creating major shifts in borders, A few options...

  • New York or New Hampshire gets their claims on Vermont recognized; maybe the former is done by the Constitutional Convention as a way to help get the key state to sign on/vote in favor of the new document. That knocks out 1 Free State
  • Maine isen't made a separate state, maybe due to getting the short end of the stick in the negotiations between the US and UK over the borders (To balance out the territory, lets say the US gets better terms in Oregon: off the top of my head just continuing the border straight and giving the southern chunk of Vancouver Island to the US). Knock out one more Free State.
  • Texas might be acending to the Union as two separate states cut out of a broader swath of her claims, both as slave states. Add one Slave State.
  • Prevent the Mormon Schism and have them adopt slavery as part of their culture before migrating west. Get a substial enough population in the Basin and Deseret (with more reasonable borders) could be made a reality. Add another slave state.
  • Combine some Mormon and Dixon settlement in the South of California, Arizona, what's left of NM after Texas claims and you could end up with a partition of Cali between a free, Gold Rush settled north and slave south when the time comes. Another slave state.
  • Have a slave Kansas. Maybe you can get this as late as Bleeding Kansas, but I think you have a better chance of making it stick by having the Missouri Compromise line being set at the northern rather than southern reach of that state. Again, score one for Dixie.
If you want to add some border gains to the South...

  • Have the Dominicans, in their war for independence against Haiti, perform somewhat less well initially leading to the rebellion being forced into a longer struggle. The cause attracts the support of Southerners and the US government as a republican revolt of "civilized" folk against the radical savage black monarchy/dictatorship in Haiti (They'll look quite a bit whiter in popular imagination if contrasting to the author's of the great slave insurrection that was the stuff of slaveowner nightmares) and through various means they end up acending to the Union like Texas. Add a slave state
  • Mexico peddles off Baja and Sonora as the US civil is delayed and they use the cash otherwise used to by Alaska: say because of British diplomatic pressure due to wanting to insure the US dosen't completely monopolize the good port locations on NA's Pacific coast so they have prospects for a future export and naval hub for Canada. Another slave state.
This would tilt the balance in writing legislation, the electoral collage, forgein treaty terms, supreme court appointments, ect.firmly in the south's favor. What political shenanigans they get into with that power...
 
Say they keep control of the presidency and get pro slavery judges into control of the Supreme Court and then if the Supreme Court starts using its position more like the current courts tend to to set policy as much as to just rule on things you could easily see the country split.


Sooo....the Dred Scott case?

The North didnt secede over it essentially because the Dems split in 1860 so Lincoln got elected. Had he not won and the tense status quo remained I could easily see the North seceding esp. if Breckenridge won in 1860 or 64
 
Any chance of the Corwin Amendment or something similar at another time causing the North to pack up and head out? If the North REALLY wants no part of slavery, but the Constitution has it set in stone, the only options are to secede or toss out the Constitution and rewrite it.

I don’t think the Corwin Amendment had a snowball’s chance in hell of passing right before the ACW but if something like it - along with the provision that no future Amendment could undo it - were to pass, the North may be forced to cut ties.
 
In these scenarios I wonder what constitutes 'the North' ? I guess that depends on when this secession occurs.

...
The problem is that if the North Splits there is a very good chance that the South would go along with it and just break the country,

At some point the two groups are going to realize they are in competition for the western territories. Then the knives would come out.
 
In these scenarios I wonder what constitutes 'the North' ? I guess that depends on when this secession occurs.

Generally speaking it's New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, and the Plains States from Kansas north and west when we get to the 1861 start of the OTL Civil War. Even before that, the migration patterns since 1787 stuck to the same parallel western lines from their colonial hearths - New England Yankees settling the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic-men/Quaker descendants/immigrant Germans settling the lower Midwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, northern Missouri) barring the southern thirds of Illinois and Indiana and southern half of Missouri (those three regions were settled by southern-leaning Upper South/Appalachian-men descendants), and thence those two groups settling Kansas outward.

In a Northern secession scenario I can see the aforementioned southern third of Illinois and Indiana seceding a la OTL's West Virginia, perhaps as some combined "State of Cahokia" or so, and perhaps Missouri being split at the Missouri River due to that being a really useful geo-cultural border as the last natural boundary between thickly-settled regions (St. Louis, Kansas City, etc.) before the featureless vastness of the Great Plains. Ohio and Missouri Rivers as borders before straight lines representing 36'30'', basically. Also, Delaware despite being a slave-state was always pro-northern and its people concentrated by and descended from Pennsylvania, it won't take much to free its slaves (concentrated near the southern bottom of the state right by Maryland) and then go fully for the north, whilst its neighbor Maryland stays southern with its sister Virginia - the Mason-Dixon Line now an international boundary.
 
I think alot of people are overestimating just how quickly the North would turn to secession. It's a pretty radical step to take, and "just" enforcing the Fugative Slave Law or having a handful of slaves in Pennsylvania as a result of a radical interpretation of Dread Scott isent likely to cause the region to throw out legal, reformist routes. There needs to be a more fundimental feeling that the republic is broken and unresponsive to majority sentiment, and all options for breaking the metaphorical log jam are exhausted,and the policies being pushed really are going to have a major impact on their way of life in order to take that risky step
 
There was a series a few years ago called Confederate Union by Alan Sewell, that postulated this very idea. I read the first book and then couldn't really get through the second one. I thought the writer's concept was well organized at least as far as the start of the series. But the further away from the POD, I struggled to follow the story.
 
It would be a contributor, but not the breaking point; were radical abolitionists to start attacking or assassinating slave catchers exercising their legal rights north of the Ohio ect... Federal regiments often, led by officers of southern origin, would inflame things if ordered to aid and protect slave catchers. At some point local state militias, heavily manned by abolitionists, & states rights proponents could end up confronting Federal soldiers.

Another enabler would be a southern dominated Congress passing legislation even more odious that the Fugitive Slave Act.
 

samcster94

Banned
I think if the slave/free balance was more slave(different Mexican/American war, but likely an earlier POD), maybe.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think it would be the north they would be fighting over. I think New England and New York leave and the future of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio are what is being contested.

And the future of the west. Who is California with?

I wonder if Britain and France are more inclined to aid secession if it is the north trying to break away?

There is not embarrassment of aligning with slaveholders. This still weakens the rival North American power, it is easy for supplies and eve volunteers to get in via Canada and the Atlantic ports. The rump southern based USA cannot mount a meaningful blockade, etc.
 
Last edited:
Sooo....the Dred Scott case?

The North didnt secede over it essentially because the Dems split in 1860 so Lincoln got elected. Had he not won and the tense status quo remained I could easily see the North seceding esp. if Breckenridge won in 1860 or 64
Yeah, except that probably, all the things being equal, the prevailing mood in the South in this event would tend toward "good riddance", as opposed to "we'll force you into the fold again, you traitors".
 
I don't think it would be the north they would be fighting over. I think New England and New York leave and the future of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio are what is being contested.

I'd honestly be surprised if much more than New England seceded; the Midwest and NYC were pretty aligned with the South at this time.
 
Top