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

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.

NYC wouldent be that hard to flip with the degree of butterflies you need for a Northern secession anyways. but I'll have to agree getting anything west of Indiana to jump is a real longshot. Out there, the Mississippi access is far to valuble
 
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.

It depends on the events leading up to secession, but I agree. I think you might smaller civil wars break out in places like Ohio that are tied to the south but have significant northern populations.
 
I do not think that that northern disunionism should be totally written off. It was not merely a Garrisonian eccentricity; a considerable number of antislavery northerners did at least toy with it from time to time. Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire once said: "If this Union, with all its advantages, has no other cement than the blood of human slavery, let it perish." (Quoted in David Potter, *The Impending Crisis 1848-1861*, p. 45) Senator Wade of Ohio stated in 1854 that "I go for the death of slavery whether the Union survives it or not." (Quoted in Brian Holden Reid, *The Origins of the American Civil War* [London and New York: Longman 1996], p. 147) Also, at various times in the 1860-61 crisis, Charles Sumner, Joshua Giddings, Gerrit Smith and other abolitionists advocated the peaceful dissolution of "this blood-stained Union." (Quoted in Kenneth Stampp, *And the War Came* (Phoenix books edition, pp. 247-8)

Still, all this was mostly rhetorical--it was people saying "I would rather have disunion than another cowardly compromise with the Slave Power." Most of the people who said this (a) were much more radical on slavery than most northerners (including a majority of Republicans), and (b) except for the Garrisonians, didn't really believe it *was* necessary to choose between Union and antislavery. It is true that after Buchanan's election in 1856, some northern antislavery radicals concluded that the struggle aginst slavery was hopeless within the Union, and tried to make common cause with the Garrisonians in a "disunion convention" in Worcester, MA in 1857. They sent out invitations to several prominent Republicans--who all turned them down. Even a Radical like Henry Wilson advised the Convention to "leave all the impotent and puerile threats against the Union to the Southern slave propagandists." https://books.google.com/books?id=Wl38uYb85DgC&pg=PA141 (OTOH, Congressman Edward Wade, Benjamin Wade's brother, was not totally unsympathetic, nor was Amasa Walker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasa_Walker: "Edward Wade agreed with the invitation that slavery and freedom were irreconcilable, and even that, up to 1856, the Union had been a failure. He counseled waiting a while longer to see whether action against slavery could still be taken within the Union, but concluded: 'rather than to give the strength, moral and political, of the people of the Free States, to the extension and pepetuity of slavery, *let the Union perish*. Amasa Walker agreed with Wade, though in less fiery language, that the Union was 'a means and not an end,' and that the question of Union or disunion should always be considered in light of tactics in the overriding contest against slavery.")

The questions are: (a) what would get antislavery northerners to believe that the cause of antislavery within the Union was doomed, and (b) make them a majority in the North--or at least in enough northern states to make a serious movement for secession possible?

The only thing I can think of is a Breckinridge victory in 1860--having the "slave power" win yet another victory will by itself be tremendously embittering--followed by a war in Latin America which northerners would see as a war for slavery, and also by the "second Dred Scott" decision Lincoln had warned about. (Yet a "second Dred Scott" decision *immediately* establishing slavery in the North was unlikely. What was more likely and more insidious was the possibility that the court would establish slavery in the North *gradually* by first recognizing slaveholders' rights briefly to pass through northern states with their human "property" and then step by step expanding that right to one of staying there with the slaves indefinitely--and perhaps even buying and selling them. What worried Lincoln was that the gradualness of the process--combined with Douglas' public moral indifference to slavery and view that a Supreme Court decision was a "Thus saith the Lord" that cannot be questioned--would mute northern outrage.)

More likely, even in the event that Breckinridge won in the House in 1860 (or there was a deadlock in the House so that Breckinridge's "doughface" running mate Lane would be chosen as acting president by the Senate) most Republicans would still hope for a victory in 1864, and favor remaining in the Union. Or at least enough of them would do so, that combined with Democrats, they could block northern secession.

In short, a fair number of antislavery northerners did toy, at least rhetorically, with disunionism--but "toyed" and "rhetorically" are the key words here. (And even in the unlikely event it occurs, would a secession limited to, say, the "fanatical" New England states necessarily lead to a civil war? I could see a lot of Southerners and doughfaces who would be happy with the weakening of the Republican Party's national prospects this would entail, and "let the erring sisters depart" in peace...)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What about foreign aid or mediation on behalf of northern secessionists?

Would northern secessionists, whether representing just New England, or the “Upper North” or most/all free states, replicate the US constitution almost verbatim for the constitution of their “Confederacy” or Federation, just with explicit anti Slavery language? Or would other changes be included in their constitution?
 
NYC wouldent be that hard to flip with the degree of butterflies you need for a Northern secession anyways. but I'll have to agree getting anything west of Indiana to jump is a real longshot. Out there, the Mississippi access is far to valuble

It's possible to set up a Northern Secession with 1850s PoDs in my estimation, which I think sets up a more interesting scenario given it would more closely cleve with OTL for comparison.

It depends on the events leading up to secession, but I agree. I think you might smaller civil wars break out in places like Ohio that are tied to the south but have significant northern populations.

Illinois, India, Ohio and New Jersey I think could be fairly easily kept in the Union; Michigan and Minnesota are about the only question marks in my mind, given their populations and proximity to the Canadas.
 
...
The questions are: (a) what would get antislavery northerners to believe that the cause of antislavery within the Union was doomed, and (b) make them a majority in the North--or at least in enough northern states to make a serious movement for secession possible?

The only thing I can think of is a Breckinridge victory in 1860--having the "slave power" win yet another victory will by itself be tremendously embittering--followed by a war in Latin America which northerners would see as a war for slavery, and also by the "second Dred Scott" decision Lincoln had warned about. (Yet a "second Dred Scott" decision *immediately* establishing slavery in the North was unlikely. What was more likely and more insidious was the possibility that the court would establish slavery in the North *gradually* by first recognizing slaveholders' rights briefly to pass through northern states with their human "property" and then step by step expanding that right to one of staying there with the slaves indefinitely--and perhaps even buying and selling them. What worried Lincoln was that the gradualness of the process--combined with Douglas' public moral indifference to slavery and view that a Supreme Court decision was a "Thus saith the Lord" that cannot be questioned--would mute northern outrage.)

More likely, even in the event that Breckinridge won in the House in 1860 (or there was a deadlock in the House so that Breckinridge's "doughface" running mate Lane would be chosen as acting president by the Senate) most Republicans would still hope for a victory in 1864, and favor remaining in the Union. Or at least enough of them would do so, that combined with Democrats, they could block northern secession.

...

This parallels my earlier thoughts. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the slavers being increasing abusive. Particularly slave catchers behavior creating the impression of trampling on the rights of northern citizens, or even violence resulting in deaths of slave catchers or citizens. Given the radical nature of the people running the Underground Railroad & their attitude towards the law in general this is not far fetched. Escalation through abolitionist interference leading to large 'companies' of slave catchers, or the use of southern Posse groups, or states militia, attempting to exercise execution of the law, north of the Ohio River could lead to violence, murder, farms burnt, lynchings, & the sort of violence that ran through Missouri and Kansas territories. If or when Federal regiments are used to enforce the law and assist the slave catchers it will further radicalize previously indifferent northerners.

All this can lead to a messier and nastier northern revolt than our southern seccession. A escalation from local violence over slave catchers to a defect war between militias and Federals along the borders.
 
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...

<snip>

How about creating a slave state out of southern Illinois/Indiana? Basically extend the Mason-Dixon Line to the Mississippi.
 
How about creating a slave state out of southern Illinois/Indiana? Basically extend the Mason-Dixon Line to the Mississippi.

That requires basically writing off the existence of the Northwest Ordiance, which messes with the regional balance so fundimentally i wouldent touch of lest the butterfly swarm blow everything away
 
That requires basically writing off the existence of the Northwest Ordiance, which messes with the regional balance so fundimentally i wouldent touch of lest the butterfly swarm blow everything away

You suggested stacking the Senatorial deck in favour of the south, including eliminating Vermont. The borders of the Northwest Ordinance could be modified.

However, if that goes too far, perhaps West Florida is successfully made into a state? Maybe another state formed from south Missouri and north Arkansas, as was done in Decades of Darkness.

Or have Oklahoma added as a state much earlier? If gold is found in California later, then there would be more settlement in the Great Plains as a result.
 
You suggested stacking the Senatorial deck in favour of the south, including eliminating Vermont. The borders of the Northwest Ordinance could be modified.

However, if that goes too far, perhaps West Florida is successfully made into a state? Maybe another state formed from south Missouri and north Arkansas, as was done in Decades of Darkness.

Or have Oklahoma added as a state much earlier? If gold is found in California later, then there would be more settlement in the Great Plains as a result.

The issue is...why would it? The Ohio is a much less contoversial and headache endusing state border than trying to draw a straight arbitrary line through the wilderness. The resulting state would be absurdly shaped and monopolize access to the rmajor Mississippi River network to the old Northwest, which would be politically controversial to say the least. And if you're removing the Ordinance,why is slavery even banned in the rest of the territories?

Yes,I was trying to stack the deck in favor of the South, but in ways that have solid reasoning to have occurred,don't overly disrupt regional balance and national borders, and so result in a US that's at least fairly similar in terms of population and historical trends as IOTL. For that, I do like your Oklahoma/Indian Territory idea: it could easily be part of a policy of dealing with the civilized tribes of "We want to take you off your land, but we'll gurantee you won't be forced off again by giving you a political seat at the table". You could maybe get another slave native state in the West too as a result.
 
Top