AHC: Federalist vs Republican Civil War

The relationship between the Federalists and Republicans in America's First Party System was notoriously fraught, especially over Franco-British relations (in response to the pro-British Jay Treaty, many Republicans burned effigies of John Jay while chanting “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!” and, of course, New England Federalists briefly considered secession during the War of 1812) and supposedly tyrannical policies such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. According to the Mount Vernon website, at least one Republican publication went so far as to suggest revolt in response to Washington's aristocratic social events, though this was probably just a case of sensationalist media.

So, is there any way that this could have led to an earlier full-blown American Civil War in the 1790s or early 1800s, with the Republicans igniting a second revolution against the Hamiltonian aristocracy and the Federalists putting down a dangerous ochlocratic rebellion? No doubt this would bleed into the French Revolutionary Wars, with the Republicans allied with France and the Federalists with Britain. How extreme would the circumstances have to be to spark such a conflict?
 
Double down on whiskey taxes, tariffs, sedition acts... yes. Well at least they won't be able to kill as many people in this war as died in OTL. It may lead to future wars though, which could rack up the butcher's bill.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The relationship between the Federalists and Republicans in America's First Party System was notoriously fraught, especially over Franco-British relations (in response to the pro-British Jay Treaty, many Republicans burned effigies of John Jay while chanting “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!” and, of course, New England Federalists briefly considered secession during the War of 1812) and supposedly tyrannical policies such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. According to the Mount Vernon website, at least one Republican publication went so far as to suggest revolt in response to Washington's aristocratic social events, though this was probably just a case of sensationalist media.

So, is there any way that this could have led to an earlier full-blown American Civil War in the 1790s or early 1800s, with the Republicans igniting a second revolution against the Hamiltonian aristocracy and the Federalists putting down a dangerous ochlocratic rebellion? No doubt this would bleed into the French Revolutionary Wars, with the Republicans allied with France and the Federalists with Britain. How extreme would the circumstances have to be to spark such a conflict?
it's not actually the republicans: the democratic-republicans of the time are the predecessor of today's democratic party
 
it's not actually the republicans: the democratic-republicans of the time are the predecessor of today's democratic party
The term "Democratic-Republican" is used by historians for convenience, but they mainly referred to themselves as just "Republicans." The modern party adopted the name in 1854 as a callback to Jeffersonian principles.
 
One of the main ways that this would be different than OTL Civil War is that there wouldn't be such a stark north-south divide. Of course, the South generally leaned Republican and the North Federalist, but the main divide was between rural and urban areas. In such a scenario, I can imagine the Southern states pledging their loyalty and manpower to the Republican cause and the small East Coast and New England states to the Federalists, while large Mid-Atlantic states New York and Pennsylvania would be split. But there'd be a lot more cases like the Free State of Jones or Town Line, New York, where individual counties would refuse to abide by the decisions of their states

I'm not sure about its origins, but I've seen several variations of this map online, which shows the geographical divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification:
ratification2.jpg

(source)

With several exceptions (for example, Georgia would probably be safely Republican in a civil war, while many of the Anti-Federalist New England partisans would likely revert their position by the 1790s), I imagine the map of a Federalist vs. Republican civil war could look similar.
 
Last edited:
One of the main ways that this would be different than OTL Civil War is that there wouldn't be such a stark north-south divide. Of course, the South generally leaned Republican and the North Federalist, but the main divide was between rural and urban areas. In such a scenario, I can imagine the Southern states pledging their loyalty and manpower to the Republican cause and the small East Coast and New England states to the Federalists, while large Mid-Atlantic states New York and Pennsylvania would be split. But there'd be a lot more cases like the Free State of Jones or Town Line, New York, where individual counties would refuse to abide by the decisions of their states

I'm not sure about its origins, but I've seen several variations of this map online, which shows the geographical divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification:
ratification2.jpg

(source)

With several exceptions (for example, Georgia would probably be safely Republican in a civil war, while many of the Anti-Federalist New England partisans would likely revert their position by the 1790s), I imagine the map of a Federalist vs. Republican civil war could look similar.


Except that "Federalist" there refers to supporters of ratifying the Constitution, not to the Federalist Party as it emerged later. Iirc the 1796 election did get uncomfortably close to a North-South divide. .
 

samcster94

Banned
Except that "Federalist" there refers to supporters of ratifying the Constitution, not to the Federalist Party as it emerged later. Iirc the 1796 election did get uncomfortably close to a North-South divide. .
Federalists have to do much better(no rump like in 1812).
 
Except that "Federalist" there refers to supporters of ratifying the Constitution, not to the Federalist Party as it emerged later. Iirc the 1796 election did get uncomfortably close to a North-South divide. .
There was heavy overlap between Federalists during the ratification debates and Federalists during the First Party System. As I said, there tended to be a North-South divide, but there were plenty of exceptions - in 1800, for example, Pennsylvania and New York went to Jeffersonian, while Adams won four electoral votes in North Carolina.
 
Top