AHC: Get the ACW to actually be about States' Rights

As the title says, how could there be an American Civil War over the issue of states' rights? If the Federal Government tries to strengthen and centralise, who will join the rebel fray, if any? I suspect slavery will play a large part too regardless of how we go about this, but I'm mainly looking for a civil war directly and overtly caused by some states viewing the federal government as overstepping its bounds.
 
Well, technically the ACW was about states rights, it was a war over the states rights to have slaves.

Now, to get the ACW to not be explicitly about slavery (despite what Lost Causer's might claim) and actually be about states rights would require a hell of a POD, possibly one that butterflies slavery itself. The core of the fight between the Southern States and the Federal Government was slavery, so to get the fight to be about something besides that you're going to have to either remove slavery or change it so it wasn't the massive cancer at the heart of American politics.
 
There was a lot of tension in the United States regarding the power of the general government versus the autonomy of the states. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists argued about a confederal model versus a federal modal. After the Constitution & Bill of Rights were adopted, the Anti-Federalists generally became anti-centralists within a federal system. They still argued decentralism.

Now, the Civil War was clearly about slavery. Anyone who denies that it was the central issue is delusional. But... the centralism versus decentralism thing did form the backdrop. I'd say that getting rid of slavery earlier would not eliminate the possibility of a civil war still happening. In other nations, even without slavery being a factor, many a civil war has been fought between centralizing governments and anti-centralist rebels.

Is a civil war that is purely fought about these issues really likely? Not really. But it could happen. The later you get in time, the less likely it becomes.

In a timeline where the Federalists don't collapse and stay in power, the decentralist faction might have more grievances (high tariffs imposed, the revenue being used to fund northern industry and internal improvements while the south is hampered in its trading possibilities), which would likely still lead to a nullification crisis, which the Federalists would try to curbstomp, which might escalate into secession.

The earlier this happens, the better the chances the southern states have to escape the "New Englander yoke" (as they'd likely refer to it).

But it's still unlikely, because the Federalists aren't complete morons, one assumes, so they'd surely realize that compromising on the tariff and funding some ambitious internal improvements in the southern states would quickly dissolve most of the tension. Right? All sides of the debate were stubborn, but compromises were reached IOTL, and that was with slavery looming over the Union like a thundercloud...
 
There was a lot of tension in the United States regarding the power of the general government versus the autonomy of the states. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists argued about a confederal model versus a federal modal. After the Constitution & Bill of Rights were adopted, the Anti-Federalists generally became anti-centralists within a federal system. They still argued decentralism.

Now, the Civil War was clearly about slavery. Anyone who denies that it was the central issue is delusional. But... the centralism versus decentralism thing did form the backdrop. I'd say that getting rid of slavery earlier would not eliminate the possibility of a civil war still happening. In other nations, even without slavery being a factor, many a civil war has been fought between centralizing governments and anti-centralist rebels.

Is a civil war that is purely fought about these issues really likely? Not really. But it could happen...The earlier this happens, the better the chances the southern states have to escape the "New Englander yoke" (as they'd likely refer to it).

But it's still unlikely, because the Federalists aren't complete morons, one assumes, so they'd surely realize that compromising on the tariff and funding some ambitious internal improvements in the southern states would quickly dissolve most of the tension. Right? All sides of the debate were stubborn, but compromises were reached IOTL, and that was with slavery looming over the Union like a thundercloud...

All very good points. I would like to point out first off something to consider about the Civil War. It is true that slavery was crucial to the reason the Civil War happened as the "State Right" in question that people defended. However, it's also worth noting that the Upper South (VA, NC, TN and AR) were willing to stay in the Union until after Ft. Sumter, after which point I think an argument could be made that they fought at least partially against perceived government heavy-handedness. And on top of that, Texas was not unified in defending slavery or seceding from the Union (due IMO to the combination of Upper Southern, Hispano-Mexican and German settler heritage which all were less than dependent on the institution). I guess what I'm trying to say is "different states fought for different states' rights", even if the majority of said states were in some way fighting to keep people in chains.

Getting back to the OP, I think having a different/earlier Nullification Crisis could be helpful in achieving such a Civil War setup, especially if the rest of the South (instead of them SC troublemakers) is seen as also being on an economic/tariff-based chopping block. Then they can fight against "Yankee thralldom" (New Englander being just part of the North, sorry for splitting hairs :p). Although, would it also count if we're going with a secessionist Hartford Convention that sees New England secede and other states follow suit one by one over individual "states' rights"?
 
All very good points. I would like to point out first off something to consider about the Civil War. It is true that slavery was crucial to the reason the Civil War happened as the "State Right" in question that people defended. However, it's also worth noting that the Upper South (VA, NC, TN and AR) were willing to stay in the Union until after Ft. Sumter, after which point I think an argument could be made that they fought at least partially against perceived government heavy-handedness. And on top of that, Texas was not unified in defending slavery or seceding from the Union (due IMO to the combination of Upper Southern, Hispano-Mexican and German settler heritage which all were less than dependent on the institution). I guess what I'm trying to say is "different states fought for different states' rights", even if the majority of said states were in some way fighting to keep people in chains.

Certainly true.


Getting back to the OP, I think having a different/earlier Nullification Crisis could be helpful in achieving such a Civil War setup, especially if the rest of the South (instead of them SC troublemakers) is seen as also being on an economic/tariff-based chopping block. Then they can fight against "Yankee thralldom" (New Englander being just part of the North, sorry for splitting hairs :p). Although, would it also count if we're going with a secessionist Hartford Convention that sees New England secede and other states follow suit one by one over individual "states' rights"?

That last one would also be an option, of course. But would it really lead to civil war? I'd expect a Virginia-led USA-minus-New-England to just let them go. There'd be hard feelings, but no actual war over it.

(Incidentally, I spoke of the "New England yoke" because that was the area strongly associated with Federalism, but you're right, they'd likely speak of "Yankees".)
 
Have the planters manage to gain some kind of stronger hold on the Federal government, so the combination of fugitive slave laws, the fall out of the Dredd Scott case, and increasing pushes for the expansion of slavery eventually gets Northern states to start seceding over the right of states to pass personal liberty laws and to keep slavery and slaveholders out.
 
Have the planters manage to gain some kind of stronger hold on the Federal government, so the combination of fugitive slave laws, the fall out of the Dredd Scott case, and increasing pushes for the expansion of slavery eventually gets Northern states to start seceding over the right of states to pass personal liberty laws and to keep slavery and slaveholders out.

In that case the North is seceding over slavery.
 
In that case the North is seceding over slavery.

Yeah. The problem is that no issue besides slavery was as disruptive and (potentially) apocalyptic to the pre-ACW government, not did any have a clear "For/Against it" unifying power. Tariffs or nullification could be argued out in the House/Senate, and were open to compromise. Repealing slavery, or even containing it, represented an existential threat to the Southern way of life.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
But it's still unlikely, because the Federalists aren't complete morons, one assumes, so they'd surely realize that compromising on the tariff and funding some ambitious internal improvements in the southern states would quickly dissolve most of the tension. Right? All sides of the debate were stubborn, but compromises were reached IOTL, and that was with slavery looming over the Union like a thundercloud...

There were few moves in the OTL to support internal improvements in the south. And even more than in the OTL, surviving federalists would be friends of northern industry. Meaning higher tariffs to support them. If it remains essentially the same party, with the same doctrine, they are not going to be eager to make deals. They are going to be arrogant and bullheaded and patronizing, making them hated by the heirs to Jeffersonian docttrine. Who will have chip on their shoulder anyway, having not enjoyed the "revolution of eighteen-hundred"

Is this not something that might lead to war? Agreed, it is less likely than in the OTL. But more likely than you may think. The federalists are not Henry Clay. They are the defenders of northern industrial interests, and the south is basically uncivilized back country to them.

EDIT: of course, if I'm right, that actually makes your suggested ATL more likely. :)
 
There were few moves in the OTL to support internal improvements in the south. And even more than in the OTL, surviving federalists would be friends of northern industry. Meaning higher tariffs to support them. If it remains essentially the same party, with the same doctrine, they are not going to be eager to make deals. They are going to be arrogant and bullheaded and patronizing, making them hated by the heirs to Jeffersonian docttrine. Who will have chip on their shoulder anyway, having not enjoyed the "revolution of eighteen-hundred"

Is this not something that might lead to war? Agreed, it is less likely than in the OTL. But more likely than you may think. The federalists are not Henry Clay. They are the defenders of northern industrial interests, and the south is basically uncivilized back country to them.

EDIT: of course, if I'm right, that actually makes your suggested ATL more likely. :)

I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that before the Federalists self-destructed due to their stance during the War of 1812, they also had considerable representation in some southern states. They wouldn't be completely blind to the fact that the south needed to be appeased. In general, however, they'd be seen as a very northern, yankee club. Which is precisely why their contunued dominance could indeed lead to irreconcilable differences... and eventually a civil war that is about centralism versus decentralism.

In such a scenario, I can see Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky siding with the decentralist faction (the south). Depending on when it takes place, Missouri might already be a state - in which case it would likely side with the decentralists as well. Iowa? Minnesota? Kansas? If they exist, they're swing states. And what about California and Oregon? If they exist ITTL, they might just prefer decentralism, with lots of autonomy for "the west".

Provided that we're talking about a TL where slavery gets abolished early on, I find this prospect very appealing, I must say. A decentralist 'super-South,' without slavery. And with a good chance of winning.

Sounds too good to be true.
 
When do you make the cut? If you look at Jackson, and how Jackson was perceived, it's clear that fear of an overwhelming central government was something that most parties in the early Republic had attach to them. The Jackson of legend may have been a small government man; the Jackson of reality was often feared as a potential man on horseback.

What if Clay is more successful, and this more than OTL-level of internal improvements start in the 1830s? Some of this program is stuff the South would have wanted, and one can see how more infrastructure could have lead to more industrialization in the South. If you have stronger alternatives power centers to the planter oligarchy, you could see the South not having the unity to secede based off of slavery?

You'd need the Whig party to have been better disciplined and more popular. Not sure how that could fire. And plus, what killed the OTL Whigs was divisions over slavery.

The thing is, that removes the secession over slavery (maybe, possibly) but then what else is there to secede over? Its almost as if Slavery is the one big question here, and all else is Window-dressing and after the fact myth-making...
 
Well, technically the ACW was about states rights, it was a war over the states rights to have slaves.

Lawyering! Flagrant lawyering, I say! I won't have it. :p

In the end the only "State's right" being fought over was the right to own slaves if they chose. Alexander Stephens, first and only Vice-President of the C.S.A., said as much in his Cornerstone Speech.
 
I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that before the Federalists self-destructed due to their stance during the War of 1812, they also had considerable representation in some southern states. They wouldn't be completely blind to the fact that the south needed to be appeased. In general, however, they'd be seen as a very northern, yankee club. Which is precisely why their contunued dominance could indeed lead to irreconcilable differences... and eventually a civil war that is about centralism versus decentralism.

In such a scenario, I can see Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky siding with the decentralist faction (the south). Depending on when it takes place, Missouri might already be a state - in which case it would likely side with the decentralists as well. Iowa? Minnesota? Kansas? If they exist, they're swing states. And what about California and Oregon? If they exist ITTL, they might just prefer decentralism, with lots of autonomy for "the west".

Provided that we're talking about a TL where slavery gets abolished early on, I find this prospect very appealing, I must say. A decentralist 'super-South,' without slavery. And with a good chance of winning...Sounds too good to be true.

Something very hard to accomplish in most cases, I fear. Although, with an early enough POD, you could have Georgia be a free province (as was requested in OTL) and a potentially abolitionist Virginia (maybe not going past the "indentured slavery" phase) in the late 17th-early 18th Century, likely hemming in the expansion of the institution hencewith. Just an idea...at any rate, it would help with the OP since it'd take that disgusting elephant out of the room (unfortunately, most Civil War scenarios with a sectarian slant seem to fall susceptible to this dichotomy, albeit not without reason).

Also, not to be that guy, but have you checked THIS TL out? It's the same author of the English Brazil TL :D.
 
Northern states declare the Fugitive Slave Act to be a violation of states' rights and secede. The Civil War starts 11 years early, the northern rebels win.

In the end the only "State's right" being fought over was the right to own slaves if they chose. Alexander Stephens, first and only Vice-President of the C.S.A., said as much in his Cornerstone Speech.

Yep. The Southern states were fine with trampling on states' rights when it helped slavery, and the Confederate constitution basically made it impossible for states to abolish slavery. Meanwhile, the CSA was basically running a command economy based on uncompensated seizure of private property, possessing a professional bureaucracy, and brutally crushing multiple attempts to institute greater local sovereignty.

States' rights my ass.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Worth considering in this are nations in the Western Hemisphere that DID fight

Worth considering in this are nations in the Western Hemisphere that DID fight over the issues of centralism vs federalism; Argentina (in its "Buenos Aires Province vs almost everyone else" stage in the early Nineteenth Century (for about 40 years, actually).

The difference there is that Buenos Aires was both THE port for the entire River Plate, and the largest city (by far) in what became Argentina, so the issues of economics and foreign trade was key; that's not really an issue that is going to come into play in North America.

There were similar issues at play in Ecuador (Quito vs Ecuador), and to a degree in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, but not quite as pronounced.

The other example where there was a major conflict between "centralists" and "federalists" was in BNA (i.e. Canada) in the divisions between Anglophones and Francophones; again, that's not really a "divide" that is going to be found in the US.

Best,
 

Perkeo

Banned
To all the people who think that the ACW state's rights were a reason rather than a pretext, explain this analysis:

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm


which proves that the CSA constitution took more state's rights away than it granted, but grants vast slave-owners rights (essentially by removing state's rights that counterdicted them...)

OTOH I find it puzzling that hundreds of thousands of people most of which didn't even own slaves killed and died for slave-owners rights. Perhaps it's truly feudalism versus industrialization?
 
OTOH I find it puzzling that hundreds of thousands of people most of which didn't even own slaves killed and died for slave-owners rights. Perhaps it's truly feudalism versus industrialization?


It was the local version of the American Dream. Those who didn't own slaves now hoped to do so as they went up in the world.

Also, a huge proportion of the non-slaveholders were sons, younger brothers, cousins etc of slaveholders.
 
Or smallholders from the more mountainous regions of the South, where slaveowning was not so profitable or popular. Incidentally, those parts were also relatively pro-Union by comparison (witness West Virginia's counter-secession, and attempts by East Tennessee and Northern Alabama to do so as well).
 
What if Clay is more successful, and this more than OTL-level of internal improvements start in the 1830s? Some of this program is stuff the South would have wanted, and one can see how more infrastructure could have lead to more industrialization in the South.

(...)

The thing is, that removes the secession over slavery (maybe, possibly) but then what else is there to secede over? Its almost as if Slavery is the one big question here, and all else is Window-dressing and after the fact myth-making...

Wait... you basically come up with an ATL that serves to remove the legitimate OTL grievances of the south in regards to northern interests (high tariff, internal improvements for the north, subsidies for northern business) prevailing over southern interests (free trade, any internal improvements to be more evenly spread across the nation, no subsidies for specific businesses)...

...and then you jump from that to "Its almost as if Slavery is the one big question here, and all else is Window-dressing and after the fact myth-making"?

Bit of a weird conclusion, because it would only actually hold up in your ATL. The fact is, "everything else" covers a whole lot of issues that are far more than "window-dressing" and that are certainly not "after the fact myth-making."

From the very outset, the USA were faced with competing visions of what America should be. Look at the struggle over remaining confederal versus adopting a federal constitution. Look at Jeffersonian ideals versus Hamiltonian ideas. From the outset, you had a major strain in American politics that believed in small government, free trade and decentralism. A mostly southern strain, ultimately. On the other hand, you had a strain that advocated a powerful government, economic protectionism and centralism. And that was mostly a northern strain.

Those differences could be addressed, and more easily than slavery could be (unless slavery is tackled by the 1830s, when it was far less of a divisive issue). But even without slavery in the way, the other issues are by no means "after the fact myth-making;" and they could very possibly lead to the union breaking up, if not addressed adequately.


Something very hard to accomplish in most cases, I fear. Although, with an early enough POD, you could have Georgia be a free province (as was requested in OTL) and a potentially abolitionist Virginia (maybe not going past the "indentured slavery" phase) in the late 17th-early 18th Century, likely hemming in the expansion of the institution hencewith. Just an idea...at any rate, it would help with the OP since it'd take that disgusting elephant out of the room (unfortunately, most Civil War scenarios with a sectarian slant seem to fall susceptible to this dichotomy, albeit not without reason).

Hey, cool! I didn't know that about Georgia!

There are several ways to get rid of slavery, of course. Or at least to crucially weaken it, making it easier to get rid of later. That said: tackling it "too early" would, for the purposes of this discussion, create so many butterflies that we would no longer be able to say anything sensible about American politics in the 19th century.

One fact people often ignore is, of course, that cotton had its booms and busts. As of the 1840s, it was IOTL enjoying a very long "boom" that lasted up to the civil war. This entrenched slavery. But in the 1830s, cotton prices were far lower. As far as I can tell, given the right circumstances, the 1830s would have been a great time to ditch slavery once and for all. (Not that it would be easy; but far easier than it could conceivably be at a later date.)


Also, not to be that guy, but have you checked THIS TL out? It's the same author of the English Brazil TL :D.

It's a very well-written TL, and I've certainly enjoyed reading it - but I do consider it too optimistic. It posits an earlier (and, crucially, shorter) war; both these factors would help in getting the south to be less... rabid about slavery. The later in time, and the higher the cost of war, the more embittered and entrenched they became about the issue.

But a war that's a little earlier and a little shorter can only help so much. So I'm not so optimistic about the southern willingness to get rid of slavery "eventually". Oh, Virginia and several other states, sure. With OTL's civil war that would be difficult, since the OTL confederate constitution made getting rid of slavery nearly impossible. But with a slightly earlier civil war, and a slightly different confederate constitution, I could see Virginia, Tennessee, Arkensas and Texas getting rid of slavery before 1900. The Deep South, though? I have my doubts. You'd need an earlier POD.
 
Top