AHC: Reverse the Strength of the Civil War Era North and South

With the latest feasible POD, make the South US more powerful than the North by 1860 -- i.e., more industrialized, wealthier, more populous, stronger military, etc.

Bonus points if the South still consists of slave states while the North still consists of free states.
 
Not to poop-poop on your parade but the difference came about because of climate and geography. To do this what we know of as North America would need to be in the Southern hemisphere. Perhaps if a mini-Ice Age came about to wreck the North than the South would grow stronger and retain slavery. Baring that it is just not very plausible at all.

Benjamin
 
Not to poop-poop on your parade but the difference came about because of climate and geography. To do this what we know of as North America would need to be in the Southern hemisphere. Perhaps if a mini-Ice Age came about to wreck the North than the South would grow stronger and retain slavery. Baring that it is just not very plausible at all.

Benjamin

I have an idea that might give the North a handicap and the South a major boost. Basically, screw Philadelphia and New York. How do you do that? First PoD, no Erie Canal. That gave New York a major boost as a port. Without the Erie Canal, the nation's biggest ports likely becomes Philadelphia with maybe Charleston as a secondary port. Then, during the War of 1812, the raid by the 52nd Regiment of Foot on Washington DC has some additional troops, and is led by a colonel who happens to hate the city of Philadelphia (say he got the clap there). During the raid, Philly is attacked and the port burned, crippling the city's economy. The nation's biggest port therefore shifts to Charleston.

What would this do? Well, the presence of the nation's largest port area would definitely increase the South's industrialization and shipbuilding capacity, which would be very helpful in a war against the North.

Any takers?
 
I've got a good start. *War of 1812 has the British gut the North. Maybe a second war in the 1830s guts them again. Major territorial loses from Maine to Michigan to Wisconsin to the Oregon country.
 
I've got a good start. *War of 1812 has the British gut the North. Maybe a second war in the 1830s guts them again. Major territorial loses from Maine to Michigan to Wisconsin to the Oregon country.

Maybe with such bad experiences the rump USA decides to expand as southward through the Americas as they possibly can, especially without the more socially progressive free states no longer being a part of the country to hold them back from this goal.

Imagine a sort of republic or commonwealth of New England helped into existence by the British Empire while a huge, slaveholding USA has filibustered and fought all the way down to Tierra del Fuego.
 
Maybe with such bad experiences the rump USA decides to expand as southward through the Americas as they possibly can, especially without the more socially progressive free states no longer being a part of the country to hold them back from this goal.

Imagine a sort of republic or commonwealth of New England helped into existence by the British Empire while a huge, slaveholding USA has filibustered and fought all the way down to Tierra del Fuego.

I'm actually contemplating writing a TL involving the North seceding from the rest of the US in 1860/61 instead of the South. The trouble with the idea above is that it's quite similar to DoD, and I wouldn't want to duplicate the premise of that work.
 
I'm actually contemplating writing a TL involving the North seceding from the rest of the US in 1860/61 instead of the South. The trouble with the idea above is that it's quite similar to DoD, and I wouldn't want to duplicate the premise of that work.

Aaaahhh, that's precisely what I was referencing. :p Glad you caught it, though.

I don't know what parts of the north you have seceding, but if it's enough states, they might have a much easier time of it than the south did.
 
Aaaahhh, that's precisely what I was referencing. :p Glad you caught it, though.

I don't know what parts of the north you have seceding, but if it's enough states, they might have a much easier time of it than the south did.

My thinking is that all the free states (except Oregon and California) in 1860 would secede. This makes 16, although if you count New England as a single state, it's 11, just like the CSA had in OTL. It might be useful to have New England united into a single state, as then the slave states would have a numerical advantage over the free states in the Senate.

My current best idea for a POD is having a guy like Roger Williams come along and found a denomination of Christianity in New England which is liberal and friendly to American Indians but eschews technology in favor of a more "natural" lifestyle. Through the power of selective butterflies, the colonies of New England unite into a single colony with this religion (a name for the religion escapes me) as the prevalent faith among its populace. The religion would become very popular in the Northern states but not so much in the South. History mostly proceeds as in OTL, what with the Revolutionary War, accession of western territories, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, etc. up to the 1850s or so. The main difference between OTL and the ATL is that the new religion has stunted the growth -- both in population and industry -- of the Northern states relative to the Southern ones. As such, the pro-slavery Southern states hold majorities in both houses, resulting in the North's inability to pass anti-slavery legislation which would give blacks the same rights as whites. In this TL, the South would be in favor of centralized government and the North in favor of states' rights, which is the reverse of OTL, of course. Even though the South is more industrialized than the North, their peculiar institution remains largely intact, with slaves working both in the field and in the factories. The dominance of pro-slavery sentiment in the government has led to the spread of slavery throughout the western territories and states, unlike in OTL. This all sets the stage for a confrontation in 1860/61 in which the North attempts to secede from the rest of the US just as the South did in OTL. Civil war ensues.

I'm not sure if any of this is even remotely plausible, though. What does everyone think?
 
To come close to reversing the strength, you need everything except for Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to join the Confederacy. Even then, this 5 state remnant of the Union has about 7 times the industry of OTL's Confederacy.
 
My thinking is that all the free states (except Oregon and California) in 1860 would secede. This makes 16, although if you count New England as a single state, it's 11, just like the CSA had in OTL. It might be useful to have New England united into a single state, as then the slave states would have a numerical advantage over the free states in the Senate.

My current best idea for a POD is having a guy like Roger Williams come along and found a denomination of Christianity in New England which is liberal and friendly to American Indians but eschews technology in favor of a more "natural" lifestyle. Through the power of selective butterflies, the colonies of New England unite into a single colony with this religion (a name for the religion escapes me) as the prevalent faith among its populace. The religion would become very popular in the Northern states but not so much in the South. History mostly proceeds as in OTL, what with the Revolutionary War, accession of western territories, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, etc. up to the 1850s or so. The main difference between OTL and the ATL is that the new religion has stunted the growth -- both in population and industry -- of the Northern states relative to the Southern ones. As such, the pro-slavery Southern states hold majorities in both houses, resulting in the North's inability to pass anti-slavery legislation which would give blacks the same rights as whites. In this TL, the South would be in favor of centralized government and the North in favor of states' rights, which is the reverse of OTL, of course. Even though the South is more industrialized than the North, their peculiar institution remains largely intact, with slaves working both in the field and in the factories. The dominance of pro-slavery sentiment in the government has led to the spread of slavery throughout the western territories and states, unlike in OTL. This all sets the stage for a confrontation in 1860/61 in which the North attempts to secede from the rest of the US just as the South did in OTL. Civil war ensues.

I'm not sure if any of this is even remotely plausible, though. What does everyone think?

The problem is that it is hard to see why such a religion would be popular. Green politics isn't likely to become big before the late 20th century because it is a "rich man'" ideology because poor countries can't afford it.
 
The problem is that it is hard to see why such a religion would be popular. Green politics isn't likely to become big before the late 20th century because it is a "rich man'" ideology because poor countries can't afford it.

Maybe not so much green politics as semi-Amish aversion to technology?
 
Maybe not so much green politics as semi-Amish aversion to technology?

A small group, maybe. However people of that era were closer to nature as is and know full well that living in a "state of nature" sucks. Nature is uncaring, blood ridden and harsh. Ruthless competition is called "law of the jungle" for a reason.
 
A small group, maybe. However people of that era were closer to nature as is and know full well that living in a "state of nature" sucks. Nature is uncaring, blood ridden and harsh. Ruthless competition is called "law of the jungle" for a reason.

Well, it wouldn't be so much living in the wild for the Northerners as just remaining largely agricultural while the South becomes the dominant industrial region instead.
 
Maybe with such bad experiences the rump USA decides to expand as southward through the Americas as they possibly can, especially without the more socially progressive free states no longer being a part of the country to hold them back from this goal.

Imagine a sort of republic or commonwealth of New England helped into existence by the British Empire while a huge, slaveholding USA has filibustered and fought all the way down to Tierra del Fuego.

As great as DoD is, I had more in mind that New England doesn't seceed. The idea for challenge seems to be more along the lines of something that resembles OTL South is on much more equal footing to something that resembles OTL's North. Not a complete and total role reversal like in DoD. Besides, what became New England in that TL was only part of the North. What I had in mind is that what gets gutted from the US gets added to a stronger Canada or something. What's left is similar to OTL's North except missing a few limbs and extremely bloodied up. The second war in the 1830s was to keep the British Empire's advantages much higher and to deny the North another decade to recover. It'd be much bigger in scale than the little squabble in DoD.

To make the scenario better for the South, the South also has to be improved a bit. Much more population, industrial, and economic might is needed.
 
As great as DoD is, I had more in mind that New England doesn't seceed. The idea for challenge seems to be more along the lines of something that resembles OTL South is on much more equal footing to something that resembles OTL's North. Not a complete and total role reversal like in DoD. Besides, what became New England in that TL was only part of the North. What I had in mind is that what gets gutted from the US gets added to a stronger Canada or something. What's left is similar to OTL's North except missing a few limbs and extremely bloodied up. The second war in the 1830s was to keep the British Empire's advantages much higher and to deny the North another decade to recover. It'd be much bigger in scale than the little squabble in DoD.

To make the scenario better for the South, the South also has to be improved a bit. Much more population, industrial, and economic might is needed.

Adding industry to the rump USA will be tough. Immigrants were leery for obvious reasons (morality, competing labor with slaves) and the primary industrial base of the continent is in the British Empire now. They might be able to use slaves for labor for some industrial base (they considered it OTL) and attract investment, but overall I'm leery it can cover the north (conquered states and not) in time for the 1860's. It's worth a shot but I don't know the exact numbers involved down there, though.
 
One possibility would be to have the Northwest Territory not get included in the US from the start (assume that the American Revolution ends on more dubious terms and/or that the Brits still hold almost all of the forts/don't drop any battles there). The "North" would be locked off at the PA/OH border, at least through 1815. It's still possible (albeit perhaps something of a stretch) to see this *USA gaining the Louisiana Purchase...but a 20-30 year delay in settling the "old Northwest" might well shuffle the balance. A complete bar, on the other hand, would force heavier development (at least through modern day KY and TN) if the *USA was going to expand westward.
 

amphibulous

Banned
I've got a good start. *War of 1812 has the British gut the North. Maybe a second war in the 1830s guts them again. Major territorial loses from Maine to Michigan to Wisconsin to the Oregon country.

Do you have any idea how many troops that would take to do that in any feasible time? The sheer size of the area to be "gutted" is daunting. The British Army is nothing like continental ones - it's a tiny (although elite) force. Even assuming the ability to transport the whole army to the US, they'd have to give up fighting Napoleon. And it would be hideously expensive to do with no likely return.
 
Do you have any idea how many troops that would take to do that in any feasible time? The sheer size of the area to be "gutted" is daunting. The British Army is nothing like continental ones - it's a tiny (although elite) force. Even assuming the ability to transport the whole army to the US, they'd have to give up fighting Napoleon. And it would be hideously expensive to do with no likely return.

The *war doesn't have to start under the same circumstances. Maybe it could happen earlier and with more preparation on the British end. Also, keep in mind that the US isn't quite at the state where it can overrun Canada with ease. They tried, and they failed in OTL. Additionally, if the Amerians have a much worse military performance, the British could easily make more gains as is. Grabbing Maine would be fairly easy, but I will concede that taking the rest would take a lot of work. That's why a second, more decisive war would be needed to secure the "gutting" of the North.

However, the mentioning of denying the US the Old Northwest is probably a better idea altogether. Still, the challenge wanted the latest POD. Maybe jump starting the Civil War in the late 1850s would also help the South a bit.
 
Top