Alternative names for the Confederacy

I've got the PoD in 1769. I want secession in the 1840s over an issue other than slavery.

How would you go about accomplishing this? Or would you say that it's impossible with a PoD in 1769, that is prior to the Constitution having been drawn up, prior to the Articles of Confederation having been drawn up, prior to the Revolutionary War having even started, to bring about secession over an issue other than slavery?

With a 1769 PoD, the short answer is "however you want". That's time enough for the *USA to change in so many ways that a secession could be over any number of factors.

The challenge, though, is creating something close enough to the OTL USA for the comparison to become meaningful. What you need is some kind of different federal structure so that secession over "state's rights" becomes a matter of tariffs/ economic policy/ settlement of western territories / pretty much any other combination of triggers, rather than slavery.

With that sort of PoD, you could even have a case of slavery remaining in place in some northern states, so any secession wouldn't be over slavery per se. There's so many options, it's more a case of seeing what general kind of goal you want to accomplish, then working out how best to change things to achieve that.
 
Okay, okay, I'm open to constructive criticism.

I've got the PoD in 1769. I want secession in the 1840s over an issue other than slavery.

How would you go about accomplishing this? Or would you say that it's impossible with a PoD in 1769, that is prior to the Constitution having been drawn up, prior to the Articles of Confederation having been drawn up, prior to the Revolutionary War having even started, to bring about secession over an issue other than slavery?

I don't know you can rip the country apart over anything that's not slavery, even with a POD in the 1600's. It's hard to understate just how fundamental it was not just to the Southern economy (I think at one point slaves weren't just the majority if the South's overall wealth, but the entire country's wealth), but also to its culture. On top of the fact that freeing the slaves would have impoverished the planter aristocrats that lorded over the South and the rest of the country pre-1860, there was also the widespread fear that keeping blacks in bondage was the only thing keeping them from murdering white families up and down the country in their sleep. I think this fear was always present in Southern culture, but it became very out in the open after the revolts in Haiti during the early 1800's. It's not just that slavery was a way of life for the South, it was the only thing preserving their lives, as far as they were concerned. That's why the South fought so hard to establish a new system of laws to keep blacks in check after the Civil War; to them, the "black peril" depicted in Birth of a Nation wasn't propaganda, it was a real depiction of their fears. Nothing else would instill the same sense of impending doom in Southerners as the impending abolition of slavery.

That said, I shouldn't get too deterministic here, but countries don't rip themselves apart for no reason, and the United States has been much, much more orderly politically than it gets credit for historically. Simply put, I think the only other way to get a civil war would be a breakdown in the democratic process. Have some very, very contentious election end up stalemated and riven by fraud, and then add as much fuel to the fire as you can in the form of other issues, whatever you can think of. Throw in some convenient assassinations and then you've got the party started. Hope that helps.
 
It's hard to understate just how fundamental it was not just to the Southern economy (I think at one point slaves weren't just the majority if the South's overall wealth, but the entire country's wealth), but also to its culture.

At the time the slaves were freed they represented the single largest form of capital investment in the country.

And yes you are 100% correct. You're not just freeing slaves - you're dismantling an entire socio-economic system and beyond that an entire way of life. That sort of thing tends to create friction to put it mildly.
 
With a 1769 PoD, the short answer is "however you want". That's time enough for the *USA to change in so many ways that a secession could be over any number of factors.

The challenge, though, is creating something close enough to the OTL USA for the comparison to become meaningful. What you need is some kind of different federal structure so that secession over "state's rights" becomes a matter of tariffs/ economic policy/ settlement of western territories / pretty much any other combination of triggers, rather than slavery.

With that sort of PoD, you could even have a case of slavery remaining in place in some northern states, so any secession wouldn't be over slavery per se. There's so many options, it's more a case of seeing what general kind of goal you want to accomplish, then working out how best to change things to achieve that.

Well, I'm only calling it the Confederacy in my notes because geographically, they constitute more or less the same area. I don't want it to be the OTL Confederacy. In fact, I want to make it into more or less an animal of its own, sort of like how Thande's Kingdom of Carolina (though admittedly it breaking out of the Empire of North America over the issue of slavery), still is an entirely different country to the Confederacy.

I appreciate hearing your opinions on this matter! I actually joined the forum in part due to my appreciation of your stellar Decades of Darkness! </blatant flattery>

Anyway, my goal is rather simple. I want to see a North American continent by 1900 that is populated by several sovereign states (a map of many colours), and where the original 13 colonies, for example, are no longer united.

That said, I shouldn't get too deterministic here, but countries don't rip themselves apart for no reason, and the United States has been much, much more orderly politically than it gets credit for historically. Simply put, I think the only other way to get a civil war would be a breakdown in the democratic process. Have some very, very contentious election end up stalemated and riven by fraud, and then add as much fuel to the fire as you can in the form of other issues, whatever you can think of. Throw in some convenient assassinations and then you've got the party started. Hope that helps.

That helps, thank you very much. :)
 
Anyway, my goal is rather simple. I want to see a North American continent by 1900 that is populated by several sovereign states (a map of many colours), and where the original 13 colonies, for example, are no longer united

Come up with some PODs that lead to the Constitutional Convention ending in a miserable and contentious failure and have things get worse from there. Throw in French and British meddling and you are on your way.
 
Anyway, my goal is rather simple. I want to see a North American continent by 1900 that is populated by several sovereign states (a map of many colours), and where the original 13 colonies, for example, are no longer united

Come up with some PODs that lead to the Constitutional Convention ending in a miserable and contentious failure and have things get worse from there. Throw in French and British meddling and you are on your way.

I think the Constitutional Convention is overrated as a POD, personally. Instead, I think we should direct ourselves to the Newburgh Conspiracy. Now this shit's an AH gold mine, to the point where I'm shocked it hasn't been made into a timeline before. Have Washington forget his reading glasses, and the United States may crumble into military anarchy before it can even get off the ground.
 
Name depends on why the states leave and and what system the use.

Possible cause Hamiltonian Federalism Vs. Jeffersonian Republicanism

Jeffersonian States of America (JSA)

Does the new country have a strong Federal government? or is it a lose alliance of sovereign states?

Could the new country be like the EU and NATO combined?
 
Last edited:
Anyway, my goal is rather simple. I want to see a North American continent by 1900 that is populated by several sovereign states (a map of many colours), and where the original 13 colonies, for example, are no longer united.

With that sort of goal, it is best achieved by having the 13 colonies never unite properly in the first place. Once a union is in place, even an Articles of Confederation, it actually becomes much harder to break it apart afterward. Not impossible, of course - there are possibilities - but harder.

One random thought is to have the American Revolution "partially fail". This could be for various reasons, preferably with a few changes in the colonies or British policy before the OTL date of the Declaration of Independence. Say that the *War of Independence is hindered because there's no Washington-style figure to hold the army together, which means less in the way of foreign support and a much more difficult struggle.

Eventually a smaller group of colonies still obtain independence, but Georgia and South Carolina (at least) remain under British rule. For a while. Perhaps a later war will separate them, maybe they will declare independence on their own. That changes the geopolitical dynamics in all sorts of ways; most notably, that with Britain in South Carolina/Georgia, getting control of the Mississippi will be harder for the *USA. Which in turns makes the western territories much more independent-minded since their exports are going through a foreign power (whoever controls Nawlins).

Things could develop in several ways from there, but at the very least there's potential for greating a divided North America.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True, however

That's really low to point out, dude.

Seriously. Low.

True, however. The South is suffering from the impact of slavery 150 years after Appomattox.

The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study a few years back that ranked the U.S. States with lowest to highest infant mortality. The best ranged from New Hampshire to Utah to California, large to small, rich to not especially rich, etc. all they had in common was a commitment to prenatal care.

Want to guess the five states with the worst infant mortality rates? And what they had in common?

Best,
 
True, however. The South is suffering from the impact of slavery 150 years after Appomattox.

The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study a few years back that ranked the U.S. States with lowest to highest infant mortality. The best ranged from New Hampshire to Utah to California, large to small, rich to not especially rich, etc. all they had in common was a commitment to prenatal care.

Want to guess the five states with the worst infant mortality rates? And what they had in common?

Best,

Do not change the subject to more bashing.

That was low. That you agree but then go back to what you were doing makes it worse.
 
Do not change the subject to more bashing.

That was low. That you agree but then go back to what you were doing makes it worse.

Just sayin', the source he's quoting puts all but three states (the most generally underdeveloped ones overall, at that) in the region statistically on par with the Midwest, Rhode Island and Hawaii. But hey, anything to make a point right? :rolleyes:

@TRH, I think it can still work to use "Appalachia" depending on the timeframe, as the mountains were originally called Allegheny in the USA even all the way to GA/AL up until the later 19th century. "Appalachia" originally applied to the Native tribe residing near Tallahassee, which is nowhere near the mountains bearing the name in modern day.
 
The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study a few years back that ranked the U.S. States with lowest to highest infant mortality. The best ranged from New Hampshire to Utah to California, large to small, rich to not especially rich, etc. all they had in common was a commitment to prenatal care.

Want to guess the five states with the worst infant mortality rates? And what they had in common?

I'm quite sure that present day infant mortality rates in different American states is a fascinating topic. However, it is rather irrelevant to this thread. Please take that discussion elsewhere.

With that sort of goal, it is best achieved by having the 13 colonies never unite properly in the first place. Once a union is in place, even an Articles of Confederation, it actually becomes much harder to break it apart afterward. Not impossible, of course - there are possibilities - but harder.

One random thought is to have the American Revolution "partially fail". This could be for various reasons, preferably with a few changes in the colonies or British policy before the OTL date of the Declaration of Independence. Say that the *War of Independence is hindered because there's no Washington-style figure to hold the army together, which means less in the way of foreign support and a much more difficult struggle.

Eventually a smaller group of colonies still obtain independence, but Georgia and South Carolina (at least) remain under British rule. For a while. Perhaps a later war will separate them, maybe they will declare independence on their own. That changes the geopolitical dynamics in all sorts of ways; most notably, that with Britain in South Carolina/Georgia, getting control of the Mississippi will be harder for the *USA. Which in turns makes the western territories much more independent-minded since their exports are going through a foreign power (whoever controls Nawlins).

Things could develop in several ways from there, but at the very least there's potential for greating a divided North America.

These are all quite promising possibilities. You wouldn't happen to know of any good sources to recommend on the topic?
 
Another possibility, which I think would be original if you can finesse it:

Indian removal never takes off in the 1820s and 1830s(or earlier) from a bit of luck and lack of would-be Jacksons.

By the 1840s, you have a Frelinghuysen/Marshall like president(backed by northern sympathy) who's insistent on letting the Cherokee nation (and Chickasaws and so on) remain in the old southwest, against southern states who desperately want to expand and populate the western lands. While I think it would be difficult to undercut racism for the level required in the scenario, it seems semi-feasible.
 
Top