American Civil War: Northern Rebellion

New England secedes sometime between 1803 and 1815 and the rest of the US is unable or unwilling to go to war to stop it.

Could that trigger a Civil War later that same century, only with the Northern states seceding/rebelling from the Southern states dominated US? Or would it take more time than that for the resentment of being dominated by the Southern states to build up, taking so long that there isn't a rebellion before slavery is eventually abolished and the situation gradually defuses?

And...what would the seceding Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and free-soilers out West call their new nation, the third American nation? (oh, and more importantly, could/would the Northern states win their independence?)
 
A wealthy South that's been dictating market prices for the North's industrial goods for decades and is well organized, centralized, and without a particular fondness for "states rights" ideologies against an unrecognized, disorganized and poor revolutionary industrial state in the North, with New England selling to both, would certainly make a fight worth watching.
 
A wealthy South that's been dictating market prices for the North's industrial goods for decades and is well organized, centralized, and without a particular fondness for "states rights" ideologies against an unrecognized, disorganized and poor revolutionary industrial state in the North, with New England selling to both, would certainly make a fight worth watching.

Poor?

The Mid-Atlantic (really the whole middle Eastern Seaboard) was the richest area in the country up until...well, now.
 
Alright, so even on the other hand of the exploitation stick the North wouldn't be poor. Heck, one could argue that with the situation reversed there's less of a gulf between the poor whites and the plantation owners in the South than there was in OTL, while there are far less middle classers in the North - the situation mainly being the factory owners and then the hordes of workers.

Or maybe it wouldn't be so extreme, and the North would be more generally dampened than radically affected in any single way.

Either way, even if the exploitation isn't impoverishing one can still imagine the North not taking it lying down forever.
 
hmm

I have seen this in other stories. The most common reason is the war of 1812 going worse for the US than in OTL. One book I read recently had it centered around the battle of Plattsburgh. The war went worse, the British ended up controling more of the waterways than the US. This swayed public opinion in New England to favor Britain. Eventually they secede and refuse to fight the war any longer. After Britain wins, part of the deal was to recognize the new commonwealth.
 
Poor?

The Mid-Atlantic (really the whole middle Eastern Seaboard) was the richest area in the country up until...well, now.

Actually, no. Prior to the Civil War, the South was the wealthiest region of the nation. 9 of the ten wealthiest States in the Union were in the South. That only changed as a result of the Civil War.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Actually, no. Prior to the Civil War, the South was the wealthiest region of the nation. 9 of the ten wealthiest States in the Union were in the South. That only changed as a result of the Civil War.
That might have something to do with the way they counted a certain segment of the southern population before and after the war, Robert.
 
Actually, no. Prior to the Civil War, the South was the wealthiest region of the nation. 9 of the ten wealthiest States in the Union were in the South. That only changed as a result of the Civil War.

From the 1860 Census
Annual Value of Products in Manufacturing http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/newlong2.php

1st New York (more than all of the slaveholding states combined)
2nd Pennsylvania (more than all the slaveholding states combined)
3rd Massachusetts (more than all the Confederacy combined)
4th Ohio
5th Connecticut
6th New Jersey
7th California
8th Illinois
9th Virginia (the only Confederate state in the top 10)
10th Indiana

The other CSA states come in at:
19th Tennessee
20th Georgia
21st North Carolina
22nd Louisiana
25th Alabama
27th South Carolina
28th Mississippi
29th Texas
32rd Arkansas (less than Kansas territory)
33th Florida

The CSA did do better with Cash Value of Farms, in the top 10 it had:
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php

5th Virginia
8th Tennessee
10th Louisiana
(7th place Kentucky and 9th place Missouri stayed with the Union)

And still better with True Value of Personal Property
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php

Where slaveholding states made up 8 of the top 10. (Confederate states made up 7 of the 10.) Of course slaves had become a lot more valuable, if you drop thm from the totals, the first 5 wealthiest states were free states and 2 more were border south states that stayed with the Union.
 
Top