Civil War in America (1968 or during the Depression)

Civil War in 1968 or Great Depression


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
What if the civil upheaval (Civil Rights Movement, Antiwar Movement, etc) in the 1960s or during the Great Depression had led to a full on 2nd Civil War in America. What would've been the factions, supporters, results, and aftermath of the war.
 
If a 2nd American Civil War broke out during the Depression, the common POD cliche I see is for FDR to be assassinated in 1933 before his Presidency even begins in Chicago and John Nance Garner is instead sworn in and screws up the New Deal and thus violence and extremist politics become extremely popular among Americans. Some factions I can see are Communists, Silver Shirt Fascists, Black nationalists in the South (probably would form alliances with the Socialist-Communists), American nationalists, Liberals, etc.

The U.S. would become a big testing ground for the various great powers around the world. Britain might take Alaska and New England "temporarily" while Stalin would support the Communists, Hitler and Mussolini would support far-right nationalist groups, and other European powers would support the American government. Japan I can see going for the Philippines and Hawaii now that America is in total disarray. The result would most likely be a very weakened America with some territory lost but could prevail and rebuild itself and reclaim its economic heights within a few decades. Depends on how WW2 goes and what faction takes hold of America.
 
1933.png

The Map of America at the start of the 2nd Civil War in 1933
 
The Nations are who seceeded from the Union are the following:

Soviet States of America (New York City)
Confederate States of America (Charlottesville)
Free City of Cincinnati
Free Territory of Oklahoma
Soviet Socialist Republic of Mississippi (Jacksonville)
Negro Republic of Alabama (Birmingham)
Soviet Socialist Republic of Cascadia (Portland)
Republic of Texas (Houston)
Mormon Republic (Salt Lake City)
Free City of Springfield
Fascist Republic of Michigan (Detroit)
National State of the Great Lakes (Minneapolis)
Free Territory of Idaho
State of Idaho (Boise)
 
Interesting premise and a nice breakdown in that map.

A few comments about the Upper Mid-West/Northern Plains regions (being my area, I know this region best):

While SE Minnesota has a large German population, the region was usually dominated (in attitude) more by the Scandinavian immigrants (and in the Prohibition era, St. Paul was "run" by the Hungarians believe it or not). Also, that area has a long history of being staunch Federalist supporters, so I am not convinced the Fascists would be able to wrest full control. Going farther North, the Federal US would not so easily allow the "Iron Range" and Duluth to fall out of their control. Almost their entire industrial strength was a result of iron ore mined up there. Taken together, I think Eastern MN would be a hot-bed of nominal Federal control with strong anti-Federal insurgencies leaking over from Wisconsin but without enough strength to really gain control.

The Fascist State in the Red River (of the North) Valley seems about right, but there again, I wonder how long British Canada would permit it to persist? The region of the Eastern Dakotas you show as Communist, I think would more likely be an attempted independent Dakota Nation. They would apply for recognition and protection from Canada/UK (under the idea of unifying with their people in Canada) and any attempts to destroy it would give Britain its Casus Belli to push down into the High Plains, taking the Federal enclave you show all the way up to and possible including the "Local/No Control" region (after all, they would be doing the region a favor by bringing it under Pax Brittania of the great British Empire), which would lead them to suppressing and conquering the attempted Fascist State of the Red River.
 

Arctofire

Banned
To pull this off you'd need to have a more organised left in the United States preceding the Great Depression. The US labor movement was very strong, but it was dominated by syndicalist tendencies that rejected electoral representation and focused exclusively on workplaces. This is what makes the US unique, I don't think the left actually 'was' weak, it just had a very different approach and focus than the European left.

The Progressive Party of the 1890s was huge, gaining nearly 10% of the presidential vote nationwide in 1892, even carrying a few states, and controlling the legislative of numerous states, however, it was slowly absorbed into the Democratic Party and therefore lost its appeal. The Socialist Party of America has potential to be a mass party. It controlled numerous local councils, and had numerous state representatives and a few congressmen. The trick I think for the US left to grow is if it follows the approach of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, which started out as the Nonpartisan League and managed to gain a majority in the state legislative and elect numerous governors, including Floyd B Olson, throughout the 1930s.

So, lets say the progressive and socialist movement continues to grow, using entryist tactics into both the Republicans and Democrats to gain a foothold. Then, when the Great Depression hits, they win a landslide of the vote, which leads to a civil war from angry businessmen, opposed to their radical program of reform.
 
Last edited:
I would see Naval Battles along the Eastern Seaboard between the Communists, the Confederates, Texans, Federalists, and maybe even the Royal Navy. And also ones on the Great Lakes.

Another thing are Air Battles:
Some common aircraft in a possible war.
3_13_b1.jpg

32-Curtiss-Falcon-1200px.jpg

SSA A-8.png

P-12 Confederate.gif
 
Last edited:
Wisconsin is not going to support the fascists. Wisconsin was a center of the progressive movement and Milwaukee had a large socialist movement, electing socialist mayors into the 1950s.

The anarchist enclaves also do not seem plausible. OTL anarchism was essentially limited to urban areas. Also those areas are for the most part have very small populations and seem unlikely places to support insurgencies.

I also think it is unlikely for Britain to occupy so much territory. I think it would be limited to border areas and the territories.
 
There were far more Fraternal Organizations at this time than Communists or Anarchist.

Would be more likely to have the Moose, Masons or Elks holding large areas of the country than those guys
 
There were far more Fraternal Organizations at this time than Communists or Anarchist.

Would be more likely to have the Moose, Masons or Elks holding large areas of the country than those guys

Which really touches on a key point: nations with functional, trusted democratic mechanisms rarely dissolve into mass scale violence, since there's so many other routes to push for change that don't involve putting your life on the line. An America that would realistically fall into a civil war that isent essentially a coup attempt by a faction of states (as the Rebellion of 1861 was) is one that's in such a fundamentally different condition than any point IOTL that it's next to impossible to predict
 
Top