Civil War is a Second American Revolution

What if the American Civil War was really the Second American Revolution.... meaning instead of the Southern States wanting to form their own country they just want to force Washington to allow them to keep their Slaves. With a Pod anywhere after 1850 how can the Southern States try to say.... Try to take Washington D.C.
What would the affects be on the Slavery, States rights, Republican and the Democratic Parties. Would Britain and France get involved.
 
I've thought of something like this -- specifically, something instigated by abolitionists.

But, I don't have any ideas for what you're asking for, except to say that it would probably still be the ACW (unless the Southerners win, of course, but that depends on which history book you're reading).
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
You're suggesting a Southern coup d'etat as opposed to a regional Civil War? That would be an interesting premise for a timeline for sure. Perhaps the pro-slavery militants could execute a plot to seize the U.S. Capitol and the White House, execute the Republicans, or something to that effect.
 
You're suggesting a Southern coup d'etat as opposed to a regional Civil War? That would be an interesting premise for a timeline for sure. Perhaps the pro-slavery militants could execute a plot to seize the U.S. Capitol and the White House, execute the Republicans, or something to that effect.

If such a thing happens you radicalize the North and swing back many Southerners who refused but eventually sided with the Confederacy. It's one thing to decide to secede, but to commit premeditated murder on the government? There will be heads rolling when the war/coup ends.
 
??? It WAS a second american revolution.

Each one was a civil war where one part of the country felt it wasnt getting what it wanted, and wanted to run things their own way, so the rose up in rebellion against the 'foreign' regime and formed their own nation.

Its just that in the first case, the rebels had better cause, were separated by an ocean, and thus succeeded and seceded.
 
By the time of the Civil War, the United States was essentially two separate and very distinct areas. The industrial, more urbanized North and the agricultural, slave owning South. It makes more sense for them to separate into two nations than for one section to try to force change on the nation as a whole. The Confederacy took the path that made the most sense, for all the wrong reasons of course.
 
??? It WAS a second american revolution.

Each one was a civil war where one part of the country felt it wasnt getting what it wanted, and wanted to run things their own way, so the rose up in rebellion against the 'foreign' regime and formed their own nation.

Its just that in the first case, the rebels had better cause, were separated by an ocean, and thus succeeded and seceded.

The difference was the "americans" were colonials who didn't have full equal status to the "British", at least not in parliament. Southerners and northerners (white ones anyways) were technically equal citizens in every regard.
 
The difference was the "americans" were colonials who didn't have full equal status to the "British", at least not in parliament. Southerners and northerners (white ones anyways) were technically equal citizens in every regard.

If anything the Southerners were "more equal" due to slave "representation" in the House.
 
By the time of the Civil War, the United States was essentially two separate and very distinct areas. The industrial, more urbanized North and the agricultural, slave owning South. It makes more sense for them to separate into two nations than for one section to try to force change on the nation as a whole. The Confederacy took the path that made the most sense, for all the wrong reasons of course.

The most sense as instead of joining the rest of the modern western world at attempting to industrialize, instead cling bloodily to what even at the time had to have been predicted to be a dying institution like slavery?
 
If I'm understanding the OP right, does he mean he wants the South to revolt, but instead of initially declaring themselves a separate country, they start off making reunification demands instead? I'm not sure what he means.

In that case you'd need a bill to set them off. And to get that to happen you'd probably need the North to have enough legislative power in the federal government to pass anti-slavery legislation. Maybe, due to a change in the number of states, the Missouri Compromise doesn't happen, and a law is passed barring the expansion of slavery into any new territory. Then in response, the South revolts, marching on Washington, demanding that the bill be repealed and laws much more favorable to slavery and Southern trade interests be passed. Like Nofix says, that could potentially backfire if the rest of the country sees the South in an even worse light for trying to change the rest of the country to be more pro-slavery instead of just trying to leave.

This puts the date of the war way back in the 1820s, too.
 
The most sense as instead of joining the rest of the modern western world at attempting to industrialize, instead cling bloodily to what even at the time had to have been predicted to be a dying institution like slavery?

I should have said the path that made the most sense to them. Of course it makes no sense to anyone who is not a rich, slave owning planter.
 
To be pedantic it was the 3rd revolution.

The first established the supremacy of Parliament and cut off the Kings head. IIRC Maryland was the last place to hold out for the King.

The second separated America from Britain.

The third attempted to separate the united American states into two parts.

Alternatively described, the internal war between the north and south was the 3rd American Civil War.
 
CAPITAL INVESTED IN MANUFACTURING

By the time of the Civil War, the United States was essentially two separate and very distinct areas. The industrial, more urbanized North and the agricultural, slave owning South.

This is a common misapprehension.

No part of the 1860 United States was predominantly urban, or industrial.

The free states were more urban and more industrial than the slave states.

Whether they were "slightly" more or "considerably" more depends on how one views the difference. Suppose Algonia is 5% Protestant and 95% Catholic, while Bergovia is 10% Protestant and 90% Catholic. Bergovia is twice as Protestant ("big" difference) but only 5% more Protestant ("small" difference).

In 1860, in the eleven "Confederate" states, 1.22% of the total population were employees of industrial concerns; in the rest of the country, 5.41%. That's of the total popuiation, including children, so the proportion of the working-age population would be higher. But still only a small fraction, except in MA, RI, and CT, where the industrial employee %ages were 14% to 19%.

Comparing "cash value of farms" to "capital invested in manufacturing" shows a similar pattern. For the "Confederate" states, the numbers are $1.85B and $96M; for the other states, $4.8B and $0.9B. Thus manufacturing was concentrated in the non-slave states - but was still far less important there than agriculture. Only MA had (slightly) more manufacturing capital than farm value.
 
If I'm understanding the OP right, does he mean he wants the South to revolt, but instead of initially declaring themselves a separate country, they start off making reunification demands instead? I'm not sure what he means.

In that case you'd need a bill to set them off. And to get that to happen you'd probably need the North to have enough legislative power in the federal government to pass anti-slavery legislation. Maybe, due to a change in the number of states, the Missouri Compromise doesn't happen, and a law is passed barring the expansion of slavery into any new territory. Then in response, the South revolts, marching on Washington, demanding that the bill be repealed and laws much more favorable to slavery and Southern trade interests be passed. Like Nofix says, that could potentially backfire if the rest of the country sees the South in an even worse light for trying to change the rest of the country to be more pro-slavery instead of just trying to leave.

This puts the date of the war way back in the 1820s, too.

I'm unsure too. Because if the South won, I imagine they would call their secession a second Revolution or something similar.
 

Flubber

Banned
This is a common misapprehension. (snip of a Reality Sandwichtm crammed down the gullet of the Usual Suspects)


How dare you use actual facts and figures to refute the tired old lies Confederate apologists have been regurgitating for the last 150 years?

Have you no shame, sir? ;)
 
This is a common misapprehension.

No part of the 1860 United States was predominantly urban, or industrial.

Not to dispute the validity of this post - but I'd bet on no part of the world in 1860 being "predominantly urban or industrial".

A mere 29.9% of Britain's population in 1890 is urban, and that's the highest of the Great Powers (nearly double the US, in second place, at 15.3%)

Heck, as late as 1938 only 39.2% is "urban" in Great Britain.

I'm not sure what the standard of urban is here (source is The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers), and I'm not sure of the value invested in farms - but I think we can go too far in arguing the rest of the country on average wasn't in the context of the time an industrial, urban area relative to the seceding states.


But even if "the rest of the country" is more urban and industrial, the obvious other question: So what? Why does that justify (from any POV) a national split?
 
Last edited:
The effects of the ACW and Reconstruction were far more revolutionary than the American Revolution, I'd say. I wouldn't even call the American Revolution a real revolution. A regular war of independence, more like.
 
Top