Could The U.S. Have a Second Civil War during the Great Depression?

It's certainly difficult to get a Depression civil war, but I don't think it's impossible, if you have the right PoD. Before the Depression, to be sure, but of course late enough to still allow it to happen. Like Biden&Caesar'12 says, it would have to be something that strengthens extremist movements and weakens faith in the establishment/moderation/etc. We can imagine that there's going to be a moderate reformist movement but that doesn't mean that it needs to be a successful one--maybe FDR or some other leader gets discredited by scandal, or it has some notable failure if it's elected to office.

For sure, any sort of civil war would be a messy affair, with all sorts of different leftist and rightist and centrist factions fighting and allying and betraying each other. The best bet for sustained carnage would be to have parts of the army join with rebellious movements--Butler with the socialists, MacArthur with the nationalists, etc. I doubt that we'd see any formal secessions, attempts to revive the Confederacy or anything like that, more like different factions claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire US. Maybe a disputed election involving extremist parties in a time of heightened tension would do the trick? (Say, socialists win and someone pulls a coup, or socialists lose and start a revolution...)

Not a civil war. But without the New Deal (and this is the only way to make things worse) there could have been widespread radicalization to both ends of the spectrum and a state of severe unrest. Those who became voters for FDRs new vision for the country IOTL would have been vulnerable to the populist, communist and fascist mass movements sweeping the country. The two party system would have collapsed. Institutional integrity would have been compromised by opposing factions of radicals furthering their own agendas after being elected to all levels of government. Left and Right wing militants would have become a major American export to countries like Spain.

It could have been a mess, but in a democracy, some kind of moderate reformist force usually comes along to let off steam and provide solutions to problems. IOTL that was Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Honestly even if we can't get a civil war this would be a very interesting TL in itself.
 
Interesting ideas. Even just discontent and more extremely polarized politics would be cool if such a scenario didn't lead to a civil war. Like Fascists and Socialists both being strong political parties.

Also, I never said that the POD had to be during the depression, it can be before :p
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, but none of those are applicable to the

Well, democracies with strong democratic institutions sure. Ones with weak institutions tend to go pretty quickly. Just look at Germany in the 20's and 30's, Russia in the 90's, or Iraq over the last decade.


Okay, but none of those are applcable to the US in the Twentieth Century.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Which takes it out of the realm of the

Agreed...

IMO any scenario with an American civil war will also have something seriously apocalyptic going on elsewhere...like a global pandemic or asteroid impact.


Which takes it out of the realm of the Depression as it was...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, okay, but that wasn't really the question

If you have a PoD in 1929, sure. Movements aren't killed or discredited so easily. However, you can make almost anything plausible if you go back enough years. What I'm thinking of is a few things-
A. Harding stays alive and somehow gets re-elected in '24, his scandals are dragged out painfully and people continually lose faith in the government.
B. Stevenson avoids exposure, the KKK avoids scandal, and are still seen as honorable and law-abiding. Nationalist groups in general are much better received.
C. A reformist gets elected in 1928, and the Depression doesn't start until early 1930. A knee-jerk public reaction ensures that it's this reformist and his policies that people blame for the recession. Just for fun, I like to imagine it's Herbert Hoover who ran as a Democrat and is into economic reform.
D. A laissez-faire Republican gets elected into the house in 1932, because people blame Democrats. His policies only serve to worsen the Depression via protectionism and lowering taxes on the rich and the like.

Under these circumstances, it's not too hard to imagine someone hardline, either on the Left or the Right, taking control in 1936. If it's a Socialist, then Nationalists could start a civil war. If it's a Fascist, the opposite could be true.


Well, okay, but that wasn't really the question... And an economic reformist like FDR sort of needs the Depression to get elected, true?

Before the Crash, there's no need ... Everyone is making money (more or less).

Best,
 
How many nations with histories of stable democracy (which obviously excludes Spain) had civil wars in the 1930's? I can't think of any. And the USA's own civil war was no precedent because it was based on the sectional divide over slavery, and the divisions in US society in the 1930's were not primarily sectional.
 
Things would need to get far worse than real life, but certainly. Fascists, Communists, White Supremacists, all were seen as having valid views by many in the U.S. People were pretty damn desperate before FDR, and even after.
The amount of support for the Communists and Fascists in the 1930s is greatly exaggerated by a lot of people. At its height the CPUSA and it's various affiliates and fronts had about 200,000 members, while in 1932 the Socialist Party of America had only 17,000 members, the Socialist Labor Party got about 34,000 votes in the 1932 election, and there were various other parties of not more than a few hundred members apiece. The Fascists weren't much better, with the Silver Shirts only having 15,000 members, the KKK around 30,000, the Black Legion (an ultra-violent offshoot of the KKK) had about 20-30,000 members, the Friends of New Germany (a precursor to the German American Bund) had about 5-10,000, and there were a few smaller parties. While these numbers sound high in a nation of about 124 million people they were far from mass movements.
How many nations with histories of stable democracy (which obviously excludes Spain) had civil wars in the 1930's? I can't think of any. And the USA's own civil war was no precedent because it was based on the sectional divide over slavery, and the divisions in US society in the 1930's were not primarily sectional.
That's another good point.
 

jahenders

Banned
I don't think civil war is at all likely without a POD much earlier than the depression.

That being said, you could certainly have had major civil unrest, looting, burning, etc. For instance, perhaps some people drive off bank examiners and the like, burn banks, etc. The KKK ramps up anti-Jewish rhetoric, blaming the depression nebulous "Jewish bankers." Big riots in multiple places forces several states to deploy the Guard.

It could be pretty messy and complicate recovery efforts, CCC, TVA, etc.

Title says it all. Could the U.S. descend into chaos, with various groups going for power and leaving the union, during the late 20s or the 30s?
 
Kill FDR and the chances of this grow in the realm of possibility though it'd be a revolution rather than a civil war.
 
Top