DBWI: An American Civil War

There has been speculation that if the Douglas Compromise of 1856 (OOC: Never Existed OTL) didn't go through there would have been a war over slavery.

For those who forget the details it was like this

1) The US government paid slave owners $400 per slave payable in 20 year bonds at 3% to compensate them for emancipation

2) There would be a second transcontinental railroad connecting all major Southern cities to Southern California.

3) The West would be immediately opened and any US citizen could buy land out west from the government at 50 cents an acre up to a maximum of 1000 acres.

Is it all realistic that there would be a Civil War and how bloody would it be? Which states would rebel? Would the entire South rebel or just the Deep South?
 
Last edited:
Personally I think it would be a short, victorious war for the North. The rebel states would probably be confined to the Deep South. I could see South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississipi, Louisiana and Texas going but it would be confined to that. The area would be conquered in about 90 days or so.
 
Why do people always assume in these things that if Douglas didn't go through it would be the south that rebelled? :rolleyes: Honestly, its the new englanders that had been talking about breaking away then, and its still the same today.
 
By 1856 the North was already the more powerful of the two halves of the country and if slavery continued would get stronger yet. Why would the North rebel when they would eventually control the government as they had both more men and money? Outside a few wierdos there isn't anyone in New England talking rebelilion these days.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again, everyone ganging up on the south when its we southerners that have been the most loyal, most patriotic Americans that ever where. Its you northerners that rebelled against the proper government of the United States with your communist leanings, until we put you down.

OOC: ;)
 
Here we go again, everyone ganging up on the south when its we southerners that have been the most loyal, most patriotic Americans that ever where. Its you northerners that rebelled against the proper government of the United States with your communist leanings, until we put you down.

To be fair it wasn't every Northerner or New Englander that fought for the communists in the 30s. It was a very specific group of radicals and most of the uprising were quickly quelled.

Even if they happened half a century apart I could see a Southern rebellion over slavery going the same way. Some southern politicians might call to arms and favor secession but it would be seen as a lame attempt at a power grab by most of the population who would most likely side with the Federal government. The deep south states might be more successful in rallying the majority of the population but as mentioned already above, any revolt would be put down in a matter of weeks, four months tops before every corrupt, traitorous, slave owning politician who rebelled is stripped from power.
 
Some freaky revolutionaries grab control of a few Northern cities ( Boston, Philidelphia, New York and Detroit) and suddenly it's the entire North in revolt? I admit that the South did more than its part but it does have a stronger military tradition. Also what does the patriotism of the South in 1936 have to do with 1856? Are modern Southerners the same people they were in 1930? I admit that a full fledged civil war was unlikely but if it did happen in 1856 it would more likely happen in the south, particularly in the deep south.
 
Here we go again, everyone ganging up on the south when its we southerners that have been the most loyal, most patriotic Americans that ever where. Its you northerners that rebelled against the proper government of the United States with your communist leanings, until we put you down.

To be fair it wasn't every Northerner or New Englander that fought for the communists in the 30s. It was a very specific group of radicals and most of the uprising were quickly quelled.

Even if they happened half a century apart I could see a Southern rebellion over slavery going the same way. Some southern politicians might call to arms and favor secession but it would be seen as a lame attempt at a power grab by most of the population who would most likely side with the Federal government. The deep south states might be more successful in rallying the majority of the population but as mentioned already above, any revolt would be put down in a matter of weeks, four months tops before every corrupt, traitorous, slave owning politician who rebelled is stripped from power.
 
To be fair it wasn't every Northerner or New Englander that fought for the communists in the 30s. It was a very specific group of radicals and most of the uprising were quickly quelled.

Even if they happened half a century apart I could see a Southern rebellion over slavery going the same way. Some southern politicians might call to arms and favor secession but it would be seen as a lame attempt at a power grab by most of the population who would most likely side with the Federal government. The deep south states might be more successful in rallying the majority of the population but as mentioned already above, any revolt would be put down in a matter of weeks, four months tops before every corrupt, traitorous, slave owning politician who rebelled is stripped from power.

Exactly, and even four months is pushing it but you were probably doing a worst case scenario there. Of course transportation was primitive back then so some might be able to hide in a corner somewhere for that long before federal troops arrive.
 
well if the south did rebel (unlikely in my opinion), i think we ought to remember that most of our greatest military leaders from that era were southerners. even President Robert E. Lee was from Virginia.

Makes you wonder, though, if there was a rebellion, what would this fledgling nation call itself. The Republic of Dixie?
 
well if the south did rebel (unlikely in my opinion), i think we ought to remember that most of our greatest military leaders from that era were southerners. even President Robert E. Lee was from Virginia.

Makes you wonder, though, if there was a rebellion, what would this fledgling nation call itself. The Republic of Dixie?

So? It is very unlikely the rebelion would go as far north as Virginia. My guess is he would help crush the traitors further south.
 
Where would this capital be? Montgomery? that's a central location....

Without the states of NC, VA, KY, MO, and Arkansas, and even Maryland I doubt such a nation would have survived a war with the north, and lived to tell the tale.
 
Where would this capital be? Montgomery? that's a central location....

Without the states of NC, VA, KY, MO, and Arkansas, and even Maryland I doubt such a nation would have survived a war with the north, and lived to tell the tale.

I wasn't asking for a TL with a SUCCESSFUL rebelion. That is absurd.
 
Any ideas here as to the world wide butterflies from an American Civil War?

IMO, The Spanish-American War is probably delayed for some or is avoided all together. This will of course have massive butterflies in Europe as well as the Americas. i.e No Spanish Civil War in 1865 means no French Intervention which means no Franco-Prusso war means no Bourdon Restoration which means different German Unification etc and no Spanish-American War means no US Cuba, Peuto Rico and Philipines. Also wouldn't a weaker US mean that the French intervention in Mexico might me more successful, the result being a surviving Mexican Empire?

Also, what effect does a weaker, more divided US have on Canadian Federation? Perhaps a more unstable US means that the British are more inclined to Federate the Canada early on?

And what of Alaska?
 
Any ideas here as to the world wide butterflies from an American Civil War?

IMO, The Spanish-American War is probably delayed for some or is avoided all together. This will of course have massive butterflies in Europe as well as the Americas. i.e No Spanish Civil War in 1865 means no French Intervention which means no Franco-Prusso war means no Bourdon Restoration which means different German Unification etc and no Spanish-American War means no US Cuba, Peuto Rico and Philipines. Also wouldn't a weaker US mean that the French intervention in Mexico might me more successful, the result being a surviving Mexican Empire?

Also, what effect does a weaker, more divided US have on Canadian Federation? Perhaps a more unstable US means that the British are more inclined to Federate the Canada early on?

And what of Alaska?

I don't think what would be, at most, a three month distraction would change things that much in the short term. The French left quickly enough after troops from the Texas Militia massed on the border with US regulars on the way. The French could have beaten what was on the border, of course, but they knew it would wind up with all out war with US in Mexico. The US would have raised tens of thousands of troops within a matter of months and Mexico simply wasn't worth that many casualties to France. With a Southern rebellion the troops would have had to come from Missouri or something which would have delayed it a bit. The Spanish might have kept PR and the Philippine Islands but Cuba would probably still be taken sooner or later as the US was trying to get that for decades before the war. It is hard to see a US without Cuba after about 1880 or so.
 
Top