DBWI: An American Civil War

Well, would there have to be a war, though? I mean, technically, there isn't anything in the constitution preventing a state from seceding. So therefore, if any of these radical factions succeeded in getting one or two states to secede, there really isn't anything the federal government could legally do to prevent it.

Not saying they have a right to secede or anything. Although the other rights of the states have been tested now and then (remember Minnesota v. the United States Congress? or Utah v. U.S. Department of Health and Agriculture?), I'm glad the right to secede never has been.

But, to tell you the truth, I'd be worried about any administration which decided to go to war over that issue, instead of trying to settle it peacefully through the courts or arbitration. What else would such an administration be willing to sink to in this situation? Sounds to me like the kind of thing that could lead the U.S. going down the path of so many South American Autocracies (OOC: OTL Dictatorships).
 
Very few countries are going to just sit there while a bunch of rebels break it up. The idea is absurd. If you commit treason by revolting against the lawfully elected government you deserve to be put down.
 
Very few countries are going to just sit there while a bunch of rebels break it up. The idea is absurd. If you commit treason by revolting against the lawfully elected government you deserve to be put down.

I'm not talking about a bunch of rebels, like those Northern radicals in the '30's, or the religious nuts in San Francisco back in the '60's. I agree with you on that. I'm talking about a lawfully elected government choosing to separate itself from another lawfully elected government, through what might be very legal mechanisms until they are tested.

I'm not condoning it, nor am I even saying it's possible, but in an ATL where a disagreement between the states might lead to such a thing happening, this is something that would have to be considered.
 
Even in that case you are talking about a lower level of government revolting against a higher level of government (A state vs the country as a whole). Allow that and you have anarchy. How can you have any national unity on anything if the members can leave the moment they don't like something? Good way to get nothing done in my book. As nothing ever gets done the nation as a whole eventually breaks apart.
 

Shackel

Banned
There would be, it just would be very short.

Meh, it'd be more like the Paris Commune without the big guy on the block. A mere rebellion.
--
Maybe we wouldn't see the State of Yucatan, or ANY southern possessions. They were notably anti-slave, and with tensions still running high, you couldn't have a balance of power. Actually, the Second Mexican-American War COULD be exactly what sparks it. Oh, maybe even Mexico might hop in as well.
 
Meh, it'd be more like the Paris Commune without the big guy on the block. A mere rebellion.
--
Maybe we wouldn't see the State of Yucatan, or ANY southern possessions. They were notably anti-slave, and with tensions still running high, you couldn't have a balance of power. Actually, the Second Mexican-American War COULD be exactly what sparks it. Oh, maybe even Mexico might hop in as well.

I guess you could call it that but I was assuming there would be actual generals not a few jumped up revolutionaries.
 

Shackel

Banned
I guess you could call it that but I was assuming there would be actual generals not a few jumped up revolutionaries.

I suppose.

You know, I heard that the western or eastern provinces, I forgot which, were ANTI-slavery compared to the other side. Maybe we could see another state of East/West Virginia.
 
Well, would there have to be a war, though? I mean, technically, there isn't anything in the constitution preventing a state from seceding. So therefore, if any of these radical factions succeeded in getting one or two states to secede, there really isn't anything the federal government could legally do to prevent it.

Not saying they have a right to secede or anything. Although the other rights of the states have been tested now and then (remember Minnesota v. the United States Congress? or Utah v. U.S. Department of Health and Agriculture?), I'm glad the right to secede never has been.

But, to tell you the truth, I'd be worried about any administration which decided to go to war over that issue, instead of trying to settle it peacefully through the courts or arbitration. What else would such an administration be willing to sink to in this situation? Sounds to me like the kind of thing that could lead the U.S. going down the path of so many South American Autocracies (OOC: OTL Dictatorships).

I think the issue is that the federal government owns lands in the states, for example military bases.

I don't know about you, but if I were a rebelling state, the last thing I would want was the federal government having a military base right smack in the middle of it all. someone would eventually have to strike first to settle this issue
 
If the South had seceded..........this would've been quite a spectacle: secession wasn't exactly on the top of anyone's agenda, but always a real possibility........anyway, I suppose Dixie might be able to fight on for a while, maybe even for a few years. But a Southern victory would not have been all that likely.........

But even if the South were to win such a war..........they couldn't keep slavery going forever, for one. Sooner or later, they would've been all freed anyway. And then there was the matter of industrialization.........everybody knew it was coming, and the fact is, the South here was already having a little trouble getting that started up; who knows how much more difficult it would be for a Dixie which had only recently broken away from the mother country?

And if the South were to lose.......how much would it take to rebuild society? And how many terrorist groups would rise up from the ashes? In our time, we already had to deal with The Order of the White Cross, whom from 1872 to the time the Civil Rights Movement had succeeded in the late 1950s, had been responsible for lynching, or helping to lynch, over 80,000 blacks{or 'Negroes' as they were called}, and many thousands of others.


As for general ramifications? Perhaps there wouldn't be a Francis Ford{he was born in 1871}......or no Colorado Gold Rush. Heck, even entire states, like New Mexico, Cascadia, Sonora, or even Cuba, could've been butterflied away.....in a sense.

All in all, though, let's just be glad things ended the way they did. ;)
 
What about the economic butterflies? ( shudder imagining a Moth with a top-hat ) Without the second transcontinental railroad the South will be even more industrially and economically handicapped, maybe the people concentrates even more in both coast and left abandoned the interior? How much backward will be the south? Mexico-like or ( god forbids it ) Brazil-like ( Although I suppose - more like that, hope - that this last one is almost ASB )

In a bit ( a lot ) off-topic WI the Quebec joins the Union and a bit after the buy of Louisiana they try to secede ... West-East, instead North-South naah forget it, is ASB...
 
I think the issue is that the federal government owns lands in the states, for example military bases.

Yes, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. Just did a little bit of research, and it looks like that's a major reason why potential secessions have failed in the past. Interesting: the Shoshona state legislature looked into secession in the '80's (during Gov. Rev. Stone's administration, of course), the committee dissolved after they realized the Feds owned more than half of the state.

Still, getting back to my original point, I imagine that if a secession emergency led to such a war, and the federal government won (that's almost guaranteed, assuming the other states support "keeping the union together"), you'd have a lot stronger federal government. If the union is proven to be truly perpetual, that means the states have a weaker voice in how it's run.

I could foresee this ATL leading to a more uniform country. If the government doesn't end up abolishing states completely, very state would end up with very similar regulations and laws. I guess that could be good and bad. On the one hand, it would mean that the government income tax would be more consistent between the states, the states wouldn't be able to negotiate for lower rates in their states: states like New York and Colorado would no longer be the tax havens they are. You'd also have more consistency in health and safety regulations -- it'd make going to the hospital in places like Yucatan a lot less of a gamble. But, at the same time, you'd have the government messing around in things they don't really belong in, like infrastructure (beyond just the interstate railways), law enforcement, or maybe even education (could you imagine? Every state is guaranteed public schools, but they're all drawn down to the level of Arkansas's system).
 
Yes, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. Just did a little bit of research, and it looks like that's a major reason why potential secessions have failed in the past. Interesting: the Shoshona state legislature looked into secession in the '80's (during Gov. Rev. Stone's administration, of course), the committee dissolved after they realized the Feds owned more than half of the state.

Still, getting back to my original point, I imagine that if a secession emergency led to such a war, and the federal government won (that's almost guaranteed, assuming the other states support "keeping the union together"), you'd have a lot stronger federal government. If the union is proven to be truly perpetual, that means the states have a weaker voice in how it's run.

I could foresee this ATL leading to a more uniform country. If the government doesn't end up abolishing states completely, very state would end up with very similar regulations and laws. I guess that could be good and bad. On the one hand, it would mean that the government income tax would be more consistent between the states, the states wouldn't be able to negotiate for lower rates in their states: states like New York and Colorado would no longer be the tax havens they are. You'd also have more consistency in health and safety regulations -- it'd make going to the hospital in places like Yucatan a lot less of a gamble. But, at the same time, you'd have the government messing around in things they don't really belong in, like infrastructure (beyond just the interstate railways), law enforcement, or maybe even education (could you imagine? Every state is guaranteed public schools, but they're all drawn down to the level of Arkansas's system).


Education seems a bit of a long shot. You might as well speculate that the government gets involved in really stupid things for a government to be in at all such as energy, passenger railroad services and the arts. ;)
 
Top