How early in US History could we have an American Civil War. It doesn't have to be between slave holders and free states. Could it happen rather quickly after independence or is the atmosphere for civil war unique to the 1860's?
Earliest American Civil War?
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
Things were pretty chaotic under the Articles of Confederation, so if they aren't replaced in time, I could easily see violent conflicts breaking out between the individual states, with the central government impotent to do anything about it.
The Nullification Crisis comes to mind, so 1832.
To have a civil war, you need to have a problem big enough to lead to secession in a time when a national leader would have found it to be unacceptable. Andrew Jackson was certainly willing to march into South Carolina with an army.
To have a civil war, you need to have a problem big enough to lead to secession in a time when a national leader would have found it to be unacceptable. Andrew Jackson was certainly willing to march into South Carolina with an army.
Near the end of the War of 1812...after the Hartford Convention. If the Battle of New Orleans had been less decisive, if the Treaty of Ghent had been delayed by 6 months and the British fleet continued its deprivations along the Atlantic Coast...perhaps raiding New England. New England demands an immediate cessation of hostilities, Napoleon is not decisively defeated at Waterloo, the Brits agree to a cease fire in New england, and NE declares themselves officially neutral, and open their ports to British trade. The war continues and the US has to invade NE. Napoleon causes problems in Europe and UK signs Treaty of Ghent...US seeks revenge on disloyal NE.
Something like that.
Something like that.
Election of 1800?
"For weeks, warnings had circulated of drastic consequences if Republicans were denied the presidency. Now that danger seemed palpable. A shaken President Adams was certain the two sides had come to the “precipice” of disaster and that “a civil war was expected.” There was talk that Virginia would secede if Jefferson were not elected. Some Republicans declared they would convene another constitutional convention to restructure the federal government so that it reflected the “democratical spirit of America.” It was rumored that a mob had stormed the arsenal in Philadelphia and was preparing to march on Washington to drive the defeated Federalists from power. Jefferson said he could not restrain those of his supporters who threatened “a dissolution” of the Union. He told Adams that many Republicans were prepared to use force to prevent the Federalists’ “legislative usurpation” of the executive branch..." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...aron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/
"For weeks, warnings had circulated of drastic consequences if Republicans were denied the presidency. Now that danger seemed palpable. A shaken President Adams was certain the two sides had come to the “precipice” of disaster and that “a civil war was expected.” There was talk that Virginia would secede if Jefferson were not elected. Some Republicans declared they would convene another constitutional convention to restructure the federal government so that it reflected the “democratical spirit of America.” It was rumored that a mob had stormed the arsenal in Philadelphia and was preparing to march on Washington to drive the defeated Federalists from power. Jefferson said he could not restrain those of his supporters who threatened “a dissolution” of the Union. He told Adams that many Republicans were prepared to use force to prevent the Federalists’ “legislative usurpation” of the executive branch..." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...aron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/
I think that in this scenario, the seceding states would be permitted to leave, if only because the federal government would be too politically and military crippled to do anything about it.
Skallagrim
Banned
First opportunity can basically be "right away". Federalists versus Anti-Federalists, which would to a considerable degree happen to correlate with North versus South. Easiest POD is that Washington dies, and whatever general takes over is already or soon becomes convinced a standing army will be needed. As such, a nationalist-militarist faction arises, largely representing the more extreme wing of the broader movement that became the Federalist Party in OTL. The general in question (Horatio Gates, maybe?) will never be considered like Washington, so no easy shoe-in for an executive position there. All this leads to heavier-than-OTL opposition from the Anti-Federalists, who absorb many moderates far earlier than in OTL. The natural leader there is Jefferson. Things like Shays' Rebellion get handled bloodily by the military, leading to even more resistance. At the same time, Hamilton and other (mostly Northern) nationalists argue that the only solution is a stronger federal government.
Something like the Constitutional Convention is organised, but is deeply divided between the alt-Federalists and the alt-Anti-Federalists. The former see the latter as anarchists and radicals, the latter see the former as would-be dictators and closet monarchists. The two facyions coalesce around two diametrically opposed proposals (a decentralist Jeffersonian proposal with a weak federal government, firm checks on the executive and lots of states' rights; and a centralist Hamiltonian proposal with a strong federal government, an executive for life, and the states virtually reduced to mere provinces). Neither side will even consider the other sides' proposal. The convention is a failure.
Both sides attempt to get states to agree to their plan, and both get a number of states to ratify. The USA effectively splits. The "Civil War", such as it is, mostly boils down to the suppression of a Federalist insurrection in South Carolina and a suppression of Anti-Federalist rebels in Rhode Island. In New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, armed groups representing both factions fight each other in a "Bleeding Kansas"-like mess. Eventually, New York is taken by the Federalists, while Pennsylvania and New Jersey are both split in two, with the halves joining either the Jeffersonian South or the Hamiltonian North. By 1790, the Civil War has effectively ended, but both sides will continue to claim authority over (parts of) the "rival union" for years to come. They both claim to be the true successor to the old Union. Overlapping claims to the North-West Territory will cause some minor skirmishes later, but British mediaton solves that in 1820 or so. (Mostly in favour of the North, which is pro-British.)
Something like the Constitutional Convention is organised, but is deeply divided between the alt-Federalists and the alt-Anti-Federalists. The former see the latter as anarchists and radicals, the latter see the former as would-be dictators and closet monarchists. The two facyions coalesce around two diametrically opposed proposals (a decentralist Jeffersonian proposal with a weak federal government, firm checks on the executive and lots of states' rights; and a centralist Hamiltonian proposal with a strong federal government, an executive for life, and the states virtually reduced to mere provinces). Neither side will even consider the other sides' proposal. The convention is a failure.
Both sides attempt to get states to agree to their plan, and both get a number of states to ratify. The USA effectively splits. The "Civil War", such as it is, mostly boils down to the suppression of a Federalist insurrection in South Carolina and a suppression of Anti-Federalist rebels in Rhode Island. In New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, armed groups representing both factions fight each other in a "Bleeding Kansas"-like mess. Eventually, New York is taken by the Federalists, while Pennsylvania and New Jersey are both split in two, with the halves joining either the Jeffersonian South or the Hamiltonian North. By 1790, the Civil War has effectively ended, but both sides will continue to claim authority over (parts of) the "rival union" for years to come. They both claim to be the true successor to the old Union. Overlapping claims to the North-West Territory will cause some minor skirmishes later, but British mediaton solves that in 1820 or so. (Mostly in favour of the North, which is pro-British.)
FWIW, some Southern Jeffersonians sure sounded like they meant to put down New England secession by force:
"During the War of 1812, in a series of editorials,[Thomas] Ritchie [of the Richmond Enquirer] denounced the allegedly disloyal elements in New England who wished "to dash to pieces the holy ark of the Union of our country."78 These editorials culminated in one that accused the delegates to the Hartford Convention of plotting secession and warned that "the first act of resistance to the law is treason to the U.S." The editorial concluded thus: "No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes. . . . This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it..." https://books.google.com/books?id=J7Q1DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25
(Of course the Hartford Convention was controlled by relative moderates, and never threatened secession --at least not explicitly. It merely proposed a series of constitutional amendments. Still, it left open the possibility of reconvening for further (unspecified) action if these amendments were rejected...)
Don't you think the anger at the betrayal, the "Stab in the Back", would be enough to cause , not just the government, but the soldiers themselves to want to get in their licks? Besides, it would be a lot easier to give NEW England a beating than England.
If New England has any sense, they'll cultivate good relations with the UK so they have someone to help them if the rest of the US decides to get its revenge.
Yes. Also, there would need to be a US army of some sort, even an unofficial one assembled by angry hawkish politicians and soldiers, to attack independent New England comprehensively. Where would this army come from?
I'm sure others have noted the irony of such an editorial in a Richmond newspaper.
Yeah, it would take at least a few years to build one up, so the New Englanders would have plenty of warning about what their former countrymen are planning.