Further seccesion from Union after CSA victory?

archaeogeek

Banned
I mean, we're not talking about the Civil War period, we're talking about all of American history after the Civil War. Perhaps greater labor strife leads to succession movements to create a 'socialists utopia' or some such in 1900.

In 1900, California is a middling population large state with a population under a million, and it took New Deal infrastructure projects to change that.
Utah is even less relevant.
 
That's as plausible as a seamless, bloodless transfer of Kashmir.

Well if there has been a forced peace on the US then I don't think there would be much choice in the matter and therefore no Union soldiers to cause much blood loss right? I suppose some elements of West Virginia might have cause to fight back somewhat but elements that were pro union probably would have migrated elsewhere during the reclamation by Confederate forces. I can't imagine the majority of the population would suddenly in only 4 years develop a complete loathing of the rest of Virginia. There might be an adjustment period but I don't think it would take too long for most of the population remaining to settle back down as Virginians one and all ... even with their cultural and political differences. IMO.
 
Yes. Secession would have been demonstrated as a viable political right for the second time. The first time being the American Revolutionary War. Of course political right and military capability are two different things here.

I would consider that that West Coast would be the second region which could become a hotbed of secessionist movement. The next would be the Utah Territory. However, I wouldn't be surprised that in the aftermath of the War of Southern Secession, that the way will be paved for other parties to emerge and that regional political differences could arise, particularly the Midwest and the Populist in the 1880s.

Secession was never in the course of American history seen as a "viable political right." You are confusing the recognized "right of revolution" against tyranny with the previously deemed illegal and nonexistent "right of rebellion." (See the Whiskey Rebellion) The election of 1860 was a legal election held within the guidelines of agreed upon rules as per the Constitution. The majority of the slave states didn't like the results so they seceded, well before Lincoln (who had previously promised not to touch slavery where it already existed) even took office. This is an entirely different scenario than the American Revolution which separated the colonies from an uncaring monarchy and a Parliament that refused to give them a representative voice.

As for further secessions...they are highly doubtful. If the South had gained its independence the Democrats were done. The majority of Northerners fought to preserve the Union and having it dismembered would not have made the people of the North very happy. Decades of secessionist bluster made it completely clear as to who was at fault for the dividing of the nation. The Mormons would not have been a trouble spot since the Republicans had removed the condemnation of polygamy from its platform by 1860. Lincoln even met with Mormon representatives and basically promised they would be left alone so long as there was no anti-government violence. The Union would have moved very quickly to complete the transcontinental railroads and its almost certain that an amendment clarifying the illegality of secession would be quickly ratified.

Benjamin
 
I'm confusing nothing. There were several secession movements in the North before the 1860s and it is a right that is protected under the 10th Amendment.

Secession was never in the course of American history seen as a "viable political right." You are confusing the recognized "right of revolution" against tyranny with the previously deemed illegal and nonexistent "right of rebellion." (See the Whiskey Rebellion) The election of 1860 was a legal election held within the guidelines of agreed upon rules as per the Constitution. The majority of the slave states didn't like the results so they seceded, well before Lincoln (who had previously promised not to touch slavery where it already existed) even took office. This is an entirely different scenario than the American Revolution which separated the colonies from an uncaring monarchy and a Parliament that refused to give them a representative voice.

Benjamin
 
Well if there has been a forced peace on the US then I don't think there would be much choice in the matter and therefore no Union soldiers to cause much blood loss right? I suppose some elements of West Virginia might have cause to fight back somewhat but elements that were pro union probably would have migrated elsewhere during the reclamation by Confederate forces. I can't imagine the majority of the population would suddenly in only 4 years develop a complete loathing of the rest of Virginia. There might be an adjustment period but I don't think it would take too long for most of the population remaining to settle back down as Virginians one and all ... even with their cultural and political differences. IMO.

The problem is that any such peace requires a primarily Confederate victory. There is no viable POD where *any* Confederate general could win that degree of victory.
 
I'm confusing nothing. There were several secession movements in the North before the 1860s and it is a right that is protected under the 10th Amendment.

Wow, that's a very wide interpretation of the 10th Amendment and completely unsupported by a single bit of case law. And further more mild threats of secession are completely different from actual secession and the start of a vicious war that leaves over 600,000 Americans dead.

Benjamin
 
In 1900, California is a middling population large state with a population under a million, and it took New Deal infrastructure projects to change that.
Utah is even less relevant.

See, by pointing out the issues with each individual area leaving the Union, you're missing my point. If the CSA leaves, then the option is on the table for any state to leave. Now, I do see people's point about states not wanting to fight a violent Civil War before they leave, but at the same time if the USA recognizes the CSA as a nation, and has better relations with it due to economic ties, secession could be seen as an opportunity for a state that is having a dispute with the Federal government to find a way out. Sure, California may not be able to secede in 1900, but what about 1920? What about Vermont? New England? Kentucky? Alaska? And so on and so forth with every state. While secession may be looked down upon after the Civil War, if we look 70 years later, when Socialists and fascists are radicalizing world, and American, politics, secession could again come to be used. It doesn't even need to have radical politics, however. If Vermont has a disagreement with the Federal government, perhaps they may think they could do it better on their own.
 
My guess is that it for sure would have been handed back. Depending on the exhaustion level of the Southern states and the old dominion specifically ... no peace would have allowed for the continued split.

My guess is that its extremely unlikely it gets handed back. Just me.
 
Top