How would a Northern Secession work?

With any POD after 1776, how would you have a northern secession come about?
Also how would the secession work out, would it be peaceful, or bloody? (yes i know it depends, but id like your opinions)
 
With any POD after 1776, how would you have a northern secession come about?
Also how would the secession work out, would it be peaceful, or bloody? (yes i know it depends, but id like your opinions)

Well would you count a secession by New England over the War of 1812 (which I imagine might be peaceful with the US distracted by the war)? Then with political power swinging to the slaveocratic south other northern states may go over time. Again I would think this would be peaceful, the southern aristocrats happy to keep their own way of life.
 
New England

I'd be fascinated to see a knowledgeable development of this idea.

The southern slave-holding class was only devoted to "state's rights" when it suited their purposes. That isn't a slur against the South per se. Northern political elites were no less cynical; e.g., even in the middle of the Civil War Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation assured non-Confederate slave holders they could keep their slaves so as not to push them into the arms of Jefferson Davis.

The Southern political elites had no problem with federal legislation, enforced by federal officers, that vitiated state laws protecting former slaves even when (as in the *Dred Scot* case) the individual and his family could hardly be termed "runaways."

I understand that antebellum New Englanders looked very seriously at secession as an assertion of their states' rights to legislate freely on slaves' full humanity and the legal consequences, which some within that group also saw as a moral issue superseding either obedience to federal authority or any presumed need to preserve the Union.

I have also often wondered if a secessionist New England might first negotiate covertly to enter the British Commonwealth, with or without formal ties to Canada. The English were (by then) privately inclined toward pushing for emancipation in the Americas. Also, Canadian sovereignty was in play in the various machinations of both sides' covert activity, so I doubt either Canada or her Monarch would have been disinterested in conversations securing the Canadian border several years before. It would, after all, have been even closer in time to the drubbing they'd given the United States, and likewise to their action burning down D.C., for which they might have well supposed the U.S. would seek revenge.

I do not know how powerful the domestic body of interests was or how close they came to persuading fellow New Englanders of the cause.

Anybody here that does?
 
Last edited:
I think the key is altering the power balance between the north and the south. What about if the western land claims of the original colonies remain in force for longer, giving us a more Virginia dominated and thus presumably slave friendly midwest?

With the northern states cut off from expansion into the interior of the continent they could feel like a minority in a changing country that they didn't fit in with, in the same way the Southerners were in the OTL 1800's.
 
A Federalist-dominated metropolitan chunk of the northeastern (former) United States, run by Hamilton et al, with centralized banking and other financial mechanisms, a little less de-emphasis on stability in government...

It could be Singapore writ large.

Maybe.
 
Not sure how plausible this is but, I can see a Northern rather than Southern secession in ~1860ish. The casus belli would be if Taney's Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional for states to prohibit slavery and emancipate slaves within their borders, and it was indeed widely believed that he was preparing to do so as soon he was given a relevant case (namely, Lemmon v. New York was working its way up through the courts.) This was preempted by the secession in OTL.

So, the POD would be something like this: Enough voters switch their votes that Lincoln loses California, Oregon, Illinois, and Indiana, leaving him without an electoral majority (this needs both a more unified Democratic party - or at least a more pragmatic one that saw union tickets in more crucial states, and some actual vote switching - Lincoln got majorities in enough states that a fusion opposition wouldn't be enough.) Since nobody has an electoral majority, this throws the race to the House of Representatives.

Let's assume that the states which were majority vacant in OTL (due to secession) would be controlled by Democrats ITTL. That is, TN, VA, AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TX (11 states in total.) If the other states have the same delegations as OTL, and they vote along party lines, the tally is:
Rep - 14
Dem - 15
Unionists - 4
Deadlock - 1 (CT is tied between Democrats and Republicans)

Which leaves no one with a majority of the vote. Given this, I think it's reasonable for either Stephen Douglas or John Bell to be selected for president as a compromise candidate (depending on how many electoral votes they have ITTL.) So, the US has another few years of an ineffectual Buchanan-esque presidency, where tensions ratchet up higher and higher.

And then, around 1862-1863 (2-3 years after the Court of Appeals heard the case), Roger B. Taney issues down a decision in Lemmon v. New York, ruling that it is unconstitutional for a state to prohibit slavery. The decision further polarizes the country. An attempt at compromise (involving a constitutional amendment which gives states the right to prohibit slavery within their territories) fails, and before long, the northern states are seceding. I really don't think there'd be significant bloodshed in this scenario, but hard to say.
 
I should point out as early as 1786 the Essex Junto wanted a New England secession, but in the 1800s-1810s they definitely wanted at a maximum 'the Potomac' (IE, Maryland) and a middle compromise, 'the Susquehannah' (IE, Pennsylvania), and at worst, 'the Hudson' (IE, New York) as their border. They seem focused on the eastern urban states, granted, due to the popularity of Democratic-Republicans in the 'west'.

If you get the max (IE, Maryland) it wouldn't surprise me to see a split of the western states and territories as well, however....northern (IE, the Western Reserve) and eastern (IE, Marietta) Ohio and Detroit were Federalist early on, and the NW/Indiana/Michigan Territories and northern Louisiana Territory being given up to the northerners as well due to their settlement or ease of access to Pennsylvania, New York, and New England compared to say, Virginia.
 

katchen

Banned
Maybe Northern secession simply needs to be forced by the right issue. The 1857 Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court effectively struck down the anti-slavery laws of the Northern States by ruling that the Constitution's provisions that protect property also protect human property and that owners of human property may take that property where they please within the US.
Dred Scott was simply ignored by the Northern States. And the Fugitive Slave Law was resisted within the Northern States. And no attempt was made to set up any kind of federal authority to enforce either law.
But what if, in the wake of Dred Scott, southerners sought to test Dred Scott by attempting to set up slave worked plantations in southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey? And in the inevitable confrontations with state and local authorities, demanded help from the Federal Government?
And/or declared the Lecompton Constitution to be the valid constitution for Kansas (or at least the Free Soil constitution for Kansas to be unconstitutional)? And if the Federal Govenment will not send troops, that it is constitutional for neighboring states to send militia to protect local's property?
Under THESE circumstances, the Northern States could easily find themselves legally declared to be outlaw states. And seceded from the Union.
Would President Buchanan grant that help to restore the Union?
 
I'm kinda curious, in such a scenario, what states would comprise this hypothetical FSA (Federated States of America for humor sake).

Would it comprise all free states such as the east coast and great lakes states as well as california? Just the free states east of the Mississippi including Iowa and Minnesota?

And in the even they secede, can they win? Part of me think that unlike the CSA, they actually do stand a solid chance on their own of winning simply due to the same reasons the south lost.
 
Wouldn't the south say good riddance? It gets rid of those who oppose and refuse to impliment Dred-Scott. A lot depends on how much of the Indian Territories both sides claim? Would the army try to reimpose the union on a recalcitrant north? Who would be Lincoln in "reverse" and try to maintain the union?
 
Last edited:
this throws the race to the House of Representatives.

Let's assume that the states which were majority vacant in OTL (due to secession) would be controlled by Democrats ITTL. That is, TN, VA, AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TX (11 states in total.)

FYI:

The President would be elected by the sitting House of Representatives, not the House that took office on 3 March. That's how it was done in 1824.

(At present, the new House takes office on 4 January, 16 days before the President, so the new House can choose if necessary.)

In 1860-1861, that would be the 36th Congress. In that Congress, there were 33 delegations. (Not counting Kansas, which was admitted after the seven Deep South states declared secession and their delegations withdrew.)

Of these 33:

15 free states - controlled by Republicans.

Illinois - 5 Douglas Democrats, 4 Republicans.
Oregon - 1 Breckinridge Democrat.
California - 2 Breckinridge Democrats.

12 slave states - controlled by Breckinridge Democrats.
Tennessee - 3 Breckinridge Democrats, 7 ex-Whigs.
Kentucky - 5 Breckinridge Democrats, 5 ex-Whigs.
Maryland - 3 Breckinridge Democrats, 3 ex-Whigs.

What the result is depends on the distribution of electoral votes going in. The House must choose one of the top three candidates. The Republican would be one, but IMHO, if the Republican doesn't win outright, any two of the other three becomes possible.
 

katchen

Banned
Buchanan dies in 1858. Breckenridge becomes President and everything goes to hell.
Go for it, Darth Kiryan! Buchanan is assassinated by a Southerner or Southern sympathizer (maybe even John Wilkes Booth or maybe someone who gets close to "Old Buck" as a sexual liaison--the man supposedly was gay) because Buchanan will not enforce the Dred Scott Decision legalizing slavery across the United States (the same way Roe v Wade legalized abortion across the US in 1973 OTL). Breckenridge, who is Buchanan's VP does attempt to do so, by calling out federal troops into Northern states that attempt to interfere with Southern slave» Advanced Search

» Stats
Welcome to our newest member, Roy Drake
owners bringing slaves into Northern states such as Illinois or Ohio or New Jersey or even Massachusetts.
It is that willingness to call out federal troops and state militias to enforce legal slavery nationwide that results in Northern states seceding from the Union since neither northern "free soil" control of the House nor the Senate appears to have any control over President Breckenridge's actions.
 
Top