Idea: reverse DoD

Your challenge, should you accept it, is to have at least Georgia, South and North Carolina successfully secede from the Union before 1815. Everything North of the Mason-Dixon line (Delaware doesn't count as "North of the MD line") should stay in the Union.
PoD must be after the end of the Constitutional Convention, and all three above mentioned states must have ratified the Constitution by 1790.
 
Your challenge, should you accept it, is to have at least Georgia, South and North Carolina successfully secede from the Union before 1815. Everything North of the Mason-Dixon line (Delaware doesn't count as "North of the MD line") should stay in the Union.
PoD must be after the end of the Constitutional Convention, and all three above mentioned states must have ratified the Constitution by 1790.

I'm afraid that very last part about the Convention isn't quite necessary, and neither is the 1815 deadline quite doable. 1825 to 1835 is workable, though.

Perhaps the Northern states decide to boycott Southern industry sometime in the early 1820s, perhaps with slavery as a factor. If the South had managed to somehow miraculously begin industrializing faster than OTL perhaps they might actually be able to secede if they have a bad enough reaction to such.(though they might need some backing from Britain, which could eventually lead to another Anglo-American war a la 1814.). IOTL, one of the main problems our CSA had was that Union industries significantly outnumbered theirs. TBH, though, even then, not all of the South might be able to break off successfully. I can definitely see the possibility of Kentucky, Virginia and perhaps even Tennessee either wanting to sit this out and/or possibly being forcibly re-annexed.
 
Does this mean the rump, eventually fully free-state-based USA spreads through the Americas and becomes a shining beacon of liberty and equality (probably with slightly more left-leaning slant than OTL) while a small Dixieland-based republic manages to last through the 20th century but with blatant slavery and hierarchy?
 
Does this mean the rump, eventually fully free-state-based USA spreads through the Americas and becomes a shining beacon of liberty and equality (probably with slightly more left-leaning slant than OTL) while a small Dixieland-based republic manages to last through the 20th century but with blatant slavery and hierarchy?

No. It just meant: early secession. Though it can do all of that (if you find a plausible way, that is).
I'm afraid that very last part about the Convention isn't quite necessary,
I put it to make sure the Union would be something recognizable to OTL readers (and because otherwise it's ridiculously easy, just have the Philadelphia Convention produce an outcome that is unacceptable to the South).
 
Last edited:
Does this mean the rump, eventually fully free-state-based USA spreads through the Americas and becomes a shining beacon of liberty and equality (probably with slightly more left-leaning slant than OTL) while a small Dixieland-based republic manages to last through the 20th century but with blatant slavery and hierarchy?

TBH, I don't think an America sans the South could quite make it past Arizona, New Mexico and California(and that's being optimistic, btw!), but perhaps an annexation of Canada could be possible given the right circumstances, IMHO. :D

Also, slavery lasting until, say, the 1960s may be possible, sadly. If 'Decades of Darkness' can manage to pull it off(although plausibility really needed to be stretched there to make it work, although it did.), with the *Mid-North and *West along with much of Latin America attached, I don't see how a nation comprised of just the South, and maybe not even all of it, couldn't somehow make it last a century longer than OTL with the right PODs.
 
One possible idea for a spur to secession: the 1809 abolition of the slave trade. Perhaps if that angered them enough, maybe in connection with an earlier Andy Jackson-type expedition to Florida which failed due to perceived betrayal from the federal government? We might need Virginia to abolish slavery as well, to generate more hostility at the Virginian-dominated federal establishment.

Otherwise, another idea I might see working would be an even more Federalist government, but I can't see how to get that without Virginia and the West at least considering secession as well.
 
One possible idea for a spur to secession: the 1809 abolition of the slave trade. Perhaps if that angered them enough, maybe in connection with an earlier Andy Jackson-type expedition to Florida which failed due to perceived betrayal from the federal government? We might need Virginia to abolish slavery as well, to generate more hostility at the Virginian-dominated federal establishment.

Otherwise, another idea I might see working would be an even more Federalist government, but I can't see how to get that without Virginia and the West at least considering secession as well.

Virginia can secede. The Union must comprise at least MA, NH, NY, CT, NJ and PA. GA, NC and SC must secede. All the rest can go either way.
 
Virginia can secede. The Union must comprise at least MA, NH, NY, CT, NJ and PA. GA, NC and SC must secede. All the rest can go either way.
Actually, it might be quite tough to do this. North Carolina was one of the later and less enthusiastic states to secede. OTL, they only decided to after VA did, AFAIK.
SC, GA, AL, MS sure, but if VA and TN don't NC won't either. IMO.
 
Actually, it might be quite tough to do this. North Carolina was one of the later and less enthusiastic states to secede. OTL, they only decided to after VA did, AFAIK.
SC, GA, AL, MS sure, but if VA and TN don't NC won't either. IMO.
Of course, North Carolina was one of the last of the Thirteen to accede, as well.
 
you could have a weaker central government at the begining of the usa (originally it was meant to be much looser)...that way if a state secedes it can do so without being wardecced by the rest (probaly)
 
Top