If northern states seceded, any idea on their federation’s name, flag, uniforms?

Well, what about adding a syllable to reduce the confusion with "federal". So, Confederate States of America? Or the Confederacy for short? I mean it worked as a name for the southern secessionists.

Exactly what I was going to say. Lincoln had no problem referring to the US as a "confederacy": "I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time..." http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-at-independence-hall/
 
I think it would help a lot of people here if we discussed what could push the North would secede. For enough states to totally reject federal authority, something big needs to change - the government needs to be completely in thrall to slaver interests and to make laws imposing slavery on northern states (i.e. ban on freeing slaves, slaves remain enslaved even when they/their master move to free states). I don't think anything less would be enough to drive the North to secession - I'm of the opinion that without Southern secession, the North would never really be interested in federal abolition, and therefore it would take an imposition of slavery on the North for secession to really be considered.

In this scenario, the North could take on the mantle of States' Rights (much more legitimately than the CSA in OTL) - but on the other hand, the North (especially the northeast) was politically dominated by Republicans (and Whigs/Federalists before them), who favoured a strong central government which would defend the interests of the capitalist-industrialist class (by imposing tariffs and building infrastructure). 'Free', 'Federated' and 'Republic' are good words, rejecting slaver aristocracy and slaver power while affirming federalism and centralised government. 'Confederate/Confederacy' is also an interesting suggestion - it feels wrong to OTL ears, but I can't think of a reason they wouldn't use it.

When it comes to the national name you can always try to revive the Fredon/Frede name a New Yorker made, equivalent to some talking on Dixieland for the CSA. That allows for “Republic of” than “X States of America”, too.
Despite my love for Fredon as a name, I think it'd take an enormous change in mentalities for the North to so dramatically reject the American myth of the revolution and the founding fathers - they're more likely to claim the USA has been corrupted by slave power, and that they're restoring the true vision of America (as Lincoln claimed with emancipation).

-

The question of what the flag might look like is interesting - I think they'd face the same questions as the South did OTL. Many southerners didn't want to give up the US flag, and I think the North would face the same demands, and therefore would seek to emulate it. Some number of bars and however many stars, combined in a manner slightly (but not too) different from the old flag. Perhaps they could replace the Red stripes with Yankee Blue stripes (as on the Serapis flag of 1779), or arrange the stripes/stars in a different way.
As the war dragged on, however, demands to make the flag distinct from the enemy's flag would grow, just as they did in the CSA OTL. They could take inspiration from a battle flag as the South did - and maybe a symbol like an eagle or a pine tree could take on special significance to the secessionists. The flag might be coloured the same way as the uniforms - a blue, a brown or a buff.
Personally, I like the way Blue-and-Buff sounds - New Jersey's flag is buff colour, inspired by the blue and buff of Washington's New Jersey Line uniforms - and New York's flag was also buff pre-1901. Here's a suggestion - buff-and-blue stripes, with a pine tree on a blue hoist. Or maybe a blue flag with a buff border and an eagle in the centre.

-

Also, I am imagining that the Noeth would take most of the West with them. I have seen far to many maps with them seceding, and simply keeping themselves to the Midwest and Northwest, despite how the Cfederates tried to claim Arizona, Oklahoma, etc for themselves.
You're right that the North would try to claim a lot of the West - but I think people are actually far too optimistic about which states the secessionists would control ATL. Only the most loyally Republican states are guaranteed to secede. Anti-war sentiment in the North was strong in OTL, and combined with the legitimacy problem inherent in secession, secessionists will face steep opposition in many states which remained with Washington OTL. This won't just be the same as OTL with the names switched.
  • The states which joined the CSA OTL won't give a single second of thought to joining the North.
  • Border states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri won't consider joining the North either. They have no interest in abolition, and only remained with the USA OTL due to the blatant illegitimacy of the CSA (while in ATL, the North will bear the stain of secession in the eyes of moderates).
  • West Virginia will not secede like it did in OTL. The degree to which Appalachian Virginia was anti-slavery is exaggerated - at the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861, both votes revealed large numbers of loyalists in the lowlands and a large number of secessionists in the mountains - and at the statewide referendum, loyalists only managed to win the counties along the border with Ohio. The establishment of West Virginia was less a case of 'local loyalist abolitionists declaring independence', and more 'region controlled by Federal forces, which happens to be relatively more loyalist, placed under control of loyalist remnant government'. This will not happen ATL - though if the North is militarily successful, it may gain control of a smaller portion of Virginia along the south bank of the Ohio river (to control for good, or to use as leverage in negotiations).
  • I think it'd be reasonable to look at Lincoln's vote percentages in 1860 and 1864 to see how other states would feel about a Northern anti-Slavery secession.
    • Lincoln only won Oregon and California by small pluralities in 1860 (36% and 32% respectively) - I think this indicates that in ATL, it'd be hard for secessionists in these states to gain enough support to join the North. I think settlers in these states (and more southwestern territories) were relatively neutral on the slavery issue, and would err on the side of the status quo and remain with Washington. I don't see any reason for the region to go independent, either.
    • New Jersey was very close in 1860, and voted for the pro-peace McClellan in 1864. It was also the last Northern state to abolish slavery, and (at first) refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in OTL. I think NJ would be reluctant to secede, but would be surrounded by Pennsylvania and New York (which will certainly secede). My feeling is that New Jersey would depend on NYC - if Washington can't maintain/quickly regain control of NYC, NJ would certainly secede.
    • Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, New York were all relatively close, with Lincoln winning majorities under 54%.
      • The Lower Midwest (Ohio, Illinois, Indiana) will be a battleground the same way the Upper South was OTL. Copperheads will fight against secession with support from many farmers and traders, who are more interested in Mississippi access than abolitionism. German and Irish immigrants, who were uninterested in fighting against the South OTL, might be even more uninterested in secession ATL - or they might fear the competition of slave labour and join the abolitionists. One possible outcome is one or more West Virginia-like loyalist states along the north bank of the Ohio, fighting for legitimacy with rival secessionist governments (which could provide the North with a land connection between Pennsylvania and Michigan/Wisconsin).
      • The OTL Civil War was unpopular amongst the NYC working class due to the negative effect on local industries dependent on the Cotton trade, as well as the fear of labour competition from freedmen. This unpopularity led to the New York Draft Riots, and McClellan almost won the state in 1864. Northern secession would have the same effect on Cotton shipping, but as with the Lower Midwest, the fear of slave labour competition could drive the urban working class towards abolitionism/secessionism. I can see the Federal government trying to maintain control of NYC, just like New Orleans or West Virginia OTL).
    • ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, PA, MI, WI, MN, IA all voted for Lincoln by comparatively large margins in 1860, and I think would almost certainly side with the secessionists ATL.
      • Pennsylvania is the 'tipping point' state in my opinion - without Pennsylvania, the Midwestern states wouldn't secede, and the secession would become an exclusively New English affair, and would likely be defeated.
      • Connecticut and New Hampshire almost voted for McClellan in 1864. I think this indicates that these states would face strong debates between loyalists and secessionists - but the secessionists would almost certainly win the debate.
  • The territories would, by default, be controlled by the Federal government, just as in OTL. Local settlers, however, would certainly be more sympathetic to the North than the South. I think Northern attempts at conquering the Nebraska, Dakota, maybe Kansas and Washington territories would be much more successful than the Confederacy's OTL efforts to conquer Arizona and New Mexico.
The North is going to want to try and keep Louisiana. If not, they will just need to make sure Ohio and Indiana are utterly covered in traintracks, so they can ship everythgin East without heading too far down the Mississippi.
For the North to take Louisiana and the Mississippi, they'll need to conquer and annex huge areas which will never voluntarily join the North. I have a hard time seeing a secessionist North claiming such large and hostile territories - and the industrialists who would be in power in the North would be very interested in forcing Midwestern produce onto the railroads (which they can profit off of, unlike river transport).

-

Given the above, the question of where a Northern capital would go is interesting, and I don't think there's any obvious answer.
  • New York would be vulnerable - both to federal naval attacks, and to local anti-war discontent.
  • A new capital in the west is even more vulnerable given what I said before about how the Lower Midwest would be a battlefield ATL. And I don't think it would work as incentive for western states to secede - western farmers and traders are too interested in the Mississippi access offered by the South, and wouldn't give that up in exchange for the few benefits a Northern capital in the region would offer.
  • Philadelphia is probably the most likely choice, but it is also somewhat close to the border (Delaware and Maryland are almost certainly not seceding).
  • Perhaps Trenton or some other city in New Jersey would be offered the capital in order to secure the state's secession - just like with Richmond and Virginia OTL.
  • The same could happen for Troy or Syracuse - transport hubs in a secure locations, within an important state which might need an incentive to secede.
 
Top