If the Confederacy Wins the Civil War, Does the United States Move Its Capital?

[Alternator]

Snip

One thing to consider about those defenses - ITTL, the Formerly United States just lost Norfolk (and what, 75% or so of their Atlantic coast, if you count the Gulf?), and they need to replace it. New York City is reasonably centralized along what is left of the Union's Atlantic holdings, and seems to be a strong choice for the primary naval base - so most of those fortifications could be needed, anyway, just to protect the Navy while it's in port.

I really don't think the naval vulnerability would be a major consideration. "Too isolated" is enough on its own.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry...


Yeah, he's been warned before. I remember the one just before this, it was for a week after he went out of his way to mock some guy he was debating, pretty much after the other guy had conceded and moved on.

Oh yeah. I also remember how he mocked my idea of the CSA seceeding only to get smacked by Latin America, and that I'd have better luck writting Tolkien-esque fantasy.

He also dissed Canada once. And you do not diss Canada, damn it!

 

[Indigo]

Alright, so if we look at the 1870 census list of U.S. cities and eliminate all of those that are on the coast (or the Great Lakes) or in or bordering a former slave state, we get the following list. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Albany, Indianapolis all seem like good picks?

2 Philadelphia city, PA.............. 674,022
16 Pittsburgh city, PA *.............. 86,076
20 Albany city, NY.................... 69,422
23 Allegheny city, PA *............... 53,180
27 Indianapolis city, IN.............. 48,244
28 Troy city, NY...................... 46,465
29 Syracuse city, NY.................. 43,051
30 Worcester city, MA................. 41,105
31 Lowell city, MA.................... 40,928
34 Hartford city, CT.................. 37,180
35 Scranton city, PA.................. 35,092
36 Reading city, PA................... 33,930
37 Paterson city, NJ.................. 33,579
42 Columbus city, OH.................. 31,274
44 Dayton city, OH.................... 30,473
45 Lawrence city, MA.................. 28,921
46 Utica city, NY..................... 28,804

 

[Captain Jack]

One thing to consider about those defenses - ITTL, the Formerly United States just lost Norfolk (and what, 75% or so of their Atlantic coast, if you count the Gulf?), and they need to replace it. New York City is reasonably centralized along what is left of the Union's Atlantic holdings, and seems to be a strong choice for the primary naval base - so most of those fortifications could be needed, anyway, just to protect the Navy while it's in port.

I really don't think the naval vulnerability would be a major consideration. "Too isolated" is enough on its own.

That's a good point. I agree that New York would be the primary naval base. It's not only a good location geographically, but it's one of the only options left for the US' primary naval base. The only locations I can think of for such a base ITTL are New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. I don't know anything about Boston's qualities as a port and fleet base, so I'll toss it our for now. New York seems like a better option than Philadelphia because it's a bigger and better port, although Philadelphia does have the bonus of being protected by being upriver. Any ideas for other locations that might be contenders? I suppose Baltimore or Annapolis might also be a possibility, but it strikes me as far to vulnerable to being bottled up in the Chesapeake.

Is New York all that isolated though? The Erie Canal and railroad lines should make it pretty well connected to the Midwest.

 

[galveston bay]

That's a good point. I agree that New York would be the primary naval base. It's not only a good location geographically, but it's one of the only options left for the US' primary naval base. The only locations I can think of for such a base ITTL are New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. I don't know anything about Boston's qualities as a port and fleet base, so I'll toss it our for now. New York seems like a better option than Philadelphia because it's a bigger and better port, although Philadelphia does have the bonus of being protected by being upriver. Any ideas for other locations that might be contenders? I suppose Baltimore or Annapolis might also be a possibility, but it strikes me as far to vulnerable to being bottled up in the Chesapeake.

Is New York all that isolated though? The Erie Canal and railroad lines should make it pretty well connected to the Midwest.

there are some important political reasons why New York City wouldn't get the nod. The Midwest and New England wouldn't like it one bit, figuring it would give that part of the country far too much power (keep in mind it is the financial center already). If the Republican Party is still powerful, New York is way too Democratic (as in Boss Tweed). If not, then even the Democrats in the Midwest are going to want the advantages of having the capital near them

 

[M79]

Indianapolis would not be wise - Southern Indiana was home to many Southern sympathizers, Governor Morton might have been prosecuted after the war were he a Confederate for his actions in the state.

Why not start from scratch and build a new capital at St Joseph MO (already has rail access before the Civil War) or Omaha, NE (about the farthest up the Missouri River a steamboat could travel)? More space, more defensible, more room to grow...

 

[Alternator]

That's a good point. I agree that New York would be the primary naval base. It's not only a good location geographically, but it's one of the only options left for the US' primary naval base. The only locations I can think of for such a base ITTL are New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. I don't know anything about Boston's qualities as a port and fleet base, so I'll toss it our for now. New York seems like a better option than Philadelphia because it's a bigger and better port, although Philadelphia does have the bonus of being protected by being upriver. Any ideas for other locations that might be contenders? I suppose Baltimore or Annapolis might also be a possibility, but it strikes me as far to vulnerable to being bottled up in the Chesapeake.

Is New York all that isolated though? The Erie Canal and railroad lines should make it pretty well connected to the Midwest.

Boston Harbor is quite good, but it's not large enough to serve as the primary Atlantic naval base - it'd be a reasonable choice as a secondary base, however, if the conflict with Britain (and there's certainly some, in some manner, for the Confederacy to hold out) lingers on long-term, and you want something significant on the northern side of Cape Cod.

 

[Leo euler]

Someone posted this thread on Reddit (???)

ok, which one of you did that?

Seriously, anyone who posts about threads here on another site needs to stop taking things so personally.

 

[Roland Traveler]

there are some important political reasons why New York City wouldn't get the nod. The Midwest and New England wouldn't like it one bit, figuring it would give that part of the country far too much power (keep in mind it is the financial center already). If the Republican Party is still powerful, New York is way too Democratic (as in Boss Tweed). If not, then even the Democrats in the Midwest are going to want the advantages of having the capital near them

Plus New York was kinda pro-South. That'd probably kill any hope they had of being the US capital.

 

[galveston bay]

I didn't know it was chosen as a compromise. In that case, if they don't care about showing weakness (or somehow moving the capital doesn't actually show it) then I guess they would actually movie to a more important place.

pork barrel has a long history in American politics...lol... that it happened to be practically within a stones throw of George Washington's house helped a bit too

 

[galveston bay]

I would have suggested Philadelphia most of the time(in fact, they did just that in TL-191), but dartingfog's come up with a very interesting scenario here-



This is honestly a well-thought out scenario and a pretty unique one, too. The fact that it was also named for a Founder would also, I think, provide a significant prestige boost as well.

chuckle... I wrote up an alternate history once (about a decade ago) (the North lost the Civil War) where Madison became the capital in the 1880s after a bit of political fighting over the subject. The name appealed to me too

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

But let's say you're a member of Congress on the New-capital search committee in the 1870s. Where does it go?

...So that leaves only Wisconsin. My best bet would be Madison, as the government infrastructure is already there. It's also pretty close to major rail lines and Chicago, but not too close.

That would have been really cool (sine it is my home state)! However, I doubt that Madison would necessarily get the nod. With all the (not unusual) troubles of choosing it as the state capital, I imagine all the losing cities (plus some new candidates) would be vying for the location. My guess would be something in the SE part of the state (most developed area) or possibly NE or Central area (more open land to speculate on). Rib Mountain would make a big new Capitol Hill.

 

[dartingfog]

Indianapolis would not be wise - Southern Indiana was home to many Southern sympathizers, Governor Morton might have been prosecuted after the war were he a Confederate for his actions in the state.

Why not start from scratch and build a new capital at St Joseph MO (already has rail access before the Civil War) or Omaha, NE (about the farthest up the Missouri River a steamboat could travel)? More space, more defensible, more room to grow...

St Joseph was in a slave state, so I don't think it's a likely place for the new capital. Omaha might work, though.

That would have been really cool (sine it is my home state)! However, I doubt that Madison would necessarily get the nod. With all the (not unusual) troubles of choosing it as the state capital, I imagine all the losing cities (plus some new candidates) would be vying for the location. My guess would be something in the SE part of the state (most developed area) or possibly NE or Central area (more open land to speculate on). Rib Mountain would make a big new Capitol Hill.

I realize that if Madison is chosen as the new U.S. capital, it means that the state capital has to move elsewhere in Wisconsin.

But, I have another idea:

How about moving the US capital to Adams, Wisconsin (not far from Madison): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams,_Wisconsin

Since Washington was the first President, and was the namesake of the first capital, it makes sense that the second capital would be named after John Adams (the 2nd President). As a bonus, President Adams was a Northerner, and his opposition to slavery might mean he would be portrayed ITTL as the chief founding father of the USA, while the importance of Southerners and slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson get downplayed.

In addition, I like the idea of an inland capital between the Mississippi and Lake Michigan. The Mississippi will be vulnerable to attack from the CSA, while Lake Michigan will be vulnerable to the British (which is part of the reason I don't think Chicago is a likely choice). In case of a two-front war with the CSA and Great Britain, Adams seems to be one of the most defensible places east of the Mississippi.

 

[wietze]

in addition to the the south won scenario, how about one where there is a peaceful separation.
The union doesn't go to war and accepts the secession of the south as a fait accompli.

would dc still stay the capitol, or would it be moved somewhere else?

 

[Indigo]

in addition to the the south won scenario, how about one where there is a peaceful separation.
The union doesn't go to war and accepts the secession of the south as a fait accompli.

would dc still stay the capitol, or would it be moved somewhere else?

If there's no call for troops than Virginia and the rest of the upper south probably don't secede. So d.c. wouldn't be especially close to the new border and there's no real reason to move it then.

 

[Konrad Sartorius]

Since we have yet to see an explanation of the glorious confederate victory that passed the laugh test, feel free.

Demographic and economic wealth of 3-1 odds or more in the 1860s in the United States is only going to end one way.

Best,

Never mind the Vietnam War where the US had a 384-1 ratio of gdp superiority as well as a 10-1 ratio of population superiority.

 

[CalBear]

Based on the OP's statement that the war ends on something similar to OTL starting lines - The U.S., if it moved, would almost certainly be to Philly. I would expect the U.S. to hold on to DC if there was a consensus that the War was, in fact, over. Same goes for Richmond.

The reality is, however, that an end to the Civil War would be very much the 1800s version of the Treaty of Versailles, a 20 year cease fire followed by a much more destructive war that ends with an utterly crushed CSA. The U.S. would continue to grow in size and industrial power since that was the Federals economic engine while the CSA would very much want to stay mainly agrarian since that was where the wealth of the CSA was concentrated. So expect both Capitals to move.

By the late 1880s the U.S. will be ready to rock again, this time with a strong cadre of professional soldiers and probably a network of National Guard style formation across the states, 10 times the industry of the South a fleet of sufficient strength to really cut the CSA off from the sea and hold against all comers, at least in littoral waters (LOT cheaper to build shallow draft monitors with heavy guns than trans-ocean capable warships with similar fighting characteristics). The South will also have worked to improve its military, but the reality there is that much of its standing military would have to be dedicated to dealing with slave unrest (there wouldn't be a slave in the South who wouldn't know that if the get out of the CSA they will be free for ever and on the spot.)

 

[Gloss]

Based on the OP's statement that the war ends on something similar to OTL starting lines - The U.S., if it moved, would almost certainly be to Philly. I would expect the U.S. to hold on to DC if there was a consensus that the War was, in fact, over. Same goes for Richmond.

The reality is, however, that an end to the Civil War would be very much the 1800s version of the Treaty of Versailles, a 20 year cease fire followed by a much more destructive war that ends with an utterly crushed CSA. The U.S. would continue to grow in size and industrial power since that was the Federals economic engine while the CSA would very much want to stay mainly agrarian since that was where the wealth of the CSA was concentrated. So expect both Capitals to move.

By the late 1880s the U.S. will be ready to rock again, this time with a strong cadre of professional soldiers and probably a network of National Guard style formation across the states, 10 times the industry of the South a fleet of sufficient strength to really cut the CSA off from the sea and hold against all comers, at least in littoral waters (LOT cheaper to build shallow draft monitors with heavy guns than trans-ocean capable warships with similar fighting characteristics). The South will also have worked to improve its military, but the reality there is that much of its standing military would have to be dedicated to dealing with slave unrest (there wouldn't be a slave in the South who wouldn't know that if the get out of the CSA they will be free for ever and on the spot.)

But how would the second war start? With what motivation?

 

[CalBear]

Never mind the Vietnam War where the US had a 384-1 ratio of gdp superiority as well as a 10-1 ratio of population superiority.

Well there is the not insignificant matter that the U.s. never actually fought to win, for whatever value of winning there was, in Vietnam. If the U.S. had wanted to win the U.S. would have landed, probably near Nam Dinh, in at least Corps, probably multiple Corps, strength and driven north, destroying North Vietnam in the process.

Never mistake the lack of political desire with the inability to do something militarily.

 

[CalBear]

But how would the second war start? With what motivation?

To teach the goddammed rebels whose the Boss, the slave holding bastards.

Or some variance on the theme, probably pushed by the newspapers on the 20th or 25th Anniversary of the Rebellion. Managed to get the U.S. off to war for a LOT less justification in 1898.