North American Politics After CSA Victory

Delta Force

Banned
The AH question itself is in the last two paragraphs, but the other paragraphs give valuable background information on the timeline itself.

I am writing a timeline for a nation sim in which the Confederacy manages to win the Civil War. In this timeline the US ends up firing the first shot of the war (not exactly sure how at this point, open to suggestions), provoking an even more stronger backlash from the border states. The Maryland draft riots end up being more violent and deadly than in our timeline, with the rail lines through Baltimore being burned down to disrupt troop movements into DC. Delaware attempts to declare neutrality in the war, but it is seen as being vulnerable to secessionist influences and ends up under a strong US military occupation like Maryland did in real life.

You can see a map of the world in 1950 (when the game starts) here. The North American nations include Canada (which includes the Alaska Purchase), the Confederacy (which keeps West Virginia and includes Maryland and other border states allowed to join the CSA after the end of war by referendum), Texas (an early 1900s breakaway from the CSA) and Pacifica (a breakaway from the US during the Civil War era). As another important note for the timeline, North America does not suffer any war after the end of the American Civil War. The Great War still happens along similar lines to real life except for a Central Powers victory and the nonintervention of the US and its breakaways.

One of the issues for the 1860s part of the timeline is how political parties in North America develop after the war, seeing as the areas of the divided US tended to be heavily one party? The CSA is never going to vote Republican, and United States is going to view the Democrats as either traitors the party of peace, depending on when the US ends its war with the CSA. While one party rule is basically guaranteed for a few years after the war, it seems unlikely that it will continue like that indefinitely. What would be the new source of political divisions in the Confederacy, Pacifica, and the United States through to 1950.

In a somewhat related question (being a political issue), our timeline's Washington state is going to be a strategically vital but obviously very vulnerable area, being sandwiched between Pacifica and the British. I see it as something of a US version of Kalingrad, being a heavily militarized and being seen as one of the most strategically vital locations for the US, being its only Pacific outlet. How likely it is for the United States to keep Washington as a federally administered territory under martial law (as opposed to Washington being a self ruling state)?
 
Last edited:
Firing the first shot was not even considered by Lincoln or any member of his government. In contrast, Davis and his Cabinet were all for firing first, except for Secretary of State Toombs, who correctly saw it would be a disaster.

Referendums are popular in AHs, but after bleeding Kansas, they'd be political suicide for any northern politician that endorsed them. Confederate politicians probably wouldn't want to bring the subject up - North Carolina was supposed to hold one on secesssion, but never did. Unless the CSA is physically occupying Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia, they would not get them at the bargaining table. You've also given the CSA, not just the part of Arizona/New Mexico that they claimed, but other half as well.

There was no real secession sentiment in the west. More boys from the VMI fought for the Confederacy, than from all of California. Russia would never sell Alaska to the British. Newfoundland was separate from Canada until 1949 in OTL.

The idea that there would be no further North American Wars is ludicrously unlikely. The secession precedents would almost certainly lead to further attempts at breakaways, especially in the Confederacy. The Confederacy would try to expand into Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Texas would have to worry about revanchist sentiments in the US, CS, and Mexico. Central America would not successfully unify if everything was peaceful.

For that matter, the precedent of the US shattering into 4 countries is probably going to convince many that too large of a country is inherently unstable. German and Italy may never unify in the first place, Britain would probably partition Canada and India into more managable pieces, and Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans will be even more prone to falling apart than in OTL.

The rump US will probably be dominated by one party till about 1900, while the other gets the blame for the ACW, just like in OTL. There's a small chance of a Progressive Party becoming a major party. If the Confederacy doesn't fragment in its first election (I could easily see a half-dozen or more candidates in 1867) it will either become a repressive single party state or Democrat dominated with smaller States Rights, Fire Eater, Reconstructionist, and/or Whig-successor Parties. Texan government would probably come from one of these minor parties, though logically they wouldn't be the only ones to attempt secession from the Confederacy. No speculation on Pacifica political parties - there no way to predict political views of a nation that has no political reason to have formed in the first place.
 
I'm guessing the US develops a more orthodox Left-Right divide earlier than historically. Wilson's and Roosevelt's leftism was of an odd sort because of the need to accomodate the Southern democrats.

I'd say the South evolves a conciliatory "modified slavery" party in opposition to a status quo faction, but with a semi-covert revolutionary party a potent third force possibly enjoying moments of opportunity that make it more powerful than the other two combined. That third force would never have a constitutional route to power, however -- the pro-slavery parties would stitch things up between themselves.

As regards the North firing the first shot, send Fremont to Harper's Ferry after Lincoln's election and violá.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The idea that there would be no further North American Wars is ludicrously unlikely. The secession precedents would almost certainly lead to further attempts at breakaways, especially in the Confederacy. The Confederacy would try to expand into Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Texas would have to worry about revanchist sentiments in the US, CS, and Mexico. Central America would not successfully unify if everything was peaceful.

Isn't the whole imperialist CSA thing a little cliche though, as well as very risky for them? The economy was based around the economic exploitation of the vast majority of the population, going to grab more land means having to repress an even larger population even as the white male population which would serve as the soldiers and colonizers has been devastated by the Civil War. Also, an expansionist CSA would greatly concern the United States (having former trading partners enslaved is not good for business) and the CSA's crucial European allies (who were concerned the CSA had slavery to begin with). It just seems that it would open up quite the can of worms.
 
The American South was imperialist before the ACW, I don't see why that would change afterwards. The economy being "based around the economic exploitation of the vast majority of the population" is the way empires worked and it didn't stop any period country from trying to grab more land.

The cliche is where ATL's have the CSA effortlessly succeed in said expansion. As you point it, it could open a can of worms, not counting the difficulties of actually fighting the locals.
 
Firing the first shot was not even considered by Lincoln or any member of his government. In contrast, Davis and his Cabinet were all for firing first, except for Secretary of State Toombs, who correctly saw it would be a disaster.

Referendums are popular in AHs, but after bleeding Kansas, they'd be political suicide for any northern politician that endorsed them. Confederate politicians probably wouldn't want to bring the subject up - North Carolina was supposed to hold one on secesssion, but never did. Unless the CSA is physically occupying Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia, they would not get them at the bargaining table. You've also given the CSA, not just the part of Arizona/New Mexico that they claimed, but other half as well.

There was no real secession sentiment in the west. More boys from the VMI fought for the Confederacy, than from all of California. Russia would never sell Alaska to the British. Newfoundland was separate from Canada until 1949 in OTL.

The idea that there would be no further North American Wars is ludicrously unlikely. The secession precedents would almost certainly lead to further attempts at breakaways, especially in the Confederacy. The Confederacy would try to expand into Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Texas would have to worry about revanchist sentiments in the US, CS, and Mexico. Central America would not successfully unify if everything was peaceful.

For that matter, the precedent of the US shattering into 4 countries is probably going to convince many that too large of a country is inherently unstable. German and Italy may never unify in the first place, Britain would probably partition Canada and India into more managable pieces, and Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans will be even more prone to falling apart than in OTL.

The rump US will probably be dominated by one party till about 1900, while the other gets the blame for the ACW, just like in OTL. There's a small chance of a Progressive Party becoming a major party. If the Confederacy doesn't fragment in its first election (I could easily see a half-dozen or more candidates in 1867) it will either become a repressive single party state or Democrat dominated with smaller States Rights, Fire Eater, Reconstructionist, and/or Whig-successor Parties. Texan government would probably come from one of these minor parties, though logically they wouldn't be the only ones to attempt secession from the Confederacy. No speculation on Pacifica political parties - there no way to predict political views of a nation that has no political reason to have formed in the first place.

Minor point, but the Kingdom of Italy already existed in 1861, and controlled the vast majority of the country (exceptions are the City of Rome, still under the protection of Napoleon III, and Venetia, still under the rule of the Habsburgs. And I'd also hazard to guess that if the US fell apart, European nations would be more likely to decide that liberal democracy was at fault rather than geographic size.

I'll also disagree with you on the development of political parties in the victorious CSA; the Confederacy, like the US, used First Past the Post (i.e. simple plurality) to determine who wins elections; this promotes a system of two big-tent parties (called Duverger's Law in political science). 1867 could be a confused election (unless Lee runs), but I think in the long-term the South would see a two-party system (heck, there's a proto-party structure in the South even during the War; the Pro and Anti Davis factions. It wasn't formalized, but neither were Federalists and Democratic-Republicans at first).
 

Delta Force

Banned
On a somewhat related question, what was West Virginia's official status during the Civil War? Was it considered to be the legitimate government for the entire state of Virginia by the Union government or was it considered to represent solely the Western counties? Under the Constitution it is illegal for the federal government to alter the territory of any state without its permission, and since the official Union stance was that the Confederate states never left the Union because secession is illegal. Was Virginia made to give up its claim to West Virgina in order to gain re-admittance (thus erasing the constitutional issues)?
 
On a somewhat related question, what was West Virginia's official status during the Civil War? Was it considered to be the legitimate government for the entire state of Virginia by the Union government or was it considered to represent solely the Western counties? Under the Constitution it is illegal for the federal government to alter the territory of any state without its permission, and since the official Union stance was that the Confederate states never left the Union because secession is illegal. Was Virginia made to give up its claim to West Virgina in order to gain re-admittance (thus erasing the constitutional issues)?

It was considered to be the "Union government of Virginia" as a whole. If the Confederacy wins and is allowed to leave, Washington will no doubt have to accept that the Wheeling conventions have no valid authority in the state and the state government in Richmond represents Virginia in its entirety. They will almost certainly insist that the territorial integrity of the state be respected and the Union Army, currently "an occupation force", be removed.
 
The CSA is going to expand the zone of instability and military strongman rule north into English-speaking states, which will make it a very unpleasant state for the concepts that English-speakers naturally love liberty, hate slavery, and are able to avoid say, rule by military juntas. Even in a realistic scenario where the CSA doesn't do anything outside its own borders, instability and chaos in a region territorially equal in size to Western Europe is going to butterfly away North American politics as we know it from the first.
 
This leaves a question I've thought of before. Isn't Mexico still controlled by France at the time. didn't france pull troops out of Mexico af the Union's victory.
 
It was considered to be the "Union government of Virginia" as a whole. If the Confederacy wins and is allowed to leave, Washington will no doubt have to accept that the Wheeling conventions have no valid authority in the state and the state government in Richmond represents Virginia in its entirety. They will almost certainly insist that the territorial integrity of the state be respected and the Union Army, currently "an occupation force", be removed.

The Confederacy can insist all they want, but no Union politician is going to hand pro-Union territory that is occupied by Union troops over to the Confederacy.
 
West Virginia was admitted as a state in 1863. It's not going back to the CSA - also the geography of giving W.Va back gives the northeast a very narrow neck connecting it to the west. IMHO realistically speaking Kentucky & West Virginia stay with the Union, you might even see a piece of eastern Tennessee where it was very heavily pro-union broken off and added to West Virginia. Indian Territory/Oklahoma could go either way, New Mexico & Arizona stay with the Union.

This geography more or less separates the two "cultures" and will minimize the chance of revanchism in the north or territorial expansionism (northwards) in the south - neither country has a significant population that wishes its' bit of ground belonged to the other. Expect a Union that maintains a much larger military than OTL, and probably a much larger navy since the USA is very much in to maritime commerce and now the RN is seen as a more active "enemy".

If the CSA develops closer ties with European powers (UK, France) or even formal alliance see the USA put aside the "entangling alliances" advice of Washington and try and find European partners (Prussia, Russia, whatever) to counterbalance CSA alliances. Also, depending on relations with UK, demilitarization of Great Lakes may cease.

A bone of contention will be the Chesapeake Bay & the Mississippi. In both cases the access to the sea is controlled through CSA territory, but exports from the midwest (especially grain) & access to Baltimore (a major port) need to be clarified..at least free passage for merchant shipping to Baltimore (and DC), and some sort of duty free transit (sealed bond) of US goods for export via New Orleans. The latter is a win for the CSA as it provides transit fees/use of warehousing etc. in N.O. These export issues will spur the development of RR capacity so midwest goods can be moved to "free access" ports & of course transcontinental RR building will be pushed to help bind the country together.

Overall I don't see "friendly" relations between USA & CSA for a long time (if ever) although "correct" relations and no direct hostility is doable.

Lastly since I would expect an attempt by the CSA to expand somewhat in to the Caribbean or Central America, the USA will begin "imperial" expansion to match earlier than OTL. Alaska will be bought, and US moves in Hawaii & Pacific islands sooner (this also keeps the RN away from the US west coast.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Perhaps a referendum could be held in West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and the other border states as part of the final territorial settlement? Also, the southern parts of the New Mexico Territory (around the Gadsden Purchase) were pro-CSA, perhaps the territory could be sold to the CSA for a few million dollars?

Also, West Virginia and the proposed East Tennessee could be a major issue as the Confederates will argue that the US has no right to split states under the US Constitution. Perhaps the Commonwealth of Virginia (and Tennessee) could get federal territory in the state from the US for free and an additional payment of some kind from the US to make an acceptable arrangement? Perhaps Virginia could even argue that the federal government owes them damages for causing arson to "state" property during the evacuation of Norfolk?
 
The Confederacy can insist all they want, but no Union politician is going to hand pro-Union territory that is occupied by Union troops over to the Confederacy.

they are defacto and dejure recognizing that the Wheeling conventions have no legitemacy, combined with the fact that the most of the counties that voted for secession had extremely low or none existent returns... Its basically an army coup.

The Confederacy will simply never agree and the northern states are hardly going to prolong a "state of war" and therefore no Normalization of relations until the occupied territories are returned. Over a few counties whose vote for seccession is in question itself. You will have a situation analogous to the two Koreas, and unfortunately, it will be the UNION position seen by every other state as the impediment to peace...and the North Korea of the situation. Are you planning that they buy the territories from the State of Virginia?


Of course all this is moot because the Confederacy could not win in the first place, but we are to presume that circumstances have come to pass that the union has had to come to terms to let them secceed, its simply a matter of on what terms. Any confederacy that has been able to get the Union in such a position is obviously in a position to get these counties negotiated back even under occupation at the peace. Its simply a matter of how the diplomatic cards are played.

Asking for third party arbitration or another plebicite in the disputed counties (After the occupation army has left of course), and the counties are nominally restored to Virginia's "civilian authority". Ballot stuffing then probably ensures that the majority of those counties would remain with the State, except perhaps in the far NW where the largest majorities of the eligible voters actually cast votes in favour of the Union.

Remember we are assuming that the Union has already made the decision that continuing the fight is untenable and the Southern States cannot be forced to remain in the UNION. Its not worth dragging your feet over a few counties whose choice to remain within the Union is of dubious veracity at best.
 
Tell me, why, Delta Force, did you find it necessary to troll us with FOUR different threads within a single month on the same confedwanker TL? It's not the way to make friends, let me tell you, especially since you haven't exactly been listening to criticism between threads.

So, why?

I've complained about this.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Tell me, why, Delta Force, did you find it necessary to troll us with FOUR different threads within a single month on the same confedwanker TL? It's not the way to make friends, let me tell you, especially since you haven't exactly been listening to criticism between threads.

So, why?

I've complained about this.

I created my last thread on this topic on June 24. When you consider that probably around 50 threads are created in this particular part of the forum every day four topics over the course of a month is a very small amount of the total, around a quarter of a percent. That is certainly not forum spamming.
 
Minor point, but the Kingdom of Italy already existed in 1861, and controlled the vast majority of the country (exceptions are the City of Rome, still under the protection of Napoleon III, and Venetia, still under the rule of the Habsburgs. And I'd also hazard to guess that if the US fell apart, European nations would be more likely to decide that liberal democracy was at fault rather than geographic size.

Excellent points. Agreed.

I'll also disagree with you on the development of political parties in the victorious CSA; the Confederacy, like the US, used First Past the Post (i.e. simple plurality) to determine who wins elections; this promotes a system of two big-tent parties (called Duverger's Law in political science). 1867 could be a confused election (unless Lee runs), but I think in the long-term the South would see a two-party system (heck, there's a proto-party structure in the South even during the War; the Pro and Anti Davis factions. It wasn't formalized, but neither were Federalists and Democratic-Republicans at first).

While Duverger's Law is generally true, I've seen Canada, the UK, and India listed as counter-examples. The pro-Davis faction did have a proto-party structure. The anti-Davis factions were a mix of States Rights, Fire Eaters, Reconstructionists, and Whig-successors who had less in common with each other than they did with the pro-Davis faction. For that matter, the Confederacy was very prone to personality conflicts among its leaders. Most of those factions could split among 2 or more candidates in 1867 and since those splits are based on personal animosities, not political positions, they are unlikely to heal.

Lee running in 1867 is not a guarantee of unity. If Davis endorses him, Lee wil inherit the baggage of the ruined economy and the failure to control all slaveholding states. States Rights voters will see Lee as a successor of Davis' centralization. The Fire Eaters will loathe Lee for his support of arming slaves. Even some Centralists will oppose Lee if Davis endorses him.
 
The CSA is going to expand the zone of instability and military strongman rule north into English-speaking states, which will make it a very unpleasant state for the concepts that English-speakers naturally love liberty, hate slavery, and are able to avoid say, rule by military juntas. Even in a realistic scenario where the CSA doesn't do anything outside its own borders, instability and chaos in a region territorially equal in size to Western Europe is going to butterfly away North American politics as we know it from the first.

Gonna have to agree with snake on this one.
 
I'm still waiting for WHY.

And, it's annoying because we have to replicate effort explaining that, oh, yeah, it's a confederate wank and can't be done. It's like doing repeated Sealions.

Or did you do it to ignore the threads that don't go your way?

Oh, and, as Fiver and I have already said at least twice each, it still can't be done, because as I've already said twice, that's a reversal of OTL only the proslavery side was historically violent, a change that you still haven't justified.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I'm still waiting for WHY.

Or did you do it to ignore the threads that don't go your way?

They all deal with different topics and given the number of threads that have come up recently dealing with the topic of the ACW I felt that they would be of interest to others as well. I was unable to find any threads dealing specifically with questions such as a new capital for the US.

And, it's annoying because we have to replicate effort explaining that, oh, yeah, it's a confederate wank and can't be done. It's like doing repeated Sealions.

That is no where near an accurate comparison. The CSA was fighting a defensive war in an era in which the defense was at an advantage. Sealion is an attempt for an attacker to conduct an amphibious invasion of an island nation that just so happens to have the most powerful navy in the world.

Oh, and, as Fiver and I have already said at least twice each, it still can't be done, because as I've already said twice, that's a reversal of OTL only the proslavery side was historically violent, a change that you still haven't justified.

Do you mean the part about the CSA not firing the first shot of the war or the part about the CSA not going imperial after the end of the war? The part about the US firing the first shot of the war is not really important to the timeline so it does not matter one way or the other. As for the CSA not going imperial, that makes sense in that it is a country with a powerful neighbor to its north that is at the very least not going to be on the best of terms with it, and European nations which whom it owes its commercial (and likely military and industrial) existence. Giving your biggest rival a pretext to attack you is not the best idea, and angering countries which you have good relations with is as well. Trying to forge an empire so soon after winning a war that killed off many of the young men who would be capturing and then colonizing territories is a really bad idea.
 
Top