Northern Civil war with a twist

[Mikestone8]

Anyway that's what I have so far,
Thoughts? Realistic, totally asb? Somewhere in the middle?

Make it ten at the very most.

Lincoln got only 51% of the vote in Illinois, so is an unlikely one to join this rebellion - esp as it's on the Mississippi and won't want a line of custom houses between itself and the Gulf of Mexico. Also, Lincoln himself will certainly be arguing against the move, which risks throwing away an otherwise certain victory in 1864.

NJ is also highly improbable. Lincoln got only a minority of the popular vote there, getting four of the seven electoral votes due to a divided opposition. OTOH the opposition to an armed revolt would *not* be divided.

FTM in most of the other northern states outside New England, The Republicans got only 54-55%, many even of which would have been opposed to armed insurrection. Like the copperheads of OTL, they would be anxious to vote against their government, but dismiss the idea of taking arms against it. So it's al highly unlikely to spread beyond New England - and even there CT would be doubtful.

Would there be a Californian Civil War?

There wasn't in 1861.

And with the vast majority of its population opposed to the revolt, any support for it would have been no stronger than Confederate support OTL.
.

 

[riggerrob]

Why does this remind me of the War in Biafra during the 1960s?
IOTL The wealthy Igbo tribe controlled the southwest corner of Nigeria including most of the oil reserves.

ATL In this scenario, you end up with a Southern (slaver) Congress trying to dominate a smaller,w elathier, more industrialized New England. After New Englanders tire of "Southern Gentlemen" telling them how to run their lives - and extracting massive taxes - fiercely independent NEers declare independence. So the larger, Southern Navy blockades NE ports, etc.
Border states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are laid waste by repeated military campaigns.

 

[Crazymachines]

Make it ten at the very most.

Lincoln got only 51% of the vote in Illinois, so is an unlikely one to join this rebellion - esp as it's on the Mississippi and won't want a line of custom houses between itself and the Gulf of Mexico. Also, Lincoln himself will certainly be arguing against the move, which risks throwing away an otherwise certain victory in 1864.

NJ is also highly improbable. Lincoln got only a minority of the popular vote there, getting four of the seven electoral votes due to a divided opposition. OTOH the opposition to an armed revolt would *not* be divided.

FTM in most of the other northern states outside New England, The Republicans got only 54-55%, many even of which would have been opposed to armed insurrection. Like the copperheads of OTL, they would be anxious to vote against their government, but dismiss the idea of taking arms against it. So it's al highly unlikely to spread beyond New England - and even there CT would be doubtful.




There wasn't in 1861.

And with the vast majority of its population opposed to the revolt, any support for it would have been no stronger than Confederate support OTL.
.

Its important to note that I said only 12 states signed that charter, and their were 15 northern states. Illinois did not sign it

 

[Crazymachines]

It's also important to note that yes, the states that are abstaining from Congress in this scenario would likely not just up and go on the offensive. Washington would have to do something atrociously stupid and coercive to the states whose representatives are abstaining to kick off a civil war. However since this is the anti yankee, anti john brown, anti republican slaving south I don't think its too unlikely that they DO do something atrociously stupid.

 

[Mikestone8]

I think that both Houses have to agree to void an electoral college vote in a state assuming the Supreme Court has allowed it. I don't think in this scenario the Republicans have the vote in the Senate.

That is the case today, but iirc in 1860 it was the other way round. Both houses had to agree in order for a vote to be *counted"

 

[Derek Pullem]

That is the case today, but iirc in 1860 it was the other way round. Both houses had to agree in order for a vote to be *counted"

So I guess the question is were they "counted" before the allegations of fraud became known? Because if they were the North is legally in a hole. If they weren't then Breckenridge hasn't been elected yet.

 

[Mikestone8]

It's also important to note that yes, the states that are abstaining from Congress in this scenario would likely not just up and go on the offensive. Washington would have to do something atrociously stupid and coercive to the states whose representatives are abstaining to kick off a civil war. However since this is the anti yankee, anti john brown, anti republican slaving south I don't think its too unlikely that they DO do something atrociously stupid.

Though they would have no pressing need to. If OH, IN and IL all remain in the Union, the northern rebel states are split into two blocks. Hardly a viable alternative nation. And there could be fun and games in NY if NYC insisted that it still recognised Breckenridge regardless of what the State government had done. This would be reasonable enough given that the latter's action had no legal validity - as the SCOTUS would lose little time in ruling.

 

[Moosemac]

If the North won I imagine the aftermath would be even uglier than OTLs, I think. Imagine being a White Southerner and having the North rise up, then instead of going their own way they invade you turning your state into a military district. Of course, there might be important peculiarities to this, perhaps there was outright fraud from the South which stole the election, but would the average person know that? When everything is said and done, would they even care? In OTL, almost all nuance fell away, the Unionist faction of the South immediately collapsed, when the North moved in to restore order because "their home was under attack" regardless of the even more clear situation of the South shooting first at Fort Sumter.

I think Europe would see it as a de facto revolution instead of a civil war, which might also have consequences down the line, but who knows what those would be.

 

[Crazymachines]

So I guess the question is were they "counted" before the allegations of fraud became known? Because if they were the North is legally in a hole. If they weren't then Breckenridge hasn't been elected yet.

How are they legally in a hole impeaching a president for aiding and abetting election fraud?

 

[Crazymachines]

Though they would have no pressing need to. If OH, IN and IL all remain in the Union, the northern rebel states are split into two blocks. Hardly a viable alternative nation. And there could be fun and games in NY if NYC insisted that it still recognised Breckenridge regardless of what the State government had done. This would be reasonable enough given that the latter's action had no legal validity - as the SCOTUS would lose little time in ruling.

Ohmygod. My thought was that; the dc government does something atrociously stupid and belligerent to the states no longer sending representatives which kicks off the civil war and alienates the other northern states on the fence. A reverse fort sumter

 

[Derek Pullem]

How are they legally in a hole impeaching a president for aiding and abetting election fraud?

So he has been elected and they want to impeach him - they haven't got the votes. End of story.

 

[Crazymachines]

So he has been elected and they want to impeach him - they haven't got the votes. End of story.

I explicitly said they didn't have the votes, anyway it's not illegal to abstain from congress is it?

 

[Derek Pullem]

I explicitly said they didn't have the votes, anyway it's not illegal to abstain from congress is it?

I'm not sure where you are going - are you saying the North is going to start a war because they don't like the way a President was elected. A President who is unlikely to impact much at all on the lives of most voters in the North.

It's one thing to be against slavery. It's another thing to overthrow the elected government in a crusade against slavery.

 

[Crazymachines]

I'm not sure where you are going - are you saying the North is going to start a war because they don't like the way a President was elected. A President who is unlikely to impact much at all on the lives of most voters in the North.

It's one thing to be against slavery. It's another thing to overthrow the elected government in a crusade against slavery.

My thought was that; the dc government does something atrociously stupid and belligerent to the states no longer sending representatives which kicks off the civil war and alienates the other northern states on the fence. A reverse fort sumter.

 

[Crazymachines]

if anyone has suggestions to improve my rough draft or has a better POD I'd very much appreciate the feedback

 

[Derek Pullem]

Well Dred Scott didn't kick off a war. So the Federal government is going to have to do something that is so egregious to all the Northern States that they decide to rebel. Shelling a mutinous barracks for example isn't going to do that. Rule of law should apply.

Sumter was the first shots - it wasn't the cause . The cause was the secession of the states so that Sumter became a hostile foreign fort on their territory. What ever the Federal government does it has to be so bad that either the North secedes (which gives it some of the problems the South faced in OTL in terms of legitimacy) or you get an armed rebellion (in some ways even worse for recognition).

If anything the Republican majority in the House would be better blocking all legislation not boycotting

 

[Crazymachines]

Well Dred Scott didn't kick off a war. So the Federal government is going to have to do something that is so egregious to all the Northern States that they decide to rebel. Shelling a mutinous barracks for example isn't going to do that. Rule of law should apply.

Sumter was the first shots - it wasn't the cause . The cause was the secession of the states so that Sumter became a hostile foreign fort on their territory. What ever the Federal government does it has to be so bad that either the North secedes (which gives it some of the problems the South faced in OTL in terms of legitimacy) or you get an armed rebellion (in some ways even worse for recognition).

If anything the Republican majority in the House would be better blocking all legislation not boycotting

Made some changes to # 6 and 7:

6. Representatives from 12 states sign a document declaring their opposition to the Breckenridge presidency by any legal means possible in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These representatives refuse to pass any legislation whatsoever

7. Several officers of the local US military attempt to arrest Breckenridge in DC for "treason against the united states and subversion of the American democratic process". The attempt fails and the officers are found not to have been acting on any higher orders, but the incident is still blamed on the 'damnyankees' by many. This marks a serious escalation in tensions between Washington and the northern states

 

[Crazymachines]

Made some changes to # 6 and 7:

6. Representatives from 12 states sign a document declaring their opposition to the Breckenridge presidency by any legal means possible in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These representatives refuse to pass any legislation whatsoever

7. Several officers of the local US military attempt to arrest Breckenridge in DC for "treason against the united states and subversion of the American democratic process". The attempt fails and the officers are found not to have been acting on any higher orders, but the incident is still blamed on the 'damnyankees' by many. This marks a serious escalation in tensions between Washington and the northern states

Of course now the question is how do we get from here to full blown civil war

 

[Moosemac]

Anyway, now that I think about it this could end badly for the radical republicans; They either lose the peace or are forced to get much harsher than they were OTL to secure it, or they alienate too many more moderates trying to get them to just bide their time for 4 more years when the Republicans will be in a better position to win. It just seems like an almost too convenient way for the Slave Aristocracy to benefit by watching their radical republican foes suddenly kill themselves for no reason when literally waiting a few more years puts the North on greater and greater advantages.

With all of that being said OP, I do really like your idea of people, like local US military, radicalizing and making moves on their own that cause tensions to fly out of control. That does open the door for things that would previously be unthinkable and make your scenario more likely.

 

[MJHistoryBuff]

Your 'egregious DC' move would have to be something by Breckenridge done towards the 12 states that is so offensive, otherwise unhappy people are stirred to war and other northern and western states support them. I'm not sure what it is, but it probably includes accusations of a coup, arresting congressmen and senators, and sending federal troops someplace in a horrifying example of federal overreach. That's a pretty high bar. Is Breckenridge the type?