Crazymachines
Banned
How plausible is it to have the american civil war be a more conventional one, that is, one between rival governments, instead of between the government and seccessionists?
Plausibility of "more conventional" Civil War
- Thread starter Crazymachines
- Start date
By 'conventional' do you mean two different groups that were vying for total control?
Crazymachines
Banned
as in having two seperate groups both claiming to be the legitimate government of the united states
Crazymachines
Banned
no.Not sure what the question is? Outside of some fire eaters each regarded themselves as spiritually the inheritors of the founders dream.
Are you asking what if SC wanted an armed insurrection against Washington DC in 1860?
the question is, is it plausible for the united states to have a civil war with two rival governments that claim the entire united states, within the same time period.
you know, like how spain had two rival governments during its civil war
I don't see how this would be possible in the US before the rise of socialism.
Maybe if the northern policies of defying slavery (protecting runaway slaves) were more abundant AND the South was stronger you could have such a war, because this would make the South angrier and stronger enough that it doesn't feel the need to runaway.
Maybe if the northern policies of defying slavery (protecting runaway slaves) were more abundant AND the South was stronger you could have such a war, because this would make the South angrier and stronger enough that it doesn't feel the need to runaway.
Crazymachines
Banned
Seems to me all you need is a unified democratic party in 1860, and for the democratic candidate to not concede to lincoln. If that doesn't work have the conflict start earlier, as a decade earlier the South was on a more level playing field with the north
You would have to have a contested election with perhaps tactics similar to Pompey’s followers in the Senate used against Anthony when he was Tribune of the Plebs to control the outcome.
Last edited:
Abolish slavery from the beginning and erode the federal model quicker with a more powerful federal government.
You could have a Red (urban) v White (rural) civil war similar to 1800s Uruguay.
You could have a Red (urban) v White (rural) civil war similar to 1800s Uruguay.
So what your asking for a POD where the South wanted to take over the entire USA, not secede from it and form the CSA?
Crazymachines
Banned
I'm asked only the plausibly of a civil war with rival governments, the geographic locations of each side need not be the same
The only way I can see a American Civil War becoming a state death match, not by cultural/geographic sides, is to have more Slaves states in the North, and Free states in the South.
But that’s practically ASB, so that’s off the list
The only other one is more radical Copperheads, but again, that’s stretching it.
Crazymachines
Banned
could a disputed president elect in 1860 cause two rival governments? is this even possible?
Federalist vs Anti Federalists if the constitutional convention fails and the big states try to force the issue militarily since the Articles can't last forever.
What about this... perhaps something more akin to the English Civil War?
I'm thinking sort of a "Pride's Purge"-type situation... pro-slavery (mostly Democratic, mostly southern) congressmen, with the help of collaborators within the US Army, take control of Congress, exclude ardently anti-slavery Senators and Representatives (entire delegations in some cases), proclaim Breckinridge as President (IF he accepts - questionable...) while their friends in the Army secure Washington (it is wedged between two slave states after all...) Those excluded, mostly northern Republicans and their sympathizers, meet in a northern city (let's say Philadelphia for the historical relevance), declare Lincoln as President... you have two rival governments, two rival Presidents, both claiming to be the legitimate government of the United States. How things shake out after that will be anybody's guess
(btw nobody steal this one... plan on using it myself (with some variances) in my long-threatened TL eventually)
I'm thinking sort of a "Pride's Purge"-type situation... pro-slavery (mostly Democratic, mostly southern) congressmen, with the help of collaborators within the US Army, take control of Congress, exclude ardently anti-slavery Senators and Representatives (entire delegations in some cases), proclaim Breckinridge as President (IF he accepts - questionable...) while their friends in the Army secure Washington (it is wedged between two slave states after all...) Those excluded, mostly northern Republicans and their sympathizers, meet in a northern city (let's say Philadelphia for the historical relevance), declare Lincoln as President... you have two rival governments, two rival Presidents, both claiming to be the legitimate government of the United States. How things shake out after that will be anybody's guess
(btw nobody steal this one... plan on using it myself (with some variances) in my long-threatened TL eventually
)Troll comment: American Revolution was a civil war
Serious comment: Loyalists don't flee country, and lead a revolt in 1812.
Serious comment: Loyalists don't flee country, and lead a revolt in 1812.
Crazymachines
Banned
well, I can absolutely see Breckinridge going along with this out of fear, as In real life he was widely known to be a cowardWhat about this... perhaps something more akin to the English Civil War?
I'm thinking sort of a "Pride's Purge"-type situation... pro-slavery (mostly Democratic, mostly southern) congressmen, with the help of collaborators within the US Army, take control of Congress, exclude ardently anti-slavery Senators and Representatives (entire delegations in some cases), proclaim Breckinridge as President (IF he accepts - questionable...) while their friends in the Army secure Washington (it is wedged between two slave states after all...) Those excluded, mostly northern Republicans and their sympathizers, meet in a northern city (let's say Philadelphia for the historical relevance), declare Lincoln as President... you have two rival governments, two rival Presidents, both claiming to be the legitimate government of the United States. How things shake out after that will be anybody's guess
(btw nobody steal this one... plan on using it myself (with some variances) in my long-threatened TL eventually
The problem with that is, even if the Democrats were unified in the 1860 election, the problem was that the South was overwhelmingly pro-democrat, while the North was Pro-Republican.
Here's a map
So if Breckinridge was the popular candidate for the Democrats in 1860, there is still a geographic divide.
Crazymachines
Banned
I mean thats fine, I said that there didn't have to be a geographic divide, not that there couldn't be
Don't think that 1st is a "troll comment" at all
From what I've read, no more than 40% of colonists were active "patriots" or sympathizers... around 15% (this number is possibly too low) were active Loyalists... the remainder (a plurality, mind you
) didn't GAF so long as they were left the hell alone