Politics North and South

What would happen two political parties in the USA and CSA in a typical Dixie-victorious scenario? Dixie had the Democratic Party, and America had the Republicans and Democrats. What would be the issues parties divide along, and how would sectionalism form within these two countries? I see the USA going far more liberal and the CSA going far more conservative than OTL, unified America.
 
William Davis' Look Away points that all Confederate politicians being Democrats they tended to form coalitions on an issue by issue basis. Existing factions within the party were the Fire Eaters (small and largely shunted aside); what Davis calls the new nationalists (mainly Breckinridge Democrats like Toombs, Wiley, and Davis); the reluctant secessionists (mainly former Douglas Democrats, Bell supporters, and former Whigs); and the Unionists (who lacked leadership but formed a significant group).

There was also the divide between pro-Davis and anti-Davis men. All of the previous groups (save the Unionists) were divided on whether they thought Jefferson Davis was doing a good job.
 
North
Republican party collapses and is replaced by a more Whiggish party that promotes eastern business interests. Democrats become more western-centric.

South
Lots of possibilities. As Fiver mentioned, I imagine the first five years or so would see coalitions rather than organized parties, but eventually I imagine that we would see a party representing planting and then business interests vs. a party of the poor white farmer. I expect the added dynamic of slave revolts merging into terrorist cells (assuming slavery stays in place if largely disused after a few decades) or simpler militant groups otherwise.
 
In the USA the Republicans are likely to collapse and wind up replaced by a party geared more to labor, while the Dems fill in the role of the conservative pro-labor party (they about have to do that, the GOP's gone and the South is obviously not a Dem stronghold anymore). US politics end up with a stronger Left-Right divide without the South, but the Left party winds up somewhere around British Labor in the revolutionary sweepstakes. The USA sees in terms of sectional difference East-West and that division is more akin to Canada's East-West.

The CSA is unlikely to develop political parties and is more likely to bumble through factionalism based around men, as opposed to laws, and wind up a military dictatorship. The CSA had no real political party development until the later war and that's not a CSA victory, that's a North Done Quit scenario. If the CSA wins it will hold to that "absence of party is strength, not weakness" scenario and politics ruled explicitly for the grandees while poor whites are excluded right up until the one truly national, across the classes CS institution, the Confederate Army deposes the government that is unable to pay its veterans.....
 
I thought the south was the major democrat area at the time; why would the republican party collapse up north if they suddenly had a significant opponent removed; wouldn't they instead split into smaller parties after a brief era of dominance?
 
I thought the south was the major democrat area at the time; why would the republican party collapse up north if they suddenly had a significant opponent removed; wouldn't they instead split into smaller parties after a brief era of dominance?

If the South wins, than the purpose of the Republican Party no longer exists and voters reject them for failing to hold the Union together.
 
North:

The Democrats become the dominant party for quite a while. The GOP remains whole, but lost and without a purpose. They eventually move to the left and take up the cause of workers' rights, becoming a semi-socialist party that is pro-union.

South:

It'll be a battle between states' rights vs a strong central government, as well as expansionist vs isolationist foreign policy.
 
Wow, Harry Turtledove induced ignorance abounds on this board. The Republican Party will not suddenly collapse because of a lost ACW. This was a war started by (Southern) Democrats, and in the North pretty much all of the Copperheads were Democrats. Except in the big cities where Democrats had strong political machines supported by immigrant gangs the Dems were already dying in the North. Given that the Union can only lose due to foreign intervention followed by Democrat brokered peace, the Dems will be seen by the north public as the party that lost the war. They were already blamed for the start of the war...rightly so by the way.

Furthermore, while the South seceded to preserve slavery, the North fought (at least initially) to preserve the Union. How well do you think the party that destroyed the Union will be received once the initial post-war scares recede? The Dems will survive only as a regional party in high immigration areas like NYC and Chicago. The Republicans will wave the bloody shirt and claim, probably correctly, that they were never given the chance to win and were hindered by Democratic pro-slavery/anti-Unionists. The Dems will be replaced by a moderate nationalist party with an anti-immigrant stance (the Republicans had already jettisoned their anti-immigration rhetoric and largely ignored their American Party allies). This party will probably be the Constitutional Unionist party that ran in 1864.

In this same vein, it is highly unlikely that the North will become even worse for blacks than it was in the ante-bellum period. Every crisis America has faced has seen the nation define itself by working to behave in a manner opposed to its current enemy. WWI and WWII saw America work as the Arsenal of Democracy and the Cold War saw America oppose the atheist communists by stressing christianity and capitalism. In this TL the US will welcome escaped slaves and stress its reputation as the land of the free. Sure things won't be all sunshine and roses, but the US will be far better place for blacks and immigrants than the Confederacy or even Turtledove's poorly researched version of the Union.

Benjamin
 
Wow, Harry Turtledove induced ignorance abounds on this board. The Republican Party will not suddenly collapse because of a lost ACW. This was a war started by (Southern) Democrats, and in the North pretty much all of the Copperheads were Democrats. Except in the big cities where Democrats had strong political machines supported by immigrant gangs the Dems were already dying in the North. Given that the Union can only lose due to foreign intervention followed by Democrat brokered peace, the Dems will be seen by the north public as the party that lost the war. They were already blamed for the start of the war...rightly so by the way.

A rather dubious statement that exposes a potential danger for the north after an unsuccessful war to force the south back into the union. Its the easiest way you can have a successful succession but not the only one.

I say it highlight's a danger because the standard thing in most countries after it loses a war, especially one it expected to and should have won, is that they look for scrap-goats. That could be external, i.e. the south or other foreign powers or internal. In the latter case a lot of options, northern democrats, Irish Catholics because of the draft riots, black because their blamed for the war.


Furthermore, while the South seceded to preserve slavery, the North fought (at least initially) to preserve the Union. How well do you think the party that destroyed the Union will be received once the initial post-war scares recede? The Dems will survive only as a regional party in high immigration areas like NYC and Chicago. The Republicans will wave the bloody shirt and claim, probably correctly, that they were never given the chance to win and were hindered by Democratic pro-slavery/anti-Unionists. The Dems will be replaced by a moderate nationalist party with an anti-immigrant stance (the Republicans had already jettisoned their anti-immigration rhetoric and largely ignored their American Party allies). This party will probably be the Constitutional Unionist party that ran in 1864.

If the Republicans claim internal opponents were the reason for their failure then that will cause divisions and probably sectarian tensions. Also their opponents will blame the Republicans for a pointless and very expensive war and that their war-mongaring is weakening the unions position in the post-war world.

In this same vein, it is highly unlikely that the North will become even worse for blacks than it was in the ante-bellum period. Every crisis America has faced has seen the nation define itself by working to behave in a manner opposed to its current enemy. WWI and WWII saw America work as the Arsenal of Democracy and the Cold War saw America oppose the atheist communists by stressing christianity and capitalism. In this TL the US will welcome escaped slaves and stress its reputation as the land of the free. Sure things won't be all sunshine and roses, but the US will be far better place for blacks and immigrants than the Confederacy or even Turtledove's poorly researched version of the Union.

Benjamin

It will be a better place for escaped blacks than the south but it won't give them a very good welcome. Racism will be a factor, as will be economically competition and possibly some will blame them for the war and the loss of the south.

Steve
 
If the South wins, than the purpose of the Republican Party no longer exists and voters reject them for failing to hold the Union together.

The Republican Party was not a single issue party. The Democrats will blame them for the loss of the South, but the Republicans will point out that the war was started by southern Democrats, focus in ineffective Democratic generals like McClellan, and claim they could have won if a Democrat hadn't been elected in 1864.

It could very well be the northern Democratic Party is destroyed by the war. Or both major parties. Or neither.
 
Wow, Harry Turtledove induced ignorance abounds on this board. The Republican Party will not suddenly collapse because of a lost ACW. This was a war started by (Southern) Democrats, and in the North pretty much all of the Copperheads were Democrats. Except in the big cities where Democrats had strong political machines supported by immigrant gangs the Dems were already dying in the North. Given that the Union can only lose due to foreign intervention followed by Democrat brokered peace, the Dems will be seen by the north public as the party that lost the war. They were already blamed for the start of the war...rightly so by the way.

In the wake of a losing war and the economic chaos that follows, the GOP is likely to be blamed for the loss, while the Northern Dems will have to re-invent themselves.

Furthermore, while the South seceded to preserve slavery, the North fought (at least initially) to preserve the Union. How well do you think the party that destroyed the Union will be received once the initial post-war scares recede? The Dems will survive only as a regional party in high immigration areas like NYC and Chicago. The Republicans will wave the bloody shirt and claim, probably correctly, that they were never given the chance to win and were hindered by Democratic pro-slavery/anti-Unionists. The Dems will be replaced by a moderate nationalist party with an anti-immigrant stance (the Republicans had already jettisoned their anti-immigration rhetoric and largely ignored their American Party allies). This party will probably be the Constitutional Unionist party that ran in 1864.

Which Dems would refute by noting just how many of the generals who fought in the war that was lost were Democrats, and claim that this disrespects the service by said generals.

In this same vein, it is highly unlikely that the North will become even worse for blacks than it was in the ante-bellum period. Every crisis America has faced has seen the nation define itself by working to behave in a manner opposed to its current enemy. WWI and WWII saw America work as the Arsenal of Democracy and the Cold War saw America oppose the atheist communists by stressing christianity and capitalism. In this TL the US will welcome escaped slaves and stress its reputation as the land of the free. Sure things won't be all sunshine and roses, but the US will be far better place for blacks and immigrants than the Confederacy or even Turtledove's poorly researched version of the Union.

Benjamin

Being better for blacks than the Confederacy is akin to being more pro-capitalism than the USSR or smelling better than a skunk: it's not very hard to do.
 
The Republican Party was not a single issue party. The Democrats will blame them for the loss of the South, but the Republicans will point out that the war was started by southern Democrats, focus in ineffective Democratic generals like McClellan, and claim they could have won if a Democrat hadn't been elected in 1864.

It could very well be the northern Democratic Party is destroyed by the war. Or both major parties. Or neither.

Exactly. There's a tendency on this board to underestimate how strong party machinery was at that time. If the Republican Party is "destroyed" it wil probably be because the members decide on a name change. The Democrats on the other hand are going to have to adapt to a US where most of their party machinery is now located in another country.

In the wake of a losing war and the economic chaos that follows, the GOP is likely to be blamed for the loss, while the Northern Dems will have to re-invent themselves.

Going to have to differ with you here. They may be blamed--or maybe not--this is a complicated little issue--but in the long run, the Republican Party machinery isn't going to just crumble. As for the Democrats--they don't just have to reinvent themselves--they have to build an entirely new party from New York City, and a few bits of the Midwest.
 
Going to have to differ with you here. They may be blamed--or maybe not--this is a complicated little issue--but in the long run, the Republican Party machinery isn't going to just crumble. As for the Democrats--they don't just have to reinvent themselves--they have to build an entirely new party from New York City, and a few bits of the Midwest.

I think that it's more likely that they would be, primarily because in 1860 the Republican coalition was still not necessarily all that coherent, and the shock of defeat would greatly erode that coherency, where the Dems have their major and established political machines, and can even claim in the short term to offer a means to do by peaceful means what the GOP failed to do by war (while of course with the 1862 POD required for a victory most of the US generals were Democrats and won't like waving the bloody shirt given they were the ones actually commanding, and would attribute US defeat to Lincoln's musical generals game).
 
The big problem with the Republican coalition is that they did largely exist because of slavery. If the Civil War ends with a Union Victory (i.e. the CSA remains independent), than you will see the GOP coalition significantly weaken. First to go will be the Democratic Republicans (Blair, Butler, Hamlin) who joined the Republicans because of the growing slave-power within the Democratic Party. They will likely return to the Democratic Party in the late 1860s or early 1870s. In OTL many eventually returned to the Democrats, but I imagine the shift is much faster and includes rank-and-file voters, not just personalities.

The Republicans will maintain the support of the Whigs, who compromise a large but not overwhelming majority of the party infrastructure. The Know-Nothings will probably stick around as well, if only because most supported the American System and would prefer to remain in a electable party. The Abolitionists are a wild-card. It's unlikely they join the Democrats, but at the same time they may grow frustrated within the Republican Caucus. What's most likely is that they form the radical wing of the party, holding them back politically.

So the Republicans become an economically Whigish, anti-open immigration, anti-Southern, abolitionist party. The Democrats become something of a hybrid between the Young Americans and the immigrant-driven political machines of the North, with Free Soil Democrats returning to the fold over the years. This probably favors the Democrats, though there will be some backlash for losing the war. In fact, if the Free Soilers are mad enough about the war, they may never return to the Dems, though I find that unlikely.
 
The Republican Party was not anti-immigration. For while it gained a lot of support from ex-American Party supporters, it (led by Seward and Lincoln who were decidedly pro-immigration) immediately moved away from the tenants espoused by the Know Nothings. The American Party had been a precarious alliance of Southerners who wished to limited immigration to stymy Free Soilists and Northern Nativists who feared the Papist plots of the massive wave of Irish Catholics. By the mid-fifties this coalition fell apart. Northern nativists lost interest and instead supported Free Soil ideology and higher tariffs while the Northern Democrats, led by the Irish who didn't want the Germans, Italians and others to supplant them as the primary urban politic power took up much of the Know Nothing rhetoric. In the South the American Party retained much of its local power base and allied with the Democrats on the national level. As immigration remained tied to free soilism anti-immigration politicians retained their clout for far longer in the South.

In 1860 Lincoln was chosen because he was a moderate. It was known that he would strongly oppose slavery in the territories, but he repeatedly said he would not move against slavery where it already existed. Instead he pushed the economic aspects of the Republican Platform instead of the slave issues. And yes it is true that some "republicans" would flee the party as it became apparent that the war was lost, many more would remain. Because so long as we have a POD that is post Lincoln's election to the presidency, it will be the Democrats that will bring about an independent Confederacy. Short of Lincoln's assassination (which would further galvanize the nation against the South) its is almost a certainty that only Democratic machinations, either after a major mid-term victory in 1862 for the Dems that allow them to bring the war to a halt or after a McClellan victory in 1864 that brings about a negotiated peace in 1865, will bring an end to the fighting.

@stevep - While the South can possibly manage a victory or two that makes the war more costly for the North, it is only European recognition, ending the blockade and forcing a negotiated settlement that can truly bring about Southern independence. No matter how this goes down the people of the North will always blame Europe to some degree for Southern independence (even in OTL the idea that British support prolonged the war and favored the South remained a common sentiment till the late 1870s).

Finally, slavery will not just disappear as an issue in US politics. Surviving Northern Democrats will try to ignore the issue or even attempt to rebuild ties with the South by supporting a renewed fugitive slavery act and opposing an amendment to end slavery. That in turn will work to keep the abolitionist wing of the Republican Party alive and kicking. Every attempt to recapture an escaped slave has the potential to become an international incident and the Republicans will almost certainly rebuild around the idea of "no more kowtowing to the slavocracy." This will be a very powerful argument, especially for the vast number of bitter war vets. (In OTL this idea had already become a very powerful meme in the North. Just read some of the warlike editorials that were printed in the Northern newspapers following Fort Sumter.)

Benjamin
 
benjamin

@stevep - While the South can possibly manage a victory or two that makes the war more costly for the North, it is only European recognition, ending the blockade and forcing a negotiated settlement that can truly bring about Southern independence. No matter how this goes down the people of the North will always blame Europe to some degree for Southern independence (even in OTL the idea that British support prolonged the war and favored the South remained a common sentiment till the late 1870s).

I think you're possibly affected by the ARW where foreign intervention was critical. In the USCW the forces, although unbalanced were far less so than the earlier conflict. The south made a hell of a lot of mistakes and could have dragged the war out longer and made it more costly and the north's determination to continue the attacks would have been stretched further under those circumstances.

It partly depends on what you mean by foreign intervention. Blockade runners trading with the wider world would be different from formal recognition, or actual intervention.

Finally, slavery will not just disappear as an issue in US politics. Surviving Northern Democrats will try to ignore the issue or even attempt to rebuild ties with the South by supporting a renewed fugitive slavery act and opposing an amendment to end slavery. That in turn will work to keep the abolitionist wing of the Republican Party alive and kicking. Every attempt to recapture an escaped slave has the potential to become an international incident and the Republicans will almost certainly rebuild around the idea of "no more kowtowing to the slavocracy." This will be a very powerful argument, especially for the vast number of bitter war vets. (In OTL this idea had already become a very powerful meme in the North. Just read some of the warlike editorials that were printed in the Northern newspapers following Fort Sumter.)

Benjamin

Agree that if the south wins independence then there will be much bitterness and scrap-goating, of both internal and external 'enemies' as well as continued tension with the south. Escaping slaves, although unwelcome in the north will be used as a political tool to maintain such hostility. Also, there will probably be border clashes and I can see plenty of elements on both sides looking for an excuse to pick a fight.

Steve
 
The Union

The Republicans were not a single issue party. They were the party of the farmer, of western expansion, of the transcontinental railroad, and of industrial expansion. OTOH, they are a recently formed coalition of former Whigs, Know Nothings, Free Soilers, pro-War Democrats, and Democrats disgusted with southern dominance. Poor leadership or successful attempts by the Democrats to woo back voters could erode their voter base, but they’re unlikely to implode.

The Democrats have lost half their voters to the Confederacy and some of the rest to the Republicans. Since the demise of the Federalists they’ve been in the driver’s seat, but they aren’t any more. They’ve alienated both the pro-War Democrats and the Breckinridge faction Democrats, attempting to woo one of those groups back pretty much guarantees they won’t get the other one back.

Several issues have come out of the war. There are a large number of pro-Union southerners, black and white, in Union Army and they can’t exactly go back. There are a lot of black Union soldiers that have been enslaved by the Confederacy. Large sections of former Confederate territory are occupied by the Union – many but not all of these people are Unionists. Other Unionists still live in Confederate territory, some are in armed rebellion against the Confederacy. And considering the economy of the Confederacy, there will be economic refugees from the there.

The Confederacy
The Southern Democrats were a single issue party - slavery. Short term, they have factions, not political parties. Men sharing views on one issue may disagree on others. And they are riven with personal conflicts even among men who share the same views.

I expect the election of 1867 to be one of the messiest in history. All of the issues listed above will be brought up as well as expansion, inflation, revanchism, the public debt, and the size of the military. I’d expect each faction to field at least one candidate, there might be as many as a dozen men running. Some possibilities Atchison (Fire Eater), Rhett (Fire Eater), Ruffin (Fire Eater), Wigfall (Fire Eater), Brown (Moderate), Graham (Moderate), Hunter (Moderate), Stephens (Moderate), Vance (Moderate/Reconstructionist), Breckinridge (Nationalist), Thomas Bragg (Nationalist), Cobb (Nationalist), Harris (Nationalist), John Reagan (Nationalist), and Toombs (Nationalist).

The Confederacy may not survive this election.

Bad as things might get I see little possibility of a military coup against the Confederate government. The CSA government is broke. To cut expenses, I expect them to demobilize most of the army, leaving that burden on the state militias. If the Confederacy doesn’t send most of those troops they’ll face famine (if those troops aren’t sent home) or mass desertion (if they try to keep the troops in arms).

The Confederate Army was just as riven with factionalism as their civilian government. The only man with enough support from the CS Army that he might be able to seize power was Robert E Lee and he would never do that.

OTOH, I expect conditions to be bad enough in an independent Confederacy that at least one state militia seizes power in an individual state. Which creates another political dilemma that could destroy the Confederacy. Does the Confederacy accept this or do they send troops in to restore the civilian government of the individual state?

Another consideration is Trans-Mississippi Department, which may be physically separated from the rest of the Confederacy due to Union control of the Mississippi River. Kirby Smithdom becoming a military dictatorship is a distinct possibility,
 
Top