Potential US Civil Wars

[Expat]

It seems unlikely that this hasn't been discussed before, but the search function here isn't the greatest (or maybe I'm just using the wrong terms.)
Anyway, aside from the OTL war between the states and the Decades of Darkness split, are there any other foreseeable flashpoints for an all-out civil war in the US?
The Whiskey and Turner rebellions were way too limited to qualify in my mind. Could those flames have been fanned?
But aside from that, any other possibilities?

 

[CJNyfalt]

Bleeding Kansas snowballs faster and other states gets involved.
Not that far from the OTL, but Kansas, not Lincoln election becomes the spark.

 

[Bulldawg85]

New England and SC

Don't forget that New England almost split off during the War of 1812. In addition, there was some tension between SC and the federal govt when Jackson was President due to the nullification views of the state. Perhaps if some other states had joined SC so they didn't back down we could have had a ACW about 25 yrs early.

 

[Blackwood]

Maybe a more successful version of Shays Rebellion?

 

[Expat]

Maybe a more successful version of Shays Rebellion?

Hmm, hadn't heard of this. Seems like those frontiers really bred dissent.
Could we create a whole slew of problems to stifle westward migration? More successful Shays Rebellion, more successful Whiskey Rebellion, earlier and more virulent slave rebellions, fiercer Indian resistance?
I suppose common wisdom tells us that the pressure to immigrate from Europe was just too great, but can earlier immigration at least (pre-1820 say) be deflected elsewhere due to a much more chaotic "west?"

 

[Blackwood]

Hmm, hadn't heard of this. Seems like those frontiers really bred dissent.

Well, I guess you consider Western Massachusetts the "frontier"...If Shays and his troops had somehow managed to defeat the Massachusetts militia, it really could set off a whole host of events, perhaps even some sort of massive farmers' march on Boston. Oh, boy... It would be interesting to see what sort of a federal response that would have invoked, but the possibility of an all-out civil war is a bit sketchy for a divergence during an alternate Shays' Rebellion. Even in the most successful time line of events, I foresee a cancellation of debts and a gradual return to normality, possibly with more changes in state and federal law regarding debt. So, maybe America wouldn't experience a full-out war. But you can still speculate on that.

The possibility of a frontier rebellion later on, though, that brings up all sorts of interesting divergences and scenarios. One could even speculate on Mexico playing a role in a sort of Western secession post-Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, if such a thing were plausible. Could it be?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Don't forget that New England almost split off during the War of 1812. In addition, there was some tension between SC and the federal govt when Jackson was President due to the nullification views of the state. Perhaps if some other states had joined SC so they didn't back down we could have had a ACW about 25 yrs early.

"A minority of delegates who are soundly beaten on proposing the possibility of secession" does not equal "almost", unless I "almost" slit my throat while shaving this morning. You can work out from the Copperheads, but they weren't some supermajority solely beaten by bad timing.

 

[Expat]

The possibility of a frontier rebellion later on, though, that brings up all sorts of interesting divergences and scenarios. One could even speculate on Mexico playing a role in a sort of Western secession post-Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, if such a thing were plausible. Could it be?

Not so sure anyone would want Mexico's help post-GH. Maybe if it's after France begins to take an active interest they can intervene to the north as well. More likely as France, rather than in the guise of Mexico.
Still I don't think they could wrest anything entirely from US hands. Maybe Washington settles for spheres of influence in a number of autonomous areas.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Jackson and Lincoln were probably the only presidents that would have gone to war against a state's constitutional right of secession. Its questionable about Zachary Taylor would have done so. From at least one reading there was some talk of secession as early as 1800-1810 over Chief Justice Marshall's interpretations of the Constitution. Virginia ratified the Constitution with the clear indication that it would secede if it felt necessary.

Another question would be exactly why does secession have to be bloodily contested.

 

[M79]

-War of 1812 results in NE secession (perhaps with British help?)
-1830 South Carolina secedes, is quickly reconquered
-Bleeding Kansas spirals out of control in late 1850s
-Any number of strikes causes Marxist revolution in later 1880s/early 1890s (especially after Depression of 1893 or 1888 incidents)
-Great Depression results in very unequal regional effects and US fragments as governments work to restore authority (think Crimson Skies but without so many governents)
-Civil Rights movement results in second round of secessions in South
-US goes bankrupt any time after 1970s and local governments jockey for power
-Energy crunch of 1970s is worse/longer and stagflation continues into 1980s, eventually economy flushes as US collapses around the same time USSR does
-09/11 is much worse or followed up by other attacks and government takes excess power in eyes of some combined with increased militia movements

 

[Paul Spring]

Jackson and Lincoln were probably the only presidents that would have gone to war against a state's constitutional right of secession. Its questionable about Zachary Taylor would have done so. From at least one reading there was some talk of secession as early as 1800-1810 over Chief Justice Marshall's interpretations of the Constitution. Virginia ratified the Constitution with the clear indication that it would secede if it felt necessary.

Another question would be exactly why does secession have to be bloodily contested.

Didn't Madison's government plan to send troops against New England if they actually seceded during the War of 1812? Then again, that was during a war, so the seccessionist New Englanders would be seen as siding with the enemy.

 

[Sgt Detritus]

-War of 1812 results in NE secession (perhaps with British help?)

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/althistx/WA.html

 

[Analytical Engine]

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/althistx/WA.html

Or Decades of Darkness...

 

[Fiver]

Jackson and Lincoln were probably the only presidents that would have gone to war against a state's constitutional right of secession. Its questionable about Zachary Taylor would have done so.

I've read something that claimed Taylor said he'd personally lead the army against any would-be secessionists and hang any of them he caught.

 

[Guildencrantz]

I've read something that claimed Taylor said he'd personally lead the army against any would-be secessionists and hang any of them he caught.

No, that's Jackson with South Carolina.

 

[Dave Howery]

Another question would be exactly why does secession have to be bloodily contested.

because there's no legal right to it? Because there was no good reason to split the US in two for the purposes of the southern plantation owners? And a secession that isn't legal is rebellion, and every nation has the right to put down rebellion?

 

[MerryPrankster]

because there's no legal right to it? Because there was no good reason to split the US in two for the purposes of the southern plantation owners? And a secession that isn't legal is rebellion, and every nation has the right to put down rebellion?

Why are you so certain secession is illegal?

 

[Guildencrantz]

Why are you so certain secession is illegal?

Because it IS!

If there is a civil war over it, it's most likely that secession is illegal.

 

[Thande]

Because it IS!

If there is a civil war over it, it's most likely that secession is illegal.

That's a fallacy. Wars happen over opportunities, not legalities. Rather than the unnecessarily emotive recent example of Iraq, how about the War of the Austrian Succession - plenty of countries had agreed that the succession was legal beforehand, but ignored that and declared war anyway when they sensed an opportunity.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Didn't Madison's government plan to send troops against New England if they actually seceded during the War of 1812? Then again, that was during a war, so the seccessionist New Englanders would be seen as siding with the enemy.

On the whole I think the War of 1812 and other accompanying things that were driving New England secession resolved themselves before the Hartford Convention really got beyond barely starting. I don't believe Madison had time to consider what was happening in New England.