"Reversed" american civil war

[Gukpard]

Based on this AAR, I came up with a question

What if the USA did not abolished slavery, and this reversed the civil war? The PoD of that scenario comes way before the civil war, but there Lincoln was still a senator in 1860, and he got assassinated. In this alternate scenario the balance was well into the hand of the slave states since 1836, and was getting worse with almost every single newly accepted state (like kansas) adopting slavery. What happens is by 1874 a reverse secession fires, the northern industrial states leave the union preaching their loyalty for the american values against slavery, and so the civil war is against a slavery supporting US against abolitionist rebels

"The citizens of the North have left our union, and after a bloody war, they remain independent. Rather than dwelling on the past, we must look to the future. The North left behind a confederation of states, devoted to the promotion of true economic freedom. We must embrace this confederation, for it is the Union we have left.
-excerpt from the Declaration of Confederation, 1877 "

Is such scenario possible?

 

[wcv215]

The whole reason the South seceded was because the free states were increasingly overwhelming them in elections. The election of 1860 was won without a single free state. And that was WITH their vote split. If the 1860 election goes to a slaver faction like this the election of 1864 is going to get a Radical elected. Someone like Thaddeus Stevens rather than a relative moderate like Lincoln. On a platform to curtail slaver power.

Ignoring that, this Civil War will see the south crushed. The south was thoroughly beaten and conquered in the OTL war. An extra decade of immigration and industrialization will likely see the North simply enforcing abolition on the country.

 

[History Learner]

PoD would be the election getting thrown to the House in 1860 with Breckenridge winning there and then in, say 1863, the Supreme Court issues a ruling on Lemmon v. New York that effectively eliminates the Free/Slave State divide in favor of Slave Power. With a "stolen" election and such a SCOTUS ruling, I could easily see the New England states and New York seceding while the Midwest and South would remain in the Union. I personally don't see, however, any war to bring the seceded states back into the Union.

 

[Gukpard]

PoD would be the election getting thrown to the House in 1860 with Breckenridge winning there and then in, say 1863, the Supreme Court issues a ruling on Lemmon v. New York that effectively eliminates the Free/Slave State divide in favor of Slave Power. With a "stolen" election and such a SCOTUS ruling, I could easily see the New England states and New York seceding while the Midwest and South would remain in the Union. I personally don't see, however, any war to bring the seceded states back into the Union.

The PoD can be as back as 1836, what can be accomplished with this PoD?

And using you 1860 PoD scenario with new england leaving, how long would it take for this USA to abolish slavery?

 

[wcv215]

PoD would be the election getting thrown to the House in 1860 with Breckenridge winning there and then in, say 1863, the Supreme Court issues a ruling on Lemmon v. New York that effectively eliminates the Free/Slave State divide in favor of Slave Power. With a "stolen" election and such a SCOTUS ruling, I could easily see the New England states and New York seceding while the Midwest and South would remain in the Union. I personally don't see, however, any war to bring the seceded states back into the Union.

Problem is that just inflames the North further. I could easily see for instance the Radicals winning every free state by a landslide due to this massive overreach by the judiciary, and in turn Congress and the President stripping the court of its power because of this ruling. If they have enough seats we could well see impeachment of the court over this.

There's no reason for the North to secede however.

They already had the numbers to dominate the South, they just lacked motivation previously.

 

[Planet of Hats]

Isn't there a DBWI to this effect?

 

[TRH]

Isn't there a DBWI to this effect?

I think that one had the South beating a seceding North, which seems extremely unlikely with a time frame anywhere near OTL's.

 

[History Learner]

Problem is that just inflames the North further. I could easily see for instance the Radicals winning every free state by a landslide due to this massive overreach by the judiciary, and in turn Congress and the President stripping the court of its power because of this ruling. If they have enough seats we could well see impeachment of the court over this.

There's no reason for the North to secede however.

They already had the numbers to dominate the South, they just lacked motivation previously.

Pretty much the point is to enflame the North, and their increasing advantage in the House is still countered by SCOTUS and the Senate to a lesser extent.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Pretty much the point is to enflame the North, and their increasing advantage in the House is still countered by SCOTUS and the Senate to a lesser extent.

Well, this is fairly easy if the Constitution is structured somewhat differently but as most of the above posters have said, the basic structure of the U.S as a representative republic is against the South. However, looking at what a friend the South was to increased federal power and U.S expansion (Where it benefited slavery... which is usually did), I think the best way to get the northern states to secede is for the Federal government to grow increasingly autocratic and centralized, combined with fewer larger Northern states and more, perhaps smaller Southern ones. In that case, if the electoral collage slants south (including 3/5ths of the slaves in the state population helps), you get a series of Pro-Dixie presidents who appoint a court full of Pro-Dixie justices, have the US be alot more involved in international affairs and therefore have treaty obligations that need to be approved and enforced by a Pro-Dixie Senate... basically sideline the House as much as possible and implement more "Fugitive Slave Law"-type institutions.

Basically, to get the North to secede they need to feel like the White Man's Democracy is being put on the sacrifical alter for the sake of perpetuating slavery.

 

[History Learner]

Well, this is fairly easy if the Constitution is structured somewhat differently but as most of the above posters have said, the basic structure of the U.S as a representative republic is against the South. However, looking at what a friend the South was to increased federal power and U.S expansion (Where it benefited slavery... which is usually did), I think the best way to get the northern states to secede is for the Federal government to grow increasingly autocratic and centralized, combined with fewer larger Northern states and more, perhaps smaller Southern ones. In that case, if the electoral collage slants south (including 3/5ths of the slaves in the state population helps), you get a series of Pro-Dixie presidents who appoint a court full of Pro-Dixie justices, have the US be alot more involved in international affairs and therefore have treaty obligations that need to be approved and enforced by a Pro-Dixie Senate... basically sideline the House as much as possible and implement more "Fugitive Slave Law"-type institutions.

Basically, to get the North to secede they need to feel like the White Man's Democracy is being put on the sacrifical alter for the sake of perpetuating slavery.

Thing is, with the composition of the Court and especially so under a Breckenridge Administration, it would definitely rule in favor of slave power in Lemmon v. New York. At that point, the only way to reverse such would either be a Constitutional Amendment (Impossible to achieve, given the South) or secession. Given even IOTL the North was considering secession in 1860-1861, I think it's entirely likely.

 

[TRH]

Thing is, with the composition of the Court and especially so under a Breckenridge Administration, it would definitely rule in favor of slave power in Lemmon v. New York. At that point, the only way to reverse such would either be a Constitutional Amendment (Impossible to achieve, given the South) or secession. Given even IOTL the North was considering secession in 1860-1861, I think it's entirely likely.

The next question is how hard Breckinridge would fight to stop them. Also, the West seems like a sticking point, and New Orleans. Actually, I'm not sure how to avoid a war with this many outstanding issues.

 

[History Learner]

The next question is how hard Breckinridge would fight to stop them. Also, the West seems like a sticking point, and New Orleans. Actually, I'm not sure how to avoid a war with this many outstanding issues.

I'd expect the Midwest to stay in the Union, while the Western territories had a large Southerner demographic.

 

[Corjomc]

"The North will Rise Again!"

I can foresee a war but maybe not as quickly as in OTL. A fight over the Midwest or Mississippi or West Coast cropping up at some point.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I'd expect the Midwest to stay in the Union, while the Western territories had a large Southerner demographic.

Cincinatti and Evansville though may find that the south is better for them since they have rivalry and no loyalty to Cleveland and Chicago

 

[TRH]

"The North will Rise Again!"

I can foresee a war but maybe not as quickly as in OTL. A fight over the Midwest or Mississippi or West Coast cropping up at some point.

I don't think you should assume the Midwest was any less loyal to Free Soil than New England. During this period you had them electing Governors like Samuel Kirkwood of Iowa, who sheltered members of John Brown's group and refused to extradite them, Alexander Randall of Wisconsin, who openly advocated secession in the event that Lincoln lost, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, who called the state militia out to fight the Confederates even without the approval of the legislature and imprisoned Southern sympathizers, Richard Yates of Illinois, a close ally of Lincoln and who was out raising up militia a day after Fort Sumter was attacked, and so on. I don't see why you'd think they'd be any more content with this slaveholder oligarchy than Massachusetts or Rhode Island would be.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I don't think you should assume the Midwest was any less loyal to Free Soil than New England. During this period you had them electing Governors like Samuel Kirkwood of Iowa, who sheltered members of John Brown's group and refused to extradite them, Alexander Randall of Wisconsin, who openly advocated secession in the event that Lincoln lost, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, who called the state militia out to fight the Confederates even without the approval of the legislature and imprisoned Southern sympathizers, Richard Yates of Illinois, a close ally of Lincoln and who was out raising up militia a day after Fort Sumter was attacked, and so on. I don't see why you'd think they'd be any more content with this slaveholder oligarchy than Massachusetts or Rhode Island would be.

I think you're forgetting a very important factor though: the Mississippi River. While I have no doubt the Northern Rebellion (Whatever they would call themselves), I think the political elite of the states would be hesitant to openly side with them, lest the South cut off their access to the great ribbon of commerce more or less permanently (Or, at least, impose tariffs/customs fees that would hamstring Midwestern agriculture); at least with a rebellion date of 1861. Push the ACW later (Which I think increases the odds of the North being the one leaving, as it implies the system has essentially jammed up and the majority are increasingly seeing their democracy denied after exhausting all peaceful options, and for the impact of slave labor moving North to really hit home and increase Abolitionist, not just "Ban the Blacks", sentiment in the North as the rights and concerns of free labor and free blacks get more closely intertwined. This would also give time for railroads and canals to increasingly bind the Midwest to the Eastern Seaboard.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I think you're forgetting a very important factor though: the Mississippi River. While I have no doubt the Northern Rebellion (Whatever they would call themselves), I think the political elite of the states would be hesitant to openly side with them, lest the South cut off their access to the great ribbon of commerce more or less permanently (Or, at least, impose tariffs/customs fees that would hamstring Midwestern agriculture); at least with a rebellion date of 1861. Push the ACW later (Which I think increases the odds of the North being the one leaving, as it implies the system has essentially jammed up and the majority are increasingly seeing their democracy denied after exhausting all peaceful options, and for the impact of slave labor moving North to really hit home and increase Abolitionist, not just "Ban the Blacks", sentiment in the North as the rights and concerns of free labor and free blacks get more closely intertwined. This would also give time for railroads and canals to increasingly bind the Midwest to the Eastern Seaboard.

Erie Canal and multiple canals linking the Ohio to the Great Lakes, plus the railroads going east to west make the idea of "ribbon of commerce" to New Orleans irrelevant. Every city will care more about access to Albany and New York City as opposed to New Orleans. Biggest cotton mill complex in the world at the time was 5 miles north of Albany.

 

[TRH]

Erie Canal and multiple canals linking the Ohio to the Great Lakes, plus the railroads going east to west make the idea of "ribbon of commerce" to New Orleans irrelevant. Every city will care more about access to Albany and New York City as opposed to New Orleans. Biggest cotton mill complex in the world at the time was 5 miles north of Albany.

Also, the Mississippi wasn't opened up for the Union until 1863 IOTL, so it's not like the Midwest would implode without it.

 

[Gukpard]

First of all, you don't know how happy I am for seeing how productive this thread as become

Also, the Mississippi wasn't opened up for the Union until 1863 IOTL, so it's not like the Midwest would implode without it.

at least with a rebellion date of 1861. Push the ACW later (Which I think increases the odds of the North being the one leaving, as it implies the system has essentially jammed up and the majority are increasingly seeing their democracy denied after exhausting all peaceful options

This is the idea, to delay the abolition more and more by having most of the political power in the hands of the south and having more midwestern states to adopt slavery, to the point that the north secede and a alternate civil war happens

 

[TRH]

This is the idea, to delay the abolition more and more by having most of the political power in the hands of the south and having more midwestern states to adopt slavery, to the point that the north secede and a alternate civil war happens

An 1860 POD is way too late for most Midwestern states to adopt slavery. At most, some meddling might get a slaver victory in Kansas, but that would only galvanize the North even more.