Secessionist North in alt-ACW?

[Ellie]

What is the best PoD after the War of 1812 that would result in a high likelihood of a Northern secession from the United States? Preferably something bigger than New England that includes the Midatlantic region and perhaps the Midwest, like Ohio or Michigan.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

What is the best PoD after the War of 1812 that would result in a high likelihood of a Northern secession from the United States? Preferably something bigger than New England that includes the Midatlantic region and perhaps the Midwest, like Ohio or Michigan.

Something like the "Rivers of War" series seems to be the best idea. Some event forces the issue of slavery years earlier while the South still has the advantage. In the book series it was a strong free Indian/black territory blocking Southern expansion westward. If the South tries to force the legal acceptance of slavery across the nation or force slavery into a free territory I think you'd see a North that objects and tries to oppose the Federal government on the basis of state's rights.

 

[Captain Jack]

The case of New York v. Lemmon could do the trick. It was a case between a Virginia slaveowner, Lemmon, and the state of New York. Basically, Lemmon was bringing some of his slaves with him to Texas but when he changed ships in New York City a court declared the slaves free as per New York law. The case was making it's way to the Supreme Court before the Civil War but obviously was never heard IOTL. If the Civil War is delayed or the case gets to the Court faster I think it's quite plausible, maybe even likely, that Taney would have ruled in favor of Lemmon. And going by his treatment of the Dred Scot decision Taney would have ruled far beyond the case at hand and declared state laws banning slavery unconstitutional. If that happens the North will be in uproar. Slavery isn't enough to make the Lower North secede but I think New England, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota care enough to do so. Maybe New York if the commercial interests of NYC can be defeated. And expect immense pressure on the Lower North to secede as without it the secessionists' position is untenable if the US government tries to stop them seceding. Essentially the same situation the Confederacy was in with relation to the Upper South in early 1861.

 

[Umbric Man]

I like Captain Jack's scenario but respectfully disagree with him on the Lower North: Illinois was dominated by Chicagoland, which would cut off the state, Cleveland and Columbus would get Ohio to split, and Indiana and Iowa were settled by enough Germans and Quaker-descendants to cleve north eventually as well. And the Mid-Atlantic has thrown its lot in with the north besides, no matter the howling of New York City. They have far more in common with New England and the Northwoods than they do the Upper or Deep South by this point.

Plus, what if the western states like Oregon and California secede? The obviously free territories too? I can see California being split in two above the 37th parallel in this war whatever the outcome. Unlike the CSA this revolting nation has a real chance of being sea-to-sea.

This is just after the unhappy Compromise of 1850 and so sectional differences finally reached their realist, most critical stage. I think you COULDN'T not be for a section by this point.

 

[Ellie]

With the Lemmon vs New York PoD, would the formation of the Republican Party have to be butterflied away for the North to secede? Or just Lincoln's election as president? Or neither?

 

[Captain Jack]

I like Captain Jack's scenario but respectfully disagree with him on the Lower North: Illinois was dominated by Chicagoland, which would cut off the state, Cleveland and Columbus would get Ohio to split, and Indiana and Iowa were settled by enough Germans and Quaker-descendants to cleve north eventually as well. And the Mid-Atlantic has thrown its lot in with the north besides, no matter the howling of New York City. They have far more in common with New England and the Northwoods than they do the Upper or Deep South by this point.

Plus, what if the western states like Oregon and California secede? The obviously free territories too? I can see California being split in two above the 37th parallel in this war whatever the outcome. Unlike the CSA this revolting nation has a real chance of being sea-to-sea.

This is just after the unhappy Compromise of 1850 and so sectional differences finally reached their realist, most critical stage. I think you COULDN'T not be for a section by this point.

You make good points on the Lower North. My reasoning was based on the economic ties the region has to the Upper South and on the reluctance of the Upper South to secede IOTL. Much of that region was conditional unionist and that sentiment initially prevailed in the secession conventions. Indeed, for several of the Upper South states secession was presented as a fait acomplis. I'm thinking of Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas seizing federal facilities and signing alliances with the Confederacy before they had actually seceded. I don't think abolitionism is popular enough, or politically powerful enough to cause those states to break with the US, at least not initially. That said, if Chicago is able to push Illinois into secession, the southern portion of the state, Little Egypt, is likely to secede a la West Virginia. I think the same applies to New York City. IOTL NYC was quite anti-war due to the Irish population and commercial cotton interests. The city might actually try the whole "Tri-Insula" idea. There's no way in hell it would work and it would certainly be a spark for war ITTL.

As for California and Oregon, I'm doubtful they'd go. Slavery lasted surprisingly long in the state IOTL and anti-black sentiment was very strong as well. This same point applies equally to the Lower North. Although, if the North is allowed to secede peacefully it would give a boost to the independence movement there. Maybe enough to actually try something. And if the West Coast does secede, either as an independent nation or alongside the North, the alt-US will discover just how hard it is to project power that far in the absence of a continental railroad.

With the Lemmon vs New York PoD, would the formation of the Republican Party have to be butterflied away for the North to secede? Or just Lincoln's election as president? Or neither?

Any and all of these would work. As would any POD that causes Lemmon v New York to be heard by the Supreme Court. However, my preferred POD, because it is the least drastic, is to simply accelerate the speed at which the case moves through the lower courts. The actual event dates from 1852 so it should be hard to speed up proceedings. Or failing that, simply have an identical case pop up earlier so it reaches the Court in time.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

You make good points on the Lower North. My reasoning was based on the economic ties the region has to the Upper South and on the reluctance of the Upper South to secede IOTL. Much of that region was conditional unionist and that sentiment initially prevailed in the secession conventions. Indeed, for several of the Upper South states secession was presented as a fait acomplis. I'm thinking of Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas seizing federal facilities and signing alliances with the Confederacy before they had actually seceded. I don't think abolitionism is popular enough, or politically powerful enough to cause those states to break with the US, at least not initially. That said, if Chicago is able to push Illinois into secession, the southern portion of the state, Little Egypt, is likely to secede a la West Virginia. I think the same applies to New York City. IOTL NYC was quite anti-war due to the Irish population and commercial cotton interests. The city might actually try the whole "Tri-Insula" idea. There's no way in hell it would work and it would certainly be a spark for war ITTL.

I doubt New York City would even try staying in the Union in a Northern Secession scenario; the Irish there may not have been happy about the draft in OTL's Civil War, but most of them were no fans of slavery.

Little Egypt might counter-secede, but primarily out of not wanting to break the Union, rather than out of any pro-slavery sentiment, and I suspect the same sentiment would hold true in Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri as well(Kansas might be a different matter, though).

As for California and Oregon, I'm doubtful they'd go. Slavery lasted surprisingly long in the state IOTL and anti-black sentiment was very strong as well. This same point applies equally to the Lower North. Although, if the North is allowed to secede peacefully it would give a boost to the independence movement there. Maybe enough to actually try something. And if the West Coast does secede, either as an independent nation or alongside the North, the alt-US will discover just how hard it is to project power that far in the absence of a continental railroad.

Erm, what? Slavery was never present in Oregon and only a very small number of slaves ever existed in California, and there was little support for the Confederacy overall, even not much in those parts of the Golden State where slavery had been attempted IOTL. And apart from perhaps a few areas, anti-black sentiment in general(Joseph Lane's governorship in Oregon notwithstanding) was really not much worse than, say, central Indiana or Pennsylvania during this period; there was, in fact, a small but reasonably thriving black community in San Francisco during the 1850s.

The U.S. could try to retake southern California, maybe, but I doubt that the Yankees would give it up without a fight. More than likely, all of California would remain in Northern hands, and certainly Oregon as well. Now, there may be the question of what happens further east of Nevada(if it still exists ITTL); it'd be interesting to contemplate the possibility that the Mormons in Utah might find themselves divided on the secession issue; perhaps a state of Utah in the north, and Deseret in the South?

Any and all of these would work. As would any POD that causes Lemmon v New York to be heard by the Supreme Court. However, my preferred POD, because it is the least drastic, is to simply accelerate the speed at which the case moves through the lower courts. The actual event dates from 1852 so it should be hard to speed up proceedings. Or failing that, simply have an identical case pop up earlier so it reaches the Court in time.

Maybe so.