Southern states want to quit CSA -- what happens?

How do you deal with votes and Blacks? Not about letting them vote of course, as I doubt that would happen easily, but how many they counted for when it came to Congress and presidential elections. Before the Civil War the 3/5 Compromise gave swarms of extra Representstives to the South, and after the war and when Reconstruction was canceled, they got a full 5/5ths from them.

IOTL the draft CSA Constitution maintained the 3/5ths clause. All the Confederates did was replace the euphemistic "all other persons" with what it really meant: slaves. I've read some speculation that it might have had to do with a desire to balance out representation between states with greater / lesser populations of slaves, but I suspect far less actual thought was applied to the clause's construction.

Really, the CSA's draft Constitution is one of the best living arguments against "states' rights" having been the South's main cause; states gain few rights (rights to reject a limited number of federal appointees and start little trade wars with each other) and actually lose one major right -- the right to restrict or abolish slavery. The vast majority of the rest of it is just a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution that was supposedly so tyrannical.
 

Pax

Banned
How do you deal with votes and Blacks? Not about letting them vote of course, as I doubt that would happen easily, but how many they counted for when it came to Congress and presidential elections. Before the Civil War the 3/5 Compromise gave swarms of extra Representstives to the South, and after the war and when Reconstruction was canceled, they got a full 5/5ths from them.

I see them keeping the 3/5 compromise to balance out states with large slave populations (like MS) and those with smaller ones (VA).
 
Agreed. And most would likely reintegrate back into the Union at some point. My guess is Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina are the first three to rejoin, followed by Missouri and Arkansas. With Texas going independent and the Deep South holding out within the CSA.

Tbh I can only see Tennessee rejoining, and that's because half of Tennessee nearly did during the civil war. Everything else is gonna be just little crappy banana republics that end up being influenced by coups and foreign nations.
 
I have always though that Texas would eventually leave the Confederacy. They may want to take parts of New Mexico and all of Oklahoma with them. If they do get the CSA Arizona Territory then they may want to negotiate with Mexico for access to the sea by way of the Colorado River. There are groups of pro Union supporters and groups that remember when Texas was their own country. Sam Houston would be key to returning to the Union. If he is not involved, then in my opinion, it is a toss up between returning to the Union and a independent nation.

View attachment 390048


View attachment 390051

"During the American Civil War, most of what is now the U.S. state of Oklahoma was designated as the Indian Territory. It served as an unorganized region that had been set aside specifically for Native American tribes and was occupied mostly by tribes which had been removed from their ancestral lands in the Southeastern United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. As part of the Trans-Mississippi Theater, the Indian Territory was the scene of numerous skirmishes and seven officially recognized battles[1] involving both Native American units allied with the Confederate States of America and Native Americans loyal to the United States government, as well as other Union and Confederate troops.

A total of 7,860 Native Americans participated in the Confederate Army, as both officers and enlisted men;[2] most came from the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations.[3] The Union organized several regiments of the Indian Home Guard to serve in the Indian Territory and occasionally in adjacent areas of Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas.[4]"

The CSA would take and hold New Mexico and Arizona the day after Hell froze over not before. They didn't have the logistical capacity or the manpower to do so and the Union did.
 
As far as the OP is concerned see WV. Any argument that says WV can't secede from VA is an argument that a state can't secede from the US. Any argument that a state can secede is an argument for a group of counties being able to secede from a state.
 
As far as the OP is concerned see WV. Any argument that says WV can't secede from VA is an argument that a state can't secede from the US. Any argument that a state can secede is an argument for a group of counties being able to secede from a state.

This is what's interesting to me. Assume for a second that we've kept the 1861 boundaries of the CSA somehow (i.e. the US hasn't been able to force the South to give up any territory at the peace table) -- if you look even beyond WV, there was a marked opposition to secession throughout much of Virginia, and especially (I believe) northern and western VA pre-Fort Sumter. If those counties banded together to secede from the CSA after several dismal years of independence, there are some interesting possibilities for what might happen to them. A new, oddly-shaped state wrapping the Appalachians? A mega-Maryland? Enlarged West Virginia? A Tennessee that looks like it's gone fishing on a map? Seems like a lot of interesting possibilities here.
 
This is what's interesting to me. Assume for a second that we've kept the 1861 boundaries of the CSA somehow (i.e. the US hasn't been able to force the South to give up any territory at the peace table) -- if you look even beyond WV, there was a marked opposition to secession throughout much of Virginia, and especially (I believe) northern and western VA pre-Fort Sumter. If those counties banded together to secede from the CSA after several dismal years of independence, there are some interesting possibilities for what might happen to them. A new, oddly-shaped state wrapping the Appalachians? A mega-Maryland? Enlarged West Virginia? A Tennessee that looks like it's gone fishing on a map? Seems like a lot of interesting possibilities here.

If they allowed every Unionist area secede the CSA would have soon resembled the HRE at its most divided.
 
OTL, Germany had a hairbrained plan to take the Florida Keys if it ends up going to war with America and ends up in a position to make demands. Perhaps Germany could end up invading Florida, taking they Keys and a few other strategically viable places. IMO, there 's too much bad blood between the CSA and USA to make the CSA successor states submit to this kind of domination. IMO, it would be more likely for France and England to have a field day with the US now significantly weaker, meaning that Brazilian rubber among other things now are going to be mostly going to Europe.
 
OTL, Germany had a hairbrained plan to take the Florida Keys if it ends up going to war with America and ends up in a position to make demands. Perhaps Germany could end up invading Florida, taking they Keys and a few other strategically viable places. IMO, there 's too much bad blood between the CSA and USA to make the CSA successor states submit to this kind of domination. IMO, it would be more likely for France and England to have a field day with the US now significantly weaker, meaning that Brazilian rubber among other things now are going to be mostly going to Europe.

It doesn't happen overnight. It wasn't until 1883 until trade became normalized . It doesn't really start becoming a US economic colony until the 1890s . After that it simply is too backwards to really protect itself if the US attacks. Better to be a virtual colony with nominal independence than outright annexed. This is particularly true if you are wealthy and are allowed to keep your wealth. The US isn't interested in the internal affairs of the CSA just its trade and its foreign policy. It is nominally independent and the people can still fool themselves they really are independent.
 
I also forgot to mention the CSA gets into a disastrous war with Mexico in 1892 and that helps push it that far behind. The CSA even loses the Nueces strip in Texas.
 
Tbh I can only see Tennessee rejoining, and that's because half of Tennessee nearly did during the civil war. Everything else is gonna be just little crappy banana republics that end up being influenced by coups and foreign nations.


NC didn't secede until it was completely surrounded by Confederate territory. I can see them coming back at the first opportunity.
 

Pax

Banned
Found it -- really interesting premise. I subbed. There really are a number of sort of built-in quirks and deficiencies in the proposed Constitution that are interesting to consider, whether states' ability to remove certain federal appointees, limits on how / when bills can be considered far beyond the U.S. Constitution, a sort of "Question Time" mechanism where Cabinet secretaries could be summoned to the floor of the House, and most of all IMO the powers given to the states to regulate certain aspects of interstate commerce on their own. And the Senate could theoretically limit an individual state delegation's voting power, so long as representation remained equal … the potential for shenanigans seems endless.

Thank you! I'm glad it's of interest to you.

Certainly, especially things like not being allowed to favor industrialization.
 

Pax

Banned
This is what's interesting to me. Assume for a second that we've kept the 1861 boundaries of the CSA somehow (i.e. the US hasn't been able to force the South to give up any territory at the peace table) -- if you look even beyond WV, there was a marked opposition to secession throughout much of Virginia, and especially (I believe) northern and western VA pre-Fort Sumter. If those counties banded together to secede from the CSA after several dismal years of independence, there are some interesting possibilities for what might happen to them. A new, oddly-shaped state wrapping the Appalachians? A mega-Maryland? Enlarged West Virginia? A Tennessee that looks like it's gone fishing on a map? Seems like a lot of interesting possibilities here.

Maybe a Troubles kind of situation but in the hills of WV/MD with the US facing a similar insurgence in it's own territory (Confederate terrorists in MO?).
 
As far as the OP is concerned see WV. Any argument that says WV can't secede from VA is an argument that a state can't secede from the US. Any argument that a state can secede is an argument for a group of counties being able to secede from a state.

Wrong. The Confederate government could very well argue that the States, being sovereign entities with defined legal powers and standing, had the right to secede. Counties, by contrast, are local governments not existing outside the powers assigned to them by the states, and thus remain mere appendages of the state governments. Its a fine legal point, but what that would hold especially true in the mid-19th century legal codes.
 
Wrong. The Confederate government could very well argue that the States, being sovereign entities with defined legal powers and standing, had the right to secede. Counties, by contrast, are local governments not existing outside the powers assigned to them by the states, and thus remain mere appendages of the state governments. Its a fine legal point, but what that would hold especially true in the mid-19th century legal codes.

The CSA government certainly can argue that the states, not counties, are the sovereign legal entities with the right to secede; this argument may not hold a lot of weight with counties who feel that the CSA was essentially founded on the premise of "subnational / subfederal authority X doesn't like being told what to do by subfederal authority Y, therefore subfederal authority X has the right to secede," and decide that they can separate. One could imagine many of the same arguments from the Revolutionary period and the secession period being trotted out to defend counties' rights to secede. Both sides might consider their arguments valid, and to some, both arguments might well be valid. It could well come to blows.
 
The CSA government certainly can argue that the states, not counties, are the sovereign legal entities with the right to secede; this argument may not hold a lot of weight with counties who feel that the CSA was essentially founded on the premise of "subnational / subfederal authority X doesn't like being told what to do by subfederal authority Y, therefore subfederal authority X has the right to secede," and decide that they can separate. One could imagine many of the same arguments from the Revolutionary period and the secession period being trotted out to defend counties' rights to secede. Both sides might consider their arguments valid, and to some, both arguments might well be valid. It could well come to blows.

... at which point townships that disagreed with the Counties might do the same thing. And then individual landowners within said townships decide THEY don't have to listen to no dumb city hall and can do what they please as "sovereign citizens". Which is what happens if you decide their isen't legally some line at which "sovereignty" kicks in to government institutions and take that to its logical conclusion.
 
Wrong. The Confederate government could very well argue that the States, being sovereign entities with defined legal powers and standing, had the right to secede. Counties, by contrast, are local governments not existing outside the powers assigned to them by the states, and thus remain mere appendages of the state governments. Its a fine legal point, but what that would hold especially true in the mid-19th century legal codes.

The states are also subordinate to the Federal Government. Besides that rule is valid only "by consent of the governed" , the main argument, applies to counties as well. State borders are as arbitrary as county ones after all.
 
... at which point townships that disagreed with the Counties might do the same thing. And then individual landowners within said townships decide THEY don't have to listen to no dumb city hall and can do what they please as "sovereign citizens". Which is what happens if you decide their isen't legally some line at which "sovereignty" kicks in to government institutions and take that to its logical conclusion.

Which is the same argument used by the US government. States are subordinate to the US government which is why US law prevails.
 
Top