Split Confederacy TLs?

I've tried searching on the site a bit, but obviously didn't do too good a job as I didn't turn anything up, but...

I've seen a couple of TLs, here and elsewhere, where post a CSA-wins Civil War, the US went on to split again. This doesn't seem particularly likely to me, as I don't really think there was any other bloc of states that had a common sense of identity like the South did while also having a serious enough axe to grind with the Federal government. I could be completely wrong in that assessment...

However, what I don't think I've ever seen is a TL where the victorious CSA later goes onto split again into two or more separate states. IMHO, this is much more likely given that the CS was very much in favour of states' rights and a comparatively small and weak central government, to the extent that certain state governors even refused to release state militia troops to fight for the Confederacy even after the war had turned against them. So, all it takes, many many years after the Civil War, is for the CS government to decide they're going to abolish slavery and you might get a Confederate civil war going. Or maybe not; would the Confederate government even try to prevent any of its constituent states from seceding, given that their whole nation was built on secession?

So, thoughts? My real question is, does anyone know of any TLs in which this sort of thing happens in a "victorious" CSA? And does anyone really disagree with my assessment above (because, while I'm interested in the ACW, I'll admit its not really my period...)
 
The CSA would definitely try to stop any further fragmenting with force; call that irony if you like. IIRC they even wrote it into their Constitution. As for the North, there's very clear differences (at least in the latter half of the 19th century) between the original colonies, the settled Midwest and the Far West/Pacific, but I'm not sure what impetus they have for separating - they benefit by association and know it.

I think the main problem would be that if the CSA falls into Civil War, they can reliably count on the USA intervening to try and reconquer at least part of them. It would require unusually widespread stupidity, I think, which is not calling it impossible or uninteresting...:) If the USA fell into a Second Civil War, they might also have to worry about CSA intervention, even if on a "volunteer" rather than "official" basis.
 

Glen

Moderator
I've tried searching on the site a bit, but obviously didn't do too good a job as I didn't turn anything up, but...

I've seen a couple of TLs, here and elsewhere, where post a CSA-wins Civil War, the US went on to split again. This doesn't seem particularly likely to me, as I don't really think there was any other bloc of states that had a common sense of identity like the South did while also having a serious enough axe to grind with the Federal government. I could be completely wrong in that assessment...

However, what I don't think I've ever seen is a TL where the victorious CSA later goes onto split again into two or more separate states. IMHO, this is much more likely given that the CS was very much in favour of states' rights and a comparatively small and weak central government, to the extent that certain state governors even refused to release state militia troops to fight for the Confederacy even after the war had turned against them. So, all it takes, many many years after the Civil War, is for the CS government to decide they're going to abolish slavery and you might get a Confederate civil war going. Or maybe not; would the Confederate government even try to prevent any of its constituent states from seceding, given that their whole nation was built on secession?

So, thoughts? My real question is, does anyone know of any TLs in which this sort of thing happens in a "victorious" CSA? And does anyone really disagree with my assessment above (because, while I'm interested in the ACW, I'll admit its not really my period...)

I actually tend to agree with you, and have had several thoughts along those lines, with Texas being the most likely to part ways, I suspect.
 
I think the main problem would be that if the CSA falls into Civil War, they can reliably count on the USA intervening to try and reconquer at least part of them. It would require unusually widespread stupidity, I think, which is not calling it impossible or uninteresting...:) If the USA fell into a Second Civil War, they might also have to worry about CSA intervention, even if on a "volunteer" rather than "official" basis.

This is one point of view that I never understood, that the US would try to reconquer the South, either as whole or part. The only reason I can think of is that people think being part of the US is a terrific thing.
 
I think Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina are most likely to split. Texas still has a national identity to draw upon, and IIRC actually planned on leaving the CSA if they won Oklahoma from the Union. Virginia and North Carolina would split over slavery eventually, and would probably join together in some form of association.
 
I think Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina are most likely to split. Texas still has a national identity to draw upon, and IIRC actually planned on leaving the CSA if they won Oklahoma from the Union. Virginia and North Carolina would split over slavery eventually, and would probably join together in some form of association.

This sounds quite possible, and I would add Kentucky and Tennessee to the list (parts or whole). Kentucky was not in the CSA, but some areas (possibly the southeastern ones) in that state might join the ATL government formed from some of the CSA states (with areas from various states). It was a border state during the Civil War, so sympathetic sections of the Bluegrass State might join a new country comprised of regions that weren't like the states in the Deep South. There were divides in the cultures and the economies of the Confederate states, which can be seen when you compare the Appalachians to Dixie. Tennessee would be a probable candidate for secession, and the northeastern area would be a definite candidate. Recall that one county in that region remained in the Union during the war. I think that southwestern Virginia came close to becoming part of West Virginia too, so we could add that area to the ATL creation. North Carolina might split, with the northwestern part becoming part of the new government.
 
This is one point of view that I never understood, that the US would try to reconquer the South, either as whole or part. The only reason I can think of is that people think being part of the US is a terrific thing.


Agreed on this point. Unless the second civil war happens within a decade of the first one, it seems fairly unlikely the confederacy will be successfully re-annexed. although the US government may decide to turn the CSA into a client state after the war if they win, it avoids having (probably) very hostile representatives in congress to throw a monkey wrench into the works, and at the same time avoids having a hostile neighbor directly on the border who may decide to avenge its defeat in the near future.
 
Wasn't suggesting that trying to reannex the CSA was a terribly good idea or that it would end well - but I think you underestimate just how much the average Northerner resented the South. Losing the ACW would have made that even worse. Resentment over the ACW lingered on in OTL in the north until the 19-oughts, with TR having to promise Civil War veteran's groups in the North not to be too lenient or forgiving - why would the North simply shrug and move on when they lost?
 
I've tried searching on the site a bit, but obviously didn't do too good a job as I didn't turn anything up, but...

I've seen a couple of TLs, here and elsewhere, where post a CSA-wins Civil War, the US went on to split again. This doesn't seem particularly likely to me, as I don't really think there was any other bloc of states that had a common sense of identity like the South did while also having a serious enough axe to grind with the Federal government. I could be completely wrong in that assessment...

However, what I don't think I've ever seen is a TL where the victorious CSA later goes onto split again into two or more separate states.

You obviously haven't read many Civil War timelines, then. MOST such timelines see the Confederacy split, at least to the extent that Texas nearly always leaves at some point.

IMHO, this is much more likely given that the CS was very much in favour of states' rights and a comparatively small and weak central government, to the extent that certain state governors even refused to release state militia troops to fight for the Confederacy even after the war had turned against them. So, all it takes, many many years after the Civil War, is for the CS government to decide they're going to abolish slavery and you might get a Confederate civil war going.

Not possible, given that the Confederate Constitution forbade the Confederate government from interfering with slavery at all. The question of abolition was left entirely to the States.

Or maybe not; would the Confederate government even try to prevent any of its constituent states from seceding, given that their whole nation was built on secession?

I doubt they would try. They fought a war over the right of secession. Why would they suddenly turn around and try to suppress a secessionist movement?

So, thoughts? My real question is, does anyone know of any TLs in which this sort of thing happens in a "victorious" CSA? And does anyone really disagree with my assessment above (because, while I'm interested in the ACW, I'll admit its not really my period...)

Well, my own The Black and the Gray timeline is a prime example of a timeline where the Confederacy experiences secession after achieving independence.
 
The CSA would definitely try to stop any further fragmenting with force; call that irony if you like.

Why? What basis do you have for that? Just because Lincoln did it doesn't mean the Confederate leadership would. Indeed, Lincoln's example would tend to be a deterrent to such actions by the Confederate government.

IIRC they even wrote it into their Constitution.

Nope. There is a statement in the preamble to the Confederate Constitution which some people often misinterpret as meaning secession was not allowed.

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity--invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God--do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.


However, to "form a permanent federal government" doesn't mean that States cannot secede from it...even if some States did secede, the "federal government" would still continue to exist. Indeed the idea of a "permanent federal government" is less binding on the States than the "perpetual Union" supposedly created by the Articles of Confederation...and we all know what happened to that.

I think the main problem would be that if the CSA falls into Civil War, they can reliably count on the USA intervening to try and reconquer at least part of them. It would require unusually widespread stupidity, I think, which is not calling it impossible or uninteresting...:)

Depends on whether the people of the North are really interested in having another devastating war that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of it's citizens just in order to retake a bit of territory full of people who don't want to be reunited with them. Say what you want to about Yankees, but they are mostly a practical people, and the costs of retaking the South would likely be seen to outweigh the benefits of doing so.
 
Wasn't suggesting that trying to reannex the CSA was a terribly good idea or that it would end well - but I think you underestimate just how much the average Northerner resented the South. Losing the ACW would have made that even worse. Resentment over the ACW lingered on in OTL in the north until the 19-oughts, with TR having to promise Civil War veteran's groups in the North not to be too lenient or forgiving - why would the North simply shrug and move on when they lost?

Until the actually outbreak of the war there were Northerners that advocated letting the South go its own way so the United States would be free from slavery.

I would consider that the majority of Northerners that did resent the South resented it more for its political ability to thwart Northern ambition in reinterpreting the Constitution. The war was not one of Union or Slavery but a means to destroy an entire regions' political power.
 
David, pretty much entirely wrong.

Major issues were the hypocrisy in the South believing secession was acceptable for one part of the nation but not another, Robert E Lee being a top offender in this category, not to mention trying to break up the nation for no better reason than losing an election which southerners had made great efforts to lose in the first place.
 
I think the main problem would be that if the CSA falls into Civil War, they can reliably count on the USA intervening to try and reconquer at least part of them. It would require unusually widespread stupidity, I think, which is not calling it impossible or uninteresting...:) If the USA fell into a Second Civil War, they might also have to worry about CSA intervention, even if on a "volunteer" rather than "official" basis.

I'm no expert on this era (in fact I tend to avoid threads on Civil War era USA as I have no knowledge at all) but as a pure example of "pull-an-idea-out-of-a-hat" guesswork, what if the TL already had the CSA achieving independence on the back of British backing? I'm not a huge fan of it in the first place as I have my doubts as to whether the British would ever favour it in the first place, but what if the UK somehow fostered close relations with the CSA but came to view themselves almost as a foster parent more than an equal? Could the threat of the UK looking out for the CSA not prevent US involvement? Or something like this, as I say I'm fishing for ideas.
 
Top