The U.S. after a successful Confederate secession?

yeah, no matter what they were going down. Demographics and Buffalo hunting are going to crush them even if the US Army is less effective. As by the 1870s the tactical succes of attacking Indian villages during winter was well known, the Army is unlikely to be less effective.

Not likely to go through the OTL post war cuts either. Probably less stomach to negotiate as well.
 
Not likely to go through the OTL post war cuts either. Probably less stomach to negotiate as well.

a lot of people may not realize that the hardest fought Indian Wars actually took place DURING the Civil War, all over the Great Plains, in the Southwest and even in California and points north. The wars in the 1870s were pretty much the last gasp for the tribes.
 
yeah, no matter what they were going down. Demographics and Buffalo hunting are going to crush them even if the US Army is less effective. As by the 1870s the tactical succes of attacking Indian villages during winter was well known, the Army is unlikely to be less effective.

Maybe a butterfly after a CSA win will keep them from realizing they should do it during winter. Also, if we have an earlier POD than the civil war, the Souix might end up as a princely state.
 
Maybe a butterfly after a CSA win will keep them from realizing they should do it during winter. Also, if we have an earlier POD than the civil war, the Souix might end up as a princely state.

The US Army did it during the Civil War, so it will take a mighty big flock of butterflies. Also keep in mind that by 1870 the US Army (and its ancestors, the Colonial Militias and Continental Army) had been fighting the Indians since 1610. Attacking native villages during the winter was well known for its effectiveness.
 
a lot of people may not realize that the hardest fought Indian Wars actually took place DURING the Civil War, all over the Great Plains, in the Southwest and even in California and points north. The wars in the 1870s were pretty much the last gasp for the tribes.

I'd argue that stomping out the Lakota in the Black Hills was probably (in terms of ruggedness and casualties incurred) the hardest Indian War fought, with the eventual taming of the Comanches a second (and the Comanche were tough) with the Apache's as the third. But you're right that the Comanche, Ute, Paiute, and Dakota all made life miserable for numerous garrisons and settlers from 1861-65. They certainly didn't slow down in this period!
 
I'd argue that stomping out the Lakota in the Black Hills was probably (in terms of ruggedness and casualties incurred) the hardest Indian War fought, with the eventual taming of the Comanches a second (and the Comanche were tough) with the Apache's as the third. But you're right that the Comanche, Ute, Paiute, and Dakota all made life miserable for numerous garrisons and settlers from 1861-65. They certainly didn't slow down in this period!

there was some pretty serious fighting in Arizona and New Mexico (Navajo and Apache) during the Civil War, in fact the Navajo were crushed, and the Apaches were mostly in reservations too not long after its end. Geronimo was an exception really.

While during the Civil War the Comanche pushed the frontier BACK 100 miles! Texas fought the Comanche for roughly 50 years
 
there was some pretty serious fighting in Arizona and New Mexico (Navajo and Apache) during the Civil War, in fact the Navajo were crushed, and the Apaches were mostly in reservations too not long after its end. Geronimo was an exception really.

While during the Civil War the Comanche pushed the frontier BACK 100 miles! Texas fought the Comanche for roughly 50 years

Wasn't aware about the Navajo (I knew a little about the Apache from my reading about the New Mexico campaign and the California Column) but it seems the fighting in the South West was harsher than I thought.
 
Wasn't aware about the Navajo (I knew a little about the Apache from my reading about the New Mexico campaign and the California Column) but it seems the fighting in the South West was harsher than I thought.

The Navajo have their own "Trail of Tears" saga (forced march out of their homeland elsewhere)
 
California made overtures that they had little connection to the rest of the nation and a Republic inclusive of Nevada and perhaps Oregon (and future Washington State/Territory?) would not be impossible at that point. Mormon territories could negotiate a special status or outright independence under the wrong circumstances. Everything from the Rockies on east in Union territory was essentially secure otherwise though, but a border at the Continental Divide would not be out of the question as an extreme if the CSA somehow gains her independence.
 
California made overtures that they had little connection to the rest of the nation and a Republic inclusive of Nevada and perhaps Oregon (and future Washington State/Territory?) would not be impossible at that point. Mormon territories could negotiate a special status or outright independence under the wrong circumstances. Everything from the Rockies on east in Union territory was essentially secure otherwise though, but a border at the Continental Divide would not be out of the question as an extreme if the CSA somehow gains her independence.

I agree, I even started a timeline although I haven't gotten back to it in a while

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/divided-america-an-alternate-19th-century.390129/
 
USA breaks up. The southern states just demonstrated that states can secede and do just fine, even if the federal US government tries to force them back into the union with violence. They can also form their own new federal arrangements. Whenever a group of states have a dispute with the federal government, they do this. The threat alone keeps the federal government weak.

The Confederacy would be more prone to breaking up than the Union, based simply on which nation believes secession is legal.

People would also remember that if the first seven seceding states were let go peacefully, the four other states in the upper south remained in the union. So the federal government not only tried and failed to use force to prevent secession, by a portion of the country with little industry and a huge population disadvantage, but they got even more states to secede in the bargain.

The war started because the Confederate President ordered Confederate troops to attack Union soldiers in a Union fort on Union soil. After which, the Confederate Secretary of War announced Confederate intentions to invade and seize the Union capitol.

"No man can tell where the war this day commenced will end, but I will prophesy that the flag which now flaunts the breeze here will float over the dome of the old Capitol at Washington before the first of May. Let them try southern chivalry and test the extent of southern resources, and it may float eventually over Faneuil [Independence] Hall itself." - Confederate Secretary of War Leroy Pope Walker, April 12, 1861

At which point the legality of secession was irrelevant. The Confederacy had deliberately attacked the US and announced their intentions to invade and seize the US capitol.
 
Like shit, probably.

Alright, this isn't just gonna be a SHITpost. Let's take a deep look into this.

Alright, it would literally look like shit, but first we have to understand what shit looks like. So, what we're looking at is a USA that just lost its most major source of cotton to fuel their factories: the South. This unquestionably results in a catastrophic economic depression in the North, and due to the absence of tariffs (most likely, since they hated tariffs) in the South, quite possibly an economic boom down there in contrast. Not trying to go Turtledovey here, but the South would be besties with Britain and France until they tell the South to get rid of slavery; they either continue being friends if the South drops slavery, or they drop the South for the North if they refuse to let it go, and the South likely turns to a new ally: Germany.

This is just the gist of it: North is fucked, South is doing great.

Union factories got on just fine without cotton during the Civil War. The Confederates are the ones who will have to worry about a catastrophic economic depression. About 10% of their draft age males were in the Union army; none of the black men and few of the whites will come back voluntarily. The Confederacy acquired about twice the per capita debt as the Union and half of that is due with interest 6 months after the end of the war. Confederate infrastructure was severely overtaxed by the war and will take time to regain its prewar levels. And the Union blockade had provided its own protection for Confederate industry; once the war ends Confederate industry will be overwhelmed by cheaper imports and much of it will collapse.

Britain and France would not be "besties" with the Confederacy. Period alliances were for the duration of a war, we don't see long term alliances becoming common until decades after the Civil War. Neither Britain nor France has any reason to form a long term alliance with the Confederacy.
 

Greenville

Banned
A precedent is set forth for legalized secession. Most of the western territories probably become independent countries like California, Utah, and otherwise. The U.S. never expands or gains future territories again like Spain's holdings, Hawaii, or Alaska. Alaska and Hawaii probably join the British Empire later on.
 
I don't understand the legal secession idea. As others have noted, the United States seceded from the British Empire, but that 'precedent' didn't help the CSA. It's not like California or Utah would sue for independence. Even if they were inspired to rise up by Confederate example, it would still be decided by force of arms, and those territories have way fewer people and almost no industrial economy.
 

Greenville

Banned
I don't understand the legal secession idea. As others have noted, the United States seceded from the British Empire, but that 'precedent' didn't help the CSA. It's not like California or Utah would sue for independence. Even if they were inspired to rise up by Confederate example, it would still be decided by force of arms, and those territories have way fewer people and almost no industrial economy.

Once one area gets a negotiated peace and settlement for independence the others will have a right to demand that themselves.
 
8
I don't understand the legal secession idea. As others have noted, the United States seceded from the British Empire, but that 'precedent' didn't help the CSA. It's not like California or Utah would sue for independence. Even if they were inspired to rise up by Confederate example, it would still be decided by force of arms, and those territories have way fewer people and almost no industrial economy.

I believe a California congressman made it clear that it could secede if Washington ignored it, especially given the distance and means needed to travel between the two. Utah endured a harsh Union treatment during the war and is closer to supply bases and home than the US army. The Union will likely go at least to the edge of the Rockies but how much farther than thay would be up for debate. Given the ports at San Francisco and the mineral wealth of Utah along with the prospect of keeping a continental power and looming challenger at bay I suspect London would.maintain at least cordial relations with all of the 'formerly yankee' nations and be happy to aid/dominate them.
 
Top