The U.S. after a successful Confederate secession?

Reapportionment would settle both the Congressional and Electoral College issues. I suspect that we would see a 14th Amendment declaring who or who is not a citizen (which may or may not have that number). As to property, it may depend on how the war ended and the South got its nation. I seem to recall at least one US treaty where the two parties agreed to be responsible for the debts owed to their citizens (War with Mexico I think, although operating on memory for that one)

A specific amendment regarding secession seems very likely, particularly as new states carved out of the already organized territories are reasonably expected eventually (which is why they are already territories after all) to avoid such problems in the future. Unspoken would be concerns (well maybe shouted in Congress but not in the legal language) about the Mormons in Utah for example.

Might be possible the government takes a harsher stance towards the power governors have over the state militias too? I can see an amendment addressing citizenship, but implicitly rejecting secession (talking about how people can abandon citizenship, but cannot secede?) or some legal lingo.

The Mormons would indeed be something of a sticky problem for the politicos, and the Mormons themselves might be working to avoid that smear towards themselves.
 
Might be possible the government takes a harsher stance towards the power governors have over the state militias too? I can see an amendment addressing citizenship, but implicitly rejecting secession (talking about how people can abandon citizenship, but cannot secede?) or some legal lingo.

The Mormons would indeed be something of a sticky problem for the politicos, and the Mormons themselves might be working to avoid that smear towards themselves.

The was a movement in the United States for much of the late 19th and early 20th Century to institute universal military service and a European style reserve system (plus a General Staff type organization). So you might see as a compromise the States keeping their militia (a modern day version of the state militia is the State Guard)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

while the formal Reserve is called the US National Guard or some such (the French already have a national guard so it has precedence) which may or may not have peacetime conscription (scenario matters in this case)
 
I don't think the partitioning of states would be nearly as extensive as some people are claiming; the legal justification for West Virginia was that the non-secesh government was the legitimate state government of Virginia, which then voted itself out of the state. In a Civil War that ends in Confederate victory, the US is essentially forfeiting the legal grounds to do so by acknowledging secession. If it gets to the point where a peace candidate is elected to stop the fighting, and the US population is no longer willing to die for the Union, it's not going to be willing to die for East Tennessee. It would depend on the exact nature of the Confederate victory, but I think most peace negotiation trading would happen on a state by state level, rather than breaking up the states themselves.

I think that the borders would be more or less where the armies are sitting. That is the usual thing in war where procession is 99.9% of the law. No matter how the war ends the CSA is no more eager to continue the war itself. Men in West Tennessee might be willing to fight for the rest of their state but would men from Georgia? Doubtful.
 
I think that the borders would be more or less where the armies are sitting. That is the usual thing in war where possession is 99.9% of the law. No matter how the war ends the CSA is no more eager to continue the war itself. Men in West Tennessee might be willing to fight for the rest of their state but would men from Georgia? Doubtful.
No ... that's not how it works ...
Territories you occupy are bargaining chips, to be traded around at the peace table; 'You can keep Tennessee if you take the guns off Harrisburg,' or 'Give up Fort Monroe and you can have Missouri'. For the Union in this situation, ending the war would be an end in and of itself; if they thought they could win a renewed contest over the new states they've carved out, they wouldn't be at the peace table in the first place.
As long as the Union occupied portions of Confederate states, it would amount to a refusal to recognize secession, if they're following the West Virginia model and claiming the new state is really the old one. The Confederates could not accept such a peace settlement. Furthermore, the men at the top of the Confederacy, Davis and Lee, were nationalists who would see partition as a grave threat to the nation as a whole.
 
No ... that's not how it works ...
Territories you occupy are bargaining chips, to be traded around at the peace table; 'You can keep Tennessee if you take the guns off Harrisburg,' or 'Give up Fort Monroe and you can have Missouri'. For the Union in this situation, ending the war would be an end in and of itself; if they thought they could win a renewed contest over the new states they've carved out, they wouldn't be at the peace table in the first place.
As long as the Union occupied portions of Confederate states, it would amount to a refusal to recognize secession, if they're following the West Virginia model and claiming the new state is really the old one. The Confederates could not accept such a peace settlement. Furthermore, the men at the top of the Confederacy, Davis and Lee, were nationalists who would see partition as a grave threat to the nation as a whole.

And their men? Are Virginians any more willing to fight and die to keep all of Tennessee than New York is to keep East Tennessee? The CSA would win it by the skin of its teeth . The men want to go home, the treasury department would be urging settling with whatever it can get as the country is quickly going bankrupt and the people in the area will revolt if you try to shove it back into the CSA. Not talking about the fact you are making your hypocrisy very apparent. Georgia has the right to leave the US but East Tennessee doesn't have the right to leave the CSA?
 
And their men? Are Virginians any more willing to fight and die to keep all of Tennessee than New York is to keep East Tennessee? The CSA would win it by the skin of its teeth . The men want to go home, the treasury department would be urging settling with whatever it can get as the country is quickly going bankrupt and the people in the area will revolt if you try to shove it back into the CSA. Not talking about the fact you are making your hypocrisy very apparent. Georgia has the right to leave the US but East Tennessee doesn't have the right to leave the CSA?
States and unions are fundamentally different things, so coming up with a legal justification to land on a revolt in East Tennessee with both feet isn't nearly as tricky as seceding from the U.S., especially since the Confederate Constitution, unlike the U.S., specifies that its union is permanent. Not to mention that as long as there's a Unionist government for a Confederate state, its independence is not secure, which means none of them are. It's also not nearly as demanding an uphill battle as the fight against the Union proper was, and can be accomplished with reduced forces that would still be much superior to the local militias.
 
No ... that's not how it works ...
Territories you occupy are bargaining chips, to be traded around at the peace table; 'You can keep Tennessee if you take the guns off Harrisburg,' or 'Give up Fort Monroe and you can have Missouri'. For the Union in this situation, ending the war would be an end in and of itself; if they thought they could win a renewed contest over the new states they've carved out, they wouldn't be at the peace table in the first place.
As long as the Union occupied portions of Confederate states, it would amount to a refusal to recognize secession, if they're following the West Virginia model and claiming the new state is really the old one. The Confederates could not accept such a peace settlement. Furthermore, the men at the top of the Confederacy, Davis and Lee, were nationalists who would see partition as a grave threat to the nation as a whole.

Really comes down to whether they could enforce their wishes doesn't it? The scenario again matters. The 1862 scenario, say the situation in April 1862, is pretty easy to deal with. The Confederacy has no control over the border states but the Union has occupied a few counties in the Confederacy proper (I am assuming the Trent Affair resulted in Anglo French recognition of the Confederacy and Lincoln throwing in the towel to force majeure). However if the war ends in January 1865 when Lincoln leaves office (or negotiates a settlement) the Confederacy in its wildest dreams cannot take back by force territory it lost. So then its horse trading.... Port Royal and Jacksonville for Eastern Tennessee looks pretty good (especially since the voters in Appalachia pre Civil War did not support the Planters on the Coastal Plains). Trading Louisiana for Missouri and Kentucky, or great big chunks of Mississippi for surrendering claims to West Virginia once again looks pretty good too.

Don't forget, the Union has its own nationalists too. War Democrats, including McClellan,were over half of the Democratic Party (in the states the remained in the Union). It wasn't just the Radical Republicans who served in or supported the war. Otherwise Lincoln would not have had to deal with General Butler.

As to the resources of the Confederacy... if we are talking the Peace of Exhaustion scenario, the Confederacy is badly in debt, lost hundreds of thousands dead already, why would the State of Georgia (picked deliberately as the governor was extremely difficult to Jefferson Davis throughout the entire war although North Carolina works too) allow his State Troops (which are what the entire Confederate Army consists of aside from a handful of authorized but never really formed Regular Army regiments) to invade Pigeon Forge (yes its a real place in eastern Tennessee) when his voters are demanding that the men go home. While the Union has similar problems, it doesn't have to attack any one now does it, and it has a Regular Army (and a LOT of regiments of USCT who are willing to do probably anything to avoid being abandoned) so it can send its State Regiments home.
 
Last edited:
Really comes down to whether they could enforce their wishes doesn't it? The scenario again matters. The 1862 scenario, say the situation in April 1862, is pretty easy to deal with. The Confederacy has no control over the border states but the Union has occupied a few counties in the Confederacy proper (I am assuming the Trent Affair resulted in Anglo French recognition of the Confederacy and Lincoln throwing in the towel to force majeure). However if the war ends in January 1865 when Lincoln leaves office (or negotiates a settlement) the Confederacy in its wildest dreams cannot take back by force territory it lost. So then its horse trading.... Port Royal and Jacksonville for Eastern Tennessee looks pretty good (especially since the voters in Appalachia pre Civil War did not support the Planters on the Coastal Plains). Trading Louisiana for Missouri and Kentucky, or great big chunks of Mississippi for surrendering claims to West Virginia once again looks pretty good too.

Don't forget, the Union has its own nationalists too. War Democrats, including McClellan,were over half of the Democratic Party (in the states the remained in the Union). It wasn't just the Radical Republicans who served in or supported the war. Otherwise Lincoln would not have had to deal with General Butler.

As to the resources of the Confederacy... if we are talking the Peace of Exhaustion scenario, the Confederacy is badly in debt, lost hundreds of thousands dead already, why would the State of Georgia (picked deliberately as the governor was extremely difficult to Jefferson Davis throughout the entire war although North Carolina works too) allow his State Troops (which are what the entire Confederate Army consists of aside from a handful of authorized but never really formed Regular Army regiments) to invade Pigeon Forge (yes its a real place in eastern Tennessee) when his voters are demanding that the men go home. While the Union has similar problems, it doesn't have to attack any one now does it, and it has a Regular Army (and a LOT of regiments of USCT who are willing to do probably anything to avoid being abandoned) so it can send its State Regiments home.

See the Rebs are willing to fight for every square yard of territory while the Damn Yankees are willing to give up huge tracts of land without a fight. :rolleyes:
 
The was a movement in the United States for much of the late 19th and early 20th Century to institute universal military service and a European style reserve system (plus a General Staff type organization). So you might see as a compromise the States keeping their militia (a modern day version of the state militia is the State Guard)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

while the formal Reserve is called the US National Guard or some such (the French already have a national guard so it has precedence) which may or may not have peacetime conscription (scenario matters in this case)

Wasn't aware of that! Interesting way to even out the power of the Federal and State governments.
 
Wasn't aware of that! Interesting way to even out the power of the Federal and State governments.

I had fun with my inlaws when they said that the Federal Government took over the Militia (meaning the National Guard) and I pointed out that a lot of States still have one. Being pretty visually impaired (to the point where every branch of the service said 'sorry kid') it was the only way I could serve in any kind of military role when I was young so I looked into it (meetings were when I had classes so I couldn't sign up)
 
I had fun with my inlaws when they said that the Federal Government took over the Militia (meaning the National Guard) and I pointed out that a lot of States still have one

They must be quite fond of your analysis ;)

Though it's interesting that by sheer technicality Canada is a militia force, and not until quite recently (historically) did we have a professional army per say on purely legal terms. I'm quite thankful we never developed that particular problem.
 
They must be quite fond of your analysis ;)

Though it's interesting that by sheer technicality Canada is a militia force, and not until quite recently (historically) did we have a professional army per say on purely legal terms. I'm quite thankful we never developed that particular problem.

Canada doesn't have the Minuteman Myth, which helps a lot

and yeah the in laws are on a different part of the political spectrum from me
 
Canada doesn't have the Minuteman Myth, which helps a lot

The lack of a "one man, one gun" mentality has been helpful too I think. That we also avoided the "Wild West" mystique thanks to the (fabulously dressed) RCMP did give us a more hang together attitude, while I suppose economically we've given the Prairie Provinces more than enough reason to be mad...

Though the lack of a revolutionary past also plays a part in Canadian federalism vs US federalism I think.

and yeah the in laws are on a different part of the political spectrum from me

I can imagine some awkward family dinners.
 
I don't think the partitioning of states would be nearly as extensive as some people are claiming; the legal justification for West Virginia was that the non-secesh government was the legitimate state government of Virginia, which then voted itself out of the state. In a Civil War that ends in Confederate victory, the US is essentially forfeiting the legal grounds to do so by acknowledging secession. If it gets to the point where a peace candidate is elected to stop the fighting, and the US population is no longer willing to die for the Union, it's not going to be willing to die for East Tennessee. It would depend on the exact nature of the Confederate victory, but I think most peace negotiation trading would happen on a state by state level, rather than breaking up the states themselves.

I think partitioned states is quite likely in a peace by exhaustion timeline. No one is willing to die to get the rest of a state, but no one is willing to hand over the half a state that people died for, either.
 
So we should segregate things out into "solid Union", "solid Confederacy" and "Border". This allows for a better appreciation of where the resources were - for example, if the PoD is a much more antislavery stance due to a victory by Fremont instead of Lincoln, then all the slave states may well have seceded.

At the 1860 Republican Convention, 13 men received votes for the nomination. Fremont received one vote on the first ballot and none on any of the following ballots, putting Fremont in a 3 way tie for last with Charles Sumner and John Read. It's virtually impossible for Fremont to get the nomination and wildly unlikely for him to win the election if he did get the nomination.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Very well, replace the man with his party - my argument was based on his radicalness not his Fremontitude.

I'd misremembered who came second; it was of course Seward.
 
In the event that the South breaks away (and stays away) what would the rump United States look like, culturally, economically and politically?
Wonder how the westward expansion and the frontier look like. For example the Oklahoma Territory etc. How would migration look like in a Confederate victory scenario ?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Wonder how the westward expansion and the frontier look like. For example the Oklahoma Territory etc. How would migration look like in a Confederate victory scenario ?
Oklahoma Territory is basically where all the Indians are! They might have a say...
 
Your argument as presented earlier (Confederate offensives tended to fail) has five possible readings:
1) The Confederacy tended to fail because of structural problems relating to a lack of resources (men, guns, rifles).
2) The Confederacy tended to fail because the Confederate Army was incompetent.
3) The Confederacy tended to fail because Confederate generals were incompetent.
4) The Confederacy tended to fail because the areas over which they attacked were highly defensible.
5) The Confederacy tended to fail because all offensives are hard.

My argument was not that Confederate offensives tended to fail. My argument is that Confederate offensives virtually always failed.

Let's look at Robert E Lee, arguably the Confederacy's best commander.
* West Virginia - failure
* Peninsula Campaign - success
* Maryland Campaign - failure
* Gettysburg Campaign - failure

That's the Confederacy's best general succeeding one out of four times, which makes Lee notably above average for a Confederate general on the offensive.

You attempted to dismiss this with the old Lost Cause argument that the Union only won because of superior resources:

But that's largely because of the greater force the Union could concentrate against them.

Your argument appears to be that "The Confederacy tended to fail because of structural problems relating to a lack of resources (men, guns, rifles)" with the other factors being largely unimportant. Even if that were true, the Union would still have that advantage in an OTL.

Really? How?

We do have returns for the size of the Union Army in early-mid 1862, and we know how many small arms they had in store on 30 June 1862 (which included large numbers of imported British Enfield rifles, most of them arriving in 1862). The numbers simply do not add up.
If you feel they do, then please explain what number you feel that "almost twice as many forces" is - complete with some indicator of what you think the realistic British commitment would be, and preferably what you view the strength of the Confederacy as at the same time.
This is an extraordinary claim by you, and as such demands at least ordinary evidence.

Of course, if the Union could field the number of troops you suggest, then they should have won the war rather easily in 1862 by launching attacks all across the Continent at over 2:1 odds everywhere.
Self-evidently, they did not.

You're asking me how the Union could raise the number of troops they raised in actual history? You're demanding evidence that the Union could achieve things they did achieve in actual history?

In fact, this point of yours directly contradicts the argument you made above (which was that the Union did not rely on superior numbers) - both can be false (in the case where the Union had a slight advantage in early 1862 which expanded as the war went on), but both cannot be true unless the Union was OTL commanded by fools.

I was pointing out that even if your argument were true, the Union advantage in numbers would still exist, and thus the Confederates should lose most of their offensives in an ATL.

That's certainly your opinion, but it doesn't really address the point which I was making - which is that we're discussing the idea of a successful Confederate secession.

Robert E Lee failed every time he took an offensive into Union territory. It is more than an opinion that the Confederacy needs to do better than that to achieve independence.
 
Very well, replace the man with his party - my argument was based on his radicalness not his Fremontitude.

I'd misremembered who came second; it was of course Seward.

The only Republican nominees who might have been as radical as Fremont were Wade, who came in second to last with three votes in the first ballot, and Sumner, who tied with Fremont for last. And even they were smart enough not to rigger the secession of all of the slave states. The only way you get a Republican Party that radical is if it has no moderates, in which case you have a party so small it has no chance of winning the election, and Stephen Douglas becomes President in 1861.
 
Top