the Velvet Civil War

[wkwillis]

Alright, your latest installment is just silly. Why would the British be interfereing with US commerce over CSA debts? Even if they've decided to neglect CSA debts, they wouldn't blame the US- you're making no sense, and it seems that you just want the US to invade Canada.

And Canton, Ohio is an unlikely capital.

If the British try to collect their loans from the USA, there will be war with the USA and the USA will invade Canada and send out privateers, and the CSA will break their blockade.
If they try to collect their loans from the CSA, the USA will break their blockade and provide privateers to the CSA the way the UK provided privateers to the CSA. Also, the CSA did not have a merchant fleet for the UK to harass.
But if both the USA and the CSA default on their loans as Jefferson Davis advocated on the floor of the Senate, then the UK can just write off their loans or go to war with either the USA, or the CSA, or both.
The USA will be perfectly happy not to invade Canada if the UK does not invade them or harass their shipping or give them aggravation about breaking a Uk blockade of the CSA and providing privateers to the CSA.
The reasonable thing for the UK to do is accept the USA and the CSA defaulting on their debts, just as the reasonable thing for the USA to do was default on the UK debt when the CSA defaulted on the USA debt.
We didn't do the reasonable thing. Perhaps the UK will.

What inland and nonborder city do you pick as the USA capitol if Kentucky goes with the CSA? Indianopolis? Not on the Ohio, not on the Great Lakes, not on the Atlantic.

 

[Nicole]

The most likely spot for me seems to be Philadelphia, which is technically inland but might be a bit too close to the coast for comfort. But don't forget, during the Civil War Lincoln kept the capital in Washington throughout the war- I don't know if they'd be so concerned with defensibility.

On the USA and UK, notice that the only time war occured between the two powers was in 1812 after a long number of circumstances compounded by British problems with Napoleon and an underestimation of the US. I think Britain would reluctantly accept the default, simply because the UK realizes the strength of the US (it's my personal opinion that a realization of the strength and the importance of Canada is the main reason the UK stayed out of the ACW)

 

[Fleetlord]

So if the Republicans get only 30% of the vote instead of 40%, Breckinridge or Lane takes over, and if they get 35% of the vote, then what? There is a balance point where there is no President, no Vice President, no Speaker, no Pro Tempore.

I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect.

If the Republicans get less than a majority of the electoral votes (doesn't matter if it's 30%, 35%, or 49%) -- the House of Representatives will select a President from the top three finishers. Since the 20th Amendment hasn't been passed yet, this vote will be taken by the old, pre-election House, and due to a Constitutional quirk, the vote will be taken by state delegations. As the estimable Mr. Tenner explains in the link I gave you, this would likely lead to a Breckinridge victory, as the Southern Dems control 13 delegations and would only need to win over a few Bell delegates in 4 other states. There's an outside chance that the Republicans could defect to Bell en masse instead, but it's not that likely. Besides, given Bell's utter lack of a platform, I doubt it'd make much difference.

If the House simply deadlocks, which isn't impossible, then whoever the Senate selects as VP will become acting President. As the old Senate had a large Democratic majority, and it can only choose between Joseph Lane and Hannibal Hamlin, a man who if I recall wasn't well liked even by many Republicans. In other words, Joseph Lane will be handily elected regardless of how the election went. (Unless the Southern Dems somehow manage to finish 3rd or worse in the electoral tally -- in which case they'll put in Herschel Johnson or Edward Everett instead.)

Even if the Senate somehow manages to deadlock between two candidates, (and really, it wouldn't), this means that the line of succession falls to the PPT of the Senate (not the Speaker of the HoR, my mistake there). A quick google shows that the PPT at this time was....Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama. Another Southern Democrat, how 'bout that?

Basically, not only would the Southerners have no way to dissolve the Federal government as you describe, they'd have no reason to. If the Republicans don't win outright, they're toast anyway.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives, and even on a state by state vote might well have prevailed. Bear in mind that Bell and Douglas were both Union men, and would probably support Lincoln. Douglas certainly would have, especially as he was the one who came in fourth and hated Breckenridge and the southern Democrats for stabbing him in the back.

 

[Fleetlord]

Actually, the fact that Bell and Douglas were both Union men is exactly why they almost certainly wouldn't support Lincoln -- they feared his election would dissolve the union. (Which of course, it did.)

As for the Congress, while it's true the 36th Congress had a numerical Republican majority, when the House is broken down by state we find:

15 States controlled by Republicans (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, MI, MN, WI, IA)

13 States controlled by Breckindrige Democrats (DE, VA, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX, MO, OR, CA)

One state, Illinois, controlled by Douglas Democrats

One state, Tennessee, controlled by the American/Constitutional Union Party (Bell)

Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina were evenly split between Breckinridge Dems and "Americans".

17 states are needed to win. Lincoln needs two more than he's got, Breck needs 4. However....

Breckinridge only needs to sway one "American" Congressman in each of KY, MD, and NC (all slave states!) to put them in his column. Keep in mind that these people were mostly former Whigs who stuck with a moribund party because they couldn't stomach the Republicans. They wouldn't vote for Lincoln even if Bell asked them to. (And I don't think he would.) This leaves Illinois and Tennessee up for grabs. I might see Lincoln winning over the Northern Dems in Illinois, if I squint hard enough. But Tennessee? A state with no Republican congressmen, where Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot? I can't see it.

Besides, if the Southern Dems in the House were seriously worried about Lincoln winning, they would start dragging their heels and messing with quorum -- not with the purpose of dissolving the federal government, but rather making the VP-elect President, as the Senate's Democratic majority will surely elect Joseph Lane for the job.

 

[Wendell]

If the British try to collect their loans from the USA, there will be war with the USA and the USA will invade Canada and send out privateers, and the CSA will break their blockade.
If they try to collect their loans from the CSA, the USA will break their blockade and provide privateers to the CSA the way the UK provided privateers to the CSA. Also, the CSA did not have a merchant fleet for the UK to harass.
But if both the USA and the CSA default on their loans as Jefferson Davis advocated on the floor of the Senate, then the UK can just write off their loans or go to war with either the USA, or the CSA, or both.
The USA will be perfectly happy not to invade Canada if the UK does not invade them or harass their shipping or give them aggravation about breaking a Uk blockade of the CSA and providing privateers to the CSA.
The reasonable thing for the UK to do is accept the USA and the CSA defaulting on their debts, just as the reasonable thing for the USA to do was default on the UK debt when the CSA defaulted on the USA debt.
We didn't do the reasonable thing. Perhaps the UK will.

What inland and nonborder city do you pick as the USA capitol if Kentucky goes with the CSA? Indianopolis? Not on the Ohio, not on the Great Lakes, not on the Atlantic.

Davenport, Iowa...

 

[wkwillis]

I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect.

If the Republicans get less than a majority of the electoral votes (doesn't matter if it's 30%, 35%, or 49%) -- the House of Representatives will select a President from the top three finishers. Since the 20th Amendment hasn't been passed yet, this vote will be taken by the old, pre-election House, and due to a Constitutional quirk, the vote will be taken by state delegations. As the estimable Mr. Tenner explains in the link I gave you, this would likely lead to a Breckinridge victory, as the Southern Dems control 13 delegations and would only need to win over a few Bell delegates in 4 other states. There's an outside chance that the Republicans could defect to Bell en masse instead, but it's not that likely. Besides, given Bell's utter lack of a platform, I doubt it'd make much difference.

If the House simply deadlocks, which isn't impossible, then whoever the Senate selects as VP will become acting President. As the old Senate had a large Democratic majority, and it can only choose between Joseph Lane and Hannibal Hamlin, a man who if I recall wasn't well liked even by many Republicans. In other words, Joseph Lane will be handily elected regardless of how the election went. (Unless the Southern Dems somehow manage to finish 3rd or worse in the electoral tally -- in which case they'll put in Herschel Johnson or Edward Everett instead.)

Even if the Senate somehow manages to deadlock between two candidates, (and really, it wouldn't), this means that the line of succession falls to the PPT of the Senate (not the Speaker of the HoR, my mistake there). A quick google shows that the PPT at this time was....Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama. Another Southern Democrat, how 'bout that?

Basically, not only would the Southerners have no way to dissolve the Federal government as you describe, they'd have no reason to. If the Republicans don't win outright, they're toast anyway.

So I get my way, anyway. The Southerners control the presidency and the Republicans control the Congress, there is no budget, let alone a civil war, the southerners have time to prepare for independence, the Republicans have time to prepare for war with Britain, and everybody has time to think better of this war.
And the Union still dissolves as I said, but in 1864 instead of 1862.

 

[wkwillis]

Okay, starting again.
The CSA leaves the USA with no civil war.
1. Does Kentucky leave the USA?
2. Does Maryland leave the USA?
3. Does Delaware leave the USA?
4. Does Missouri leave the USA?
5. If the CSA defaults on the northern debts as in OTL, does the USA default on the British debts?
6. Does Britain go to war over the defaulted debts as the USA did in OTL?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

While I am bloody confused as hell I don't think that everybody at the time would also be. Given 4 years to think things over nobody is going to secede, especially if Lincoln does not get in, which was the main point of contention anyway.

The secession movements in the State legislatures were pretty much all in the nature of coups. Quick and dirty, often dubious on parliamentary grounds and largely engineered by the anti-Lincoln/secession factions which were at their strongest and just waiting for this opportunity to strike. Given 4 years cooler heads will prevail.

What is seems you are suggesting is that the South can sneak away in the heat of the moment while nobody's looking, or that things can remain at a fever pitch, but with no further developments, for 4 years. Both seem to strain credulity, even from the denizens of Foggy Bottom.

 

[wkwillis]

The secession movements were coups to grab power for the individuals and cabals concerned, but the only reason that they succeeded in their attempt was because there really was an irreversible split between the states.
Southerners weren't going to give up their slaves, and Northerners weren't going to round them up and send them back if they escaped, so the Southerners were going to leave.
All I'm talking about is if they leave without a civil war. A velvet divorce type civil war.
Again, which way do the various border states go?
Does the South confiscate the Northern loans without a war for an excuse?
Does the North default on the British loans with an excuse?
Does Britain go to war when the North defaults on the loans?

 

[Wendell]

Okay, starting again.
The CSA leaves the USA with no civil war.
1. Does Kentucky leave the USA?
2. Does Maryland leave the USA?
3. Does Delaware leave the USA?
4. Does Missouri leave the USA?
5. If the CSA defaults on the northern debts as in OTL, does the USA default on the British debts?
6. Does Britain go to war over the defaulted debts as the USA did in OTL?

Delaware was unlikely to leave as it was, and though this may not be the case for several reasons in this ATL, Maryland banned slavery in 1864.

 

[wkwillis]

What's important is who controlled the state legislatures. No matter who wins, the important thing is whether the state votes in the secession convention to secede or to stay.
Of course, if Maryland votes to secede, then it's really the North that is seceding, so the CSA is the North, and the USA is the South...
Maybe Wilmington leaves Delaware? The two ends of the state were widely divergent.

 

[wkwillis]

Actually, the fact that Bell and Douglas were both Union men is exactly why they almost certainly wouldn't support Lincoln -- they feared his election would dissolve the union. (Which of course, it did.)

As for the Congress, while it's true the 36th Congress had a numerical Republican majority, when the House is broken down by state we find:

15 States controlled by Republicans (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, MI, MN, WI, IA)

13 States controlled by Breckindrige Democrats (DE, VA, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX, MO, OR, CA)

One state, Illinois, controlled by Douglas Democrats

One state, Tennessee, controlled by the American/Constitutional Union Party (Bell)

Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina were evenly split between Breckinridge Dems and "Americans".

17 states are needed to win. Lincoln needs two more than he's got, Breck needs 4. However....

Breckinridge only needs to sway one "American" Congressman in each of KY, MD, and NC (all slave states!) to put them in his column. Keep in mind that these people were mostly former Whigs who stuck with a moribund party because they couldn't stomach the Republicans. They wouldn't vote for Lincoln even if Bell asked them to. (And I don't think he would.) This leaves Illinois and Tennessee up for grabs. I might see Lincoln winning over the Northern Dems in Illinois, if I squint hard enough. But Tennessee? A state with no Republican congressmen, where Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot? I can't see it.

Besides, if the Southern Dems in the House were seriously worried about Lincoln winning, they would start dragging their heels and messing with quorum -- not with the purpose of dissolving the federal government, but rather making the VP-elect President, as the Senate's Democratic majority will surely elect Joseph Lane for the job.

So as soon as Lane, Breckinridge, or Lincoln is elected president by the House voting by states, the war starts.
So no one in the border states of Maryland or Kentucky is going to vote for anybody to be president. Didn't see that at first.
Will the Senate vote for a southerner, seeing as the Senate is majority non slavestate? But they aren't going to vote for a Republican, either.