The War Of The Northern Secession

Since Oregon became a state in 1859, I doubt the folks there will be very amenable to their becoming British subjects sometime in the 1860s. As for border states without many slaves joining the federation, I can see maybe Delaware doing it, as they didn't have many slaves there. Certainly not Missouri.
I wish you folks would stop this argument about whether irregardless is a real word or not.
you could actually have britian join the federations war if you make the federation give up any claim to the oregon territory and let britian have it
 
This is similar to something I wanted to do a while back.

The questions here all seem to be who would win and how, but if you're wanting to do a TL, it doesn't matter yet.

What I want to know is who the Federation of Northern United States chooses as its POTUS/VEEP, etc.

The circumstances are important to me, as well as the internal political climate of both entities.

PS,

Be thankful for your father. It sounds like you've got a good one, as do I.

Also, "irregardless" is not a real word and sounds stupid when used.
 
The rude and disruptive part of this thread was not someone using the word irregardless, it is this continued response to it. If someone wants to use that word, it is a real word and by forum etiquette you are reasonably expected to conceal whatever misguided disgust you may feel at it. You aren't allowed to start derailing threads or criticizing people for using a real word you dislike, such as irregardless, the way you might be allowed to for outrageous typos and grammatical errors. So cut it out guys.
 
Another possibility to accomplish the same goals would be to have Douglas somehow win the nomination and strike a last minute deal with the Southern delegation to keep them from walking out. If Douglas manages to win the presidency in 1860 (somehow...), then it's really just a matter of time before the whole thing blows up in his face.

Douglas will stake his entire presidency on the idea of popular sovereignty, which would have been workable a decade before. Now, however, the stakes are too high for both free states and slave states; neither can afford to let the other side "win" a state. So you get violence just like you suggested. Then, as tensions mount, Douglas dies leaving his Southern VP (changed by the different convention ITTL) in charge of the country. As the situation reaches a boiling point, the pro-slavery president comes down hard on the side of the slave states, angering the free states and making secession look more like a reasonable answer. As the tensions continue to mount, riots begin to spring up around the north. The army is sent into northern cities to pacify the "rebels," only spurring on the talk of secession.

After the election 1864, the Democrats win again by virtue of an election thrown to the House of Representatives and the northern free states, at this point completely disenfranchised, follow through on their threats beginning with New England and working down into the midwest. The new government is likely situated in Philadelphia, New York City, or Boston. The federation is led by Salmon Chase, in fact a moderate but the most able man the new nation has as an option.

And I'll stop there. That's just my path of getting to the same place as you, only I think that a Douglas administration makes a more coherent story. It's a promise of successful reform only to have it yanked out from underneath your feet at the last second. Is there any doubt that Breckinridge's administration would result in catastrophe? No. But Douglas seems like a set up for success, and I believe that the disappointment experienced from the failure of that success would be a more effective trigger for the northern secession than the anger over Breckinridge.
 
I don't think Breckenridge is electable or Douglas can get the Democrat nomination without pushing the POD back a little bit. Feelings were too inflamed all around.

But if you do monkey around with PODs a little, one possible even that could plausibly push part of the North into secession would be a Supreme Court ruling that no state could legally outlaw slavery (The Dred Scott decision implied this outcome, though it didn't actually say so). But even then I think you'd just get massive nullification in the North, not outright secession. But that would prepare the Northern states for the eventuality.
 
It's impossible for Breckenridge to become President in 1860. He got less than 15% of the popular vote and almost all of that was in the southern states. Not a single northern state would vote for him.

By 1860, it is impossible for any southern pro-slavery candidate to become President. It's possible for northerners who are willing to work with slaveowners to become President (Buchanan). It's even possible for southerners who own slaves who work with northerners to prevent the expansion of slavery (Taylor). But the country is too divided at this point for these kind of compromises to continue. Douglas was the last possible compromise candidate, and he was insufficiently pro-slavery for the south to tolerate it.

The free states have no reason to secede by 1860. Their population and economic power is too dominant, and the statehood of Kansas will finally tip the power of the Senate in their favor. The Senate and the Supreme Court are the last bastion of slaveholders to control the Federal government, and they are about to lose both at this point.
 
Could Douglas have won enough states to put the election in the hands of House and could Breckinridge, likely second in the electoral vote, have come through?

Could the outgoing Congress have allowed extra power for the South by creating extra states with agreement of Texas?
 
and in 50 Years?

Its funny that the South achieves it's independence by making the North want to leave the Union, Tricky Bastards! :)

So the Federation (North) leaves, if war breaks out do the Feds win or the USA (South)? The odds are still stacked in the North's favor but winning for them now doesn't mean necessarily conquering the South its just going off on their own.

Is there a 2nd Mexican War? Either expansionists in the US wanting more land and not wanting war with the Feds or maybe some Mexican Gov't thinking "Their weak now, Lets get back some of our land"

Which western states go to which country? Where do Hawaii & Alaska end up?

Does the USA go to war with Spain or does Spain retain or sell its colonial possessions to Germany?

A smaller USA, does it encourage the Kaiser to launch [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Eberhard von Mantey's Plan #3 to invade? Which city takes the place of New York in the plan? Washington DC? Baltimore? Richmond?[/FONT]

When a conflagration called The Great War comes along who's on the which side?
 
A smaller USA, does it encourage the Kaiser to launch [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Eberhard von Mantey's Plan #3 to invade? Which city takes the place of New York in the plan? Washington DC? Baltimore? Richmond?[/FONT]

Germany invading the United States?...:confused::rolleyes:you are so going to need to expand on that
 
Splinter the republicans. Lincoln was viewed as a moderate. If the.more radical abolition forces decided.to.nominate Seward the race changes and north is divided. Have bell drop.out and perhaps you van ha e Breckenridge win
 
Splinter the republicans. Lincoln was viewed as a moderate. If the.more radical abolition forces decided.to.nominate Seward the race changes and north is divided. Have bell drop.out and perhaps you van ha e Breckenridge win
Then wouldn't the election go to the House/Senate sine no candidate has the required majority? It would still be likely to get the Republican in the white house, as they wouldn't support the Democrats at all.

I don't even think with the states and EV that Douglass and Bell had at all that the Democrats would even have enough.

Actually, how does the House/Senate elections work in this exception? IIRC the election of 1824, It goes by state vote, doesn't it? so maybe Breckenride would have enough, depending on the concessions he woould have to give to the northern Democrats and even the constitutional unionists. Still be a long shot.
 
Top