US Civil War minus New England

I'm just thinking: Let's say that there occurs some 1810-1812 PoD that leads to an independent republic in New England (as in Jared's Decades of Darkness) but where only New England proper secedes and the rump USA retains the rest of the North. To avoid complicating factors, let's say that Canada is very similar to OTL's Canada, Mexico is very similar to OTL's Mexico and New England becomes an inoffensive trading nation without much animosity to, or especial interest in the internal affairs of, the rump United States (rather than some fervently abolitionist crusader-state or budding colonial empire or blatant British puppet or something similary provocative). How does the USA develop from there? It has lost much of the Northern, mercantile, anti-slavery population that existed there IOTL but a considerable amount remains, and there are still enough Northerners pushing west (consider New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all remaining in the Union) that there will be significant opposition to Southern pro-slavery interests when that crops up as an issue.
 
I'm just thinking: Let's say that there occurs some 1810-1812 PoD that leads to an independent republic in New England (as in Jared's Decades of Darkness) but where only New England proper secedes and the rump USA retains the rest of the North. To avoid complicating factors, let's say that Canada is very similar to OTL's Canada, Mexico is very similar to OTL's Mexico and New England becomes an inoffensive trading nation without much animosity to, or especial interest in the internal affairs of, the rump United States (rather than some fervently abolitionist crusader-state or budding colonial empire or blatant British puppet or something similary provocative). How does the USA develop from there? It has lost much of the Northern, mercantile, anti-slavery population that existed there IOTL but a considerable amount remains, and there are still enough Northerners pushing west (consider New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all remaining in the Union) that there will be significant opposition to Southern pro-slavery interests when that crops up as an issue.

There won't be a "Civil War" in TTL, as the rump USA would either put up w/slavery until it runs its course in the late 19th/early 20th century or just split up, like marriages sometimes do.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Really hard to say; abolitionism was not simply

I'm just thinking: Let's say that there occurs some 1810-1812 PoD that leads to an independent republic in New England (as in Jared's Decades of Darkness) but where only New England proper secedes and the rump USA retains the rest of the North. To avoid complicating factors, let's say that Canada is very similar to OTL's Canada, Mexico is very similar to OTL's Mexico and New England becomes an inoffensive trading nation without much animosity to, or especial interest in the internal affairs of, the rump United States (rather than some fervently abolitionist crusader-state or budding colonial empire or blatant British puppet or something similary provocative). How does the USA develop from there? It has lost much of the Northern, mercantile, anti-slavery population that existed there IOTL but a considerable amount remains, and there are still enough Northerners pushing west (consider New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all remaining in the Union) that there will be significant opposition to Southern pro-slavery interests when that crops up as an issue.

Really hard to say; abolitionism was not simply a political and social movement in New England, any more politics centered around slavery to the knife and white supremacy/mastery was limited to the Deep South.

And given the above, and the reality that New England had a tremendous economic and political interest in keeping the nation together after 1787, I just don't see anything akin to an independent New England occurring. I think you would have needed a departure point during the Revolutionary era, and even that is difficult - "we all must hang together or we will hang separately" was true.

Best,
 
Really hard to say; abolitionism was not simply a political and social movement in New England, any more politics centered around slavery to the knife and white supremacy/mastery was limited to the Deep South.

And given the above, and the reality that New England had a tremendous economic and political interest in keeping the nation together after 1787, I just don't see anything akin to an independent New England occurring. I think you would have needed a departure point during the Revolutionary era, and even that is difficult - "we all must hang together or we will hang separately" was true.

Best,

White Suprecism was not just the South. Not even close. Lincoln himself wanted colonize the African population in Central America or somewhere else, and was an extreme white supremecist. The North is just as racist as the South is, only they dont own slaves, and thats because there is really no point, the north is mostly industry and the immigrants took up most factory and labor intense situations. The North aint a Haven, your just as liable to be lynched in Boston as you are in New Orleans.
 
There won't be a "Civil War" in TTL, as the rump USA would either put up w/slavery until it runs its course in the late 19th/early 20th century or just split up, like marriages sometimes do.

Why so? I'm happy to hear anything you have to say, but I don't understand why.

Really hard to say; abolitionism was not simply a political and social movement in New England, any more politics centered around slavery to the knife and white supremacy/mastery was limited to the Deep South.

OK. That was part of the thought: that abolitionism and free-soil ideas would still be presented in the rump North but would be considerably weaker without New England, so the balance of power between slave states and free states would be changed but not set firmly in favour of one side. The other part was the precedent set by a successful secession from the United States.

Without the feeling of threat, then, (please forgive me if I've misunderstood you) are you saying that Southern slave-owners (outside the Deep South, that is) would be less militant about slavery—more like 1810 than 1860—than IOTL?

And given the above, and the reality that New England had a tremendous economic and political interest in keeping the nation together after 1787, I just don't see anything akin to an independent New England occurring. I think you would have needed a departure point during the Revolutionary era, and even that is difficult - "we all must hang together or we will hang separately" was true.

Best,

The idea was that with different US leadership the crisis over the US embargo on British goods goes south, which (in addition to New Englander discontent over what is considered in New England as an overly powerful federal government dominated by the Virginian dynasty, plus British support of the Republic of New England and, of course, a healthy dose of luck) leads to an independent New England because of New England's economic interests.

White Suprecism was not just the South. Not even close. Lincoln himself wanted colonize the African population in Central America or somewhere else, and was an extreme white supremecist. The North is just as racist as the South is, only they dont own slaves, and thats because there is really no point, the north is mostly industry and the immigrants took up most factory and labor intense situations. The North aint a Haven, your just as liable to be lynched in Boston as you are in New Orleans.

White supremacism existed in the North, yes, but Lincoln was, whatever else might be said about him, firmly anti-slavery on ideological grounds, and his view wasn't immensely unusual in the North.
 
One problem is that the if the New England states had managed to secede at some point (say 1810 or whenever) a precedent has been established that demonstrates states can secede from the Union.

How exactly that would or would not play into things in 1860 ITTL is unknown but it does need to be considered because a group of states successfully seceding less than 25 years after the Constitution is ratified likely means the central authority of the United States is even weaker than it was OTL because it has been demonstrated to be pretty weak.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
New England's economic interests ARE the US

Without the feeling of threat, then, (please forgive me if I've misunderstood you) are you saying that Southern slave-owners (outside the Deep South, that is) would be less militant about slavery—more like 1810 than 1860—than IOTL?

The idea was that with different US leadership the crisis over the US embargo on British goods goes south, which (in addition to New Englander discontent over what is considered in New England as an overly powerful federal government dominated by the Virginian dynasty, plus British support of the Republic of New England and, of course, a healthy dose of luck) leads to an independent New England because of New England's economic interests.

No, that abolitionism and opposition to the expansion of slavery was found throughout the northeastern US and the Old Northwest (today's Great Lakes/Midwest) in the antebellum era...the departure of New England would actually exacerbate the situation, because of the increased imbalance between the free and slave states.

If anything, a civil war or something like it would come earlier in the century than it did historically without the New England states' to balance the slave power in Congress.

The New England economy was focused on the maritime and manufacturing industries in the late Eighteenth and most of the Nineteenth centuries; leaving the union means leaving the greatest market for free trade of the foundations of New England's economy.

Best,
 
No, that abolitionism and opposition to the expansion of slavery was found throughout the northeastern US and the Old Northwest (today's Great Lakes/Midwest) in the antebellum era...the departure of New England would actually exacerbate the situation, because of the increased imbalance between the free and slave states.

If anything, a civil war or something like it would come earlier in the century than it did historically without the New England states' to balance the slave power in Congress.

Alright. Does this imply a *Missouri Compromise with the borderline further north due to increased power of slave states, or do you mean that there would be no analogue to that and possibly even an 1820s-1830s war?

I'm just curious to see how things would go in this sort of TL (which isn't exactly uncommon now) without the scenario of the USA being dominated by an overwhelming majority of Southern slave states.

The New England economy was focused on the maritime and manufacturing industries in the late Eighteenth and most of the Nineteenth centuries; leaving the union means leaving the greatest market for free trade of the foundations of New England's economy.

Best,

Unless the USA is going to issue a total embargo on New England's goods, would it mean leaving that market, or merely reducing its share in it (protectionist tariffs of the early USA, Hamilton's ideas—I'm not sure how long those went on for)? In that TL, the staying-in-the-USA alternative meant losing all trade with the British.

I'd advise you read the early bits of Decades of Darkness; I'd do Jared a disservice by trying to just summarise it so crudely.
 
Top