US Politics post-Civil War

I was wondering how people think US politics would pan out following a successful Confederate secession. I'm thinking a scenario were the Union is more humiliated than defeated, basically a TL-191 event, with a series of shocking Northern defeats as Lee runs roughshod over the border states, possible Washington is cut off or captured and finally the obligatory European mediation.

Now, there's been a million threads on Johnny Red pulling through but I'm intrgued how it would effect US politics.

You have the Democrats now bereft of their heartlands and painted by partisans as Confederate sympathisers, while the Republicans have in the first term in power overseen the dismemberment of the United States - would either party survive?

I believe Lincoln would be made a scapegoat but I also think the Republicans would split between those trying to assert themselves as moderates and dissenters of Lincoln's warmongering and the radicals like Fremont who will no doubt be keen to keep pressure on the Confederates.

The Democrats have the problem that the enemy's victorious government is made up of their comrades, however I think a lot of spin and rebranding could see many escape political suicide. I imagine an alliance of anti-war Democrats, former Constitutional Unionists and moderate Republicans forming into a centrist, "mostly harmless" grouping dedicated to getting the nation back on its feet and ignoring all that nasty business at Manassas and Camp Hill.

So any opinions? Do you think a Turtledove style revanche could appear, a Red Lincoln? How about Populism, without the alliance of praire smallholders and the white cotton farmers of the South, they lose alot of strength
 

Technocrat

Banned
The famous actor John Wilkes Booth, a perpetual presidential candidate and perpetually in and out of jail for sedition; the leading figure in the True Democrats - the Northern political arm of the Knights of the Golden Circle.
 
I think that Populism benefited more from the settling of the Midwest than white cotton farmers of the South. I would consider that the post-war settler society would produce its own vein of political movement just as it did historically.

I would also consider that the Northern Democrats would be able to reset their political compass without the presence of their southern brethern and eventually reestablish themselves on the national level by the mid-1870s. The Republicans will only run and rule unopposed for so long before they screw up and the Democrats have the existing political machine, and newspapers, exploit voter dissatisfaction.
 
Jape

Good question. It would depend on the exact details and how both north and south and any other players respond to the circumstances. There's bound to be some in the north unwilling to admit defeat and rumbling about revanchment. Similarly it's likely that in the south there will be dissatisfaction with the borders and a desire possibly to claim a few more border areas and states. If either element becomes more than a small vocal group that could start a vicious circle of bitter exchanges and possibly military build-ups because both sides are fearing hostility from the other or playing to their own public's.

Similarly what will be the status of any unionist slave states? Will the north accept the continuation of slavery, going along with Lincoln's claim the conflict was not about slavery, or seek to remove it? If the latter, which could occur after a short period that's likely by some consensual method with the buying of the relatively few slaves rather than using force without compensation. Although you could possibly see some northerners, a combination of abolitionist and resentful unionists taking direct action. Or if such slave owners start to sell their slaves south of the border? Either way could stoke up bitterness and resentment.

Another factor might be use of the Mississippi. The US will have lost the markets and resources of a still fairly wealthy south but trade down the river is probably still more important. Probably the south will have to admit such traffic but they might seek to impose some form of levy on the traffic. Not enough to make it uneconomic but to gain them some revenue. Similarly the north will know that such commerce would be an hostage to any future conflict between the two nations. Also given the union's attempt to cut the south along this line it's likely to be one of the more heavily fortified parts of the border.

On the bright side, if the war ends earlier, there is likely to be less destruction and loss of life. Mostly in the south but also in the north so there will be more money and citizens alive for reconstruction in both nations. Also the north will not be committed to occupying the south for the period of reconstruction. It may still get a useful source of labour in terms of blacks, freed during the war or those escaping afterwards heading north, although the free-soilers may object to this? It's likely however, unless something goes seriously off the rails, to continue attracting European immigrants and foreign investments while the smaller home market will probably not markedly delay industrial development.

Another point that might be significant is what happens in Mexico? The earlier ending to the war could leave the US free to oppose the French intervention before it gets rolling, which could have plenty of butterflies. This could be more dangerous because the north seeks to reassert itself as a power while the French under-rate the union armies after their defeats. That would seriously affect matters around the world if it came to a shooting war.

A few of the matters that need to be considered. I suspect that while there would be resentment, once the south was formally recognised by the north as an independent states I think the desire for re-conquest would fade and most people on both sides of the new border would accept the other.

Steve
 
Interesting points.

Yeah realistically I doubt bar some mean words the two nations would be particularly at each other's throats. Though mentioning the Mississippi, a very interesting factor I've never really thought of. It could be the source of a possible crisis, possibly slaves attempting to cross the border at the river, leading in the confusion to troops on both sides drawing weapons.

There could be problems with West Virginia, the 'hillbillies' of Tennessee and Maryland/Washington but I doubt they would be long term problems.

But what do people think of the party system? Would the Republicans and Democrats north of the border survive?
 
Top