What Would be the Capital of a Secessionist North?
- Thread starter Gentleman Johnny
- Start date
No, not modern day. I'm talking like anywhere around 1840-1860. I haven't figured out the exact date yet.
Philadelphia is to close to the border, way to exposed. I know when the founders were thinking of where to place the capital Staten Island was on the short list. I think Staten Island is a good idea, it's in New York but kind of not. New England would probably be the prime proponents for secession, so giving them the capital may be a bit to much. Maybe a city in New Jersey would be a good compromise, Newark or Jersey City are close to New York City and Philadelphia.
Bogdanoff
Banned
South had it's "states rights stuff" because of the geographical reasons-they saw that there is no much room for slavery to expand but plenty for free states and that they, despite all possible compromises, are doomed to be outnumbered, to give North their mindset you should probably reverse this geographical situation-say, make US loose entire Oregon country to UK in Oregon dispute somehow but gain much more lands from Mexico in TTL's Mexican-American war-this way it would be North who will have less room to expand then South, this way political situation will also be reversed
Last edited:
Thank you very much for the idea! Also I'm gonna have northern states make laws prohibiting the enforcement of this world's Fugitive Slave Law by enacting their own state laws. Thereby, in effect "nullifying" the law. I got a few ideas. Hopefully people will enjoy it.
Perhaps. But not as he was historically. I'm going to be making liberal use of butterflies. My TL will start around 1812 and Garrison was born in 1805. So he would likely have a different life, along with many other historical figures of the time.
I would suggest, in addition to what has already been proposed, Warwick, RI, as a possibility. It is centrally located along the seaboard, fairly close to both Boston and NYC, but is within the highly defensible Narragansett Bay (throw some forts on the various islands, and support it with a small fleet, and it becomes very hard to take by amphibious action). It is very close to Providence, to the point where the latter city could be used as a port, but does not cause the political consternation that using Providence as a capitol would. Furthermore, it was the site of the Gaspee Affair, one of the first violent actions against British rule, and thus has historical notability.
Garrison held a "The North should seceede" conference in Worcester, Massachusetts. If Boston doesn't work for geographic vulnerability reasons (even though the forts in Boston Harbor, if properly defended, make a naval invasion difficult at best), why not Worcester or Springfield Massachusetts?
Would Northern secession result in a war? A rump, Southern-dominated US would be glad to see those troublesome northeastern states go.
Disagree. They'd have a hostile, abolitionist power north of the border forever. Plus, slaves would flee north in droves with no Fugitive Slave Law in effect. It would be beyond stupid to the let the northern states go. And that's just two reasons there.
What about Hartford ? It is a historical place for secessionists ever since 1814.
In this scenario, it won't be. The historical Hartford Convention won't occur.
Not really. The Schuylkill, Delaware, and especially the Susquehanna make Philadelphia a lot tougher of a nut to crack than pretty much anyone think.
Remember New York City, as the collection of the five boroughs, did not occur until the 1890s. Brooklyn was a separate corporate entity at the time of the ACW and could become the capitol. I know its your scenario, however if the states you mentioned secede, the Midwest and west might be neutral for a bit but I can't see the midwest (Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa) staying in a slaver dominated country leaving them the choice of joining the "northeast" or becoming their own entity. The same goes for everything west of there that is still part of the USA pre-breakup. California might split southern going slave, northern going free if that happens by default Arizona and New Mexico stay with the south. You might see the Pacific coast (however much is USA) with Nevada and Idaho becoming a "Pacifica" and an independent Mormon Deseret. IMHO this runs the gamut between one country ending up being the OTL CSA plus Missouri Arizona, and New Mexico +/- Southern California slave oriented and the other being the rest of the "USA" +/- West Virginia so two large enitities to a balkanized America with the Northeast +/- Ohio and maybe Great lakes states, the Midwest +/- plains states, the "CSA" +/- Missouri & Kentucky , Texas Republic +/- Oklahoma and New Mexico, Pacifica, Deseret.
Deleted member 109224
Considering the mayor of New York was a Confederate sympathizer and even advocated for the city to secede from the Union, I don't think New York would be a very good place to stick a capital.
I can see Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and perhaps a slice of Illinois seceding to join this country. The lower midwest was a pretty mixed-bag politically though and had more than a few copperheads. I'm pretty sure slavery was going on in Illinois's southern portion, for example.
If not for being the capital of New York, Albany would be the best city. It sits in the geographic center of the initial 9 secessionist states and has east access to the upper midwest via the Erie Canal. Otherwise, maybe Newark given its presence by the Hudson River, geographic security, and it being in NJ which as a state is much more conservative than the other northeastern states and thus might need a little more coaxing to play ball.
I can see Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and perhaps a slice of Illinois seceding to join this country. The lower midwest was a pretty mixed-bag politically though and had more than a few copperheads. I'm pretty sure slavery was going on in Illinois's southern portion, for example.
If not for being the capital of New York, Albany would be the best city. It sits in the geographic center of the initial 9 secessionist states and has east access to the upper midwest via the Erie Canal. Otherwise, maybe Newark given its presence by the Hudson River, geographic security, and it being in NJ which as a state is much more conservative than the other northeastern states and thus might need a little more coaxing to play ball.