DBWI: Southern Secession

[SHSL Scholar]

As we all know, the Union faced civil strife in the 19th century, resulting in a Northern secession crisis. The United States of America versus the Federal Republic of America. The Feds was supported by Britain, while the US was supported by its oldest ally, France.

So I'm wondering, what would it take for the South to secede instead of the North? It seems crazy, but perhaps adding more free states and giving more power to the North might cause such an occurrence.

Now there are many debates as to what the Civil War (Or War of Northern Independence if you ask some Yankees) was about, so please try to keep it civil folks.

 

[Skallagrim]

Come on, man. You urge us to keep it civil (pun intended) while you legitimise that higly politicised term, "the civil war"? Please. "The War of Northern Independence" is the commonly used term, except to some die-hard Unionists who just can't accept that it happened, that some states left the Union, and that the war to force them back in failed.

But okay, I'll try to be constructive here: the easiest change would be for the Supreme Court not to rule that slavery was legal in all the Union, that all states had to respect the institution as long as it existed in even one state, and that the Federal government couldn't abolish it without amending the Constitution. Once that (highly controversial) ruling came along, it was a certainty that North and South were going to come to blows. With an amendment not a viable option in the forseeable future due to Southern opposition, secession was really the only option the North had left...

So suppose some totally different Supreme Court gets installed in this ATL. Just a bunch of different justices. And they rule the other way. That slavery is illegal everywhere. Or, if that's too ASB, at least that it's severely curtailed. They could limit the interstate exchange of slaves etc.

That would set things up for Southern secession, instead.


---


[OOC: if you're under the impression that a British-backed Northern secession would fail, you're quite off the mark. The North was able to conquer the South in OTL. Defending itself from the South, even without British help, would likely succeed. With British help, they certainly win their independence. Yes, even if the South has French help. And even if the border states stick with the Union.]

 

[Joseph890]

Really the French didn’t contribute much to the war the British Navy kept them from being able to send more than 5000 if soldiers to North America.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Cards on the table; I'm a true blue Free Mason and proud of it, so prepare for bias!

Anyways, getting the Dammdixons to secede eh? Well, the first thing you could do is have the Constitution shuffled around so their chattel counted as property rather than persons so far as representation (and the national poll tax) was concerned. That single factor not only increased the number of Dixon representatives by at least a third, but really invested them in the fate of the national government and institutions compared to us Northern states. Putting the Bank of the United States' main branches in New Orleans and Charlestown may have made sense from a financial perspective, since the national fees on export of cash crops were by and large collected there alongside so many of the naval and army arsenals (for the campaigns in the Carribean), but it helped contribute to Mason self-sufficiency and regional identity when, to handle the growing need of our industrial developments and agricultural factors, the Midatlantic states had to form the Franklin Creditor's Consortium in Philadelphia to supply Northern capitalists as opposed to sinking more and more funds into loans to Southern plantation owners.

Second, you'll need to get rid of thePinckney Policy. Claiming the Carribean as Mare Nostrum in terms of commerce following the acquisition of the Spanish West Indies added quite a few slave states, and made Dixie comfortable with a Papist Hispanic aristocracy to the point it became palatable to accept the Hacienda owners and Mission-Masters into their elite class, smoothing over the acquisitions in former New Spain. Maybe this is avoided if the Isabellist revolutionaries manage to beat King Carlos in the Liberal Revolt? They might be less willing to concede political control of the territories in exchange for continued commercial privileges and the funds to develop Spain proper as well as membership to the Franco-American alliance

 

[Skallagrim]

Good point about the Pinckney Policy, @FillyofDelphi! The fact that there were so many additional slave states carved out is one of the main reasons why the Supreme Court ended up so Southern-biased. The old Union was essentially a Dixon country with a Mason fringe in the North! In an arrangement like that, secession eventiually became inevitable.

I'll thank you to cool it with the anti-Catholic vitriol, though. The Caribbean "caste system" and aristocratic mindset that the whole Dixon Union eventually appropriated may have originally formed in a Catholic context, but note that the Holy See condemned slavery repeatedly since then. Trying to blame the Catholics for everything is just Know-Nothing populism.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Good point about the Pinckney Policy, @FillyofDelphi! The fact that there were so many additional slave states carved out is one of the main reasons why the Supreme Court ended up so Southern-biased. The old Union was essentially a Dixon country with a Mason fringe in the North! In an arrangement like that, secession eventiually became inevitable.

I'll thank you to cool it with the anti-Catholic vitriol, though. The Caribbean "caste system" and aristocratic mindset that the whole Dixon Union eventually appropriated may have originally formed in a Catholic context, but note that the Holy See condemned slavery repeatedly since then. Trying to blame the Catholics for everything is just Know-Nothing populism.

Yah, it took them until 1912 though... sorry, sorry. Like I said, True Blue-blooded Mason, son of Luther's Minnesota here. I'm not blaming modern Catholics for the shortcomings of the 19th century Church, but you do have to agree that the US taking up their system and the support of the (un) Holy Alliance retarded efforts to purge the corruption of the Missons and "Tutalage of the peons" doctrine and reform the internal structures and doctrines for at least a century longer than it should have.

Yah, Snelling vs. Stanford really did a number on the trust of us Northerns as to just who's interest DC was representing when it ruled in favor of a transient Southern physician over a highly decorated US general over local laws protecting "persons in bondage". I've seen the paintings they did of poor Scott's corpse they have at his tomb here... you can barely recognize his face as a man's, it's whipped up so badly. Of course, the main reason we had such a stacked Supreme Court was due to the Virginia and Carolina Dynasties dominating the office of the Presidency for pretty much the entire first half of the 19th century... if we'd managed to get a Northern president who could appoint a delegate or two, maybe they'd at least not have issued such a radical opinion. Of course, that just probably prevents the WoNI rather than triggers a Southern Secession...

Maybe Britain ends up in a crisis during the Turbulent Thirties like/instead of Spain, Russia, and France that puts autocratic/conservative forces in power following the failures of the Revolutionaries? That way Canada could end up revolting and joining the Union, which would tilt the balance of power more to the North.

 

[SHSL Scholar]

Come on, man. You urge us to keep it civil (pun intended) while you legitimise that higly politicised term, "the civil war"? Please. "The War of Northern Independence" is the commonly used term, except to some die-hard Unionists who just can't accept that it happened, that some states left the Union, and that the war to force them back in failed.

But okay, I'll try to be constructive here: the easiest change would be for the Supreme Court not to rule that slavery was legal in all the Union, that all states had to respect the institution as long as it existed in even one state, and that the Federal government couldn't abolish it without amending the Constitution. Once that (highly controversial) ruling came along, it was a certainty that North and South were going to come to blows. With an amendment not a viable option in the forseeable future due to Southern opposition, secession was really the only option the North had left...

So suppose some totally different Supreme Court gets installed in this ATL. Just a bunch of different justices. And they rule the other way. That slavery is illegal everywhere. Or, if that's too ASB, at least that it's severely curtailed. They could limit the interstate exchange of slaves etc.

That would set things up for Southern secession, instead.


---


[OOC: if you're under the impression that a British-backed Northern secession would fail, you're quite off the mark. The North was able to conquer the South in OTL. Defending itself from the South, even without British help, would likely succeed. With British help, they certainly win their independence. Yes, even if the South has French help. And even if the border states stick with the Union.]

OOC: I was just trying to keep it vague. I think the more vague these things are, the more fun we can sort of have.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

OOC: I was just trying to keep it vague. I think the more vague these things are, the more fun we can sort of have.

OOC: Well, I think at this point we've established the Independence War was successful. Down with the slavers!

 

[Kirook]

Well, if the South secedes and goes to war, it’ll probably lose without Britain’s intervention—it didn’t have anywhere near the industrial capacity of the North. And Britain wouldn’t be nearly as happy to step into the war on behalf of a bunch of slavers, having themselves abolished the practice more than thirty years earlier—so it would take a pretty spectacular screwup on the part of the abolitionist USA to drive the Brits to support the South against them.

 

[Deleted member 82792]

I wonder what Harry Turtledove's books would be like if such a thing happened?

 

[The Professor]

I wonder what Harry Turtledove's books would be like if such a thing happened?

Who?
Do you mean Harry Turtle? Whose Rise of Labor books infected American Socialism with revolutionary principles?

OOC remember to use "OOC" for OTL comments

 

[Skallagrim]

I wonder what Harry Turtledove's books would be like if such a thing happened?

Who?
Do you mean Harry Turtle? Whose Rise of Labor books infected American Socialism with revolutionary principles?

I had to look it up, but I think the comment refers to an obscure historian, Harry Turtledove, born South of the border, but eventually settling in the North. He teaches in Boston these days. His history books are all about "historical inevitability", and how history can only go one way. (He'd hate this site, basically.)

In a world where the South had seceded, and by some chance he was still born and basically the same guy, I expect he'd write books claiming that the Southern secession was inevitable.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I had to look it up, but I think the comment refers to an obscure historian, Harry Turtledove, born South of the border, but eventually settling in the North. He teaches in Boston these days. His history books are all about "historical inevitability", and how history can only go one way. (He'd hate this site, basically.)

In a world where the South had seceded, and by some chance he was still born and basically the same guy, I expect he'd write books claiming that the Southern secession was inevitable.

Well, Communism has always been about a materialist conception of history and thus prone to historical determinism. I think I read a paper of his for one of my essays back in freshman year for my Political Ideologies course... something about the how the same ideological underpinnings existed within the peonage-plantation system and the late 19th century industrial complexes that allowed people to dehumanize the worker and alienated them from their labor. It was pretty interesting.

Well, if the South secedes and goes to war, it’ll probably lose without Britain’s intervention—it didn’t have anywhere near the industrial capacity of the North. And Britain wouldn’t be nearly as happy to step into the war on behalf of a bunch of slavers, having themselves abolished the practice more than thirty years earlier—so it would take a pretty spectacular screwup on the part of the abolitionist USA to drive the Brits to support the South against them.

Well, let's not ignore butterflies here; a South that's going to secede isen't going to do so if, like IOTL, Caribbean sugar is getting primarily refined in Provindence, hemp spun in spun in Knoxborough (at the time Queensborough), and the pitch for their ships getting gathered and boiled up at Pig's Eye. I'd be economic suicide, since they'd be unable to sustain a military navy or even the merchant ships required to export their crops without the three R's of sailing ships; "Rope, Rum and Resin". A Dixon secession timeline is one in which they'd need to be more self-sufficent from a material sense in order to even entertain the idea, since the planters aren't idiots.