In a Northern Secession TL, how would this USA develop?

[I_am_Unk]

First of all, let's say the US ends ups divided like something similar to this:

(A map in the immediate aftermath of the Norther Secession Crisis resolution around the 1860's)

Let's say war doesn't break out, but the Federal Republic and the United States go their separate ways. So, how would the US develop in TTL? I have a few ideas to start discussion already. Obviously, the remaining states of the union will not be abolishing slavery anytime soon, so that's going to stick around until perhaps the 1880's and maybe, tho more unlikely, into the 20th century, so it's more of a question on how fucked the US is. The Southern States, if I remember correctly, at this time were much more concerned with their autonomy, so I'm guessing the US eventually turns into more of a confederation. I am mostly interested on the idea of the south eventually collapsing on itself and the remaining states eventually secceding from it, so I'd like to know how probable that possibility is too. If it's highly probable, how the southern borders would be divided? Would the Northern republic see this as an opportunity to reunite the States under its thumb or would the poverty developing in the south discourage the reunion?

 

[raharris1973]

Nice map - maybe you could have Southern California, perhaps calling itself 'Colorado' sticking with the United States as well, for two coast-to-coast nations.

I think slavery abolition in the rump USA in the 1880s is more optimistic than realistic, abolition being delayed until the 20th century and probably its second quarter or third, is more probable than unlikely.

And I don't think despite being weighed down by the side effects of having evil slavery that the rump USA will be universally seen as failing and fucked. Evil can find a way for longer than we would like to admit.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

I can see the US combining slave labor with industrialization, like Manchukuo did in the 1930s, and developing infrastructure to that effect. They would likely abolish it around 1910, but maintain segregation.

The United States would be a virtual One-party state outside of major cities and Appalachian areas economically reliant on family farms.

 

[NedStark]

Would the Northern republic see this as an opportunity to reunite the States under its thumb or would the poverty developing in the south discourage the reunion?

I don't think the FRA would bother to involve in this mess.

 

[Mikestone8]

How does the North get the Territories? Presumably the circs to produce a northern secession would only arise if the Democrats held power, so all Territorial officials would be Democratic appointees, and would be loyal to the Union.

 

[NedStark]

How does the North get the Territories? Presumably the circs to produce a northern secession would only arise if the Democrats held power, so all Territorial officials would be Democratic appointees, and would be loyal to the Union.

Well, based on OTL westward migration pattern, we can see pro-North migrants taking over in the Northern Plains and the Pacific Coast (maybe except for SoCal).

Plus, there is a recent example of richer, more populous regions (but being underrepresented) being the ones seceding: Belgian Revolution - so the idea of Northern Secession could happen.

 

[I_am_Unk]

Nice map - maybe you could have Southern California, perhaps calling itself 'Colorado' sticking with the United States as well, for two coast-to-coast nations.

I think slavery abolition in the rump USA in the 1880s is more optimistic than realistic, abolition being delayed until the 20th century and probably its second quarter or third, is more probable than unlikely.

And I don't think despite being weighed down by the side effects of having evil slavery that the rump USA will be universally seen as failing and fucked. Evil can find a way for longer than we would like to admit.

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.
I wasn't sure on which side SoCalifornia would be leading to in the 1860's. There's also the thing about if there would or would not be loyal US troops on the region to make the split happen like what happen in West Virginia. As for the US being fucked or not... I'm pretty sure that it can survive into the 20th century with slavery and be "well", but there's a fact that slave labor is just not suitable for the growth of a nation. In other words, poverty would be a huge issue in TTL US and not only amidst the black population, but the white not decendents from healthy landowners too (tho, the whites would be in a much better position). I say this taking as a reference a country like Brazil. The slavery system and its consequences are a great factor into why Brazil is so full of corruption today.

I can see the US combining slave labor with industrialization, like Manchukuo did in the 1930s, and developing infrastructure to that effect. They would likely abolish it around 1910, but maintain segregation.

The United States would be a virtual One-party state outside of major cities and Appalachian areas economically reliant on family farms.

That can be an interesting way to think about it. I'm curious, tho, if the US would be centralized even as a One-party State. The Southern States seemed to take their autonomy very seriously to the point the Confederacy seemed to be falling apart at the end of the Civil War if I remember correctly. Would the USA even survive and not dissolve into smaller independent states or reform into a Confederation?

How does the North get the Territories? Presumably the circs to produce a northern secession would only arise if the Democrats held power, so all Territorial officials would be Democratic appointees, and would be loyal to the Union.

Basically what was said by NedStark just bellow:

Well, based on OTL westward migration pattern, we can see pro-North migrants taking over in the Northern Plains and the Pacific Coast (maybe except for SoCal).

Plus, there is a recent example of richer, more populous regions (but being underrepresented) being the ones seceding: Belgian Revolution - so the idea of Northern Secession could happen.

Tho, I still think that SoCal would be a thing only if we have loyal troops there to insure it will be a thing, otherwise it would just go to the FRA completely. Take a look on how West Virginia came to be: There were loyalists in the region, yes, but it mostly stayed in the Union because there was an army there to enforce it to be the case (which is why there's no West Virginia in this timeline).

 

[raharris1973]

How does the North get the Territories? Presumably the circs to produce a northern secession would only arise if the Democrats held power, so all Territorial officials would be Democratic appointees, and would be loyal to the Union.

Presumably pitchforked out of power by pro-secession citizen majorities?

 

[Mikestone8]

Big problem with that map.

If *all* the free states are so bitterly anti-Southern that they are willing to secede over it, how come they cannot simply elect a new POTUS, as of course they did OTL? A united North has a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. If they are sufficiently unanimous to secede as a bloc, then they will not need to do it.

Had they been insufficiently united to do this, surely they would also be insufficiently united to secede in a body as the map shows them doing. I can imagine New England and other bits of the Upper North doing so, but only if they have despaired of winning a national election - which would only arise if a significant part of the North was voting with the South.

This was not of course true for the Belgians, who could not elect a new *King*, short of revolution.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Big problem with that map.

If *all* the free states are so bitterly anti-Southern that they are willing to secede over it, how come they cannot simply elect a new POTUS, as of course they did OTL? A united North has a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. If they are sufficiently unanimous to secede as a bloc, then they will not need to do it.

Had they been insufficiently united to do this, surely they would also be insufficiently united to secede in a body as the map shows them doing. I can imagine New England and other bits of the Upper North doing so, but only if they have despaired of winning a national election - which would only arise if a significant part of the North was voting with the South.

This was not of course true for the Belgians, who could not elect a new *King*, short of revolution.

I actually agree with this. In such a scenerio, I expect Indiana, at least, to stay with the Union. New York would be in a bind and may go the same way as New England or could try for some form of neutrality. Illinois could see the northern part of the state joining the succession movement, while the south remains loyal to the US, or just stay with the Union in its entirety. (Note, all of this is just me spitballing and I'd need to really think about this to figure out which Free States are willing to stay with the Union or leave)

Either way, I don't think you'd end up with just a single northern successionist government - especially if all of the rebellious states aren't connected by land. I'd suggest three potential republics: A Republic of Greater New England, centered on the east coast, a Upper Midwestern Republic (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa the Dakota Territory, maybe northern Illinois) and a West Coast Republic. Potentially, especially if this is going peacefully, I could see a Greater Deseret trying its hand as well.

All of which creates a rather interesting scenerio.

 

[NedStark]

I actually agree with this. In such a scenerio, I expect Indiana, at least, to stay with the Union. New York would be in a bind and may go the same way as New England or could try for some form of neutrality. Illinois could see the northern part of the state joining the succession movement, while the south remains loyal to the US, or just stay with the Union in its entirety. (Note, all of this is just me spitballing and I'd need to really think about this to figure out which Free States are willing to stay with the Union or leave)

IMO it would depend on Pennsylvania. If Pennsylvania secedes (IMO likely) then I can see Ohio, northern Indiana (which was deep red IOTL in 1860) and northern Illinois joining the game as well, together with Greater New England (including Upstate New York at the minimum) and Upper Midwest. In this case all the Northern states would be connected by land.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I'm not sure the north would secede with such a heavy favour of resources and manpower. Congressional dominance is all but assured. The secession is going to be extremely contentious in the mid and far west, much like the OTL situation in the Upper South and Appalachia.

 

[Mikestone8]

(Note, all of this is just me spitballing and I'd need to really think about this to figure out which Free States are willing to stay with the Union or leave

I'd bet on NJ staying in . Of all the Old North, it was the one where Republicans were weakest. CA and OR may well do the same. The Territories (many of which need US Army support against the Indians) likely remain in US hands.

Incidentally,, if I'm right about NJ, could we see NYC opting out of a secession by the State as a whole?

IMO it would depend on Pennsylvania. If Pennsylvania secedes (IMO likely) then I can see Ohio,

The Western Reserve certainly. Not so sure about the rest of the State. Iirc the Reps only got 52% in 1860, not all of whom would necessarily go along with secession.

 

[Master Xion]

Big problem with that map.

If *all* the free states are so bitterly anti-Southern that they are willing to secede over it, how come they cannot simply elect a new POTUS, as of course they did OTL? A united North has a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. If they are sufficiently unanimous to secede as a bloc, then they will not need to do it.

One possibility would be that the Southern Planters, seeing the growing tide of abolitionism on the North, elect to establish a dictatorship in order to enforce slavery and Southern dominance or engage in enough electoral fuckery that succession becomes a viable option.

Had they been insufficiently united to do this, surely they would also be insufficiently united to secede in a body as the map shows them doing. I can imagine New England and other bits of the Upper North doing so, but only if they have despaired of winning a national election - which would only arise if a significant part of the North was voting with the South.

This was not of course true for the Belgians, who could not elect a new *King*, short of revolution.

It’s possible that a lot of areas that are part of FRA in that map were seized by force of arms in the resulting civil war.

 

[I_am_Unk]

One possibility would be that the Southern Planters, seeing the growing tide of abolitionism on the North, elect to establish a dictatorship in order to enforce slavery and Southern dominance or engage in enough electoral fuckery that succession becomes a viable option.

It’s possible that a lot of areas that are part of FRA in that map were seized by force of arms in the resulting civil war.

Most likely this is what happens. I don't see the North getting as much land as this if not by war.

As for the specifics of how this scenario came to be... Well, as the OP it really doesn't matter to me all that much, which is why I didn't delve deeper into it or asked how it would be possible, but I'm still liking all these comments about it. I acknowledge that this is not all that likely to happen and require some specific circumstances, tho still in the realm of plausibility, I think. Trying to answer this tho, what if some court ruling dictates the illegality of outlawing slavery? That surely would make free States really pissed about it and would not be easily reversible by electing a President or putting a bill for vote... I think... I don't know much about American politics... American politics are weird...

Big problem with that map.

If *all* the free states are so bitterly anti-Southern that they are willing to secede over it, how come they cannot simply elect a new POTUS, as of course they did OTL? A united North has a comfortable majority in the Electoral College. If they are sufficiently unanimous to secede as a bloc, then they will not need to do it.

Had they been insufficiently united to do this, surely they would also be insufficiently united to secede in a body as the map shows them doing. I can imagine New England and other bits of the Upper North doing so, but only if they have despaired of winning a national election - which would only arise if a significant part of the North was voting with the South.

This was not of course true for the Belgians, who could not elect a new *King*, short of revolution.

 

[Mikestone8]

As for the specifics of how this scenario came to be... Well, as the OP it really doesn't matter to me all that much, which is why I didn't delve deeper into it or asked how it would be possible, but I'm still liking all these comments about it. I acknowledge that this is not all that likely to happen and require some specific circumstances, tho still in the realm of plausibility, I think. Trying to answer this tho, what if some court ruling dictates the illegality of outlawing slavery? That surely would make free States really pissed about it and would not be easily reversible by electing a President or putting a bill for vote... I think... I don't know much about American politics... American politics are weird...

There are things they could in theory do - though they would be controversial.

a) Pass a law requiring a three-fourths majority - or even unanimity - for the Court to strike down an Act of Congress

b) Add half a dozen additional Justices to the Court, and fill the new seats with opponents of slavery expansion, even if not necessarily of slavery itself.

But in any case such a decision would be all but unenforceable. No slaveowner in his right senses would bring his property into a State where all the local sheriffs and other officials were antislavery, so that recapturing a runaway would involve great effort and expense if indeed it could be done at all.

 

[NedStark]

Trying to answer this tho, what if some court ruling dictates the illegality of outlawing slavery? That surely would make free States really pissed about it and would not be easily reversible by electing a President or putting a bill for vote... I think... I don't know much about American politics... American politics are weird...

If Lincoln lost in 1860 or the Deep South did not secede, and Lemmon vs New York - which would have been ruled by Taney Court - would have done so.

There are things they could in theory do - though they would be controversial.

a) Pass a law requiring a three-fourths majority - or even unanimity - for the Court to strike down an Act of Congress

b) Add half a dozen additional Justices to the Court, and fill the new seats with opponents of slavery expansion, even if not necessarily of slavery itself

The Southern Senators would have blocked those laws by any means. And in case Lincoln or another candidate lost, they would have had the Presidency as well.

The Western Reserve certainly. Not so sure about the rest of the State. Iirc the Reps only got 52% in 1860, not all of whom would necessarily go along with secession.

Depending on the political trajectory up to that point. And it is very likely that the Secessionists would have gained control over state government machinery in the key Midwestern states.

Plus, Northern secession could have worked the same way as the OTL Southern one - first New England secedes, and then New York and crucially Pennsylvania, and then the Great Lake states in the Midwest.

 

[Mikestone8]

Plus, Northern secession could have worked the same way as the OTL Southern one - first New England secedes, and then New York and crucially Pennsylvania, and then the Great Lake states in the Midwest.

That would *not* mirror the Southern secession

Initially only seven Lower South states seceded. The Upper South only came in after the outbreak of war, and the border states never did so at all. One Upper South state, VA, was actually torn in two. The secession was not a clean break, but a ragged, messy tear, and there is no reason to suppose that a Northern one would be any tidier. That's my problem with the OP map - It is far too neat and tidy.

Incidentally, can we assume that the Union would go to war in this situation? If, say, New England seceded first, would the South really mind seeing a dozen Northern Senators disappear, or would they just say "Go in peace" in public and "Good riddance" in private?

As for Lemmon, it would certainly cause howls of fury, but how much practical difference would it make? Any slaveholder who tried to "sojourn" in the North with his human property would be giving them a golden opportunity to make a dash for the Canadian border, with local Sheriffs etc mostly on their side, so that recapture would be virtually impossible. So only a very stupid handful of owners would be likely to attempt this. Would the average northern pol really see that as a big enough deal to secede over?

 

[The Gunslinger]

That would *not* mirror the Southern secession

Initially only seven Lower South states seceded. The Upper South only came in after the outbreak of war, and the border states never did so at all. One Upper South state, VA, was actually torn in two. The secession was not a clean break, but a ragged, messy tear, and there is no reason to suppose that a Northern one would be any tidier. That's my problem with the OP map - It is far too neat and tidy.

Incidentally, can we assume that the Union would go to war in this situation? If, say, New England seceded first, would the South really mind seeing a dozen Northern Senators disappear, or would they just say "Go in peace" in public and "Good riddance" in private?

As for Lemmon, it would certainly cause howls of fury, but how much practical difference would it make? Any slaveholder who tried to "sojourn" in the North with his human property would be giving them a golden opportunity to make a dash for the Canadian border, with local Sheriffs etc mostly on their side, so that recapture would be virtually impossible. So only a very stupid handful of owners would be likely to attempt this. Would the average northern pol really see that as a big enough deal to secede over?

Exactly this, the three states along the Ohio are going to have extremely contentious succession, and even places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania are going to be debated, to say nothing of the western territories. Why is the majority of the nation seceding when they have the legislative and military ability force their agenda?

I could see New England + New York secession taking root with pro and anti-secession fighting breaking out in the Ohio country which spirals into a wider conflict, but it would be way more messy than what the map indicates.

 

[NedStark]

Why is the majority of the nation seceding when they have the legislative and military ability force their agenda?

Without New England & New York this majority would have vaporized overnight. Plus, the way the Senate and the Court function could allow the minority to stifle the majority's attempt to legislate.

Initially only seven Lower South states seceded. The Upper South only came in after the outbreak of war, and the border states never did so at all. One Upper South state, VA, was actually torn in two. The secession was not a clean break, but a ragged, messy tear, and there is no reason to suppose that a Northern one would be any tidier. That's my problem with the OP map - It is far too neat and tidy

That's actually what I mean - different Northern regions would have seceded one by one, with Pennsylvania and Ohio play similar roles to Virginia and North Carolina IOTL (close-run but critical secessions), of course not immediately like a hive mind. And in my post I only mean the original Northern states. The Western Territories and the Pacific Coast, OTOH, is extremely unlikely to secede en masse - this I agree with you.

Any slaveholder who tried to "sojourn" in the North with his human property would be giving them a golden opportunity to make a dash for the Canadian border, with local Sheriffs etc mostly on their side, so that recapture would be virtually impossible. So only a very stupid handful of owners would be likely to attempt this. Would the average northern pol really see that as a big enough deal to secede over?

Without New England and the Upper North, sojourning slaves in the Lower North would be less stupid and less implausible than you think.