If the Confederate States of America had managed to achieve their independence, would other states try to secede from the Union after the war for their own reasons? If so, which state(s) have the best chance at becoming their own countries?
Secession following Southern Independence?
- Thread starter TheEmperorYT
- Start date
Honestly I see it as more likely that the Confederacy would have future issues with secession since the government was founded in it.
I imagine the rump Union would take steps to centralize itself, actually. The Great Treason of the South (as it would likely be known in the Union) would not leave a great precedent for future secessionists. Maybe California might try, but I doubt it.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
A further fragmenting CSA and a further centralizing USA *seems* to make sense given what the two sides initially proclaimed to be fighting for- but would that really make sense. In many ways the states of the CSA would have greater economic, cultural, political, climatic, and demographic homogeneity among themselves then the more diverse sections of states remaining in the Union.
Slavery actually could become issue if some states decide that they might want abolish slavery.
But more secessionism in United States seems unlikely altough not impossible. Califonria is possible but not certain. USA has even more will to end such ideas quickly. Probably even adds to constitution an amendment which clearly prohibits secessionism.
As I said, California might try, but otherwise the North and the West have no real reason to split from one another, nor would anyone in the North want to commit treason again, while the South itself could well spiral into factionalism between fire-breathing expansionism and moderates who know the former would lead to economic chaos. And these two factions could lead to bloody dysfunction in a Southern government that has the precedent of secession behind it, in addition to the aristocratic Roman stuff they already had going on. I imagine the dominance of the planter class would lead to further feudal chaos.
My point would be that secession can exist for a number of reasons. Like Lalli said if some state wants to end slavery and others don't that could lead to further secession.
I concur that the CSA would likely suffer from its own successions. That brings to mind the "State of Franklin" seeking to rejoin the Union... as one possible example. As for the Union losing more states, I don't see it, but there was the Utah War in the 1850's. Those tensions could have simmered and erupted again a decade or two later. That would have been a territory leaving the Union.
It would depend on how secession happens, and how the peace is settled. Instead of going too far west, it could well lead to the South focusing on building its Golden Circle on the Caribbean, perhaps annexing Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico in wars against Spain and Haiti, as well as using filibusters in Central America to build more slave states.
Of course, I am also certain none of this would happen without large opposition from the various peoples of these regions. I imagine the United States would even support these places to spite the alt-Confederates.
It very much depends on the win conditions for the CSA IMO. If it’s a 1861-1862 victory without significant foreign intervention—so almost total Confederate dominance before the North can rally—I would anticipate future secessions are likely. The Union might well be discredited in that timeline.
If it’s a 1863 or later win and/or there’s significant intervention, maybe from a Trent Affair gone superbly wrong, you probably see a stronger Union emerge. The war likely would’ve seen even more centralization than OTL, while once you get through the first few years after the war, the Democrats might well be blamed for undermining the war effort and pro-government Republicans should come out on top, with little Democratic base outside Irish immigrants.
If it’s a 1863 or later win and/or there’s significant intervention, maybe from a Trent Affair gone superbly wrong, you probably see a stronger Union emerge. The war likely would’ve seen even more centralization than OTL, while once you get through the first few years after the war, the Democrats might well be blamed for undermining the war effort and pro-government Republicans should come out on top, with little Democratic base outside Irish immigrants.
Consistency is the first casualty of any political dispute. No revolution that has overthrown a government has ever turned around and said "welp, I guess we have to let everyone else revolt now for fear of being called hypocrites". In this particular case, just look at Virginia. The unionists who didn't recognize secession seceded from the state. The confederates who seceded then said secession from the state was illegal. Or how the "states rights" confederates were happy to ignore the right of the state of Kentucky to be neutral in the conflict.
In the end, people will do what they want. Sure they'll make the eternal argument about how this time doesn't count because reasons; they may even make it a good one - but it will ultimately be a self-serving one because it always, always is.
In the end, people will do what they want. Sure they'll make the eternal argument about how this time doesn't count because reasons; they may even make it a good one - but it will ultimately be a self-serving one because it always, always is.
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
it's a case of might makes right.
In the case of the North, as mentioned there'll be centralization, and an amendment to specifically forbid secession. There'll be no doubt secession is treason, which will help dampen a movement from starting. Then, once the South is no longer in the Union, there won't be a powerful enough region left to be able to force a secession. Maybe many years down the road, but not for the foreseeable future.
In the South, I'm guessing states rights hold for a little bit, but the new nation will quickly find that a healthy dose of centralization will be necessary. Wasn't part of their constitution a clause that prohibited outlawing slavery? So much for states rights. CSA probably quickly prohibits secession. Some fancy language will be found to make it sound like a choice of unity, rather than a prohibition. I can see a possibility of a couple of the states banding together to enable forcing a secession.
"If the Confederate States of America had managed to achieve their independence, would other states try to secede from the Union after the war for their own reasons?"
Its alternative history tradition to do this by starting up the Civil War on schedule, in the same way as ITTL, and then the Confederates defeat the federal forces militarily.
As other folders on this board have explored, and other commentators have explained, this sequence of events is near impossible. A military defeat would be a huge blow to the prestige of the USA. It really could only happen if the USA had for some reason started to collapse in the first place. So yes, in this scenario the USA falls apart. I have always found alternative history novels and stories where the USA decisively loses a war to an unindustrialized region of the country, and then keeps chugging along, to be ridiculous. Look at the effects on US politics of coming in second in Vietnam.
Now take the scenario is that seven states secede, they don't attack federal forces and military situations, and the federal government concludes they don't have the authority to send the army in and disband the state governments just for seceding, and negotiates. This scenario is sort of plausible, and really the only plausible way to get a CSA that lasts more than a few years. In this case, its just seven states, and no attempt was made to prevent the secession by force, so no loss of prestige. There is likely an amendment to the US constitution addressing secession, so if states try this in the future, it is either explicitly banned or there is a more orderly process. I think the only state out of the seven which might later leave the Confederacy is Texas, since it had already been independent, but Texas would probably need to be develop more economically.
Its alternative history tradition to do this by starting up the Civil War on schedule, in the same way as ITTL, and then the Confederates defeat the federal forces militarily.
As other folders on this board have explored, and other commentators have explained, this sequence of events is near impossible. A military defeat would be a huge blow to the prestige of the USA. It really could only happen if the USA had for some reason started to collapse in the first place. So yes, in this scenario the USA falls apart. I have always found alternative history novels and stories where the USA decisively loses a war to an unindustrialized region of the country, and then keeps chugging along, to be ridiculous. Look at the effects on US politics of coming in second in Vietnam.
Now take the scenario is that seven states secede, they don't attack federal forces and military situations, and the federal government concludes they don't have the authority to send the army in and disband the state governments just for seceding, and negotiates. This scenario is sort of plausible, and really the only plausible way to get a CSA that lasts more than a few years. In this case, its just seven states, and no attempt was made to prevent the secession by force, so no loss of prestige. There is likely an amendment to the US constitution addressing secession, so if states try this in the future, it is either explicitly banned or there is a more orderly process. I think the only state out of the seven which might later leave the Confederacy is Texas, since it had already been independent, but Texas would probably need to be develop more economically.
Possibly. But the better time to do that would have been 1861. They might have been accused of hypocrisy by the North, but the reason to do it would be to "prove" secession was legal. The argument would be "The US had no such prohibition. We do."
At the end of the day it would still be might makes right. lf secession had been illegal but the CSA won, they would have ended up independent. Likewise, if a surviving CSA banned secession and a state wanted to leave, Richmond would have to stop them by force or the law wouldn't matter.
I have always been dubious about scenarios where acceptance of southern secession would lead to a West Coast Republic, a Free City of New York, etc. People do not secede just for the fun of it! One should not confuse pro-southern extremists in New York and California with the majority opinion in those areas. Fernando Wood's Free City suggestion "was greeted with derision by the Common Council. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Wood#Return_to_mayoralty_and_support_for_Confederacy
Or just look at the North's reaction to the CSA declaring independence. The US was literally founded by secessionists against the British Empire, but that didn't stop the North declaring that any attempt to leave the United States was treasonous and needed to be put down with military force.