Second ACW?

[Hashasheen]

is it possible to have a second civil war? if not possible before 1900 can some one move it to the After 1900, i think that after MLK started fighting for equality, it could have happened, not black slavery, but definite second class citizens.
or barring that a future civil war, that goes 3 way between hispanics, blacks and white

 

[DMA]

The OTL Civil War pretty much exhausted the South. It'll take more than a generation to recover, meanwhile the North is booming making it even more stronger than in 1860. At best, if it involves the South, any so-called Civil War Mk II will be more like an isolated uprising, here or there, which won't last very long.

However, it doesn't have to be a North vs South re-run, but at some point in time there could be a North-East vs Western States Civil War for various reasons - especially as California grows in strength & influence, whilst Washington DC pretty much ignores whatever is going on west of the Mississippi (apart from dealing with Indians). So as relations between East & West deteriorate, to the point of open conflict, the South declares neutrality on the matter, sits back, watches the Civil War Mk II play out, then takes advantage on whatever maybe on offer after the Second Civil War.

 

[Fenwick]

Is there a particular reason why the fighting is just over race and not politics? I mean I can see the Southern states angry over civil rights, but why would a war be Hispanic v. White v. Black as the orignal poster stated?

 

[DMA]

Is there a particular reason why the fighting is just over race and not politics? I mean I can see the Southern states angry over civil rights, but why would a war be Hispanic v. White v. Black as the orignal poster stated?

I agree. It wouldn't be a war about race. IMHO it'd be over power, influence, resources, services, taxation, representation, etc...

 

[Blizrun]

The OTL Civil War pretty much exhausted the South. It'll take more than a generation to recover, meanwhile the North is booming making it even more stronger than in 1860. At best, if it involves the South, any so-called Civil War Mk II will be more like an isolated uprising, here or there, which won't last very long.

However, it doesn't have to be a North vs South re-run, but at some point in time there could be a North-East vs Western States Civil War for various reasons - especially as California grows in strength & influence, whilst Washington DC pretty much ignores whatever is going on west of the Mississippi (apart from dealing with Indians). So as relations between East & West deteriorate, to the point of open conflict, the South declares neutrality on the matter, sits back, watches the Civil War Mk II play out, then takes advantage on whatever maybe on offer after the Second Civil War.

You'd need to stop all transcontinental railroads in order to get that scenario. Money turns the world, and as long as goods and trade can get between the coasts swiftly and (relatively) cheaply, everything else pretty much takes care of itself.

 

[DMA]

You'd need to stop all transcontinental railroads in order to get that scenario. Money turns the world, and as long as goods and trade can get between the coasts swiftly and (relatively) cheaply, everything else pretty much takes care of itself.

Actually that could be part of the problem ie California sends all its gold East & gets nothing or next to nothing in return. That's bound to get people annoyed after a while. I do believe the American Revolution was about similar issues

 

[Fenwick]

Perhaps a civil war over the Grange? That could work the farmers who want better services, decide to simply make a new nation to determine their own trade, tariffs, and maybe even put up community silos. The government of course fights back, and a strange thing occurs as miners, factory workers and a lot of other people who want Democracy but cannot stand the way big business gets away with everything.

So maybe for two years you have the army fighting in the midwest, and quite often you find old Confederate soldiers, and officers leading the charge with the Grangers. Maybe have it be close to Canada so trade can come through and guns are open.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

As far as a full blown war (not simply terrorist groups like the KKK, or an insurgency), there are plenty of slim pickings. Best chance would likely be around the 80's/90's, and be based off of labor troubles. Maybe a red-scare gone bad, over-reaction by buisnessmen, and the rest follows.

I agree. It wouldn't be a war about race. IMHO it'd be over power, influence, resources, services, taxation, representation, etc...

Pretty much the same things as the first Civil War, then.

 

[DMA]

Pretty much the same things as the first Civil War, then.

Well race wouldn't be an issue I'd dare say in this Second one. As for the other reasons - well they're prtty common regardless of which war we're talking about

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Well race wouldn't be an issue I'd dare say in this Second one. As for the other reasons - well they're prtty common regardless of which war we're talking about

Race will certainly have its part, depending on the region. In the midwest, I'd expect to see a good deal of anti-German and anti-Pole sentiments in any labor-related conflict, with the Central/Western European immigrants being targets/scapegoats for labor conditions and such.

I also made the comparison because, IMO, the "normal" causes for the Civil War are much underappreciated by people who wonder why the war was fought.

 

[DMA]

Perhaps a civil war over the Grange? That could work the farmers who want better services, decide to simply make a new nation to determine their own trade, tariffs, and maybe even put up community silos. The government of course fights back, and a strange thing occurs as miners, factory workers and a lot of other people who want Democracy but cannot stand the way big business gets away with everything.

So maybe for two years you have the army fighting in the midwest, and quite often you find old Confederate soldiers, and officers leading the charge with the Grangers. Maybe have it be close to Canada so trade can come through and guns are open.

Nice idea, but would that be more so like an insurrection, rather than a Civil War akin to the OTL, where both sides had tangible territory to defend as identifiable nations?

 

[Fenwick]

Nice idea, but would that be more so like an insurrection, rather than a Civil War akin to the OTL, where both sides had tangible territory to defend as identifiable nations?

Look at the number of farmers in the midwest, and I can see a nice faction forming. The issue is forming a government. Does a bunch of farmers getting together and forming a administration count as a government? It's the same as what the CSA did, but the farmers may be in the same boat with little industry, but a determined population.

 

[DMA]

Race will certainly have its part, depending on the region. In the midwest, I'd expect to see a good deal of anti-German and anti-Pole sentiments in any labor-related conflict, with the Central/Western European immigrants being targets/scapegoats for labor conditions and such.

Well that's if it's a labour-related conflict, but that isn't really a civil war scenario, rather it's racial riots or an insurrection. That wasn't the gist I got from the original poster. Rather it was a civil war fought in a manner akin to the OTL.

I also made the comparison because, IMO, the "normal" causes for the Civil War are much underappreciated by people who wonder why the war was fought.

You can say that about any war But in an East vs West Civil War I see it more about the East "robbing" the West of its gold whilst offering trinkets in return. At the same time the West is left to look after itself, because Washington DC basically ignores their needs, which ironically makes it strong & self sufficent. People then openly question what's the point in staying in the United States when, to quote a phrase, no taxation without representation...

 

[DMA]

Look at the number of farmers in the midwest, and I can see a nice faction forming. The issue is forming a government. Does a bunch of farmers getting together and forming a administration count as a government? It's the same as what the CSA did, but the farmers may be in the same boat with little industry, but a determined population.

I don't have any problem with that, but where are their war industries? They'll have to fight a war after all. At least the South did have arsenals & factories which could produce essential items from rifles to cannons. Plus where's their manpower? As the South discovered to its peril, they'll need at least 250 000 troops if not more.

If, however, this Farmer Republic joined another group, like the Western States in some form of Confederation/Alliance, who secedes at the same time, well that's a different story as, not only would the Farmer Republic have access to large markets to sell their crops, this gaining valuable cash to put into the war effort, but they'll get access to a sizable military resource as well.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The southern states would be no match for the highly industrialized north in this period. Any war between north and south would be asymmetric, guerrilla type wars.

Maybe if the election of Rutherford Hayes in 1876 wasn't as highly contested, the Republicans would have no incentive to end Reconstruction to appease the Southern voters. Federal troops continue to be stationed in the South and unpopular Reconstruction institutions are maintained. One bad thing leads to another. One could see fighting breaking out in the 1880s.

This could be pretty interesting actually. Let's say James A. Garfield's assassination was butterflied away. The second civil war breaks out under an American President who was a Union general in the first war. His Secretary of War was Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abe.

 

[Hashasheen]

Is there a particular reason why the fighting is just over race and not politics? I mean I can see the Southern states angry over civil rights, but why would a war be Hispanic v. White v. Black as the OP stated?

sorry i read something similiar in a clive cussler book and it made me think, and there are separation movements concerning south west american and parts of the bible south.
and i did see a thread concerning an insurgency in the segragation period, with martin luther king, so i tried to connect them.
as why over race, i read the turtledove books, that why, the man writes a good book, but a bit ASB sometimes.

if politics, we could make it one between america firsters and those who wanted to enter the WW2, is that reasonable, i read one ATL book like that, forgot the name, but lindenburg wins, and america becomes more and more nazi like, and in the end a civil war breaks out

 

[panzerjay]

one,if reconstruction lasted longer/not long enough

the key point is it ended and southern whites were able to regain total political power

 

[sunsurf]

It could be:

The West/Labor Unions/Socialists/Freethinkers

vs.

The East/Capitalists/Republicans/Fundamentalists

Many groups lining up on one side or the other. They don't necessarily agree with each other on everything.

Maybe the US doesn't get involved in WW I, the Red Scare gets worse, the big boom of the 20s doesn't happen.

And/or: the Great Depression gets worse, and FDR isn't around.