Northern Civil war with a twist

we've all probably seen the 'north secedes' scenario once in a while, but I had an idea of something like that with a twist; what if the northern states rose in rebellion not to secede but to overthrow what is seen as an unfairly southern dominated, oppressive, and racist government. My personal POD pick is a Breckenridge presidency and the supreme court ruling in favour of the Lemmons in Lemmon v. New York


Here is a quick n' dirty map for the general idea
 
There would probably be a lot of people who don't accept the results, especially if the North wins and completely overthrows the US government (but keeps the Constitution and the USA name).
 
There would probably be a lot of people who don't accept the results, especially if the North wins and completely overthrows the US government (but keeps the Constitution and the USA name).
The results of the war or the results of the ruling or the results of the 1860 election?
 
I was thinking the results of the war. In a scenario like this, I am pretty sure that the North would win, considering they had more people and were far more industrialized. However, they would now have to rule over not only resentful Southerners but angry cowboys and pioneers from out West who don't recognize the new Philadelphia government's legitimacy.
 
Philadelphia is awfully close to the border - New York might be a better choice.

Also, unless the north takes land in the northern US, the west coast is probably going to go its own way.
 
Philadelphia is awfully close to the border - New York might be a better choice.

Also, unless the north takes land in the northern US, the west coast is probably going to go its own way.
California going it's own way is unlikely, to say the least, especially when the state is not only extremely abolitionist, but also very culturally and politically aligned with the north
 
California going it's own way is unlikely, to say the least, especially when the state is not only extremely abolitionist, but also very culturally and politically aligned with the north

Yet Lincoln got only 32% of the vote there in 1860. Doesn't sound as abolitionist as all that.

Pretty much the same in Oregon. He did a bit better there but still only 36%

I'd have thought that IL, IN and NJ were also doubtful. The first two, esp, would not want to be cut off from the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi outlet, though in process of being superseded by railroads, was still considered important.
 
Yet Lincoln got only 32% of the vote there in 1860. Doesn't sound as abolitionist as all that.

Pretty much the same in Oregon. He did a bit better there but still only 36%
Douglas got 31.7 of the California vote, and 28% of the Oregon vote. Thus, the anti-slavery pro-Union vote in both California and Oregon was 64%
 
And territorially separate, without said land connection.
California going it's own way is unlikely, to say the least, especially when the state is not only extremely abolitionist, but also very culturally and politically aligned with the north
I don't get why California is "separated". In a civil war situation Nebraska at least is going to side with the North and Washington doesn't have any real politics so colouring the map blue between the North and the West is a bit misleading. It should really be pale red or at worst empty.

Having said that I suspect California will see a similar struggle to OTL Missouri.
 
I don't get why California is "separated". In a civil war situation Nebraska at least is going to side with the North and Washington doesn't have any real politics so colouring the map blue between the North and the West is a bit misleading. It should really be pale red or at worst empty.

Having said that I suspect California will see a similar struggle to OTL Missouri.
Like I said, the maps a rough draft
 
Douglas got 31.7 of the California vote, and 28% of the Oregon vote. Thus, the anti-slavery pro-Union vote in both California and Oregon was 64%

But why would the pro-Union voters support a northern rebellion? Douglas Democrats were not particularly antislavery. They just thought it should be left to local option.

Not to mention that with no Pacific Railroad, and the intervening territory held by the US Army,


rebels there would be isolated from thei northern compatriots, and would have hasd no more chance of success than pro-Confederates did OTL.

If Breckenridge has been lawfully elected, then all Democrats and CUs will be opposed to the rebellion, as will quite a few Republicans, probably including Lincoln himself. After all, if a Lemmon decision has sufficiently antagonised the north for an armed revolt to be possible, then it also guarantees the Republicans an almost certain victory in 1864. Why would Republicans - bar a few lunatic fringers of the John Brown variety - want to jeopardise this by committing treason?


I don't get why California is "separated". In a civil war situation Nebraska at least is going to side with the North and Washington doesn't have any real politics so colouring the map blue between the North and the West is a bit misleading. It should really be pale red or at worst empty.

How would it make the slightest difference who Nebraska "sides with"? In 1860 it has only a tiny white population, most of them gathered in a small area by the Iowa border. This would have no way of assisting rebels in CA, even assuming they wanted to.
 
How would it make the slightest difference who Nebraska "sides with"? In 1860 it has only a tiny white population, most of them gathered in a small area by the Iowa border. This would have no way of assisting rebels in CA, even assuming they wanted to.

Because we start talking about how "separated" California is. It is separated but from both sides. And as mentioned earlier the bulk of the population is strongly aligned to to the Northern states. California will be mostly Northern with a small government garrison. IOTL that small garrison made sure that Southern California didn't secede. ITTL it's likely that the end result is a messy conflict in California for the whole of the war.

The status of the territories is important for a future North. As are the war aims. If it is a war of secession then the North will want to establish a claim to link up to the Pacific. If it is an armed rebellion to overthrow an elected government then the North may find it harder to get support from the Europeans especially in terms of powder. Which may even up the odds somewhat.
 
Because we start talking about how "separated" California is. It is separated but from both sides. And as mentioned earlier the bulk of the population is strongly aligned to to the Northern states. California will be mostly Northern with a small government garrison. IOTL that small garrison made sure that Southern California didn't secede. ITTL it's likely that the end result is a messy conflict in California for the whole of the war.


Being "aligned with the north" is not al all the same thing as supporting treason. In both CA and OR, Democrats (Douglas or Breckinridge and CUs received some two-thirds of the votes. These will all be opposed to rebellion, as will quite a few moderate Republicans. That adds up to at least three-fourths (maybe more) of the population. So any rebellion there will be quickly scotched.

The status of the territories is important for a future North.

Quite. But the vast majority of the Territories is still Indian country Even if a Territorial government n Nebraska declares its support for a rebellion. its writ will only run in the small area actually occupied by white settlers. It is essentially powerless to do anything for rebels in CA - or even in most of Nebraska itself. The only real authority in most of the West is the US Army, which will pay no attention to any "orders" from a Territorial Legislature.
 
Perhaps if evidence comes to light of ballot stuffing in the 1860 election that could motivate such a rebellion and give the northern coelition legitimacy
 
Being "aligned with the north" is not al all the same thing as supporting treason.
And that is the key to this PoD.

if the North is trying to overturn the democratically elected President by force it's a whole new ball game. It's a less justifiable cause than arguing for secession.

Secession may be treason - arming yourself to depose the current government is certainly treason (unless you win of course).
 
Draft timeline
genusmap.png

Continuing on the idea of a Breckenridge victory being the POD, here is a possible election map.

My rough outline so far, in chronological order:
1. Buchanan dies in office a few months before the election, Breckenridge assumes office as president

2. Breckenridge narrowly reelected in 1860, minor reports of irregularities in the Ohio and Indiana results are ignored

3. Supreme court rules on Lemmon v. New York in favour of Lemmon, causing massive protest in the northern states, who refuse to enforce the ruling.

4. Residents fron Kentucky crossing state lines to influence the midwestern results and local democratic officials discarding republican ballots is finally revealed to have swung the states of Indiana and ohio in a congressional investigation spearheaded by the Republican party

5. The Republican majority congress votes to impeach Breckenridge over evidence that the president knew and possibly helped coordinate voter fraud. The senate refuses to hold an impeachment trial.

6. Representatives from 12 states sign a document declaring the illegitimacy of the Breckenridge presidency in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These representatives refuse to attend congress

7. Several officers of the local US military attempt to arrest Breckenridge in DC for "treason against the united states and subversion of the American democratic process". The attempt fails and the officers are found not to have been acting on any higher orders, but the incident still seriously escalates tensions between Washington and the abstaining states

Anyway that's what I have so far,
Thoughts? Realistic, totally asb? Somewhere in the middle?
 
Last edited:
I don't get why California is "separated". In a civil war situation Nebraska at least is going to side with the North and Washington doesn't have any real politics so colouring the map blue between the North and the West is a bit misleading. It should really be pale red or at worst empty.

Having said that I suspect California will see a similar struggle to OTL Missouri.
Would there be a Californian Civil War?
 
View attachment 583938
Continuing on the idea of a Breckenridge victory being the POD, here is a possible election map.

My rough outline so far, in chronological order:
1. Buchanan dies in office a few months before the election, Breckenridge assumes office as president

2. Breckenridge narrowly reelected in 1860, minor reports of irregularities in the Ohio and Indiana results are ignored

3. Supreme court rules on Lemmon v. New York in favour of Lemmon, causing massive protest in the northern states, who refuse to enforce the ruling.

4. Residents fron Kentucky crossing state lines to influence the midwestern results and local democratic officials discarding republican ballots is finally revealed to have swung the states of Indiana and ohio in a congressional investigation spearheaded by the Republican party

5. The Republican majority congress votes to impeach Breckenridge over evidence that the president knew and possibly helped coordinate voter fraud. The senate refuses to hold an impeachment trial.

6. Representatives from 12 states sign a document declaring the illegitimacy of the Breckenridge presidency in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Anyway that's what I have so far,
Thoughts? Realistic, totally asb? Somewhere in the middle?
Disputing the election result is still an awful long way from rebellion. There is no existential threat to Northern business or economy posed by a Breckenridge presidency so I would have thought that all legal means to challenge the vote would be used first. Could be a while before the first shot.

I think that both Houses have to agree to void an electoral college vote in a state assuming the Supreme Court has allowed it. I don't think in this scenario the Republicans have the vote in the Senate.
 
Top