How plausible is it to have the american civil war be a more conventional one, that is, one between rival governments, instead of between the government and seccessionists?
no.Not sure what the question is? Outside of some fire eaters each regarded themselves as spiritually the inheritors of the founders dream.
Are you asking what if SC wanted an armed insurrection against Washington DC in 1860?
Seems to me all you need is a unified democratic party in 1860, and for the democratic candidate to not concede to lincoln. If that doesn't work have the conflict start earlier, as a decade earlier the South was on a more level playing field with the northI don't see how this would be possible in the US before the rise of socialism.
Maybe if the northern policies of defying slavery (protecting runaway slaves) were more abundant AND the South was stronger you could have such a war, because this would make the South angrier and stronger enough that it doesn't feel the need to runaway.
You would have to have a contested election with perhaps tactics similar to Pompey’s followers in the Senate used against Anthony when he was Tribune of the Plebs to control the outcome.the question is, is it plausible for the united states to have a civil war with two rival governments that claim the entire united states, within the same time period.
you know, like how spain had two rival governments during its civil war
The only way I can see a American Civil War becoming a state death match, not by cultural/geographic sides, is to have more Slaves states in the North, and Free states in the South.I'm asked only the plausibly of a civil war with rival governments, the geographic locations of each side need not be the same
could a disputed president elect in 1860 cause two rival governments? is this even possible?The only way I can see a American Civil War becoming a state death match, not by cultural/geographic sides, is to have more Slaves states in the North, and Free states in the South.
But that’s practically ASB, so that’s off the list
The only other one is more radical Copperheads, but again, that’s stretching it.
well, I can absolutely see Breckinridge going along with this out of fear, as In real life he was widely known to be a cowardWhat about this... perhaps something more akin to the English Civil War?
I'm thinking sort of a "Pride's Purge"-type situation... pro-slavery (mostly Democratic, mostly southern) congressmen, with the help of collaborators within the US Army, take control of Congress, exclude ardently anti-slavery Senators and Representatives (entire delegations in some cases), proclaim Breckinridge as President (IF he accepts - questionable...) while their friends in the Army secure Washington (it is wedged between two slave states after all...) Those excluded, mostly northern Republicans and their sympathizers, meet in a northern city (let's say Philadelphia for the historical relevance), declare Lincoln as President... you have two rival governments, two rival Presidents, both claiming to be the legitimate government of the United States. How things shake out after that will be anybody's guess
(btw nobody steal this one... plan on using it myself (with some variances) in my long-threatened TL eventually )
The problem with that is, even if the Democrats were unified in the 1860 election, the problem was that the South was overwhelmingly pro-democrat, while the North was Pro-Republican.could a disputed president elect in 1860 cause two rival governments? is this even possible?
Don't think that 1st is a "troll comment" at allTroll comment: American Revolution was a civil war
Serious comment: Loyalists don't flee country, and lead a revolt in 1812.