raharris1973
Well-known member
Here is an alternate history challenge for you, and it is in my view perhaps an implausible, or impossible challenge, requiring the conquest of three thresholds to score "Hat Trick" and win a "Triple Crown".
It is to replicate some of the most basic features of the American Civil War, but in reverse, starting with a *Northern* Secession.
So, hurdle #1 Northern secession versus southern - qualifying entries involve the secession of multiple northern states. A popular idea for this may include the Hartford Convention, coincident with the War of 1812. I would note that would require further tweaking, because it really was not *that* close to secession.
Also, a stipulation, a solo secession by just one state is not qualifying.
So, if you pass this hurdle, and come up with a plausible reason for northern states to secede, despite all the reasons they did not in OTL......congratulations! .......but wait, there's more.....
Hurdle #2 The remaining states of the Union, especially the southern ones, need to *oppose* this northern secession, and to do so forcefully. They cannot just let their "erring northern sisters go in peace" and enjoy the fruits of greater domination over the federal Union for themselves. This adds to the challenge, because by the time substantial sectional conflict emerged in the United States, southern sentiment to hold on to northern free states that did not tolerate property in slaves and did tolerate abolitionist thought, speech and writing was not very strong [which, spoiler, was one of the lamest aspects of spike lee's CSA movie, having the CSA take over the north]. If you manage to give the majority southern loyal to Union states the will to forcefully oppose a northern secessionist rebllion....Congratulations! you've passed threshold #2......but wait, there's more.....
Hurdle #3 The southern-majority Union has to win the struggle against northern secessionists defeat their reblling state and confederated governments and armies, and reconstruct them back into the Union. Maybe it sounds easy. But this may be quite hard to do. Your average northern state had more industry than your average southern state, and more population. Northern states had a disproportionately high number of naval officers, sailors, and merchant seamen, making an effective blockade of rebellious northeastern states more difficult than one of southern states, despite the shorter coastline. while some northern states, in New England for example, were not as agricultural productive as southern and border states, some Mid-Atlantic and interior northern states were quite productive in food crops. A seceding northern confederacy, although it would not be able to practice a "Cotton diplomacy" would lack diplomatic handicaps the OTL southern Confederacy faced, identification with the cause of slavery. They could argue they are states of free men, on free soil, who want to be in an an exclusive association of free states, ungoverned by a federal government corrupted by slavers. While sounding radical to some foreign ears, it will sound less noxious to antislavery foreign ears than the southern pitch for independence. And for those concerned with the balance of power, it still has the geopolitical advantage of fragmenting the USA. And geographically, should Britain be a friendly neutral or an ally of northern secessionists, the Canadian border and Great Lakes should be a great avenue of trade and blockade circumvention, even if a southern based Navy, based off the shipyards of the Chesapeake states, and possibly those of a still Union-loyal New Jersey and New York City, should be surprisingly successful at Atlantic coastal blockade of northern secessionists.
It is to replicate some of the most basic features of the American Civil War, but in reverse, starting with a *Northern* Secession.
So, hurdle #1 Northern secession versus southern - qualifying entries involve the secession of multiple northern states. A popular idea for this may include the Hartford Convention, coincident with the War of 1812. I would note that would require further tweaking, because it really was not *that* close to secession.
Also, a stipulation, a solo secession by just one state is not qualifying.
So, if you pass this hurdle, and come up with a plausible reason for northern states to secede, despite all the reasons they did not in OTL......congratulations! .......but wait, there's more.....
Hurdle #2 The remaining states of the Union, especially the southern ones, need to *oppose* this northern secession, and to do so forcefully. They cannot just let their "erring northern sisters go in peace" and enjoy the fruits of greater domination over the federal Union for themselves. This adds to the challenge, because by the time substantial sectional conflict emerged in the United States, southern sentiment to hold on to northern free states that did not tolerate property in slaves and did tolerate abolitionist thought, speech and writing was not very strong [which, spoiler, was one of the lamest aspects of spike lee's CSA movie, having the CSA take over the north]. If you manage to give the majority southern loyal to Union states the will to forcefully oppose a northern secessionist rebllion....Congratulations! you've passed threshold #2......but wait, there's more.....
Hurdle #3 The southern-majority Union has to win the struggle against northern secessionists defeat their reblling state and confederated governments and armies, and reconstruct them back into the Union. Maybe it sounds easy. But this may be quite hard to do. Your average northern state had more industry than your average southern state, and more population. Northern states had a disproportionately high number of naval officers, sailors, and merchant seamen, making an effective blockade of rebellious northeastern states more difficult than one of southern states, despite the shorter coastline. while some northern states, in New England for example, were not as agricultural productive as southern and border states, some Mid-Atlantic and interior northern states were quite productive in food crops. A seceding northern confederacy, although it would not be able to practice a "Cotton diplomacy" would lack diplomatic handicaps the OTL southern Confederacy faced, identification with the cause of slavery. They could argue they are states of free men, on free soil, who want to be in an an exclusive association of free states, ungoverned by a federal government corrupted by slavers. While sounding radical to some foreign ears, it will sound less noxious to antislavery foreign ears than the southern pitch for independence. And for those concerned with the balance of power, it still has the geopolitical advantage of fragmenting the USA. And geographically, should Britain be a friendly neutral or an ally of northern secessionists, the Canadian border and Great Lakes should be a great avenue of trade and blockade circumvention, even if a southern based Navy, based off the shipyards of the Chesapeake states, and possibly those of a still Union-loyal New Jersey and New York City, should be surprisingly successful at Atlantic coastal blockade of northern secessionists.