genyodectes
Warrant Officer
I'm just a Ceratosaur trying to make his way in Alternate History
Posts: 226 
Likes: 119
|
Post by genyodectes on Feb 17, 2018 13:20:38 GMT
I've been thinking up a scenario...is it possible for a Civil War to happen in the 1790s and how could it happen?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 17, 2018 13:49:03 GMT
I've been thinking up a scenario...is it possible for a Civil War to happen in the 1790s and how could it happen? What about the states of New England versus the rest. |
|
genyodectes
Warrant Officer
I'm just a Ceratosaur trying to make his way in Alternate History
Posts: 226
Likes: 119
|
Post by genyodectes on Feb 17, 2018 13:57:31 GMT
I've been thinking up a scenario...is it possible for a Civil War to happen in the 1790s and how could it happen? What about the states of New England versus the rest. I was thinking more of the south v the north |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 17, 2018 14:04:48 GMT
What about the states of New England versus the rest. I was thinking more of the south v the north In the 1790s, is that not a bid early. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Feb 17, 2018 14:10:48 GMT
For it to happen, you'd need to find a reason. Slavery was the spark that lit a conflict in the 1860s but there had long been a north-south divide in the country. Perhaps something to do with federalisation? Or the balance of power with the presidency/Congress?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Feb 17, 2018 15:25:52 GMT
For it to happen, you'd need to find a reason. Slavery was the spark that lit a conflict in the 1860s but there had long been a north-south divide in the country. Perhaps something to do with federalisation? Or the balance of power with the presidency/Congress? Well a decade later there was the matter of Aaron Burr and where it was suggested he was trying to organise a break-away of some of the western states. Although given the relative power imbalance there it could be more a case of how determined the Atlantic coast region was to maintain control. [Although if the region around say Kentucky-Tennessee-Alabama broke away then presumably they would secure the Louisiana region as well since the Atlantic states would have no access to it. Which would mean in the longer run the Atlantic states, while they might keep the old NW region would have limited room for expansion. I think a more likely clash than the 1790's would be problems in the 1780s with a failure to draw up a constitution that all can agree on. This is more likely to result in no union being formed but you could have say most of the states, including say both Virginia and New York agreeing on a constitution and other rejecting it. Then you might just have the main bloc deciding to force union on they who want to go it alone. Again however I suspect this would be unlikely as they would lack the resources. I don't think there's much basis for a north-south fight in the 1790's. Definitely not on slavery as its still widely accepted by most states as far north as New York. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 17, 2018 15:38:24 GMT
For it to happen, you'd need to find a reason. Slavery was the spark that lit a conflict in the 1860s but there had long been a north-south divide in the country. Perhaps something to do with federalisation? Or the balance of power with the presidency/Congress? Well a decade later there was the matter of Aaron Burr and where it was suggested he was trying to organise a break-away of some of the western states. Although given the relative power imbalance there it could be more a case of how determined the Atlantic coast region was to maintain control. [Although if the region around say Kentucky-Tennessee-Alabama broke away then presumably they would secure the Louisiana region as well since the Atlantic states would have no access to it. Which would mean in the longer run the Atlantic states, while they might keep the old NW region would have limited room for expansion. I think a more likely clash than the 1790's would be problems in the 1780s with a failure to draw up a constitution that all can agree on. This is more likely to result in no union being formed but you could have say most of the states, including say both Virginia and New York agreeing on a constitution and other rejecting it. Then you might just have the main bloc deciding to force union on they who want to go it alone. Again however I suspect this would be unlikely as they would lack the resources. I don't think there's much basis for a north-south fight in the 1790's. Definitely not on slavery as its still widely accepted by most states as far north as New York. Also some of the States that fought on the North ore South side are not yet there in the 1790s. |
|
insect
Banned
Posts: 380
Likes: 71
|
Post by insect on Jun 16, 2018 19:26:33 GMT
How about the 1950"S a decade earlier?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 16, 2018 19:36:12 GMT
How about the 1950"S a decade earlier? You mean 1750 instead of 1950 do you. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jun 16, 2018 19:58:40 GMT
How about the 1950"S a decade earlier? You mean 1750 instead of 1950 do you.
I suspect he meant the 1850's, i.e. a decade earlier than the OTL USCW.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 16, 2018 20:08:40 GMT
You mean 1750 instead of 1950 do you. I suspect he meant the 1850's, i.e. a decade earlier than the OTL USCW.
That might be more posabile than what i said. |
|
