Forum:Federal States/Civil War

Forums → Federal States → Federal States/Civil War

Hey, yall. I wanted to kind of boost this topic while people are still looking at the forums. This is probably not going to be voted in August's omnibus as the topic at hand is going to take a very long time to talk about. I got two assumptions here:

1. The civil war was before 1860
2. Slavery was not its main driving force

Correct me if I'm wrong by all means. I think we should first figure out the semantics of it (reason, length, result, etc.) before getting into details. I was also hoping we could get the National Battlefield/Cemetary system sorted out too. Thanks. Pole (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Mayor has some previously-drafted ideas that we could consider as a starting-point for a discussion. It needs a little updating, but quite a few of us had input over the years on some ideas therein. It also summarized a fair amount of what was discussed openly in the unofficial space. I am going to post below an overview of what I said in the unofficial space just to be transparent. This topic is by no means something I care passionately about, but I tried to weave together a lot of threads that were being discussed to see if we could get a basic framework for consideration.

I'd be a huge proponent of a "hot" civil war—essentially a national-scale Whiskey Rebellion with some states backing the insurgents. That alone would cause a huge constitutional crisis, a ton of hurt feelings, casualties and historic sites, etc. to fit the bill of a parallel. The goal here is maximal state-owner autonomy for things within the states themselves while still having a broad-scale national incident. My proposal, building off of Mayor, is also an economic rebellion. There is neither secession nor dissolution of the union. There would be uprisings, and battles may have taken place where state militias and local insurgents met. Maybe even a couple state militias squabbling with each other over nonsense such as control over a river or sabotaging rail connections. There's no effective "winner" but rather a peacemaking leader that smoothens things over between the regions and pushes this back under the carpet. He finds a way to work things out enough that everyone feels like they got a little bit of what they wanted and won a Pyrrhic victory. The result is lingering hurt feelings and animosity that simmers to create the regional rivalries we know today.

For the flashpoint: it should not be arbitrary. The working document has it effectively "east v. west" in the public discourse (then and now), but it does not have to be that clean. A suggestion had two frontier states with the east as new states reliant on Federal investment. This is totally plausible. Perhaps an eastern state with interests would defect to the western viewpoint. I propose we consider the admission of Alormen (1840) and the Clamash Purchase (backed up to 1841 or 1842) as the two things that triggered the "war." First, we have to explain why the FSA was largely content with its boundaries for so long and did not go to war earlier for western coastal access. Ports at Andreapolis and Wahanta become appealing for President Caldwell, but the acquisitions drain the treasury and overextends the Federal resources (money, manpower, etc.). It is a huge investment in the west by the government and gives access to the ocean on two fronts; in the minds of eastern interests quickly makes two potentially threatening nodes of commerce and population.

For the conflict proper: If there is a downturn in the economy, the country could be at the brink of fiscal collapse like the panic of 1837 (which lasted 7 years and effectively bankrupted multiple Midwestern states to the point that the government barely functioned. States are strained, land speculation is through the roof, and big business barons rush in to fill the void to mixed results. State allegiances might be based more on geography and where their interests are tied. There's an economic depression (especially in the heartland and lakes), riots break out, business barons step up to mixed results, lobbyists and bad governance cause state-level constitutional crises, and regional rivalries spark a fuse on the ground, as citizens take up arms. Some state governments could even tacitly support the insurrection.

For the fallout: There are many routes to go, but the key is regional rivalries on overload. The whole ordeal does in the Caldwell administration, and Gellard gets re-elected in 1843. Caldwell might still be revered in the heartland and lakes for the expansion and equally reviled in the east for letting it all fall apart. Gellard is the "unity candidate" and quells it enough to suppress open rebellion and is a national hero. Maybe George Price eight years later was the head of Gellard's treasury and rode a wave of popularity after the Swift administration.

In the end, states can pick the show they want to align, key persons and battlefields or historic sites are locally-determined and flexible. — Alessa _(talk) 18:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

State-specific comments

While we work out how the over-arching meta of the conflict would evolve, individual states may be thinking about pegging certain crucial elements of their history to the conflict.

• Apawiland: I've had some state history worked out that could be connected to a civil war. For context, the state exists because of an agreement between Apawi and Nikwaan Territories to merge (hence two capitals). However, Nikwaan quickly felt overshadowed, and resentment naturally followed. That, along with a stronger cultural affinity with neighboring Des Plaines, resulted in dissatisfaction with the arrangement, instead looking to secede from Apawiland to either remain its own state or join Des Plaines. A flawed referendum meant that even with massive support, only two counties managed to pass a vote to secede. This vote fails in Apawiland's legislature, so the two counties illegally join Des Plaines, resulting in skirmishes between state militias. The chaos and panicked coalition-forming allowed Nikwaan an outlet for its frustration and to find support from the east. IiEarth (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Des Plaines: I don't know what the role of Des Plaines would've been nationally right now but some history that was established could be put into the civil war. As background, Des Plaines will have disputed territories in Nikwaan that will lead to the 2 states merging, In addition to what was said in the Apawiland section, there was resentment towards the federal government due to the effects the panic had on the state, having cost the state a big amount and almost bankrupting it, thus the state had growing tensions with the federal government due to their handling with the situation and how severely it affected Des Plainers. There could also be the diverting funding to more inland states to those along the lakes and Alormen despite the inland region not being as industrialized and developed as the latter. RhodeIslandWV (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Clamash: It seems the Clamash Purchase will have some cause in the conflict. However, Clamash itself will be largely unaffected due to being in the far west and having the Cordilleras serve a a buffer. If anything, there may be some conflict with natives if federal troops station in Clamash are sent east.Glauber (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• New Fricester: Hey, so I was thinking that New Fricester was really stretching itself thin financially with the boatloads of immigrants coming in starting farms or moving in to ever growing cities like Anne Abbey and Salmouth, which meant more infrastructure had to be built, which isn't cheap. This combined with the fact they also had to financially support a similar situation of New residents leading to higher costs in the parts that would become Sivalta really starting to cause the state to run out. Then a big scare of a factory districting catching ablaze giving a shock factor while the thousands employed there go to banks to take out money to hold them and their family over until the factory reopens or they get another job which empties the banks on hand reserves, and they cant sell their foreclosures for much to get more cash since many of those foreclosures are burnt to the ground, and there is no state backing for the (I assume) decentralized bank system, so boom you have an icky financial situation. In that situation to stop the masses from taking out their pitchforks with their proximity to Salmouth, they cut funding first to Sivalta, since there is less people that way and they are further from the big population centers where they can attract attention by protests and riots. This leads to even more tension and hurt feelings between the "selfish city dwellers" and the "crazy mountain folk" which would mean whatever side New Fricester picks, Sivalta will pick the opposite, and since they aren't getting much help from New Fricester anyway, Sivalta will probably secede from NF so they're not dragged along on the side of NF. Also this is a lot of assuming about Sivalta, so take it with a grain of salt and please do critique it. CityGuy (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Sivalta: For me, the civil war would (almost directly) be the reason why Sivalta exists. Now my plan for it was that preexisting heavy tensions with the state government of New Fricester and economic downturn would give the people a reason to secede from New Fricester and claim to be their own state (West Fricester) when the war broke out. Now like you said, the possibility of an Eastern state going with the West is where I want Sivalta in this time period to head. I feel like this would matter a lot considering the place's proximity to Huntington (which I presume was capitol at this time). I don't expect Sivalta to put too much of a good fight considering it would be almost totally surrounded however. =)Pole (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)