What if, to avert civil war, or maybe as the end result of a civil war around the constitution in the 1780s, the U.S had a dual presidency/triumvirate system with both geocultural sections recognized as seperate "autonomous republics" within the the Union? It'd essentially go state ---> sectional government ---> federal government. Each section governs itself internally to some degree, with a common market and travel between both sections, with the senate and executive being the federal intermediary for both sections, arbitrating territorial matters, and representing both internationally. Each section would elect presidents, who then serve together as the federal executive, one as head of (federal) government and one as head of state. Each region would alternate each election cycle with their president as to which one gets to be HOS vs HOG. I imagine the Southern A.R would, internally, have a unicameral legislature and no regional-level senate, with universal white male emancipation and (maybe) a direct election of their president rather than having a regional electoral college (Kentucky and Tennessee both had direct governor elections and many Southern Democrats wanted that reform) The Northern A.R would probably, at the start, have a bicameral regional government with a regional assembly and regional senate, along with limited suffrage and an electoral college for their presidential election.How would antebellum politics develop under this system, is the civil war still inevitable or would a compromise be more likely with this set up? What would happen to the Ohio Country, would it be split along the M-D line? Would each section feel less desire to "force" their way of life on the other and view each other as mildly foreign and sovereign? Also would western states eventually demand a Western A.R rather than joining the Southern A.R or Northern A.R?
>>16811134Universal white male suffrage* not emancipation. Sorry about that.
one of the major reason the north didn't let the south secede was that it paid most of the taxes in the country. In exchange for allowing slavery the north set deep hooks in the south's flesh industrially and tied them to the ground with tariffs. Despite this the south was ahead of northern rail industry. New England, who were behind the civil war, were the most concerned since the founding of the country with new states begin added. They're the noes that most advocated for each state getting two senators despite the population so that they would always have disproportionate representation. The problem with this was it didn't take into account new states. This is why every time new states were added the south made sure the north got half, but eventually half wasn't enough for them and they wanted them all.But I digress, there's no real difference between your plan and what the US was already doing. It was customary for a president to run with a vice president of the rival faction.
>>16811178There's a pretty big difference, its two internally run governments in a federal union, not just states---it essentially legitimates sectionalism constitutionally and legally, which would have major ramifications both positive and negative for both sections. The political structure of the United States was nothing like this in the antebellum so I'm not sure why you said that. Also, while tariffs might have been a contributing factor for South Carolina and the Deep South, tariffs had no real effect on the Upper South which was already a mixed agro-industrial economy more akin to the emerging midwest than a purely agriculturally one.
>>16811134I'm a big fan of the seaward plan to just invade and annex Mexico since you know the rank and file rebs are really just there for the violence. Then do an equity trade of acerage/mineral rights for slaves and ez pz we have like a 80 mile border, no civil rights trauma and own the Gulf of Mexico. Underrated SecState.
>>16811225>its two internally run governmentsand who gets what states
>>16811243Its divided by geocultural section, the South gets things below the M-D line east of the Mississippi and probably some other line (e.g Missouri Compromiss line) west of the Mississippi.
Something like the civil war probably still happens.
