ACW ends in 1862--does West Virginia still split?

oshron

oshron

hey, all. i'm VERY close to completing the present-day world map of my ASB ATL, but doing so will require me to figure out once and for all what will happen concerning the United States

i've more or less decided that, due to butterflies concerning technological advancement, the American Civil War ends in late 1862 with a Union victory (i feel such a victory was inevitable IOTL, with the technological differences here just speeding it up)

now here's the actual question: if the Confederacy only gets some major gains early on but is then steadily losing the war, would the people in western Virginia feel the need to split from the slave-owning eastern half of the state and form their own pro-Union one? for reference, West Virginia IOTL split from the rest of the state on June 20 1863
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
oshron said:
hey, all. i'm VERY close to completing the present-day world map of my ASB ATL, but doing so will require me to figure out once and for all what will happen concerning the United States

i've more or less decided that, due to butterflies concerning technological advancement, the American Civil War ends in late 1862 with a Union victory (i feel such a victory was inevitable IOTL, with the technological differences here just speeding it up)

now here's the actual question: if the Confederacy only gets some major gains early on but is then steadily losing the war, would the people in western Virginia feel the need to split from the slave-owning eastern half of the state and form their own pro-Union one? for reference, West Virginia IOTL split from the rest of the state on June 20 1863
Click to expand...

That's Damnyankee propganda! The South will always best those damnyankees with courage, Genral Lee, NASCAR, Lynard Synard, Busch Beer, and The Genral Lee! Those Damnyankees stand no chance!
 
FleetMac

FleetMac

I would go with a "No". Up until 20 June 1863 the area we know as "West Virginia" was mostly just considered as the Loyalist-controlled portion of the state, whereas the remainder was "under rebellion". If you have an earlier victory, that sense of "apartness" wouldn't have had time to form, and likely the state wouldn't have been split (the main reason for the split having been butterflied away).
 

606jae

while it is unlikely but the area had wanted to be separate for quite some time. even before the revolution the area wanted to be separate from Virginia and had attempted to be allowed to form a separate colony called Vandalia.
 

The Uchronian

606jae said:
while it is unlikely but the area had wanted to be separate for quite some time. even before the revolution the area wanted to be separate from Virginia and had attempted to be allowed to form a separate colony called Vandalia.
Click to expand...

Very true, which is why I think it would still be quite possible even without a lengthy ACW. Heck, if Jefferson had a real chance of forming, why not W.V., too? :)
 
oshron

oshron

thanks for you input everyone :) West Virginia ITTL will therefore be admitted to the Union on June 20 1888 as the state of Vandalia ;)

EDIT: as long as this thread is still here, what does everyone think about Nevada being admitted at the same time as IOTL or possibly later with a shorter ACW, or at all if it doesn't have Las Vegas?
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Dirk_Pitt said:
That's Damnyankee propganda! The South will always best those damnyankees with courage, Genral Lee, NASCAR, Lynard Synard, Busch Beer, and The Genral Lee! Those Damnyankees stand no chance!
Click to expand...
Whenever someone is a jerk here a baby sealion cries.

Don't make baby sealions cry.
 

Evan

West Virginia will still form a separate state. A new state was already being proposed at the first meeting of the Wheeling Convention in spring 1861; the legislature of the Restored Government of Virginia called a referendum on separate statehood in August. Any federal government that feels loyal to Virginia unionists will give them the separate state for which they strongly yearn. Its borders might be different (e.g. most likely lacking Harper's Ferry, which was only added later to help protect the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad), but its existence is beyond doubt.

What's more, I think it would happen well before 1888 - I'd put it no later than 1865, and probably earlier. Why would the federal government restrain them so long?
oshron said:
as long as this thread is still here, what does everyone think about Nevada being admitted at the same time as IOTL or possibly later with a shorter ACW, or at all if it doesn't have Las Vegas?
Click to expand...
Later, I'd guess. Its admission iOTL was rushed through as a Republican stronghold to give Lincoln three more votes in the 1864 election. (As it turned out, he didn't need them after Sherman captured Atlanta, but that wasn't known at the time.)
 

The Uchronian

CalBear said:
Whenever someone is a jerk here a baby sealion cries.

Don't make baby sealions cry.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was being serious, though, TBH.

Anyhow, there IS one major obstacle to statehood that I could think of: the rest of the South. I mean, you DO need the approval of 2/3rds of the states to create a new state out of an existing one, right? And given that that area of Va. was pretty heavily Republican in spots, and that most of the rest of the South, outside of East Tennessee and maybe a few other places, was pretty much Democrat territory thru and thru, I can see that some of the Southerners might want to fight that in Congress, which might successfully delay, or even cancel out, any hopes for W. Va. statehood if enough cards are played right.
 

Evan

CaliBoy1990 said:
Anyhow, there IS one major obstacle to statehood that I could think of: the rest of the South. I mean, you DO need the approval of 2/3rds of the states to create a new state out of an existing one, right? And given that that area of Va. was pretty heavily Republican in spots, and that most of the rest of the South, outside of East Tennessee and maybe a few other places, was pretty much Democrat territory thru and thru, I can see that some of the Southerners might want to fight that in Congress, which might successfully delay, or even cancel out, any hopes for W. Va. statehood if enough cards are played right.
Click to expand...
Nope, just Congress and the existing state. Virginia's consent was provided by the Restored Government of Virginia, and the South was unrepresented in Congress (aside from said Restored Virginia and a few others like Andy Johnson) during the war.
 
FleetMac

FleetMac

CaliBoy1990 said:
I don't think he was being serious, though, TBH.

Anyhow, there IS one major obstacle to statehood that I could think of: the rest of the South. I mean, you DO need the approval of 2/3rds of the states to create a new state out of an existing one, right? And given that that area of Va. was pretty heavily Republican in spots, and that most of the rest of the South, outside of East Tennessee and maybe a few other places, was pretty much Democrat territory thru and thru, I can see that some of the Southerners might want to fight that in Congress, which might successfully delay, or even cancel out, any hopes for W. Va. statehood if enough cards are played right.
Click to expand...

To touch on the Republican thing, there was actually quite a bit more support for the party in the South than many people would think (North Alabama + Northeastern Georgia springs to mind). In fact, the Appalachians are unique in being fairly contrary to political trends throughout the remainder of the region, even though only West Virginia was able to successfully counter-secede. Of course, it helps that WV was much, MUCH closer to centers of Union strength and reinforceable compared to Eastern Tennessee and N. Alabama. And of course, there's evidence for not-inconsiderable Unionist/Republican support in Texas (namely Northeastern, Northern and Hill Country regions thereof).
 
kichinichini

kichinichini

If it somehow splits in this TL, it likely wouldn't have the three easternmost counties (Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson). From what I can recall, these were strongly secessionist and had a higher slave population than most of the rest of WV, in addition to being geographically isolated from the rest of the state. They were basically gerrymandered in to suit the needs of the war effort.
 
oshron

oshron

another question pertaining to TTL, same time period: does anyone think Lincoln would go on to serve two full terms ITTL if the war ended earlier, or would he conceivably fall victim to some other form of foul play? (personally, i'm convinced that he would be re-elected since he successfully ended the war, and sooner ITTL than IOTL)
 

Mikestone8

oshron said:
another question pertaining to TTL, same time period: does anyone think Lincoln would go on to serve two full terms ITTL if the war ended earlier, or would he conceivably fall victim to some other form of foul play? (personally, i'm convinced that he would be re-elected since he successfully ended the war, and sooner ITTL than IOTL)
Click to expand...


If I were him I'd retire in 1864. That way, if the postwar settlement goes well, it's his legacy, if not, his successor gets the blame.

Also, if you've seen that famous last photograph of him (with the crack across it) he looks utterly exhausted and prematurely aged. I'm not at all sure he'd have got through a second term even if not murdered.
 

The Uchronian

Evan said:
Nope, just Congress and the existing state. Virginia's consent was provided by the Restored Government of Virginia, and the South was unrepresented in Congress (aside from said Restored Virginia and a few others like Andy Johnson) during the war.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Thank you for the correction. :)

FleetMac said:
To touch on the Republican thing, there was actually quite a bit more support for the party in the South than many people would think (North Alabama + Northeastern Georgia springs to mind). In fact, the Appalachians are unique in being fairly contrary to political trends throughout the remainder of the region, even though only West Virginia was able to successfully counter-secede. Of course, it helps that WV was much, MUCH closer to centers of Union strength and reinforceable compared to Eastern Tennessee and N. Alabama. And of course, there's evidence for not-inconsiderable Unionist/Republican support in Texas (namely Northeastern, Northern and Hill Country regions thereof).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I kinda forgot about north/northeast Texas, TBH; I was mainly thinking of the Hill Country.....but I didn't know about northern Alabama & northeast Ga., though. I'll be sure to look up it sometime, as I've got a TL which is only 20 years away from the Civil War(La Tierraa Afortunada). Thanks for the tip. :D
 

Rich Rostrom

oshron said:
Now here's the actual question: if the Confederacy only gets some major gains early on but is then steadily losing the war, would the people in western Virginia feel the need to split from the slave-owning eastern half of the state and form their own pro-Union one?
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely. Western Virginia had been looking to break off for many years. When the Wheeling Convention met, many delegates wanted to form a new state immediately. But Article IV of the Constitution meant that Virginia would have to consent. So they created the "Restored Government of Virginia", which gave consent 20 August 1861. The statehood act was approved in December 1862.

So even with an early end to the war, Virginia will break up. Only an immediate end to the war could avoid it (say after a Union victory at First Bull Run), and even then it might be too late.
 

Rich Rostrom

A Knox said:
If it somehow splits in this TL, it likely wouldn't have the three easternmost counties (Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson). From what I can recall, these were strongly secessionist and had a higher slave population than most of the rest of WV, in addition to being geographically isolated from the rest of the state. They were basically gerrymandered in to suit the needs of the war effort.
Click to expand...

Possibly... but the area had been under the civil jurisdiction of the Restored Government of Virginia, like the rest of the west, and participated, more or less, in the constitutional convention and statehood referendums.

Their return to Virginia might be made a condition of the peace settlement.
 

Tripwire

Rich Rostrom said:
Possibly... but the area had been under the civil jurisdiction of the Restored Government of Virginia, like the rest of the west, and participated, more or less, in the constitutional convention and statehood referendums.

Their return to Virginia might be made a condition of the peace settlement.
Click to expand...

If the South quickly reversed course and accepts a negotiated settlement to end the war, that is, which seems unlikely, even in the face of bad losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top