AStanley
Banned
Can we start having more conversations about how Arkansas can be effected?
Which Arkansas are we talking about?
Depending on how the war went, Arkansas can go a number of different ways..
Can we start having more conversations about how Arkansas can be effected?
Can we start having more conversations about how Arkansas can be effected?
Why would the Union even want Arkansas in any CS Victory scenario in which Arkansas had been occupied? Since it had seceded at the beginning of the war, and thousands of its men had fought and died in the Confederate Army, it certainly had developed a loyal to the Confederacy. The people of the state would see any Union-imposed government as a puppet of Washington and not representative of them. It sounds like a recipe for insurgency.
Cooler heads in the North might want to simply get rid of Arkansas the same way a person throws away a lit stick of dynamite.
10% of the Population had also swore an oath of loyalty to the Union Government, and they had a fully functioning Union government.
They were not a puppet in any sense.
And the other 90%?
Can anybody find a good secession vote by county map of Arkansas?
It could bring a good image of what loyalties lay where in the state.
The map is good for getting a general idea, but it would probally be better to have one that shows the county percentage of votes for secession to get the true feel of the area, i.e. one that shows 60/40, 55/45, ect.
Of course the CSA will call for that, but they have no chance of getting anything Union armies are sitting on top of. The original seven was quite willing to go it alone in OTL and their leadership firmly believed they were a viable nation.
And were your disagreement based on facts, we could agree to disagree.
You're ignoring Bleeding Kansas. A plebiscite, or popular sovereignty as it was termed, had sounded like a fair way to resolve whether new sates entered as slave or free. It resulted in voter fraud and murder. Even Stephen Douglas, the guiding force behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act, gave up on popular sovereignty.
You're ignoring military and political reality. The CSA can claim Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona territory, but those claims mean nothing unless they control those territories or are willing to make other concessions to get those them. In the case of Kentucky and Maryland, the CSA cannot offer enough to gain either.
You're ignoring the the way the people of those areas actually felt. Breckinridge got 36% of the vote in Kentucky, 46% in Maryland, 19% in Missouri. Not all of those people were pro-secession. Even if we make the ludicrous assumption that every Kentuckian that did not vote in the 1860 elections was pro-secession, you can't come close to a 2:1 majority.
Quick off topic question. Why does it look like Dade County, Georgia voted against secession on that map? I thought that it was famous for wanting to secede so much that it seceded from GA before the rest of the state did from the union. Am I wrong?This is rather crude, and i am not sure of the accuracy but:
Northern Alabama surprises me, along with Georgia
Quick off topic question. Why does it look like Dade County, Georgia voted against secession on that map? I thought that it was famous for wanting to secede so much that it seceded from GA before the rest of the state did from the union. Am I wrong?
2. If the US seizes assets you can wager that they will be made to pay something when the UK intervenes. If the UK has to set up a blockade of the US or if they are fired on it becomes pride and image, the UK will want something in return for her efforts.
3. Russia is dealing with the January Uprising for much of the same timeframe as the American Civil War, I do not think Alexander II is likely to fight a protracted war at home and abroad. Besides, the country is undergoing a lot of reform under him and he would likely look to his existing backyard before trying to expand it.
4. How much of the US economy is based on agricultural exports in 1860 if the South is taken out of the picture? Even without cotton the US takes a serious hit if food exports are halted. Britain does have other suppliers she can use, and in case of bigger UK demand it might accelerate development of alternative suppliers and facilitate Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other nearby countries to plant more to pick up the slack. Remember that by 1860 mechanization allowed the UK to supply something like 80% of her own food, too - if worse comes to worse they could find ways around a cut-off by the US.
5. Again, I disagree that the LSE would "instantly crash", it would be hurt but not terminally.
67th, your grain quote seems a bit misleading.
As you point out, about half of British grain imports came from the USA, which won't be easily irreplaceable.
So this is hard to square with the claim that the US was not a grain exporter.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qp...page&q=america civil war grain export&f=false
Your potato point seems misleading. "Bear in mind that there were other staples...."
Nor was the US the only place in Europe people were exporting grain to.
Absolutely right. The Crimean war was a disaster from which it does not recover until the late 1870s.