A civil war buffer state

Hello everyone. My roommate and i are currently taking a class on the civil war (very interesting, taught by a guy from south carolina who doesn't mince words) and were sitting around discussing it. Since i grew up in Kentucky, I'm doing my project on the civil war within the state, and have come across some interesting things. The consensus opinion in Kentucky after the first round of succession was that the union ought to be preserved, but not with bloodshed. They were reluctantly pulled out of neutrality, with a second Confederate government set up in the southern counties. West Virginia succeeded from Virginia to avoid the confederacy, but wasn't vehemently pro union either. They both have a cultural ties to one region but economic ties to another. I'm only really at the beginning of getting deep into learning about the war, but i've also heard eastern Tennessee was pro union. Maryland never got a choice, etc.

So what I'm wondering is, would it have been possible for them to create a third state in between the two powers in an attempt to avoid bloodshed. They could have offered to act as a liaison between the two, and might have ultimately prospered if they had avoided war. This whole thing could have beep perpetuated by California jumping ship, which there was talk of. What does anyone think? Would they have been able to talk sense in to everyone, gotten torn to pieces, remained separate, etc?

and there is a map, simply because i love maps.


Ive extrapolated a little bit on this since i started making that. My guess is the war would be about gaining control of the western territory, rather than invasion.

split america 2.png
 

d32123

Banned
It really depends on how you have the South successfully seceding. Generally, I don't find the idea of a buffer state particularly plausible.
 
I don't see any states being broken up to provide a buffer state, but I could see a Union still holding some of the cards in negotiation accepting the loss of Kentucky, but forcing the CSA to accept Kentucky as an independent buffer state. Neither side would like it, but both would prefer it over the other side owning it.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Two problems with your map, IMO.

1) I can't see Maryland being independent, unless for some reason the US agrees to move out of DC.:eek: I don't see much likelihood of that.

2) I'm guessing that the gray area is an independent Republic of Texas? Either way, I don't think they'd get all that upper west area. Maybe, maybe as far north as Durango and west to the Nevada silver fields, maybe.
 

corourke

Donor
I think this is only really plausible in a situation where the South had achieved a near total victory over the North – which necessarily requires a lot of other changes. Probably a British intervention at the very least.

Essentially, the North needs to be completely unable to assert/reassert its control over those areas, and the South needs to decide that it's uninterested / unable to directly control them. Eastern Europe post-Brest-Litovsk is a good analogy for this situation, where the Germans imagined it would be too difficult to integrate the new states directly into the Reich, but didn't want Russia benefiting from owning the territory either.

The buffer zone would probably be composed of areas that weren't so crazy about the Union, wanted more states' rights, but were still solidly abolitionist. The South would probably attempt to impose some kind of Fugitive Slave Law there, and maybe military advisors and economic concessions as well. I also don't really see the need for a western buffer state, the distances there were too large and the lands too sparsely populated to really need one.
 
Hello everyone. My roommate and i are currently taking a class on the civil war (very interesting, taught by a guy from south carolina who doesn't mince words) and were sitting around discussing it. Since i grew up in Kentucky, I'm doing my project on the civil war within the state, and have come across some interesting things. The consensus opinion in Kentucky after the first round of succession was that the union ought to be preserved, but not with bloodshed. They were reluctantly pulled out of neutrality, with a second Confederate government set up in the southern counties. West Virginia succeeded from Virginia to avoid the confederacy, but wasn't vehemently pro union either. They both have a cultural ties to one region but economic ties to another. I'm only really at the beginning of getting deep into learning about the war, but i've also heard eastern Tennessee was pro union. Maryland never got a choice, etc.

So what I'm wondering is, would it have been possible for them to create a third state in between the two powers in an attempt to avoid bloodshed. They could have offered to act as a liaison between the two, and might have ultimately prospered if they had avoided war. This whole thing could have beep perpetuated by California jumping ship, which there was talk of. What does anyone think? Would they have been able to talk sense in to everyone, gotten torn to pieces, remained separate, etc?

and there is a map, simply because i love maps.


Ive extrapolated a little bit on this since i started making that. My guess is the war would be about gaining control of the western territory, rather than invasion.


Actually, WV was pretty strongly pro-Union (Or at least strongly anti rest of VA which is why it seceded) and couldn't hope to maintain its independance from the rest of VA without being part of the US. It either joins the US or remains part of VA as VA was run by hypocrites who violently objected to WV doing what they just did. I also agree with King Midas, unless the nation's capital moves from DC the US keep Maryland. CA jumps ship sometime after Hell freezes over as its economy is strongly tied to selling gold east.
 
Last edited:
Two problems with your map, IMO.

1) I can't see Maryland being independent, unless for some reason the US agrees to move out of DC.:eek: I don't see much likelihood of that.

2) I'm guessing that the gray area is an independent Republic of Texas? Either way, I don't think they'd get all that upper west area. Maybe, maybe as far north as Durango and west to the Nevada silver fields, maybe.

I don't see any independent Texas getting anything outside Texas and the Indian Territories personally. They wouldn't have enough manpower to hold AZ.
 
I'm guessing by "Doesn't Mince Words" the guy's a vehement confederate apologist?

You do realize Kentucky came out of its neutrality only after the secesh attempted to invade it right?

And Maryland had a larger percentage of its men in American Blue then Massachusetts for god's sake.

Whilst certain elements in the border states might have wanted "Neutrality" it just wasn't possible. Either the US or the Reb's would inevitably invade forcing the neutrals to choose sides.
 
Only way to get buffer states is through a mediated resolution by outside powers.

Best bet is Kentucky and then maybe West Virginia, that is it east of the Mississippi. Missouri maybe but I doubt it.
 
Kentucky, WV, and Eastern TN were distinctly southern but not as pro-secession because they were mountain regions without a slave economy. Missouri didn't have the culture and economy of the Appalachian areas, it was just divided between pro-confederate and pro-union. So I think any buffer state would be limited to east of the Mississippi. Maryland as a buffer state is probably even more unlikely.

A buffer state or group of them in KY, WV, and TN could happen but I think it would eventually be reabsorbed into either the Union or Confederacy. But hey, anything is possible. These areas have proven time and again that they are fiercely independent.
 
Kentucky, WV, and Eastern TN were distinctly southern but not as pro-secession because they were mountain regions without a slave economy. Missouri didn't have the culture and economy of the Appalachian areas, it was just divided between pro-confederate and pro-union. So I think any buffer state would be limited to east of the Mississippi. Maryland as a buffer state is probably even more unlikely.

A buffer state or group of them in KY, WV, and TN could happen but I think it would eventually be reabsorbed into either the Union or Confederacy. But hey, anything is possible. These areas have proven time and again that they are fiercely independent.

WV is impossible, it will either be part of the US or be in the CSA as part of VA. WV was carved out of Virginia and Virginia will take it back unless it is under the protection of the United States. So the area will either be part of the USA or CSA under any scenario even close to OTL.
 
WV is impossible, it will either be part of the US or be in the CSA as part of VA. WV was carved out of Virginia and Virginia will take it back unless it is under the protection of the United States. So the area will either be part of the USA or CSA under any scenario even close to OTL.

Makes sense. So I see Kentucky as the only real possibility of a buffer state. And would it really last on it's own in the long run? One of it's big neighbors would probably just take it back
 
Makes sense. So I see Kentucky as the only real possibility of a buffer state. And would it really last on it's own in the long run? One of it's big neighbors would probably just take it back

Which is basically what happened OTL. The CSA invaded it because they thought no Slave State had the right to remain in the Union.
 
To get a significant buffer state, you might have to change the start of the war.

IIRC, Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina didn't leave until it was obvious that force would be used, possibly that conscription would be, although I'm a bit hazy on that. Some of those states wanted to be 'neutral'. Now, Lincoln wouldn't allow 'neutral' states (partly since a neutral belt would mean that the Union couldn't get military forces to the Confederacy), which forced them into belligerency.

So, a different president with slightly different priorities might let those states remain neutral. This would mean trying to attack the CSA by amphibious descents, which would likely mean the CSA wins indepence, even given that they're weaker than OTL.

Then after the war, neither side wants the 'luke warm' states and will 'spit them out of their mouths'.
:confused:
 
To get a significant buffer state, you might have to change the start of the war.

IIRC, Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina didn't leave until it was obvious that force would be used, possibly that conscription would be, although I'm a bit hazy on that. Some of those states wanted to be 'neutral'. Now, Lincoln wouldn't allow 'neutral' states (partly since a neutral belt would mean that the Union couldn't get military forces to the Confederacy), which forced them into belligerency.

So, a different president with slightly different priorities might let those states remain neutral. This would mean trying to attack the CSA by amphibious descents, which would likely mean the CSA wins indepence, even given that they're weaker than OTL.

Then after the war, neither side wants the 'luke warm' states and will 'spit them out of their mouths'.
:confused:

Certainly not conscription as that didn't happen until about a year after the Confederacy did so.
 
Top