A smaller West Virginia?

Many people have an oversimplfied idea of the origins of West Virginia--"well, of course those mountaineers had no use for slavery or secession." In fact, while in 1861 there was very strong pro-Union sentiment in Northwest Virginia, there were also pro-secessionists in much of the area that later became West Virginia. The best study of this is Richard Orr Curry, *A House Divided: A Study of Statehood Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia* (University of Pittsburgh Press 1964).

Curry points out that it is important to distinguish between Northwestern Virginia, Southwestern Virginia, and the Shenandoah Valley. There had indeed been a time when all three of these regions had been united against the slaveholders of eastern Virginia. The goals of the West at that time had been universal white manhood sufffrage, popular election of the governor (and of judges, etc.), abolition of the governor's council, increased representation in the General Assembly, and an end to tax discrimination in favor of slave property. By 1830, the Valley had deserted the west, politically; and the Tran-Allegheny Southwest folllowed suit over the next few decades, leaving the Northwest as the only true "west." Partly, this was because slavery was taking root in these areas (especially the Valley) more than in the Northwest; also because internal improvements linked the Valley and the Southwest to the rest of Virginia.

Not only did the Northwest not get any program of internal improvements comparable to the Valley or the Southwest but such improvements as she *did* get, such as the Cumberland Road and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (the latter was hampered at every turn by the Virginia legislature and did not reach Wheeling until 1852) tended to link her to the North, not the South. Furthermore, the rivers of the area flowed westward into the Ohio, which encouraged trade with the Northwest, not the South. And of course slavery was not likely to flourish in a cold, mountainous area. Finally, not only did places like Wheeling become industrial centers, but they got a considerable Northern migration.

Thus far, Curry agrees with the traditional or "pro-Union" account of the origins of West Virginia. But he emphasizes an often-neglected point: West Virginia included a large number of Southwestern and Valley counties, and even Northwestern counties were not *all* against secession. He argues that the vote was about 30,000 to 10,000 against secession in northwestern Virginia but 9,000 to 4,000 for it in the other areas of the future West Virginia--which btw in terms of area (as distinguished from population) made up a majority of the state. The counties he gives as favoring secession are Logan, Boone, Wyoming, Mac Dowell, Mercer, Raleigh, Monroe, Greenbrier, Fayette, Nicholas, Clay, Roane, Calhoun, Gilmore, Braxton, Webster, Pocahontas, Randolph, Barbour, Tucker, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, and Jefferson. (The present-day counties of Mingo, Grant, and Mineral did not yet exist; they were within pro-secesionist counties.)

So, while the creation of a West Virginia was logical, it was by no means inevitable that it should have its current borders. Half the counties and at least 36 percent of the population of what was to be West Virginia favored secession. Moreover, pro-Southern sympathies in some counties may have eventually become stronger than the vote indicates. Some Valley counties along the upper Potomac, though they had considerable numbers of slaves and were demographically similar to the counties that elsewhere in Virginia favored secession, voted against secession for "practical" reasons--they knew that if a civil war was coming, it would be fought on their soil. But if the war had to come, their sympathies would be with the Confederacy. (For example, Berkeley County voted against secession, but furnished at least 400 Confederate troops as opposed to 200 Union soldiers.) A West Virginia confined to the counties which actually opposed secession would be an interesting what-if. It would have been much more Republican and much more "northern" in orientation than the West Virginia of OTL, which was Democratic for decades after the Civil War--once the test oaths were removed--due to a coalition of ex-Confederates and ex-Copperheads.

Interestingly, at the 1861 Wheeling convention, John Carlile argued for a state of "New Virginia" that would not have included the Southwestern or Valley counties. The proper boundaries of the new state were also a subject of much debate at the 1863 constitutional convention.

Any thoughts?
 

EMTSATX

Banned
@David T

First thanks for the article.

My family has been in WV basically since the ACW (we are from Logan County, near KY.) Both sides supported and fought for the CSA. What they did hate was the Tidewater aristocracy treating them like serfs. WV has suffered basically been a third world nation it's start. Outside interests coming in and treating the native population horribly and taking our mineral wealth.

I really do not see the whole thinking of Slavery is horrible and we can't accept that! I would think that it was a minor thing. I believe it to be economic in nature.
 
There was a SCOTUS case after the Civil War in which Virginia sued to declare the WV secession unconstitutional. A POD could be that SCOTUS declares any which way you want for your ATL. The panhandle is given back to VA or even the entire state of WV is.
 
There was a SCOTUS case after the Civil War in which Virginia sued to declare the WV secession unconstitutional. A POD could be that SCOTUS declares any which way you want for your ATL. The panhandle is given back to VA or even the entire state of WV is.

Very unlikely, the thought of the vast majority of Northerners at the time was "Treason must be punished and loyalty must be rewarded." Virginia lost the vote 6-3 so two justices would have had to switched which was unlikely. The South had little influence in the USSC as most of its members were appointed by Lincoln, Johnson or Grant. Johnson, despite his flaws, was a pretty solid Unionist. Virginia was pretty much doomed to lose the case.
 
Very unlikely, the thought of the vast majority of Northerners at the time was "Treason must be punished and loyalty must be rewarded." Virginia lost the vote 6-3 so two justices would have had to switched which was unlikely. The South had little influence in the USSC as most of its members were appointed by Lincoln, Johnson or Grant. Johnson, despite his flaws, was a pretty solid Unionist. Virginia was pretty much doomed to lose the case.


Johnson didn't get to make any appointments, as Congress temporarily reduced the number of Associate Justices, to ensure that no vacancy arose during his term.

It's an interesting speculation as to what would have happened had Chief Justice Taney lived another year. Would Congress have left America without a CJ until 1869, or would they have held their noses and accepted a Johnson nominee? If the latter, any thoughts on who it might have been? And if the former, who would have presided at Johnson's trial?
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
In my TL it either doesn't exist or consists of the four most northerly counties of pre-war Virginia. That's largely a function of the CSA giving up the Delmarva, though - they could also have had a "pick a size" small WV staying with the Union if they'd insisted on the Delmarva.
 

Towelie

Banned
Maryland had a significant pro-South portion of the state as well. West Virginia owes its borders to the concept of might makes right. Just as Maryland was put under occupation almost immediately, West Virginia as we now know it, by the end of 1861, was more or less controlled by the Union, and Confederate efforts to change this were small scale raids at most.

The panhandle, for example, was probably pro Rebel, as were some of the counties on the eastern border of the state. And the votes for secession from VA at the Second Wheeling Convention itself often had insanely low turnout and shockingly high support for forming a new state in some of the easternmost counties.

But in general, I don't think that you can dismiss the repeated plebiscites taken regarding the new constitution. freedom of blacks, etc, which had significantly less electoral shenanigans than the initial referendum. There seemed to be genuine support for abandoning the eastern part of the State, and there probably had been for some time because of the obvious imbalance of power between east and west.

To get a smaller West Virginia, you need the Confederacy to militarily hold onto significant portions of the state. Holding the panhandle counties might be militarily difficult, but holding some parts of the south east of what is now WV shouldn't be too challenging.
 
Top