AHC free state joins the Confederacy

Its probably time for this given some of the other threads. What are the most plausible and minimal changes in history to make to get a state that has abolished slavery, and stays that way, to secede from the USA and join the CSA?
 
- Kansas is invaded and occupied by Confederate forces, remove the "illegitimate" free state governor, and restore the Lecompton Constitution, and the pro slavery minority takes control of the state and joins the CSA.

- Utah War causes the Mormons to be removed from power in Utah and polygamy is outlawed. Utah becomes a Free State in 1861 but the Mormons use the Civil War as an opportunity to revolt and join the CSA under the condition that the CSA doesn't interfere with Utah's religious beliefs.

- Pro South West Virginians take control of their state and rejoin Virginia.
 
New York considered doing so, IIRC.

I don't really see that happening, though - not for very long, anyway.
That was Fernando Wood's idea, to have New York City (which at that time was just Manhattan and the Bronx) secede from the state so it could keep trading cotton with the confederates. Tammany Hall was weird. Can't say it would have worked, New York would have been blockaded just as quickly as the South was (not that it would matter anyways, Southern Cotton isn't getting past the blockade...), and Wood's political career would have been over much sooner.
 
That was Fernando Wood's idea, to have New York City (which at that time was just Manhattan and the Bronx) secede from the state so it could keep trading cotton with the confederates. Tammany Hall was weird. Can't say it would have worked, New York would have been blockaded just as quickly as the South was (not that it would matter anyways, Southern Cotton isn't getting past the blockade...), and Wood's political career would have been over much sooner.
Wasn't it also an narrative of the Draft riots while they radicalized ?
 
No northern state seriously considered joining the Confederacy (Fernando Wood's scheme--which had little chance of success anyway-- was to make New York City a "free city" not part of either the Union or the Confederacy). Theoretically, however, it would be possible for a "free state" to join the Confederacy. To quote an old post of mine:

***

Technically speaking, the Confederate Constitution did not deny the states the right to abolish slavery. Yes, it says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" but that is in the context of the portion of Article I which deals with the powers of Congress, not of the states.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp When the Confederate Constitution wants to limit the powers of the states, it uses language specifically referring to the states: "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility." Note that this passage does not say anything about the "right of property in negro slaves."

However, while a Confederate state could forbid its own citizens from owning slaves, it could not forbid citizens of other Confederate states from "transit or sojourn" in the state with their slaves: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp#a4 "Transit" implies something short-term but "sojourn" can last for a long time as long as you do not announce your intention to become a permanent resident of the state. What the Confederate Constitution did here was to make explicit a "right" (like the right to take slaves into the territories) which southerners believed was already present in the US Constitution; and as the Dred Scott decision had supported their position on the territorial issue, the US Supreme Court, had the ACW not broken out, would probably have supported their position on this issue. As I wrote some time ago, " What was more likely and more insidious was the possibility that the court would establish slavery in the North gradually by first recognizing slaveholders' rights briefly to pass through northern states with their human "property" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmon_v._New_York and then step by step expanding that right to one of staying there with the slaves indefinitely--and perhaps even buying and selling them. (The issue was often spoken of as the slaveholder's right of "transit or sojourn." "Transit" might seem to imply a short presence in the free states on the way to a slave state; but "sojourn" could mean virtually indefinite presence of slaveholders and their slaves in northern states, just as long as the slaveholders do not declare an intention to become permanent residents--remember that John Emerson with his slave Dred Scott had "sojourned" in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for years...)" https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...r-of-northern-secession.471503/#post-19648288

It would therefore technically be possible for free states to join the Confederacy (subject to "transit or sojourn" etc.). Indeed, some Confederate leaders did hope to lure nonslaveholding states into the Confederacy--to (in effect) make the Confederacy the "new" or "real" United States, with the "fanatical" New England states (and perhaps Upstate New York if New York City seceded from the state of New York) left out. Others however feared this would just mean re-creating the slavery issue on Confederate soil--and partly for that reason, it was made harder to admit states into the Confederacy than it had been to the United States. ("Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States...")
 
Last edited:
Potential Idea: If we postpone railroad development in the US, the Midwest would be even more connected to the Mississippi/South than otl... Possibly atl worse economic strain would force the Midwest to secede then join the CSA later on.
 
That would be the mythical 'Midwest Confederacy' . There are probably a number of POD's that can create other divisions of the USA than OTL CSA vs USA (see Wilkinson, James or Burr, Aaron). But no POD can result in non-slave holding states joining an explicitly slaveocracy CSA. And the OTL CSA was a slaveocracy!
 
The idea of a CSA-friendly Northwest Confederacy is of course not the same thing as that of a northern state joining the CSA but is almost equally unrealistic. I had an old soc.history.what-post on it at https://soc.history.what-if.narkive.com/c4pjYslL/what-would-it-take#post7

***

And then there was also talk during the ACW of a Northwest Confederacy ("Northwest" here referring to the Old Northwest) that would make a separate peace with the Southern Confederacy:

"In Butternut regions of the Midwest, economic grievances reinforced the cultural attitudes of people descended from southern settlers. The war had cut off their normal trade routes along the Mississippi and its tributaries, forcing them into dependence on Yankee railroads and canals feeding an east-west pattern of trade. Real and imaginary grievances against high rates and poor service on these routes exacerbated the hostility of Butternuts toward New Englanders whom they charged with controlling their destiny through manipulation of Congress as well as the economy. 'Shall we sink down as serfs to the heartless, speculative Yankees,' asked an Ohio editor, 'swindled by his tariffs, robbed by his taxes, skinned by his railroad monopolies?'

"This sense of Butternut identity with the South and hostility to the Northeast gave rise to talk among western Democrats of a 'Northwest Confederacy' that would reconstruct a Union with the South, leaving New England out in the cold until she confessed the error of her ways and humbly petitioned for readmission. However bizarre such a scheme appears in retrospect, it commanded much rhetorical support during the war. 'The people of the West demand peace, and they begin to more than suspect that New England is in the way,' warned Vallandigham in January 1863. 'If you in the East, who have found this war against the South, and for the negro, gratifying to your hate or profitable to your purse, will continue it. . . [be prepared for] *eternal divorce between the West and the East.*' Though less extreme than Vallandigham, Congressman Samuel S. Cox of Ohio agreed that 'the erection of the states watered by the Mississippi and its tributaries into an independent Republic is the talk of every other western man.' This threat to reopen the Mississippi by a separate peace generated General McClernand's proposal to reopen it with his separate campaign against Vicksburg. The whole issue lent an urgency to Grant's efforts to capture Vicksburg and a bitter edge to criticism of his initial failures to do so." James M. Mac Pherson, *Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era*, p. 593.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-u...n51&sig=_sy0BupY-iL1L5zG-m9m0H6ckhg#PPA593,M1

For one Southern formulation of this idea, see the article "A Northwest Confederacy" in http://books.google.com/books?id=jqYKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA59

"[A letter] by a southern planter, published in the Chattanooga Daily Rebel, attracted considerable attention. It outlined the plan of those who would nurture a new secession in the United States. The document is here reprinted entire as a type of the point of view of those in the south who were looking to the Northwest with hope.

"Hon. H. S. Foote, Richmond:

"DEAR SIR:- Your efforts to suggest some plan by which the war might be shortened have been praiseworthy. So little had been indicated north of the Ohio river that it left every move open to serious objections.

"Time and efforts produce by the valor of our troops, seem to have given existence to a sentiment which deserves a watchful attention from statesmen of the South.

"This sentiment is found among the agricultural interests in the 'Northern' Valley of the Mississippi river, and mainly among the old Democrats of that region. We occupy a position now, and have always done so, that we could not make proposals to the Lincoln Government. That is the true position still. To that, we bid defiance; but to the legislatures of Indiana and Illinois, and other states of the Northern Valley of the Mississippi, which may come to their conclusions, I hold a different policy to be correct. We should meet their resolutions with all the concessions which we can consistently make in trade and general commerce, including, of course, the free navigation of the Mississippi river, upon conditions thus:

"1st. Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Minnesota, and perhaps Ohio, shall form the 'Northern Confederacy'.
"2d. Both Confederacies, 'Southern' and 'Northern', to be politically independent. All the slave states to belong to the 'Southern onfederacy.'
"3d. A league between the two, offensive and defensive, and runaway slaves to be returned; the navigation of the Mississippi river and free trade, and 'imports' at our tariff.

"Advantages to both 'Confederacies,' The 'Southern Confederacy' obtains peace. A strong Ally in War and protection to slavery. Her independence acknowledged by the Northern Confederacy, which will be be sufficient. She obtains for her seabord cities the importations for both Confederacies, and their freight on her rivers and railroads.

"The 'Northern Confederacy' gets rid of the responsibility of slavery. It may assume whatever portion of the immense war debt now existing, they may decide upon.

"It secures importations at our low tariff. It secures its former marketin the South for its agricultural productions and the same use of the great Mississippi river. Its political independence gives position and place to its rising statesmen. Its topography and unity of pursuit, institutions and labor; secure harmony and legislation, and promise great prosperity. The two together secure the adjacent territories, a very important point; as they cannot be united to the remnant of the old United States, lying East; including New England which brought on the war. The two Confederacies would become the great 'powers' of the American Continent.

"The 'Southern Confederacy,' based upon slave labor, would always preponderate in intellect; and would control.

"I present this to your well stored, prolific mind, as an outline of what may come out of a wise course in eeting the sentiment of the 'North West', heretobefore alluded to.

"It is true they have fought us; invaded our country; and wronged us terribly; but that is done,and cannot be recalled. It is a matter of incalculable advantage to our Confederacy--to stop the sacrifice of life, and of some importance to limit the debt, and restore our citizens to their homes. Concession can be made to the 'Northern Confederacy' formed of the States named; which will stop the war and will benefit us at the same time. As a cotton planter, and slave owner, I would greatly prefer the league, on the terms mentioned, to separate independence, with the enemy of that people, to the institution of slavery. As soon as they are disconnected from slavery, it will cease to be discussed, everywhere.

"If we are not strong, it may generate another war. The League gives great strength. Under this league, can be embraced what they mean by reconstruction. That is, their position will be as good, or better than before.and 22 States will be in the league instead of 33. But the New England States, New Jersey, Delaware, &c., are of no importance to them. They have secured the market and trade, and for these they were fighting; and are also politically disconnected from slavery. Indeed they thus obtained all they are contending for. They say they are not fighting to free the slaves. We obtain all we are contending for.

"I find ultra men, unwilling to do anything, but fight on. They are not in the army, I have been with the army since its organization. I know the opinion and sentiment of the army. They have suffered sufficiently, and desire peace.

"If the North-west are met on the basis proposed herein, I think we will enter the wedge which will sunder the present authorities conducting the war. Lincoln will carry on the war during his administration, if he can get the support of these states. We then should be on the alert, and if possible, deprive him of this portion of his army. The balance we can whip, very soon, if necessary. We can conquer a peace from them; but that will not be necessary. If Indiana and Illinois withdraw the war will close. With these proposals before them, they won't fight longer. The other States named will follow, or some of them at least.

"If this be neglected on our part, the leading men may be offered positions, which would neutralize their efforts.

"These States are a part of the Mississippi Valley and their true alliance is with the South. They are an agricultural people, and so are we; but their products are different from ours, and hence the advantages in a commercial league.

"Negotiations must begin sometime--fighting alone won't adjust a difficulty.

"I have seen so little of the proceedings of Congress, that I am ignorant of what has been discussed.

"The prominent idea is this. We make no proposition to the Government, but we should put in some shape what we will do with certain States, so as to induce them to cease waring."

As the same article notes, some Southerners were a bit more realistic: "Of all the humbugs of the age", one southern iconoclast wrote, "this Northwestern hobby is the most absurd, and at the same time the most dangerous. Newspapers, having exhausted themselves on the European intervention, are now trying to raise our hopes by the promise of a new alliance." Indeed, the extreme Peace Democrats who floated the idea of a Northwest Confederacy were probably not even a majority of the Democracy of the Northwest, let alone of the Northwest as a whole. Of course a much better military showing by the Confederacy could conceivably make the idea more popular in the Northwest, but to see the idea as a *substitute* for further Confederate victories on the battlefield (rather than as a possible if unlikely *result* of them) was unrealistic. However, the Indiana and Illinois legislatures had been won by the Democrats in 1862, and many of these Democrats were calling for the US government to hold a peace conference with the Confederates; in the minds of some Southerners, there was not much of a step from that to the Northwest holding a *separate* peace conference if Lincoln turned down the idea.
 
Potential Idea: If we postpone railroad development in the US, the Midwest would be even more connected to the Mississippi/South than otl... Possibly atl worse economic strain would force the Midwest to secede then join the CSA later on.

Later development of rail road lines running through Chicago would hurt the Union's economy, but the Midwest would still stay in the Union. The Midwest was linked to the North by the canal system, and financial credit markets. But the basic reason was that the population was made up of mostly Northerners, and Immigrants who were opposed to slavery. It would make the Mississippi Campaign even more important. Even today the river traffic on the Mississippi, and it's tributaries is massive. The United States could never allow any potential enemy, foreign or domestic to control the lower Mississippi River, or it's mouth at New Orleans.
 
Top