AHC & WI: All the Border States try to Secede Along with the South

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
The challenge is to have all the border states attempt to secede with the South. Even if one or more of the border states fail to secede, the OTL CSA must succeed. For the purposes of this thread, the border states are defined as:

Delaware
Kentucky
Maryland
Missouri

It can be due to a different president elect, different court decisions or whatever other factors you can fathom. POD can be as early as 1840 and the attempted secession can take place when you like.

Secondly, how does it affect the course of an *ACW if there still is one and how does post-secession history play out?
 
Last edited:

Simreeve

Rush Tarquin said:
The challenge is to have all the border states attempt to secede with the South. Even if one or more of the border states fail to secede, the OTL CSA must succeed. For the purposes of this thread, the border states are defined as:

Delaware
Kentucky
Maryland
Missouri

It can be due to a different president elect, different court decisions or whatever other factors you can fathom. POD can be as early as 1840 and the attempted secession can take place when you like.

Secondly, how does it affect the course of an *ACW if there still is one and how does post-secession history play out?
Click to expand...
If Maryland secedes then the federal goverrnment at Washington DC finds itself in an "interesting" situation... :D
 

Rich Rostrom

TheOtherSasquatch said:
All of them did (operative word being "try to"), except for Delaware.
Click to expand...

Neo-Confederate tripe.

Maryland never held a secession convention, nor ever tried to. In the wake of the Baltimore riots in April 1861, the Maryland legislature held a special session. The session was held in Frederick, because the state capitol, Annapolis, was occupied by Union troops (as an alternative route to Washington). In Frederick, with no Union troops around, the legislature voted that it did not have the authority to declare secession, and voted not to call a secession convention.

Kentucky never held a secession convention, nor ever tried to. Governor Magoffin declared neutrality for the state in April 1861. Nothing else happened until Confederate troops marched in and occupied Columbus, on the Mississippi. Then the legislature voted a resolution calling on the U.S. government "to expel the invaders". The Kentucky State Guard, commanded by secessionist officers, marched south and joined up with another Confederate army at Bowling Green. During the winter of 1861-1862, Guard officers and other pro-secession Kentuckians formed a self-appointed convention and voted a secession resolution. This can hardly be taken as an action of the state.

Missouri held a secession convention in early 1861, which voted against secession and adjourned sine die. Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson then conspired to bring about secession by a sort of coup d'état. He stationed Missouri State Guards, under crypto-secessionist officers, just outside St. Louis. At Jackson's request, the Confederates secretly provided artillery. Their plan was to seize control of St. Louis and announce secession as a fait accompli.

This conspiracy was thwarted by the U.S. Army commander in Missouri, General Nathaniel Lyon. He surrounded the State Guard camp with U.S. regulars and the "Home Guard", an unofficial militia of Union-loyal Missourians, and took them all prisoners. The Missouri legislature was in session in Jefferson City, and a proclamation of secession was mooted. It was rejected on the grounds that the legislature had delegated that power to the now adjourned convention.

Lyon then marched on Jefferson City. Jackson and some secessionist officials and legislators fled; the rest of the legislature stayed behind, proclaimed Jackson and his followers traitors, and named a new governor.

Jackson's group fled to Arkansas, pursued by Lyon. After Lyon was defeated at Wilson's Creek, Jackson's group returned to SW Missouri held a "legislative session" and voted a secession resolution. This can hardly be taken as an action of the state.
 

Rich Rostrom

Rush Tarquin said:
The challenge is to have all the border states attempt to secede with the South.
Even if one or more of the border states fail to secede, the OTL CSA must succeed. For the purposes of this thread, the border states are defined as:

Delaware
Kentucky
Maryland
Missouri

It can be due to a different president elect, different court decisions or whatever other factors you can fathom. POD can be as early as 1840 and the attempted secession can take place when you like.
Click to expand...

If there is a weaker President in 1860, who does not resist secession, then eventually all the slave states will declare secession, rather than remain in the Union with all the slavery-hostile free states. Delaware is a possible exception.
 

Hollis Hurlbut

If Maryland managed to secede before the start of Lincoln's term, presumably Buchanan would do nothing. Confederate forces could surround the capital. In these circumstances it's doubtful whether Lincoln could even reach the capital, much less assume the presidency there. More likely federal institutions relocate to Phadelphia or New York City, while the capital itself secedes to become part of the Confederacy. The north begins to look like an abolitionist rump whose government has been surprised by a coup. Secession conventions in other border states will likely favor "southern union" over an alliance with a remote Yankee government-in-exile. With the capital and the border states lost, the best that Lincoln can do is maintain order in the north and prevent any western territories from seceding. A major war is unlikely, but there may be proxy wars in the west. By capturing the capital the south can claim some sort of continuity with the United States, or at least muddy the waters in order to appeal to foreign observers. Foreign nations are less hesitant to support the south in view of the ignominious flight of the northern government, which appears incompetent and discredited.
 

Hollis Hurlbut

Rush Tarquin said:
Wait, why would that cause the border states to secede?
Click to expand...

Garibaldi demanded the abolition of slavery as a precondition of his serving the Union. This ruled him out, because Lincoln would not consider abolishing slavery at the outset of the war. Doing so would have driven the border states to join the Confederacy, a disaster which would greatly outweigh any advantage gained by Garibaldi's service.
 

Dom Pedro III

I would say that the only way to get the border states to secede is to make them feel as threatened as the Southern states did. So that might mean a Radical Republican getting the nomination over Lincoln and winning in 1860. The problem is that it's hard to see how a Radical Republican could actually win the election.

One way might be if Britain and America stumble into war in the 1840's over the Oregon Territory and the US annexes all of Canada. Canadian states then might just tip the balance enough for a Radical to win the White House as well as providing more abolitionist Congressmen. But such a war is itself improbable, and even if it happened, the outcomes are even less certain. It might have meant a two-front war for the United States against both Britain and Mexico, which would've been much harder to win.

EDIT:
I'm also not sure how much this improves the Confederacy's chances either. The US and CSA had very different objectives. People often point out how much more industrialized and populated the North was, but they still had the harder task of occupying hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory. All the CSA had to do to achieve their goal was to not lose.

The Peace Democrats were an important part of whittling down US resolve to continue fighting. With fewer Border States in Congress, there would have been fewer voices opposing the continuation of the war. It would've provided greater solidarity for the states still in the Union, and considering that these states would've been very quickly overrun by Federal forces, the Confederacy would have had little material gain or denial of resources to the Union.
 
Last edited:

ProfJets

Dom Pedro III said:
The Peace Democrats were an important part of whittling down US resolve to continue fighting. With fewer Border States in Congress, there would have been fewer voices opposing the continuation of the war. .
Click to expand...

Most of the Members of Congress for the border states were "Unconditional Unionists," basically War Democrats. So actually the secession of the border states wouldn't undermine the Peace Democrats; if anything they'd be a larger percentage of the even smaller House and Senate.

You could perhaps get Kentucky to secede if Polk doesn't invade in 1861; maybe later on in the war, with stalemate in Virginia, the Federals decide to invade Kentucky so as to expand the war, seeking advantage in the west. Then I could imagine the fleeing Kentucky Legislature voting to secede and join the Confederacy.

Maryland and Missouri (and Kentucky) might also secede if its a Radical like Fremont who wins in 1860; especially if (as seems likely) Fremont was trigger-happy on emancipation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top