ahc wi Virginia, N Carolina and Tennesse do NOT secede

There was strong opposition in all of those states to leaving the Union. WI they had somehow stayed with the lawful government?

I assume the War is shorter.

I fear that there would be no emancipication proclamation.

Any thoughts?
 
There was strong opposition in all of those states to leaving the Union. WI they had somehow stayed with the lawful government?

I assume the War is shorter.

I fear that there would be no emancipication proclamation.

Any thoughts?

You'd probably have to get the Union to accept their 'neutrality', and that of Kentucky, which means the war has to start with an amphibious landing in South Carolina. And/or a major expedition down the Mississippi without basing in Kentucky. Either of those would increase the Union's military headaches massively.

So, although the South is far weaker, the North isn't a whole lot (or any) stronger (if Virginia refuses conscription, how can it be imposed on New York, say), and war is far harder to prosecute 'at arms length'.

It might not actually be shorter.

As for an Emancipation Proclamation: remember, it didn't apply in Union territory (it didn't free slaves in Maryland, for instance), and wouldn't free slaves in Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina iTTL. Thus, it could still exist - but it would be even more blatantly political and hypocritical. It might possibly do damage to Abolition, rather than supporting it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Worth keeping in mind, however, is that

You'd probably have to get the Union to accept their 'neutrality', and that of Kentucky, which means the war has to start with an amphibious landing in South Carolina. And/or a major expedition down the Mississippi without basing in Kentucky. Either of those would increase the Union's military headaches massively.

So, although the South is far weaker, the North isn't a whole lot (or any) stronger (if Virginia refuses conscription, how can it be imposed on New York, say), and war is far harder to prosecute 'at arms length'.

It might not actually be shorter.

Worth keeping in mind, however, is that (using the "neutral Kentucky in 1861" as a template) "neutrality" will last only as long as it benefits one side or the other, and the US is in a far better place to work the refs, so to speak, in terms of political support for joining the war effort than the rebels would ever be...

Likewise, remember that the two large calls for the troops in 1861 (75,000 mobilized 3-month militia and then 500,000 3-year-volunteers) and the large call in 1862 (300,000 3-year-volunteers) were not conscription; the state-by-state quotas were just that, quotas, and if any border state had fallen short, there were (in 1861-62, at least) more than enough true volunteers from elsewhere in the US to make up the numbers, even if they were serving outside "their" state organizations.

There's also the point that even during the "neutral Kentucky" phase, there were plenty of Kentuckians organizing into "home guard" units that were loyal or rebel in all but name, as well as crossing state lines to volunteer for "Kentucky" units that were directly supported by the US or rebel governments.

If anything, the "neutral" perspective might actually bring more recruits/volunteers to the respective colors, given the political situation inherent in the border states (highly localized mini-civil wars, as in Missouri) and some very useful individuals and resources - as examples, some of the southern-born officers who resigned from active duty in 1861; they may (or may not be) willing to march on Charleston, but they presumably can be made use of on the frontier as proto-galvanized Yankees. Likewise, Nashville (for example) was the second-most industrialized city in the rebel state (after Richmond) which isn't saying much, but still no Tredegar for the rebels; the Harpers' Ferry Arsenal presumably would also remain functional and in operation, which means the US retains control of both HF and Springfield... plus the Norfolk Navy Yard, and unfettered access to Washington, among other useful places.

Finally, don't underestimate the USN and USMM ability to launch and sustain an amphibious operation at a distance in 1861; the DuPont-TW Sherman's Port Royal expedition included more than 12,000 soliders, and the force Goldsborough-Burnside landed at Roanoke early in '62 was larger. Butler's force at New Orleans was smaller (~6,000 troops) but still; there are three divisional-sized efforts in less than a year. Likewise, the US had successfully mounted Scott's expedition to Veracruz, as well, so its not like the USN and AUS were making it up in 1861-62. They had a doctrine and practical experience.

My bet is the rebellion would be over, in any practical sense, by the fall of 1863.

Best,
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
Would the deep South even rebel at this point? I mean they have lost what little industry they did have OTL and a massive chunk of manpower and experienced officers as well as losing about a third of the population since the population of Virginia was 1.2 million, Tennessee was 1 million, and North Carolina was .9 million out of a confederate population of 9 million, especially damning when you realize these are the white majority states.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, the deep south states already had;

Well, the deep south states already had; South Carolina in 1860, in fact...

Best,
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
Well, the deep south states already had; South Carolina in 1860, in fact...

Best,

True, but would it still have come to hostilities of the Civil War? Since it could have been peacefully resolved before Fort Sumter would the deep south see that with no real backing by the more powerful border states they are guaranteed to lose any war, will some of them, not SC at first, try to say just kidding or make more of a political stunt and fold back into the Union and make the best of it?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Those three states were the top three suppliers of manpower to the Confederate army. Virginia also provided the three most important logistical facilities to the Confederacy: the Norfolk Navy Yard, the Tredegar Iron Works, and the Harper's Ferry Armory. Virginia also provided the South's most talented generals and its chief supply of salt (critical for preserving meat).

The Confederacy will not last beyond the summer of 1862.
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
Lee becomes Major General when Winston Scott dies and Lee captures Mexico City in a brilliant move. He proceeds to retire after he was part of the group that destroyed Brown's riot, in which 98 men took over a federal armory in 1853. In 1854, Lee ran for and won a Senatorship in Virginia. He stepped down in 1858, being succeeded by his son, George W. C. Lee. In 1860, he ran for and won the Presidency with "Stonewall" Jackson as his Vice President.

Jackson got this nickname from his silence in arguments followed by a quick and clever comeback. He would win many negotiations this way and eventually lead the negotiations with the Confederacy. He was the one who convinced Lee to appoint U. S. Grant as Major General and Commander-in-Chief. Lee and he had won 53% of the vote in North Carolina, 79% in Virginia, 56% in Tennessee, and 61% in Arkansas, these being the only Southern states the anti-slavery duo won.

In 1864, Lee didn't run again, being tired of the hard work. Instead, Lincoln ran and won, resulting in the southernmost states seceding. However, Lee and Jackson toured Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia, preventing their secession. In fact, though Tennessee and North Carolina only raised 3,000 troops between them, Virginia and Arkansas raised 11,000 and 8,000 respectively. Lee would be elected President again in 1872, when Lincoln retired. Stonewall would become President in 1888 and serve until 1900, when he died.

Lee and Jackson would both support William Jennings Bryan, who would become President in 1900. He established the Governor General positions of the North, the South, and the West. To this day, it is maintained that evolution could have taken hold in America if not for Lee's success in the Mexican-American War.
 
IMO the only way for Lincoln to avoid the secession of Virginia and the "Middle South" (Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) is to abandon Fort Sumter. It is *possible* that he would have done so if he had received word in time that Fort Pickens had been successfully reinforced; see my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/9GdLp2-QxyQ/8alnFwKmVfUJ

Essentially, the politicians in the states in question were divided into three groups. The first were those who even before Fort Sumter favored secession. The second were the unconditional Unionists. The third were those who opposed secession for now, but only as long as the federal government did not "coerce'" those states which had seceded. I believe that in each state in question the first and third groups combined had a majority. So really, the only way Lincoln could have prevented the secession of Virginia and the Middle South was to acquiesce, at least *de facto*, in the secession of the Lower South (with only Fort Pickens remaining as a token symbol of federal authority). But that in turn *also* raised the possibility that Virginia and the Middle South would eventually secede because in that case Lincoln would have pretty much conceded that the Confederacy was here to stay, and that no force would be used against those who joined it...

In short, I just don't think it could be done.
 
Not to take away anything from your argument, but I have to ask; what's with the "Middle South" distinction, especially since that term has a very...unique definition that probably doesn't apply here? It's not like Virginia's a non-Southern state either, and we do have a term for those states collectively.
 
Not to take away anything from your argument, but I have to ask; what's with the "Middle South" distinction, especially since that term has a very...unique definition that probably doesn't apply here? It's not like Virginia's a non-Southern state either, and we do have a term for those states collectively.


Middle South =/= "Mid-South"
Upper South (also called the "Border South") =/= "Upland South"


For a classification which puts Virginia as well as NC, TN, and AR in the "Middle South", see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/review/Foner.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Middle South =/= "Mid-South"
Upper South (also called the "Border South") =/= "Upland South"


For a classification which puts Virginia as well as NC, TN, and AR in the "Middle South", see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/review/Foner.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Oh, so you were doing a three-way split Dixie, with Virginia in the Middle category with Tennessee and Arkansas, and below Maryland and Kentucky? I've never really seen that model pushed forward, although I can accept that given the subject at hand. Sorry to be pedantic, I'm just somewhat finicky of VA's status in such discussions (given my user title :p). And yeah, much of the potential for the Middle South to stay in the Union depends on how much loyalty resting with the Cooperationists, and how much lies with actual Loyalists such as they were.
 
Not to take away anything from your argument, but I have to ask; what's with the "Middle South" distinction, especially since that term has a very...unique definition that probably doesn't apply here? It's not like Virginia's a non-Southern state either, and we do have a term for those states collectively.

The "South" in 1860 could be divided into three regions, with distinct demographic, economic, and political characteristics.

The Deep South consisted of SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX. All these states except TX had over 40% slave populations; they had lucrative slave-based plantation agriculture; and by 1860 were the most inclined to secession. (TX is a bit of an anomaly; while it had a lower slave population, its white population were very heavily drawn from the eastern Deep South and shared its attitudes.)

The Upper South was AR, TN, NC, and VA. These states had from 20% to 33% slaves and a more mixed economy. The Whig Party had been much stronger here than in the Deep South.

The Border States were DE, MD, KY, and MO. They had much smaller slave populations (20% or less). VA was actually a Border State (in its western areas, it bordered on Ohio and Pennsylvania), but it was politically dominated by the Tidewater region which had a high proportion of slaves and slaveowners.

In the Deep South there were majorities for immediate, unconditional secession - or at least, public feeling was evenly split and the militant pro-slavery secessionists had their way, by intimidation and election-cooking as needed.

In the Upper South, there was deep reluctance to embrace secession, but ultimately the political elite there was pro-slavery to the point of secession. So when push came to shove, these states declared secession.

In the Border States, Union sentiment was dominant. Virginia's sentiments differed enough by region to divide the state.
 
Well, you do have points. However, some of that I'd take exception to, such as TX being overwhelmingly from the eastern Deep South (the Texasdeutsche of the Hill Country, and the Tejanos, or the likes of Virginian Sam Houston would disagree). And while Virginia did have a border with Ohio and Pennsylvania, said terrain wasn't easily traverse-able and didn't see all that much cross-border influence in terms of language, cuisine, music, etc. beyond the deep mountains, so I wouldn't call Virginia back then a border state except in the absolute strictest geographical sense (especially since West Virginia wasn't as Unionist as often reported, though the region was lost to the Confederacy quite early since they were closer to the center of Union strength than East Tennessee or North Alabama).
 
Top