Reggie and John, could you two take whatever argument you had from before this thread (something about plantations) elsewhere?
Arkansas in a CS-Victory
- Thread starter Wolfpaw
- Start date
BlondieBC
Banned
I can't rule that out, but it was not what was done to West Virginia. Come to think of it, North Arkansas is the most likely name.
Quite possibly, but they get ONLY what they are sitting on unless they trade something for it or it is completely militarily untenable for the Union to keep it. They won't get KY unless it is REAL early as KY went fairly fast. If a large number of Union troops are sitting in KY the CSA WON'T get it.
67th Tigers
Banned
The rump Union will have to deal with international law. They can't simply elect to occupy large swathes of what is now a foreign country without consequence.
The 11 states, complete, are not up for negotiation. If that puts a number of "tories" inside the CSA then so be it. A good situation for the rump USA is one where Maryland and Kentucky remain.
The 11 states, complete, are not up for negotiation. If that puts a number of "tories" inside the CSA then so be it. A good situation for the rump USA is one where Maryland and Kentucky remain.
Snake Featherston
Banned
So West Virginia in your view doesn't qualify as Union territory despite the majority of the population wanting that? What about East Tennessee or Northern Arkansas? How do we define the Confederacy when the majority of the inhabitants of a region don't want to be Confederates?
I take it you're unfamiliar with the British Empire.
If the Union can take and hold the territory, then can keep it. Just like Britain and France and every other nation in human history.
Where does "international law" come into it?
The US and the CS are at war. So where the boundary between them shall lie is something for the peace conference to settle. The CS has no automatic right to the status quo ante bellum.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Indeed, otherwise that would be the "original *Seven* states", not the 11 who only entered during the war.
Somehow I'm not surprised that 67th got his chronology wrong.Also what does anyone DO about it? The UK is not going to start or continue a war depending on where the US/CS boundry is! All it would care about is the resumption of the cotton trade.
It will depend on the circumstances of the peace to see where the ultimate borders fall. If the CSA and USA work it out among themselves and it's not 1864 the CSA is likely to get all of their original 11 states and likely the Indian Territory as well with at least some argument about Kentucky. West Virginia would also be contentious as several of the counties in the central and southern area *supported* secession, so you *might* get Charleston as a capital of Western Virginia with only a fraction the area of the current state, mostly along the Ohio and Potomac rivers. Again, the circumstances of the peace will determine the borders.
Note: If the UK and France get involved it is to the advantage of the CSA, especially as the UK would be interested in knocking down the USA a bit to prevent a rival from emerging sooner rather than later. If the UK gets involved militarily over something like the Trent affair or throws a blockade around the Union she will exact some toll in exchange, whether the state of Maine and generous CSA borders or some other form of humiliation for the US. What "generous" means in this case is varied - it depends on on time frame, military situation at time of peace, and individual viewpoints.
Note: If the UK and France get involved it is to the advantage of the CSA, especially as the UK would be interested in knocking down the USA a bit to prevent a rival from emerging sooner rather than later. If the UK gets involved militarily over something like the Trent affair or throws a blockade around the Union she will exact some toll in exchange, whether the state of Maine and generous CSA borders or some other form of humiliation for the US. What "generous" means in this case is varied - it depends on on time frame, military situation at time of peace, and individual viewpoints.
Last edited:
Strange. In any other war, these kinds of issues are decided at the peace negotiations between combatants and usually reflect battlefield reality.
The greater power sometimes chooses to be grant concessions it doesn't need to, but only if they have good reason.
Welcome to the real world where the CSA will get whatever land it is sitting on. The Union neither has to or will give up any land it is sitting on. The UK has as much chance at taking and holding Maine as it does Mars. 1862 is NOT 1815. In 1815 the US was a minor power in 1862 it had the second largest industrial production on the planet. GB can send and supply maybe 50,000 troops, no more. That will be chewed up and spit out by the US which had a larger population than GB itself had by that time. US troops have an easy time of moving by rail and are in good shape logistically being hooked up entirely by rail and getting its railroad equipment and other supplies straight from the factory. GB will have to ship most of its railroad equipment and other supplies thousands of miles and their troops will be at the end of a long and tenuous supply line. Direct naval intervention would be expensive and somewhat bloody. Actual invasion would be EXTREMELY expensive, controversial and bloody. The British government had NO desire to fight a third land war against the US when it gained absolutely nothing but corpses and debt the first two times.
A lot depends on why the US is agreeing to a compromise peace. It is not reasonable to assume the Union was just roundly thrashed. Union armies performed on average better than their Confederate foes except in northern Virginia, and outside the late 1862 to mid 1863 wonder year, only slightly inferior (until the end when Lee was at best average in 1864 and then just curbstomped in 1865).
It is extremely unlikely that the US will agree to recognize the Confederacy in its borders of 1861. It has no reason to do so. Realistic scenarios must grant that the Union remains in control of most of Tennessee and the Mississippi River Valley, if not all of it. Any peace agreement needs to take that into account.
I think at minimum, the UN will insist on:
1) West Virginia to remain part of the Union.
2) Tennessee will remain part of the Union.
3) Union control of the Mississippi River in some form. The best case Confederate scenario is guaranteed access by the USA, the worst case is that the entire river valley is handed over to the Union in some form.
4) Refusal of turning over escaped slaves to the CSA.
This is a minimum acceptance. The CSA isn't getting Western Virginia; it's not getting Kentucky; and it's not getting Tennessee.
The next thing is what else it likely loses. I believe that the Confederacy will get divided and the Union won't let go of the Mississippi River in any way. That means either more states will remain in the Union (Louisiana, and one other state to retain land continguity with Tennessee, which means either Arkansas or Mississippi), or that land will be ceded from various Confederate states so that the Union will form its own state in the area. I doubt very much people would like to do that, so the Confederacy will reluctantly give up all of Arkansas so that it can keep Mississippi intact and forestall any lingering Union claims to northern Alabama or other pro-unionist areas elsewhere.
Even that is fairly generous to the CSA, as the Union is practically walking all over Mississippi state in 1863 onwards, so that will likely remain part of the Union as well. If so, it may become a majority black homeland as fleeing slaves swell the population. If so, I still see the South giving up Arkansas as it is a far outlier. At that point, it's conceivable Texas may go its own way as a separate nation, and if so, a Confederate Arkansas exclave makes no sense. Better to concede it in exchange for other non-territorial concessions. Any CSA government is going to be desperate for hard cash, and some kind of compensated damages to resolve any future claims makes sense. A lump payment of this type is not atypical.
That leaves the CSA with 5 (maybe 6) states as they were before seccession, 1 that lost its western third, and another state that is intact but could very well leave. That's the best case scenario.
Of course, if you accept a fantasy scenario with little basis in reality, you can generate a situation where the US must accept less. I don't think those are realistic, but this is one area where most PODs aren't discussed for reasons of plausibility.
It is extremely unlikely that the US will agree to recognize the Confederacy in its borders of 1861. It has no reason to do so. Realistic scenarios must grant that the Union remains in control of most of Tennessee and the Mississippi River Valley, if not all of it. Any peace agreement needs to take that into account.
I think at minimum, the UN will insist on:
1) West Virginia to remain part of the Union.
2) Tennessee will remain part of the Union.
3) Union control of the Mississippi River in some form. The best case Confederate scenario is guaranteed access by the USA, the worst case is that the entire river valley is handed over to the Union in some form.
4) Refusal of turning over escaped slaves to the CSA.
This is a minimum acceptance. The CSA isn't getting Western Virginia; it's not getting Kentucky; and it's not getting Tennessee.
The next thing is what else it likely loses. I believe that the Confederacy will get divided and the Union won't let go of the Mississippi River in any way. That means either more states will remain in the Union (Louisiana, and one other state to retain land continguity with Tennessee, which means either Arkansas or Mississippi), or that land will be ceded from various Confederate states so that the Union will form its own state in the area. I doubt very much people would like to do that, so the Confederacy will reluctantly give up all of Arkansas so that it can keep Mississippi intact and forestall any lingering Union claims to northern Alabama or other pro-unionist areas elsewhere.
Even that is fairly generous to the CSA, as the Union is practically walking all over Mississippi state in 1863 onwards, so that will likely remain part of the Union as well. If so, it may become a majority black homeland as fleeing slaves swell the population. If so, I still see the South giving up Arkansas as it is a far outlier. At that point, it's conceivable Texas may go its own way as a separate nation, and if so, a Confederate Arkansas exclave makes no sense. Better to concede it in exchange for other non-territorial concessions. Any CSA government is going to be desperate for hard cash, and some kind of compensated damages to resolve any future claims makes sense. A lump payment of this type is not atypical.
That leaves the CSA with 5 (maybe 6) states as they were before seccession, 1 that lost its western third, and another state that is intact but could very well leave. That's the best case scenario.
Of course, if you accept a fantasy scenario with little basis in reality, you can generate a situation where the US must accept less. I don't think those are realistic, but this is one area where most PODs aren't discussed for reasons of plausibility.
The CSA is not invincible. But then neither is the Union. Without international trade the Union will find itself in desperate straights in a matter of a few months, 1862 is *not* 1914 and the internal markets of the Midwest are as yet unable to supply the needs and raw materials of Eastern commerce. They are practical and would try to negotiate while they still had significant strength. Canada can be used as a base to bring over *lots* of British force and the UK has significant staying power, its people in 1861 were in some cases agitating for conflict over Trent and many foresaw the US as the next potential rival. There is a strong chance that, if a blockade is put in place, the UK will want the US to pay for it. They are also likely to support measures that weaken the USA, including generous CSA borders with possible plebiscites in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and the New Mexico Territory. Utah/CJCLSD will look at options carefully and make their own decisions, 1857 will have many of them wondering about the future especially early in the war. Even without the UK, if the USA is willing to give even a chunk of the CSA independence for whatever reason, the borders are up for negotiation and there will be a push for all 11 of the original states to be included. The Union does not want to garrison unfriendly states forced to return and revanchism will see the CSA push for those areas at a later date if they can not keep them.
Canada CAN'T be used as a huge base for a number of reasons. One is that it is sparsely settled and is relatively little developed. There just is not that many people living in Canada. Two is that it is far away, thousands of miles which makes everything EXPENSIVE for the Brits . The US was a highly industrialized country not a technological backwater a century or two behind the times so it was HEAVILY ARMED AND WELL SUPPLIED. Three it has its empire to run and every man sent to North America can't be used to guard an empire that the rest of Europe is eying. To fight the US it needs to send tens of thousands plus many ships to supply them. Four, as I said the US had a larger population the GB did at the time so it can raise a larger army and the few people living in Canada won't help much. A few months of no international trade is NOT that big of a deal for the US, which can feed itself, fuel itself and arm itself entirely. It wouldn't need to import food, fuel or metals. It would take more than a few months for it to bite. The UK has no way of compelling the US to pay for it to go away. Also it is a two way street. GB would be compelled to buy food from somewhere else than the US and at considerably higher prices as it would import from there if it were cheaper. Trade with the US was very profitable to the British Merchant Class which would scream bloody murder at it being cut off. The Brits had large investments in the US which would be seized and sold if it went to war with the US. The London Exchange would instantly crash the moment war broke out for these reasons. For all these reasons it would be VERY stupid for GB to go to war with the US. It is easier for the US to invade Canada then the other way around due to population differences. The UK has no way of forcing plebiscites in KY or anywhere else. The Union doesn't want to garrison unfriendly states? What the Hell do you think it did during and after the ACW?
Snake Featherston
Banned
You mean seven, right? There were only seven CS states that seceded in 1860.
elkarlo
Banned
He kinda went back and forth on that though. Anyhow, dang guess the CSA doesn't have much hope.
Not really, he was always a War Democrat. He was by no means an Abolitionist but he was always a hard core Unionist. Once a fellow War Democrat convinced him if there were a cease fire the war couldn't be restarted (The number of times wars HAVE BEEN restarted in history makes me somewhat skeptical of that claim) he decided that the South had to rejoin the Union before any peace was declared.