Arkansas in a CS-Victory

[AStanley]

Can we start having more conversations about how Arkansas can be effected?

Which Arkansas are we talking about?

Depending on how the war went, Arkansas can go a number of different ways..

 

[Bexar]

The only quarrel I have with your projected maps on Arkansas, Mr. Stanley, is that any state carved out of Arkansas would probally be centered on the Northwest, which was majority Unionist and most resistant to secession. Here's a map on slavery in Arkansas in 1860:

 

[AStanley]

The only quarrel I have with your projected maps on Arkansas, Mr. Stanley, is that any state carved out of Arkansas would probally be centered on the Northwest, which was majority Unionist and most resistant to secession. Here's a map on slavery in Arkansas in 1860:

There were slave states in the Union as well.

However, I think a new state will be carved out based on how far the union advances, and since they advanced along the river, the Northeast will be where the state should be centered in my opinion.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Can we start having more conversations about how Arkansas can be effected?

Why would the Union even want Arkansas in any CS Victory scenario in which Arkansas had been occupied? Since it had seceded at the beginning of the war, and thousands of its men had fought and died in the Confederate Army, it certainly had developed a loyal to the Confederacy. The people of the state would see any Union-imposed government as a puppet of Washington and not representative of them. It sounds like a recipe for insurgency.

Cooler heads in the North might want to simply get rid of Arkansas the same way a person throws away a lit stick of dynamite.

 

[AStanley]

Why would the Union even want Arkansas in any CS Victory scenario in which Arkansas had been occupied? Since it had seceded at the beginning of the war, and thousands of its men had fought and died in the Confederate Army, it certainly had developed a loyal to the Confederacy. The people of the state would see any Union-imposed government as a puppet of Washington and not representative of them. It sounds like a recipe for insurgency.

Cooler heads in the North might want to simply get rid of Arkansas the same way a person throws away a lit stick of dynamite.

10% of the Population had also swore an oath of loyalty to the Union Government, and they had a fully functioning Union government.

They were not a puppet in any sense.

 

[Anaxagoras]

10% of the Population had also swore an oath of loyalty to the Union Government, and they had a fully functioning Union government.

They were not a puppet in any sense.

And the other 90%?

Consider the resistance to Union authority that we saw in the South during the Reconstruction period. If there is a Confederate States of America that has secured its independence right next door to Arkansas, you'd see that level of opposition in Arkansas, but multiplied by a factor of fifty.

 

[AStanley]

And the other 90%?

Slaves who make up 35% of that 90% would be very sympathetic to having the Union control the state.

Plus, runaway slaves from Mississippi (and maybe Rump Confederate Tennessee should it exist) will soon be streaming into the state, increasing its loyal population.

Plus people in the NW of the state who did not have Slavery instituted at a wide scale wouldn't be hostile to the Union.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Can anybody find a good secession vote by county map of Arkansas?

It could bring a good image of what loyalties lay where in the state.

 

[AStanley]

Can anybody find a good secession vote by county map of Arkansas?

It could bring a good image of what loyalties lay where in the state.

This is rather crude, and i am not sure of the accuracy but:

Northern Alabama surprises me, along with Georgia

 

[Bexar]

The map is good for getting a general idea, but it would probally be better to have one that shows the county percentage of votes for secession to get the true feel of the area, i.e. one that shows 60/40, 55/45, ect.

 

[AStanley]

The map is good for getting a general idea, but it would probally be better to have one that shows the county percentage of votes for secession to get the true feel of the area, i.e. one that shows 60/40, 55/45, ect.

But then again, didn't only Texas hold a popular vote to begin with?

-----

Also, what would Union Arkansas be called in event of a split? Would they call it Arkansas (and we end up with a Confederate and Union Arkansas), or something else like Ozark?

 

[M79]

Of course the CSA will call for that, but they have no chance of getting anything Union armies are sitting on top of. The original seven was quite willing to go it alone in OTL and their leadership firmly believed they were a viable nation.



And were your disagreement based on facts, we could agree to disagree.

You're ignoring Bleeding Kansas. A plebiscite, or popular sovereignty as it was termed, had sounded like a fair way to resolve whether new sates entered as slave or free. It resulted in voter fraud and murder. Even Stephen Douglas, the guiding force behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act, gave up on popular sovereignty.

You're ignoring military and political reality. The CSA can claim Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona territory, but those claims mean nothing unless they control those territories or are willing to make other concessions to get those them. In the case of Kentucky and Maryland, the CSA cannot offer enough to gain either.

You're ignoring the the way the people of those areas actually felt. Breckinridge got 36% of the vote in Kentucky, 46% in Maryland, 19% in Missouri. Not all of those people were pro-secession. Even if we make the ludicrous assumption that every Kentuckian that did not vote in the 1860 elections was pro-secession, you can't come close to a 2:1 majority.

Bell got 45% of the vote in Kentucky as well. Initially Kentuckians appeared to want preservation of the Union, *but* this was before the first shots were fired. Harrison's "The Civil War in Kentucky" might help clear some of your confusion about what people at the time were supporting.

Again, the peace itself will depend on the circumstances of where things are during a cease-fire. In 1862, the CSA has troops on the ground in Kentucky, West Virginia, Indian Territory, and during the early parts of the year in New Mexico/Arizona. Maryland has had *thousands* of people arrested. Reality is that if a peace comes around in early 1862, especially if the UK is involved in arbitration, the CSA has a chance to acquire these areas.

I'm not ignoring Kansas or its results, but I think this is how the territories would be divided. Ensuring Maryland for the Union in exchange for Kentucky in the CSA seems less likely to me. If the UK is involved it or France or another power might oversee elections, otherwise fraud is possible for either side.

Now if we are talking later in the war as OTL, say early 1864, then no they have no shot at MD, MO, or NM. Indian Territory is still likely to go to the CS and the CSA will want Kentucky but it is less likely to get it.

Again, it depends on the peace.

 

[SPJ]

This is rather crude, and i am not sure of the accuracy but:

Northern Alabama surprises me, along with Georgia

Quick off topic question. Why does it look like Dade County, Georgia voted against secession on that map? I thought that it was famous for wanting to secede so much that it seceded from GA before the rest of the state did from the union. Am I wrong?

 

[AStanley]

Quick off topic question. Why does it look like Dade County, Georgia voted against secession on that map? I thought that it was famous for wanting to secede so much that it seceded from GA before the rest of the state did from the union. Am I wrong?

As I said, its a pretty rough and somewhat inaccurate map.

Then again, maybe since the Secessionists had left Georgia, they didn't send anyone to the state convention, leaving only the Anti-Secessionists to send people to the state convention

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

It also should be noted, that with many of those anti-secession counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and such later rallied to the Confederate cause with their state (a good example would be those Tennessee River counties in West Tennessee).

 

[67th Tigers]

2. If the US seizes assets you can wager that they will be made to pay something when the UK intervenes. If the UK has to set up a blockade of the US or if they are fired on it becomes pride and image, the UK will want something in return for her efforts.

The US was always "risky". There were so many banking defaults that quite extreme interest rates had to be offered to get foreign capital. Indeed dollars were not good before the printing presses started debasing the currency, and the US had to buy in specie from the UK.

3. Russia is dealing with the January Uprising for much of the same timeframe as the American Civil War, I do not think Alexander II is likely to fight a protracted war at home and abroad. Besides, the country is undergoing a lot of reform under him and he would likely look to his existing backyard before trying to expand it.

Absolutely right. The Crimean war was a disaster from which it does not recover until the late 1870s.

4. How much of the US economy is based on agricultural exports in 1860 if the South is taken out of the picture? Even without cotton the US takes a serious hit if food exports are halted. Britain does have other suppliers she can use, and in case of bigger UK demand it might accelerate development of alternative suppliers and facilitate Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other nearby countries to plant more to pick up the slack. Remember that by 1860 mechanization allowed the UK to supply something like 80% of her own food, too - if worse comes to worse they could find ways around a cut-off by the US.

The numbers for grain are that the UK consumed 4.5 million tons and normally raised 4 mt itself. The poor harvests of 1861-2 (only 3.7 mt raised) together with a glut of grain that would have been consumed in the south and a weak dollar led to 0.25 mt being exported to the UK. Bear in mind potato consumption is about equal to grain.....

The US was not a normal grain exporter.

5. Again, I disagree that the LSE would "instantly crash", it would be hurt but not terminally.

I doubt that. As mentioned, the US was a high risk market anyway.

 

[Faeelin]

67th, your grain quote seems a bit misleading.

As you point out, about half of British grain imports came from the USA, which won't be easily irreplaceable.

So this is hard to square with the claim that the US was not a grain exporter.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qp...page&q=america civil war grain export&f=false

Your potato point seems misleading. "Bear in mind that there were other staples...."

Nor was the US the only place in Europe people were exporting grain to.

 

[67th Tigers]

67th, your grain quote seems a bit misleading.

As you point out, about half of British grain imports came from the USA, which won't be easily irreplaceable.

So this is hard to square with the claim that the US was not a grain exporter.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qp...page&q=america civil war grain export&f=false

Your potato point seems misleading. "Bear in mind that there were other staples...."

Nor was the US the only place in Europe people were exporting grain to.

The reference is misleading. The British were in no way dependent on US grain. They of course bought it and kept their prices lower at 45 s per bushel. Without US grain prices would have increased to ca. 70 s per bushel in July for a while. This is still cheaper than before the repeal of the Corn Laws.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Absolutely right. The Crimean war was a disaster from which it does not recover until the late 1870s.

There's a couple of more obvious reasons Russia intervening on the side of the Union is a no-go: the 1863 Polish Uprising, which will always be more important to any Romanov than a civil war among Americans, and the aftermath of the abolition of serfdom, which was a major internal deal for Russia that kept it busy for a very long time. The Crimean War was only a part of why Russia can't be involved, a big part, but only a part, and its effects are indirect in that they forced the fall of serfdom more than anything else.

 

[Faeelin]

Can you provide a cite for this?

Also, can you provide a cite for the "extreme" interest rates? I'd like to see how American interest rates stacked up to other nations the British invested in with abandon during the period.