Confederate Missouri or Kentucky

[Elfwine]

Unlikely does not mean ASB.

"Unlikely to the point the point of virtually impossible"

The Confederacy did not have an opportunity or anything that could feasibly be an opportunity (even the Lost Orders being unlost) to capture Washington or inflict a Cannae on Union armies, and short of that, what early wins are not merely fending off Union attacks but blows to the Union's willingness to continue the war?

"The Confederacy wins in 1862" scenarios rely on heavily overestimating the willingness of foreign powers to intervene and underestimating the willingness of the Union to actually fight.

 

[marl_d]

If anything, the southern portion of Missouri could be broken off and given to the South in exchange for Kentucky/New Orleans's. Possibly with St. Louis being given to the southern portion as it had the largest number of slaves.

 

[metastasis_d]

If anything, the southern portion of Missouri could be broken off and given to the South in exchange for Kentucky/New Orleans's. Possibly with St. Louis being given to the southern portion as it had the largest number of slaves.

We don't need no stinkin' bootheel.

 

[marl_d]

We don't need no stinkin' bootheel.

hehe...could be added on to Arkansas instead...though it would make the map kind funny looking.


Never got why the CSA almost always "gets" Kentucky...

 

[Satoriaya]

split Missouri.

I've lived around the Kansas/Missouri border most of my life. There is a big cultural diffference here even to this day. Many of the early settlers in eastern Kansas territory were New Englanders, clashing with the more southern perspective of many Missourians, especially south of the Missouri river. Slavery was not nearly as vital to Missouri, compared to plantation culture, but the governing philosophy of state's rights falls precisely in line with the pioneering mindset. I think southern Missouri would go to the south and northern to the north, splitting roughly along the Missouri river. I know little of kentucky, but there does seem to be a similar cultural divide between Kentucky and southern Ohio.

 

[Snake Featherston]

"Unlikely to the point the point of virtually impossible"

The Confederacy did not have an opportunity or anything that could feasibly be an opportunity (even the Lost Orders being unlost) to capture Washington or inflict a Cannae on Union armies, and short of that, what early wins are not merely fending off Union attacks but blows to the Union's willingness to continue the war?

"The Confederacy wins in 1862" scenarios rely on heavily overestimating the willingness of foreign powers to intervene and underestimating the willingness of the Union to actually fight.

Well, it has a potential to do some really serious damage to the Army of the Ohio in the Perryville Campaign, but more from the total collapse within the Army of the Ohio than anything the CSA did, and even then Sheridan and Thomas are more than able to prevent a total rout of that entire army. Admittedly to an outside viewpoint 60,000 Union troops fleeing into Cincinnati would look far more impressive than it would be in the actual battle.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, it has a potential to do some really serious damage to the Army of the Ohio in the Perryville Campaign, but more from the total collapse within the Army of the Ohio than anything the CSA did, and even then Sheridan and Thomas are more than able to prevent a total rout of that entire army. Admittedly to an outside viewpoint 60,000 Union troops fleeing into Cincinnati would look far more impressive than it would be in the actual battle.

Yeah. But even the very best case scenario there is Bragg moving on to a Chattanooga style situation, and foreign observers considering it a sign the Confederacy is making up for its past losses - not "is on the verge of winning the war".

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yeah. But even the very best case scenario there is Bragg moving on to a Chattanooga style situation, and foreign observers considering it a sign the Confederacy is making up for its past losses - not "is on the verge of winning the war".

Which is true, though smashing 60,000 Union troops (which is not what really happens but the appearance outweighs the reality vastly in such situations) would make the CS Army's overall reputation (to say nothing of Bragg's) rather better in terms of the overall war.

 

[Elfwine]

Which is true, though smashing 60,000 Union troops (which is not what really happens but the appearance outweighs the reality vastly in such situations) would make the CS Army's overall reputation (to say nothing of Bragg's) rather better in terms of the overall war.

This is true. Won't gain the Confederacy Kentucky in the long term (as distinct from a slightly longer than OTL presence) though.

 

[Snake Featherston]

This is true. Won't gain the Confederacy Kentucky in the long term (as distinct from a slightly longer than OTL presence) though.

It does give the AoT the kind of psychological edge the ANV had over its own Union opponents, aid that is very crucial overall (leaving Thomas to be the Meade of the West).

 

[Elfwine]

It does give the AoT the kind of psychological edge the ANV had over its own Union opponents, aid that is very crucial overall (leaving Thomas to be the Meade of the West).

Maybe not quite as much so, but it's a possibility.

Certainly doesn't look like "the army we beat every fight".

 

[metastasis_d]

Never got why the CSA almost always "gets" Kentucky...

Washington is too far away. Nobody likes exclaves

 

[metastasis_d]

I've lived around the Kansas/Missouri border most of my life. There is a big cultural diffference here even to this day. Many of the early settlers in eastern Kansas territory were New Englanders, clashing with the more southern perspective of many Missourians, especially south of the Missouri river. Slavery was not nearly as vital to Missouri, compared to plantation culture, but the governing philosophy of state's rights falls precisely in line with the pioneering mindset. I think southern Missouri would go to the south and northern to the north, splitting roughly along the Missouri river. I know little of kentucky, but there does seem to be a similar cultural divide between Kentucky and southern Ohio.

I don't know much about the history of this state, so I can't say for sure. Kingdom of Callaway FTW, though!

 

[Athelstane]

"I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." - Abraham Lincoln


Alas for the CSA, Union sentiment was generally stronger in both states, particularly Missouri. Short of something truly outside the box, you would need a POD very, very early to have any chance of accession of Kentucky. Missouri really would be impossible, save for a possible partition.

Bragg's and Kirby-Smith's invasion even seems too late in the game; by that point, majority sentiment seems to have settled with staying in the Union, which out-recruited the CSA in Kentucky. Polk's violation of Kentucky neutrality first didn't help; at any rate, southern sentiments were strongest in Jackson Purchase and the western part of the state, which unfortunately was never reached by the 1862 invasion. Yet I do think that there was enough fluidity in the first months of the war that there's a chance to swing secession sentiment just enough if the Union precipitates actions that outrage public sentiment there. Say someone more hotheaded than Anderson - preferably a potent combination of viciousness and incompetence, perhaps along the lines of Fremont - is sent to deal with Kentucky, and violates Kentucky neutrality almost immediately, commiting atrocities against civilians (i.e., the kind of treatment dished out in much of Maryland). Magoffin might - might - then gain enough support in the legislature to push an ordinance of secession. But even then, there would be a large Union sentiment at large in the state, focused on Nelson's Home Guard, and limits on Confederate logistics and power projection would still require a very early CSA victory to secure the state.

Missouri simply had too many Germans, Irish, and free soilers in St. Louis and the east of the state, and the CSA government absolutely zero ability to put any forces into the state. Confederate sentiment was mostly in the Bootheel and the Southwest, stretching up to the Kansas City area. It would take a pretty massive departure to even manage a partition of the southern parts of the state.

 

[metastasis_d]

"I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." - Abraham Lincoln


Alas for the CSA, Union sentiment was generally stronger in both states, particularly Missouri. Short of something truly outside the box, you would need a POD very, very early to have any chance of accession of Kentucky. Missouri really would be impossible, save for a possible partition.

Bragg's and Kirby-Smith's invasion even seems too late in the game; by that point, majority sentiment seems to have settled with staying in the Union, which out-recruited the CSA in Kentucky. Polk's violation of Kentucky neutrality first didn't help; at any rate, southern sentiments were strongest in Jackson Purchase and the western part of the state, which unfortunately was never reached by the 1862 invasion. Yet I do think that there was enough fluidity in the first months of the war that there's a chance to swing secession sentiment just enough if the Union precipitates actions that outrage public sentiment there. Say someone more hotheaded than Anderson - preferably a potent combination of viciousness and incompetence, perhaps along the lines of Fremont - is sent to deal with Kentucky, and violates Kentucky neutrality almost immediately, commiting atrocities against civilians (i.e., the kind of treatment dished out in much of Maryland). Magoffin might - might - then gain enough support in the legislature to push an ordinance of secession. But even then, there would be a large Union sentiment at large in the state, focused on Nelson's Home Guard, and limits on Confederate logistics and power projection would still require a very early CSA victory to secure the state.

Missouri simply had too many Germans, Irish, and free soilers in St. Louis and the east of the state, and the CSA government absolutely zero ability to put any forces into the state. Confederate sentiment was mostly in the Bootheel and the Southwest, stretching up to the Kansas City area. It would take a pretty massive departure to even manage a partition of the southern parts of the state.

That could work with Kentucky, I suppose.

I agree with Missouri; and I don't know if the southern part of the state alone could be viable as its own state.

 

[GeorgeUK]

hehe...could be added on to Arkansas instead...though it would make the map kind funny looking.


Never got why the CSA almost always "gets" Kentucky...

Maybe from Kentucky voting to secede in Guns of the South. (Turtledove's best work. Chief reason: no Zinc Oxide.)

 

[marl_d]

Maybe from Kentucky voting to secede in Guns of the South. (Turtledove's best work. Chief reason: no Zinc Oxide.)

huh...suppose that makes sense...to some extent...

 

[Snake Featherston]

Never got why the CSA almost always "gets" Kentucky...

Inability to do research on the part of some people coupled with the view that because a border looks nicer/is more defensible this means a weaker party is able to extort it from a stronger one. Add to this the general misconception on the part of a lot of people that living south of an arbitrary line means that people are hive-mind followers of the Confederacy......

 

[metastasis_d]

Inability to do research on the part of some people coupled with the view that because a border looks nicer/is more defensible this means a weaker party is able to extort it from a stronger one. Add to this the general misconception on the part of a lot of people that living south of an arbitrary line means that people are hive-mind followers of the Confederacy......

Pretty much nailed it.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Maybe from Kentucky voting to secede in Guns of the South. (Turtledove's best work. Chief reason: no Zinc Oxide.)

More based on TL-191's vague scenario reliant on handwavium and myth-making if we credit a fictional inspiration, though in fairness to Turtledove he noted that Kentucky was always the weird state out of the Confederacy in terms of pro-US sentiment, even under the Freedom Party. While the real change in his timeline in this regard has more to do with the Second Mexican War than the CS rebellion, and even then the state is never as much a CS state as even CS Sonora and Chihuahua are.