Confederate Ohio?

I've been seeing this a lot in recent maps, that somehow a Confederate state annexes territories such as Ohio and Kansas. I understand that if Bleeding Kansas had gone a particular way, it could have had a CSA backed govenour secede from the Union, and after a Confederate victory, become part of the confederacy, but I do not understand how the Confederates would be able to take Ohio; it would have split the Union in half permanently, and would probably have caused a later secessionist movement in the West from an already weakened Union, making such a secession unacceptable.

How would a Confederate Ohio be possible?
 
Not for more than 18 months, I will tell you that. Swallowed up by the Union so quick, before you can say "Birth of a Nation"!

All levity aside, no chance of survival. Confederate!Ohio is fucked.
 
Not for more than 18 months, I will tell you that. Swallowed up by the Union so quick, before you can say "Birth of a Nation"!

All levity aside, no chance of survival. Confederate!Ohio is fucked.

I think it would actually destabilize the Confederates, which already had some serious internal problems (Just look at Georgia; at least in our textbooks, they say the Georgian govenour was *this* close to seceding from the CSA and fighting both sides), and if Ohio was reaccepted into the Union, it would open the door for other states to reconcile.
 
I've been seeing this a lot in recent maps, that somehow a Confederate state annexes territories such as Ohio and Kansas. I understand that if Bleeding Kansas had gone a particular way, it could have had a CSA backed govenour secede from the Union, and after a Confederate victory, become part of the confederacy, but I do not understand how the Confederates would be able to take Ohio; it would have split the Union in half permanently, and would probably have caused a later secessionist movement in the West from an already weakened Union, making such a secession unacceptable.

How would a Confederate Ohio be possible?

Well.....I will say this: there may be a way to at least get some sympathy amongst some more reactionary elements of Ohio society, or even have some of them defect to the Confederacy. Remember the Know-Nothings? They had a following in both the North and the South, but it was Southern politicians, believe it or not, who stood to have the most gains if they adopted the ideology. If one could convince just enough of the potential secessionists that immigration would be dangerous for Southern slavery, that might well allow the Fire-Eaters another cause to rally around; and if there is a successful connection made between abolitionism and immigration, even if it may be somewhat tenuous, perhaps-it could cause a lot of trouble for Lincoln, or whoever wins on the Republican side in 1860 or '64-and possibly for Northern Democrats as well.

I honestly doubt this would lead to a totally Confederate Ohio, but if most everything goes right for the C.S.A. in the early days(including keeping West Virginia in the Union), you might see a breakaway state of, oh, say, "South Ohio", or something along those lines, trying to survive, and some parts of Southern Ind. + Ill. might try to break loose, too.

But even then, it'd take a lot, and a POD going back some time-the late 1840s, maybe?
 
Well.....I will say this: there may be a way to at least get some sympathy amongst some more reactionary elements of Ohio society, or even have some of them defect to the Confederacy. Remember the Know-Nothings? They had a following in both the North and the South, but it was Southern politicians, believe it or not, who stood to have the most gains if they adopted the ideology. If one could convince just enough of the potential secessionists that immigration would be dangerous for Southern slavery, that might well allow the Fire-Eaters another cause to rally around; and if there is a successful connection made between abolitionism and immigration, even if it may be somewhat tenuous, perhaps-it could cause a lot of trouble for Lincoln, or whoever wins on the Republican side in 1860 or '64-and possibly for Northern Democrats as well.

I honestly doubt this would lead to a totally Confederate Ohio, but if most everything goes right for the C.S.A. in the early days(including keeping West Virginia in the Union), you might see a breakaway state of, oh, say, "South Ohio", or something along those lines, trying to survive, and some parts of Southern Ind. + Ill. might try to break loose, too.

But even then, it'd take a lot, and a POD going back some time-the late 1840s, maybe?

If not earlier, probably dating back to 1832 with some alternate wackiness with South Carolina and John C. Calhoun. The only problem with southern areas of states trying to break away is that generally it would take an entire state to secede and then the northern areas of the state (basing it off of Virginia) counter-seceding back into the Union. Its my understanding that the southern areas of Missouri tried to secede into the Confederacy, but the squabbling among lawmakers and northern sympathies kept the state from actually seceding, apart from Confederate gains, since by the time the state was anywhere near seceding the Union already was making gains south.

But I like your idea with the know-nothings, i never really thought of that. Though the only problem is that it would have made getting foreign intervention... difficult, to say the least.


EDIT: Also, if the southern areas of those three states actually were able to stably join the CSA, it would have make for some fun times if a socialist/communist/syndicalist nation formed out of the Rust Belt areas.
 
Last edited:
The southern quarter of Ohio might have some sympathizers, but southern Illinois and Indiana would be better targets. Wheeling made it clear early in the war it wanted no part of the Confederacy and with strategically important railroads passing through the area the South will be hard-pressed to keep the area regardless. If you want a "Rebel Flag on the Great Lakes" scenario, it would be difficult at best. I think your best shot is having Kirby Smith answer to Braxton Bragg and better coordination in the Kentucky campaign of 1862. That might let them secure Louisville and put a token force into Indiana under John Hunt Morgan, maybe to keep Jeffersonville for some time. The governor of Indiana was a despot named Oliver Morton and absolutely ruthless, jailing political foes alongside anti-war and pro-southern forces. Having Confederate troops in the ground could either unite the state ("I was right all along!") or bring the state into a very nasty civil conflict as the southern end of the state had more people at the time. John Hunt Morgan can then move to raid to the north to create confusion and perhaps raise the rebel flag over Michigan City and get a photograph for propaganda purposes.

Such a move might keep Kentucky in Confederate hands for a few months and will certainly redirect Union attention from other theaters. Raiding Camp Morgan would free 5,000 P.O.W.s but it will also incite general panic while potentially rallying the populace. Also unless they steal a ****ton of horses it would be hard getting that many guys back to the South or feeding them without foraging and a Sherman-like looting of central Indiana. Again, not likely to do much in the longer-term scheme of things, but having rebel flags photographed over Union soil is likely to catch the eye of London and Paris, among others, and create interesting conversations.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It wouldn't...

I've been seeing this a lot in recent maps, that somehow a Confederate state annexes territories such as Ohio and Kansas. I understand that if Bleeding Kansas had gone a particular way, it could have had a CSA backed govenour secede from the Union, and after a Confederate victory, become part of the confederacy, but I do not understand how the Confederates would be able to take Ohio; it would have split the Union in half permanently, and would probably have caused a later secessionist movement in the West from an already weakened Union, making such a secession unacceptable.

How would a Confederate Ohio be possible?

It wouldn't.:rolleyes:

Abolitionist Georgia is more likely...

Best,
 
There was some talk of in the "butternut" areas of the Old Northwest of a "Northwest Confederacy" which would repudiate the "fanatics" of New England and make a separate peace with the South. I discuss the idea at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/0-Sfu4em7-s/nmB3jEoT5YMJ but as I indicate there, the idea was extremely unrealistic (at least absent a much better military showing by the Confederacy) and was even more unrealistic for Ohio than for Illinois and Indiana. (At least in the latter two states, the legislatures had been won by the Democrats in 1862, and many of these Democrats were calling for the US government to hold a peace conference with the Confederates; in the minds of some Southerners, there was not much of a step from that to the Northwest holding a *separate* peace conference if Lincoln turned down the idea).
 
Trying to take Ohio would make most Copperheads turns on the Confederates, especially given how their constitution meant that slavery was to be in every state and it was made a felony for states to even consider abolishing it. Anyways, I assume that West Virginia somehow decided to stay as the boondocks of the coastal Virginians and to help invade past the Appalachians?
 
Top