During the American Civil War, there was a lot of suspense over whether the remaining slave states would stay in the Union or join the seceding states. Virginia was no exception. Things were touch-and-go for a while, but as we all know, Virginia ended up staying in the Union.

What if Virginia had decided to secede? What impact would that have had?
 
During the American Civil War, there was a lot of suspense over whether the remaining slave states would stay in the Union or join the seceding states. Virginia was no exception. Things were touch-and-go for a while, but as we all know, Virginia ended up staying in the Union.

What if Virginia had decided to secede? What impact would that have had?
The Civil War would not have ended in 1862. Robert E Lee would not have been drafted against his will for the presidency in 1868. Virginia would not have been a powerful swing state during the Gilded Age.
 
You'd have a state of West Virginia/Westsylvania/Vandalia/Kanawha. The main reason that Virginia didn't secede was because the western half of the state threatened to itself secede if Virginia tried anything funny. I think East Tennessee would try something similar, considering there was a brief convention formed historically threatening to do the same.

The admission of New Mexico and Colorado would probably be delayed. Their admission as slave states was part of the basis for Virginia and co being willing to stay in the union.

If Virginia secedes, I imagine North Carolina and Tennessee would follow.

The Civil War in the Upper South doesn't get enough attention. Even though the state governments opted not to secede, that didn't stop a lot of folks from trying to overthrow those state governments. Virginia and North Carolina got away with their neutrality, crushing insurrection very very quickly. The formation of the State of Jackson (now appropriately renamed named Grant, for the man who burned it to the ground :)) in the portion of Tennessee and Kentucky west of the Tennessee River, much to the chagrin of their respective state governments. That ended those states' neutrality lickety-split.

OTL the war was two theaters broadly: The push down the Mississippi and the raids on the coast in the east (because VA and NC stubbornly refused northern passage through their territory). I imagine there'd be a direct push south through Virginia and North Carolina and perhaps a military occupation of Maryland if those two states seceded. McClellan loved his amphibious invasions. The war would probably end sooner than mid-1864 if the direct approach could be taken.

The politics of readmission and abolition would probably go differently. KY and TN voluntarily ceded the lands comprising Jackson to the Federal Government because of not wanting to deal with the cost of pacifying and rebuilding those areas. Lincoln admitting it alongside Nevada, Montana, and Jefferson as free states in 1864 enabled him to force through congress abolition and reconstruction.
 
The Civil War would not have ended in 1862. Robert E Lee would not have been drafted against his will for the presidency in 1868. Virginia would not have been a powerful swing state during the Gilded Age.
"Drafted" isn't really inaccurate, but it does make Lee appear to have been forced. He could have surrendered the San Antonio arsenal instead of defending against Ben McCulloch and the Texas militia's attack, but he did not believe he had the authority to do so. When he was returned to the US, he was a hero to the Union whether he wanted to be or not, and Virginia was firmly for the Union by this point anyway.

Also, while its influence shouldn't be exaggerated, I think we should point out how the Virginian Lee's stand at the Alamo galvanized Virginian Unionist support, in addition to western Virginia's threats.
 
You'd have a state of West Virginia/Westsylvania/Vandalia/Kanawha. The main reason that Virginia didn't secede was because the western half of the state threatened to itself secede if Virginia tried anything funny.

I disagree we would not have a separate state carved out of it, we'd most likely see them reunited after the western part is occupied for a while the western part will be the government officially of all Virgina but eventually the eastern part will be reunited. 1) the prounion counties alone would make for a really poor state. 2) leaving a disunited Virginia would leave an obvious civil war wound on the maps.

I do think however western Virgina might end up with the capital city remaining in the formally prounion side after the war. Due to the fact that Richmond will probably be wrecked and costly reconstruction when there's a non devastated part of the state that already has a functional state government.
 
I seem to recall one of the offers floated to Virginia by the rebels was that the capital would be relocated there should she join the Confederacy, of course leading to General Lee's famous "a capital for a nation is no profitable trade". So in short, Richmond would've burned instead of Montgomery!

But more in depth--I concur with everyone else in this thread that the war would not have ended nearly as soon. With the industry (however meager), troops, talented officers, and even pure land area of Virginia, the Confederacy would have been a much more formidable foe than IOTL. I imagine the Western Theater might have been much less active, as US and rebel troops struggled instead over Virginian territory. For example, New Orleans, might not have been so fiercely contested by the Confederates, and could have survived intact (that might just be my dreaming--I've always wished to see the old French Quarter).

It is even possible the US might have relocated its own capital, with Washington so near to what, in this TL, would be rebel territory. Perhaps Philadelphia, or even Boston? Going a leg further, it is even possible, though I don't think particularly likely, that the rebel troops might have succeeded in taking Washington at some point during the war. Whether this would have brought the North to the peace table, I doubt. But it is a possibility, however distinct.
 
Slavery would've been wiped out sooner. Otl, Lincoln's term was dominated by Readmission. He had every rebel state write into their new constitution that they "would never enslave another soul- man, woman, or child." Slight problem-the border states were loyal and therefore didnt need readmission and therefore still had slavery. Granted, President Lee enforced a harder abolition later on, but five years is still five years of people in bondage.
 
I disagree we would not have a separate state carved out of it, we'd most likely see them reunited after the western part is occupied for a while the western part will be the government officially of all Virgina but eventually the eastern part will be reunited. 1) the prounion counties alone would make for a really poor state. 2) leaving a disunited Virginia would leave an obvious civil war wound on the maps.

I do think however western Virgina might end up with the capital city remaining in the formally prounion side after the war. Due to the fact that Richmond will probably be wrecked and costly reconstruction when there's a non devastated part of the state that already has a functional state government.

But the map OTL has obvious Civil War Wounds on it. The State of Grant, State of Jefferson, and State of West Florida all only exist because of the Civil War.

Plus the admissions of the States of New Mexico and Colorado were directly tied to Lincoln trying to bring in more slave states into the union to pacify the upper south's rebellious inclinations. Lincoln was pretty shrewd in how he brought in two slave states which would nix slavery on their own within a decade. Plus he was keenly aware that by 1870 Missouri and Delaware would end the peculiar institution.



Slavery would've been wiped out sooner. Otl, Lincoln's term was dominated by Readmission. He had every rebel state write into their new constitution that they "would never enslave another soul- man, woman, or child." Slight problem-the border states were loyal and therefore didnt need readmission and therefore still had slavery. Granted, President Lee enforced a harder abolition later on, but five years is still five years of people in bondage.

Every rebel state, every gerrymandered-in state, and every newly admitted state. He then proceeded to use his program of internal improvements to persuade (cough *bribe* cough) DE, MO, NM, CO, TN, and KY to commit to ending the peculiar institution by the end of the decade. TN and KY were pretty easy to swing considering how pissed the yeomen were at the institution following the Jackson Secession. Lee deserves credit for ending it in Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina (the Tidewater Abolitions) but the writing was already on the wall by that point. Plus in the case of VA you had a lot of folks in state pushing hard for it already.


I think the most pronounced effect of the "tidewater abolitions" was that those three states committed themselves to deportationism, whereas every other act of abolition was just a straight-forward emancipation of blacks and granting of citizenship. Sending a million people to Liberia had a huge impact: The US began to involve itself in the development of Liberia and Liberia suddenly had more Americo-Liberians than Africans, prompting the Manifest Destiny expansions and the agreement with the UK to form the United States of Africa following absorption of Sierra Leone and British Conakry and the purchase of Grand-Bassam and Assinie from France after the Franco-Prussian War.
 
Last edited:
upload_2019-8-8_10-18-16.png


Contiguous USA and neighbors.

upload_2019-8-8_10-23-41.png


The United States of Africa.
 
Top