North Carolina as psudo-Unionist

I keep hearing this, can I ask why exactly this is a statement of fact?

North Carolina culturally, politically, and economically is very similar to Virginia and has little to do with South Carolina which is much more of a deep south state. In addition the geography of the situation means that if Virginia leaves then NC will be completely cut off and in an unsustainable position.

While I've never fully understood why myself (and I personally feel it has waned in recent years) NC is perhaps best described as being within Virginia's sphere of influence. I suspect it has much to do with the political prominence that Virginia held in the 19th century, something that NC was fairly short of.
 
The strategic situation. If Virginia leaves, they are tethered to the Confederacy by two railroad lines. The main ones transits through North Carolina; the other, Tennessee.

So, if Virginia leaves, and North Carolina doesn't, and it comes to war, they will find themselves forced into it. They don't have the luxury of the other border states, where they can sit out and hopefully no armies will come marching. Either way, there will be one, either to occupy the rail lines to connect Montgomery to Richmond, or one to occupy Wilmington et al to prevent it from being used.

So, a vote against secession, when Virginia has voted to leave, is a vote to stand against Virginia and the armies that seek to resupply and defend her. Which, I think, is a doable action; it will just take a lot more to rile the citizens of the state against the South to that point.

OTL Ideologically Virginia and NC were fairly close. My POD puts a lot of people NC respecting law and order more, but otherwise similar. However this difference is sufficient for them to refuse succession (sufficiently law and order minded folks tend to be most loyal to the original government in a civil war, look at the loyalist composition of the American Revolution). In short, they put themselves in a "kick me" situation. Hey if actual military people can make blunders, why not masses and poltiicians?

Tennessee's convention I'm imagining still goes like OTL for the end result. However, I can imagine a rigged vote. it should be noted that in OTL the Unionists caused the South to lose much control over the Eastern rural areas of the state, restricting Southern control to the cities. Eventually both sides reached a "pretend each other doesn't exist" kind of thing, until Tennessee fell to the North in the first year. Then most of the secessionists in Tennessee sheepishly join the North.

I thought NC and Tennessee went at the same time. Hmmm, while that puts a snuff to the civil war quickly, I was trying to bounce ideas around something. If Tennessee succeeds in May (instead of June) and the north Carolina makes their strong (and tactically suicidal) stand against succession, do you think the Unionists in Tennessee can regain control of Nashville (assuming they want the whole state in the union and not something goofy like Virginia)
 
Tennessee's convention I'm imagining still goes like OTL for the end result.

Tennessee had no convention. Tennessee's Unionists (conditional as well as unconditional) defeated the referendum to call one, 70K to 58K. The conditional Unionists actually took a big part in the fight; US Rep. Robert Hatton used his Congressional franking privilege to mail thousands of anti-secession pamphlets.

Also, there was a vote for delegates to the convention at the same time, and Unionists outpolled secessionists 89K to 23K.

But after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, the conditional Unionists all went over to secession. The legislature voted to ally with the CSA, and a second referendum ratified secession. Hatton became a brigadier general in the CS Army and was KIA at Seven Pines.

However, I can imagine a rigged vote. it should be noted that in OTL the Unionists caused the South to lose much control over the Eastern rural areas of the state, restricting Southern control to the cities. Eventually both sides reached a "pretend each other doesn't exist" kind of thing, until Tennessee fell to the North in the first year. Then most of the secessionists in Tennessee sheepishly join the North.

This is confusing, and confused; at the start of the war Unionists controlled or disputed rural east Tennessee, while the rest of the state was under Confederate control. In 1862, Union forces captured Nashville and Memphis, but the countryside was still pro-Confederate, except in east Tenneessee, wher Knoxville was CSA-controlled until 1863. I don't know of any secessionists who "joined the North".

I thought NC and Tennessee went at the same time.
The Tennessee legislature acted on 1 May; so did the North Carolina legislature. Tennessee was admitted to the CSA ON 16 May, North Carolina on 17 May.
 
ISTM that North Carolina would be in a similar position to Maryland - blocking essential lines of communication of the surrounding government, and would meet a similar fate. There would be knock-ons, though; many northerners would favor an expedition to "liberate" North Carolina, perhaps even more than wanted "Forward to Richmond!"
 
Doesn't this have some basis in reality, since Zebulon Vance was anti-secession prior to becoming governor, and was fairly independent against Jefferson Davis' directives?
 
Top