Plausibility check: CSA gets all of virginia

I often read Alternate ACW TLs where the CSA wins, but the US keeps west virginia.

Is is plausible for the CSA to grab all of it?
 
Absolutely not. West Virginia seceded when Virginia seceded. Even if WV rejoins Virginia, there's gonna be alot of enmity.
 
Not really, the Hillbillies wanted to be seperate from Virginia and so didn't aid Confederate troops for the most part and aided Federal ones. With both the Union army and the inhabitants of the area against them the Confederacy never stood a chance of keeping it.
 
If the Confederacy had won a crushing enough victory early in the war than it is within the realm of possibilities. Of course this would make the Confederacy look like an even bigger bunch of hypocrites than they already did. (Just ask the good folks in the mountain regions of Tennessee and North Carolina or the Germans of west Texas.) Also, the region would become a running sore for the Confederacy as Union arms made sure the Hillbillies made any attempts add Confederate control of the region very costly.

Benjamin
 
If the Confederacy had won a crushing enough victory early in the war than it is within the realm of possibilities. Of course this would make the Confederacy look like an even bigger bunch of hypocrites than they already did. (Just ask the good folks in the mountain regions of Tennessee and North Carolina or the Germans of west Texas.) Also, the region would become a running sore for the Confederacy as Union arms made sure the Hillbillies made any attempts add Confederate control of the region very costly.

Benjamin

No they wouldn't be hypocrites. West Virginia had never existed as an independent body before, it as a whole was not a constituent part of Virginia, it wasn't a state, and therefore there was no basis to its secession. The states said they could secede because they were constituent parts of the union who had voted to join the union and could therefore vote to leave the union. West Virginia doesn't have any of that precedence.
 
If a small minority of powerful landholders within a state can secede from a federal union than the people inhabiting a portion of said state, especially if they represent the majority of the inhabitants of said region, can elect to remain within the larger governmental body. The state, regardless of the idea of states rights, is no more sacred in form or function than a federal union. Both are to govern based upon the will of the majority of the people and not the whims of a minority.

Minority rights are to be protected but that does not give them the right or privilege to dictate the policy of the greater federal union. When the minority comes to believe that they possess this extra-legal power than either the federal-republican system is to be deemed a farce from the very beginning and thus a worthless failure, or the minority must be forced to comply to the will of the majority.

Furthermore as a state government is even more a direct expression of the will of the people and the individuals within its population, than a larger federal government, it is an even greater imperative that the state respects the will of its inhabitants. For a population to cherish state's rights but not respect the rights of the individual is the height of hypocrisy.

There was no precedent for the British colonies to rebel and form a federal union but they did. Citing the need for precedent would stymie all political and social development. Only by acting without precedent can an individual or group of individuals ensure themselves a better life and preserve the blessings of liberty.

Benjamin
 
If a small minority of powerful landholders within a state can secede from a federal union than the people inhabiting a portion of said state, especially if they represent the majority of the inhabitants of said region, can elect to remain within the larger governmental body. The state, regardless of the idea of states rights, is no more sacred in form or function than a federal union. Both are to govern based upon the will of the majority of the people and not the whims of a minority.

Minority rights are to be protected but that does not give them the right or privilege to dictate the policy of the greater federal union. When the minority comes to believe that they possess this extra-legal power than either the federal-republican system is to be deemed a farce from the very beginning and thus a worthless failure, or the minority must be forced to comply to the will of the majority.

Furthermore as a state government is even more a direct expression of the will of the people and the individuals within its population, than a larger federal government, it is an even greater imperative that the state respects the will of its inhabitants. For a population to cherish state's rights but not respect the rights of the individual is the height of hypocrisy.

There was no precedent for the British colonies to rebel and form a federal union but they did. Citing the need for precedent would stymie all political and social development. Only by acting without precedent can an individual or group of individuals ensure themselves a better life and preserve the blessings of liberty.

Benjamin

I'm not saying that West Virginia shouldn't have done it, just that the CSA wouldn't be hypocrites. They could argue that they could secede because they were states, but West Virginia doesn't have the same standing.
 
Was just reading the T-191 series again and was that thought popped into my head about why West Virginia was a Yankee state in the series but I think it is due to the whole idea of secession and to some extent political manuvering after the North's defeat. Lincoln has to be able to tell England and France that if the whole reason they are recognizing the South is due to their secession by popular sovereignty than West Virginia needs to be free due to the same reasoning.
 
I'm not saying that West Virginia shouldn't have done it, just that the CSA wouldn't be hypocrites. They could argue that they could secede because they were states, but West Virginia doesn't have the same standing.

Speaking of hypocrisy, what if it was the US? For instance, what if say after Reconstruction, Virginia sued to regain West Virginia before the US Supreme Court? I don't know how it would work out, but would think it would be a sticky situation at the very least.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Speaking of hypocrisy, what if it was the US? For instance, what if say after Reconstruction, Virginia sued to regain West Virginia before the US Supreme Court? I don't know how it would work out, but would think it would be a sticky situation at the very least.
Well, I believe that most citizens of Virginia were pleased that the hillbilly traitors were gone, so they wouldn't have wanted to, anyway.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Yes, if you count not letting it go it the first place. Something like Lincoln did to Maryland.

Afterwards they would probably did foreign support to reclaim it on the bargaining table.
 
Speaking of hypocrisy, what if it was the US? For instance, what if say after Reconstruction, Virginia sued to regain West Virginia before the US Supreme Court? I don't know how it would work out, but would think it would be a sticky situation at the very least.

I think that's actually what happened, or at least Virginia sued to get Harper's Ferry back, but the Supreme Court ruled against them.

See this page:

http://www.wvhumanities.org/Statehood/virginiavwestvirginia.htm
 
That's interesting. I had read that Virginia essentially dropped their claims after the last of West Virginia's portion of the debt was paid in 1939, but didn't dig enough for the 1871 ruling. Thanks.

Probably ASB, but what if after the 1871 ruling, the Virginia state militia invaded West Virginia. This is the thing I think would make for a very interesting scenario for the federal government. Because this move would seem to say that Virginia agrees with the US federal government, that secession is forbidden and can be enforced with military might. No doubt it would be crushed, but what if the rural counties supported it? Wasn't it basically the industrial towns that led the way for seperation anyway?

I guess I could start my own thread, just thought the offshoot was interesting.
 
That's interesting. I had read that Virginia essentially dropped their claims after the last of West Virginia's portion of the debt was paid in 1939, but didn't dig enough for the 1871 ruling. Thanks.

Probably ASB, but what if after the 1871 ruling, the Virginia state militia invaded West Virginia. This is the thing I think would make for a very interesting scenario for the federal government. Because this move would seem to say that Virginia agrees with the US federal government, that secession is forbidden and can be enforced with military might. No doubt it would be crushed, but what if the rural counties supported it? Wasn't it basically the industrial towns that led the way for seperation anyway?

I guess I could start my own thread, just thought the offshoot was interesting.


That's near ASB, it would be asking for Civil War II and most Southerners thought once was more than enough at the end of the war.
 
Not really, the Hillbillies wanted to be seperate from Virginia and so didn't aid Confederate troops for the most part and aided Federal ones. With both the Union army and the inhabitants of the area against them the Confederacy never stood a chance of keeping it.


Unless you're from the Appalachias, the usage of that term is offensive when referring to the inhabitants of the area.
 
Top