Secession from The Confederacy.

Just a though...
what would you call somebody from Nickajack? Honestly Nickajackian sounds kinda stupid for a denonym.

Hmmm... Nickajacker? Or it could be a demonym that isn't related to the actual name Nickajack. There's already Hoosiers (Indiana), Bay Staters (Massachusetts) and Nutmeggers (Connecticut). So, Hill Staters?
 
Interesting thoughts, to be sure. Nickajack is approximately in the same place as the proposed state of Franklin (from the 1790s), so they could go with that if they're looking for alternatives.

Additionally, I'd imagine that North Texas is less Dallas-focused and more focused on including eastern Texas (excluding parts of the coast) and central Texas, particularly parts where German settlers predominated. The backcountry plus the Germans plus some Tejanos (since the Germans are around San Antonio any way, the Tejanos there and further south in the Rio Grande valley might come too) as the backbone for a secessionist movement from the Confederate state of Texas. Of course, getting Houston as governor of this entity will be difficult, since his OTL actions during the Civil War centered on the goal of keeping the war from coming to Texas, no matter what side she was on. However, if someone else starts the movement going and there's nothing he can do to stop the fighting, he might get involved.

I also wonder if Nickajack might attract parts of North Carolina or at least prompt a stronger counter secession movement there.

As a general point, a Civil War that includes such movements will be very different than ours for at least one big reason. These movements (aside from Joe Johnston in SoCal) are precisely those that Lincoln was first trying to court in his policies toward the South and slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation: Southern unionists. If these unionists are actually fighting the Confederacy, Lincoln will do all he can to keep them happy and support their cause. At its most extreme, this may even mean that abolition as such isn't imposed on a Reconstructed South, leaving abolitionist New Englanders very upset.
 
hmmm, in previous posts to this effect, I've considered a Unionist East Tennessee, with parts of hillcountry NC & Alabama also, or West Texas seceding alongside WV...

OTOH, how bout considering the formation of new Copperhead states in anti-war Democrat-dominated parts of the midwest ?
 
Additionally, I'd imagine that North Texas is less Dallas-focused and more focused on including eastern Texas (excluding parts of the coast) and central Texas, particularly parts where German settlers predominated. The backcountry plus the Germans plus some Tejanos (since the Germans are around San Antonio any way, the Tejanos there and further south in the Rio Grande valley might come too) as the backbone for a secessionist movement from the Confederate state of Texas.

From what I understand, there were two main regions that had counter-secessionary movements: Dallas and Texas Hill Country or something (don't remember the exact name, it was something like that). I think I have the latter pretty misplaced (that's the somewhat bulbuous region in the southwest of North Texas), but I did the best I can. I haven't heard much about other regions that were pro-counter secession...

Of course, getting Houston as governor of this entity will be difficult, since his OTL actions during the Civil War centered on the goal of keeping the war from coming to Texas, no matter what side she was on. However, if someone else starts the movement going and there's nothing he can do to stop the fighting, he might get involved.

True, true. I don't know that much about Houston, so I was thinking something along the lines of North Texas just thinking of itself as the legitimate successor to Texas, and keep as much of the state government as it can.

At its most extreme, this may even mean that abolition as such isn't imposed on a Reconstructed South, leaving abolitionist New Englanders very upset.

Eh. Part of the reason Appalachia was against the war was because they were too poor. Slavery really wasn't an issue. In any case, I see the Civil War amendments flying through Congress anyway. With the southern nations not really having a say, they'd easily get the majority necessary, just like OTL, .

'course, I think even if Nickajack did support slavery, Lincoln still would've gone through with it. There were a lot of huge benefits to the Emancipation Proclamation, and destroying international support for the CSA would've been worth risking Nickajack's ire. Nickajack was poor, had a relatively small population, and by that point would've been solidly in the war.

Incidentally, Nickajack was supposed to be a neutral territory, not taking sides with the rebels, but not fighting directly against them, either. I think this would just turn out how it did with Kentucky, though. The CS attacks, and drives them straight into the Union camp.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Well, Missouri is a prime candidate; just find a way to have the Confederate guerrillas do slightly better and you probably have the state split de jure as well as de facto.

Southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio are also possibilities, but I suspect that the Union armies moving through Kentucky will quickly put paid to any secession attempts in the region.

Now Maryland, on the other hand, could be interesting; if the Union isn't able to crush secessionist sentiment there as thoroughly, you could see the southeastern portion of the state and the Eastern Shore attempt to secede with the goal of "liberating" the rest of the state later, and the corridor from the Susquehanna down to Washington would be an utter mess for at least the first year of the war.
 
Top