smaller CSA

The South will be crushed by the Union in short order as they will lack the manpower, industrial capabilities and leaders needed to fight as long as they did in OTL let alone get their independence.

Now if you had worded it as "what if Texas and Virginia had not joined the Confederacy?" then that is a more interesting scenario.

Texas had left the Union before Lincoln was sworn in and before the Battle of Fort Sumter but had not joined the Confederacy yet so what might happen if Texas decides not to join the Confederacy is that they might either become a neutral, independent State with that independence being either assured or destroyed by the outcome of any conflict between North and South or they would become a independent nation allied to the Confederacy to achieve their assured independence.

Virginia, had they not joined the Confederacy, would likely be a neutral, though Southern leaning, independent State. With Virginia and its neighbor Kentucky independent then the Union will be unable to advance through them to reach the South. If the Upper-South follows Virginia's example and leaves the Union but doesn't join the Confederacy then there will be and independent, neutral buffer zone between North and South made up of Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and possibly Missouri.

The situation in North America in the 1860's might be British Noth America/Canada neutral to the North, The United States large and expanding below BNA, a neutral union of the Upper-Southern States straddling the Mason-Dixon line, the Confederacy in the Deep-South and possibly an independent and neutral Texas to the West of the CSA.

Which makes a far more interesting situation than just simply keeping two of the OTL Confederacy's strongest States in the Union.
 
I don't know that Lincoln would have let that happen--he seemed to consider any hint of secession as bad as the confederacy. Check out Maryland's role in the conflict (Abe, IIRC, declared marshall law to prevent them from getting the opportunity to go with the South), then tell me whether he would have given two shakes whether the Virginia he had troops marching into was Confederacy-held or just an "independent neutral country" recognized by nobody but itself.

It either is forced back into the Union at gunpoint (serious ability to resist, AKAIK, didn't exist in any single state compared to the national army) or joins the Confederacy to get the assistance it needs against the northern aggressors who failed to respect is attempt to declare independent neutrality. If the latter, the war goes much as OTL, but maybe with a slightly more successful early Union (from their gains until Virginia joins the Confederacy and the new troops arrive). If the former, the Confederacy falls earlier due to the whole "no Virginia" thing. Any other states that try the same deal will suffer the same fate, and every one the does makes the Confederacy worse off against the Union.

Quite honestly, the most interesting question to me is what becomes of the Virginian generals (like Lee). Do they see which way the wind is blowing and stay with the Union army, or go with their home state?
 
It should be pointed out that Kentucky actually was neutral very briefly in 1861. Both sides marches in and set up governments, which is just what will happen in your neutral-upper-south scenario, except that the neutrals in the way and disorganisation will allow the Union to bring Virginia at least back into the union, and likely Tennessee. The CSA is going down fast.
 
The Union in OTL were perfectly happy to respect Kentucky's neutrality and only invaded that State after Gerneral Leonidas Polk had already invaded for the Confederacy. Had Polk not invaded Kentucky then its neutrality probably would have been respected and, come the end of the conflict, they would have chosen which side to support. Admittedly the Federal authrities were already at work in Kentucky and their threat of arrest and inprisonment led to John Breckenridge fleeing his native state for the South but the Union had not moved any force into Kentucky until Polk did.

That the Union to a soft approach with Kentucky than they did with the others can be assumed to mean that they would have tried a softer approach with Virginia as well and proud Virginia would not stand for any Federal authorities trying to throw their weight around in that state so the Union will either have to 1)accept Virginia neutrality and work around it to get to the CSA or 2)invade, conquer and dominate Virginia so as to ensure their loyalty. Either way the Union wont have Virginia on their side and if they chose the second they will dirve Virginia away.

If Virginia is invaded by Federal Armies after declaring neutrality and gets driven to side with the South then Kentucky will worry about their own neutrality being violated by the Union and may just side with the South as well.

Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina will follow Virginia's example as Virginia at this point is the leader of the Upper-South. There may be men from those state who will fight for Confederacy or Union while in their States are in neutrality but the majority will side with their States.

The Union will have to chose in 1860 whether they accept neutrality of the Upper-South or try to dominate it and force it to remain in the Union. The Upper-South, though technically neutral, will not simply sit idley by and let the Union to the north and the Confederacy to the South raise large armies at their borders but will likewise raise Armies themselves for protection against these forces, likely to be State Armies more than anything, so if the Union des chose to invade then the Upper-South will be able to resist until such as time as their can strike a deal with the CSA for help.

The Confederacy will also have to chose their stance with the neutral states betwen them and the North. Neutrality of their Upper-Southern neighbors helps them in the long run but they may have delusions of expansion and may try to ensure their cooperation and membership in the Confederacy and may try to invade, which will drive the Upper-South to side with the Union.

Things can thus go either way with the Neutral States between North and South and Texas will be in a similar boat.

The main Generals of the Armies of the Confederacy with only South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana as members will likely be P.G.T. Beauregard (Louisiana born but representing the whole CSA), Braxton Bragg(North Caorlinian but representing Louisiana) and James Longstreet (South-Carolinian representing Alabama) with the likes of Richard Taylor, John Bell Hood, Joseph Wheeler and John B. Gordon as potential high ranking Confederate Generals later.

The main Generals of the Upper-South will likely be Robert E. Lee (Virginian representing Virginia), Joseph E. Johnston (Virginian representing Virginian) William J. Hardee (Georgian representing Arkansas), Nathan Bedford Forrest (Tenessean representing Tennessee) and John C. Breckenridge (Kentuckian representing Kentucky or Tennessee). There will likely be the possible later high ranking Generals of Patrick Ronayne Cleburne, Thomas C. Hindman, D.H. Hill, Thomas J. Jackson, JEB Stuart and Wade Hampton amungst others.

Texas may raise an Army itself who commander is most likely to be A.S. Johnston (Kentuckian) or perhap Edmund Kirby Smith (Floridian).

The Union Generals would be pretty much the same as OTL unless George Henry Thomas changes his mind for some reason and decides to side with Virginia.
 
My understanding is that Texas and Virginia are very different cases. As I understand it there was a relatively legitimate process in Texas which showed very clearly that most white men (and we are talking a large margin) wanted to support the treasonable rebellion.

There are huges doubts about whether this applied to Virginia. In addition Tennessee and North Carolina had large Unionist communities.

I could see the CSA being confined to the first 7 states.

| tend to assume that it would have been defeated more easily. The downside of that is that it is less likely that slavery would have become such a key issue and the evile institution might have survived some further decades.
 
My understanding is that Texas and Virginia are very different cases. As I understand it there was a relatively legitimate process in Texas which showed very clearly that most white men (and we are talking a large margin) wanted to support the treasonable rebellion.

There are huges doubts about whether this applied to Virginia. In addition Tennessee and North Carolina had large Unionist communities.

I could see the CSA being confined to the first 7 states.

| tend to assume that it would have been defeated more easily. The downside of that is that it is less likely that slavery would have become such a key issue and the evile institution might have survived some further decades.

OTOH, if you seperate the millitary defeat of the Civil War from the ending of slavery, you might not get quite as much of a backlash from the South and the actual civil rights part might show up and stay shown up when the freedom supposedly does. Slavery was going to die eventually--maybe here it does so without quite as much post-mortem hassle.
 
The Union in OTL were perfectly happy to respect Kentucky's neutrality and only invaded that State after Gerneral Leonidas Polk had already invaded for the Confederacy. Had Polk not invaded Kentucky then its neutrality probably would have been respected and, come the end of the conflict, they would have chosen which side to support. Admittedly the Federal authrities were already at work in Kentucky and their threat of arrest and inprisonment led to John Breckenridge fleeing his native state for the South but the Union had not moved any force into Kentucky until Polk did.

That the Union to a soft approach with Kentucky than they did with the others can be assumed to mean that they would have tried a softer approach with Virginia as well and proud Virginia would not stand for any Federal authorities trying to throw their weight around in that state so the Union will either have to 1)accept Virginia neutrality and work around it to get to the CSA or 2)invade, conquer and dominate Virginia so as to ensure their loyalty. Either way the Union wont have Virginia on their side and if they chose the second they will dirve Virginia away.

If Virginia is invaded by Federal Armies after declaring neutrality and gets driven to side with the South then Kentucky will worry about their own neutrality being violated by the Union and may just side with the South as well.

Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina will follow Virginia's example as Virginia at this point is the leader of the Upper-South. There may be men from those state who will fight for Confederacy or Union while in their States are in neutrality but the majority will side with their States.

The Union will have to chose in 1860 whether they accept neutrality of the Upper-South or try to dominate it and force it to remain in the Union. The Upper-South, though technically neutral, will not simply sit idley by and let the Union to the north and the Confederacy to the South raise large armies at their borders but will likewise raise Armies themselves for protection against these forces, likely to be State Armies more than anything, so if the Union des chose to invade then the Upper-South will be able to resist until such as time as their can strike a deal with the CSA for help.

The Confederacy will also have to chose their stance with the neutral states betwen them and the North. Neutrality of their Upper-Southern neighbors helps them in the long run but they may have delusions of expansion and may try to ensure their cooperation and membership in the Confederacy and may try to invade, which will drive the Upper-South to side with the Union.

Things can thus go either way with the Neutral States between North and South and Texas will be in a similar boat.

The main Generals of the Armies of the Confederacy with only South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana as members will likely be P.G.T. Beauregard (Louisiana born but representing the whole CSA), Braxton Bragg(North Caorlinian but representing Louisiana) and James Longstreet (South-Carolinian representing Alabama) with the likes of Richard Taylor, John Bell Hood, Joseph Wheeler and John B. Gordon as potential high ranking Confederate Generals later.

The main Generals of the Upper-South will likely be Robert E. Lee (Virginian representing Virginia), Joseph E. Johnston (Virginian representing Virginian) William J. Hardee (Georgian representing Arkansas), Nathan Bedford Forrest (Tenessean representing Tennessee) and John C. Breckenridge (Kentuckian representing Kentucky or Tennessee). There will likely be the possible later high ranking Generals of Patrick Ronayne Cleburne, Thomas C. Hindman, D.H. Hill, Thomas J. Jackson, JEB Stuart and Wade Hampton amungst others.

Texas may raise an Army itself who commander is most likely to be A.S. Johnston (Kentuckian) or perhap Edmund Kirby Smith (Floridian).

The Union Generals would be pretty much the same as OTL unless George Henry Thomas changes his mind for some reason and decides to side with Virginia.

I'm beaten!

My remarks were based on quick rememberings, so yeah.
 
The Union in OTL were perfectly happy to respect Kentucky's neutrality and only invaded that State after Gerneral Leonidas Polk had already invaded for the Confederacy. Had Polk not invaded Kentucky then its neutrality probably would have been respected and, come the end of the conflict, they would have chosen which side to support. Admittedly the Federal authrities were already at work in Kentucky and their threat of arrest and inprisonment led to John Breckenridge fleeing his native state for the South but the Union had not moved any force into Kentucky until Polk did.

That the Union to a soft approach with Kentucky than they did with the others can be assumed to mean that they would have tried a softer approach with Virginia as well and proud Virginia would not stand for any Federal authorities trying to throw their weight around in that state so the Union will either have to 1)accept Virginia neutrality and work around it to get to the CSA or 2)invade, conquer and dominate Virginia so as to ensure their loyalty. Either way the Union wont have Virginia on their side and if they chose the second they will dirve Virginia away.

If Virginia is invaded by Federal Armies after declaring neutrality and gets driven to side with the South then Kentucky will worry about their own neutrality being violated by the Union and may just side with the South as well.

Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina will follow Virginia's example as Virginia at this point is the leader of the Upper-South. There may be men from those state who will fight for Confederacy or Union while in their States are in neutrality but the majority will side with their States.

The Union will have to chose in 1860 whether they accept neutrality of the Upper-South or try to dominate it and force it to remain in the Union. The Upper-South, though technically neutral, will not simply sit idley by and let the Union to the north and the Confederacy to the South raise large armies at their borders but will likewise raise Armies themselves for protection against these forces, likely to be State Armies more than anything, so if the Union des chose to invade then the Upper-South will be able to resist until such as time as their can strike a deal with the CSA for help.

The Confederacy will also have to chose their stance with the neutral states betwen them and the North. Neutrality of their Upper-Southern neighbors helps them in the long run but they may have delusions of expansion and may try to ensure their cooperation and membership in the Confederacy and may try to invade, which will drive the Upper-South to side with the Union.

Things can thus go either way with the Neutral States between North and South and Texas will be in a similar boat.

The main Generals of the Armies of the Confederacy with only South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana as members will likely be P.G.T. Beauregard (Louisiana born but representing the whole CSA), Braxton Bragg(North Caorlinian but representing Louisiana) and James Longstreet (South-Carolinian representing Alabama) with the likes of Richard Taylor, John Bell Hood, Joseph Wheeler and John B. Gordon as potential high ranking Confederate Generals later.

The main Generals of the Upper-South will likely be Robert E. Lee (Virginian representing Virginia), Joseph E. Johnston (Virginian representing Virginian) William J. Hardee (Georgian representing Arkansas), Nathan Bedford Forrest (Tenessean representing Tennessee) and John C. Breckenridge (Kentuckian representing Kentucky or Tennessee). There will likely be the possible later high ranking Generals of Patrick Ronayne Cleburne, Thomas C. Hindman, D.H. Hill, Thomas J. Jackson, JEB Stuart and Wade Hampton amungst others.

Texas may raise an Army itself who commander is most likely to be A.S. Johnston (Kentuckian) or perhap Edmund Kirby Smith (Floridian).

The Union Generals would be pretty much the same as OTL unless George Henry Thomas changes his mind for some reason and decides to side with Virginia.
Small correction on your post(and short comment).
Cleburne was a resident of LA. and Wade Hampton was from South Carolina. Also I had thought Longstreet was from NC.
The comment: In 1860 VA,Ky,NC,and TN were 4 of the 7 most populated Slave States MD,MO,and GA being the other three. In fact VA,NC,& TN account for the bulk of the ANV and most of its best Generals. So leave out the Tabacco States and the CSA is not going to stand for long.
 
Small correction on your post(and short comment).
Cleburne was a resident of LA. and Wade Hampton was from South Carolina. Also I had thought Longstreet was from NC.
The comment: In 1860 VA,Ky,NC,and TN were 4 of the 7 most populated Slave States MD,MO,and GA being the other three. In fact VA,NC,& TN account for the bulk of the ANV and most of its best Generals. So leave out the Tabacco States and the CSA is not going to stand for long.

I did get the Generals a bit wrong, with these two mainly; Hardee would have been a Georgian representin Georgia or Alabama and Wade Hampton would be a South Carolinian representing South Carolina.

Longstreet was born a South Carolinian and spent the first 9 years of his life there before moving to live with his Uncle in Georgia. He resigned his commision in the Federal Armies when Alabama left and offered his services to that state.

Patrick Ronayne Cleburne was living in Arkansas when the South seceeded and was good friends with Thomas C. Hindman (a prominent Arkansas Politician - Tennessee born, Mississippi raised) and had been involved in a gunfight with some of Hindman's political rivals four years before secession. He joined up with some Arkansas militia call the Yell Rifles and he commanded the 1st Arkansas Infantry (later the 15th Arkansas) as a Colonel and Brigadier General before his promotion to Division command so he would have represented Arkansas.

As to the comment, the population of the Confederacy would be greatly diminished without the Upper-South but so would the area they needed to defend.

If the Upper-South and Texas remain a neutral buffer, respected by both sides, then the only way for the Union to attack the Confederact would be by sea, which means that the Confederacy would only have to defend the Coastal regions.

This is a task that is more within their abilities but if the Federals can land in any real strength then the only hope for the Confederacy would be to try and convince their neutral neighbors to interveen in their favor...or to get the Mexican's involved.

Either way the Confederacy is going to be small and relatively weak.
 
The Union in OTL were perfectly happy to respect Kentucky's neutrality and only invaded that State after Gerneral Leonidas Polk had already invaded for the Confederacy.

They weren't so perfectly happy to respect Missouri's neutrality though.
 

mowque

Banned
They only let KY alone because they knew (or thought) that was the best way to 'keep' KY. I doubt any CSA would be able to keep KY. But that is just opinion.
 
Of course the reason the Union left Kentucky alone and interferred in Missouri is because they thought Kentucky to be Northern leaning and Missouri Southern leaning so they felt they could leave Kentucky alone and it would remain but had to get involved in Missouri or it would leave.

As it turns out Kentucky remain cause most of the secessionist had gone south to fight for the Confederacy and Missouri stayed but fought its own little Civil War within the main Civil War.

In Kentucky the Confederates did the wrong thing by violating Kentucky's neutrality as it allowed the federals in invade themselves and consolidate Kentucky into the Union but the Federals did the wrong thing in Missouri as they violated that states neutrality and drove it to its own Civil War. If Van Dorn's Army of the West had successfully beaten the Federals at Pea Ridge and managed to push on into Missouri then consolidate his position there (as ASB as that is) then Missouri would have been the Confederate version of Kentucky in that the Federal interference in that state had driven them to the South just like the Rebel interference in Kentucky had driven that state to the North.

Thus how the Union and Confederacy deal with that neutral buffer zone of the upper-south and Texas will directly effect the outcome of the war. If both sides agree to recognize the neautrality of the Upper-South and Texas then the war will be a boring affair of coastal defensive warfare but if they try to interfer and coerce those neutral states t their own side then it will be a more interesting conflict.

So I stand by my original statement that a neutral buffer zone of the Upper-South and Texas would make for a very interesting scenario in 1861.
 
Top