What Happens if Virginia Remains in the Union

Given General Lee will be wearing blue and not butternut, he keeps his family lands - no Arlington National Cemetery.

Arlington is not actually his family's (the Lees) lands. It was the residence of his father-in-law, G.W.P. Custis. When Custis died in 1858, he left Arlington and his other two plantations to Lee's three sons, with a life tenancy at Arlington for Mrs. Lee. Colonel Lee was named executor. The Custis slaves were emancipated by testament, to take effect when all the debts of the estate were cleared (including bequests of $10,000 each to Lee's daughters), or after five years.
 
There is no evidence to suggest that the Norfolk Navy Yard would "defect". Only because of the position and the limited defenses did the CSA take it over, the folks who ran the place made a serious effort to destroy valuable supplies and had limited success only to to time and personnel constraints. AFAIK there was only one case of a serving US officer "defecting" and giving up a US fort or goods before resigning, this was Twiggs on Texas and even the Confederates looked down on this action.
 
Would Virginia have more conservative or more liberal/progressive/socialist/Ev0l-pinko-commie (delete as appropriate) politics as a result of still having West Virginia ITTL?

It would mean a lot more Scotts-Irish in Virginia. Scotts-Irish aren't very ideological, populists seem a more apt term. They voted for Bill Clinton and voted against Hillary Clinton. They were against slavery and secession but also against progressive social engineering and SJWs. They don't like outsiders forcing their views on them no matter what those views are. They are big on patriotism and have an honor based culture that is pro-gun, but I don't particularly think they care what gun laws get passed in the coastal cities as long as it isn't forced on them.
 
It would mean a lot more Scotts-Irish in Virginia. Scotts-Irish aren't very ideological, populists seem a more apt term. They voted for Bill Clinton and voted against Hillary Clinton. They were against slavery and secession but also against progressive social engineering and SJWs. They don't like outsiders forcing their views on them no matter what those views are. They are big on patriotism and have an honor based culture that is pro-gun, but I don't particularly think they care what gun laws get passed in the coastal cities as long as it isn't forced on them.

An apt assessment.

Virginia Democrats as a whole will be more like OTL West Virginia Democrats because of that important constituency. Also it could be interesting losing the two WV senators, but would it make the Republican Party stronger in Virginia as a whole and potentially lead to Virginia electing a Republican senator before the Civil Rights era?
 
I'll dissent with the view that West Virginia would not split off from Virginia: the economies were diverging as time passed, and the western counties had less and less in common with the eastern counties. It wouldn't have been as a result of a conflict, but could well have been the result of a state convention, let's say.

One other item: Arkansas was the ninth of eleven states to secede IOTL. Without the upper south, it's not improbably that Arkansas would have been a neutral, and might have been something of a battleground as both sides wanted to get to the Indian Territory.
 
Lots of states have significant divisions within them in terms of economic orientation, Virginia/West Virginia is by no means unique here. Whatever differences there were, secession/slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back. As far as Arkansas goes, access to Indian Territory is not so much of an issue - as long as CSA forces did not come through Indian Territory in to Kansas there was little incentive to get bogged down there. A more difficult issue for Arkansas being neutral is that a neutral Arkansas represents a potential corridor for movement of troops and goods between the eastern CSA and the trans-Mississippi. The Union can't tolerate such a conduit, although they should be able to close it by controlling the Mississippi as well as taking eastern bank connections. Another issue with Arkansas being neutral is that it would become a haven for CSA forces/irregulars raiding in to Missouri.
 
I'll dissent with the view that West Virginia would not split off from Virginia: the economies were diverging as time passed, and the western counties had less and less in common with the eastern counties. It wouldn't have been as a result of a conflict, but could well have been the result of a state convention, let's say.

One other item: Arkansas was the ninth of eleven states to secede IOTL. Without the upper south, it's not improbably that Arkansas would have been a neutral, and might have been something of a battleground as both sides wanted to get to the Indian Territory.

If West Virginia did secede peacefully, I wonder what effect that would have on other proposed states, like the division of California and such. I can make the argument that none of the other proposed states based on equally different regional economies (i.e. State of Jefferson) failed, but if we say that WV secedes (maybe under the name Kanawha), would that open a floodgate and make other state secession movements stronger, something which would continue into the present day?
 
Top