WI Georgia rejected secession in 1861?

A Confederate invasion of a State that doesn't want to join it would not be a wise political move.

That's logical, but OTL's Confederacy did attempt invasion of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, as well as the territories of Arizona, Colorado, and California.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Even in foresight. It was a bunch of firebrands throwing a hissy fit, believing that the president would take their slaves when his position was only to keep slavery where it existed, seceding when it was the landed and wealthy elite that wanted to secede more than the common Southerner, trying to run a nation based on that elitist class system, which was also totally deficient in industry and infrastructure, lacking in urbanization compared to the North, and lacking severely in population, and all based on slavery, which was already increasingly a disdained issue. And to win, it was going to have to rely on getting Britain or France as allies; two nations which had long since banned slavery, and which were disgusted with the institution, and the only reason for aiding the CSA would have been to get cheap cotton and to cripple the United States. And they could and did move to getting cotton from their empires instead, so strike one, and government support for a slavery based state like the Confederacy would have lead to the outrage of the common population in those nations, so strike two. Not to mention it was a nation based on being against any government more official than the Articles of Confederation, which means it wasn't really much of a nation, and already had legitimacy issues since a government is based on it being declared the overall authority of a nation with some authority, and the CSA came into being by negating that authority in the United States and based itself upon it. Not to mention you'd have things like the governor of Alabama having to ask the governor of Georgia for shoes if they ran out, and there was no guarantee of the governor of Georgia agreeing to give help.

This does not make for a state that is going to work, which is my problem recently with CSA timelines since it more and more comes off like all it was ever going to be was an effort that was going to be doomed. This is stuff people could have seen coming. Had more moderate heads prevailed, the South probably would have gotten something it would have wanted. Slavery would have remained where it was, and continued for longer, likely being gradually phased out in the years thereafter, with the South not ravaged by war and destruction and shame, and probably with the slave holders paid or rewarded in some way to make up for their release of their slaves. Some of that's hindsight, but a lot of this is stuff people could have seen coming had idiocy not won the day.

Didn't someone do an essay on this?
 
I have heard that there are some questions about the legitimacy (amongst white males) on most of the Sessession votes except in Texas
 
Even in foresight. It was a bunch of firebrands throwing a hissy fit, believing that the president would take their slaves when his position was only to keep slavery where it existed, seceding when it was the landed and wealthy elite that wanted to secede more than the common Southerner, trying to run a nation based on that elitist class system, which was also totally deficient in industry and infrastructure, lacking in urbanization compared to the North, and lacking severely in population, and all based on slavery, which was already increasingly a disdained issue. And to win, it was going to have to rely on getting Britain or France as allies; two nations which had long since banned slavery, and which were disgusted with the institution, and the only reason for aiding the CSA would have been to get cheap cotton and to cripple the United States. And they could and did move to getting cotton from their empires instead, so strike one, and government support for a slavery based state like the Confederacy would have lead to the outrage of the common population in those nations, so strike two. Not to mention it was a nation based on being against any government more official than the Articles of Confederation, which means it wasn't really much of a nation, and already had legitimacy issues since a government is based on it being declared the overall authority of a nation with some authority, and the CSA came into being by negating that authority in the United States and based itself upon it. Not to mention you'd have things like the governor of Alabama having to ask the governor of Georgia for shoes if they ran out, and there was no guarantee of the governor of Georgia agreeing to give help.

This does not make for a state that is going to work, which is my problem recently with CSA timelines since it more and more comes off like all it was ever going to be was an effort that was going to be doomed. This is stuff people could have seen coming. Had more moderate heads prevailed, the South probably would have gotten something it would have wanted. Slavery would have remained where it was, and continued for longer, likely being gradually phased out in the years thereafter, with the South not ravaged by war and destruction and shame, and probably with the slave holders paid or rewarded in some way to make up for their release of their slaves. Some of that's hindsight, but a lot of this is stuff people could have seen coming had idiocy not won the day.

Exactly, it was well known that the North had 10X the industry and 3X the Free Population of the South. It didn't take a genius to figure out who would almost certainly win the war in the long run.
 
If Georgia splits before the rebellion starts, then the American army marching to the rescue of loyal Americans is a totally different image from suppressing a general insurrection--and might convince some southern states not to rebel.

So regardless of what happens, we end up with somebody Marching Through Georgia!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
So..... Georgia votes against secession. The first move of the Confederacy is to call up troops and plan to invade.

What do VA and NC do?

OTL, it was Lincoln's calling up of troops to fight against hostile states that was Virginia's excuse to secede. Ittl, if they used the same logic, theyd have to declare for the Union.

Not that theyd use the same logic,.probably, but its an interesting thought.
 
The failure of Georgia to secede will likely affect the votes in Louisiana and Texas. That the Deep South Confederacy won't be contiguous will cause turmoil. A successful no vote also means the momentum for secession is blunted. Louisiana may still secede, but Texas could do a wait and see approach under the leadership of Houston.

Even though most of the "no" votes are by Cooperationists instead of staunch Unionists, it lessens the crisis and gives Lincoln more time to prepare. Alexander Stephens and Lincoln corresponded a lot right after the 1860 election. Georgia remaining in the Union, even temporarily, will embolden the cooperationists. I easily imagine Stephens, having won the no vote in Georgia, reaching out to the cooperationists in other states and getting support for taking it slow.

Simply because states have seceded does not mean they form the Confederacy. Without Georgia and perhaps Texas, many politicians in the seceded states might prefer to hear any compromise proposals from Washington before taking the next provocative step of organizing a rival national government.

The longer the delay, the greater Lincoln's hands are strengthened at holding the Union together.

Yet another Great Compromise is unlikely, so war is probably inevitable. But it probably won't come for many months. A Lincoln who has 6 or 10 months time to prepare for Civil War instead of the 1 month he did as President means the the US is much better prepared when it does happen.

In such circumstances, Union troops might be able to occupy much of the Upper South before the Confederacy can organize defenses there. It could shave one or two years off the war as we know it.
 
Last edited:
Top