WI: No US Civil War

Except that relative handful of idiots include the Governors of States, as well as their Federal congressmen; an influential and powerful lot, without question.

So far your sources show that the idea of a Northwest Confederation was supported by Representative Clement Vallandigham and Representative Samuel S Cox, both of Ohio. The proposed Northwest Confederation was "Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Minnesota, and perhaps Ohio". You've provided no evidence that any of the Congressmen or governors of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas or Minnesota supported a Northwest Confederation. You have provided no evidence that the Governor of Ohio, either of the Senators, or the other 19 of the 21 Representatives from Ohio supported the idea of the Northwest Confederation.

Two Representatives from Ohio is not a mass movement for a Northwest Confederacy.

Your sources also show that the idea of Central Confederacy was supported by former Representative John Pendleton Kennedy and Governor Thomas Hicks, both of Maryland. The Central Confederation that Kennedy proposed was Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, and Maryland. Hicks version also included Delaware and Georgia. Thomas DiLornenzo, a notoriously unreliable source, claims there were secessionist movements in "New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland", but even he doesn't claim they wanted to join a Central Confederation. You've provided no evidence that any of the Congressmen or governors of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, Delaware, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania supported a Central Confederation. You have provided no evidence that either of the Senators from Maryland, or any of the the 6 Representatives from Maryland supported the idea of the Northwest Confederation.

One governor from Maryland is not a mass movement for a Central Confederacy.
 
That doesn't refute my original claim, which was that most of the Midwest was originally settled by Southerners. That in 1860 the majority of new residents were not from the South is entirely separate issue from that, given that the descendants of the original settlers would not be counted as new residents.

Technically, I don't have to do anything to refute your claim that the Midwest had a "cultural affinity for the South as a relic of the fact the Midwest was originally settled primarily from people from there and economic ties due to the Mississippi." After all, you have provided no evidence that "the Midwest was originally settled primarily" by people from the South or that the Midwest had any special "cultural affinity" towards the South.

Info for the birthplace of state residents in 1850. also shows shows your completely unsupported claim is wildly inaccurate. In 1850, the top 5 places people were born outside the state were:

Illinois - New York, Ohio, Kentucky, Germany, Pennsylvania
Indiana - Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina
Iowa - Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky
Michigan - New York, Ohio, Ireland, Vermont, Germany
Minnesota -Canada, Maine, Ohio, Illinois, Ireland
Ohio - Pennsylvania, Germany, New York, Virginia, Ireland
Wisconsin - New York, Germany, England, Ireland, Ohio

Kansas wasn't even on the Census in 1850. In 1860 the top 5 places people were born outside the state were Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania

Nebraska wasn't even on the Census in 1850. In 1860 the top 5 places people were born outside the state were Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, New York, Ireland
 
I've already disabused both the notion regarding the descendants of Southerners as well as the idea that this could only come about as a result of the Civil War.

You claimed that if the Confederacy seceded peacefully, then the Union would fall apart and that most of the former Union states would join the Confederacy. As as already been shown, your own sources do not support this claim.

You have claimed that the Midwest had a "cultural affinity for the South as a relic of the fact the Midwest was originally settled primarily from people from there and economic ties due to the Mississippi." You haven't provided any sources that support your claim.

Yes, but in this alternate context they would indeed flourish and OTL has already shown they had a strong basis to do so.

You have provided no evidence that a peaceful Confederate secession would cause the Copperhead movement to exist, let alone flourish. Your own sources contradict your claim - as Thane of Fife already noted, your source concludes that "Indeed, the extreme Peace Democrats who floated the idea of a Northwest Confederacy were probably not even a majority of the Democracy of the Northwest, let alone of the Northwest as a whole."

Very interesting you completely ignored my response to that, by pointing out that a Wikipedia article is meant to be a primer and not the source in of itself. I'll repeat myself in that, if you want a source with firm academic credentials for more in depth reading, do give The Road to Disunion: Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861 by William W. Freehling a glance.

I own The Road to Disunion: Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861 by William W. Freehling. The closest it comes to supporting any of your claims is noting that the Border North, not the Midwest, "attracted fewer New England puritans and more Border Southerners" than the rest of the North.

Freehling is not a source used by the Wikipedia article. As both Thane of Fife and I have noted, there are some very bad sources used by that article, including 2 of the top contenders voted one of the least credible history books in print by History News Network.
 
And that is, as I likewise pointed out, an extreme cherry pick:

When your own source contradicts you, you have been accusing other editors of cherry picking.

Your response to Johnrankins again quoted the same section of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom - "This sense of Butternut identity with the South and hostility to the Northeast gave rise to talk among western Democrats of a 'Northwest Confederacy' that would reconstruct a Union with the South, leaving New England out in the cold until she confessed the error of her ways and humbly petitioned for readmission."

McPherson's quote says some western Democrats favored a 'Northwest Confederacy'. McPherson does not say that the majority of western Democrats, let alone a majority of Midwesterners, favored a 'Northwest Confederacy'.

McPherson also does not say that the majority of Midwesterners had a "sense of Butternut identity with the South". In the paragraph before the one your quote, McPherson says that "In Butternut regions of the Midwest, economic grievances reinforced the cultural attitudes of people descended from southern settlers." McPherson does not say that these "Butternut regions" or "southern settlers" made up the majority of the Midwest and both the immigration data that I provided and the general failure of the Copperheads show that they were a minority.
 
Last edited:
When your own source contradicts you, you have been accusing other editors of cherry picking.

Your response to Johnrankins again quoted the same section of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom - "This sense of Butternut identity with the South and hostility to the Northeast gave rise to talk among western Democrats of a 'Northwest Confederacy' that would reconstruct a Union with the South, leaving New England out in the cold until she confessed the error of her ways and humbly petitioned for readmission."

McPherson's quote says some western Democrats favored a 'Northwest Confederacy'. McPherson does not say that the majority of western Democrats, let alone a majority of Midwesterners, favored a 'Northwest Confederacy'.

McPherson also does not say that the majority of Midwesterners had a "sense of Butternut identity with the South". In the paragraph before the one your quote, McPherson says that "In Butternut regions of the Midwest, economic grievances reinforced the cultural attitudes of people descended from southern settlers." McPherson does not say that these "Butternut regions" or "southern settlers" made up the majority of the Midwest and both the immigration data that I provided and the general failure of the Copperheads show that they were a minority.

Not talking about the large numbers of Midwesterners that joined the Union Army BEFORE the draft. A number of Butternuts wanting a "Northwest Confederacy" does not a mass movement make. Did the government take them seriously? Sure, it did. It couldn't afford not to, particularly after the South seceded. That doesn't mean it had a serious chance.
 
Top