WI: Virginia declares neutrality in ACW

What if Virginia does not secede on the condition that it does not fight, gets to remain a slave state, and that no army of either side are allowed to enter its territory?
 
The war gets harder to fight, especially for the Union, as there'll be no real common border between the two sides save for the Missouri-Arkansas frontier. However, the South will greatly miss Virigina's manpower & industrial capacity. This'll mean, if the Union can launch a large scale amphibious operation or two, the CSA will be more disadvantaged than in the OTL.

That, though, doesn't overly mean the war will be over anytime sooner because supporting any such large scale amphibious based operations will be a lot more taxing on Union resources than the OTL situation. Mind you, if the CSA repeats its idiotic invasion of Kentucky, once more, then everything changes real fast. So expect a quick end to the war if that's the case.
 
If this were to be agreed to by the USA and the state of Virginia, then it is a huge benefit for the USA - Virginia on the sideline costs the CSA multiple divisions, while the corresponding loss of OTL West Virginia costs the Union army perhaps one brigade. Further, the USA can achieve strategic surprise as there is no way to detect the movements of the Union armies as they prepare to either invade along the coast, or breach the Mississippi.

The Union's opening moves would include a strong army invading Arkansas - this forces the CSA to move forces west and opens the "flank" of the state of Mississippi. The CSA cannot defend the reasonable crossing points as heavily as the Union can concentrate forces. Running a logistics train along the west bank of the Mississippi is not easy, but it's doable. If the capital stays in Montgomery, then the CSA will be under a lot of pressure to deploy heavily in the West.

Figure that even with beefed-up garrisons along the coast, the Union can force a beachhead at one or two points - perhaps Wilmington and Mobile (not heavily researched, but I have to believe New Orleans is better defended than in OTL). I also figure that they will force a crossing of the Mississippi south of Vicksburg as did Grant in OTL.

I also think that the Union keeps an army in Indiana / Ohio for the sole purpose of supporting the Union-leaning government of Kentucky, ready to counter the first CSA move resembling an invasion (which could be as trivial as a CSA cavalryman sneezing too loudly a little north of Union City, Tennessee :D). They probably have a tightly-controlled regular Army garrison in Washington City and along the Potomac with very strict orders to do absolutely nothing that compromises the border with Virginia.

How's about "key players?" Presumably the "loss" of Virginia to the CSA takes away Joseph E. Johnston, Lee, Jackson, and Stuart, as well as a large room's worth of good division and brigade commanders. Not to say that the Confederate Army is hopeless without those four, but some of the poorer generals may end up in higher posts earlier and longer than in OTL. To be sure, the CSA still has a number of very capable officers (I'd hate to try to break out of a lodgement against Longstreet!), but those officers above represent a strategic brain trust the loss of which disproportionately hurts the CSA. (Also note that "loyal" Virginians such as George Thomas probably stay in service to the Union. Even worse for the CSA would be if individual US Army regulars such as Johnston, Lee, and Stuart chose to stay in service.)

But - is it realistic that the US government would forego the use of the state of Virginia as an avenue for invasion? I would think that there would be a lot of pressure on Virginia to more fully support the Union. In order to make this happen you probably need a POD which either makes the state even stronger or gives the state government a very good sense of politics in playing the two sides off against each other and maintaining "neutrality."
 
Top