WI: Westylvania recognized as 14th state

A solidly Democratic-Republican state is added to the Union early on. This would likely have some political and electoral consequences. It will almost certainly cause enough butterflies to prevent the Civil War from erupting as it did IOTL, but assuming that a North-South conflict is still in the cards (and that is very plausible), Westsylvania will certainly side with the North.
 
A solidly Democratic-Republican state is added to the Union early on. This would likely have some political and electoral consequences. It will almost certainly cause enough butterflies to prevent the Civil War from erupting as it did IOTL, but assuming that a North-South conflict is still in the cards (and that is very plausible), Westsylvania will certainly side with the North.

One butterfly might be that with two more Northern votes in the Senate, the Tallmadge Amendment passes, leading to a Missouri dominated by free settlers.
 
Pennsylvania will certainly be upset, will they roll over and take it or could it cause problems later?

Pennsylvania passed a law affirming that any discussion of the secession of Westylvania would be viewed as treason and punishable by death.
Would it help or hurt Westylvania's chances if Pennsylvania does execute some people over it?


 
Pennsylvania will certainly be upset, will they roll over and take it or could it cause problems later?

Would it help or hurt Westylvania's chances if Pennsylvania does execute some people over it?


I think it would most definitely help. The national government isn't going to stand by while Pennsylvania executes people. It would probably mean that whoever issued the executions to be impeached, and some people who weren't executed, to be given what they desire.
 
I think it would most definitely help. The national government isn't going to stand by while Pennsylvania executes people. It would probably mean that whoever issued the executions to be impeached, and some people who weren't executed, to be given what they desire.

Splitting a state requires the agreement of the national government and the STATE, according to the Constitution. If Pennsylvania gets to the point where theyre executing people, I cant imagine them giving permission to let the west go.
 
Splitting a state requires the agreement of the national government and the STATE, according to the Constitution. If Pennsylvania gets to the point where theyre executing people, I cant imagine them giving permission to let the west go.

At the same time if they went to those extremes (which would honestly be pretty stupid on their part, and I wonder how much of those declarations were just idle threats) public opinion in the rest of the country would quickly turn against Pennsylvania, increasing political pressure for them to accept a secession deal. Even more dramatically, a massive over-reaction against state-separatist settlers would likely lead to hatred of the Pennsylvanian state government and much more support for the secession idea in the west. In other words, making their own fears come true.
 
One butterfly might be that with two more Northern votes in the Senate, the Tallmadge Amendment passes, leading to a Missouri dominated by free settlers.

If it included WV they would be Border State votes, not northern. It would probably be a slave state, though (like DE) with relatively few of them.

However, it would be firmly Unionist in 1861, and have a common border with Tennessee. So the East Tennessee Unionists are more likely to get Northern help.
 
At the same time if they went to those extremes (which would honestly be pretty stupid on their part, and I wonder how much of those declarations were just idle threats) public opinion in the rest of the country would quickly turn against Pennsylvania, increasing political pressure for them to accept a secession deal. Even more dramatically, a massive over-reaction against state-separatist settlers would likely lead to hatred of the Pennsylvanian state government and much more support for the secession idea in the west. In other words, making their own fears come true.

This. Very much this.


If it included WV they would be Border State votes, not northern. It would probably be a slave state, though (like DE) with relatively few of them.

In 1819, slavery was considered much less of a hot potato. It was important because of economic concerns, but a border state would not feel morally or culturally connected to the insitution of slavery. The area that would be Westsylvania was settled by yeoman farmers, mostly without slaves. From the outset, those were also the people moving further west. And they considered the introduction of slave plantations to be troublesome, unfair competition.

Even if Westsylvania is formally a slave state, it will be mostly without slavery in practice, and might still vote in favor of the Tallmadge Amendment in 1819. Purely out of economic concerns. You are absolutely right that it's not a given, but it's also not impossible.


However, it would be firmly Unionist in 1861, and have a common border with Tennessee. So the East Tennessee Unionists are more likely to get Northern help.

Yes. In case of a Civil War, the North is going to find Westsylvania firmly on its side, allowing quick penetration into the South--much deeper than was possibly that early on IOTL. The war will be shorter, probably.
 
Top