McClellan wasn't a Copperhead. He ran on the Democratic ticket which officially opposed the war, but he ran on that ticket to oppose Lincoln, as he disagreed with Lincoln as to how to execute the war. McClellan's own platform was to continue the war and defeat the Confederacy. The disconnect between the Party platform and the candidate platform was not unnoticed.
Would Civil War Have Started if Virginia Didn't Secede
- Thread starter jbgusa
- Start date
McClellan wasn't a Copperhead. He ran on the Democratic ticket which officially opposed the war, but he ran on that ticket to oppose Lincoln, as he disagreed with Lincoln as to how to execute the war. McClellan's own platform was to continue the war and defeat the Confederacy. The disconnect between the Party platform and the candidate platform was not unnoticed.
No Virginia also probably means no North Carolina. The South did not just lose its best military formations they are now on the other side. The South also lost its industrial base in Virginia as well as a good portion of its wealth. But the South did retain most of the fire eaters and Jefferson Davis. They are so screwed
The fact is he did run and did not disavow the platform. From what I remember he was open to a negotiated peace.
Totally would have happened w/o Virginia. It would have been a vastly different war. I personally think it would have been over earlier, and there may have been a much different end to slavery. On the other hand, Virginia would still have been a hotbed of secessionist activity, so there is a real possibility of a large number of Virginians signing up for the Confederate Army (like what happened in Kentucky). So the manpower difference might not have been too huge from OTL.
There is also the leadership difference to consider. Robert E. Lee, Stuart, Jackson, etc may very well have remained in the US Army, so the flavor of the early battles in the east would have been interesting.
TBH I can't think of a particular POD that would keep Virginia in the Union, at least not before like 1850 maybe? The pro-Union areas seceded from VA to form West Virginia, and in OTL were not enough to keep Virginia from initially seceding. I can see maybe Tennessee staying (or being neutral like Kentucky tried to do) or even Texas staying before Virginia did.
There is also the leadership difference to consider. Robert E. Lee, Stuart, Jackson, etc may very well have remained in the US Army, so the flavor of the early battles in the east would have been interesting.
TBH I can't think of a particular POD that would keep Virginia in the Union, at least not before like 1850 maybe? The pro-Union areas seceded from VA to form West Virginia, and in OTL were not enough to keep Virginia from initially seceding. I can see maybe Tennessee staying (or being neutral like Kentucky tried to do) or even Texas staying before Virginia did.
Virginia came very close to abolishing slavery in the 1820s. If that had happened then probably the border states would have followed suit, maybe North Carolina as well. With that, the balance tilts completely against the slave states in congress and its unlikely that the Civil War ever would have happened. The slave states would have been hemmed in and eventually forced to give up their slaves without a war.
I think it is worth considering - or at least hypothesizing - how many of those Confederates in OTL who went South would still fight for the South.
I mean yes loyalty to state was significantly important in the CW era, but considering that a lot of Confederates were really pro-slavery, they may still go South. Virginia, could end up like Kentucky and Missouri in this ATL were its really is the front line, completely divided with its own mini-civil war going on during the main conflict
I mean yes loyalty to state was significantly important in the CW era, but considering that a lot of Confederates were really pro-slavery, they may still go South. Virginia, could end up like Kentucky and Missouri in this ATL were its really is the front line, completely divided with its own mini-civil war going on during the main conflict
One possbile thing, though I'm not sure it would have the right effect.
There were "Fire-Eaters" friom Virginia, but they did not control the state's action. Many were disappointed and frustrated when the state convention initially voted against secession. One was former Governor Henry Wise. He organized a plot, which included officers of the Virginia state militia. Their plan was to seize control of Federal military facilities in the state, and force the hand of the convention.
They were about two days from attacking the Norfolk Navy Yard when the CSA fired on Fort Sumter, leading to Lincoln's call for troops and Virginia's secession declaration.
If the Wise cabal had acted while Virginia was still neutral... Could there be blowback which discredits secession in Virginia, such that the convention adjourns sine die in embarassment? Perhaps that would block Virginia secession.
Also, for some unaccountable reason neither Buchanan nor Lincoln secured the substantial U.S. Navy fleet at Hampton Roads, Virginia, handing the Confederacy what was, at that time, a modern Navy. And Copperhead general McClelland's Virginia campaign was, at best, ineffectual.[/QUOTE]
I believe that Lincolin believed that the forces at the Norfolk had sufficient force to hold the Base.. Close the gates use the ships in port's Marine son the walls and the shipboard guns and imo the Yard could have been held. The Navy could have sent the Marines from the Washington Marine Barracks. They were not yet deployed in the defense of the Distruct.
I believe that Lincolin believed that the forces at the Norfolk had sufficient force to hold the Base.. Close the gates use the ships in port's Marine son the walls and the shipboard guns and imo the Yard could have been held. The Navy could have sent the Marines from the Washington Marine Barracks. They were not yet deployed in the defense of the Distruct.
Marc
Donor
There still is that pesky issue that the ruling elite will yet feel seriously threatened by the Abolitionist movement.
For those mildly interested, here is the formal statement of secession by Virginia (italics mine):
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.
Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the Ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United State of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted.
Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on the seventeenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Last edited:
My own suspicion is that Buchanan was either ineffectual or a virtual copperhead. He let an awful lot slip away and in his short time in office Lincoln had precious little ability to mobilize. Any radical actions on Lincoln's part would have had the same effect as defending Fort Sumter wound up having; triggering disunion. Maryland on the other hand was locked down in time. Even Buchanan did not want to sacrifice the capital.
Marc
Donor
Many, if not, most students of American history tend to see the Pierce-Bucchan presidencies as one of the great American disasters that permanently damaged us.
Less drastically, is there any way the arsenal at harpers Ferry could be moved - say to Wheeling or Ft Monroes (both of which were in Union hands throughout) o better still to somewhere like Salisbury, MD with the Confederates had no chance of reaching?
I forgot about those. But there are some that are neutral or just mediocre. Tyler goes in the dismal category but mostly for becoming a traitor/secessionist.
Not sure if it was particularly loyal, thought it was later included in WV.
What I had in mind was that its location was very vulnerable to attack, so that the Rebs collared it the moment war broke out. How much difference might it make if
Last edited: