AHC: Border States Join CSA?

I'm curious. What would it take to get the border states to join the Civil War, or in West Virginia's case, stay in VA (whatever happens after the war between it and Virginia happens)?

Now if they happen to be conquered fairly quickly - I imagine Maryland will be even if it declares for the South, for example - that is one thing, but the point is the border states decidedly go for the Confederacy, without any clashes between pro-Union and pro-Confederate sides.

Umbric Man said:

I'm curious. What would it take to get the border states to join the Civil War, or in West Virginia's case, stay in VA (whatever happens after the war between it and Virginia happens)?

Now if they happen to be conquered fairly quickly - I imagine Maryland will be even if it declares for the South, for example - that is one thing, but the point is the border states decidedly go for the Confederacy, without any clashes between pro-Union and pro-Confederate sides.

Click to expand...

I suppose it would be rather hard in the case of Delaware.

Have the Union attack the Confederacy first and be more explicitly anti-slavery out the gate; that'll alienate the Appalachians and Tri-staters.

It would take something really drastic to get Delaware to leave the Union. It would most likely involve a strange scenario involving a Trent Affair War where the CSA is able to occupy Maryland and Delaware and install pro-Confederate governments. There was more CSA sympathy in Maryland than in Delaware. There just wasn't much support in Delaware.

The case of West Virginia isn't exactly tricky. If the CSA doesn't lose control of what became West Virginia so early in the war, essentially make it difficult for West Virginia to even form. Also, if you end the war before West Virginia is admitted into the Union, the CSA could simply argue that it's occupied territory. Whether it works is another matter entirely, but the success rate might increase in the event of a Trent Affair War.

Kentucky wasn't far off from actually being captured by the Confederacy during the war. If they do a little better here, then you might see a Confederate Kentucky. Missouri is much trickier. You'd have to have some concentration by the Confederacy on the situation in Missouri. You could have the Confederacy not fold like a blanket in the Trans-Mississippi, but greater concentration on this front takes away from what was seen as more important fronts. It's no surprise the CSA never had much success here since more attention was given to Tennessee and Virginia.

Falecius said:

I suppose it would be rather hard in the case of Delaware.

Click to expand...

Whilst a Delawarean and Unionist and Northerner - and knowing full well that Delaware was both Northern culturally and supported the Union wholeheartedly - if it's a 'border state' in popular opinion, we'll throw it in for the challenge.

EDIT: If Missouri and Maryland are trickier, what's the best way to make them pro-CSA? Although the idea of WV never being formed in time and thus being 'occupied' is interesting.

There was a direct correlation between the level of slavery in a state or region, and its support for the Confedracy. If slavery was economically dominate in an area, even those who opposed seccession ended up fighting for the Confederacy once they joined. If slavery was low enough that it did not dominate the region, those who opposed seccession ended up fighting for the Union (or wanted to) even after the state joined the Confederacy.

The only way the Border States join the Confederacy is if their slave populations dramatically increased which probably requires their entire climate to be different so that it encourages plantation slave agriculture.

The only reason Kentucky dithered is that its governor was sympathetic to the South, but the legislature wasn't. Absent pro-Confedrate governors in the Border States, there was nothing preventing them from being pro-Union to begin with. Now this doesn't mean there wouldn't be plenty of individuals who would join the Confederacy. There were, just as there were plenty of Southerners who enlisted in the Union army (and even more who would have joined had they been able).

Umbric Man said:

Whilst a Delawarean and Unionist and Northerner - and knowing full well that Delaware was both Northern culturally and supported the Union wholeheartedly - if it's a 'border state' in popular opinion, we'll throw it in for the challenge.

Click to expand...

It wasn't wholeheartedly. Though Delaware did not produce a whole regiment for the CSA, some in Delaware did fight and aid the CSA. There is a monument to them in Georgetown. The state was still strongly Unionist, but one shouldn't pretend there was zero Confederate support.

Ace Venom said:

It wasn't wholeheartedly. Though Delaware did not produce a whole regiment for the CSA, some in Delaware did fight and aid the CSA. There is a monument to them in Georgetown. The state was still strongly Unionist, but one shouldn't pretend there was zero Confederate support.

Click to expand...

There was Confederate support in lots of places up North

Part of New York seceded and lasted 80 years longer than the rest of the CSA (okay on a technicality)

This said what the OP wants. no clashes is highly unlikely, I'm not saying this is ASB, but damn difficult, the North really needs to screw the pooch here, I'm guessing pre 1850 POD

RamscoopRaider said:

There was Confederate support in lots of places up North

Click to expand...

It wasn't just that either. New Jersey still had 16 slaves in the state in 1865. Gradual emancipation went a lot slower there because slavery was still profitable at the ports. Of course, I'm diverging from the point of this thread. I don't know you could could avoid clashes. Seems ASB.

Point taken, Ace.

My thing is that you can say the same thing for every state in the CSA providing some Union troops....my goal here is to see the border states be considered 'Confederate' the way the others in the CSA were.

Clashes are accepted, inevitable - but the state must be clearly for and be seen as 'Confederate' no matter how long it may last in actual battle against Union troops.

Again, have the Union fire the first shot "because slavery" and you may successfully turn enough Appalachians against Washington to bring Missouri and Kentucky along and possibly retain Virginia's territorial integrity. It would also hurt the Union war effort in the Midwest as southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio were/are heavily Appalachian.

Of course, getting the Union to do that is even harder than getting a real Confederate occupation of Kentucky, and so on.