Virginia decides to stay in the Union.
- Thread starter Saladan
- Start date
Glen
Moderator
I've often toyed with this one. A difficult but not impossible feat. One possibility for a POD would be for the Fort Sumpter situation to end in a way that makes the South Carolinians seem more in the wrong. Also having more of the Western Virginian and less of the Eastern Virginian representatives at the Secession meeting.
And while you'll get plenty of Copperheads from Virginia, yes, you will get Marse Lee for the Union. Big deal, that, especially in this early phase of the war.
The Virginians rejecting Secession would potentially act as a firewall, preventing other teetering states from going over to the Confederates. We could very well see the Confederates limited to only the original seven states, perhaps one or two more, max.
This ACW could be a bit quicker....
I wonder in that case if Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan would have become the leading generals they did in OTL? If they had, it would have been interesting to see the kind of relationship Sherman and Sheridan, and especially Grant, would have had with Lee and Jackson.
My own sense is that without Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, The Confederacy would not have done as well millitarily as it did. With Lee and Jackson both on The Union side, as well as Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, The Civil War would not have lasted nearly as long as it did in OTL. I'm sure that would have butterflyed a number of things.
What if at some point instead of having him as a field commander, Lincoln had made Lee his Secretary of War? A shorter war like that might have butterflyed away Lincoln's assassination leaving him to serve two full terms. That would have also made a big change in Reconstruction.
The question also arises of what a shorter war or any of this would have done to Emancipation and to relations between former slaves and slave owners, between Blacks and Whites in The South.
My own sense is that without Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, The Confederacy would not have done as well millitarily as it did. With Lee and Jackson both on The Union side, as well as Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, The Civil War would not have lasted nearly as long as it did in OTL. I'm sure that would have butterflyed a number of things.
What if at some point instead of having him as a field commander, Lincoln had made Lee his Secretary of War? A shorter war like that might have butterflyed away Lincoln's assassination leaving him to serve two full terms. That would have also made a big change in Reconstruction.
The question also arises of what a shorter war or any of this would have done to Emancipation and to relations between former slaves and slave owners, between Blacks and Whites in The South.
Of course, this all assumes that Virginia, even if it remained in the Union, would be an active supporter of the war effort against the Confederacy. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that Virginia will "do a Kentucky" and refuse to secede, but also declare it's neutrality. This could make Lincoln's task in waging war against the Confederacy very difficult, as the belligerents won't have any common borders east of the Mississippi...and if Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and possibly Missouri follow Virginia's lead (which is very likely), they won't have any common borders at all!
That being said, would Lee and Jackson get involved, or stay neutral as well. And wasn't Kentucky invaded by the Confederates? If so would they try the same move with Virginia?
As far as Lee goes, he might very well serve in the Union forces, even if Virginia remains neutral. As it was in OTL, Lee's decision to give up his U.S. Army commission was not taken likely, and could have gone the other way. If Lee is not being forced to invade Virginia...and thus possibly be making war on his own family and friends...he might very well keep his U.S. Army rank and even accept Lincoln's offer to lead the Union forces.
Stonewall Jackson was a civilian in 1861, however. He would have no great reason to rush to enlist in the Union army if Virginia is neutral in the war. So I think he stays at VMI and sits the conflict out...unless Virginia becomes directly involved later.
As for the possibility that the Confederates could invade Virginia, that would depend, of course, on whether North Carolina and Tennessee joined the Confederacy (if Virginia doesn't share a border with the Confederacy, an invasion of Virginia is not going to happen...of course, they could invade North Carolina or Tennessee). But assuming that they do join the Confederacy for some reason (however unlikely in this scenario), there is always the possibility that a local commander could initiate such an invasion against orders (as was the case with Kentucky...Leonidas Polk had no authority to invade Kentucky in 1861, but once it was done, it could not be recalled).
Even if Lee and Jackson had not gotten involved in the war, not having their services would have been a significant loss to The Confederacy.
Without Lee, would The CSA have brought an army north of The Potomac River? I think it was Lee who first moved a Confederate Army north of The Potomac, and that was a big public relations mistake for The CSA.
Until then The CSA could claim they were fighting a war of independence, a war to protect and preserve their Southern Homeland. But since The South had ceceeded from The Union, once a Confederate army moved north of The Potomac River they became an army of invasion, and that cost them in public relations in terms of the support they might have had among some Northerners, and what support they had among European supporters.
On the issue of slavery, it was something that would have to be settled and ended in some way at some point. I think even a shorter Civil War where The Union won as in OTL, would have shown everyone that slavery had to be brought to an end even if it was ended by slowly phasing it out over some period of time.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
I agree with Robertp. From what I understand of Lee, as long as he was not directly opposing Virginia, he'd stay with the Union.
From what has been said so far, I think Lee would have remained with The Union if Virginia had also done so. I'm not sure if Jackson would have gotten involved in the war or not.
My point is, I think the loss of Lee's and Jackson's services would have hurt The CSA. Would it have been enough to effect things like how long the war lasted, how bloody it really got, how physically devestated The South was, how deep the scars were between The North and The South?
What effect would Lee's services to The Union have made in things like an earlier end to the war, etc?
What effect if any would a shorter and for want of another term less intense war have had on slavery, emancipation, and race relations?
My point is, I think the loss of Lee's and Jackson's services would have hurt The CSA. Would it have been enough to effect things like how long the war lasted, how bloody it really got, how physically devestated The South was, how deep the scars were between The North and The South?
What effect would Lee's services to The Union have made in things like an earlier end to the war, etc?
What effect if any would a shorter and for want of another term less intense war have had on slavery, emancipation, and race relations?
Neroon
Banned
A lot of Lee-worshippers here i see 
.
Anyway you forgot one more tinsy thing that Virginia brought to the table in OTL: The Tredegar Iron Works. IIRC then in OTL Richmond produced the most war material of all cities in the Confederacy, loosing that (and even if Virginia does a Kentucky they still loose access) would be a most severe logictics blow to the Rebs.
.Anyway you forgot one more tinsy thing that Virginia brought to the table in OTL: The Tredegar Iron Works. IIRC then in OTL Richmond produced the most war material of all cities in the Confederacy, loosing that (and even if Virginia does a Kentucky they still loose access) would be a most severe logictics blow to the Rebs.
Keeping Virginia in the union and Lee in the US army would have the added value of blocking McClellan's rise.
To look at just one example, the First Battle of Bull Run was a very close run battle. If Stonewall Jackson hadn't been there, for whatever reasons, it's entirely plausible that the Confederates could have lost the battle and unlike the Federal Army, they didn't have a natural barrier like the Potomac to fall back upon. Also, the Federal Army still had two divisions in reserve IIRC, which could have been committed to a pursuit.
Obviously, if Virginia stays in the Union Bull Run wouldn't happen, at least not the same way, but could the Confederacy have survived if its first battle against the Union was a crushing defeat?
Obviously, if Virginia stays in the Union Bull Run wouldn't happen, at least not the same way, but could the Confederacy have survived if its first battle against the Union was a crushing defeat?
Would the north have been more emboldened to effect a more radical emancipation shortly after the war if beating the South had been a cakewalk? I can't see Lincoln letting slavery stand if he had carte-blanche to remodel the South...
As I understand it (white male) public opinion was divided in most Southern states but the slave owning class had managed to ensure they were over represented in legislatures.
If Virginia stayed in the Union the CSA loses the ironworks, Lee, and, I suspect, a lot of credibility. I think that Virginia had a lot of prestige as one of the original 13 states and as the home of George Washington.
If the South is more easily defeated than in OTL it is harder to see how there could be emancipation.
In OTL Lincolon believed that slavery was wrong but also that the Federal government had no legal power to do anything about it. He worked out, correctly, that a blow to slavery would also be a blow to the war fighting power of the treasonous rebels. It also suited his beliefs.
If the South were near total defeat by the fall of 1862 it would not happen in that form.
I suspect that there would have been less social revolution (although the chances of treason trials would be greater)
Slavery would be restricted to one corner of the US and embarass the rest of the country.
The existence of slavery would deeply weaken the reputation of the US when it started to seek a wider World role.
If Virginia stayed in the Union the CSA loses the ironworks, Lee, and, I suspect, a lot of credibility. I think that Virginia had a lot of prestige as one of the original 13 states and as the home of George Washington.
If the South is more easily defeated than in OTL it is harder to see how there could be emancipation.
In OTL Lincolon believed that slavery was wrong but also that the Federal government had no legal power to do anything about it. He worked out, correctly, that a blow to slavery would also be a blow to the war fighting power of the treasonous rebels. It also suited his beliefs.
If the South were near total defeat by the fall of 1862 it would not happen in that form.
I suspect that there would have been less social revolution (although the chances of treason trials would be greater)
Slavery would be restricted to one corner of the US and embarass the rest of the country.
The existence of slavery would deeply weaken the reputation of the US when it started to seek a wider World role.
Lee was quite the hypocrite on the issue of secession.
He made quite clear that he would have very different responses if the Deep South left without Virginia, if the South left en masse including Virginia, and if most of New England and the Northeast left a United States still dominated by southern sensibilities.
He made quite clear that he would have very different responses if the Deep South left without Virginia, if the South left en masse including Virginia, and if most of New England and the Northeast left a United States still dominated by southern sensibilities.
I think a shorter Civil War more easily won by The Union than in OTL would still have led to emancipation. I think that emancipation would have been a planned emancipation, perhaps done gradually, maybe phased out over a set period of time.
Slavery was an embarassment to The United States in terms of how the rest of the world viewed us.
But more than that, the fact that it had brought us to a Civil War would have told everyone both North and South that this was something we had to really deal with, and the only way to deal with it was to bring the institution of slavery to an end. So I think a shorter war more easily won by The North would still have led to emancipation, but that emancipation would have been handled differently than in OTL.
Slavery was an embarassment to The United States in terms of how the rest of the world viewed us.
But more than that, the fact that it had brought us to a Civil War would have told everyone both North and South that this was something we had to really deal with, and the only way to deal with it was to bring the institution of slavery to an end. So I think a shorter war more easily won by The North would still have led to emancipation, but that emancipation would have been handled differently than in OTL.