Maryland Annexes Virginia

[Expat]

As per the plan laid out in this article.

The proposal is from 1861, so we have a few years of possible PODs to create a more acrimonious post-war Union that might enact this. Delaware and (West) Virginia would probably be totally fine with this, and demographically the parts of Maryland they take would fit better with those two states than Maryland as a whole. Virginia's opinion wouldn't have to matter, if the end of the war has the Union in a black enough mood. Maryland itself might be dubious

Mostly I just wanted to share, and I know the impulse for most people is to spend the rest of the thread talking about plausibility (sigh). Feel free, I guess.

But does anyone want to guess at consequences?

 

[TFSmith121]

Massive state reorganizations would have gone against

As per the plan laid out in this article.

The proposal is from 1861, so we have a few years of possible PODs to create a more acrimonious post-war Union that might enact this. Delaware and (West) Virginia would probably be totally fine with this, and demographically the parts of Maryland they take would fit better with those two states than Maryland as a whole. Virginia's opinion wouldn't have to matter, if the end of the war has the Union in a black enough mood. Maryland itself might be dubious

Mostly I just wanted to share, and I know the impulse for most people is to spend the rest of the thread talking about plausibility (sigh). Feel free, I guess.

But does anyone want to guess at consequences?

Massive state reorganizations would have gone against Lincoln's policies of simply not recognizing the rebel states as anything more than temporarily under control of the rebels; legal issues were of importance, and you'll note a lot of references to "the so-called confederacy" in correspondence of the time. This is renforced by the lack of "hard" war policies generally in place for the US at the time; the most obvious ones being conscription and recruitment of the men who later formed the USCT.

And the reality in 1861 was the US was gaining a lot more from a mixed policy toward the border states than any as draconian as Cameron's idea.

Having said that, the population and demographics of an enlarged Maryland like the one shown would have been really skewed; Baltimore was Maryland's only truly large city in the 1860 census, and because of its merchantile and maritime orientation, didn't have a rival in the state. Here is would be paired with Norfolk, and then Richmond is dropped into the mix as a large, more inland city with a commercial and industrial focus (presuming the Maryland state government isn't going to move there).

Baltimore, with more than 200,000 people in 1860, was in the top five (number 4, actually) in the US. Richmond, with ~40,000, was number 25, but would have been the second city in Greater Maryland, according to the Census.

Kind of an odd plan, all in all. Maryland expanding down to the Rappahanock or maybe the Rapidan, and presumably Eastern Shore Virginia seems slightly more workable.

Best,

 

[Mikestone8]

Weren't there enough Confederate sympathisers in Maryland already, without adding more?

 

[dean6294]

I could see a nasty Reconstructionist administration that wants to wipe the name, "Virginia" off the map.

 

[Expat]

Does this make DC retrocession more likely? It's completely surrounded by Maryland under these circumstances. The original reason for having a federal city- curbing an individual state's influence over the capital- is really not a major concern after the Civil War. And the DC statehood movement is still a century off. There's a tremendous population boom thanks to the war: 131,000 people by 1870 Washington is much larger than Richmond, and largely skews anti-Confederate.

One thing's for certain, DC transportation policy in the 20th century is an easier beast to tame, even if the District remains separate. (If the District is retroceded, policy gets even easier still.)

Annapolis has been maintained as the capital for purely historical reasons for a long time now; I don't think this would induce them to change.

Once Reconstruction ends, you have the problem of the Virginian population trumping the Maryland population. There's also the question of how you handle the military occupation of half a "northern" state. Is this done on a county-by-county basis? Complicated.

 

[TFSmith121]

Does this make DC retrocession more likely? It's completely surrounded by Maryland under these circumstances. The original reason for having a federal city- curbing an individual state's influence over the capital- is really not a major concern after the Civil War. And the DC statehood movement is still a century off. There's a tremendous population boom thanks to the war: 131,000 people by 1870 Washington is much larger than Richmond, and largely skews anti-Confederate.

One thing's for certain, DC transportation policy in the 20th century is an easier beast to tame, even if the District remains separate. (If the District is retroceded, policy gets even easier still.)

Annapolis has been maintained as the capital for purely historical reasons for a long time now; I don't think this would induce them to change.

Once Reconstruction ends, you have the problem of the Virginian population trumping the Maryland population. There's also the question of how you handle the military occupation of half a "northern" state. Is this done on a county-by-county basis? Complicated.

I think you've answered your own question.

Best,

 

[matashowski]

Assuming it did happen, it would be very interesting to see what happens if little pieces or chunks of states are ceded to the the victorious side. I have to imagine that Virginians would be very.. very angry about territorial changes, especially losing a piece of their land to a much smaller (and in their eyes, far less important) neighbor. I remember reading somewhere about how much perception played into how people chose sides. Lee had the memory of his family having fought for Virginia, and considered it to be an entity separate from the whole (because, up until then, it pretty much was). Lincoln, however, growing up on the frontier, saw the states as merely pieces of the larger whole, the US. One of these visions had to win out, of course. If Virginia is divvied up like Poland, it would be a pretty profound change for what are a very proud (and defeated) people. Tidewater and the rest of "classy" Virginia ceded to Maryland, West Virginia taking the mountains, and perhaps part of North Carolina being combined with southern Virginia, since we are redrawing borders here. This would in the long term grow distrust of the Federal government, and i imagine there would be attempts to "reestablish the Old Dominion", at least on the fringe. I've often wondered, in another world (which we seem to be unable to dream of when it comes to the Civil war), what would happen if the Federal gov decided to just erase the southern state identities. Carve out semi-autonomous freed-slave republics, break off the coastlines for resettlement by Yankees, so on. Maybe just turn the entire thing into a military district, let the old borders become lore. "Texas" would be gone for certain. I doubt any of this could take place without a larger migration westward, so the butteflies would be immense. To destroy the state identities could possibly send thousands more southward. In fact, considering the population of the South was split about fifty fifty between white and black, there is no reason that the Great migration is preordained. You could very easily have a reversal, with the white populations fleeing elsewhere. Assuming things are nastier, of course.

 

[TFSmith121]

A more "thorough" postwar reconstruction was certainly

A more "thorough" postwar reconstruction was certainly a possibility, although given the realites of Lincoln's wartime policies, Johnson's, and Grant's, the political calculus for such was never especially strong - certainly not in the Civil War and Reconstruction period historically.

Now, if something significantly different happened in 1861-65 (a failed European intervention, for example) that may have changed.

The military district maps of the Reconstruction period are interesting:

The point is, of course (although "radical" isn't really the best term) the governments that brought the states back for readmission were, essentially, about the best the US was going to get; the postwar return to power of the southern planter/ruling classes was a different issue or era.

Best,

 

[Napoleonrules]

Massive state reorganizations would have gone against Lincoln's policies of simply not recognizing the rebel states as anything more than temporarily under control of the rebels; legal issues were of importance, and you'll note a lot of references to "the so-called confederacy" in correspondence of the time. This is renforced by the lack of "hard" war policies generally in place for the US at the time; the most obvious ones being conscription and recruitment of the men who later formed the USCT.

And the reality in 1861 was the US was gaining a lot more from a mixed policy toward the border states than any as draconian as Cameron's idea.

Having said that, the population and demographics of an enlarged Maryland like the one shown would have been really skewed; Baltimore was Maryland's only truly large city in the 1860 census, and because of its merchantile and maritime orientation, didn't have a rival in the state. Here is would be paired with Norfolk, and then Richmond is dropped into the mix as a large, more inland city with a commercial and industrial focus (presuming the Maryland state government isn't going to move there).

Baltimore, with more than 200,000 people in 1860, was in the top five (number 4, actually) in the US. Richmond, with ~40,000, was number 25, but would have been the second city in Greater Maryland, according to the Census.

Kind of an odd plan, all in all. Maryland expanding down to the Rappahanock or maybe the Rapidan, and presumably Eastern Shore Virginia seems slightly more workable.

Best,

Baltimore has little to fear, as you point out it will dwarf Richmond and Norfolk (combined and x2). No southern city had much in the way of industrialization, Atlanta even at this point was nothing more than the size of a typical county seat. If you keep Jim Crow laws from ever coming into play and continue keeping Confederate office holders from having state or federal office again (or better yet- from voting at all) then the Republican coalition of Northern carpet baggers, Maryland supporters, and Blacks can control "Greater Maryland". I would imagine the Black migration out of the South would come there as well as it might end up being the most "black friendly" state.

 

[TFSmith121]

Interesting points...

Baltimore has little to fear, as you point out it will dwarf Richmond and Norfolk (combined and x2). No southern city had much in the way of industrialization, Atlanta even at this point was nothing more than the size of a typical county seat. If you keep Jim Crow laws from ever coming into play and continue keeping Confederate office holders from having state or federal office again (or better yet- from voting at all) then the Republican coalition of Northern carpet baggers, Maryland supporters, and Blacks can control "Greater Maryland". I would imagine the Black migration out of the South would come there as well as it might end up being the most "black friendly" state.

Interesting points... it does throw the whole "states don't rebel, only rebels rebel" concept out the window, however.

Which seems unlikely with Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant at the helm.

I could see Maryland absorbing Virginia's Eastern Shore; Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky taking in the adjacent counties in the former Virginia, and some sort of rump ex-Virginia being reorganized as a territory and then gaining statehood in a much tougher Reconstruction ... the Great State of Chesapeake, perhaps?

Best,

 

[Locke]

It must be remembered that Maryland was a border state' it was neutral and in many areas sympathetic to the south. They were a slave state, after all. I don't believe this move would create too much more animosity, although to placate tensions I wouldn't recommend using the name "Maryland." I think Chesapeake would go over better.

 

[TFSmith121]

Maryland was not "neutral" by a long shot

It must be remembered that Maryland was a border state' it was neutral and in many areas sympathetic to the south. They were a slave state, after all. I don't believe this move would create too much more animosity, although to placate tensions I wouldn't recommend using the name "Maryland." I think Chesapeake would go over better.

Maryland was not "neutral" by a long shot; Kentucky was the only one of the border states to try that.

Maryland was firmly in the control of Union loyalists from 1861 onwards; as McPherson wrote:

Control of Maryland was even more immediately crucial, for the state enclosed Washington on three sides (with Virginia on the fourth) and it allegiance could determine the capital's fate, at the outset of the war. Like the lower South, Maryland had voted for Breckinridge in the presidential election. Southern-Rights Democrats controlled the legislature; only the stubborn refusal of unionist Governor Thomas Hicks to call legislature into session forestalled action by that body. The tobacco counties of southern Maryland and the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay were secessionist. The grain-growing counties of northern and western Maryland, containing few slaves, were safe for the Union.

Moreover, some ~47,000 Marylanders fought for the US in the conflict, including some ~9,000 in the USCTs; the number who served the rebellion is much smaller, although exact numbers are challenging because many Marylanders who went south did not serve in identifiably "Maryland" rebel units.

Best,

 

[Expat]

It must be remembered that Maryland was a border state' it was neutral and in many areas sympathetic to the south. They were a slave state, after all. I don't believe this move would create too much more animosity, although to placate tensions I wouldn't recommend using the name "Maryland." I think Chesapeake would go over better.

One good side benefit from changing the name is that it prompts a change in the state's awful anthem. Though the amazing flag is probably not going to happen. Even though the sentiment behind it (reconciling north and south) could still be strong- even stronger, perhaps- the exact symbolism of the flag is arguably less applicable. Rather, something that joins the black and gold of Maryland with the...I guess blue and orange? of Virginia is more likely. Or maybe that stupid Virginia seal on the black and gold diagonal checker? Ugh, seal flags.

 

[Zelda]

Would that even still be Maryland?

 

[Umbric Man]

Would that even still be Maryland?

No. A reunited Virginia, more or less.

 

[Zelda]

It's Annapolis in control of Virginia, and the most populous parts of Virginia, while losing most of their own state basically becoming part of Virginia, and if they make territorial changes like this maybe they can make territorial changes in other parts of the south, United Carolinas, Georgia Mississippi Alabama a single state, Florida expanded to include Mississippi and Alabama coastal counties, Louisiana and Arkansas merged, Tennessee merged into Kentucky .