Confederate Illinois?

Hello I would like to know what could get southern Illinois often called little Egypt to successful have secession against union Illinois?

I amopenly curious because in the beginning there was serous talk of this happening.
 
I actually wrote a paper about something along these lines in college. It would be near impossible for Southern Illinois to have seceded. The area was too critical as a Union military hub for operations in Missouri and on the Mississippi (as concerns the latter, Grant made his HQ in Cairo). Lincoln himself ordered Union commanders to "keep Little Egypt upright...." The Confederates have little in the way of support to provide, as there are more important theaters to allocate resources.

At best, you might have a situation where Southern Illinois briefly secedes, only to be quickly reoccupied by Union forces. Maybe this sets operations back in West by a few months, but most likely (butterfly wings flapping contingent) has not further effects for the war.
 
I don't see how such an action could have lasted for very long as Illinois had mustered for war very quickly and had the key points occupied almost immediately. There were some who volunteered for the Confederates and left, but they largely did not organize inside Illinois itself. And the political organizations that made Illinois politics so divisive largely unified behind the war effort almost immediately.

You have a much better chance of seeing Missouri or Kentucky secede than Southern Illinois.
 

Ficboy

Banned
I don't see how such an action could have lasted for very long as Illinois had mustered for war very quickly and had the key points occupied almost immediately. There were some who volunteered for the Confederates and left, but they largely did not organize inside Illinois itself. And the political organizations that made Illinois politics so divisive largely unified behind the war effort almost immediately.

You have a much better chance of seeing Missouri or Kentucky secede than Southern Illinois.
It's a very ASB scenario. A Confederate Kentucky and Missouri are more likely given their similarities with the South as much as they had differences in 1860.
 
I don't see how such an action could have lasted for very long as Illinois had mustered for war very quickly and had the key points occupied almost immediately. There were some who volunteered for the Confederates and left, but they largely did not organize inside Illinois itself. And the political organizations that made Illinois politics so divisive largely unified behind the war effort almost immediately.

You have a much better chance of seeing Missouri or Kentucky secede than Southern Illinois.
Good point!
Well if the south had helped the Session movement’s in 1861 or during the possible northwest conspiracy turned into a rebellion it would have changed these factors. The southern Illinois mustered few troops and General Grant was not happy about how they were sympathetic to CSA. Those areas where largely demonstrate I believe at that time. I believe southern Illinois would only make a showing if events greatly turned there way.
 
The idea that Southern Illinois was going to secede is more of a perception than a reality. While it may be the case that southern Illinois had been settled by Kentuckians and other Southerners, contemporary accounts by civilians and soldiers in the area noted that a strong majority rallied to the Union cause after the Confederates fired at Fort Sumter. There were only 35 people from Southern Illinois that joined the Confederates. Secondly, John Logan, a southern Illinois Democratic congressman, decisively convinced the people of Southern Illinois that their cause was with the north. I can't possibly see South Illinois seceding under these circumstances.
 
The idea that Southern Illinois was going to secede is more of a perception than a reality. While it may be the case that southern Illinois had been settled by Kentuckians and other Southerners, contemporary accounts by civilians and soldiers in the area noted that a strong majority rallied to the Union cause after the Confederates fired at Fort Sumter. There were only 35 people from Southern Illinois that joined the Confederates. Secondly, John Logan, a southern Illinois Democratic congressman, decisively convinced the people of Southern Illinois that their cause was with the north. I can't possibly see South Illinois seceding under these circumstances.

im actually making a alternative history if the Confederates never attacked Fort Sumter. I deafly think it was consequencetual for having either side look like The aggressor.
 
The idea that Southern Illinois was going to secede is more of a perception than a reality. While it may be the case that southern Illinois had been settled by Kentuckians and other Southerners, contemporary accounts by civilians and soldiers in the area noted that a strong majority rallied to the Union cause after the Confederates fired at Fort Sumter. There were only 35 people from Southern Illinois that joined the Confederates. Secondly, John Logan, a southern Illinois Democratic congressman, decisively convinced the people of Southern Illinois that their cause was with the north. I can't possibly see South Illinois seceding under these circumstances.
Well they would only do so if war was about to end or it showed signs of ending. like a Northwest rebellion . They had a long history of their great grandfather‘s from Virginia and other places in the south settling to southern Illinois. Like you said many Kentuckians Missourians so on. Now Ohio and Indiana also had fair numbers of their or great grandfather’s from the south,but it was even more true in the southern parts .All the same Southern Illinois the most feasible of former secession. However certain factors would have to go differently,but a northwest rebellion is feasible
 
Thank you for your comments!

We will say the south successful invaded Kentucky in 1862 . And instead of General Morgan raiding the Midwest they could have done to options.1 invade southern Illinois with the help of copperheads from that state in .

Option 2 Confederates send detachment of troops in 1863 to conduct raids. Instead of Morgan destroying confederate support by treating the copperheads as southern cowards they had a competent possibly approved by the higher up commands of the-confederacy to arm their allies and conduct raids that won’t turn off their allies.
In 1863 they hear the news that the confederatet won Gettysburg and Vicksburg siege is lifted.
Better yet stonewall Jackson isn’t killed and convinced lee that Gettysburg isn’t nessary and do a mobile pillaging raid in Pennsylvania which Union forces possibly could take as long as month just to catch them in 1863 or 1864 the great northwester conspiracy happens.
But yes even if successful it would be a tactical victory,but in the long term they couldn’t successfully defend it
Problems - successfully invading and holding Kentucky is close to ASB in 1862. Invading Southern Illinois is the same as invading Kentucky- looks good on paper but how much real support will the South get from sympathisers.

Option 2 is a Confederate wet dream and rather silly.
 
Illinois joining the Confederacy is really impossibly and impractical due to it being disconnected from the South (Unless Kentucky joins as well), but Illinois seceding is possible. There was a politician, Clement Vallandigham, a Copperhead politician, who reportedly conspired to put Copperheads in the offices of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, and secede from the Union, to form the Northwestern Confederacy , and part Confederate plan was to liberate Confederate prisoners of war.
 
Problems - successfully invading and holding Kentucky is close to ASB in 1862. Invading Southern Illinois is the same as invading Kentucky- looks good on paper but how much real support will the South get from sympathisers.

Option 2 is a Confederate wet dream and rather silly.
Well hold on Kentucky is a game changer. Why?
control of the rivers .including stopping the siege of Vicksburg. second this disrupts the Union supply lInes. Atbest Buell will have to evacuate Nashville and parts if not all of Tennessee.

I encourage you to read theWhat if’s of American history it is a great book!
Under the right circumstances such a rebellion could happen. However in my alternative history I’m examining the faults of Davis picking up a competent president (Howell Cobb’s ) in my own alternative history
 
Google is not enough - a Masters thesis from a Nun dated 1937 is not a strong appeal to authority. Neither is a speculative what if of history compilation.

if you can show how the Confederacy First takes and holds Kentucky then your premise may be worth considering.

Or there is an ASB forum
 
Illinois joining the Confederacy is really impossibly and impractical due to it being disconnected from the South (Unless Kentucky joins as well), but Illinois seceding is possible. There was a politician, Clement Vallandigham, a Copperhead politician, who reportedly conspired to put Copperheads in the offices of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, and secede from the Union, to form the Northwestern Confederacy , and part Confederate plan was to liberate Confederate prisoners of war.

The Northwest Confederacy never had a chance--at least not unless the Confederacy did much better militarily--not only because the Democrats who for a while controlled the Illinois and Indiana legislatures did not (at least openly) generally favor it but because the states had Republican governors who regularly frustrated the Democratic legislatures. As for Ohio, Vallandimgham, whatever his intentions, lost in a landslide.

In fact, the "Copperhead Constitution" drafted by a Democratic-dominated constitutional convention in Illinois (and rejected by the voters) specificallly repudiated the right of secession: "That the people of this State regard the union of the states, under the federal constitution, as permanent and indissoluble, from which no State has a constitutional right to withdraw or secede." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-evidence-from-illinois.481238/#post-20020940

I comment at length on the "Northwest Confederacy" idea and why it was unlikely to come about at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...e-joins-the-confederacy.497566/#post-21119896
 
Can we get the Northwest Ordinance to no ban slavery? And as a knock off Illinois is a slave state? Only thing I can think then is the rest of the North West Territories is slave as well. Probably ASB but he Southern States might be strong enough to get the change ?
 
I will be making a new thread so people are welcome to watch it . They are allowed to comment if they try not to discourage or block me
Can we get the Northwest Ordinance to no ban slavery? And as a knock off Illinois is a slave state? Only thing I can think then is the rest of the North West Territories is slave as well. Probably ASB but he Southern States might be strong enough to get the change ?
no not really . I will be making a Separate alternative history discussion if you are interested https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...history-of-the-confederate-revolution.498540/
 
The only way it may happen is if you have an early POD like Illinois stopping at Lake Michigan instead of its otl border. You might end up with a state more like Missouri but even this more conservative Illinois would be more like Indiana and would at best be a border state with strong union leanings.
 
A Confederate Kentucky is not impossible, but a Confederate Little Egypt would be *very* difficult to sustain. If Grant or someone else notable is killed in the brief skirmishes to restore order there, interesting butterflies may result, especially if the arsenal in St Louis falls into pro-Southern hands somehow as part of that.
 
While we are in the same discussion of a southern Illinois secession. I think it would have to be a northwest conspiracy turned rebellion .
Suppose of all went well in 1862 for the confederacy under different leadership

suppose of Shiloh was a Confederate victory becauseBeauregard was ordered to defend New Orleans.

And what if the historical confederate victories where more meaningful such as larger armies destroyed thanks to lee having to all of Jackson’s advice Yes it’s possible!
1862 border state invasion(Kentucky, Maryland,Had pea Ridge been successful Missouri too) confederates almost took Kentucky that is true . Frankfurt Kentucky is not far away from Louisville . Brag they most incompetent confederate general instead of continuing to block Buell from getting to Kentucky it asking for Smith to come as reinforcements because a battle looked possibly.

Brag withdrew And didn’t even run away to didn’t even run 🏃 to Louisville where the Yankees needed to Re-supply there depleted stores .

In Maryland Had Confederates stayed in Frederick they could have won instead of being defeated at sharpsburg Antietam . I’m saying this because of geography. The union would’ve been defeated but it would not have been catastrophic and they could easily retreat back to Pennsylvania. Confederate forces could’ve already Marched on Annapolis and possibly even before Frederick.
Especially if they had more meaningful victories but it’s also true that only elements of the army of the Potomac were in Frederick ay

i’m curious to when Lincoln would sign The emancipation proclamation? making a northwest rebellion possible in 1863 but most likely 1864.
i’m not sure about the long run for Kentucky how long will be able to hold it but in the short term it’s at least good.

Horses,railroads, essential supplies in Louisville,

Possible striking distance for raids possible striking distance for raids and sending weapons to copperheads in case they rebel.
Use Kentucky as a buffer zone .
 
The Confederate invasions of Maryland/PA were both set for Harrisburg as memory serves - taking it severs all but one east-west Union rail line and puts a Union state capitol in Confederate hands. Holding it for more than a few days will put immense pressure on Washington to either make peace or force Lee et al out. Louisville was the key to Kentucky and a better idea is having Bragg and Edmund Smith working together and forcing either the fall of Louisville, at least have the Confederate Kentucky governor sworn in at the state capitol (which was about to happen in OTL). Pull off both and it would be interesting to see how the UK/France would respond.
 
Unfortunately Lee's army was so badly supplied and outnumbered that the best he could hope for was otl any futher advance would be unlikely to be useful. Lee himself admitted in a letter to Jefferson Davis that his army really was not in good shape for a prolong invasion of the north in 1862.
 
Top