Alternate History Virginia Doesn't Secede

[Navarro]

Interesting idea here, here's my take on it:

So, yeah, they weren't really negotiating in full good faith, but it does leave open the strange "what if" potential for "what if Virginia (somehow) hadn't seceded"...

The lack of added strategic depth, the arms industry of the Tredegar ironworks, a large amount of soldiers, and one of the best military minds of the period all combine to bring the Confederacy down that much earlier, lacking most of what they had that enabled them to put up such a fight for so long and mitigate their inherent strategic disadvantages. Possibly no Emancipation Proclamation; though this still won't delay the end of slavery by much most likely. Longest term effects are in US politics, as VA is a larger, blood-Red state to this day. I'm not sure if this swings any elections though.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

What if Virginia declares itself neutral in an effort to reunihe the states as a mediator? Satisfies your premise while throwing a really interesting wrench in.

 

[S'task]

What if Virginia declares itself neutral in an effort to reunihe the states as a mediator? Satisfies your premise while throwing a really interesting wrench in.

Historically, that's actually what Virginia tried to do prior to Fort Sumpter. It's a status that cannot be sustained. Lincoln needs to be able to route forces through Virginia in order prosecute the war against the Confederacy, especially once they started it. Further, allowing neutrality for Virginia would also mean having to extend it to other border states, including Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and possibly Missouri. Once you've done that not only is DC effectively surrounded by a "neutral" states, it also means you have very limited area over which you can prosecute the conflict. Which is absolutely doable, but much, MUCH more difficult since huge amounts of southern resources wouldn't be focused on the Virginia theater.

Add in the southern sympathies that Virginia did have (there's a reason the second vote for secession passed in Virginia after Fort Sumpter), those "neutral" states suddenly look a lot less neutral in fact.

 

[Buba]

Possibly no Emancipation Proclamation; though this still won't delay the end of slavery by much most likely.

I humbly disagree. The end of slavery is put off for quite a while.
IMO short war = absolute certainty of no Emancipation Proclamation whatsoever. Lincoln was bending over backwards not to offend slave states with the OTL version, hence I do not imagine it seeing the light of day here.
Heck, maybe Lincoln pushes for the Corwin Ammendment to keep the slave states happy, thus making abolition require yet another amendment.

A united Virginia means c. 10,5M people which means 9th most populous State. What does that do to internal US politics between "then" and "now" - I have no idea
Would a united Virginia be wealthier than in OTL? No fighting over it in ACW have an impact?
Or will what would never become Wee-Vee still end up as a pisspoor shithole - as it did in OTL?*
If richer - than Virginia could be more populous, maybe even a peer of Pennsylvania and thus somewhere between 5th and 8th?

* No offence to West Virginia intended.

 

[History Learner]

Interesting idea here, here's my take on it:



The lack of added strategic depth, the arms industry of the Tredegar ironworks, a large amount of soldiers, and one of the best military minds of the period all combine to bring the Confederacy down that much earlier, lacking most of what they had that enabled them to put up such a fight for so long and mitigate their inherent strategic disadvantages. Possibly no Emancipation Proclamation; though this still won't delay the end of slavery by much most likely. Longest term effects are in US politics, as VA is a larger, blood-Red state to this day. I'm not sure if this swings any elections though.

If Virginia stays in the Union, it does so as a neutral state; the conditions Virginia was seeking was to be left neutral as Kentucky was. It's resources are denied to the Confederacy but, on the flip side, so to is it denied to the Union, which means the Confederacy is able to concentrate its forces in the West. If you get any movement to end slavery, however, Virginia will bolt and the Union will not be able to stop this as it was with Maryland.

 

[bintananth]

If Virginia tries to stay Union as a neutral state, like Kentucky tried to, with Union incursions into Virginia limitied to fortifying things along the border or in the tidewater already effectively under Federal control it'll be the Confederates rolling in and pushing Virginia into "Yankee mode" like they did with Kentucky.

With Virginia and Kentucky as a neutral zone the Confederates can't really get at the North while the North has all the time they need to come barreling down the Mississippi River and showing up from the Sea with irresistable force at their leisure.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

If Virginia doesn't secede, the chances of an immediate civil war may become less likely. One of the biggest motivations for the Union to reconquer the South was to maintain control over the coastal ports, where the majority of the US' tax revenue came from (in the form of tariffs). If Virginia doesn't secede, then there is less for the Union to gain by going to war. On the other hand, once the Confederates realize just how poor they are compared to their neighbor, they might be tempted to try to nab more ports, so civil war might happen later down the line anyway. The Union's casus belli won't be Confederates bombarding a fort, but instead a blatant grab for Union territory by the Confederates. Such a war might be shorter because with Virginia having never left the Union, the Union will have continued to grow at an even faster rate than OTL, having more money and infrastructure than OTL Union and would thus crush the Confederacy faster. Also, if the war starts because of the land grab, then that would be less defensible and the Confederacy might not receive British aid, thus further hastening the Confederacy's defeat.

The CSS Alabama fiasco showed that that the Union had a lot of popular support in Britain. When the CSS Alabama went on its infamous raiding spree and was traced back to Britain, it caused an uproar among the British populace and the British government cracked down on companies dealing with the Confederacy. With the war being started by an invasion of the Union for ports, I'd imagine that the British populace's support for the Union would be even greater, and then Confederates might not get any help from Britain in the first place.

 

[Navarro]

With Virginia and Kentucky as a neutral zone the Confederates can't really get at the North while the North has all the time they need to come barreling down the Mississippi River and showing up from the Sea with irresistable force at their leisure.

As we saw OTL the Confederacy was unable to defend its westernmost regions, including the key port through which most of its cotton exports came, New Orleans (there's a fair argument that the fall of New Orleans in 1862 was the key factor deciding the war).

 

[Aaron Fox]

Thing is, Virginia wasn't going to stay neutral unless you've got some serious alien space bats going on. It's telling that the moment word got out that the Confederates shelled Ft. Sumpter, the second vote was for the Confederacy. People forget that everything south of Virginia (and Virginia itself) tied itself economically and socially to the slave industry.