Did Maryland Ever Consider Remaining Neutral?

Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
412
Location
Silver run Md carroll county
#61
Li
You know with all this talk as to whether or not Maryland declared formal neutrality or not (IMHO, they didn't felt) I've decided to elaborate on an idea that I have talked about a Union Maryland and a Confederate Chesapeake, this is a thought exercise so don't get your guts high:
Suppose that the Confederates hold on in Missouri and continue the string of successes there without getting kicked out in 1861 by the Union Army and the Confederates in the Maryland Campaign land at the more pro-Confederate area(s) of either Southern or Eastern Shore rather than the pro-Union Western region so they manage to win some battles without a certain order issued by Robert E. Lee being lost and continue to build a string of victories there enough to gain British and French recognition and tip the elections in favor of the Peace Democrats/Copperheads coupled with a victory in Kentucky help end the war. Maryland is split up between the Union and the Confederacy, the rest of Maryland (Western and Central, Baltimore, and Annapolis) stays in Union hands while the Southern and Eastern Shore parts are handed over to Confederate control as the state of Chesapeake (named after the Chesapeake Bay), Maryland's flag is the Calvert emblem and its capital is Annapolis with its nickname being "The Old Line State" (as OTL) while the Crossland banner become the official state flag of Chesapeake with its capital being Salisbury and its nickname being "The Tide State".
Though I do acknowledge this, I already made my statement clear about the fundamental differences in terms of links with other Southern states politically, culturally and economically there were already pro-Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky vying for influence as well as special army units (Missouri State Guard and Kentucky Orphan Brigade), certain pro-Confederate individuals from those states and the Confederates intended to include them plus there was no pro-Confederate Maryland government whatsoever.
Your statement was clear but not gospel I would suggest a little more research into the state of maryland more than what is just on Wikipedia you are correct on maryland and a lack of confederate government but you should maybe look into the causes of such instead of attributing it to be somehow inferior to a state like kentucky or Missouri both states with entirely different situations
Though I do acknowledge this, I already made my statement clear about the fundamental differences in terms of links with other Southern states politically, culturally and economically there were already pro-Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky vying for influence as well as special army units (Missouri State Guard and Kentucky Orphan Brigade), certain pro-Confederate individuals from those states and the Confederates intended to include them plus there was no pro-Confederate Maryland government whatsoever.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
#62
Li


Your statement was clear but not gospel I would suggest a little more research into the state of maryland more than what is just on Wikipedia you are correct on maryland and a lack of confederate government but you should maybe look into the causes of such instead of attributing it to be somehow inferior to a state like kentucky or Missouri both states with entirely different situations
Well thanks for some of the credit you give me. Indeed the situations of Kentucky/Missouri and Maryland were quite different (I already outlined such differences) for the former two there was clear attempts by the Confederate government to add them (why do you think there are 13 stars on the Confederates flags) and install their preferred governments there as well as the other salient aspects I mentioned before and you didn't see a Pratt Street/Baltimore Riots-like event ever occur in Kentucky/Missouri by pro-Confederate sympathizers (there were already more overt activities in those places like guerilla warfare breaking out) nor any attempt by the Confederates to install a government in Maryland loyal to them.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,934
Location
NC
#64
I would like to see more references and quotes prior to the Union Army surrounding Baltimore on May 13, 1861. Many events took place prior to that event. Any hope or thought of neutrality was gone after that point. Some of the most important ones I can think of are John Brown's raid of Haper's Ferry in 1859 and the Baltimore Riot caused by Massachusetts and Pennsylvania state militia marching through Baltimore.

Also noteworthy are their representatives in 1860:

Congress:

Henry Winter Davis (A)
J. Morrison Harris (A)
George W. Hughes (D)
Jacob M. Kunkel (D)
James A. Stewart (D)
Edwin H. Webster (A)

Senate:


Anthony Kennedy (A)
James Pearce (D)

The (A) indicates a member of the Know Nothing Party which was a nationalist, Anti-catholic Party that broke away from the Whigs. Some Whigs became Anti-catholic (American Party) while others became Anti-slavery (Republican).

That hardly seems like an environment that would favor siding with the Republicans.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
#65
I would like to see more references and quotes prior to the Union Army surrounding Baltimore on May 13, 1861. Many events took place prior to that event. Any hope or thought of neutrality was gone after that point. Some of the most important ones I can think of are John Brown's raid of Haper's Ferry in 1859 and the Baltimore Riot caused by Massachusetts and Pennsylvania state militia marching through Baltimore.

Also noteworthy are their representatives in 1860:

Congress:

Henry Winter Davis (A)
J. Morrison Harris (A)
George W. Hughes (D)
Jacob M. Kunkel (D)
James A. Stewart (D)
Edwin H. Webster (A)

Senate:


Anthony Kennedy (A)
James Pearce (D)

The (A) indicates a member of the Know Nothing Party which was a nationalist, Anti-catholic Party that broke away from the Whigs. Some Whigs became Anti-catholic (American Party) while others became Anti-slavery (Republican).

That hardly seems like an environment that would favor siding with the Republicans.
Thanks for the list Old Glory. Hopefully we can keep up the conversation.
 

Zella

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
2,230
#66
Well thanks for some of the credit you give me. Indeed the situations of Kentucky/Missouri and Maryland were quite different (I already outlined such differences) for the former two there was clear attempts by the Confederate government to add them (why do you think there are 13 stars on the Confederates flags) and install their preferred governments there as well as the other salient aspects I mentioned before and you didn't see a Pratt Street/Baltimore Riots-like event ever occur in Kentucky/Missouri by pro-Confederate sympathizers (there were already more overt activities in those places like guerilla warfare breaking out) nor any attempt by the Confederates to install a government in Maryland loyal to them.
My reading on this is, admittedly, very limited, so I'd love for someone with more knowledge on the topic to jump in, but my understanding is that it would have been very difficult to install such a government in Maryland.

Again going back to American Brutus (because it's the only book I've read on the topic!), the United States immediately recognized how devastating it would be for Maryland to secede because it would mean that Washington, D.C., would have been surrounded by Confederate territory.

It also notes that as a direct result of the hostility seen in Baltimore, early in the war, habeas corpus was suspended in the area, soldiers from Massachusetts were sent to the city to occupy it, Baltimore newspapers were censored, the police department was replaced by federal appointees, and numerous citizens and leading figures (including the mayor) of the city were arrested. (All this is from pages 114-115).

Those measures seem specifically designed to prevent a Confederate government from being installed, and I think go a long way toward explaining why such a thing didn't happen and wasn't attempted. Also, in my opinion, explains why Maryland's Confederate sympathizers who didn't enlist in the Confederate army were choosing more subtle means of resistance, including supplying fewer men to the draft, smuggling/blockade running, and running spy rings.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
#67
My reading on this is, admittedly, very limited, so I'd love for someone with more knowledge on the topic to jump in, but my understanding is that it would have been very difficult to install such a government in Maryland.

Again going back to American Brutus (because it's the only book I've read on the topic!), the United States immediately recognized how devastating it would be for Maryland to secede because it would mean that Washington, D.C., would have been surrounded by Confederate territory.

It also notes that as a direct result of the hostility seen in Baltimore, early in the war, habeas corpus was suspended in the area, soldiers from Massachusetts were sent to the city to occupy it, Baltimore newspapers were censored, the police department was replaced by federal appointees, and numerous citizens and leading figures (including the mayor) of the city were arrested. (All this is from pages 114-115).

Those measures seem specifically designed to prevent a Confederate government from being installed, and I think go a long way toward explaining why such a thing didn't happen and wasn't attempted. Also, in my opinion, explains why Maryland's Confederate sympathizers who didn't enlist in the Confederate army were choosing more subtle means of resistance, including supplying fewer men to the draft, smuggling/blockade running, an running spy rings.
Well in Kentucky and Missouri, you didn't see these actions replicated here though there was Fremont's Proclamation which did free slaves and court-martial/execute anyone suspected of aiding the Rebels which caused discontent amongst Kentuckians and Missourians of which could have driven them to join the Confederacy Lincoln and the Unionists there recognized this (as I detailed in another post) and the Camp Jackson Affair in St. Louis.
 
Last edited:

Zella

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
2,230
#68
Well in Kentucky and Missouri, you didn't see these actions replicated here though there was Fremont's Proclamation which did free slaves and court-martial/execute anyone suspected of aiding the Rebels which caused discontent amongst Kentuckians and Missourians of which could have driven them to join the Confederacy Lincoln and the Unionists there recognized this (as I detailed in another post).
I think the kind of measures enforced in Maryland would have been very difficult to enact in states like Missouri and Kentucky, primarily for practical reasons.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
#69
I think the kind of measures enforced in Maryland would have been very difficult to enact in states like Missouri and Kentucky, primarily for practical reasons.
What do you mean by practical? Do you mean that if the measures applied to Maryland were to spread to Kentucky/Missouri it would cause only more discontent and anger towards the federal government?
 

Zella

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
2,230
#70
What do you mean by practical? Do you mean that if the measures applied to Maryland were to spread to Kentucky/Missouri it would cause only more discontent and anger towards the federal government?
Well, it would have undoubtedly done that. I mean more as a matter of logistics. Those states were too far away and experiencing too much turmoil to even try to institute those measures (or enforce them). Moving quickly to tamp down on Baltimore early in the war was an option that I just don't think could have been achieved in states that were farther from the East Coast. But, as I've said before, I have not read a lot on this, so I'm a little out of my element and just going with the limited knowledge I have.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
#71
Well, it would have undoubtedly done that. I mean more as a matter of logistics. Those states were too far away and experiencing too much turmoil to even try to institute those measures (or enforce them). Moving quickly to tamp down on Baltimore early in the war was an option that I just don't think could have been achieved in states that were farther from the East Coast. But, as I've said before, I have not read a lot on this, so I'm a little out of my element and just going with the limited knowledge I have.
I've already shown why Kentucky/Missouri had more logistical value to the Confederacy than say Maryland they're so close to the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers that if (and that's an if) the Confederates do control them then the Union war effort will be stalled and furthermore the war comes to the midwestern/northwestern Union states and then there's terrain the Confederates knew terrain better than the Union and there was always Forrest and Morgan basically wrecking and tearing up Union troops' supply lines (like they did in Tennessee in 1862).
Edited.
 

Zella

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
2,230
#72
I've already shown why Kentucky/Missouri had more logistical value to the Confederacy than say Maryland they're so close to the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers that if (and that's an if) the Confederates do control them then the Union war effort will be stalled and furthermore the war comes to the midwestern/northwestern Union states and then there's terrain the Confederates knew terrain better than the Union and there was always Forrest and Morgan basically wrecking and tearing up Union troops' supply lines (like they did in Tennessee in 1862).
Edited.
I'm not disputing the value of those states. I'm simply talking about the logistics of instituting the measures that were implemented early in Maryland, like replacing the police force, etc.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
#73
I'm not disputing the value of those states. I'm simply talking about the logistics of instituting the measures that were implemented early in Maryland, like replacing the police force, etc.
It's exactly some of the same sentiments that I share that you expressed here, well Maryland was much more logistically easier to enforce for the Union than say Kentucky or Missouri and it was much easier for pro-Confederate sympathy to exist in those two states since they were so far off. Imagine if Lincoln (or Fremont) had to do the same thing by enforcing harsh measures on Kentucky and/or Missouri like an even worse version of Camp Jackson/Fremont Proclamation and marshal law upon all the two states for example it would only just anger so many Kentuckians and Missourians driving them away from the Union and to joining the Confederacy (as Lincoln understood losing one in this Kentucky would mean losing the entire game and Missouri would be taken in the process) coupled with what you just said would be much more difficult logistically to enforce even in this case there would still be great anger from Kentuckians and Missourians towards the federal government and as mentioned before possibly seceding from the Union (just like South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee) and joining the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,336
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
#74
Well, it would have undoubtedly done that. I mean more as a matter of logistics. Those states were too far away and experiencing too much turmoil to even try to institute those measures (or enforce them). Moving quickly to tamp down on Baltimore early in the war was an option that I just don't think could have been achieved in states that were farther from the East Coast. But, as I've said before, I have not read a lot on this, so I'm a little out of my element and just going with the limited knowledge I have.
Maryland joining the CSA could've drastically changed the entire war. The psychological effect of the CSA capturing Washington, especially early would've been significant. This the motivating factor in the tyranny brought down upon some of it's residents.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,067
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#75
Maryland joining the CSA could've drastically changed the entire war. The psychological effect of the CSA capturing Washington, especially early would've been significant. This the motivating factor in the tyranny brought down upon some of it's residents.
You just Had to put in that last sentence didn'tcha? :wink: Otherwise, I agree.
Dispensing justice to lawbreakers and disturbers of the peace that are involved in revolutionary actions is not tyranny in my book.
usa_4.gif
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
412
Location
Silver run Md carroll county
#77
I've already shown why Kentucky/Missouri had more logistical value to the Confederacy than say Maryland they're so close to the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers that if (and that's an if) the Confederates do control them then the Union war effort will be stalled and furthermore the war comes to the midwestern/northwestern Union states and then there's terrain the Confederates knew terrain better than the Union and there was always Forrest and Morgan basically wrecking and tearing up Union troops' supply lines (like they did in Tennessee in 1862).
Edited.
[/QUOTE
You haven't shown anything secondly Zella is on point Maryland was a top priority at that point in the civil war because of the location of the capital and a port city baltimore
 
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
412
Location
Silver run Md carroll county
#78
What do you mean by practical? Do you mean that if the measures applied to Maryland were to spread to Kentucky/Missouri it would cause only more discontent and anger towards the federal government?
The size of the states played factors as well a small state like maryland with one large city in the center of the state was easier to control
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top