Did Maryland Ever Consider Remaining Neutral?

Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,627
Location
Denver, CO
#81
Sure, Maryland could join the Confederacy. Of course if the national capital moves from Washington to say Albany or Springfield, IL, there goes all that federal money. And Richmond has its own support network. Baltimore in the Confederacy is suddenly competing with Charleston, Savannah, and most importantly with New Orleans, for supremacy as a port.
The Baltimore and Ohio suddenly leads off to a international border on the Ohio River. And for what? To protect slavery, which is already fading in Maryland. Maryland already has a significant free black population, and Baltimore has an immigrant population, just like every other mid-Atlantic coastal city.
So this little topic assumes that the people who confront the United States troops are more representative than the people who stay at home and plow the fields or are working the wharves and have too much to do to protest.
Its dream time on the internet, where the protection of slavery is worth cutting one's economic ties to the fastest growing and most dynamic section of the country. All for an institution that had a lifespan of maybe 20 years in Maryland, to be generous.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
389
Location
Silver run Md carroll county
#82
Sure, Maryland could join the Confederacy. Of course if the national capital moves from Washington to say Albany or Springfield, IL, there goes all that federal money. And Richmond has its own support network. Baltimore in the Confederacy is suddenly competing with Charleston, Savannah, and most importantly with New Orleans, for supremacy as a port.
The Baltimore and Ohio suddenly leads off to a international border on the Ohio River. And for what? To protect slavery, which is already fading in Maryland. Maryland already has a significant free black population, and Baltimore has an immigrant population, just like every other mid-Atlantic coastal city.
So this little topic assumes that the people who confront the United States troops are more representative than the people who stay at home and plow the fields or are working the wharves and have too much to do to protest.
Its dream time on the internet, where the protection of slavery is worth cutting one's economic ties to the fastest growing and most dynamic section of the country. All for an institution that had a lifespan of maybe 20 years in Maryland, to be generous.
Slavery was on the decline in Maryland but that was not a fact unique to the state Kentuckys slave population was on the decline as well centered around the two states tobacco production
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#83
Folks, while Maryland in the CSA may offer some things valuable this glosses over some problems:
* Baltimore, sure its quite populous and is an important naval port but the Union Navy could just simply blockade it or take it (like New Orleans).
* While Maryland does cut off Washington, D.C. with the rest of the United States it is already a well-fortified city and the Army of the Potomac can just be stationed here though then again since Jubal Early was quite close to actually capturing the city during the Battle of Monocacy Junction and was at Fort Stephens in 1864 who knows.
* There's also the large free black (more than any other U.S. state at the time) and Unionist (spread out to Western and Central areas) populations who (aside from the Southern and Eastern Shore areas) would not support the Confederacy unlike with Missouri (which furnished troops to Sterling Price's Missouri State Guard in 1861 during its string of successes and had its fair share of pro-Confederate sentiment) and Kentucky (while not necessarily sending troops to the Confederates when they invaded the state in 1862 still were not entirely averse to supporting them and were okay with them)
* We also have Maryland's border line between the state which is thinly spread and Pennsylvania there is the risk of Union troops pouring into the state.
* Unlike with the states of Missouri and Kentucky which had special units (Missouri State Guard and Kentucky Orphan Brigade) as well as leaders (John Hunt Morgan/John C. Breckinridge) and guerillas to help the Confederates, Maryland doesn't have the same things Missouri and Kentucky had.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#84
Slavery was on the decline in Maryland but that was not a fact unique to the state Kentuckys slave population was on the decline as well centered around the two states tobacco production
Except for the fact that unlike Maryland, Kentucky's bondage population was in the hundreds of thousands (like Missouri) and outnumbered its free population as I mentioned before (see Civil War Net's 1860 U.S. Census).
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,869
Location
los angeles ca
#85
Folks, while Maryland in the CSA may offer some things valuable this glosses over some problems:
* Baltimore, sure its quite populous and is an important naval port but the Union Navy could just simply blockade it or take it (like New Orleans).
* While Maryland does cut off Washington, D.C. with the rest of the United States it is already a well-fortified city and the Army of the Potomac can just be stationed here though then again since Jubal Early was quite close to actually capturing the city during the Battle of Monocacy Junction and was at Fort Stephens in 1864 who knows.
* There's also the large free black (more than any other U.S. state at the time) and Unionist (spread out to Western and Central areas) populations who (aside from the Southern and Eastern Shore areas) would not support the Confederacy unlike with Missouri (which furnished troops to Sterling Price's Missouri State Guard in 1861 during its string of successes and had its fair share of pro-Confederate sentiment) and Kentucky (while not necessarily sending troops to the Confederates when they invaded the state in 1862 still were not entirely averse to supporting them and were okay with them)
* We also have Maryland's border line between the state which is thinly spread and Pennsylvania there is the risk of Union troops pouring into the state.
* Unlike with the states of Missouri and Kentucky which had special units (Missouri State Guard and Kentucky Orphan Brigade) as well as leaders (John Hunt Morgan/John C. Breckinridge) and guerillas to help the Confederates, Maryland doesn't have the same things Missouri and Kentucky had.
Has in all Civil War there is no such thing as being neutral. By definition one or more sides will loose a civil conflict if they respect the concept of neutrality.
1. Neutrality hurts both sides because they can not conscript troops.
2. It hurts both sides because they can not freely use the labor and material resources of a neutral state.
3.It impedes both sides from using a neutral state for transiting troops and storing supplies.
5. In short it makes absolutely no sense for any side to respect neutrality.
In no way shape or form was Md going to be a neutral state.The inherant problem has Steven Freeling noted in his book "The South vs the South" is in no border state was there enough Confederate support to wrest control of that state into the CSA. Not that the CSA did not try to the best of their ability.
Leftyhunter
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#87
Has in all Civil War there is no such thing as being neutral. By definition one or more sides will loose a civil conflict if they respect the concept of neutrality.
1. Neutrality hurts both sides because they can not conscript troops.
2. It hurts both sides because they can not freely use the labor and material resources of a neutral state.
3.It impedes both sides from using a neutral state for transiting troops and storing supplies.
5. In short it makes absolutely no sense for any side to respect neutrality.
In no way shape or form was Md going to be a neutral state.The inherant problem has Steven Freeling noted in his book "The South vs the South" is in no border state was there enough Confederate support to wrest control of that state into the CSA. Not that the CSA did not try to the best of their ability.
Leftyhunter
True, neutrality does hurt both the Union and the Confederacy but for Kentucky/Missouri their neutrality was pretty fragile and neither wanted to align with either side (Kentucky and Missouri didn't support fighting a war against their Southern neighbors even rejecting sending the Union troops) but one of them was going to break neutrality (Camp Jackson in Missouri for the Union, Leonidas Polk's idiotic invasion of Kentucky for the Confederacy). There's also well the Fremont Proclamation, Lincoln and the border state Unionists knew that if this had stayed it would only just anger Kentuckians and Missourians by driving them away from the Union and into the Confederacy.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,869
Location
los angeles ca
#88
True, neutrality does hurt both the Union and the Confederacy but for Kentucky/Missouri their neutrality was pretty fragile and neither wanted to align with either side (Kentucky and Missouri didn't support fighting a war against their Southern neighbors even rejecting sending the Union troops) but one of them was going to break neutrality (Camp Jackson in Missouri for the Union, Leonidas Polk's idiotic invasion of Kentucky for the Confederacy). There's also well the Fremont Proclamation, Lincoln and the border state Unionists knew that if this had stayed it would only just anger Kentuckians and Missourians by driving them away from the Union and into the Confederacy.
A state is not a person. Both Kentucky and Missouri were divided state but each supplied more troops to the Union 110k Union vs 30K Confederate for Missouri vs 50k Union vs 25k Confederate for Kentucky.
We have covered the controversial decison of Major Lyon to attack the MSG at Camp Jackson in other threads.
In short Major Lyon saw that it was necessary to launch a preemptive attack to protect the U.S. Arsenal at St.Louis.
Lincoln knew that he could not afford to let the border states become neutral.
Lincoln did what he had to do to defeat the Confederacy and that meant no taking of neutrality into account.
Yes Lincoln had to procede with caution in Kentucky.
Arguably General Polk had to invade Kentucky before General Grant did.
Getting back to Maryland has others have pointed out Lincoln had to act forcefully to prevent Maryland from becoming a Confederate state.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#89
A state is not a person. Both Kentucky and Missouri were divided state but each supplied more troops to the Union 110k Union vs 30K Confederate for Missouri vs 50k Union vs 25k Confederate for Kentucky.
We have covered the controversial decison of Major Lyon to attack the MSG at Camp Jackson in other threads.
In short Major Lyon saw that it was necessary to launch a preemptive attack to protect the U.S. Arsenal at St.Louis.
Lincoln knew that he could not afford to let the border states become neutral.
Lincoln did what he had ti do to defeat the Confederacy and that meant no taking of neutrality into account.
Yes Lincoln had to procede with caution in Kentucky.
Arguably General Polk had to invade Kentucky before General Grant did.
Getting back to Maryland has others have pointed out Lincoln had to act forcefully to prevent Maryland from becoming a Confederate state.
Leftyhunter
I was just pointing out why neither side could accept neutrality and why both of them broke neutrality for Kentucky and Missouri respectively (by the way you have a bit of grammatical errors in your spelling no offense). In the case of Nathaniel Lyon, sure he did seize the U.S. Arsenal and St. Louis but unfortunately after Fremont basically refused to send reinforcements to Lyon (whose army was depleted) and even when he was told by Fremont to retreat back to Rolla he didn't and guess what he got himself killed at the Battle of Wilson's Creek. As for the Polk/Grant dilemma, well actually it was Colonel Gustav Waagner (where Fort Waagner gets its name) that broke Kentucky's neutrality just that he occupied the town of Belmont, Missouri (which was near the Mississippi River) and lay opposite Columbus, Kentucky (see "The Civil War in Kentucky: Battle for the Bluegrass State", p. 10) just imagine if he had attacked Columbus instead and Grant himself on several occasions suggested to occupy Columbus as early as September even before Polk (see "Paducah, Kentucky: A History") though even Fremont himself intended to occupy Columbus "as soon as possible".
 
Last edited:

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#90
Zella has certainly noted the logistical problems of enforcing harsh measures on Kentucky/Missouri similar to Maryland but in the case of the Fremont Emancipation while it only freed a few slaves in Missouri (logistics problems aside) it nevertheless had huge ramifications on the Lincoln Administration and on loyal Unionists there as well as the populace of Kentucky/Missouri which were then wavering. Kentuckians and Missourians were at least fine remaining in the Union or at the very least neutral but the idea of fighting to emancipate the negro was as with much of the North at the time not something they were going to support even Lincoln and the border state Unionists themselves realized how dangerous it would be for Fremont to do an act like this since it would only cause resentment and distrust from Kentucky and Missouri residents potentially even joining the Confederacy (as I detailed in other posts).
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
NC
#91
Its dream time on the internet, where the protection of slavery is worth cutting one's economic ties to the fastest growing and most dynamic section of the country. All for an institution that had a lifespan of maybe 20 years in Maryland, to be generous.
Slavery, no, watching the Union being reduced to being held together by force instead of choice, yes. From choice to force is a huge transition that had never happened in US history.

It is easy to see why Maryland wanted to stay neutral. They were stuck in the middle and benefited from both sides. Just as it makes sense why Massachusetts was flying down South to start shooting, because they would benefit handsomely if the Southern Democrats fell.

If a true war never broke out, Maryland would have great relationships with the new Confederate nation while many of their neighbors would have a lousy relationship with them. It would be extremely profitable if things were to work out that way.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#92
Slavery, no, watching the Union being reduced to being held together by force instead of choice, yes. From choice to force is a huge transition that had never happened in US history.

It is easy to see why Maryland wanted to stay neutral. They were stuck in the middle and benefited from both sides. Just as it makes sense why Massachusetts was flying down South to start shooting, because they would benefit handsomely if the Southern Democrats fell.

If a true war never broke out, Maryland would have great relationships with the new Confederate nation while many of their neighbors would have a lousy relationship with them. It would be extremely profitable if things were to work out that way.
To be honest, wausaubob is right when it comes down to the institution in Maryland looking at the 1860 U.S. Census records (I looked it up on Civil War Net) the number of people in bondage had declined while the free black population was high unlike in Kentucky/Missouri where the bondage population was higher compared to their free black populations in the hundreds of thousands while Maryland's dwindled to just about . Kentucky also was a major exporter of people in bondage selling them to the Deep South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas and the state's largest city Louisville as well as Lexington (home to 10,000 slaves) were major slave markets (owing to their trade town nature_ that one editor from Louisville remarked that their "prejudices, interests, and feelings were "extremely Southern" and while there were at least two laws made in 1815 and 1833 that did ban importation of slaves those were ignored and in the latter case was repealed in 1849 it also had the highest slave hiring population in the South between 12% of Lexington's and 16% of Louisville's slaves were hired out more than any other Southern state. Missouri was home to the Border Ruffians men who fought the Free-Staters during Bleeding Kansas and "Little Dixie" (a region of Missouri that most resembled the Deep South), and Missourians overall reaction to Fremont's order was one of discontent and disgust just like Kentucky.
 
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
389
Location
Silver run Md carroll county
#93
Folks, while Maryland in the CSA may offer some things valuable this glosses over some problems:
* Baltimore, sure its quite populous and is an important naval port but the Union Navy could just simply blockade it or take it (like New Orleans).
* While Maryland does cut off Washington, D.C. with the rest of the United States it is already a well-fortified city and the Army of the Potomac can just be stationed here though then again since Jubal Early was quite close to actually capturing the city during the Battle of Monocacy Junction and was at Fort Stephens in 1864 who knows.
* There's also the large free black (more than any other U.S. state at the time) and Unionist (spread out to Western and Central areas) populations who (aside from the Southern and Eastern Shore areas) would not support the Confederacy unlike with Missouri (which furnished troops to Sterling Price's Missouri State Guard in 1861 during its string of successes and had its fair share of pro-Confederate sentiment) and Kentucky (while not necessarily sending troops to the Confederates when they invaded the state in 1862 still were not entirely averse to supporting them and were okay with them)
* We also have Maryland's border line between the state which is thinly spread and Pennsylvania there is the risk of Union troops pouring into the state.
* Unlike with the states of Missouri and Kentucky which had special units (Missouri State Guard and Kentucky Orphan Brigade) as well as leaders (John Hunt Morgan/John C. Breckinridge) and guerillas to help the Confederates, Maryland doesn't have the same things Missouri and Kentucky had.
*Firstly I have a question not trying to be smart but do you have any idea what the state of maryland is shaped like and the position of baltimore since we are talking hypothetically IF maryland had became a confederate state blockading a city with it's location would have been very difficult and nothing like a city such as New Orleans
*your comment about the location of Washington DC did not make much sense being surrounded in confederate territory would not be practical for supplies,intelligence and reinforcements
*correct there was a large free black population in the state who owned land and some of them slaves as for the unionist part of the state there where many who DID support the Confederate states
*on Maryland's border the mason Dixon line was indeed a terrible place to try and defend
*lastly Maryland did in fact have the same things the other two border states you love so much had with Harry gilmor and Elijah White both ran guerrilla raids for the south Bradley tyler Johnson,James Archer and George H Stuart to name a few maryland supplied as many as kentucky and possibly more than Missouri to confederate ranks and oh by the way less than half the yankee soldiers
 

Zella

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
1,959
#94
Missouri was home to the Border Ruffians men who fought the Free-Staters during Bleeding Kansas and "Little Dixie" (a region of Missouri that most resembled the Deep South), and Missourians overall reaction to Fremont's order was one of discontent and disgust just like Kentucky.
My understanding is that Missouri's Little Dixie did not resemble the Deep South but instead was a reflection of the Upper South since it was primarily settled by people from Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
#95
*Firstly I have a question not trying to be smart but do you have any idea what the state of maryland is shaped like and the position of baltimore since we are talking hypothetically IF maryland had became a confederate state blockading a city with it's location would have been very difficult and nothing like a city such as New Orleans
*your comment about the location of Washington DC did not make much sense being surrounded in confederate territory would not be practical for supplies,intelligence and reinforcements
*correct there was a large free black population in the state who owned land and some of them slaves as for the unionist part of the state there where many who DID support the Confederate states
*on Maryland's border the mason Dixon line was indeed a terrible place to try and defend
*lastly Maryland did in fact have the same things the other two border states you love so much had with Harry gilmor and Elijah White both ran guerrilla raids for the south Bradley tyler Johnson,James Archer and George H Stuart to name a few maryland supplied as many as kentucky and possibly more than Missouri to confederate ranks and oh by the way less than half the yankee soldiers
Look I don't necessarily disagree with you on everything but just going to make some things clear:
* I know what Maryland is shaped like. I've been looking at it on American maps for crying out loud.
* In regards to Baltimore's location (which is a port city near the Chesapeake), did it really stop the Union Navy from taking Alexandria or Norfolk?
* Honestly, reading about the reaction of Western Marylanders over the invasion by Confederate forces they weren't too happy or receptive to them they were just simply lukewarm.
* Unlike Maryland, in Kentucky/Missouri (especially the latter) guerilla fighting was more sproadic and overt than just simply raids.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
NC
#96
To be honest, wausaubob is right when it comes down to the institution in Maryland looking at the 1860 U.S. Census records (I looked it up on Civil War Net) the number of people in bondage had declined while the free black population was high unlike in Kentucky/Missouri where the bondage population was higher compared to their free black populations in the hundreds of thousands while Maryland's dwindled to just about . Kentucky also was a major exporter of people in bondage selling them to the Deep South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas and the state's largest city Louisville as well as Lexington (home to 10,000 slaves) were major slave markets (owing to their trade town nature_ that one editor from Louisville remarked that their "prejudices, interests, and feelings were "extremely Southern" and while there were at least two laws made in 1815 and 1833 that did ban importation of slaves those were ignored and in the latter case was repealed in 1849 it also had the highest slave hiring population in the South between 12% of Lexington's and 16% of Louisville's slaves were hired out more than any other Southern state. Missouri was home to the Border Ruffians men who fought the Free-Staters during Bleeding Kansas and "Little Dixie" (a region of Missouri that most resembled the Deep South), and Missourians overall reaction to Fremont's order was one of discontent and disgust just like Kentucky.
The problem here is you are only accounting for slavery, there is much more present than a single issue.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,869
Location
los angeles ca
#97
I was just pointing out why neither side could accept neutrality and why both of them broke neutrality for Kentucky and Missouri respectively (by the way you have a bit of grammatical errors in your spelling no offense). In the case of Nathaniel Lyon, sure he did seize the U.S. Arsenal and St. Louis but unfortunately after Fremont basically refused to send reinforcements to Lyon (whose army was depleted) and even when he was told by Fremont to retreat back to Rolla he didn't and guess what he got himself killed at the Battle of Wilson's Creek. As for the Polk/Grant dilemma, well actually it was Colonel Gustav Waagner (where Fort Waagner gets its name) that broke Kentucky's neutrality just that he occupied the town of Belmont, Missouri (which was near the Mississippi River) and lay opposite Columbus, Kentucky (see "The Civil War in Kentucky: Battle for the Bluegrass State", p. 10) just imagine if he had attacked Columbus instead and Grant himself on several occasions suggested to occupy Columbus as early as September even before Polk (see "Paducah, Kentucky: A History") though even Fremont himself intended to occupy Columbus "as soon as possible".
The problem here is you are only accounting for slavery, there is much more present than a single issue.
Such has? Certainly not tarrifs which were low before secession plus the Confederacy imposed it's own tarriffs. Not the income tax which didn't exist. Not the draft. Gee what could it be?
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,869
Location
los angeles ca
#98
*Firstly I have a question not trying to be smart but do you have any idea what the state of maryland is shaped like and the position of baltimore since we are talking hypothetically IF maryland had became a confederate state blockading a city with it's location would have been very difficult and nothing like a city such as New Orleans
*your comment about the location of Washington DC did not make much sense being surrounded in confederate territory would not be practical for supplies,intelligence and reinforcements
*correct there was a large free black population in the state who owned land and some of them slaves as for the unionist part of the state there where many who DID support the Confederate states
*on Maryland's border the mason Dixon line was indeed a terrible place to try and defend
*lastly Maryland did in fact have the same things the other two border states you love so much had with Harry gilmor and Elijah White both ran guerrilla raids for the south Bradley tyler Johnson,James Archer and George H Stuart to name a few maryland supplied as many as kentucky and possibly more than Missouri to confederate ranks and oh by the way less than half the yankee soldiers
Maryland supplied more Union troops then did Kentucky, 60k vs 50k for Kentucky.
Missouri supplied 30k plus Confederate troops for the Confederacy vs. an estimated 25k for Maryland. Maryland supplied about the same number of Confederate troops as did Kentucky.
I never read anything on Confederate guerrillas in Maryland. That deserves its own thread. It would be quite interesting.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,869
Location
los angeles ca
#99
Slavery, no, watching the Union being reduced to being held together by force instead of choice, yes. From choice to force is a huge transition that had never happened in US history.

It is easy to see why Maryland wanted to stay neutral. They were stuck in the middle and benefited from both sides. Just as it makes sense why Massachusetts was flying down South to start shooting, because they would benefit handsomely if the Southern Democrats fell.

If a true war never broke out, Maryland would have great relationships with the new Confederate nation while many of their neighbors would have a lousy relationship with them. It would be extremely profitable if things were to work out that way.
How exactly would Massachusetts benefit "when the Southern Democrats fell"?
Did Massachusetts enjoy a major economic expansion during Reconstruction then a recession after Reconstruction ended in the mid 1870s?
Leftyhunter
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,539
Location
Corona, California
Maryland supplied more Union troops then did Kentucky, 60k vs 50k for Kentucky.
Missouri supplied 30k plus Confederate troops for the Confederacy vs. an estimated 25k for Maryland. Maryland supplied about the same number of Confederate troops as did Kentucky.
I never read anything on Confederate guerrillas in Maryland. That deserves its own thread. It would be quite interesting.
Leftyhunter
Well if we were to combine Kentucky and Missouri's numbers (35,000 + 30,000) for troops they furnished to the Confederate Army we get 65,000 troops that more than what Maryland contributed.
 



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