State Loyalty and Secession.

Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Location
Texas
When it comes to states trying to leave the Union, were the benefits some what negated by Unionist sentiment? For example, if Kentucky or Maryland did secede, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone in the state would've mirrored the sentiment and action. Back in the day, how many people believed in loyalty to your state rather than the Federal Government?

States like Tennessee and Virgina provided plenty of men for the Union, this shows many in those states wouldn't follow without question.

Thoughts? Discuss.

-------------------------------

When it comes to states trying to leave the Union, were the benefits some what negated by Unionist sentiment? For example, if Kentucky or Maryland did secede, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone in the state would've mirrored the sentiment and action. Back in the day, how many people believed in loyalty to your state rather than the Federal Government?

States like Tennessee and Virgina provided plenty of men for the Union, this shows many in those states wouldn't follow without question.

Thoughts? Discuss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
As a Southern secessionist, publicly claiming loyalty to your state was a social "out" one could employ to avoid the social stigma of publicly proclaiming loyalty to the slave system. Yet quite unavoidably secession was an act of loyalty to the slave system regardless. Conundrum.

In other words, no one in the slave South was proclaiming "secession and emancipation!"
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Location
Texas
As a Southern secessionist, publicly claiming loyalty to your state was a social "out" one could employ to avoid the social stigma of publicly proclaiming loyalty to the slave system. Yet quite unavoidably secession was an act of loyalty to the slave system regardless. Conundrum.

In other words, no one in the slave South was proclaiming "secession and emancipation!"
So you're of the opinion that the CSA would've benefited from Maryland and Kentucky seceding? Or do you think it would've been the same no matter what?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
So you're of the opinion that the CSA would've benefited from Maryland and Kentucky seceding? Or do you think it would've been the same no matter what?
I can't speak for @byron ed but bigger is always better. The Confederacy needed as many troops has they could get their hands on and tried nightly to recruit troops from the border States even threatening men from Missouri with death if they didn't join the Confederate Army.
When General Polk was in Kentucky he had wagon's full of muskets but few takers. Conventional wars are as a rule almost always won by the bigger side especially pre Airpower. So any extra state the Confederacy could gain was critical for their sucess.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
So you're of the opinion that the CSA would've benefited from Maryland and Kentucky seceding? Or do you think it would've been the same no matter what?

I hadn't thought about it, but an interesting thing to speculate about.

I'll speculate that a Confederacy less committed to slavery would have been able to enlist Britain and other countries, so that would have been a bigger boost to victory over the Union than adding a couple of upper slave states with divided loyalties to its real estate.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Well, having the Trans-Mississippi was not better for the Confederacy; it diluted what otherwise could have been a more concentrated Confederate effort to defend and hold the primary slave states.
Not so sure about that . The Union could and most definitely recruited troops from the T-M such has the 3rd Indian Homeguards that fought Confederate guerrillas in Missouri and Arkansas.
The First and Second New Mexico did good work in preventing the siezure of silver mines by the Confederate Army and preventing the Confederacy from invading Southern California.
The Indian Territory could of been used to invade Texas. I can't think of a war that is won on the defensive.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
Not so sure about that . The Union could and most definitely recruited troops from the T-M such has the 3rd Indian Homeguards that fought Confederate guerrillas in Missouri and Arkansas...The First and Second New Mexico did good work in preventing the siezure of silver mines by the Confederate Army and preventing the Confederacy from invading Southern California...The Indian Territory could of been used to invade Texas. I can't think of a war that is won on the defensive...

Those occurrences kind of make the point that strategically the Confederacy might have been better off to let those territories go in the short term; to redirect those resources into defending the core and surviving as a nation (with the promise to retrieve those territories later from a position of strength). The Texans were already some of Lee's favorite troops.

I'd guess that the outdoorsmen and women here who have trapped recognize the sheer, if brutal, logic of such a strategy for the Confederacy.

(Man, in hindsight I would have made a good Confederate!)
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Those occurrences kind of make the point that strategically the Confederacy might have been better off to let those territories go in the short term; to redirect those resources into defending the core and surviving as a nation (with the promise to retrieve those territories later from a position of strength). The Texans were already some of Lee's favorite troops.

I'd guess that the outdoorsmen and women here who have trapped recognize the sheer, if brutal, logic of such a strategy for the Confederacy.

(Man, in hindsight I would have made a good Confederate!)
Perhaps but the Confederacy certainly tried to control the Indian Territory which made sense as it could be used as an invasion route in to Texas. The IT could of been used by Confederate Indians to tie down Union troops in Kansas.
The Confederacy did try to siezed the New Mexico Territory and Southern California which made sense in order to gain silver. Of course they couldn't after being defeated at the battle of Gloritea Pass.
Again wars aren't won on the defensive.
The Confederacy knew they had to win on the offensive and certainly tried they just couldn't succeed .
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...Again wars aren't won on the defensive...The Confederacy knew they had to win on the offensive and certainly tried they just couldn't succeed...

Or, as some prominent historians have speculated, the Confederacy instead knew that all it really had to do was demonstrate for a bit longer. The North's political will and manpower commitment had begun to play out by late 1863. Drafted conscripts were poor substitutes for veterans, and folks didn't like it that they were now sacrificing their food, goods and sons.

So, for increasing numbers of Northerners, the war had become as much an irritation as it was a cause to win, and they were ready to fold and move on with their personal lives "...it's too bad about that slavery thing but that'll go away on its own, and anyhow we'uns don't really want them (freshly-freed blacks) comin'up to compete with us'ns right now." (it had been ok when freedom seekers had been shuttled through to Canada, out of sight and out of mind).

Some prominent historians have speculated that but for the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation (and Antietam) the spring of 1864 might well have been the end of the war, and with the Confederacy intact.
 
Last edited:

Pete Longstreet

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
Loyalty was a broad term. Some were southerners who were loyal to the Union. For example, General George Thomas, one of the best Union commanders was a Virginian. Others, like General Pemberton who was a Pennsylvanian, went south because of his southern wife. Some were loyal to the Union no matter what, and other's went with their state. I think if Kentucky or Maryland seceded, they would have had a portion of the population go with their state, but others stay with the Union. It's hard to put a number on it, but personal views had a lot to do with who someone aligned with and fought for. Thus, hearing stories of one brother fighting for the Confederacy and the other brother for the Union. Same family, two different personal beliefs.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Or, as some prominent historians have speculated, the Confederacy instead knew that all it really had to do was demonstrate for a bit longer. The North's political will and manpower commitment had begun to play out by late 1863. Drafted conscripts were poor substitutes for veterans, and folks didn't like it that they were now sacrificing their food, goods and sons.

So, for increasing numbers of Northerners, the war had become as much an irritation as it was a cause to win, and they were ready to fold and move on with their personal lives "...it's too bad about that slavery thing but that'll go away on its own, and anyhow we'uns don't really want them (freshly-freed blacks) comin'up to compete with us'ns right now." (it had been ok when freedom seekers had been shuttled through to Canada, out of sight and out of mind).

Some prominent historians have speculated that but for the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation (and Antietam) the spring of 1864 might well have been the end of the war, and with the Confederacy intact.
Except those historians are wrong. The Union didn't fold and it was the Confederate Army that suffered more by late 1863 from desertions and more importantly from defections to the Union Army.
1863 was a disastrous year for the Confederacy. The Confederacy lost territory the Union gained territory.
We can't know what Northern political opinion was regarding the war because scientific polling was a good eighty years away.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Loyalty was a broad term. Some were southerners who were loyal to the Union. For example, General George Thomas, one of the best Union commanders was a Virginian. Others, like General Pemberton who was a Pennsylvanian, went south because of his southern wife. Some were loyal to the Union no matter what, and other's went with their state. I think if Kentucky or Maryland seceded, they would have had a portion of the population go with their state, but others stay with the Union. It's hard to put a number on it, but personal views had a lot to do with who someone aligned with and fought for. Thus, hearing stories of one brother fighting for the Confederacy and the other brother for the Union. Same family, two different personal beliefs.
Richard Current North East University Press " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" gives us two numbers.
One is one hundred and four thousand Southern whites enlisted in the Union Army.
The Second number is over one hundred and fifty thousand Southeners in color enlisted in the United States Coloured Corps.
We have no documented figures on how many Northeners joined the Confederate Army although we know there were a few but no documentation on actual numbers.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Or, as some prominent historians have speculated, the Confederacy instead knew that all it really had to do was demonstrate for a bit longer. The North's political will and manpower commitment had begun to play out by late 1863. Drafted conscripts were poor substitutes for veterans, and folks didn't like it that they were now sacrificing their food, goods and sons.

So, for increasing numbers of Northerners, the war had become as much an irritation as it was a cause to win, and they were ready to fold and move on with their personal lives "...it's too bad about that slavery thing but that'll go away on its own, and anyhow we'uns don't really want them (freshly-freed blacks) comin'up to compete with us'ns right now." (it had been ok when freedom seekers had been shuttled through to Canada, out of sight and out of mind).
The
Some prominent historians have speculated that but for the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation (and Antietam) the spring of 1864 might well have been the end of the war, and with the Confederacy intact.
I would argue those historians are confusing the will to fight argument by falsely comparing the ACW with several modern conflicts. While all wars have similarities the ACW was rather unique and no conflict is directly comparable to the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 

Pete Longstreet

Sergeant Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
Some prominent historians have speculated that but for the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation (and Antietam) the spring of 1864 might well have been the end of the war, and with the Confederacy intact.
I've never heard this theory before. As far as 1863... besides Chancellorsville, and Chickamauga, the rest of the year were demoralizing Confederate defeats. The fall of Vicksburg and the defeat at Gettysburg, within a day of each other, was possibly the knockout punch for the CSA. This coupled with the depleting Confederate army sealed it's fate. As far as the war ending with the Confederacy intact, as long as President Lincoln was in office, that would have never happened. His will to reunite the Union seemed almost unbreakable and he never once wavered throughout the war.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The question of loyalty required people in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky to substitute Confederate loyalty for United States loyalty. For the people in those states, with the capital just a short railroad ride, or steamboat trip up river and then a railroad ride away, that was asking a lot. It was not a capital across the ocean, presided over by a king and a parliament in which they had no representation.
On top of that, two agricultural enterprises sold their products on the international market, the cotton growers and the hemp producers who sold packing material. The sugar growers, the hog producers, and the tobacco growers all wanted to sell in all directions. And New Orleans in particular was very wealthy, based on marketing relations with the entire US.
Baltimore made money on connections to the capital. Louisville made money on railroads and the Ohio River trade. St. Louis made money based on the Mississippi River and was poised to make a lot of money on western development.
There were a lot of people in the 15 slave states heavily invested in preserving the status quo.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Location
Texas
The question of loyalty required people in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky to substitute Confederate loyalty for United States loyalty. For the people in those states, with the capital just a short railroad ride, or steamboat trip up river and then a railroad ride away, that was asking a lot. It was not a capital across the ocean, presided over by a king and a parliament in which they had no representation.
On top of that, two agricultural enterprises sold their products on the international market, the cotton growers and the hemp producers who sold packing material. The sugar growers, the hog producers, and the tobacco growers all wanted to sell in all directions. And New Orleans in particular was very wealthy, based on marketing relations with the entire US.
Baltimore made money on connections to the capital. Louisville made money on railroads and the Ohio River trade. St. Louis made money based on the Mississippi River and was poised to make a lot of money on western development.
There were a lot of people in the 15 slave states heavily invested in preserving the status quo.
That's a **** good point, the aristocracy wasn't down to see their power slip away.
 

Similar threads

Top