What if Tennessee had never seceeded?

[JPWalton]

In 1861, Isham Harris was running for reelection as Governor of Tennessee against William H. Polk, the younger brother of former U.S. President James K. Polk and an accomplished politician and diplomat. Despite the latter, Polk botched his election campaign by trying to play both sides of the heated secession issue in Tennessee.

He was running as a Unionist candidate and had stridently opposed secession right up until he saw that it was costing him voters in West Tennessee. At that point he softened his stance, saying that if it became absolutely necessary he was not opposed to Tennessee joining the then-expanding Confederacy. Some have argued that this cost him the election (he lost by a substantial margin), since it alienated Unionists and moderates in East and Middle Tennessee without splitting off any fire-eaters. Basically, Polk went from being a Unionist candidate to being the lesser of two evils.

Polk's real feelings are amply demonstrated by the fact that he campaigned on behalf of Tennessee's Unionists in Washington during the war, and even served on Thomas Crittenden's staff at one point.

But let's say that Polk ran a smarter campaign, Harris stumbled, and as a result Polk won the governorship. Tennessee's secession was something of a fiat accompli, as Harris undertook several illegal actions to subdue Unionist dissent and take the state into the Confederacy. Accounts of the time showing many moderate voters simply shrugged their shoulders and went along with what looked like a done deal, so in Middle Tennessee in particular secession was something the people were more resigned to rather than enthusiastic about.

It's always looked to me that without Harris, Tennessee might not have left the Union in 1861... and if it didn't leave then, it never would have. So what if it had been Governor Polk instead, and Polk had managed to keep the state in the Union on the same or similar precarious terms that managed to keep Kentucky loyal through the first year of the war. How might that have changed things?

 

[brass napoleon]

I don't think it would make as big a difference in the conduct of the war as it might seem at first glance. What's really important is the hearts and minds of the people. There were many Tennesseans who opposed secession and many who favored secession, and a formal secession declaration (or the lack thereof) wasn't going to change that for most people.

 

[Lost Cause]

I don't think it would make as big a difference in the conduct of the war as it might seem at first glance. What's really important is the hearts and minds of the people. There were many Tennesseans who opposed secession and many who favored secession, and a formal secession declaration (or the lack thereof) wasn't going to change that for most people.

I agree. From a tactical perspective, the region would probably see more partisan warfare.

 

[JPWalton]

The thing is that your admissions point straight to a change the whole complexion of the war in the West.

Pro-Confederate Missourians and Kentuckians went South, but that didn't erase the strategic importance on both states, along with their territories, resources, and wavering moderate peoples staying in the Union.

What you've implied here is that Tennessee would become like a geographically more central, more populous Missouri. If you follow that model, that changes quite a bit. While Tennessee would be fought over quite a bit for sure, there would be no need to actually conquer it wholesale because, like Missouri, it never formally left the country. And like Missouri (and unlike Kentucky), the violence would provide the pretext for Federal troops to start occupying things from the get-go.

Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, Buell's campaign up the Tennessee River, the Kentucky Campaign, Stones River, Tullahoma, Chickamauga and so on... all of these things would have been turned upside down.

If not having Kentucky in the Confederacy left them without natural borders, it staggers the mind what to think having such an early start on even partial control of Tennessee would have meant.

I agree. From a tactical perspective, the region would probably see more partisan warfare.

 

[Gwynplaine]

No Tennessee means no Kentucky, likely no Arkansas(or at least, not as firm a hold) as well. The Confederate position is immeasurably weakened by lacking the sulfur mines in the southern portion of Tennessee, they've also lost more control of an important river.

The Union is now also able to strike further into the South. Virginia was the seat of power of the Confederacy, but Tennessee was the link holding the two halves together.

 

[brass napoleon]

The thing is that your admissions point straight to a change the whole complexion of the war in the West.

Pro-Confederate Missourians and Kentuckians went South, but that didn't erase the strategic importance on both states, along with their territories, resources, and wavering moderate peoples staying in the Union.

What you've implied here is that Tennessee would become like a geographically more central, more populous Missouri. If you follow that model, that changes quite a bit. While Tennessee would be fought over quite a bit for sure, there would be no need to actually conquer it wholesale because, like Missouri, it never formally left the country. And like Missouri (and unlike Kentucky), the violence would provide the pretext for Federal troops to start occupying things from the get-go.

Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, Buell's campaign up the Tennessee River, the Kentucky Campaign, Stones River, Tullahoma, Chickamauga and so on... all of these things would have been turned upside down.

If not having Kentucky in the Confederacy left them without natural borders, it staggers the mind what to think having such an early start on even partial control of Tennessee would have meant.

There's nothing to keep the Confederate government from claiming Tennessee as their own anyway, the same way they claimed Kentucky and Missouri. And Tennessee had a decidely more pro-Confederate population than either of those two states. I personally don't think it makes much of any difference in the military campaigns you mentioned. But of course, this being a what-if, it's all speculation and conjecture.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[BelleBlackburn]

There were a lot of people on the fence but when Illinois captured the C.E. Hillman from Nashville and said the boat was contraband of war, refused to release it or pay for the merchandise, Isham Harris decided to refuse the president's call for troops (and in not so polite a way). Possibly could have gone differently without that event.

 

[JPWalton]

You've hit on the geographical issues that change the whole game. Even saying Tennessee would still be bitterly contested, as some are doing in this thread, is a very different thing from having to conquer it. The Union didn't begin the conquest of Tennessee until Henry and Donelson, and did not complete it until after Chattanooga.

Brass Napoleon: you keep missing it while confirming the opposite logic. By pointing to the fact that the CSA claimed Missouri and Kentucky, you prove the point. Both states contributed troops to the Confederate cause, but those were the fire-eaters, not the more moderate citizens. Tennessee furnished an enormous number of troops to the Southern cause, and without the impetus of their state leaving the Union, a lot of those guys who stay home and (once again, like in Missouri, Kentucky, and in this instance even Maryland) be left alone.

You seem to be assuming that everyone who served in the Confederate Army or as a partisan would go South and do so even if Nashville stayed loyal to the Union. I can't see any possible way that would happen. So many people from all states in the South fought for the Confederacy reluctantly and with a sense of sad, grim resignation. It follows that if their states stayed in the Union they might not have fought for the Union, but they certainly would not have fought against it.

No Tennessee means no Kentucky, likely no Arkansas(or at least, not as firm a hold) as well. The Confederate position is immeasurably weakened by lacking the sulfur mines in the southern portion of Tennessee, they've also lost more control of an important river.

The Union is now also able to strike further into the South. Virginia was the seat of power of the Confederacy, but Tennessee was the link holding the two halves together.

 

[Gwynplaine]

From a strategic point of view, Tennessee is very much like Belgium. Whenever France and Germany wanted to go to war, there was no other option than to go through Belgium, because the actual border between the two states is too narrow to be meaningful. There is a similar problem here, although it has less to do with area of maneuver than it does simply with distance. If you've raised an army in Texas or Louisiana, you don't want to march it through the coastal areas of the south, up into Virginia and then into the Union. You want to go through Tennessee. It's just more practical.

Without Tennessee(or rather, if Tennessee actively resists the Confederates) this becomes far, far harder. You're no longer just able to march through, you have to station men to hold it, pacify it. The best-case scenario for the south was OTL, where Tennessee was a supporter, if unenthusiastic. A resisting Tennessee is going to shorten the war significantly.

 

[thomas aagaard]

You have the people who where joining the CSA no mater what and some who would join the Union no matter what.
And in the middle would be a lot of men who simply went with their state and home. They wold likely all have joined the union forces. And they would likely be more resisting to any attempt of the csa to take supplies and march true... and would be more likely to help guide union troops and not do so for the CSA forces.

In my opinion it would change a lot.

 

[JPWalton]

I tend to agree, with a caveat. Even if we assume they didn't eventually volunteer for the Union, they might have been conscripted later on. On the note, however, is the even bigger point: Tennesseans would only be available for Confederate conscription in areas under Confederate occupation, and only so long as that was the case.

However you slice it. if Tennessee stayed in the Union, then Confederate manpower would take a dramatic blow.

You have the people who where joining the CSA no mater what and some who would join the Union no matter what.
And in the middle would be a lot of men who simply went with their state and home. They wold likely all have joined the union forces. And they would likely be more resisting to any attempt of the csa to take supplies and march true... and would be more likely to help guide union troops and not do so for the CSA forces.

In my opinion it would change a lot.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Good point about conscription.

 

[TerryB]

The guerrilla war in Tennessee was bad enough as it was. Only the presence of big armies kept it from being worse. I think you would have something far worse than Missouri and Kentucky.

 

[28thNewYork]

In addition, they may not have been admitted into the SEC...

 

[JPWalton]

In addition, they may not have been admitted into the SEC...