Civil war what if North Carolina didn't leave the union

[Cherico]

North Carolina voted narrowly against leaving the union in 1961 and there was a lot of union sentiment in the state.

So lets say there is a change lets say a major scandal among slave owners that sees the unionists make stronger gains and hold more of a majority then they make the decision to stick with the union dispite being surrounded by the confederacy on all sides. How would this change things for the state and change the civil war?

 

[willdelve4beer]

Off the top of my head: Well, the Confed can't initially attack NC, as that would undermine their official rationale for the war. The lines of supply and communication between the industrial and political capital in Virginia with the rest of the south would be cut, between NC & (soon to be) West Virginia. I would expect the Confeds to make Columbia, Atlanta, or Augusta their Capital instead. With a union NC and a union WV, Viriginia's timeframe in the Confed seems likely to be rather limited. Once the actual war starts, I would expect to see the Confed focus efforts on taking NC, given that is has a blocking position across their lines. How well that would go is TBD, but at the very least it would shift the focus of the initial war farther south.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Off the top of my head: Well, the Confed can't initially attack NC, as that would undermine their official rationale for the war. The lines of supply and communication between the industrial and political capital in Virginia with the rest of the south would be cut, between NC & (soon to be) West Virginia. I would expect the Confeds to make Columbia, Atlanta, or Augusta their Capital instead. With a union NC and a union WV, Viriginia's timeframe in the Confed seems likely to be rather limited. Once the actual war starts, I would expect to see the Confed focus efforts on taking NC, given that is has a blocking position across their lines. How well that would go is TBD, but at the very least it would shift the focus of the initial war farther south.

Subscribed and following this timeline quite closely.

 

[ATP]

North Carolina voted narrowly against leaving the union in 1961 and there was a lot of union sentiment in the state.

So lets say there is a change lets say a major scandal among slave owners that sees the unionists make stronger gains and hold more of a majority then they make the decision to stick with the union dispite being surrounded by the confederacy on all sides. How would this change things for the state and change the civil war?

Since Confederacy could not win without outside help anyway,do not matter.They would lost earlier,but - so what?

 

[willdelve4beer]

Well, there are a few ways this could go, after further reflection.

First would be the scenario described above, Implications - faster fall of Virginia, more battles in North Carolina, with the lost of Virginian industry, much faster fall of Confeds in general. Quicker war => fewer casualties, less damage across South. Less reconstruction. Less carpetbaggers. Weaker freedman position after the war. Sherman's march to sea (my favorite part of the war) may never happen. Grant may never rise to prominence. Quick more decisive war could both undermine southern hagiography of rising again (becoming more of a curb stomp than actuality), but might also actually end up delaying emancipation. Bigger push for Liberian resettlement? Quicker war might also butterfly Lincoln assassination entirely. May or may not butterfly ironclads - I never paid too much attention to when they were deployed, to be honest. A bit of a wash, but over all, this seems to be a worse timeline culturally, if a better one constitutionally ( more racism/slavery for longer, but a weaker federal leviathan).

Second, Virginia being surrounded by Union (not free, per se, see Maryland) states might mean that it never secedes. More importantly, it might mean that it is commonly known/accepted/expected that it would never secede. WIth neither Virginia nor North Carolina, the would-be confederacy has lost significant prestige, population, wealth, industrial might, and strategic space before it ever arose. There is an appreciable chance that the secession never actually happens in this timeline, or that it is limited to brief South Carolina only rebellion.

Now in that instance - would the rest of the union let SC walk, if they did so without picking a fight by attacking federal installations? Don't know, but that does seem like a possibility. Then again, I think the chances of a rebelling SC /not/ attacking local federal sites are between slim and none, so, at this point were piling improbability upon improbability. Lots of people survive who would have died earlier, but slavery lasts longer. I can't help but think that death and destruction of the war was in part the price America (and the south in particular) paid for the sin of slavery, so my gut instinct is that price would be paid in some manner later on.

I give it 50% chance that we have a shorter NC focused war, with a quick collapse of Confed VA. Emancipation is delayed. Lincoln survives, the legend of the South rising again never starts given their abysmal performance in the war.

Estimate a 40% chance the civil war never happens, and the south never secedes at all. Emancipation happens more gradually in this scenario - state by state, perhaps. Cultural and political position of southern planter elites not broken by the war, not sure how that plays out, but there would be ramifications.

Estimate a 10% chance of a rump confederacy (SC & GA, or SC going it alone) - can't even try to work out where that goes.

Of course, all of the above might be wildly inaccurate, so, who knows?