US states and secession question (in relation to the American Civil War)

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Which US state that seceded during the American Civil War (ACW) in real life was the least likely to secede, in your opinion?

Also, on the flip side, which US state that didn't secede during the ACW in real life was the most likely to secede?
 
Apr 2019
111
Ireland
Tennessee perhaps for secession, I was going to say Missouri but I beleive it was split (?).
Either Maryland or Kentucky for joining the Union, Maryland had pro-confederacy legislative members arrested at a critical time and Kentucky had it's wishes violated by the Confederacy, thus influencing it's choice for the Union. Both these states had strong support for neutrality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Tennessee perhaps for secession, I was going to say Missouri but I beleive it was split (?).
Missouri didn't actually secede from the Union. If it had a pro-Confederate government, it was viewed as illegitimate.

Either Maryland or Kentucky for joining the Union,
You mean for joining the Confederacy, no?

Maryland had pro-confederacy legislative members arrested at a critical time and Kentucky had it's wishes violated by the Confederacy, thus influencing it's choice for the Union. Both these states had strong support for neutrality.
I would think that the US would have never, ever tolerated secession by Maryland due to the fact that it would result in the White House and Washington DC being surrounded by enemy territory. True, the US capital could be moved, but even back then, one would think that Washington DC would already have a lot of sentimental value for Americans. Thus, abandoning it would probably be perceived as intolerable.

Kentucky is much more doable, IMHO--though perhaps not as easy as you think since it was Abraham Lincoln's home state. Would Kentuckians actually be prepared to commit treason against a native son of theirs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gisco
Apr 2019
111
Ireland
You mean for joining the Confederacy, no?
Yes, I believe Maryland or Kentucky could have joined the Cofederacy.

Kentucky is much more doable, IMHO--though perhaps not as easy as you think since it was Abraham Lincoln's home state. Would Kentuckians actually be prepared to commit treason against a native son of theirs?
Lincoln believed if Kentucky was lost he could also lose Missouri and Maryland and thus Washington would become untenable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,424
Yes, probably Kentucky was closest to seceding. Lincoln had 1/3 of the Maryland legislature arrested, and as mentioned would not allow it to secede. I don't think there was support in Maryland for it anyway. Parts of it had many slaves and were culturely southern. However, there were almost no slaves in most northern and western counties.

It is questionable whether there was a legitimate vote for secession in Tennessee. However, North Carolina seceded only after it was completely cut off from the Union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gisco and Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
One thing that's worth noting about Maryland is that, even in 1860, almost half of its Blacks were free. That's not exactly demographics that are receptive to secession.
 
Apr 2019
111
Ireland
It is questionable whether there was a legitimate vote for secession in Tennessee. However, North Carolina seceded only after it was completely cut off from the Union.
NC seems to have been put under pressure from Lincoln to invade SC, only declaring for the Confederacy when this occurred. Is it possible NC could have stayed out of hostilities or was this just a matter of time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,424
One thing that's worth noting about Maryland is that, even in 1860, almost half of its Blacks were free. That's not exactly demographics that are receptive to secession.
Well, free blacks didn't vote. However, Maryland and Missouri had declined to about 12% slaves in 1860. It was very different from South Carolina where the majority was slaves, and non slave holding whites generally couldn't vote.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Well, free blacks didn't vote. However, Maryland and Missouri had declined to about 12% slaves in 1860. It was very different from South Carolina where the majority was slaves, and non slave holding whites generally couldn't vote.
They didn't vote, but my point here is that with such a huge free Black % (out of the entire Black population, that is), Maryland Whites might have been less inclined to secede from the Union to preserve slavery.

I do agree that if one looks at total population and the slave % of it, the situation does indeed look much worse in South Carolina in 1860. It could even be called proto-apartheid.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
NC seems to have been put under pressure from Lincoln to invade SC, only declaring for the Confederacy when this occurred. Is it possible NC could have stayed out of hostilities or was this just a matter of time?
Keeping NC within the Union would have been very dangerous for Virginia. Thus, I strongly doubt that the Confederacy would have actually allowed this to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gisco