This stirred something in my memory (which has become about the size of a purple-hull pea.) Yes, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland because of the disturbances. How great an effect it had on the state's decision not to secede is a matter of conjecture and runs up against The Law of Necessity, which required the protection of D.C.
Interesting to think what might have happened should North Carolina (which had substantial pro-Union sentiment) had not seceded. Jeff Weaver, who I suspect may be the BB's own Jeff Weaver, has compiled election results that show a slim majority of N.C. voters opposed a convention on secession, and the overwhelming number of delegates so chosen were against secession.
Yes, those Jeff Weavers would be one and the same.
Although I dont have them posted on the net, I have the numbers for Tennessee (I have the numbers posted for Virginia though). There were considerable pockets of Unionism in North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and no doubt other places as well. Every southern state save South Carolina had at least one regiment raised for the United States army. And a good number of the USCT were raised all over the south, including South Carolina.
Would Virginia have made the leap knowing it was cut off from Dixie?
Doubtful.
Would it have decided otherwise or perhaps called for a Southern invasion of North Caroline? Contingencies make for wonderful conversation.
Quite possible. The relationship between the Confederate government and the state government of North Carolina was strained during most of the war. There was a considerable movement in North Carolina by 1864 to seceed from the Confederate States of America. Reasons for the proposal was that North Carolina boys were always put in the thick of the fight. The interior portion of the Old North State were not touched by warfare until the very end of the stuggle, so North Carolina's food production levels remained relatively stable until 1864. Increasing requisitions of provisions, food, cotton, etc. made many of the leaders of North Carolina feel they were paying more than their fair share of the burden of the war in men and materiel. Probably true. Confederate Cavlary were usually quartered in North Carolina in the winter. Most of the fighting was suspended in the winter and the troops went into Winter Quarters. Governor Zeb Vance complained to Jeff Davis that he would rather have the plague of locust God sent on Pharoah as to have Confederate Cavalry in the state. These Cavalrymen were notorious for criminal activities during their winter encampments. Not just theft -- murder and rape were fairly common.
A lot of our current generation believe the Civil War was a giganitic moral/patriotic stuggle. It wasn't -- the war was essentially about greed. By early 1862, the "fire-eaters" had pretty much run through with everyone who would voluntarily enlist. That is why the Confederate government enacted a conscription act. Many many units had more men to desert than who were killed, wounded or captured in battle. There are some economic reasons for some of this, but a great many of them just didn't want to fight. Fact of the matter is, without the conscription act, the Confederacy would have had to folded in the fall of 1862 or spring of 1863.
Those who believe the war wasn't about slavery should take the time to read the correspondence between President Davis and General Lee in the winter of 1865. Lee wanted to free the slaves and enlist those men in the Confederate army. It was bitterly opposed by the Confederate government. By the time, the government gave way it was March 1865, and far too late to make any kind of difference. A few units were organized, but desertion rates were horrendous when those men got in sight of the Union lines.
But, still despite the failures of the Confederate government, many men felt it would be easier to shoot at a northern person versus a southern person. Many felt like Lee did, that he couldn't draw his sword on his native state. I would be in the same boat, if push came to shove.
And if anyone should care to hear it, I can blast a big hole in the morality/patriotism of the North at the same time. The system of labor in the north was little better than it was in the south. Children, the poor, and most migrants were exploited for the benefit of a very few industrialists. The policy of the Federal government toward aboriginal peoples bordered on genocide. It is relatively safe to say that few in the North considered the African-American his/her social/intellectual equal.
On the battlefield, Sherman persued a "War is Hell" scorched-earth policy. Grant had no compunction about using men as cannon-fodder. Obviosuly he wasn't as smart as Lee, and rather than get smart, he used brute force. Easy to do, but not really the ethical policy to pursue. In Kentucky, (1864-1865) General Stephen Burbridge pursued a "no quarter" policy toward Confederate sympathizers with the approbation of President Lincoln.
Both the Confederate and Federal governments held a great number of political prisoners. Both governments confiscated private property for miltary use without compensating the people from whom it was taken.
Prisoners of war on both sides were treated horribly. The U.S. Government had the means to treat Confederate prisoners well, and refused. The South offered to pay for medical supplies and food from the North to treat Northern Prisoners in Southern Prison camps, and Grant refused. But there were abuses in the South as well, but the North is far more culpable of the horrors of Andersonville, than is the South, IMO. The North had a policy of placing prison camps near water with the notion that it would cause the prisoner to contract "rheumatism" and other fevers which would cause them to die.
It was a horrible, horrible war.
