Wednesday, March 12, 2014

On A Dusty Road In Kansas

I was born and raised in a small Kansas town. On January 29th I, along with hundreds of school children across the state, acknowledged its’ 153rd birthday. So I decided to write my first Sidetrack about Kansas (a tip of the hat if you will).

My hometown was burned during the Kansas/Missouri border raids of the late 1850-60s, which the local historical society re-enacts every year. Needless to say, from a very young age I was aware of the violence and intrigue that accompanied Kansas entering the Union. Members of both parties are fighting within the state, while others poured inside the borders in order to swell the vote. Why? What was so important about this small, seemingly nondescript, territory at that particular time?

In 1861, Kansas is about to become a state and that’s going to affect the balance of power in Congress. There are a whole lot of people interested in whether it enters the Union as a pro- or anti- slavery state, also an indication of the predominant political party. Before elections, the Southern Democrats held the majority in the Senate while the Northern Republicans had the vote in the House. Now, in real life, Kansas joined as a Republican majority, anti-slavery state. The Republicans gained the majority in both houses, some Southern states seceded, and war broke out not long after. I wonder what would have happened if Kansas had entered as a Democratic, pro-slavery state.

Let’s face it – this war was going to happen. The change in Kansas politics, leading to a continued divided legislature, would not have prevented the conflict. The Republicans would have had the majority as soon as West Virginia entered the Union as an anti-slavery state in 1863. It might have postponed the war though. This delay in the change of power gives us (and the South) some time to play with; and time could have been all the South needed.

A delay would give the South time to prepare. The main advantage of the North was industrialization. With another two years of political side stepping in the works, the South can begin to build the necessary factories that would assist in the war effort. Don’t get excited. They would not be able to construct enough to make self-arming a winning factor. But, let’s not forget the politics. Politics also win wars.

At this time, the South is the main supplier of cotton for most of the world. Cotton has become popular because it is lightweight, durable, and easier to clean than other fabrics. It is the South’s main bargaining chip. Leaders of the Confederate States of America want to bargain with Great Britain in particular. A more industrialized South could be an easier ally for Britain to back than a completely agrarian one, so Britain might be willing to negotiate.

If Great Britain had allied itself with the Confederate States, the industrialization factor would have been practically negated, as well as the North’s blockade. At the very least, it would have been a completely different war. Both the Southern soldiers and the civilian population would have been better equipped. Aside from the obvious benefits of this, Southern morale would have stayed high so it would have been harder for the North to break Southern will to fight. At the most, we might have had a victorious South, and ended up with two different countries on the North American continent.


The South winning is an intriguing possibility. Don’t worry, I’m not going to leave you hanging forever – but that is a Sidetrack for another day.

6 comments:

  1. When we get some time I would like to talk about the English and their effect on the American Civil War. Having lived in the town which built the CSS Alabama I know there was a lot of interest - and more than just that. BTW Not being able to put the ship's name in italics makes my stylistic tendencies cringe! LOL :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'll be a date. :)

      Did you try Ctrl I to make it italics? I would have cringed too, lol. Some things are just ingrained now. LOL

      Delete
    2. Yeah I tried all the usual tricks. No matter. I know you'll read it the right way. :)

      Delete
  2. I actually saw it as in italics. I had to go back and check when I read your comment that it wasn't. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the other hand, two more years might have allowed the British to develop the Indian cotton industry to the point that they didn't need the South, even profited from the blockade. They started increasing production there pretty much as soon as the war began, if memory serves, to reduce their reliance on non-British sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a definite possibility. I had to keep it fairly short though, so I didn't get to explore all the possibilities as I would have liked. If Britain would have developed India in that two years, I believe the Civil War would have simply taken a slightly different path to the same conclusion.

      Delete