Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lightman

“Pulling a West Virgina would be great, but I fear they may end up being like Eastern Tennessee.”

How so?


38 posted on 07/17/2017 7:02:14 AM PDT by Rebelbase (Climate Change: The Imminent Crisis That Never Arrives and the gravy train that never ends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Rebelbase
Eastern Tennessee was largely pro-Union, while Middle and Western Tennessee were pro-Confederate. However, the Union forces were generally unable to keep and hold the area due to the mountainous terrain and the long supply lines from Ohio. Union strategy focused on dividing the Confederacy by seizing the Mississippi Valley and taking the capital of Richmond. Eastern Tennessee was not a priority. In contrast, West Virginia provided a buffer for the key Union states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and had key rail lines connecting the Northeast with the Midwest. Taking over West Virginia was more strategically important to the Union cause than assisting Union sympathizers in isolated Eastern Tennessee.

In the case of Northern California/Jefferson, there is no reason the powers that be in Sacramento would permit its secession. In a similar vein, it is unimaginable that Texas would allow liberal, majority Hispanic South Texas to form a new state.

39 posted on 07/17/2017 7:17:43 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson