three questions for this alt hist about a longerh/harsher reconstruction I'm writing;1) what are the basic effects geopolitically of a missouri border that follows the missouri river and then a straight line to the oho river rather than having what's northern missouri today within it?2) if kentucky secedes, and missouri with this alternate borders is still internally divided, how much longer does it take the union to defeat the confederacy? specifically, would vicksburg fall in 1864 rather than 1863?3) does the overall borders of the antebellum south look okay here?
>>18617023Good luck OP but you're seriously not going to get any help from /his/, too many retards on here.
>>18617023The effects are wild and presumptuous. The Northwest Ordinance split up Ohio/Indiana/Illinois before the Louisiana purchase was even thought of. Missouri didn't exist yet.Ignoring this Missouri nonsense, a unified and fully pro south Kentucky adds at best 6 months to the war in the west. The Confederates big problems in the west weren't even manpower, it was arms to a lesser extent, and leadership to the biggest extent. If you want to draw out the civil war in the west for a year longer, you need to change the Confederate generals and commanders.See one, there's no way any part of the union north of the Ohio River would be part of the South. While there were some copperhead movements, mostly anti federal government, not pro south or pro slavery, the anti slavery movement was far too strong.Why even change the borders for a south that loses anyway? Just throw Kentucky in, change the early war leadership in the west, then run from there. Specific beats could be better positioning of Fort Donaldson and Henry, a larger amount of Raiders in Morgan/Forrest style attacks north of the Ohio, and union issues with moving line regiments east due to the sensitivity of Cincinnati. Just off the top of my head
