-Bryan Howerton-
Exactly!
And my experience growing up in Texas is that if you wanted to discuss the Civil War you had to go east of the Trinity River and or / north of Dallas. Everybody West of there would tell you the really definitive historical question was the legality of Texas Annexation in 1845. The Civil War was an "American problem" that Texas got dragged into. Having done much historical research further west, the folks in Arizona and New Mexico start talking about the Mexican Cession of 1848 when you bring up the Civil War. Folks in Utah start telling you about the Mormon Battalion in 1846; while the Californians talk about the Spanish colonial period, Annexation and the various Filibusters into Mexico as the Treaty and Cession of 1848 was being finalized. Most of the Indian population in the Far West will tell you they would work with whatever side gave them promises of protection of their homelands and / or supplies on a given day.
Granted that the majority of western settlers came from the Northeast originally -- but there were probably more folks who "got off the boat" in New York and kept going and economically / politically disenfranchised "po-folks" as there were established families who decided to uproot. Most of those folks just wanted to be left alone. "Gone to Texas" frequently meant someone was fed-up with the entire structure of the mid-1800s and wanted no more to do with it -- period.
My entire point is / was that we should never take modern assumptions that westerners were either "Pro-Union" or "Pro-Confederacy." Many of them were pro- "go have your war and leave me alone." The politicos, merchants and bankers generally voted a stake in the War (particularly those who came west with power and money already in their pockets) -- but a lot of the frontiersmen and residents outside the "urban areas" of the time had no stake and wanted none. Consider the old saw about the farmer who said "The Army came -- and they stole my chickens. Then the Rebels came -- and they stole my chickens. The only difference is WHO is coming to steal your chickens."
In many cses, you almost have to drag the folks in the "Far West" back to the Civil War as a point for research discussion (which can be a bit frustrating at times.) As I approached studies of the Civil War in the Far West several years ago, I discovered that the issues the resident populations wanted to discuss were equally compelling and put an intriguing "Third Light on the overall conversation about the Civil War.
FWIW- I was aware of the Mason-Dixon line but thank you for that reminder and the vagueries of drawing hard boundaries there OR at the Mississippi River. There are always Blue pockets in Grey areas and vice-versa. Bear in mind in that regard that Arkansas as a whole voted against secession at the First Convention.
The rep from Madison County AR was the sole vote against Arkansas Secession at the Second Convention. Washington County started out opposed but those delegates were convinced that it would be "healthier" if they joined the majority vote. The question of secession was NOT cut and dried in Arkansas.
Somewhere around here I have a short list of Civil War skirmish sites in the "Far West." I will try to find it. FWIW - most of the Civil War activity beyond the Trans-Pecos in Texas consisted of Confederate Military taking Union Military forts & supply depots -- and the Union Military taking them back.
I like having as many "Lights" on a given issue as possible. The more light you have, the less lurks in the shadows.
-kirby-