Texas doesn't join the Confederacy

Been toying around with this idea in my head for the last couple days. After the Seccession Convention overruled Governor Sam Houston's veto, Houston urged the convention not to send delegates to Montgomery to join the Confederacy but to return to it's former status as an independent nation.

What effects would it have on the war if Texas didn't join the Confederacy? Sam Houston and Abraham Lincoln were, if not political allies, at least cordial to each other, he even got some votes to be his VP. Given that, and Texas' former status as a soverign nation, might he be willing to conceed Texan independence in exchange for not joining the war?

Of course this means some 70,000 Texans don't join the Confederate Army, including some such as John Bell Hood and Albert Sidney Johnson.

Texas and Britian were friendly during it's brief independence, so it's possible they could get diplomatic recognition without having to fight a war as well.

This doesn't neccisarily hinder the Confederacy, as it seems there would be some benefits to Texan independence for them. If the US doesn't contest their seccession there's a fortune to be made with Galveston as a free port.

Texas could very easily be the proverbial middle man between the Confederacy and Europe in trading. At the time the South produced a very signifigant portion of the world's cotton. And weapons and supplies could be sent back in return.

Endless amounts of butterflies to consider in this one, and I haven't even really gotten to thinking how the war would go. With the Trans-Mississippi suddenly more important to the strategic picture for the Confederacy, it's possible they forgo violating Kentucky's neutrality making the two primary fronts Virginia and Missiouri/Arkansas. Though Kentucky is very likely to go Union eventually in that scenario anyways.

All kinds of things to consider as the war goes. What kind of strategy does the North take being they cannot get to the eastern side of the Mississippi right away? Who commands the west since Johnson almost certainly becomes senior general in the Texan army?

Just fishing for thoughts and ideas on the scenario.

I vaugly recall Texas having special rights because it was indeed a nation before joining. Wasn't one of them suppost to be it could get away with succession?

(among others, I think they were allowed to have a sperate army and navy, but never did)

It can divide into five states if it so wishes. Basiclly giving Texas ten senate seats. There was some pressure from the other states for them to do this prior to the civil war to maintain the balance between slave state senate seats and northern state senate seats.

The State constituion that was drafted when Texas joined the Union declared it had the right to seceede, though that part was never recognized by the Union in any formal manner.

Texas had a whole bunch more land in the north west, including Santa Fe, parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado though this was all sold to the US when they inherited all the Republic's debts.

problem is, of all the states that voted to seceed, TX did it by the widest margin... so, of all the Confederate states, it's the least likely to reject the vote. Several states passed the secession vote by very slim margins, sometimes just a few thousand votes.

Texas will be a border but I can't see how there'll be big chances since most of the fighting will still be in the East.

As Lincoln Stated Loudly and Often that He was going to War to "Preserve the Union" He would have to Dis Allow Texas Secession.
However He could just Blockade the Coast and wait till later to Attack.

The U.S. would probably be fine with an independent Texas. It already had a war, and it didn't want another. If Texas was still independent at the end of the war, the U.S. probably still wouldn't care. To them, it was one less patch of desert.

catboy637 said:

The U.S. would probably be fine with an independent Texas. It already had a war, and it didn't want another. If Texas was still independent at the end of the war, the U.S. probably still wouldn't care. To them, it was one less patch of desert.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. Why would it tolerate one state seceding but not others?

Just want to point out John Bell Hood was a Kentuckian and joined the Confederacy immidiately after the Battle of Fort Sumter not when Texas seceeded. In fact he would not serve with the Texans for the CSA until he was assigned to the Texas Brigade in Richmond. And didn't really become a Texan himself until after the war

The Union would probably be fine with it as long as Texas fought the Confederacy. Afterwards, they might want it back.

Texas was very pro-Confederate. It's going to take something major to change that. Anything Houston does isn't going to cut it, even though he was very popular he was basically ran out of town for opposing Texas joining the Confederacy.

Two thoughts I had

AS Johnson was a very capable general and the Union lucked out that he died at Shiloh, since with his death the Conf. never truly found a good western theater general like they had in the east. Without Johnson Shiloh might be less bloody (or another early major battle, seeing as it gets butterflied away), Tennesee might fall earlier, and the war is more or less settled in the west at an earlier date.

Secondly, without Texas then there are two Conf. states west of the Mississipi, Arkie and parts of Louisiana. Would the Anaconda plan still happen? I can see the union taking New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Memphis but the resources necessary to compeltley control the river might get diverted to a "more important" area.