Texas Secedes with Confederacy, Instead of In

I am getting a bit tired of Texas leaving the C.S.A. after the win the Civil War (unless it happens decades afterwards), so could Texas have seceded from the Union along with the Confederacy? I’m not sure.

1. I don’t know how they would start of separate at the beginning. They would have wanted to work collectively against the Yankees.

2. My idea is to have Texas leave during the Civil War so early as to seem that they were never a part of the Confederacy. Basically, either there’s a different Confed president or Jefferson Davis is less receptive to the State’s Righters. Texas and rump Arizona feels left out all the way in the West for some reason, and leave the Confederacy as the reborn Republic of Texas (not Lone Star, since Houston fled and is the leader of the rump pro-Union Army of Texas composed mainly of antislaveryites and German immigrants). Davis might not like it, but the Confeds are eager to let them and prove that their nation allows secession peacefully after signing treaties with the Texans to cooperate and coordinate in their war of independence and a five to ten year alliance plus other concessions.

You can basically make up any sort of “Southrons Win!” solution to the Confederate/Texan victory, but I guess it’ll be the Yankees losing their nerve after a string of brutal losses, and demoralization after hints that France might get involved (they don’t, but Napoleon and Maxmilian cut deals with the Texans regarding Mexico). It’s not like Lincoln or anyone really cares that there are “two” “countries” rebelling, but the final defeat will be really humiliating.

I don’t know if the Texans having more autonomy will do anything towards the war. The Confeds will probably have to send them any aid they did in OTL.

Thoughts? Comments? Answers?

I still really like the idea of Sam Houston fighting against his former Lone Star Revolutionaries because he loves the Union more.
 
Actually Houston conceded at the last minute (before secession and joining the Confederacy) that he would be more supportive to Texas going it alone. For one thing it had precident. Another was that he didnt want to tie Texas's fate to that of the other Southern States because he correctly guessed they would lose in the end.

I think the British and French would be more keen to recognizing and aiding texas too.
 
I want to revive this idea because I’m still somewhat frustrated with all of these Texas secedes after the C.S.A. I don’t know why, other than Stephen Abbot once had a Civil War Implausiblities page, and it really resonated with me.

So, three questions:

1. Aside from Texas, was there any other state or region in the C.S.A. that was really regional and even nationalistic? I think Texas is mainly a special case, since it’s at an extreme end of the C.S. and had a stint as a nation of its own, and so is more receptive to nationalism (and secession). But were there any other states in the C.S. that could have seceded from it,
hypothetically, because their problems are just too different and too ignored by the rest of the states, and because their culture is just too different?

2. Instead of my original idea of a C.S.-Texan alliance leaving the U.S., what if the C.S.A. was never a nation, but a quick wartime alliance/joint military command between eleven states? Could it have been successful, and would the states work as individual nations afterwards under a “Southern Confederation”?

3. Instead of my original idea of a South fighting under Texas and the Confederacy, would there have any other way to divide up the South? That is, what other pieces could the South have seceded in? (Atlantic Confederation, Deep South States, Texas, Louisiana, Western Confederacy)
 
Or, you could have with Grants capture of the Mississippi, the Western Confederacy of America, consisting of the Republic of Arkansas, Cajun Republic of Louisiana, Indian Republic(Oklahoma), Republic of Texas, the Republic of New Mexico, and the Arizonan Republic. If they are willing to end slavery, or give blacks more freedom-ness, GB and France might support them. Thus the Union must fight the western and eastern Confederacies.
 
Strategos' Risk said:
I want to revive this idea because I’m still somewhat frustrated with all of these Texas secedes after the C.S.A. I don’t know why, other than Stephen Abbot once had a Civil War Implausiblities page, and it really resonated with me.

So, three questions:

1. Aside from Texas, was there any other state or region in the C.S.A. that was really regional and even nationalistic? I think Texas is mainly a special case, since it’s at an extreme end of the C.S. and had a stint as a nation of its own, and so is more receptive to nationalism (and secession). But were there any other states in the C.S. that could have seceded from it,
hypothetically, because their problems are just too different and too ignored by the rest of the states, and because their culture is just too different?

2. Instead of my original idea of a C.S.-Texan alliance leaving the U.S., what if the C.S.A. was never a nation, but a quick wartime alliance/joint military command between eleven states? Could it have been successful, and would the states work as individual nations afterwards under a “Southern Confederation”?

3. Instead of my original idea of a South fighting under Texas and the Confederacy, would there have any other way to divide up the South? That is, what other pieces could the South have seceded in? (Atlantic Confederation, Deep South States, Texas, Louisiana, Western Confederacy)

1. Georgia was a major thorn in the side of the Confederate Government.

2. Aren't you just defining what a confederation is? The scenario you are suggesting is even worst than in OTL. I would expect a quick Union victory. You should really read about the pickering in Richmond.

3. I doubt an combination of secession would work. When fighting a war you want as many allies as possible.
 
Fine. Then what would have happened if Texas and the C.S. seceded together as separate nations? Or Georgia and the C.S. Or Georgia, the C.S., and Texas.
 
Texas could leave the Confederacy because it was isolated. None of the Union states surrounding it had a large population and connections with Louisiana were terrible (a Brit commented that it was easier to travel from California to Ohio than from Houston to Richmond), train lines were terribly mismatched and roads poorly maintained.
It needn't worry about Union invasion for some time. However I think the threat of the Union, especially in the 1880's and 90's would have kept the bulk of the Confederation together because of fear. The simple fact that no-man is an island would hold the Southern Confederation.
Texas however is already an island, it would make sense that they'd inevitably quit. There was never a large Confederate presence in the state, it always got the short end of the stick and would tire of southern congress' early arguing.


Texas never stays in the Confederation for long. These simple factors (see above) means Texas pulls out after only a few months in 1861. The Confederation can't care - they've got troubles of their own. Then, after Grant's defeat at Vicksburg and the destruction of the Army of the Potomac in 1863, Texas hops off the fence, runs the Lone Star up the flagpole and declares independance. Claiming that Union troops were creating havoc in the north, the Second Republic of Texas declares war on the Union and successfully invades the Indian Territory and New Mexico. The United States, losing these states plus Kentucky and Maryland to the Confederates sues for peace. Texas formally gets it's neighboring states in early 1864.

A border dispute leads into a Texan-Mexico War in 1871. After a brilliant example of warfare, leadership and co-ordination, Mexico is defeated in mid 1872 and Texas gets Sonora and Chihuahua (the old rule of the 19th century was that nations were often judged by their size). Texas from here has a peaceful history, broken only by WW1 and WW2 (it fought with the Allies in both).
 
Why doesn't the Union simply steamroll the C.S., then invade Texas a few decades later?

I think the possible foreign sponsors for Texas mentioned earlier is an interesting idea. Texas has no qualms about France in Mexico, even less than a C.S.A. would.
 
Well for the first question, the weight of European opinion and the disasters of the the Union in 1863 would end any warmongering in the north against the Confederacy or Texas. Northerners would probably be saying "Well let them be that way" than "we'll bury our sword to the hilt in their betraying guts!!!" Unless Texas and the south provoke aggression I don't foresee a Union reconquesta.

And I hardly think that a French backed ruler in Mexico would be in control for long before revolts pushed them out. France was already losing influence rapidly in the area and just by reading a short history of Mexico, any ruler hardly last a few years before a revolution took place.
 
when i play VIctoria on the CW scenario, the CS makes HUGE gains in the West, and when they start to loose, Texas seceedes!
 
The CSA will fall apart like the First American confederacy. A confed is very unstable, I'd give 30 at most, but most likely it will last under 15 years. That is if they cease to have a common enemy.
 
So, would it be totally impossible for Texas to have seceded along with the C.S. at the beginning, instead of later on after the C.S.A. takes some nasty defeats? Would any other state wanted to do the same, seceding alongside the C.S. instead of in it?
 
Strategos' Risk said:
So, would it be totally impossible for Texas to have seceded along with the C.S. at the beginning, instead of later on after the C.S.A. takes some nasty defeats? Would any other state wanted to do the same, seceding alongside the C.S. instead of in it?

It would just depend on how oppressive a particular state felt the Federal Government was becoming.
 
Okay... I get the feeling that Texas is the only state that can secede from the South without getting a beat down from the "old guard" Atlantic states. The other have too many interests or are too vulnerable.

But could Texas have seceded from the Union at the beginning, along with the C.S.A., on its own? It would have to deal with more Texan nationalism. I wonder where Sam Houston would be.
 
Could Texas have cut a deal with a president other than Lincoln, Secede but ally with the North? Say Douglas gets elected in 1860 rather than Lincoln, a fact that might delay the ACW a 2 - 4 years (certainly no longer).
 
I don't think it can work like that. Sure, there will be politicking if the Union is desperate, but ultimately if the C.S.'s secession is illegal, so does Texas's.
 
What if Lincohn hadn't been elceted here? We would have had an invasion of Canada by the Largest army and most advanced in this time period. The US embrioled in that war, allows for a Texan Independace from the CSA.
 
Top