Brilliantlight
Banned
I think it was Houston who was very much opposed to Texas leaving the Union. What if his advice was heeded and Texas remained in the Union?
Texas stays in the Union
- Thread starter Brilliantlight
- Start date
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
Houston pretty much warned them if a war broke out their tails would be kicked and anyone who said otherwise was crazy. What if they took that fact seriously?
Fearless Leader
Donor
Well IIRC Bragg was from Texas so if he stays with his home state add another incompetent General to the Union side. Perhaps a general more suited to battle than to organizing will run the west.
Also there would be alot less Confederate coast to blockade so perhaps the Union Blockade would be more successfull...
And Without Texas there would be no campaign into New Mexico not quite sure how this would affect things. IIRC the confederate campaign there speeded up that region's statehood. Although I could be wrong.
Also there would be alot less Confederate coast to blockade so perhaps the Union Blockade would be more successfull...
And Without Texas there would be no campaign into New Mexico not quite sure how this would affect things. IIRC the confederate campaign there speeded up that region's statehood. Although I could be wrong.
Fearless Leader said:
Speeded up the statehood of Arizona and New Mexico? Those were the final two states admitted in the Continental United States in 1912.
But why did they take it seriously? Is there another influencial person who could have weighed in and reinforced his words, tipping the balance and causing things to snowball? Or would that have even worked?
Realize that not-so-small a number of Texans had fought for independence from Mexico for the right to hold slaves. Pretty much all of Texa, even those who aren't necceasrily pro-slavery, are sympathetic to secession. It is going to take a POD more than "what if they listened?" to keep them in the Union.
However, if they stayed in the Union, I'm not sure there would have been that substantial of an effect. Most of the major battles were fought in the East and Texas was neither a major center of industry, or a major supplier of troops.
The most likely dramatic effect you might see is the effect the Texas Rangers and those of their ilk would have on guerilla warfare. A few key victories may end the war sooner.
Realize that not-so-small a number of Texans had fought for independence from Mexico for the right to hold slaves. Pretty much all of Texa, even those who aren't necceasrily pro-slavery, are sympathetic to secession. It is going to take a POD more than "what if they listened?" to keep them in the Union.
However, if they stayed in the Union, I'm not sure there would have been that substantial of an effect. Most of the major battles were fought in the East and Texas was neither a major center of industry, or a major supplier of troops.
The most likely dramatic effect you might see is the effect the Texas Rangers and those of their ilk would have on guerilla warfare. A few key victories may end the war sooner.
Brilliantlight said:
Last edited:
How this would happen I can't come up with. If it HAD happened, I would foresee the Mississippi in Union hands a year earlier, along with all of Louisiana and Arkansas, probably ending the guerilla violence much sooner in the Trans-Miss region. On the other hand, this diversion means much of Tennessee is still in the CSA. By 1863, however, the CSA is in dire straits, having lost much of its import/export capacity, and lacking the manpower to sustain Lee along with the entire border of Tennessee and Mississippi. Probably we see Grant shatter the entire region west of the Appalachians by the end of 1863, and the CSA forced to seek terms.
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
Snowball effect mainly. He convinces a few very prominent newspaper owners that the Confederacy is doomed from the start. They write articles against secession which makes more people think about the fact that it is doomed. If a lot of newspapers in Texas print the Confederacy is doomed it becomes common knowledge.
actually, TX is one state that overwhelmingly voted for secession... in the rest of the south, the vote was a LOT closer... sometimes just a few hundred votes difference.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Dave Howery said:
Maybe, but if you have almost every prominent newspaper against it that will change things.
Brilliantlight said:
Except the newspapers are businesses, having to respond to public opinion in their reporting. And this is a time when they were famous for pandering to public tastes with sensationalism and the like. That, and I think that any journalist might avoid writing negative things, for fear of getting shot or lynched. That would have been a very realy concern. To top that off, how does he convince these newspapers? I am sure 90% or greater of them are as ardently pro-secession as the general public. The chances of conviicing any mainstream paper of wiritng against it are between slim and none. Texas transformed from a Mexican territory precisely because the Americans who immigrated there did so because of thge issues surrouding secession
And you have to realize that secession didn't look that hopless at the outset. It was entirely possible to win it. The South started out winning. They nearly took Washington DC. The idea that the South was fated to loose is a misconception.
There is just no likely way to pry them out of the CSA, unless you walk in to ASB territory.
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
In the long run it was hopeless like Houston said. The North was simply too industrialized and had too many people to for the South to handle.
Brilliantlight said:
Hindsight is great, but they didn't have it.
Granted, the probability of victory remained with the North (though entering the war, that disparity in industrialization was not as dramatic as toward its end), but it is all about what it looked like to them, espceically since the goal was not to conquer the North, but to ensure secession.
And there are analogs in modern times. Israel shared many parallels with the Southern States: Under-supplied, outnumbered, out-gunned, surrounded, but posessing the upper hand in military prowess. They won twice under those same conditions. And then you can go to an example pre-ACW: Gustav Adolf of Sweden, who turned is poor and rural nation in to a world power during the Thirty Years War. It only lasted for all of fifteen minutes, though.
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
You don't need much hindsight to realize going to war with a power that has twice your population and 5 times your economy is NOT smart.
You're thinking in a purely attritional framework. War is about specific objectives. Those objectives can be met by out-smating and out-manuevering an enemy on any number of fronts, with out directly facing their forces. Again: Israel, Sweden, Macedonia (Alexander the Great). History shows that vastly outnumbered forces survive by waging smarter warfare than their opponents, maximzing what they have and not relying on over-powering their opponents.
The South had a number commanders who understood this and it is reflected in their style of wafare, particularly the use of guerilla warfare, in which they had a number of decisive victories. When you consider what is reasonably possible, "smart" becomes a more relative term.
Edit to Add: And smart or not, plenty of of nations have gone to war for stupider reasons and with far less chance of victory. The secession movement was marked by its passion, not its intellectual strengths. The States seceeded over relatively conservative statements of a moderate candidate, with the Federal gov't having not done one unconstitutional thing to warrant the reaction the CSA gave.
The South had a number commanders who understood this and it is reflected in their style of wafare, particularly the use of guerilla warfare, in which they had a number of decisive victories. When you consider what is reasonably possible, "smart" becomes a more relative term.
Edit to Add: And smart or not, plenty of of nations have gone to war for stupider reasons and with far less chance of victory. The secession movement was marked by its passion, not its intellectual strengths. The States seceeded over relatively conservative statements of a moderate candidate, with the Federal gov't having not done one unconstitutional thing to warrant the reaction the CSA gave.
Brilliantlight said:
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
Odds are pretty hefty against the weaker power though. They can win on occasion but it is rare. Particularly if the stronger power thinks its existance is on the line.
Granted, but the South was also desparate for precisely the same reason. And at the outset of the war, it was a toss-up. The North was not nearly as industrialized in '61 as it was in '63, and both had forces of fairly equal numbers and equipment. The disparity would only become more dramatic in later stages, where the North began to build on its potential to better supply larger numbers of men. If the South had dealt devastating blows earlier on, like taking New York, which was a fear when Lee began his second campaign in the North, then the odds would have tilted in their favor. In essence, the South was fighting a battle against the clock.
Brilliantlight said:
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
The South had ZERO chance at taking New York or any other major Northern city.
Actuall, no. Lee had free reign in the North until Gettysburg. Before that, he had smashed and out-manuevered Northern forces and a number of major cities remained undefended. The North basically went "oh, sh*t!" and the clash at Gettysburg was largely an accidental meeting.
Brilliantlight said:
Brilliantlight
Banned
david3565 said:
Wrong to take a city you either have to storm it (and the Confederates never had enough men to do that) or siege it. The problem is that both solutions take time and even with just railroads and telegraphs you have only a short time before the Union army surrounds YOU and cuts you off from supplies. Trying to take a Northern city would have only ended up in disaster.