On February 1st, 1861 a travesty was wrought. Texas chose to secede from the United States of America and thankfully such secession would end in a matter of years. So what if Texas never seceded from the Union, if it stood by America as the United States had stood by them? What impact both upon the Civil War and it’s aftermath does that create as well as the state of Texas itself? (Aside from Sam Houston being extremely happy with the loyalty to America being shown).
An American Civil War WI: The Lone Star Stays Among the Stars and Strips?
- Thread starter Magni Imitator
- Start date
My understanding is that Texas had a relatively legitimate decision by white guys to leave the union
I'm guessing that there will be a Confederate invasion of the state - there would still be pro-Confederste sympathies in the state and they might hope (wrongly, I'm thinking) that the invasion may be easy. Also, likely some internal violence in the state akin to Missouri.
There are a few I teredting takeaways though: any pro-Union government is going to include the local Germans and Poles in the ruling coalition and both of these groups were strongly pro-Union and were in fact persecuted for this in OTL. Giving them more say in the state government during this time could have some interesting knock on effects.
Secondly, this is going to effectively I sulfate the New Mexico territory from the Confederate invasion of OTL. The Confederates exploited some of the sectional issues inherent in the state. I'm not sure if butterflying the invasion away is going to lessen the desire to split the territory in coming decades (though the division of the territory in Arizona and NM was a pretty close thing in OTL and easy enough to butterfly away in any case)
There are a few I teredting takeaways though: any pro-Union government is going to include the local Germans and Poles in the ruling coalition and both of these groups were strongly pro-Union and were in fact persecuted for this in OTL. Giving them more say in the state government during this time could have some interesting knock on effects.
Secondly, this is going to effectively I sulfate the New Mexico territory from the Confederate invasion of OTL. The Confederates exploited some of the sectional issues inherent in the state. I'm not sure if butterflying the invasion away is going to lessen the desire to split the territory in coming decades (though the division of the territory in Arizona and NM was a pretty close thing in OTL and easy enough to butterfly away in any case)
Legitimate in the sense that the decision was done with an overwhelming majority deciding in OTL to secede from the Union after listing off 'heinous crimes' committed against Texas by the US, but yeah it was mostly legitimate within the state itself.
I'd agree here, Confederates may just launch an invasion hoping the pro-Confederates will lend credence to an easy win allowing them to secure the Western portion from any real contenders. Of course, how that goes depends on how the Confederate force acts and such alongside other little things as well as how the Union will respond.
I definitely agree a Pro-Union Government means Germans and Polish in Texas are more inclined to stay and likely face less threats/tough times overall as they won't be hounded down like in OTL or they won't try to flee to Mexico. Of course with them more active and more present this creates some interesting times as that'll have an impact on culture and demographics plus all their opinions.
Assuming the Pro-Union Government stays in charge and that Texas is fighting back against a potential Confederate Invasion force yes, New Mexico territory is much more isolated from the horrors of the war and spared any invasions. Dunno how it'll affect the split-up of the territory though.
Just going to ask is the last part you aiming for rudeness and offensiveness or not? I'd like clarification because at the moment that's how it's coming off.
Marc
Donor
I wasn't referring to any poster, but rather the mentality of the times, particularly the elite planters of the Deep South - of which Texas, political power being concentrated in the East Texas plantations, exhibited in wild abundance. Houston did warn them...
I agree with what others have said, you need to find a reason for Texas to remain that works very heavily against the deep South interests in play in 1860. One of the more interesting things to look at is an 1860 census from Texas. One of the fields that people provided information on was their place of origin. According to that census Texas was very heavily populated by people from the deed South. Not that you didn't have people from the North or from Europe, but demographically, they were swamped by Alabamans, Georgians and Mississippians.
If you can figure out a POD that would allow you greater foreign immigration or more heavy settlement by Northerners, then you could find a reason for Texas to remain or to sit it out. But to get a different outcome, you need different inputs.
One thing I'd point out, when Lincoln promised Sam Houston 50,000 soldiers to hold Texas in the union, there were several valid reasons that Sam Houston, loyal to the Union though he was, didn't accept it. First was this: Lincoln was promising something in 1861 that he didn't have the means to deliver. And two, any force Lincoln would have sent would have been at the end of a very long and tenuous supply chain. IOTL, there's a reason that even though Union forces captured Galveston in Dec 1862, they weren't able to keep it.
I've contemplated a TL in which Texas secedes but doesn't join the Confederacy, but it's hard to figure out how Sam Houston could have pulled that off, even if he were of a mind to do so... again, different outcomes require different inputs.
Marc
Donor
As an addendum, looking at the 1860 census:
Texas had a 2.31 free population to slave population ratio
Arkansas had 2.91 free to slave ratio
Tennessee was 3.02 free to slave - the highest among the Confederate States.
The lowest? Mississippi with a .81 free to slave ratio, and South Carolina with a .74 free to slave.
Those numbers are not inconsequential when looking at the underlying social dynamics.
Texas had a 2.31 free population to slave population ratio
Arkansas had 2.91 free to slave ratio
Tennessee was 3.02 free to slave - the highest among the Confederate States.
The lowest? Mississippi with a .81 free to slave ratio, and South Carolina with a .74 free to slave.
Those numbers are not inconsequential when looking at the underlying social dynamics.
Last edited: