PDA

View Full Version : WI a state had seceeded from the Confederacy during the Civil War?


Dean_the_Young
November 16th, 2007, 12:07 AM
Say a power struggle in Richmond leads one state or another to secede from the Confederacy during the Civil War, even though that state isn't being overrun by the Union. What are your thoughts as to what would happen?

Locke
November 16th, 2007, 12:14 AM
Say a power struggle in Richmond leads one state or another to secede from the Confederacy during the Civil War, even though that state isn't being overrun by the Union. What are your thoughts as to what would happen?

The CSA would roll over them-unless opf course, this action didn't provoke further succession. United, the Southern states were weak, but alone they might as well have been drunk, blind, and crippled, so to speak.

If the CSA were to try and re-conquer the southenr state, that would be their most hypocritical action. The CSA would probably collapse further, and the ACW would eb that much shorter.

Philip
November 16th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Does West Virginia count?

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Well States sewceeded before becoming the CSA. A more likely scenairio is Texas not joining the CSA

zoomar
November 16th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Certainly not what happened with Texas in the HT timeline. The USA would still consider the state in rebellion against the USA unless it immediately surrendered. No doubt the state would be offered very lenient (let bygones by bygones) terms for reentering the Union, especially if this created strategic or logistic problems for the Confederacy. No chance it could stay independent as a US "ally". A wrinkle might be the emancipation proclaimation, which only affected states in rebellion against the USA. Might a special case be made for, say Georgia, if it seceeded from the CSA and rejoined the Union, allowing it to be treated like the slave-holding border states which stayed in the USA?

One wonders what the reaction of the Richmond government might be. If the state was not undergoing invasion by the USA, my guess is that, as long as the state agreed not to rejoin the Union or assist them as an ally, the CSA would have to honor this or they'd seem pretty hypocritical.

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 12:26 AM
The CSA would roll over them-unless opf course, this action didn't provoke further succession. United, the Southern states were weak, but alone they might as well have been drunk, blind, and crippled, so to speak.

Depends on the state, I'd dare say, & whether they get & accept Union help. As Philip pointed out, West Virginia effectively succeded from the CSA, then joined the Union, & got Union help, which threw out CSA incursions into the state.

If the CSA were to try and re-conquer the southenr state, that would be their most hypocritical action. The CSA would probably collapse further, and the ACW would eb that much shorter.


Depends on the state, I'd dare say, & whether they get & accept Union help. As Philip pointed out, West Virginia effectively seceeded from the CSA, then joined the Union, & got Union help, which threw out CSA incursions into the state.

Similarly if Texas had left, as Rocano noted, considering its location, size, & population, I'd dare say it'd be hard to re-conquer at any time.

But overall I'd agree that the CSA would probably be defeated much sooner if it did start to fall apart.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Also if Texas claims the CS Arizona Territory. How about Texas and CSA make a Three Way Civil War. The large plains of Texas coupled with the Scarce Troops left from the East would leave Texas excluding its most Eastren Parts unscarred. By the Fall of of the CSA Texas would become the next target for US Forces. But with a new Front it would leave the south open for Rebellion again. Texas reconquered possibly Ten years later maybe less after the fall of the CSA. By this point Texan Independence would be to rooted in the hearts of the People. During the 1940s the Texans break off from the US with help from the Axis Powers. From its reconquest Texas has been a hotspot for dissent and never rejoined the Union. Texas is conquered again and Texas is forever scarred for not joining the CSA.

By the way my Idea no one steal this

Burton K Wheeler
November 16th, 2007, 12:38 AM
The counter-example to West Virginia would be Eastern Tennessee or North Carolina, which both tried to secede (in North Carolina's case, to not secede from the Union), but were forced to join Richmond. The only Confederate state with a chance of making a clean break would be Texas.

Locke
November 16th, 2007, 12:39 AM
Also if Texas claims the CS Arizona Territory. How about Texas and CSA make a Three Way Civil War. The large plains of Texas coupled with the Scarce Troops left from the East would leave Texas excluding its most Eastren Parts unscarred. By the Fall of of the CSA Texas would become the next target for US Forces. But with a new Front it would leave the south open for Rebellion again. Texas reconquered possibly Ten years later maybe less after the fall of the CSA. By this point Texan Independence would be to rooted in the hearts of the People. During the 1940s the Texans break off from the US with help from the Axis Powers. From its reconquest Texas has been a hotspot for dissent and never rejoined the Union. Texas is conquered again and Texas is forever scarred for not joining the CSA.

By the way my Idea no one steal this

Great Idea! I should make a TL on this....

ZaphodBeeblebrox
November 16th, 2007, 12:41 AM
Say a power struggle in Richmond leads one state or another to secede from the Confederacy during the Civil War, even though that state isn't being overrun by the Union. What are your thoughts as to what would happen?
I Think The Simplest POD, is if Tennessee Follows Kentucky's Example and Declares itself Neutral as Soon as Shots are Fired at Fort Sumter ...

With a State on Each Side Refusing Combat within their Borders, The War Stays MUCH More Focused on The Eastern Theatre ...

Even if The Union Wins as in OTL, Tennessee's Readmission Terms May Be Downright Genteel, Even More So than OTL's in Fact!

:D

Demosthenes
November 16th, 2007, 12:44 AM
Such a state seceeding would cause another problem for the CSA, and would make them lose even worser (:))

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 12:45 AM
I Think The Simplest POD, is if Tennessee Follows Kentucky's Example and Declares itself Neutral as Soon as Shots are Fired at Fort Sumter ...

With a State on Each Side Refusing Combat within their Borders, The War Stays MUCH More Focused on The Eastern Theatre ...

Even if The Union Wins as in OTL, Tennessee's Readmission Terms May Be Downright Genteel, Even More So than OTL's in Fact!

:D


I'd dare say if there's no significant Western Theatre, then the Union actually loses. The Confederacy survives in one form or another.

The real interesting thing here is, if the Civil War does become a draw, what happens to those neutral states? Do they rejoin one side or the other, or become autonomous regions within either the Union or CSA, or do they become independent nations in their own right?

Johnrankins
November 16th, 2007, 12:53 AM
Say a power struggle in Richmond leads one state or another to secede from the Confederacy during the Civil War, even though that state isn't being overrun by the Union. What are your thoughts as to what would happen?

The most likely states to do that are Georgia and North Carolina. If either or both go the Confederacy is in deep trouble.

Locke
November 16th, 2007, 01:00 AM
The most likely states to do that are Georgia and North Carolina. If either or both go the Confederacy is in deep trouble.

But why would Georgia go? I can see North Carolina (they were the least supportive of the CS) but why would Georgia leave? If they do, they wil ahve no one to sell their stuff too, since their ports are blocked off, plus they are surrounded by angry southerners.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 01:04 AM
How about no CSA just warring seperate states

Johnrankins
November 16th, 2007, 01:06 AM
But why would Georgia go? I can see North Carolina (they were the least supportive of the CS) but why would Georgia leave? If they do, they wil ahve no one to sell their stuff too, since their ports are blocked off, plus they are surrounded by angry southerners.

The governor of Georgia threatened to have Georgia leave the Confederacy at one point.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
November 16th, 2007, 01:56 AM
I'd dare say if there's no significant Western Theatre, then the Union actually loses. The Confederacy survives in one form or another.

The real interesting thing here is, if the Civil War does become a draw, what happens to those neutral states? Do they rejoin one side or the other, or become autonomous regions within either the Union or CSA, or do they become independent nations in their own right?
I was Pondering that Myself ...

I Figure a Referendum on The Issue Would Be Held Post-War, in Which Case Both States Would Probably Join The Confederacy ...

Allowing Both States to Remain Jointly Administered Might Be a Good Compromise, too, But What if All Concerned Felt a Neutral Nation was Necessary on that Spot, Especially if it was Also Named After Daniel Boone?

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 02:01 AM
I was Pondering that Myself ...

I Figure a Referendum on The Issue Would Be Held Post-War, in Which Case Both States Would Probably Join The Confederacy ...


I'd dare say Tennessee would, but Kentucky might be different as a majority of its population were Union loyalists. It was one of those quirk of politics that the Governor was pro-CSA, when it all began, whilst its state Congress was pro-Union for the most part.


Allowing Both States to Remain Jointly Administered Might Be a Good Compromise too, But What if All Concerned Felt a Neutral Nation was Necessary on that Spot Especially if it was Also Named After Daniel Boone?

:eek:


A jointly administered state or two could very well spark off ACW mark two... especially in divided Kentucky.

Meanwhile could Tennessee make it on its own? That'd be interesting

Nicomacheus
November 16th, 2007, 02:43 AM
While the KY state Legislature was pro-Union in 1861, it was very narrowly so. Kentucky was one of several states (including Tennessee and Missouri) that sent soldiers to fight on both sides of the Civil War. By 1865, Kentucky had begun leaning to the South; Kentuckians today like to joke that Kentucky decided to secede in 1865. (Also, for example, there is a big statue near the University of Louisville campus "in honor of our Confederate Dead.")

A similar situation might have happened in Texas in 1861: Sam Houston was governor at the time and remained pro-Union. Texans at the time OTL considered him a traitor because he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the CSA. A true Jacksonian, he believed in the Union he had struggled to make Texas a part of. Lincoln sent Houston a letter offering federal troops to help keep Texas in the Union; Houston refused the offer because that would have made the state into a battleground. Even if it joined the CSA, he knew it would see little conflict. Perhaps Houston could have found a way to convince people to declare neutrality along the lines of Kentucky.

While this doesn't represent CSA secession, it does suggest an analogous occurrence: a third side to the Civil War.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 02:51 AM
While the KY state Legislature was pro-Union in 1861, it was very narrowly so. Kentucky was one of several states (including Tennessee and Missouri) that sent soldiers to fight on both sides of the Civil War. By 1865, Kentucky had begun leaning to the South; Kentuckians today like to joke that Kentucky decided to secede in 1865. (Also, for example, there is a big statue near the University of Louisville campus "in honor of our Confederate Dead.")

A similar situation might have happened in Texas in 1861: Sam Houston was governor at the time and remained pro-Union. Texans at the time OTL considered him a traitor because he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the CSA. A true Jacksonian, he believed in the Union he had struggled to make Texas a part of. Lincoln sent Houston a letter offering federal troops to help keep Texas in the Union; Houston refused the offer because that would have made the state into a battleground. Even if it joined the CSA, he knew it would see little conflict. Perhaps Houston could have found a way to convince people to declare neutrality along the lines of Kentucky.

While this doesn't represent CSA secession, it does suggest an analogous occurrence: a third side to the Civil War.

You saw my Texas declares Independence thing rite

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 03:02 AM
While the KY state Legislature was pro-Union in 1861, it was very narrowly so. Kentucky was one of several states (including Tennessee and Missouri) that sent soldiers to fight on both sides of the Civil War. By 1865, Kentucky had begun leaning to the South; Kentuckians today like to joke that Kentucky decided to secede in 1865. (Also, for example, there is a big statue near the University of Louisville campus "in honor of our Confederate Dead.")

A similar situation might have happened in Texas in 1861: Sam Houston was governor at the time and remained pro-Union. Texans at the time OTL considered him a traitor because he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the CSA. A true Jacksonian, he believed in the Union he had struggled to make Texas a part of. Lincoln sent Houston a letter offering federal troops to help keep Texas in the Union; Houston refused the offer because that would have made the state into a battleground. Even if it joined the CSA, he knew it would see little conflict. Perhaps Houston could have found a way to convince people to declare neutrality along the lines of Kentucky.

While this doesn't represent CSA secession, it does suggest an analogous occurrence: a third side to the Civil War.


Interesting observations. I've, though, always been under the impression that twice as many Kentuckians fought for the Union rather than the CSA.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 03:02 AM
While the KY state Legislature was pro-Union in 1861, it was very narrowly so. Kentucky was one of several states (including Tennessee and Missouri) that sent soldiers to fight on both sides of the Civil War. By 1865, Kentucky had begun leaning to the South; Kentuckians today like to joke that Kentucky decided to secede in 1865. (Also, for example, there is a big statue near the University of Louisville campus "in honor of our Confederate Dead.")

A similar situation might have happened in Texas in 1861: Sam Houston was governor at the time and remained pro-Union. Texans at the time OTL considered him a traitor because he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the CSA. A true Jacksonian, he believed in the Union he had struggled to make Texas a part of. Lincoln sent Houston a letter offering federal troops to help keep Texas in the Union; Houston refused the offer because that would have made the state into a battleground. Even if it joined the CSA, he knew it would see little conflict. Perhaps Houston could have found a way to convince people to declare neutrality along the lines of Kentucky.

While this doesn't represent CSA secession, it does suggest an analogous occurrence: a third side to the Civil War.

You saw my Texas declares Independence thing rite

Nicomacheus
November 16th, 2007, 03:03 AM
You saw my Texas declares Independence thing rite

Yes, I did. Your post seemed to me premised on Texas seceding from the CSA during the war. I agree with your suggestion, but I got to thinking about the Kentucky thing and wondered if you could see a potential parallel. If more states than just KY declare neutrality, things get very screwy.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Yes, I did. Your post seemed to me premised on Texas seceding from the CSA during the war. I agree with your suggestion, but I got to thinking about the Kentucky thing and wondered if you could see a potential parallel. If more states than just KY declare neutrality, things get very screwy.
Actually it is about Texas not joining the Confederacy at the Constitutional Conference and instaed opting to create a new republic of Texas

Nicomacheus
November 16th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Actually it is about Texas not joining the Confederacy at the Constitutional Conference and instaed opting to create a new republic of Texas


Ah, in that case, I apologize. And agree. Two votes for the Second Republic!

Nicomacheus
November 16th, 2007, 03:42 AM
Interesting observations. I've, though, always been under the impression that twice as many Kentuckians fought for the Union rather than the CSA.

It's rather hard to tell exactly how many supported whom; I mostly remember that slightly more Kentuckians supported the Union just as slightly more Tennesseans support the Confederacy, but both states sent sizable contingents to both armies. Modern Kentuckians remember the Civil War as the reason for a lasting partisan divide: counties that sided with the South remain Democrat, those with the North remain Republican (this may have changed in the past decade, but even so, it may have precisely inverted).

When Lincoln first called up 75,000 volunteers, a large number of state militias were formed that supported the states' rights views of the South. As 1861 wore on, Unionists asserted themselves, winning Congressional seats in snap elections called in 1861 (KY elected its Congressmen in the odd-numbered years when Congress actually met, and had to schedule early elections to send delegates when Lincoln called a special session). However, those results are skewed, since the Southern sympathizers boycotted the elections. Unionist sympathy surged when a Confederate general "invaded" Kentucky. However, a significant portion of the state sided with the south, forming a secession convention, passing a secession ordinance, and sending delegates to Richmond. Hence, in 1861, Kentucky "joined the Confederacy" aka the South added a star in their honor to their flag as they did Missouri, raising the total to the ever prophetic (for its shades of 1776) 13.

The most perplexing part of all of this is that previously, Kentucky tried to form a bloc of the border states: the Governor (who later resigned to lead the secessionists) called a conference of Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois in the attempt to force a compromise (in the spirit of Henry Clay) on the North and South. Only Missouri showed up, because the Republican governors of the three northern states were busy preparing for war.

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Well I won't question the politics involved, in regards to Kentucky, & yes the exact numbers are hard to come by, but I do have this link SECESSION AND THE UNION IN TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY (http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/HTALLANT/border/bs11/copeland.htm)which does discuss numbers in regards to Union & CSA support. Needless to say it was good reading. However, it seems to suggest that a lot of Kentuckians supported the Union, which seems to go against your basic thesis...

Jasen777
November 16th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Texas was one of the most pro-Confederate states. It was extremely unlikely it would do anything other than join the Confederacy.

David S Poepoe
November 16th, 2007, 06:50 AM
Also if Texas claims the CS Arizona Territory. How about Texas and CSA make a Three Way Civil War. The large plains of Texas coupled with the Scarce Troops left from the East would leave Texas excluding its most Eastren Parts unscarred. By the Fall of of the CSA Texas would become the next target for US Forces. But with a new Front it would leave the south open for Rebellion again. Texas reconquered possibly Ten years later maybe less after the fall of the CSA. By this point Texan Independence would be to rooted in the hearts of the People. During the 1940s the Texans break off from the US with help from the Axis Powers. From its reconquest Texas has been a hotspot for dissent and never rejoined the Union. Texas is conquered again and Texas is forever scarred for not joining the CSA.

By the way my Idea no one steal this

Well who would want to steal a 'winner' like this?

Texas would not last ten years - to existence beyond the death of the Confederacy would be measured in days. Since Lincoln was proposing to send Sheridan and a large Union force to kick out the French and Maximilian from Mexico its not going to take as long to occupy Texas as you think.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 11:09 AM
Well who would want to steal a 'winner' like this?

Texas would not last ten years - to existence beyond the death of the Confederacy would be measured in days. Since Lincoln was proposing to send Sheridan and a large Union force to kick out the French and Maximilian from Mexico its not going to take as long to occupy Texas as you think.

Thanks you are officialy a Jerk

Oweno
November 16th, 2007, 11:56 AM
Well who would want to steal a 'winner' like this?

Texas would not last ten years - to existence beyond the death of the Confederacy would be measured in days. Since Lincoln was proposing to send Sheridan and a large Union force to kick out the French and Maximilian from Mexico its not going to take as long to occupy Texas as you think.

I disagree Texas is and was to large to occupy. The Union would have to many troops in the east to spare in the West. Also i assume the Texans would figt with the Tribes and create more troubles for Union Forces. After the War the US still couldnt use its whole force because they were occupying the South. One could argue the East would fall the Easiest but the West would be riddled with Guerillas. By the Time they are rooted out Texans just dont want to go back, except for the Germans who would bcome easy German Supporters

Johnrankins
November 16th, 2007, 01:21 PM
I disagree Texas is and was to large to occupy. The Union would have to many troops in the east to spare in the West. Also i assume the Texans would figt with the Tribes and create more troubles for Union Forces. After the War the US still couldnt use its whole force because they were occupying the South. One could argue the East would fall the Easiest but the West would be riddled with Guerillas. By the Time they are rooted out Texans just dont want to go back, except for the Germans who would bcome easy German Supporters

If it sent even a quarter of its troops to Texas it is doomed. There is no way Texas could have defended itself from a quarter of a million troops particularly after the Union would have started recruiting slaves in Texas.

Dean_the_Young
November 16th, 2007, 01:38 PM
Thanks you are officialy a JerkNo, he officially knows more about history than you, and pointed out a bad idea before you got too attached to it. If you propose something stupid or impossible or both, people here are going to tell you that to your face. This is a alternate history forum; we use history to contemplate what could happen.

For example, watch this.
I disagree Texas is and was to large to occupy. The Union would have to many troops in the east to spare in the West. History would disagree with you; Texas was occupied, and it there were enough troops in the Union that the Union was generally winning in the far west most of the time. The space was big, but the population wasn't. Third-party Texas will only see the Far Western Theatre be accelerated should Texas break ranks with the Confederacy; Confederate troop reinforcements and supplies and money (as bad the Confederate economy was, it still had more industry and strength than Texas on its own. FAR more.).

In fact, even should the US strangely decide to focus more on the East rather than on the far west, that still won't give Texas anywhere close to 3 to 5 years of de facto indpendence. The extra cavalry will be used either in the East or Western theatres, helping bring those shorter by some small measure, and then Sherman's Army to Mexico will steamroll any possible Texan resistance and capture the cities and industrial centers with ease of veteran troops fighting greenhorns.


Also i assume the Texans would figt with the Tribes and create more troubles for Union Forces. :p:p:p Someone thinks that the Indians remaining in Texas are going to fight for the sake of Texas independence? Fight side by side for the people who stole their land and have been fighting with them off and on for years? That worked for the Confederates as a whole because they promised unsettled land in Indian Territory. Texas, however, isn't likely to set aside its own land for the redskins now, is it?

After the War the US still couldnt use its whole force because they were occupying the South.:rolleyes:
After occupying the ENTIRE CSA, including Texas, the US still had more than enough troops to form a large army to use in Mexico. The US doesn't need to use its entire force to take Texas; it didn't even need a fifth of it. Conscription hasn't yet stopped, and the chance for a real war was expected. Texas was always a backwater theater. The Army of the Potomac to Texas would run through Texas like a prairie fire.



One could argue the East would fall the Easiest but the West would be riddled with Guerillas. By the Time they are rooted out Texans just dont want to go back, except for the Germans who would bcome easy German SupportersOnce again, :rolleyes:. Surprise surprise, you just described the early years of Reconstruction, where diehard "Bandits" plagued the South. Somehow, they didn't make the US give up and go home, and there's little reason for Texas to become three times worse than it was OTL. The South wasn't reconciled for Decades, and neither was Texas. The US dealt with it.

Oh, and for the record? Bandits/guerillas were plenty common back east as well. Being more industrialized doesn't mean that the South (or North) wasn't mostly empty wilderness.

David S Poepoe
November 16th, 2007, 04:33 PM
Thanks you are officialy a Jerk

You are officially welcome.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 09:12 PM
sorry overeacted just liked the idea. Just trying to think of ways for Independent Texas.

OOC: Not from texas though

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Also with the Guerilla thing i meant Texas stays occupyied longer. Not given Independence just becomes a place where its citizens are half and half on the issue

David S Poepoe
November 16th, 2007, 11:19 PM
sorry overeacted just liked the idea. Just trying to think of ways for Independent Texas.

OOC: Not from texas though

After annexation things are tough, since there is very little way out of the Union once you've come up on the losing side. The Texas of 1865 is quite different than that of 1848. The war was fought to suppress any idea of secession and to greatly centralize the Federal Government.

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 11:29 PM
After annexation things are tough, since there is very little way out of the Union once you've come up on the losing side. The Texas of 1865 is quite different than that of 1848. The war was fought to suppress any idea of secession and to greatly centralize the Federal Government.


Well what if Texas left the CSA early 1865 & began individual peace negotiations with the Union which Lincoln looks upon favourably. Then when the CSA finally gives up, the Texan soldiers are allowed to return to Texas, but aren't disbanned. So Texas has a respectable standing veteran army just in case. Then Lincoln is assassinated as per OTL. Consequentially the peace negotiations with Texas aren't finalised before Andrew Johnson becomes President.

Johnston then proceeds to stuffs it up, like everything else, & Texas thus never rejoins the Union. Johnston, however, is relucant to use military force, & considering everyone is rather war wiry, the question of Texas is put on hold. Grant then comes to power, but is too busy cleaning up Johnston's mess & then gets involved with his own scandals to do anything about Texas.

Then, by the time Rutherford B. Hayes becomes President, Texas has been out of the Union for so long few care much anymore, so Texas pretty much gains its independence, not due to any meaningful way, but just because other things just got in the way.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 11:34 PM
Sounds good but Grant would probaly be big into supressing Texas

Johnrankins
November 16th, 2007, 11:39 PM
Well what if Texas left the CSA early 1865 & began individual peace negotiations with the Union which Lincoln looks upon favourably. Then when the CSA finally gives up, the Texan soldiers are allowed to return to Texas, but aren't disbanned. So Texas has a respectable standing veteran army just in case. Then Lincoln is assassinated as per OTL. Consequentially the peace negotiations with Texas aren't finalised before Andrew Johnson becomes President.

Johnston then proceeds to stuffs it up, like everything else, & Texas thus never rejoins the Union. Johnston, however, is relucant to use military force, & considering everyone is rather war wiry, the question of Texas is put on hold. Grant then comes to power, but is too busy cleaning up Johnston's mess & then gets involved with his own scandals to do anything about Texas.

Then, by the time Rutherford B. Hayes becomes President, Texas has been out of the Union for so long few care much anymore, so Texas pretty much gains its independence, not due to any meaningful way, but just because other things just got in the way.


There is NO way in Hell Lincoln is going to give up any state in negotiations. Texas would be forced into line. There is also no way in Hell Johnson would do so either. He was a hard core Unionist.

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 11:40 PM
Sounds good but Grant would probaly be big into supressing Texas


True, but it depends upon how many other problems Grant has to deal with. Afterall his first term was all about fixing Johnston's mess

DMA
November 16th, 2007, 11:43 PM
There is NO way in Hell Lincoln is going to give up any state in negotiations. Texas would be forced into line. There is also no way in Hell Johnson would do so either. He was a hard core Unionist.


Lincoln doesn't give it up. He is KILLED before the negotiations to bring Texas back into the Union are finalised.

Now Johnson may have been "a hard core Unionist", but he was a thoroughly incompetent one as is clearly demontrated by his Administration.

Rocano
November 16th, 2007, 11:56 PM
wasnt he impeached

DMA
November 17th, 2007, 12:00 AM
wasnt he impeached


Twice actually. The first time didn't get very far, but the second time he escaped by one vote.

Johnrankins
November 17th, 2007, 12:57 AM
Lincoln doesn't give it up. He is KILLED before the negotiations to bring Texas back into the Union are finalised.

Now Johnson may have been "a hard core Unionist", but he was a thoroughly incompetent one as is clearly demontrated by his Administration.

Doesn't matter as just letting the army decide the end of the war is the logical thing to do. It doesn't take a genius to send Grant in with 50,000 + troops.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
November 17th, 2007, 01:11 AM
It's rather hard to tell exactly how many supported whom; I mostly remember that slightly more Kentuckians supported the Union just as slightly more Tennesseans support the Confederacy, but both states sent sizable contingents to both armies. Modern Kentuckians remember the Civil War as the reason for a lasting partisan divide: counties that sided with the South remain Democrat, those with the North remain Republican (this may have changed in the past decade, but even so, it may have precisely inverted).

When Lincoln first called up 75,000 volunteers, a large number of state militias were formed that supported the states' rights views of the South. As 1861 wore on, Unionists asserted themselves, winning Congressional seats in snap elections called in 1861 (KY elected its Congressmen in the odd-numbered years when Congress actually met, and had to schedule early elections to send delegates when Lincoln called a special session). However, those results are skewed, since the Southern sympathizers boycotted the elections. Unionist sympathy surged when a Confederate general "invaded" Kentucky. However, a significant portion of the state sided with the south, forming a secession convention, passing a secession ordinance, and sending delegates to Richmond. Hence, in 1861, Kentucky "joined the Confederacy" aka the South added a star in their honor to their flag as they did Missouri, raising the total to the ever prophetic (for its shades of 1776) 13.

The most perplexing part of all of this is that previously, Kentucky tried to form a bloc of the border states: the Governor (who later resigned to lead the secessionists) called a conference of Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois in the attempt to force a compromise (in the spirit of Henry Clay) on the North and South. Only Missouri showed up, because the Republican governors of the three northern states were busy preparing for war.
That Could Make for a REALLY Interesting Timeline ...

If Enough States, Especially on The Prospective Border, Declare themselves Neutral in The Coming Crisis, The War itself May Very Well Become a Non-Starter ...

What Happens then, Can The War Even Proceed or are The Two Sides Forced to The Bargaining Table in 1861?

:eek:

DMA
November 17th, 2007, 01:15 AM
Doesn't matter as just letting the army decide the end of the war is the logical thing to do. It doesn't take a genius to send Grant in with 50,000 + troops.


Well it'll be a political decision, not an army one, to end the negotiations by Johnston. And all this will happen in the chaos right in the middle of the Lincoln assassination. So it could be several months before such a decision to send Grant with a force is actually made. Importantly, by that point in time, much of the Union army would have been disbanded. And this is despite the fact of the distances involved.

Consequentially, & fundamentally, it would mean a decision to renew the war, or commence another one. Needless to say this would be far from a popular decision for everyone & would be far from an easy decision to make in actuality. Johnston thus may well & truly put off sending the troops into Texas, citing one problem or another, as there are genuine signifcant problems taking place, not just within the Union states, but throughout all of the CSA states under occupation as well.

David S Poepoe
November 17th, 2007, 03:16 AM
I'll have to agree that short of the Earth splitting to two, Texas will be forcibly brought back into the fold. Lincoln wouldn't permit it, Johnson wouldn't permit it and certainly the Radical Republicans - or even Grant would permit it. It completely undoes the central reason why Lincoln went to war in the first place - to bring the Confederate states back into the Union and to destroy the concept of secession as a viable political process.

DMA
November 17th, 2007, 03:34 AM
I'll have to agree that short of the Earth splitting to two, Texas will be forcibly brought back into the fold. Lincoln wouldn't permit it, Johnson wouldn't permit it and certainly the Radical Republicans - or even Grant would permit it. It completely undoes the central reason why Lincoln went to war in the first place - to bring the Confederate states back into the Union and to destroy the concept of secession as a viable political process.


Oh I'd agree if Lincoln was still around, & wasn't assassinated, Texas is back in the fold late 1865 without a shot being fired.

Grant isn't President yet so he's got to obey his orders. Or are you suggesting Grant conducts a coup against Johnston? Different story then if that's the case.

Johnston is completely incompetent. I doubt he could even tie his own shoe laces. And herein lies the rub...

David S Poepoe
November 17th, 2007, 07:34 AM
Oh I'd agree if Lincoln was still around, & wasn't assassinated, Texas is back in the fold late 1865 without a shot being fired.

Grant isn't President yet so he's got to obey his orders. Or are you suggesting Grant conducts a coup against Johnston? Different story then if that's the case.

Johnston is completely incompetent. I doubt he could even tie his own shoe laces. And herein lies the rub...

Johnson! The President's last name is Johnson.

I don't think Johnson is as bad as you believe. I'm not suggesting a coup either. With or without Lincoln, Texas is occupied and reconstructed - if it seceded from the CSA its independence wasn't even noticed by San Marino or Andorra - as its occupied and reconstructed. Can't figure that even Secretary of War Stanton will permit the Texans to dream of being an independent nation again.

DMA
November 17th, 2007, 07:43 AM
Johnson! The President's last name is Johnson.


I don't think Johnson is as bad as you believe. I'm not suggesting a coup either. With or without Lincoln, Texas is occupied and reconstructed - if it seceded from the CSA its independence wasn't even noticed by San Marino or Andorra - as its occupied and reconstructed. Can't figure that even Secretary of War Stanton will permit the Texans to dream of being an independent nation again.


Actually I spelt it right earlier... but seriously, Johnson was even worse than the current chief gorilla. It seems impossible, yet true... ;)

Fiver
November 19th, 2007, 04:56 AM
I'll have to agree that short of the Earth splitting to two, Texas will be forcibly brought back into the fold.

Agreed for the reasons several people have stated.

If French Mexico decides that Texas leaving the CSA is the perfect chance to get back some of what they'd lost in 1848, Texas may not even stay independant until 1865. The CSA isn't going to shed any tears for Texas and the USA will be busy dealing with the CSA till then.

After which the USA will be perfectly willing to stand up to Mexico, though in addition to OTL's desire to kick out the French and their puppet, they'd insist on getting Texas back.

And maybe want a bit more of Mexico for their troubles.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
November 20th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Agreed for the reasons several people have stated.

If French Mexico decides that Texas leaving the CSA is the perfect chance to get back some of what they'd lost in 1848, Texas may not even stay independant until 1865. The CSA isn't going to shed any tears for Texas and the USA will be busy dealing with the CSA till then.

After which the USA will be perfectly willing to stand up to Mexico, though in addition to OTL's desire to kick out the French and their puppet, they'd insist on getting Texas back.

And maybe want a bit more of Mexico for their troubles.
Hmmm ...

Sounds Like Sonora and Chihuahua May Wind up as American After All ...

Or Would The USA Demand a More Defensible Border?