American Civil War without Texas and/or Mexican War territories

I'm currently working on a timeline (which may be an exercise in futility) that's yet another one of those Balkanized U.S. scenarios, but meant to be in a pulpy tone. So I'm trying to reduce butterflies by having the Civil War begin as in OTL (with the election of a President Lincoln), yet Texas is an independent country.

But that doesn't work, does it? Without Texas, the U.S.'s slave-free state ratio is irrevocably modified, and so are the political fights surrounding that ratio. Furthermore, if Texas decides to go it alone, that sets a precedence that may lead the California Republic, the Oregon Lyceum guys, and/or Mormons to declare their own independent country, since joining the U.S. becomes a less than obligatory thing. Not to mention the U.S.-Mexican War will probably go differently without the U.S. annexation of Texas, anyway.

However, suppose that this is a low-butterflies zone, and Texas is not in the C.S.A. Maybe the rest of the West is, maybe it isn't. Either way, how does this change the Civil War? If the U.S. doesn't stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific at the beginning of the war, does this change perceptions of the Union? Would they fight more fiercely to retain the smaller amount of territory they have?
 

Spengler

Banned
You literally have to change America. So as to prevent America never ever wants to have a nation that spans the continent, as well as the Jeffersonian ideal of the small farmer. Also you can bet that Americans would want Cali once they hear its got gold. I mean unless you prevent Mexico from going through periodic periods of Anarchy over a decade and a half before the Texas rebellion you have a very good chance Mexico is going to lose those lands.
 
I am revisiting the ASB timeline that this is related to, and need some tips. A recent thread describes what is Texas was a neutral during the Civil War. Well, in this I ask what if Texas had never joined the Union by the time of the Civil war. Maybe it was still a territory. Maybe it was still a republic on the brink- but not yet ready- to be annexed by the United States. Maybe it was annexed but as a commonwealth or some other intermediary pre-statehood status. I'm considering having Mirabeau Lamar elected president of Texas and so the young republic looks westward in a fit of early nationalism and so plays hard to get, forestalling annexation.

The point is, they don't get involved during the war, not because they seceded, but because they naturally wouldn't. It needn't be as dramatic as the previous posts make it seem. Maybe the U.S. is still expanding west, but it just wasn't yet making all these new lands into states yet. Various free-slave controversies arise through other causes and the South seceded when Lincoln is elected just the same.

Since this is a low-butterfly zone:

1. How does the CSA change without its tenth star? Besides Texan soldiers and military commanders, who does the South lose out on? Any political or other figures of note?

2. How does the war change? Is the Confederacy hemmed in on the west? Does this screw them over?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Without California, it's quite plausible the Union would go bankrupt - or at least be unable to buy small arms overseas in anything like the same profusion. OTL the specie income from Californian gold was a majority of US convertible currency income, while the CS had cotton to make their money overseas.

A much better equipped CS Army and a smaller US Army in 1862 are quite plausible, and that could lead to a CS win in the East.
 
Not to mention the U.S.-Mexican War will probably go differently without the U.S. annexation of Texas, anyway.

If the US does not annex Texas, that butterflies away OTLs Mexican-American War and possibly the Civil War as well.

A different way to get an independent Texas would be to have it secede from the Confederacy after a successful Confederate independence.
 
I came up with an interesting scenario like this. Basically, Henry Clay becomes president and this sets of an affect in Texas to where the people in charge wish to remain their own country. Then, when they start talking about expanding outward, this sours relationships between the nations and through the use of clever newswriters, even Manifest Destiny takes a hit, since after all, what's the point if people will just go and form their own nations and not remain loyal to the US? Combine that with some especially clever papers using stories from native americans and the friction remains. Mexico would still have all its territory sans Texas and be itching for it, but they don't go for it.

The Civil War would still happen I reckon and if Texas joins the CSA in fighting the Unio, this could prompt Mexico to join the US in fighting the CSA and Texas. CSA and Texas probably would not survive under the weight of the two armies sandwiching them in. Mexico may try and annex Texas back and probably sell some land to the US, but not as much (so the US could still get some of California.)

It's just one scenario though.
 
I am revisiting the ASB timeline that this is related to, and need some tips. A recent thread describes what is Texas was a neutral during the Civil War. Well, in this I ask what if Texas had never joined the Union by the time of the Civil war. Maybe it was still a territory. Maybe it was still a republic on the brink- but not yet ready- to be annexed by the United States. Maybe it was annexed but as a commonwealth or some other intermediary pre-statehood status. I'm considering having Mirabeau Lamar elected president of Texas and so the young republic looks westward in a fit of early nationalism and so plays hard to get, forestalling annexation.

The point is, they don't get involved during the war, not because they seceded, but because they naturally wouldn't. It needn't be as dramatic as the previous posts make it seem. Maybe the U.S. is still expanding west, but it just wasn't yet making all these new lands into states yet. Various free-slave controversies arise through other causes and the South seceded when Lincoln is elected just the same.

Since this is a low-butterfly zone:

1. How does the CSA change without its tenth star? Besides Texan soldiers and military commanders, who does the South lose out on? Any political or other figures of note?

2. How does the war change? Is the Confederacy hemmed in on the west? Does this screw them over?

Texas was never a US Territory. It was a Republic, with foreign recognition (France and Britain specifically) and thus voluntarily gave up its independence in exchange for immediate Statehood (and thus is unique in that). if Texas remains neutral, that leaves an immense hole in the blockade. At least until the Union takes New Orleans and later secures the Mississippi Valley. A neutral Texas probably means a neutral, or at least messy Indian Territory (where tribal leaders fought their own Civil War with some pro Union vs some Pro Confederate). in OTL, Arkansas and Louisiana were pretty much under Union control by 1864, but if Texas exists as a neutral nation, we probably see more Union resources devoted to securing them earlier (to plug that blockade leak and end any support for the Confederacy from it).

The Union would have to be careful here if Texas is independent (due to that European support). Of course Texas is a major exporter of cotton all by itself antibellum, so if it isn't blockaded, that means more cotton is on the world market, and that very likely would at least reduce Anglo-French pressures (high cotton prices later in the war, some mills that shut down or laid off workers). Not completely, as Texas was but one of the cotton exporters, but some probably significant impact. There would be pressure from Union mills to retain access to that cotton too.

Now post war, assuming that the Confederate meets its historical fate, that is when pressure from the United States to end slavery probably really becomes heavy, and the British might just support that as well. But there is room for a deal potentially. (Say the British and US governments agree to trade concessions for Texas and buy outs to end slavery in exchange for Texas keeping its independence).

Of course post war, another really big export is beef, and that market is the United States, not Britain, at least until the refrigerated cargo hold is developed for overseas transportation of beef (late 19th Century). Texas has little leverage post war other than US fatigue post Civil War and whatever desire the British or French government has in protecting Texas independence.

So a neutral Texas certainly changes some events in the Civil War, but I am skeptical it helps the Confederacy survive.
 
If the US does not annex Texas, that butterflies away OTLs Mexican-American War and possibly the Civil War as well.

A different way to get an independent Texas would be to have it secede from the Confederacy after a successful Confederate independence.

I suspect the California Gold Rush (and later Colorado Gold Rush) will trigger the Mexican American War if the annexation of Texas does not.
 
1. How does the CSA change without its tenth star? Besides Texan soldiers and military commanders, who does the South lose out on? Any political or other figures of note?

2. How does the war change? Is the Confederacy hemmed in on the west? Does this screw them over?

In OTL, some goods were shipped in an out of the Confederacy by going through northern Mexico to get around the Union blockade. If an independent Republic of Texas is pro-Confederate or neutral, these goods will pass through Texas, aiding its economy. If the Republic of Texas is pro-Union the Confederacy will be cut off from this trade possibility.

On the political front, the most important losses to the Confederacy would be John Reagan and Louis Wigfall. Reagan was one of the ablest members of the Confederate Cabinet, but he held the insignificant post of Post Master General, so his loss will make little change in an ATL. Wigfall started the war as a friend Jefferson Davis, but that relationship cooled. Wigfall was a strong supporter of Joe Johnston. Without that support, Johnston probably gets sidelined sooner and this is more likely to be permanent. Johnston was flawed as a general, but Jefferson Davis chose the inept John Bell Hood as a replacement. That option wouldn't be available in this ATL, so unless Davis' choice was as bad as Hood, this could be slightly better for the Confederacy. Wigfall was also a strong advocate of appointing Robert E Lee as General-in-Chief, so Wigfall's absence probably means Lee is never appointed to that post. This probably wouldn't affect the Confederacy much, in OTL Lee was appointed to the post too late to make any real difference and Lee never really operated on the strategic level.

Loss of Texas has little effect on total Confederate manpower, Texas was not heavily populated at the time. OTOH, the Texas Brigade was a hard-fighting unit, so that could hurt the Confederacy.

Here is a list of Confederate generals from Texas. The standout names are John Bell Hood and Albert Sidney Johnston, who were abject failures at commanding armies. The others seem fairly mediocre, so loss of Texan generals probably is a plus to overall Confederate generalship,
 
I suspect the California Gold Rush (and later Colorado Gold Rush) will trigger the Mexican American War if the annexation of Texas does not.

How so? Considering the war started due to Texas's border claims, then what situation would happen here instead? Bear Flag Republic or something else?
 
How so? Considering the war started due to Texas's border claims, then what situation would happen here instead? Bear Flag Republic or something else?

Because due to proximity and the way the West has already been explored, prior to the Mexican War, the Americans can rush into California in vast numbers very quickly. Likely the Mexican authorities would be annoyed with that, and a clash that becomes a war is likely. The US wanted California even before the War of Texas Independence and indeed was trying to buy it from Mexico even before the annexation of Texas.

While the Oregon Trail has been around a while, as has the branch that leads to Donner Pass, while American ships have been calling on San Francisco Bay for decades (the fur trade in Oregon goes back per War of 1812). Mexico has a relatively small force defending California, even a smaller one in New Mexico (and the Santa Fe Trail has been around for decades too) and New Mexico also is desired.

So even without Texas I think the Mexican War seems almost certain. The variable is when gold is discovered, but Sutter predates the Mexican War too (he was after all a Swiss citizen who employed mostly local Native Americans)

The flood of people into California after Gold is discovered is simply staggering, massively outnumbering the Californios within a year or so.
 
On the political front, the most important losses to the Confederacy would be John Reagan and Louis Wigfall...

Superb analysis, I appreciate it. I think given Robert E. Lee's talent, he could've found a different way to success. I'm kinda astounded that the Texan figures during the Civil War were either incompetent or marginal at best. As far as manpower goes, it's always possible that independent Texicans would join in volunteer brigades to the Confederate cause.
 
Superb analysis, I appreciate it. I think given Robert E. Lee's talent, he could've found a different way to success. I'm kinda astounded that the Texan figures during the Civil War were either incompetent or marginal at best. As far as manpower goes, it's always possible that independent Texicans would join in volunteer brigades to the Confederate cause.
IMO, that's an oversimplification. My reading of AS Johnston was he was an able general, but his death in 1862 kept closes the door to any discussion of his brilliance or lack thereof. Also, Hood was a very good brigadier general and an able divisional commander. Beyond that, he was crap.
There are a couple of others who died early in the war, like Ben McCulloch, who may have been good generals.
Now, nothing here should be taken to mean that I think any of these would have made telling difference in the war... although I have often thought I'd like to play with a timeline in which the fates take the Union general at Shiloh rather than the Confederate. Playing with a history in which Albert Sidney Johnston lives and Ulysses Grant dies would be... interesting.
 
Without California, it's quite plausible the Union would go bankrupt - or at least be unable to buy small arms overseas in anything like the same profusion. OTL the specie income from Californian gold was a majority of US convertible currency income, while the CS had cotton to make their money overseas.

A much better equipped CS Army and a smaller US Army in 1862 are quite plausible, and that could lead to a CS win in the East.

If California does not become part of the US, it would affect the economy of the entire US, not just the North. Both sides would have less hard currency. Both sides would have less weapons in their state arsenals when the war started. Cotton would not be king, the Confedertes still would lack the means of breaking a blockade. And the Union would still be less likely to go bankrupt, due to the differences in how both Union and Confederacy sought to raise revenues.
 
IMO, that's an oversimplification. My reading of AS Johnston was he was an able general, but his death in 1862 kept closes the door to any discussion of his brilliance or lack thereof. Also, Hood was a very good brigadier general and an able divisional commander. Beyond that, he was crap.
There are a couple of others who died early in the war, like Ben McCulloch, who may have been good generals.
Now, nothing here should be taken to mean that I think any of these would have made telling difference in the war... although I have often thought I'd like to play with a timeline in which the fates take the Union general at Shiloh rather than the Confederate. Playing with a history in which Albert Sidney Johnston lives and Ulysses Grant dies would be... interesting.

My post definitely was an oversimplification, but AS Johnston was not an able general. Ft Henry should never have been sited where it was. At Ft Donelson, Johnston put Floyd in charge, though Floyd had proven his lack of administrative ability in the Utah Expedition. Johnston put Pillow as second in command at Ft Donelson, even though Pillow had proven his lack of any ability in the Mexican War. Johnston did not order the abandonment of Ft Donelson, nor did he send them enough troops to hold, instead he sent enough reinforcements to add to the number of men who were surrendered. Johnston then fell back, leaving Nashville and the huge amount of supplies there to be almost effortlessly captured by Union troops, and letting the Union occupy one of the best iron producing regions in the Confederacy. The Confederate plan at Shiloh was created and implemented by Beauregard, not Johnston. While Beauregard did Johnston's job, Johnston spent the battle acting as a glorified brigade commander.
 
On the political front, the most important losses to the Confederacy would be John Reagan and Louis Wigfall. Reagan was one of the ablest members of the Confederate Cabinet, but he held the insignificant post of Post Master General, so his loss will make little change in an ATL. Wigfall started the war as a friend Jefferson Davis, but that relationship cooled. Wigfall was a strong supporter of Joe Johnston. Without that support, Johnston probably gets sidelined sooner and this is more likely to be permanent. Johnston was flawed as a general, but Jefferson Davis chose the inept John Bell Hood as a replacement.

Do you mean Joe or A.S. Johnston?

EDIT: Was confused by the later talk of A.S. Johnston, clarified myself now; my apologies.
 
Is it certain that gold will be discovered at the same time as OTL? After all, it had been there since always but never been discovered before.
 
Top