Civil War: What if Texas stayed in the Union?

So I've been wondering what would've happened if Texas stayed in the Union. How it could've happened? I don't really know but maybe if Houston had the secession convention earlier and was able to sway enough delegates to vote no. I do think Texas would've tried to stay neutral but allow Union troops to pass through with some Union volunteer regiments. But their neutrality could easily have been violated by the confederacy. The Civil War would've ended sooner with a route from the west being available. With a powerful slave state like Texas staying in the Union would affect the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment granting slave states that remained in the union reimbursements for emancipation. I'm sure Texas would've gotten some land but the extent of their gains I don't know. I made a couple of maps of possible Texas expansions. Now as a proud Texan i think we should've kept Santa Fe so the last one will most likely be the most questionable as I take any chance I get to see if Texas could've regained Santa Fe.
Disputed Territories
Civil War Neutral Union State of Texas.png

Disputed Territories + New Mexico Territory south of 34th parallel north and east of the Rio Grande
Civil War Neutral Union State of Texas, Union Soldiers Passage.png

Disputer Territories + New Mexico Territory East of Rio Grande
Civil War Union State of Texas.png
 

Red Orm

Banned
I don't really see what's in it for Texas. It'd be closer to its enemies and their organized, more urban states, and far more open to attack from American (including Confederate) enemies to the east and Amerindian enemies within its borders. That's not even considering that Texas was a slave state to boot, and it was obvious to everybody that not resisting the Unionists at this point, with states already seceding, was almost certain to result in an end to slavery in the USA.
 
To be fair, Texas was rather split on the issue (though a Union Texas is harder than a Union Upper South state) and had quite a split for the Union. If Sam Houston did have more influence (not sure how to, mind; just speculating) then he might have been able to keep Texas as a neutral border state and have government split off. I don't see them fully coming out for the union, as too much of the state is Pro-Confederate; It only will truly commit to the end of the war when its outcome is fait accompli.

I have toyed with a scenario before that held the Rio Grande Republic joining the US among other things; the RGR and other former Mexican states would be anti-slavery, and having the threat to the south (which would inevitable turn into another slog between the two) might be enough to convince Texas to remain in the Union.

The only additional territory that Texas would have received would have been Greer County; Texas had already sold all the land in the west to pay its debts, fair and square.
 
Perhaps this could be achieved if the US Army troops in Texas were commanded by a determined Unionist? There were troops stationed there to defend the Texans from the Commanche. IOTL when Texas seceded in February 1861, General David Twiggs of the Department of Texas surrendered all the American forces (about 4,000 men, including Lee, and commander of the Department of Texas) to the Texans. Twiggs then immediately resigned from the U. S. Army and was made a Confederate general. Twiggs was an old man who would die in 1862. Maybe he dies earlier ITTL and a northerner or future southern unionist takes the position?

ITTL, let's say it is held by a resolute northerner. Either he works out something with Houston that preserves Unionist control of Texas politically. Or at least a Kentucky-like "neutrality" as a means to keep internal peace in Texas, since it is obvious the Army will side with the unionists against the secessionists. At some point, Texas then enters the war on the side of the Union. Or maybe he arrests the entire secessionist convention and institutes martial law. Or after secession, he keeps his forces intact and allies with the remnant Unionists among the German-Texans in the Hill Country and Mexican-Texans; he then quickly takes back the state after Fort Sumner or under orders from Lincoln.

Initially, Texas won't do too much. It's terrible split in population loyalty means an internal civil war first. Eventually though the Unionists will triumph while pro-Confederates flee the state and join a Confederate field army while a rump state government in exile is held in Louisiana or Arkansas. However, the US Navy will be able to transfer troops and supplies to the Gulf ports of Texas and eventually solidify its hold.

By either late 1862 or 1863, this allows the Union to completely secure the trans-Missippi theatre as all of Louisiana and Arkanasas is held. This will also provide more forces for the Western Theatre at that point.

The real critical effects is that the Confederacy won't have all the economic resources and manpower Texas provides. This probably shortens the war to 1864.
 
I think that this would be difficult but not impossible. Most of the population appeared to be pro-Confederate.

As stated above, if there were some loyal Union officers in charge of the Texas garrisons, that might have an effect of keeping key supplies out of rebel hands.

If there more were Union troops in the area that could be rushed in before the rebels got too organized.

Another possibility is greater immigration is encouraged from Mexico and Germany that would skew the demographics away from pro-slavery forces. Maybe it was encouraged from 1845 in order to provide a better population base against Mexico?

Or maybe, this immigration could happen early enough that Texas would vote be a free state from the beginning.

Houston tried his best but was badly outnumbered. He was also an old drunk by this time so he wasn't the man he once was. On the other hand, anyone else in that office would likely be more pro-Confederate than he was.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
And wasn't he basically ousted in something very much like a coup OTL?

You're talking about Houston. And yes, the secession convention simply declared that he was no longer the governor (which was of questionable legality, to say the least).

But I was referring to the Union army commander arresting the members of the secession convention.
 
Top