Loyal Texas and Tennessee

What if Texas and Tennessee had remained in the union?

Tennessee was fairly close and I think if Texas got more immigration early on (Germans and Czechs most likely) it could remain with the Union.

The war is likely much shorter. What is reconstruction like with two fewer states to reconstruct?
 
You probably still get the terror & the early version Of the KKK. These were grass roots movements that were organized across the deep south. Post war politics depends in part on is Texas were simply a slave state that had a strong majority of pro Unionists, or absent slavery entirely. If the former there will be a crowd of disgruntled former dependents on the slave economy. Reducing slavery drastically, changes the character of racial tensions and culture in Texas.
 
You probably still get the terror & the early version Of the KKK. These were grass roots movements that were organized across the deep south. Post war politics depends in part on is Texas were simply a slave state that had a strong majority of pro Unionists, or absent slavery entirely. If the former there will be a crowd of disgruntled former dependents on the slave economy. Reducing slavery drastically, changes the character of racial tensions and culture in Texas.

But if Texas was not a slave State then is probable that they wouldn´t fight against the Mexican state, one of the biggest, if not the Biggest Reason, that Texas declare his independence of the Mexican Estate was that Mexico Forbid the Slavery in 1829, and have strong centralist policies that will end the slavery de facto, and not just de jure in Texas.
 
But if Texas was not a slave State then is probable that they wouldn´t fight against the Mexican state, one of the biggest, if not the Biggest Reason, that Texas declare his independence of the Mexican Estate was that Mexico Forbid the Slavery in 1829, and have strong centralist policies that will end the slavery de facto, and not just de jure in Texas.

I think that a careful review of the facts on the ground in Mexico in the 1830s makes the bolded statement above improbable. Were it true, Mexico wouldn't have spent much of the 1830s attempting to put down revolts between the Yucatan in the south and the Rio Grande Republic in the North and more than a few places in between.

Here's a source of information that does a good job of explaining and contextualizing the Texas Revolution, here.

While slavery was an aspect of the revolution, as can be seen in the above referenced article, it was hardly alone, and wasn't, in and of itself, the cause majeure of the Texas Revolution. When I look at the causes of the Texas Revolution as seen through the lens of the people who participated in it, I would rank them in order of importance as follows: Abrogation of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 by the Centralists under Santa Anna (the siete leyes), suspension of Anglo immigration at a time when land costs in the US put land-ownership out of the reach of the many (of course, Jacksonian views on banking were, IMO, partially to blame for the lack of credit in the US, which put the squeeze on many homesteaders, and Texas was a viable alternative for cheap land) and I would couple with that the nascent idea of Manifest Destiny as part of the second reason. The next subset in relevance would be a catch-all of racism and slavery that was endemic at that time.

My point is that as reasons go, slavery was down the list as causes for the Texas Revolution.

I'm not trying to minimize the role of slavery in the years of the Republic. Even a casual look at the Texas Constitution reveals the fingerprints of the slavocracy of the South. But that's not the same thing as looking at the causes of the revolution. A quick look at the fatalities of the Alamo reveal that fully 1/4 of the defenders were not born in the United States.

For the sake of the OP's speculation, let's say that in the years between 1821 and 1836, we increase exponentially the number of Irish and German immigrants, and expand the number of "free soil" immigrants from the US, you're still likely to be dealing with a central government that is tone-deaf to settler's rights, representative voices, taxation and tariffs, and a Catholic church that was beholden to the interests of the centralists. That proved to be a recipe for political and social unrest throughout all of Mexico. I don't think one can reasonably expect a Texas with different immigration patterns to not revolt. It's worth looking at the actions of European born Texians IOTL to see that they happily joined their neighbors from the American South in an effort to throw off the yoke of Santa Anna's despotism. What you categorize as "strong centralist policies" I would term as the stuff that caused Mexico to stay in a constant state of disarray between 1830 and 1848. Were it not so, I can't imagine that Mexicans like Lorenzo de Zavala would have thrown their lot in with the Texas revolutionaries.
 
Texas likely is a much cleaner split as a "Western" state rather than a "Southern" one.

I expect Unionism to be a point of Texan pride - Sam Houston proving to be the most loyal man in the South, and prophetic about the eventual fate of the Confederacy.
 
My impression was that Texas had a relatively honest vote by white guys who voted heavily for treason against the United States.

Tennessee is a bit different?
 
You probably still get the terror & the early version Of the KKK. These were grass roots movements that were organized across the deep south. Post war politics depends in part on is Texas were simply a slave state that had a strong majority of pro Unionists, or absent slavery entirely. If the former there will be a crowd of disgruntled former dependents on the slave economy. Reducing slavery drastically, changes the character of racial tensions and culture in Texas.

This presumes a Union that wins the war in this timeline forces the abolition of slavery in any way close to the sudden and forceful way it did in our timeline (first as a war matter, than under Radical Reconstruction). In a world with a loyal Texas and Tenasee, the Southern Insurection has a much weaker position on the Mississippi, leading to the Deep South being exposed much earlier and likely resulting in not only a quicker defeat, but a stronger voice for the slaveholding loyal states in the post-war situation. Without the radical wing of the Republicans having more or less a monopoly on post war politics and a stronger "Preservation of the Union, with or without slavery" current not only would said terror be less strongly tied to resisting repression/positive ideas, but the change in the southern way of life is likely to be more gradual and natural
 
Being a Texas native myself, here's one idea to get a loyal Texas (or, at least, a divided Texas):

Frederick William IV is shot by a disgruntled liberal in Prussia shortly after he joins the conservatives in rolling back the 1848 Revolutions. Surprisingly, he survives, but he cracks down even worse on liberals, minorities (like Czechs), and reformers than OTL, and many of them emigrate to the US; many of those emigrate to Texas (or, more specifically, to the Hill Country and South Texas).

When the Civil War comes and Texas secedes (it was an honest vote, like others have said), Texas south of the Colorado River secedes and forms its own state (I'm thinking of West Virginia's secession from Virginia IOTL) (1)...

(1) Note: IOTL, the Hill Country and some areas of North Texas were pro-Union...
 
Top