Texas: Territory for Neutrality

What if Texas, in exchange for neutrality in the Civil War, had pushed for gaining (or "regaining") territories it had lost as part of the compromise of 1850?

The "Neutral Strip" (OTL Oklahoma Panhandle) and Greer County seem like easy ones to push for. If they really want to get pushy, they could try for all of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande (or lands east of the River south of 32'30, thus giving Texas the Mesilla Valley).
 
I have my doubts about the federal government giving in to extortion from a rebellious state. Especially when all they'd get is neutrality from a state that was already only a marginal player during the war AFAIK. Maybe there could be a "territory for support" deal, but it likely wouldn't take place until at least 1861 or 1862, since conventional Union doctrine said that a swift capture of territory would incite the loyalists in the South to revolt against the confederacy. The Union military and government would have to drop this belief first for any deal with Texas to be politically feasible, but even then, Texas will have had to be neutral for the whole war leading up to this point, which might result in an invasion by the confederacy themselves, which wouldn't leave Texas with very much leverage at the bargaining table
 
Texas didn't exactly "lose" the lands - they sold them. Therefore, Texas has no rights to the land it gave up. Honestly, I think Texas would prefer cold hard cash over land.
 
I do not think the federal government liked states being neutral any better than states rebelling. Being neutral challenges the authority the federal government.
States might decide to be neutral in future wars or other things they did not like that the federal government did.
States might even get the idea they could nullify federal laws.

Nullification Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
 
Last edited:
I do not think the federal government liked states being neutral any better than states rebelling. Being neutral challenges the authority the federal government.
States might decide to be neutral in future wars or other things they did not like that the federal government did.
States might even get the idea they could nullify federal laws.

Nullification Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
Oddly enough, Kentucky declared neutrality in the Civil War and the Feds were initially fine with it, only entering Kentucky when the South invaded it.
 
Oddly enough, Kentucky declared neutrality in the Civil War and the Feds were initially fine with it, only entering Kentucky when the South invaded it.

Not trying to nitpick this, but here’s how this reads if you cut out the euphemistic language:
Oddly enough, Kentucky declared neutrality in the Civil War and the Feds were initially fine with it, only completely disregarding Kentucky’s declared neutrality when it was convenient for them, and Kentucky couldn’t do anything about it.

The federal government let Kentucky remain neutral as long as they cooperated. However, I can’t imagine they would have been so accommodating if Kentucky had tried to leverage annexing federal land in exchange for their neutrality
 
Not trying to nitpick this, but here’s how this reads if you cut out the euphemistic language:


The federal government let Kentucky remain neutral as long as they cooperated. However, I can’t imagine they would have been so accommodating if Kentucky had tried to leverage annexing federal land in exchange for their neutrality

Well, Kentucky wasn’t bordering any non-state territory at the time. But if there was some part of a Confederate state they wanted in exchange for going pro-Union earlier than they did, I could see Lincoln agreeing to that, under the table.

But its not euphemistic to say that the Union army didn’t enter Kentucky territory until the Confederate army did, against the wishes of the government of Kentucky. Once the enemy army is there, all bets are off.
 
Top