WI a state had seceeded from the Confederacy during the Civil War?

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

Banned
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
 
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

Banned
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
 
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.
 
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 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

Donor
Texas was one of the most pro-Confederate states. It was extremely unlikely it would do anything other than join the Confederacy.
 
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

Banned
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

Banned
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Thanks you are officialy a Jerk
No, 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 Supporters
Once 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.
 

Rocano

Banned
sorry overeacted just liked the idea. Just trying to think of ways for Independent Texas.

OOC: Not from texas though
 

Rocano

Banned
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Top