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.
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.
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,
. 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.