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

DMA · Nov 16, 2007

Rocano said:
Sounds good but Grant would probaly be big into supressing Texas

True, but it depends upon how many other problems Grant has to deal with. Afterall his first term was all about fixing Johnston's mess

DMA · Nov 16, 2007

Johnrankins said:
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.

Lincoln doesn't give it up. He is KILLED before the negotiations to bring Texas back into the Union are finalised.

Now Johnson may have been "a hard core Unionist", but he was a thoroughly incompetent one as is clearly demontrated by his Administration.

Rocano · Nov 16, 2007

wasnt he impeached

DMA · Nov 16, 2007

Rocano said:
wasnt he impeached

Twice actually. The first time didn't get very far, but the second time he escaped by one vote.

Johnrankins · Nov 16, 2007

DMA said:
Lincoln doesn't give it up. He is KILLED before the negotiations to bring Texas back into the Union are finalised.

Now Johnson may have been "a hard core Unionist", but he was a thoroughly incompetent one as is clearly demontrated by his Administration.

Doesn't matter as just letting the army decide the end of the war is the logical thing to do. It doesn't take a genius to send Grant in with 50,000 + troops.

ZaphodBeeblebrox · Nov 16, 2007

Nicomacheus said:
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.

That Could Make for a REALLY Interesting Timeline ...

If Enough States, Especially on The Prospective Border, Declare themselves Neutral in The Coming Crisis, The War itself May Very Well Become a Non-Starter ...

What Happens then, Can The War Even Proceed or are The Two Sides Forced to The Bargaining Table in 1861?

DMA · Nov 16, 2007

Johnrankins said:
Doesn't matter as just letting the army decide the end of the war is the logical thing to do. It doesn't take a genius to send Grant in with 50,000 + troops.

Well it'll be a political decision, not an army one, to end the negotiations by Johnston. And all this will happen in the chaos right in the middle of the Lincoln assassination. So it could be several months before such a decision to send Grant with a force is actually made. Importantly, by that point in time, much of the Union army would have been disbanded. And this is despite the fact of the distances involved.

Consequentially, & fundamentally, it would mean a decision to renew the war, or commence another one. Needless to say this would be far from a popular decision for everyone & would be far from an easy decision to make in actuality. Johnston thus may well & truly put off sending the troops into Texas, citing one problem or another, as there are genuine signifcant problems taking place, not just within the Union states, but throughout all of the CSA states under occupation as well.

David S Poepoe · Nov 16, 2007

I'll have to agree that short of the Earth splitting to two, Texas will be forcibly brought back into the fold. Lincoln wouldn't permit it, Johnson wouldn't permit it and certainly the Radical Republicans - or even Grant would permit it. It completely undoes the central reason why Lincoln went to war in the first place - to bring the Confederate states back into the Union and to destroy the concept of secession as a viable political process.

DMA · Nov 16, 2007

David S Poepoe said:
I'll have to agree that short of the Earth splitting to two, Texas will be forcibly brought back into the fold. Lincoln wouldn't permit it, Johnson wouldn't permit it and certainly the Radical Republicans - or even Grant would permit it. It completely undoes the central reason why Lincoln went to war in the first place - to bring the Confederate states back into the Union and to destroy the concept of secession as a viable political process.

Oh I'd agree if Lincoln was still around, & wasn't assassinated, Texas is back in the fold late 1865 without a shot being fired.

Grant isn't President yet so he's got to obey his orders. Or are you suggesting Grant conducts a coup against Johnston? Different story then if that's the case.

Johnston is completely incompetent. I doubt he could even tie his own shoe laces. And herein lies the rub...

David S Poepoe · Nov 17, 2007

DMA said:
Oh I'd agree if Lincoln was still around, & wasn't assassinated, Texas is back in the fold late 1865 without a shot being fired.

Grant isn't President yet so he's got to obey his orders. Or are you suggesting Grant conducts a coup against Johnston? Different story then if that's the case.

Johnston is completely incompetent. I doubt he could even tie his own shoe laces. And herein lies the rub...

Johnson! The President's last name is Johnson.

I don't think Johnson is as bad as you believe. I'm not suggesting a coup either. With or without Lincoln, Texas is occupied and reconstructed - if it seceded from the CSA its independence wasn't even noticed by San Marino or Andorra - as its occupied and reconstructed. Can't figure that even Secretary of War Stanton will permit the Texans to dream of being an independent nation again.

DMA · Nov 17, 2007

David S Poepoe said:
Johnson! The President's last name is Johnson.

I don't think Johnson is as bad as you believe. I'm not suggesting a coup either. With or without Lincoln, Texas is occupied and reconstructed - if it seceded from the CSA its independence wasn't even noticed by San Marino or Andorra - as its occupied and reconstructed. Can't figure that even Secretary of War Stanton will permit the Texans to dream of being an independent nation again.

Actually I spelt it right earlier... but seriously, Johnson was even worse than the current chief gorilla. It seems impossible, yet true...

Fiver · Nov 18, 2007

David S Poepoe said:
I'll have to agree that short of the Earth splitting to two, Texas will be forcibly brought back into the fold.

Agreed for the reasons several people have stated.

If French Mexico decides that Texas leaving the CSA is the perfect chance to get back some of what they'd lost in 1848, Texas may not even stay independant until 1865. The CSA isn't going to shed any tears for Texas and the USA will be busy dealing with the CSA till then.

After which the USA will be perfectly willing to stand up to Mexico, though in addition to OTL's desire to kick out the French and their puppet, they'd insist on getting Texas back.

And maybe want a bit more of Mexico for their troubles.

ZaphodBeeblebrox · Nov 20, 2007

Fiver said:
Agreed for the reasons several people have stated.

If French Mexico decides that Texas leaving the CSA is the perfect chance to get back some of what they'd lost in 1848, Texas may not even stay independant until 1865. The CSA isn't going to shed any tears for Texas and the USA will be busy dealing with the CSA till then.

After which the USA will be perfectly willing to stand up to Mexico, though in addition to OTL's desire to kick out the French and their puppet, they'd insist on getting Texas back.

And maybe want a bit more of Mexico for their troubles.

Hmmm ...

Sounds Like Sonora and Chihuahua May Wind up as American After All ...

Or Would The USA Demand a More Defensible Border?