Editor says, what if Texan secessionists heeded Sam Houston's dire warning during the 1860 crisis? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, please note that extensive amounts of content have been repurposed from the source article which concludes: "On March 16, 1861, the Texas Secession Convention called for all the state's elected officials to take a loyalty oath to the new government. Sam Houston, twice president of the Republic, as well as U.S. senator, governor and slave owner, sat silent. He never did pledge allegiance to the Confederacy, and he died in 1863 still convinced that his fellow Texans had made a terrible mistake".

Robbie Taylor commented on 2009-10-17 20:48:30 ~ Unfortunately, it's been way too long since my last Texas history class, so I don't remember the sane Texans in the state who wanted to resist secession If you hadnt guessed already, the Reverend Robbie is a Texan.

David Atwell commented on 2009-10-18 00:36:08 ~ Now this is an interesting scenario. I wonder how the civil war would be fought if a Union Texas lay to the south of the Confederacy. Either Texas would be occupied, by the Rebs, or the Union would base large scale operations out of the state to the detriment of the Confederacy.

Todayinah Ed. commented on 2009-10-18 00:45:20 ~ My thoughts too sir. Because in OTL Houston refused to lead a rebel army to fight for the Union to avoid bloodshed, I assume that a Houston led Govt would have tried to stay neutral in the war of the states. But then again, what if the Confederacy launched a pre-emptive strike?

Eric Oppen commented on 2009-10-18 02:01:34 ~ If you'd had more Germans, who tended to be strongly antislavery and actually furnished Texas regiments to the US Army, this might have worked. As it was, Texas was nearly as badly divided as Missouri or the other border states were. If Texas had stayed Union, the war would have been much shorter---a lot of the CSA's best troops and officers came from there.

Scott Palter commented on 2009-10-18 07:42:31 ~ East Texas would have counterseceded. The rump of Texas probably would have declared neutrality in the manner of Kentucky.

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-10-18 16:22:34 ~ Suggesting the possibility of a civil war within the Civil War, as Texan fought Texan. This would have taken the state out of the larger fight--at least until one side or the other tried occupying it, at which point the balance would have tilted, I think, to the would-be occupiers' opponent. In any event it would have been an extra burden for the CSA.

Michael N. Ryan commented on 2010-05-18 22:02:48 ~ It would certainly secure the frontier for the north but no doubt Texas would have internal problems like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, as well Tennesse and Virginia with a population very much divided and each faction determined to fight.

Brian Wall commented on 2010-05-19 16:09:28 ~ Maybe Scott is on to something? A split up of Texas much like Virginia, the Unionist portion becoming a US State a la West Virginia. Where would have such a split occurred geographically? Maybe like the map of the Alt US on the last episode of Fringe?

Kirk Edwards commented on 2010-09-23 03:31:50 ~ Perhaps the C.S.A would have confined itself to itself. No Ken,Miso or Ten battles.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-09-23 17:36:35 ~ Geographically, the ole rule of thumb is I-35. East Texas and West Texas are pretty different places. Divide or not, this would definitely change the western theater for the Civil War, perhaps even enough to pull reinforcements from the East.