Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 16th, 2008, 06:42 AM
Osakadave Osakadave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
WI the Republic of Texas remained independent

Inspired by these two

http://alternatehistory.com/discussi...d.php?t=110923
http://alternatehistory.com/discussi...d.php?t=109848

So, what if, in 1844, Mexico, under British and French influance, recognize the Republic of Texas, and it remains independent...

What effects would it have on the Mexican-American War and the American Civil War? Would it be viable to survive until today? Might I be living in Jaspan on A RoT passport instead of a US passport?
__________________
The West is Saffaron
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old December 16th, 2008, 06:46 AM
Fenrir_Angerboda Fenrir_Angerboda is online now
Team YnneadNow
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Earth-42
Posts: 1000 or more
hm....Not sure if this is an option, but would Mexico try to take Texas back?

I can see Texas possibly expanding, taking atleast Oklahoma, and New Mexico, so it's probably possible for it to survive.
__________________
One Man's Worth: Updated 12/21: Astonishing.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old December 16th, 2008, 07:34 AM
Osakadave Osakadave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir_Angerboda View Post
hm....Not sure if this is an option, but would Mexico try to take Texas back?

I can see Texas possibly expanding, taking atleast Oklahoma, and New Mexico, so it's probably possible for it to survive.

No need to take New Mexico if Mexico recognises the pre-annexation borders.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/p...-1846-1500.jpg

Part of that may be given up in the negotiations though.

As for Mexico, the British would probably see it in their interests to support Texas. Maybe a second war with the Brits and French supporting Texas and the Spanish Mexico?

Or maybe the combo platter - 1845 sees Fremont's Bear Republic, spawning the Mexican-American War. Mexico tries to retake Texas, but the British and French support Texas. We get Maximillian (or another Hapsburg) in the 1850s instead of 1860s.
__________________
The West is Saffaron
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 11th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Fiver Fiver is offline
Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osakadave View Post
So, what if, in 1844, Mexico, under British and French influance, recognize the Republic of Texas, and it remains independent...

What effects would it have on the Mexican-American War and the American Civil War? Would it be viable to survive until today?
This would mean there is no Mexican-American War. And no Bear Flag Revolt in California, though California may seek independance from Mexico when gold is found. The US will be a lot more focused on Oregon Territory than in OTL, though that's unlikely to lead to war with Britain.

There will still be causes for tensions between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding states of the US. The US lack possibilites for adding additional slave-holding states without annexing Texas and/or parts of the Carbbean. So without war, the free state/slave state balance in Congress will still end. And there's no chance of a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. (OTL's Gadsden Purchase showed southern leaders were fine with public funds being spent to benefit thier sectional interests.

Still, a patchjob like the Compromise of 1850 (which probably made things worse in the long run) will be delayed. That may butterfly away any form of an ACW. If it occurs, it will probably be later and the CSA will start with less territory, neither of which favor the Confederates.

Also neither side of TTL's ACW (if it occurs) will have the practice their officers got in OTL's Mexican-American war. OTOH, you might not have as many generals continuing tactics that worked in Mexico, but didn't against the firearms of the 1860's.

While Texas could remain independant until the modern era, that's not likely. It spends much of the time sparsely populated. The southern US will want it. So will Mexico. When oil becomes big, that only increases the chances someone will want to annex it.

A long-term Republic of Texas will need good diplomats and a friendly relationship with at least one major power. At the same time, they'll want to avoid becoming a mere client state of that power.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 11th, 2009, 07:52 PM
Mark E. Mark E. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Forgottonia, USA
Posts: 1000 or more
So, the western border of the United States remains defined by the Louisiana Purchase?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 11th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Osakadave Osakadave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
This would mean there is no Mexican-American War. And no Bear Flag Revolt in California, though California may seek independance from Mexico when gold is found. The US will be a lot more focused on Oregon Territory than in OTL, though that's unlikely to lead to war with Britain.

There will still be causes for tensions between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding states of the US. The US lack possibilites for adding additional slave-holding states without annexing Texas and/or parts of the Carbbean. So without war, the free state/slave state balance in Congress will still end. And there's no chance of a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. (OTL's Gadsden Purchase showed southern leaders were fine with public funds being spent to benefit thier sectional interests.

Still, a patchjob like the Compromise of 1850 (which probably made things worse in the long run) will be delayed. That may butterfly away any form of an ACW. If it occurs, it will probably be later and the CSA will start with less territory, neither of which favor the Confederates.

Also neither side of TTL's ACW (if it occurs) will have the practice their officers got in OTL's Mexican-American war. OTOH, you might not have as many generals continuing tactics that worked in Mexico, but didn't against the firearms of the 1860's.

While Texas could remain independant until the modern era, that's not likely. It spends much of the time sparsely populated. The southern US will want it. So will Mexico. When oil becomes big, that only increases the chances someone will want to annex it.

A long-term Republic of Texas will need good diplomats and a friendly relationship with at least one major power. At the same time, they'll want to avoid becoming a mere client state of that power.
Thanks. Hows about Texas and Britan for that relationship?
__________________
The West is Saffaron
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 11th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Metro Metro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 313
Must remember that Texas after Independence claimed Eastern part of New Mexico, small piece of Oklahoma, a small piece of Kansas, a quarter of Colorado and a small part of Wyoming.

See Map below. Yellow is what Mexico said was officially Texas.

So if Mexico and Texas could not negotiate a deal over the disputed territory then there might have been a war and the US would probably have helped Texas. Remember, many of the immigrants in Texas had come from the Southern US States. Some still had family and political friends in those States.

If Texas and Mexico had negotiated a deal the US would still probably have annexed at least half of California. Especially if they had found gold which would have caused many US Citizens to migrate there. The Northern Half is where the gold was located. So the Northern half would have been annexed. Chances are Mexico would have had no choice but to cede Northern California, 90% of Nevada (Mexico gets to keep Las Vegas), all of Utah and Colorado. Mexico would probably have kept New Mexico, which use to include Arizona, plus Southern California.

Map of US in 1835. Shows Oregon territory has part of US: http://thehiddentreasure.org/images/...ney1835_lg.jpg





Edit: Found out that in 1838 three Mexican States located South of Texas proclaimed there independence. It seems they did not make it official until 1840. It was called the Rio Grande Republic. They also claimed land in Texas disputed land claim.

Info. on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande

And from this site which has info. the above site does not contain. http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/mx-rgr.html

This another story on the Rio Grande Republic and why Texas President Lamar did not want to support the New Republic while at least one of his Generals disobeyed orders and helped the the New Republic.
http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/riogrande.htm

Map of Rio Grande Republic. Who knows at one point they might have united with Texas if all had gone has planned.





Side note. Texas together with the Mexican State of Coahuila formed one State.
Here more info. on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coahuila_y_Tejas

Map of Coahuila and Texas: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1824-11-18.png

Last edited by Metro; January 11th, 2009 at 09:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 12th, 2009, 07:16 AM
Osakadave Osakadave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro View Post
Edit: Found out that in 1838 three Mexican States located South of Texas proclaimed there independence. It seems they did not make it official until 1840. It was called the Rio Grande Republic. They also claimed land in Texas disputed land claim.


Map of Rio Grande Republic. Who knows at one point they might have united
Ah yes. That could work it's way into some of what I'm thinking.
__________________
The West is Saffaron
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 12th, 2009, 11:56 PM
lothaw lothaw is offline
Texan Nationalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1000 or more
Supposing Mexico formally recognized their full borders, that would put Texas in an interesting position.

Texas had a large amount of European immogrants, basiclly being the only Southern state who can say that. That coupled with a slow, but steady stream of Anglo immigrants from the US would ensure a decent population.

As for Texas expantionialism, it's quite possible Texas could make a land grab. Oklahoma almost for certain, perhaps even Arizona and California. Mirabeau Lamar, the second President of Texas, did actually advocate this.

As for strong foreign ties? Texas was quite friendly with Great Britian. The British Empire was among one of the first to formally recognize their independence if I recall, even before the US. In the event of a second Texan-Mexican war it's quite possible that Britian may unofficially assist Texas along with the US. Filibusters were still common-place at the time and an invasion of Texas would be murder logicisticlly and politically for Mexico. It'd probably also start another round of rebellions since Santa Ana would almost certainly still be running things.

In the event of a Civil War, Texas actually stands to make a fortune. The US wouldn't be blockading their ports meaning they'd be the largest supplier of cotton in the world at the time. Not to mention a shared border with the Confederacy would mean limitless oppurtunity for unofficial trade between the South and the European powers, with Texas skimming off the top.

If Texas makes it into the 1880's they're almost assured independence to the modern day. With the oil rush their status as a local power would be ensured and they'd slowly grow into an ecnomic powerhouse into the modern day. Look at how much oil comes from Texas today.
__________________
"Yall can go to hell, and I'll go to Texas." -Davy Crockett
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 12th, 2009, 11:59 PM
mowque mowque is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to mowque
Quote:
Originally Posted by lothaw View Post
In the event of a Civil War, Texas actually stands to make a fortune. The US wouldn't be blockading their ports meaning they'd be the largest supplier of cotton in the world at the time. Not to mention a shared border with the Confederacy would mean limitless oppurtunity for unofficial trade between the South and the European powers, with Texas skimming off the top.
You don't think the Union would declare war over it?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 13th, 2009, 12:03 AM
lothaw lothaw is offline
Texan Nationalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowque View Post
You don't think the Union would declare war over it?
If they did wouldn't that almost bring Britian and France in on their side? Certainly the government of the Republic would never admit to aiding a rebellious force. I just don't think it would be enough of a casus belli to justify a war without angering the Eurpoean powers.

Instead of risking that the Union would likely just make siezing the Mississippi River their primary objective. That would nullify and Texan economical influence on the war.
__________________
"Yall can go to hell, and I'll go to Texas." -Davy Crockett
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 13th, 2009, 12:45 AM
mowque mowque is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to mowque
Quote:
Originally Posted by lothaw View Post
If they did wouldn't that almost bring Britian and France in on their side? Certainly the government of the Republic would never admit to aiding a rebellious force. I just don't think it would be enough of a casus belli to justify a war without angering the Eurpoean powers.

Instead of risking that the Union would likely just make siezing the Mississippi River their primary objective. That would nullify and Texan economical influence on the war.
Do you mind if we argue this point out? i don't THINK that means we are going to hi-jack the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 13th, 2009, 12:49 AM
lothaw lothaw is offline
Texan Nationalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowque View Post
Do you mind if we argue this point out? i don't THINK that means we are going to hi-jack the thread.
By all means, isn't that what these forums are for? Admittedly we're arguing on a point based on a lot of if's but regardless.
__________________
"Yall can go to hell, and I'll go to Texas." -Davy Crockett
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 13th, 2009, 01:00 AM
mowque mowque is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to mowque
well assuming Texas breaks off and establishes some type of real independence... While i expect warm relations with England and France to follow (as you said) i honestly think the Civil War will be the end.

UK and France will NOT go to war over Texas, for the same reasons that they didn't go to war over the South. Not enough in it for them to fight a war (that i think they'd lose anyway). Too much trade with the North, the possibly of dying British lads in Canada (who knows?) and Texas, dislike of slavery...and for what?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 13th, 2009, 01:05 AM
AuroraBorealis AuroraBorealis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1000 or more
theoretical texas independence.

If not annexed by the US..then Mexico is highly unlikely to recognize anything but their borders not those claimed by Texas. Without Annexation the US simply does not have enough invested to support a War to enforce those borders.

Britain and France may favour Texas independence but they probably have far more invested in Mexico as a whole than simply Texas. So their preferred option would be diplomatic as well rather than supporting any kind of aggrandizement of Texas. Texas will have no choice if they want diplomatic recognition from Mexico but to accept a delimitation of their borders in East Texas only. Once done there is no rational for any kind of war against Mexico. By itself Texas cannot push its claims, and Mexico is probably better placed to enforce their vision of the border.

Gold discovery in California is a long way off yet but its even money that either Mexico assimilates the discovery or the region itself evolves its own independence. The example of Texas already established and the attempt of the Rio Grande republic and perhaps the Yucatan. then its likely Mexico will learn from those mistakes and be able to respond effectively in California. I lean towards the Gold discovery in Mexico being assimilated. It will change Mexican society as well.

As for Texas in the ACW if it occurs, establishing control of the lower Mississippi will be a Union priority as part of the overall attempt to blockade the south. I doubt the Texans will tempt fate by becoming an enemy of the North unless the South appears to be on the verge of victory.

Last edited by AuroraBorealis; January 13th, 2009 at 01:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 13th, 2009, 01:24 AM
lothaw lothaw is offline
Texan Nationalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowque View Post
well assuming Texas breaks off and establishes some type of real independence... While i expect warm relations with England and France to follow (as you said) i honestly think the Civil War will be the end.

UK and France will NOT go to war over Texas, for the same reasons that they didn't go to war over the South. Not enough in it for them to fight a war (that i think they'd lose anyway). Too much trade with the North, the possibly of dying British lads in Canada (who knows?) and Texas, dislike of slavery...and for what?
You may well be right and you could certainly make an arguement for it. The reason Texas wasn't accepted into the Union the first time they petitioned was over the slavery question. Adding another slave state at the time would be undesirable. Establishing Texan independence may quell the expansion of slavery in the US and allow it to slowly die off.

But our arguement was over Texan involvement in the Civil War. Thing of it is, Lincoln wasn't a fool. Strategiclly and politically declaring war on Texas would be suicide for the US.

Strategiclly, it would be another front and a larger foe. Texas fielded 70,000 men for the South in OTL. While only roughly half that number would probably be in an actual field army, it's a force in it's own and would make the war that much harder. Especially since Albert Sibley Johnson would presumably be the general-in-chief of the Texan army.

In OTL Texas was never invaded successfully. It's an isolated area in this time and the logisitics make it even more difficult for an invading army. Plus the possibility of the Texans linking up with the Confederacy and reinforcing their Trans-Mississippi region can't be ignored.

Politically? Declaring war on a country in which you have no territorial claims on or legitimate quarrel? Short of catching the Texans red-handed crossing the Lousiana or Arkansas border how much are they going to be able to prove? Even if they do, all Austin has to do is deny any knowledge. Smugglers are common in all wars.

Regardless of the outcome of the war, Texas stands to gain a fortune running guns in and cotton out of the South. As the South would be even weaker ITTL than OTL even with an open port in essence in the case of Galveston, Texas would probably still be too insignifigant for the Union to get hot and bothered about.

In the case of a declaration of war on Texas at the very least France would be dying to get involved. This is of course presuming they still install Maximillian as Emperor of Mexico ITTL. It was a forgone conclusion that the US would overthrow this regime as soon as the Civil War winds down, which did happen in this timeline.

The wildcard in this scenario, actually this whole topic, is California and the Mexican-American war. Is there a second Texan-Mexican war? Does California achieve independence? What effect does the gold rush have on this? Maybe even the Morons achieve independence?
__________________
"Yall can go to hell, and I'll go to Texas." -Davy Crockett
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 13th, 2009, 08:00 AM
Derek Jackson Derek Jackson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Does not Texan independence butterfly out the Mexican American War/.

Does not this in turn change the terms of the slavery issue. For instance there would be no Kansas Nebraska issue because it would still be Mexican.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 13th, 2009, 10:06 PM
lothaw lothaw is offline
Texan Nationalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1000 or more
Texas remaining independent would butterfly out the Mexican-American war. There might be a war for Californian independence, and if people like Mirabeau Lamar stay in power in Texas, they may very well try annexing California. Lamar did envision Texas expanding all the way to the Pacific.

As for the slavery issue, as I mentioned previously, Texas remaining independent possibily would stop the expansion of slavery. As for Bleeding Kansas, I'm sure some other incident would happen in it's place. People like John Brown just don't give up.
__________________
"Yall can go to hell, and I'll go to Texas." -Davy Crockett
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 14th, 2009, 02:42 AM
Wendell Wendell is offline
Wendell
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lost in what might have been
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Jackson View Post
Does not Texan independence butterfly out the Mexican American War/.

Does not this in turn change the terms of the slavery issue. For instance there would be no Kansas Nebraska issue because it would still be Mexican.
Some other compromise would likely arise in the 1850's, if the U.S. still annexes the southern half of the Oregon Country outright in the 1840's.
__________________
What if?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 14th, 2009, 08:45 AM
yourworstnightmare yourworstnightmare is online now
Trubbelmakare
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tusen Sjöars Land
Posts: 1000 or more
Would be quite fun and cause many butterflies. If Texas get some of their claims sout of Rio Grande, Texan culture would be different too, since there would be a strong Mexican element. Not to mention I would love to see George W. Bush as the president of the sovereign Texan Republic.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.