Texian Military

Straha

Banned
how big is texas? Does it control the areas that IOTL went to the USA+the northern tier of mexican states and Baja??
 
Hmmm....I'd assume that the military would be a volunteer force initially, probably worried about the Mexicans. Their navy would be committed to protecting trade in the Gylf of Mexico. I think that as time goes on, Texas may try to become a Caribbean and Latin American power, maybe creating a very good Marine Corps. But in the 19th century, Texas's military will be small, but they'll probably become an American power in their own right. In this timeline, it would be interesting to see if there is a Civil War as IOTL, or if it's avoided.
 
I think that the Republic of Texas, if it did not join the United States, is likely, in 2004, to include OTL Texas, eastern New Mexico (E of Rio Grande), southeast Colorado (E of Rio Grande and S of Arkansas River), southern Oklahoma (incl. lands south of the Canadian [at maximum] and the panhandle).

It would have a population of say 25 - 30 million.

The military would be along the lines of OTL Poland, Canada, Australia, Spain, or the Netherlands. Maybe a small aircraft carrier (certainly not nuclear), 4 - 5 small submarines (like the Russian Kilo class), a sizable force of destroyers and frigates, a small Air Force with maybe 100 - 200 aircraft, a regular army with maybe 3 Infantry divisions, 1 - 2 armored brigades, 1 - 2 mech. infantry brigades, and a sizable force of reservists. A maximum military size for the RoT would be along the lines of Taiwan.

P.S. I know it's popular but George Bush could NOT be the President. He was born in CT.
 

Straha

Banned
who says that in the early 20th century before either bush was born the bush family moves to texas? then we could get president bush of the republic of texas
 
Well, I'm assuming that you don't change too much otherwise Bush will be a nonentity. If you have the elder Bush move, he would 1) not be eligable to be the President of the RoT and 2) he most likely will not meet Barbara in the first place. You must have him move in between the time he met his wife and the time the younger Bush was born. The chances of all this falling into place border on the impossible. Even if it is to happen, without the influence of the elder former President, the younger Bush will end up going nowhere.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Well, its a good question that has been resurrected at least :)

Were the Texas Rangers volunteer only ?

The navy was quite a professional force, tho Sam Houston didn't like it. After his rule, one assumes it would have been built back up again

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Seems the Texas Rangers were paid a monthly wage. Interestingly, their founder specified that the Rangers could exchange their salary for land grants every month.
 
Doesn't Texas have loadsa oil?
If so wouldn't it be quite rich?
And if so, wouldn't lots of other nations interfere?
And if so, wouldn't Texas need a big military to defend itself?
 
Doesn't Texas have loadsa oil?
If so wouldn't it be quite rich?
And if so, wouldn't lots of other nations interfere?
And if so, wouldn't Texas need a big military to defend itself?

If they would get the sufficient tech for oil drilling in the 20. century... why not ? They'd gradually become something like a North American version of Venezuela or similiar. Smaller state, but with one of the biggest reserves of a precious fossile fuel in the world.

As for the military, I agree with comparing them to OTL Poland or Spain. Pretty realistic.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Doesn't Texas have loadsa oil?
If so wouldn't it be quite rich?
And if so, wouldn't lots of other nations interfere?
And if so, wouldn't Texas need a big military to defend itself?

True, but at first it was something of an economic basket-case. There would be a period of exploration, investment etc which would PROBABLY come from foreign companies, though some investors from the USA might move to set up their business there permanently.

It would need to get through the "Mexico" phase safely - where Mexico had its mineral wealth in foreign hands, loads of loans to foreign banks, and constant intervention from foreign countries after repayment

Maybe it would even need to nationalise existing businesses, but it would probably be able to raise funds a government to set up a state oil exploration and exploitation corporation, and thus keep a good percentage in its hands, and just pay off the start-up loans over time

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
So what your saying is that there wouldn't be enough money left to build a large military?
How would this effect the USA? Surely the USA without Texas is going to get more involved (some would say interfer) with other oil rich countries to protect its own interests?
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
So what your saying is that there wouldn't be enough money left to build a large military?
How would this effect the USA? Surely the USA without Texas is going to get more involved (some would say interfer) with other oil rich countries to protect its own interests?

I'm thinking there wouldn't be the money left at the period that its most necessary.

By the time the revenues really come through would be after the danger period

US has oil in Oklahoma as well IIRC. In this scenario the fields there would be in competition with those in neighbouring Texas

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I don't think Texas would be very popolous under these circumstances. Texas was rather sparsely populated until at least the 1920s OTL, and only internal migration within the US due to economical possibilities during and after ww2 increased the population to what it is today. Why would people migrate to Texas? Mexico and the states of the south had relatively little immigration compared to the north (that was why there was such a population difference 1860). I see Texas running the risk of becoming a Venezuela of the north rather than any kind of industrialised powerhouse (I don't think there's coal and iron to fuel an early industrialisation process, is there?).
 
If Texas doesn't join the Union, Then the Compromise of 1850 will be a lot different,
# California was entered as a free state.
No Mexican/American /war =California not part of US
# New Mexico and Utah were each allowed to use popular sovereignty to decide the issue of slavery. In other words, the people would pick whether the states would be free or slave.
See California above
# The Republic of Texas gave up lands that it claimed in present day New Mexico and received $10 million to pay its debt to Mexico.
Independent Texas has no reason to give up it's western claims.
# The slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia.
This would be bitterly opposed by the Slave States, as the first step on the slippery slope.
# The Fugitive Slave Act made any federal official who did not arrest a runaway slave liable to pay a fine. This was the most controversial part of the Compromise of 1850 and caused many abolitionists to increase their efforts against slavery.
This may be the only bit that pass ITTL. It would be the High water Mark of Southern Power in Congress.
I see a much more bitter 1850's in the US, and more of a - let the Bastards leave- attitude in the North. Maybe even a - Kick them Out - attitude among some.

However this will not affect Texas Much, It's military will be involved with Fighting Indians [Comanches, Apaches, Navahos, ] in it's western territories,
It will also be preparing to refight Mexico, as it struggles and probably fails to pay it's debt to Mexico.
The Army would consist of a few very professional soldiers, who spend their time fighting Indians, and a large volunteer Militia, about the size that Texas raised in the ACW.

Early Texas will not has the recourses to expand the navy beyond the two or three ships it started with.
The Navy will start/function more as a coast guard, and that would be the tradition that would set the rules even after the oil money starts coming in.
 
Top