Texan Pacific Port

[Bexar]

Hello lads and lasses,

I was wondering, with a post 1818 POD, is there any way for a Republic of Texas to get a pacific port, either from California, Sonora, etc.? The port doesn't have to be connect to the state by land, but it does have to be under Texan control.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by Bexar

Hello lads and lasses,

I was wondering, with a post 1818 POD, is there any way for a Republic of Texas to get a pacific port, either from California, Sonora, extra? The port doesn't have to be connect to the state by land, but it does have to be under Texan control.

Hello there, and sadly, no, that would be pretty ASB. Texas wouldn't be the weakest state in North America, but I'd suspect the U.S. would get Sonora long before the Texians could even try.....

[asupackman]

It'd probably be much easier to have a POD where Texas conquers northern Mexico. Also, what could would a Pacific port do Texas if they were seperated from it by Mexico or the U.S.?

[herricks]

i have a TL where Texas was able to secure loans early on from some european nations such as France & Belgium, Lamar wasnt elected president & therefore doesnt destroy Texas's economy fighting the indians, & Texas gets a lot more immigration therefore has a larger population & in the early 1850's fights mexico securing California & New Mexico

[Unconsensual]

Originally Posted by herricks

i have a TL where Texas was able to secure loans early on from some european nations such as France & Belgium, Lamar wasnt elected president & therefore doesnt destroy Texas's economy fighting the indians, & Texas gets a lot more immigration therefore has a larger population & in the early 1850's fights mexico securing California & New Mexico

Alot more immigrants calling to join the union. In all honesty Texas just doesn't have the resources to drive all the way to the Pacific, it barely had enough to defend itself. For this to work you need a POD much further back, of course then you may not have a Texas.

[Sicarius]

Suddenly, John Quincy Adams gets the crazy idea that Andrew Jackson might be a political threat to him. He joins the calls of others in the Monroe administration, and Jackson is censured. Adams-Onís Treaty goes as per OTL, but everyone mad about the borders is even MORE mad about the borders. If only they hadn't forced Jackson to quit, then we have Texas.

Andrew Jackson likes people who like Andrew Jackson, so he heads south and west, along with his friend Sam Houston and nephew John Coffee Hays. Meanwhile, citizens outraged at the treaty are begging to mass in Natchez, Mississippi. After talking to the very persuasive Doctor James Long, Jackson rides into the Natchez camp is overwhelmingly elected leader.

Jackson and four thousand men roll into Spanish Texas and raise hell. Jean Lafitte has seen Jackson beat the Spanish before, and it looks like he's going to do it again. So he pulls a double-cross and joins the rebellion. With more men (and others trickling in daily), more supplies, and more support from the US population, Jackson and friends actually pull it off. In the first election of the Republic of Texas, Jackson runs to replace Acting President Long. He's the only candidate.

After two six year terms, in 1832 Jackson is replaced by his close friend and protege, Houston (no Eliza Allen, no Indian years for Sam). Sam's still in his first term when Mexican President Santa Anna (fuck, how does he always end up in charge?) attacks Texas, looking for an easy foreign punching bag to raise popularity at home.

It fails horribly! Santa Anna comes away claiming the treaty that ended the war was forced, but even if Mexico wants to reclaim its ceded territory (OTL's Mexican Cession, Gadsen, and Baja), it rapidly collapses into an increasingly slapstick series of civil wars. Texas fills up with settlers, especially after the US's shitty civil war starts in 1856 when the south realizes this Missouri Compromise isn't working out so well for them. Texas's lasting love affair with slavery makes it a bit of an international pariah, but more South Africa in 1985 level than North Korea 2012 level. Then the oil boom rolls around - and since the Republic hasn't bothered to change that old Spanish law that gives the sovereign state full ownership of all oil and minerals, they do alright. By 1948, Houston and Jacksonville (San Francisco) are the two largest cities in North America.

[herricks]

Originally Posted by Unconsensual

Alot more immigrants calling to join the union. In all honesty Texas just doesn't have the resources to drive all the way to the Pacific, it barely had enough to defend itself. For this to work you need a POD much further back, of course then you may not have a Texas.

with a larger population Texas would be able to more easily control its disputed land with mexico & a larger population would come in handy when tensions with mexico will inevitably boil over

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by herricks

i have a TL where Texas was able to secure loans early on from some european nations such as France & Belgium, Lamar wasnt elected president & therefore doesnt destroy Texas's economy fighting the indians, & Texas gets a lot more immigration therefore has a larger population & in the early 1850's fights mexico securing California & New Mexico

I seriously don't know how much of that is even plausible.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by asupackman

It'd probably be much easier to have a POD where Texas conquers northern Mexico. Also, what could would a Pacific port do Texas if they were seperated from it by Mexico or the U.S.?

Secession of Northern Mexico perhaps? It transforms itself into a Texan state, like this...


Taken from this thread

[Unconsensual]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

Secession of Northern Mexico perhaps? It transforms itself into a Texan state, snip

Ugh then you'd have a state based on the interests of it's majority Mexican population. It won't join the union nor be anglophone.

[Grey Wolf]

Sure there is, as for any timeline you develop it as it goes along, and it gains its own intrinsic logic and things like this can happen. But IMHO its not really logical to discuss it OUTSIDE of a timeline because as a question in its own right it ignores everything that could happen to make it feasible.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by Unconsensual

Ugh then you'd have a state based on the interests of it's majority Mexican population. It won't join the union nor be anglophone.

who said i had any intention of it joining the union?

[Unconsensual]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

who said i had any intention of it joining the union?

Well then why not have Mexico rename itself Texas, then annex that pesky state north east of the border?

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Unconsensual

Ugh then you'd have a state based on the interests of it's majority Mexican population. It won't join the union nor be anglophone.

Not necessarily, do remember that Northern Mexico was very scarcely populated (even today it has a much lower population than the rest of the country), so if Texas got alot of immigration like the U.S. did and eventually Wins a War with Mexico gaining thje five border states and Baja California then the Mexican population would be a minority.

[Grey Wolf]

What you might be looking for is a Texas-California fusion that swallows the lands in between

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Richter von Manthofen]

a big stretch of land would not be necessary.

Simply find a nice site (in California) and buy it from Mexico and build a new port. Then build a rail through Mexico and connect this port to Texis...