Lone Star Republic
- Thread starter Kaiser Chris
- Start date
Texas proper may not border the Pacific, but California (which is a Commonwealth of Texas ITTL) most certainly does.
Because California is part of the Republic, and it does border the Pacific?
EDIT:
Whoops, I didn't see that Roger Redux had already answered the question. Sorry.
EDIT:
Whoops, I didn't see that Roger Redux had already answered the question. Sorry.
Last edited:
Only if Texas keeps Hawaii as a client state.
other than that I don't see the Hawaiian monarchy sticking around.
For Texas' Westpoint equivalent might I suggest it be named in honor of James Neill, the commander at the Alamo who died there? A hero-martyr of the Revolution who would probably not inspire any real partisan controversy over being used. Was he the first Texan military commander to die in action ITTL?
I highly doubt it.
The idea of the DR getting annexed is tied to the the OTL events in the countries politics where its leaders felt they needed an outside ruler to recover from Haitian rule/their revolution and to protect against a possible Haitian return. The Texans being invited in is one thing, an outright invasion is another.
The USA alone would use all the pressure it could muster short of war I expect. They don't want Texas getting stringer in a region they see as their sphere. And while they might accept the DR grudgingly falling as the Texans 'pulled a fast one' diplomatically they would not let outright conquest of a sovereign nation fly. Not when its such a good excuse to protest with teeth.
Also Haiti has history behind it. Haiti is the second oldest post colonial state in the Americas. its not like the freshly minted republic the Yucatan gobbled.
Another matter with the USA is I expect in addition to American imperialists that the newly rising African American politicians, with clout from the Black States, would oppose the conquest of Haiti by a 'White Nation'.
Also just consider the Haitian people's record in resisting invasion. I don't think any Texan commander would like at that and be eager.
The most I could see is a very clearly temporary occupation of Haiti to set up a more democratic(proTexas) government.
The idea of the DR getting annexed is tied to the the OTL events in the countries politics where its leaders felt they needed an outside ruler to recover from Haitian rule/their revolution and to protect against a possible Haitian return. The Texans being invited in is one thing, an outright invasion is another.
The USA alone would use all the pressure it could muster short of war I expect. They don't want Texas getting stringer in a region they see as their sphere. And while they might accept the DR grudgingly falling as the Texans 'pulled a fast one' diplomatically they would not let outright conquest of a sovereign nation fly. Not when its such a good excuse to protest with teeth.
Also Haiti has history behind it. Haiti is the second oldest post colonial state in the Americas. its not like the freshly minted republic the Yucatan gobbled.
Another matter with the USA is I expect in addition to American imperialists that the newly rising African American politicians, with clout from the Black States, would oppose the conquest of Haiti by a 'White Nation'.
Also just consider the Haitian people's record in resisting invasion. I don't think any Texan commander would like at that and be eager.
The most I could see is a very clearly temporary occupation of Haiti to set up a more democratic(proTexas) government.
Last edited:
And if Cuba becomes a state Puerto Rico is likely to follow.
That may be why the term Dixie is used more ITTL, the term the South or Southern would include the Caribbean Island states. So instead you use Dixie for the OTL South.
I expect there has been with the influx in European immigrants. I expect though their numbers aren't nearly as big as the other groups. Texas has a reputation I expect as a more 'Catholic Country' attracting groups from those countries, and even some Irish Americans. Also as they haven't been mentioned yet I am guessing they are either lumped in with their countries of origin in the outlook or too small in numbers to gain political attention.
So if Toombs is in Havana, and the Americans get control of Cuba. why is a Texas Ranger in Cuba?
Last edited:
My guess is that the DR rebels opposing Texas will be suspected of operating out of other isles including Cuba; possibly in collusion with Cuban rebels against Spain. The Rangers aren't military so the Spanish colonial authority may let a small Ranger force in the country to investigate in conjunction with Spanish authorities. After all it would amount to the Texans helping the Spanish and Spain may try to cultivate good will with Texas as it becomes more active in the Sea.
Then the Rangers get an incorrect lead on an arms deal stumbling on a Southern Diehard conspiracy headed by Toombs. A historic drama movie adaptation ITTL in the making.
That is my theory.
There has been some Jewish immigration to Texas, but the thing is that most Jews who go leave Europe and go to the Americas head towards the United States as there's more of a guarantee for success in the urban centers such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, etc., over the rough frontier which can make or break a man and his family. There's been thousands of Jewish Texans at this point, with most of them congregating in Texan cities such as San Francisco, Galveston, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, etc. I would say that the population at most would be between 10,000-20,000. Because of the low population numbers, no one besides the most bigoted in Texas really cares about the Jews and a Jewish Texan would more than likely be mistaken for a German or a Czech, unless they come into contact with said ethnic groups. A large Jewish minority wont happen until Texas begins to truly industrialize, yet proportionally to the rest of Texas, their numbers will be too insignificant to cause any conflicts or allow Jewish Texans to obtain any great political or economic power.
I would've updated in the last week but the flu has been spreading across campus in the last week and I've been having hellish congestion issues. Thus I've mostly been bedridden in my free time and haven't had any creative juices flowing. I am taking medication now so hopefully I can write something soon.
Ack, sorry to hear that. Rest up and take of yourself, the TL can dang well wait.
Hmm, continuing thoughts of the ITTL Spanish American War:
Even before Toombs is discovered I think there will be tension. in part because the Radical Republicans abolitionist agenda will be offended by the slavery colony across the straits. The RRs have little to lose pushing such with Texas now a free nation, Brazil is too far away and not tied to the USA enough to be a concern right now. the Black States would be natural allies to this. Then beyond party lines you would just have the nationalists and imperialists who want to expand the Union, period.
And of course like OTL I expect there will be a lot of outcry in the American public over the methods used by Colonial authorities against rebels. Yellow Journalism also playing its role in all likelihood.
Then the DR joins the Lone Star Republic, and the American nationalists flip out. Because prior to the ACW most Americans I think regarded Texas much like Quebec, a little brother of sorts. Proud of their achievements, befuddled by their choices(Seguin and the ICA) but still not in the same league. But now Texas had withstood a lot in the Mexican War, and helped France seize Veracruz in the Post War order.
Not only is Texas moving on its own against American interests they think, but the French are showing they can still make waves in the New World. Things like the Southwest Pact and French influence in Central America suddenly get cast in a new light. The USA it seems is not just inevitable in dominating the region they now think.
Now a lot of this is paranoia, for one we know France even after Veracruz is looking more to Asia and Africa for colonial ventures. And that Austin and Merida are in no way Paris' lackeys each serving their own agenda under the umbrella of alliance. But a perceived threat motivates much as a real one. And so the imperialist/nationalists in America, Cuba can't just be left hanging, lest it get snatched away by the 'French crowd'.
And once Toombs is found its seized on these various forces as a catalyst for war. Basically they claim only two possibilities exist, either Spain is so incompetent they let a neo Confederate Force grow under their watch, or they deliberately harbored an international criminal and possibly aided his terrorist plots. All of this propaganda of course implying Cuba is practically crawling with diehards ready to cross the straits, seize Florida and kick off round two of the ACW.
So with the public whipped up in anger and fear the American government issues an ultimatum, for the Spanish to allow a significant American military force onto Cuba to end this threat to American security. this is framed as the least Spain can do, proving their lack of ill intent toward the USA. If they refuse its presented as proof they are treacherous or apathetic to America's peril. The Spanish of course are outraged that after turning over the archtraitor Toombs to the USA, they are commanded to allow their territory be invaded by American forces!
What Spain does at that point would matter little, as the USA is determined for war, so anything less than complete submission to the demands will lead to war.
That's my theory.