RuneGloves
Banned
And there could be Anglo migration there, so those settlers would be able to defend themselves.Texas was able to defend itself, which is quite a different matter from marching into Mexico and dictating terms.
There would be multiple colonies nearby the border, and they would mostly likely have troops, as most British colonies did. For example, almost all of British Australasia had naval forces, so colonial military capability was no joke.In fact attempts by Texas to enforce their more outlandish and speculative land claims (that is, on the lands between the Nueces and the Rio Grande) entirely failed. Conquering those lands and the rest of the Southwest depended on the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army stepping in and doing it, with colonial provincial troops proving mostly as useless as they ever had.
So in the timeframe of 1850, these colonies would have a population size similar to Britain, a great power, and have access to all of it's advantages. So even if London, thousands of miles away, ignores their own population & money interests, colonials stand a fair chance against Mexico, just as they did against Britain in 1776, albiet with a equal population to Britain.
There was no worthwhile interests there otl, nothing of considerable value in comparison to owning the southwest. Which from a settler persepctive has good land and is low populated.As for "randomly betraying," it would be more like, "London is attempting to build up relations with Mexico for the benefit of merchants in London and so that it doesn't need to waste attention on America when it could be focused on more important areas". This was not exactly an unimportant motivation for Britain IOTL...
No it doesn't. Settlers were immigrating West constantly, in Appalachia without British consent, in Indian lands without consent from natives or DC, in Canada, in Texas, in California.Are they? The Texas Revolution was a very contingent happening, and many aspects of this PoD could easily derail them.
In terms of raw power, Mexico was not a great power, or high standing militarily. Britain was, and this is downstreamed to the colonies, especially such highly developed ones in North America. Colonials would have a fair number of ex-military from the Army, as well as their own experienced forces.Besides the options of the Mexican Revolution simply not happening to begin with or the differing abolition of slavery eliminating or greatly altering the motivation to emigrate, there are major possibilities for changing the details of Mexico's political situation and leadership. Santa Anna was born in 1794, well after the PoD, for example, so it's completely possible that Mexican leadership is much more competent and there is no revolution in the first place or the rebels are easily crushed militarily. It is very far from certain that there would be a Texas Revolution, that it would succeed, or that it would ultimately result in Texas joining British North America (London would certainly have the final word on that, if nothing else), much less conquering the entire Southwest.
"Some feelings" It was a major cause in the revolution.And, sure, there might have been some feelings of "manifest destiny" that originated in the 18th century,
Half of this Britain's population is located in North America. It's a fair assumption it's focus towards Europe would be disrupted.but if the United States had remained part of Britain and thus had less of sense of its own specialness and more orientation towards Europe,
Most likely more importance than otl. It's not just a small amount of Canadians pushing west, but the 13 colonies population too.it is very likely that this attitude would have had less importance in the culture of the area.