It depends on when California declares independence. If it declares in the 1860s, Mexico would most likely ignore it. Juarez would have been preoccupied with the French invasion. They might try to reintegrate California afterward though. But if Texas force's aid the Mexican army in defeating the French, Juarez may allow Texas to occupy and develop California. If not allow Texas to purchase it.
Republic of Texas remains Independent
- Thread starter Everdarklegion
- Start date
It depends on when California declares independence. If it declares in the 1860s, Mexico would most likely ignore it. Juarez would have been preoccupied with the French invasion. They might try to reintegrate California afterward though. But if Texas force's aid the Mexican army in defeating the French, Juarez may allow Texas to occupy and develop California. If not allow Texas to purchase it.
Why does Texas remain independent? That's the likely point of divergence. Once this is determined, you can start to extrapolate the next steps.
Sam Houston was a strong proponent of annexation, as were the many Southern Democrats who rushed into the Texas Republic to claim free and near-free land. But Houston faced strong anti-annexation winds from the Whigs in the US. They were against bringing in another slave state.
But what if Sam Houston is too badly wounded/killed at San Jacinto, or what if David Crockett misses his appointment with destiny at the Alamo? There were others, like Mirabeau Lamar, who dreamed of a southwestern Texian empire. What if Stephen F Austin had lived, or Lorenzo de Zavala? Several key political figures died in 1836 or 1837 and if they had lived, their vision would have been different than Houston's.
But back to the tin, the most likely reason for Texas to remain independent is for the Whigs to retain the presidency between 1842-1848. Of course, that would have serious repercussions on the US. If the Whigs were successful at blocking Texas Annexation, it would, I think force Texas to court good relationships with Britain and France.
One myth that gets trotted out is that Mexico would come crushing back in and re-annex Texas. Assuming immigration patterns similar or better than OTL, Texas's irregular forces were able to defeat the Mexican army of the era at battles like Battle of Salado Creek and Battle of Hondo River. Also, by 1845, Texas' population was around 3 times larger than it was in 1836. Source. The point is that every year Texas grew stronger. Mexico's problem with invading Texas is the same that existed in 1836. They were at the end of a very long and very poor supply chain. Sure, Mexico could recruit tens of thousands of men to serve in the Mexican army, but until the advent of the Railroad or the ability to control the Gulf of Mexico, they lacked the capacity and logistics to field that army outside of central Mexico.
Of course, Texas suffered from a similar problem. Their failure to capture Santa Fe was tragic but expected, given Texas' poor preparation. The Mier expedition also showed Texas really didn't have the ability to project power outside of its population centers.
My point is that if annexation is off the table, Mexico between 1836 and 1860 is poorly positioned to pose more of a threat than they did in 1841 and 1842 IOTL. @Everdarklegion, if you're interested in developing a timeline, figure out who the president of Texas will be. Then figure out if it is possible for the politics in the US to veer away from the pro-annexation side. Once you do those things, then you can connect the dots to the future.
If you're interested in how I did it (aside from the ASB handwavium that sets up the story), you can see my timeline here: Forget the Alamo - An SI ISOT
Sam Houston was a strong proponent of annexation, as were the many Southern Democrats who rushed into the Texas Republic to claim free and near-free land. But Houston faced strong anti-annexation winds from the Whigs in the US. They were against bringing in another slave state.
But what if Sam Houston is too badly wounded/killed at San Jacinto, or what if David Crockett misses his appointment with destiny at the Alamo? There were others, like Mirabeau Lamar, who dreamed of a southwestern Texian empire. What if Stephen F Austin had lived, or Lorenzo de Zavala? Several key political figures died in 1836 or 1837 and if they had lived, their vision would have been different than Houston's.
But back to the tin, the most likely reason for Texas to remain independent is for the Whigs to retain the presidency between 1842-1848. Of course, that would have serious repercussions on the US. If the Whigs were successful at blocking Texas Annexation, it would, I think force Texas to court good relationships with Britain and France.
One myth that gets trotted out is that Mexico would come crushing back in and re-annex Texas. Assuming immigration patterns similar or better than OTL, Texas's irregular forces were able to defeat the Mexican army of the era at battles like Battle of Salado Creek and Battle of Hondo River. Also, by 1845, Texas' population was around 3 times larger than it was in 1836. Source. The point is that every year Texas grew stronger. Mexico's problem with invading Texas is the same that existed in 1836. They were at the end of a very long and very poor supply chain. Sure, Mexico could recruit tens of thousands of men to serve in the Mexican army, but until the advent of the Railroad or the ability to control the Gulf of Mexico, they lacked the capacity and logistics to field that army outside of central Mexico.
Of course, Texas suffered from a similar problem. Their failure to capture Santa Fe was tragic but expected, given Texas' poor preparation. The Mier expedition also showed Texas really didn't have the ability to project power outside of its population centers.
My point is that if annexation is off the table, Mexico between 1836 and 1860 is poorly positioned to pose more of a threat than they did in 1841 and 1842 IOTL. @Everdarklegion, if you're interested in developing a timeline, figure out who the president of Texas will be. Then figure out if it is possible for the politics in the US to veer away from the pro-annexation side. Once you do those things, then you can connect the dots to the future.
If you're interested in how I did it (aside from the ASB handwavium that sets up the story), you can see my timeline here: Forget the Alamo - An SI ISOT
Deleted member 67076
That's presuming there is a French invasion here (the French/British protectorate of Texas would probably prevent a reform war in Texas as it exerts greater influence south) or there'd be a president Juarez.
As well, where would Texas get the cash and soldiers to buy California? It was incredibly debt ridden by the time the Americans annexed it. If anything its more likely Britain and/or France invade it like they did Mexico for cash way before they think of repeating the Pastry War.
Most of the debt Texas accumulated was due to many failed military expeditions during Lamar's presidency.
If Texas is able to aggressively recruit immigrants, then they may be able to field a small expeditionary force.
As for France, Napoleon 3 wanted Mexico regardless. The US civil war presented the perfect opportunity to invade without US intervention.
Deleted member 67076
Which independence still doesn't by itself remove. The Comanche, other Native tribes, and the threat of Mexico are still around, necessitating heavy spending on the military alongside an extractive based economy subject to boom and bust periods. Having fiat currency in the era is a double edged sword, which weakens confidence (and thus investment) in the economy. The result of these pressures is still likely to be heavy borrowing from abroad, which is fine but it curtails foreign and domestic policy initiatives whenever bankers in London and Paris and Berlin get annoyed.
I hold no doubt the Republic of Texas would not be able to obtain a substantial amount of immigrants. But I do think it would be less than under American rule, principally for financial and security reasons. Aggressive campaigns for immigration are expensive, and not having the name brand of the US to help out.
You can get a client state without a military intervention as Argentina proves. I'd argue if the state of Texas is under greater pressure Parisian banks that makes it more likely for that similar amount of influence to be in Mexico once the second Federal Republic begins (exact timing of which is likely butterflied away).
That said I'm a bit sceptical of open military actions without the American Civil War happening at the same time, and I don't know how the absence of Texas and the subsequent Mexican American War as we know would impact the political dimension in the country.
[QUOTE="Soverihn,
That said I'm a bit sceptical of open military actions without the American Civil War happening at the same time, and I don't know how the absence of Texas and the subsequent Mexican American War as we know would impact the political dimension in the country.[/QUOTE]
If Texas remains Independent, the Mexican- American War doesn't happen in 1845. This war is pivotal in US history. It led to the civil war in 1861. Without the Mexican- American War, no bleeding Kansas, Missouri doesn't erupt into a state scaled civil war. Instead Polk most likely turns his attention to the Oregon Territories and a third war with the British begins in 1846. It's hard to say if the Civil War begins in 1861 or not. If it does, it'll be over completely different circumstances. The CSA might have never existed. I agree that if Texas is able to contribute to any war effort, it will only be seen as a token gesture. Texas would not be able to field any military of significant numbers to be a asset to any war effort. The earliest I can see Texas having any kind of effective military is late 1860s early 1870s. In Our Timeline in 1861 Texas only had a population of about 700,000. If the Republic can increase it's population to 1 million by 1861 and adopted a military doctrine based on what the Texas Rangers would be famous for by this time, they could be a effective military.
That said I'm a bit sceptical of open military actions without the American Civil War happening at the same time, and I don't know how the absence of Texas and the subsequent Mexican American War as we know would impact the political dimension in the country.[/QUOTE]
If Texas remains Independent, the Mexican- American War doesn't happen in 1845. This war is pivotal in US history. It led to the civil war in 1861. Without the Mexican- American War, no bleeding Kansas, Missouri doesn't erupt into a state scaled civil war. Instead Polk most likely turns his attention to the Oregon Territories and a third war with the British begins in 1846. It's hard to say if the Civil War begins in 1861 or not. If it does, it'll be over completely different circumstances. The CSA might have never existed. I agree that if Texas is able to contribute to any war effort, it will only be seen as a token gesture. Texas would not be able to field any military of significant numbers to be a asset to any war effort. The earliest I can see Texas having any kind of effective military is late 1860s early 1870s. In Our Timeline in 1861 Texas only had a population of about 700,000. If the Republic can increase it's population to 1 million by 1861 and adopted a military doctrine based on what the Texas Rangers would be famous for by this time, they could be a effective military.
In 1836 at the time of the Texas revolution, the Texian population was about 38,000, about 6,000 of which were slaves. By and large most of the 1836 population had come from southern slave states, and one of the primary reasons for the revolution, at least for many Texians, was to insure the protection of slavery. After winning its independence, the population continued to grow fairly slowly (about 8,000 to 10,000 people a year), so that by 1845, the overall population was about 120,000. Again most of the growth came from southern slave states. At that point the number of Germans, other Europeans, or new arrivals from Mexico was quite small in comparison. Almost all of the political power in 1845 was in the hands of slave owners who had migrated from slave states and one of their primary reasons for moving to Texas was the promise that it would become a part of the US as a slave state. Once it was annexed, then the number of people migrating from the US (again almost all of which came from slave states) really exploded: 20,000+ a year in the second half of the 1840s, and 40,000 a year in the 1850s.
If the US does not annex Texas in 1845, then I don't think we would have seen the population growth that annexation brought about. As someone above mentioned, I think you see many of the wealthy slaveowners, moving back to the US. If Texas continues to remain broke and unstable, then there will be even fewer Germans and other Europeans being enticed to Texas in the late 1840s and 1850s. Incidentally, between 1848 and 1860, approximately 25,000 Germans migrated to Texas, while at least 5 times that many migrated to Wisconsin. The Germans were anti slavery for the most part and places like Wisconsin had plenty of cheap land for German farmers. Texas was making sure its best lands stayed in the hands of large slaveowners and the largely anti slavery Germans were promised good land but actually received very marginal lands, much of it West of San Antonio. Even without annexation, slaveowners in Texas will still hold most of the political power and their policies will inhibit most of the growth needed to stabilize the Republic and allow it to prosper.
I think in order for a Texas Republic to thrive and prosper, then political power would have to be out of the hands of slave owners into the hands of small farmers and immigrants and the non slaveholding urban dwellers. Then free or cheap land with good soils could be provided to other small farmers and immigrants. Industrialization could be encouraged, instead of being discouraged. Then maybe an independent Texas could make it.
If the US does not annex Texas in 1845, then I don't think we would have seen the population growth that annexation brought about. As someone above mentioned, I think you see many of the wealthy slaveowners, moving back to the US. If Texas continues to remain broke and unstable, then there will be even fewer Germans and other Europeans being enticed to Texas in the late 1840s and 1850s. Incidentally, between 1848 and 1860, approximately 25,000 Germans migrated to Texas, while at least 5 times that many migrated to Wisconsin. The Germans were anti slavery for the most part and places like Wisconsin had plenty of cheap land for German farmers. Texas was making sure its best lands stayed in the hands of large slaveowners and the largely anti slavery Germans were promised good land but actually received very marginal lands, much of it West of San Antonio. Even without annexation, slaveowners in Texas will still hold most of the political power and their policies will inhibit most of the growth needed to stabilize the Republic and allow it to prosper.
I think in order for a Texas Republic to thrive and prosper, then political power would have to be out of the hands of slave owners into the hands of small farmers and immigrants and the non slaveholding urban dwellers. Then free or cheap land with good soils could be provided to other small farmers and immigrants. Industrialization could be encouraged, instead of being discouraged. Then maybe an independent Texas could make it.
Deleted member 67076
Tell that to the Republic of Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatan, The New Mexico Revolt, the Zacatecas Uprising, the Sonoran Revolt, the Tabasco Revolt, and the chunk of Coahuilia that also revolted with Texas.
Check out my earlier response vis a vis this very issue.
Context matters. The Republic of Yucatan was subsumed back into Mexico proper due to their own internal problems with the Caste War. The issues with Yucatan had more to do with how Spanish speaking Mexicans treated the indigenous Mayans than anything else.
The Rio Grande Republic, the Sonoran Revolt and the Coahuila were sparsely populated during this period, and closer to central Mexico than Texas. The New Mexico Revolt was largely fought by New Mexicans on both sides. I've not found sources showing substantial aid being received by Governor Armijo in putting down the rebellion in New Mexico.
Logistics matter and the fact is that it is hard for a pre-industrial society (re: pre-railroads) to project power, because as Napoleon figured out when Moscow was burning down around him that logistics matter.
Mexico struggled to truly control the territory outside of the central part of the nation during the early to mid 19th century. And as I mentioned, Texas was utterly incompetent at projecting power outside of its population centers, but the reasons for both are remarkably similar.
Deleted member 67076
Neither does California. Nor can Texas project power that far without railroads and a sufficient population base.
Of which, I'm speaking towards the notion that California will split off on its own or that the Republic of Texas can project power into California and conquer it.
marathag
Banned
From the Wiki on Mexican forces before the War
Prior to the Mexican–American War the Californio forces had routed the Mexican-appointed Governor Manuel Micheltorena and most of his forces from Alta California. The Californio Governor Pio Pico, had about 100 poorly armed and poorly equipped soldiers, and was nominally in charge in Alta California; he consolidated his forces in Pueblo de Los Angeles—the then-largest city in California with about 1,500 residents.[1]:
Not a lot there.
With a Republic of Texas and no Mexican-American War in 1846, California shambles on till Gold is discovered: Texas won't be the one to take advantage of that. Mexico won't be taking advantage. The US will be the one taking advantage of a later *Bear Flag Republic.
The Mexicans and Texans will be in a military standoff, tying up each other forces, staring at each other across the Rio Grande, whith the USN could swoop in at any time, and recognize that new Republic before either of those two found out what happened. Fremont will still be doing his Pathfinding in the early 1840s
IMO it's difficult to imagine the US not annexing Texas eventually. If you take a POD earlier than 1836, you can balkanize the US and that might solve the problem (assuming this doesn't butterfly away Texas or an Alt-Texas) . It wasn't guaranteed that the thirteen colonies would successfully unify, for example.
It depends on which party is in control of the presidency and Congress. The Whigs were not fans of annexation for the most part. Also, men like Mirabeau Lamar had fantasies of a Southwest empire (we'll call it the Walker syndrome).
Also, the farther away you get from the POD, the more butterflies muddy the water. It's reasonable to assume that with every decade of successful of independence the odds on annexation go down.
As I mentioned, for the republic of texas to remain independent, the earlier the POD the greater the odds. I'd probably remove Sam Houston and replace him with someone else. Keep Stephen F. Austin alive or have David Crockett miss his destiny at the Alamo and you'd certainly have a different politic situation in Texas.
The Stars at Night: A Texas Timeline
&
Lone Star Republic TL
I hope you enjoy these two takes on an enduring Lone Star Republic.
In the US Mexican War, California was effectively liberated by accident by Fremont et al. Later, the Mexicans rallied in the South until hit by the Mormons. I could see possibly a division between North (with lots of US settlers) and South (able to draw supplied from Mexico) but I can't see Mexico reasserting control of the North without macro political ramifications
The US- Mexican relations would be interesting in this situation. If the US is able to take all of the Oregon Territories from the British in 1846, the US might not be as interested in California as in our TL. That would change after the discovery of gold. I can see a Mexican- American War in the late 1860s early 1870s. The US would probably win and take all the land west of Santa Fe, all of California most likely including the Baja peninsula.