Search results

Congrats!

There was a series a few years ago called Confederate Union by Alan Sewell, that postulated this very idea. I read the first book and then couldn't really get through the second one. I thought the writer's concept was well organized at least as far as the start of the series. But the further...

I wanted to build on this. Before it was renamed Ciuadad Juarez, the official name of the town on the southern side of the Rio Grande was El Paso del Norte. It was a much larger town throughout the 19th century than the el paso come lately on the northern side of the river. Usually the town in...

Above anything else discussed, this is going to depend on the manner of a CSA victory (however unlikely an event that would be). For instance, a CSA victory in which the Glorietta Pass campaign turned out differently could result in different borders than one in which the Union turned back the...

That has my vote. :biggrin:

Not so much. What broke the Germans was the long-term presence of allied armies AND the utter commitment by the US to rebuild Germany. Think you for a second that had the Allies simply put a boot on the German people's neck while leaving their country in ruins that the post-Versaille victim game...

This issue gets unpacked regularly with similar arguments trundled out. A particularly robust set of pro and con got a pretty thorough vetting in this thread last year. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/how-radical-can-reconstruction-get.424723

You're not the first person to wonder about that. I read a book a number of years ago about this very idea. It was called The Wild Blue and the Gray. I think it's out of print now, but here's the link to its Amazon page. As I recall, it was a pretty good read.

Our own forum's Jeffery Brooks' Shattered Nation does a good job of providing an entertaining possible scenario where the South wins. It's a good read. History is full of implausible situations. Circumstances where if you flipped the coin 100 times, only 1 of them would bring about the reality...

He was one of four generals (IIRC) with the army. It could work out the way you speculate. That raises the question of what would become of the six hundred + prisoners Houston's army held. Holding the prisoners reduces Houston's mobility, which was one thing he ruthlessly exploited in the...

I doubt it. Many of the most rabid elements that were looking to unite Texas with what we think of as the Republic of the Rio Grande died at Goliad or before. The longer the war, the more US centric Texas will become (if that's even possible) because the men and material are coming heavily from...

You're right about the proximity of Filosola's force. For reasons I'll chalk up to my faulty memory, I thought more of the Mexican army was west of the Colorado River. I did find an interesting source of information. Here's a dissertation that details the Mexican army's movement through Texas...

Without Santa Anna, there is no treaty of Velasco. That's a problem, in and of itself. But given than neither Texas nor Mexico ever ratified the treaty... maybe not so much. Urrea was probably Mexico's best general in the field, but he was under the command of Filosola, who demonstrated no...

Or the two thousand or so Americans that would have joined the Texian army throughout the rest of 1836 coalesce under a new general. Maybe even Albert Sidney Johnston, and with a wink, wink from General Gaines and a couple of hundred "deserters" from the US army, they draw the Mexican army into...

Something else worth remembering is that by the end of 1836 the Texian army totaled around 3,000. Before San Jacinto perhaps 500 to 1000 Americans had already slipped into Texas to aid the Revolution (speaking strictly fillibuster types... not settlers). More than 2,000 more were on the way or...

I don't think the war happens as it did. Too much would be butterflied away. BUT, sectional strife was a certainty IMO. I think there's a possibility that a successful two terms of a Clay Presidency could result in a stronger, more unified Whig party. It's not outside the bounds of consideration...

From your lips to God's ears. The problem is that even by 1846, the democratic machine was already a going concern in Texas. The immigration patters of the prior decade had ensured staunch Democratic leanings. I can see why you'd think the way you do. Geographically located outside the deep...

Maybe I'm too Machiavellian, but with Polk as president, the Whigs were ill-disposed to support the war. They saw it as a Democratic ploy to expand the slave states' interests. Flip the coin, if Clay, as president, builds consensus for the war, then the Whig newspapers would be predisposed to...

It's more than that. Conflict over the Nueces Strip was going to happen if annexed. We can criticize Polk for sending Taylor into the Nueces Strip and bringing about a battle in the disputed area, but a battle won by the US regulars was preferable to Polk than a battle between Texas militia or...

North and South were heading toward conflict, no matter who was in the White House. Their goals were too different. Annexation was the vehicle but it wasn't the fuel.