AH Discussion-Texas: Mexico's Quebec?

It's a question that's been on my mind for a while. We all know that Quebec is quite a bit different compared the rest of Canada, including even part of its provincial legal system, as well as the bilingualism, and not to mention the culture, etc.

My question is, what would it take for a Mexican Texas to end up in this same situation, that is, in which the majority speak a language that is a minority elsewhere in the country, and also has a unique culture, and even has a slightly different legal system compared to other states?

Bonus points if Mexico is a republic as per OTL.
 
It's a question that's been on my mind for a while. We all know that Quebec is quite a bit different compared the rest of Canada, including even part of its provincial legal system, as well as the bilingualism, and not to mention the culture, etc.

My question is, what would it take for a Mexican Texas to end up in this same situation, that is, in which the majority speak a language that is a minority elsewhere in the country, and also has a unique culture, and even has a slightly different legal system compared to other states?

Bonus points if Mexico is a republic as per OTL.

It's certainly a neat idea; given a way to butterfly the Texan Revolution, I suspect that Texas would be far more Anglo than Hispano up at least till the 20th. Century. How to do it? I guess if you were to have Texas be settled by non-slaveholders or Mexico not push the issue, you might see less discontent with the central government. Even that wouldn't be enough, though; you'd have to have Mexico recognize English language and law legitimacy in the region a la Quebec's status in Canada. My suggestion; get rid of Santa Anna. Granted, that's one of the first things on my "better Mexico" checklist regardless of the context, but I think it holds up. At the least, no Caesar tinpot wannabes in Mexico City making things shitty for everyone else!
 
My suggestion; get rid of Santa Anna. Granted, that's one of the first things on my "better Mexico" checklist regardless of the context, but I think it holds up. At the least, no Caesar tinpot wannabes in Mexico City making things shitty for everyone else!
I agree. Austin was a well-respected leader among Texans, trying to peacefully petition the Mexican government to rescind its frankly-stupid policies - but then Santa Anna's government rejected his petition, and he returned supporting revolution.
 
It's a question that's been on my mind for a while. We all know that Quebec is quite a bit different compared the rest of Canada, including even part of its provincial legal system, as well as the bilingualism, and not to mention the culture, etc.

My question is, what would it take for a Mexican Texas to end up in this same situation, that is, in which the majority speak a language that is a minority elsewhere in the country, and also has a unique culture, and even has a slightly different legal system compared to other states?

Bonus points if Mexico is a republic as per OTL.
Many in the U.S. and among the Settlers were itching to an annexation. I agree that smarter leadership in Mexico City and less ham-fisted centralization would make it rather harder to pull off, but Quebec was far more isolated from France and french ambitions than Texas is from the Yanquis.
 
have the mexicans beat decisively the anglo settlers but, realising the cost and danger of trying to move out that population, have the government offer some reasonable peace terms, allowing them a limited level of autonomy.
 
Even that wouldn't be enough, though; you'd have to have Mexico recognize English language and law legitimacy in the region a la Quebec's status in Canada.

This would be essential, but I couldn't see Mexico (or many other countries for that matter) doing that. The key distinction is that in Quebec, the Canadiens were a conquered people and the British needed to find a way to pacify them after many decades of conflict, whereas in Texas, English-speakers simply moved in to what had been a Spanish-speaking (albeit very thinly populated) territory.

Countries will sometimes extend an olive branch to newly-conquered subjects who are forced to live under their rule, but they generally aren't interested in changing their own laws to accommodate people who have voluntarily immigrated there.
 
This would be essential, but I couldn't see Mexico (or many other countries for that matter) doing that. The key distinction is that in Quebec, the Canadiens were a conquered people and the British needed to find a way to pacify them after many decades of conflict, whereas in Texas, English-speakers simply moved in to what had been a Spanish-speaking (albeit very thinly populated) territory. Countries generally aren't interested in changing their own laws to accommodate people who have voluntarily immigrated there.

probably not country wide but in a localised region, they might allow certain concession if it means peace. Think for example of many countries that are officially of one language but allow government services to be given in some others to facilitate matters.
 
have the mexicans beat decisively the anglo settlers but, realising the cost and danger of trying to move out that population, have the government offer some reasonable peace terms, allowing them a limited level of autonomy.

probably not country wide but in a localised region, they might allow certain concession if it means peace. Think for example of many countries that are officially of one language but allow government services to be given in some others to facilitate matters.

That makes sense to me, TBH. :)
 
Top