[AHC]Texas and California remain Independent; Give them colonies

Assume that the Republics of California and Texas forever remain independent instead of joining the US (however unlikely).
 
It seems like the most obvious colonies are Hawaii for California and Cuba for Texas. Based on OTL they probably wouldn't remain colonies indefinitely though. If you want more, that will be difficult.

The Oregon territory is a possible avenue for expansion for California, but it really is limited to the pacific. Maybe the Philippines, or some other part of south east asia or indonesia, but I doubt it. At the time there was an opportunity to expand via economic deals, like singapore, California didn't have the kind of organization needed. Later when they had more people and infrastructure they still would be lacking compared to OTL USA, so I'm not convinced they would have the necessary power projection.

Mexico is a possible place for expansion for both, especially if they work together. But again, that is territory that will simply become more states, if they can hold it. Texas does have a few more options for expansion, but honestly, they all seem like awful choices. Haiti would be generations of rebellions and gruellias, and anything in Africa during the scramble would strain their power projection to the point that any of the European empires could just snatch it up. Maybe central america? Go Knights of the golden circle, and try and turn the carribean into a slave lake. Without the rest of the south/CSA I doubt it, even with it I still doubt it.
 
California would want to take advantage of its location and trade with Asia, and act as a bridge between Asian and North American trade.

So they would be competing with the US (that's if the US has a Pacific coast ITTL) for the same colonies that the US acquired in OTL.
 
Maybe the government of Texas actively encourages Texans and Americans alike to conduct William Walker-style filibusters in Latin America, in order to make the Golden Circle a reality?
 
The main problem I can see them running into are that I don't really think either of them, especially not pre-American Calfornia, are powerful enough to grab anything. Texas can look longingly at Cuba all it wants, but I'm not sure an independent Texas is going to be able to take on Spain, and even if they could I doubt that the US would let them. Maybe they could try to conquer Haiti, but I expect the Haitians would fight tooth and nail against any attempt to restore slavery there. I don't think Texas would be able to really take anything from Mexico either, not without getting the US to help them out. As for California, the options are even more limited. To their south is Mexico, which is weak but more than a match for a sparsely populated former state. To the east is the US, so that's a no go. To the north is Oregon, which both the US and UK want. Alaska is in Russian hands, and most of Polynesia is in Europe's playground or pretty much worthless. I suppose you could have California be given the Northwest territories as a neutral third party by the US and UK, but it seems pretty unlikely.
 
I suppose you could have California be given the Northwest territories as a neutral third party by the US and UK, but it seems pretty unlikely.

That ignores a pretty big butterfly - California wouldn't be a neutral third party in a hypothetical Oregon dispute, they'd be a claimant. Likewise, the US wouldn't want to compromise on it if they're after a Pacific port.
 
Why does Texas and California want colonies when underpopulated northern Mexico is right there? The northern Mexican states could easily be conquered/coerced/bribed into the fold a lot easier than the annexation of a hypothetical colony.
 
Top