AHC/WI: Texas Secedes, But Does Not Join The CSA

... what possible part of the very statements in your cited source:



do you assert shows that the UK "refused to recognize" the nation with which it ratified treaties and exchanged chargés?

And, son, if you presume ever again to call me a liar, there will be consequences within the strictures and procedures imposed upon all of us here. You were wrong, your own cited source shows you were and remain wrong, and rather than man up and admit it, you are calling me a liar - there is no other way to characterize your statement that "[f]or you to state otherwise (and sorry I didn't read the rest of your rambling as it was quite verbose unnecessarily) is a lie" - for correcting your evident (and what I had hitherto thought an innocent and inadvertent) error. You might wish to rethink that tactic, and quickly.

Did you read the source? Yes, you are a liar, because you keep saying Britain recognized Texas. It clearly says Britain refused to recognize because "The British were fearful that recognition would jeopardize their friendly standing with Mexico and declined to enter into formal relations; they did consent, however, to admit Texas commerce to British ports on their own terms." This is how the USA treats Taiwan (RoC), but that doesn't mean the US recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign nation and in fact it is against US law for the government to do so! Having bilateral agreements (not treaties) does not mean recognition! You're confusing things.

And since you like to throw around insults and threats, here's one- don't call me son and stop with the condescending attitude of calling me "young" or inexperienced and acting as if you being here longer means ANYTHING. Thank you.
 
.... Yes, you are a liar...

....And since you like to throw around insults and threats, here's one- don't call me son and stop with the condescending attitude of calling me "young" or inexperienced and acting as if you being here longer means ANYTHING....

Okay. First of all, can you accept that I am not a friend or fan of Markham? I don't even know the guy. So take my comments in that light.

I think things are getting a little bit out of hand, and it would be helpful to just cool it a bit.

We all say things in the heat of the moment that can be more hurtful than we mean, or that we meant but would rather not have said when we cool down. It happens.

But really, we don't need to do this, and it might be worth taking a deep breath and backing off. You can call a person wrong, without calling them a liar. You can call a person obstinately wrong in the face of what you see as plain facts, without calling them a liar.

The difference is in disputing what they say, versus casting aspersions on who they are.

It's possibly that Markham's overly formal and careful writing style may be pissing you off. You may feel its condescending and personally insulting. It's probably not, it's probably just the way he writes and isn't intended.

So, all I'm saying is, take a deep breath, focus on being a good person.

For god's sakes, we're arguing about stuff from over 150 years ago. I'm pretty sure everyone who was directly involved is dead by now.

Being passionate is fine. Let's all be passionate without being hurtful.
 
Slavery however, despite technically being illegal, was tolerated by Mexican authorities in Texas, and while plantation style systems did not come until the early 1840s in the far east of the state (which WOULD support the theory about the slave power), I think that there were far more pressing issues regarding land that had nothing to do with slavery.

The Roman Catholicism requirement was one much like slavery that did not mean much in terms of its enforcement, but it was a sticking point for many of the migrants coming in during the 1830s, who almost all were from poor backgrounds seeing Texas as a sort of "last chance", mostly from areas of economic hardship either in Scotland or the American South, and therefore had some pretty strong views on Popery.

However, centralization was the biggest issue. While things like slavery and religion got the attention of the poorer homesteaders coming in during the 1830s and got them on the rebel's side, the older Texan elites (Tejanos and the white immigrants from the 1810s and 1820s) were drawn against Santa Anna because of centralization, revocation of local privileges, and the issues regarding the Constitution.

So you can make the claim that slavery (and religion) were issues, the ultimate issue, the one that got the attention of the local elites and drove Texas to do what so many other Mexican states were doing, was the political upheaval going on in the capital and the administrative changes that were coming with it.

Give it 5 more years, and who knows, a revolt that legitimately is about slavery is possible. Demographically, things were trending that way, as the 1838 financial issues in the US were going to drive some wealthier Southerners west. But the 1836 Texas Revolution was far more about the issues existing between Santa Anna and the provincial elite of Texas, particularly the transplants from over 10 years back.
The slavery issue was pretty much over with by the time of the revolution, mainly because Mexico blinked... they allowed a provision in their national law that allowed for 99 year 'indentured servant' contracts, and that's what a lot of Texans with slaves promptly went with. The thinking at the time was more along the lines of 'okay, we managed to keep slavery around, but what else will Santa Anna come up with?". Basically, they were worried about losing the privileges that earlier Mexican governments had given them. It's notable that the revolution began not with the idea of independence, but to stay within Mexico under the old system (in a rather striking parallel to the ARW); the first TX flag of the revolution was the Mexican tricolor with '1824' printed across it.
As for an independent TX... realize that the rebels won by the skin of their teeth because they captured Santa Anna himself in the last battle, and forced independence on him. SA failed to reconquer TX later because of other distractions, but if TX never joins the USA, he'll have a chance later...
edit: whoops, misread the OP; it's not about an independent TX... never mind the last comment...
 
Iacta alea est.

Those following the thread with open minds and interested in the facts of diplomatic recognition of the Republic of Texas may well be aware, or, if not, be interested to know, that – as a matter of international law, in the mid C19 as today – the entering into of treaties (and particularly of commerce-and-navigation, if not FCN treaties (friendship-commerce-and-navigation)) and (I cannot express this strongly enough) the exchange of diplomats constituted formal recognition between Westphalian-system states.

In June of 1824, the Rt Hon. Sir James Mackintosh, MP for Knaresborough, one of the leading experts on international law of the time, had a passage at arms in the Commons with Canning, the then Foreign Secretary. It concerned recognition of the South American republics which had established themselves in the Bolivarian revolutions. He said,

It is not by formal stipulations or solemn declarations that we are to recognize the [South] American states; but by measures of practical policy which imply that we acknowledge their independence. Our recognition is virtual. We are called upon to treat them as independent; to establish with them the same relations and the same intercourse which we are accustomed to maintain with other governments; to deal with them in every respect as commonwealths entitled to admission into the great society of civilized states. The most conspicuous part of such a practical recognition, is the act of sending and receiving diplomatic agents. It implies no guarantee, no alliance, no aid, no approbation of the successful revolt; no intimation of an opinion concerning the justice or injustice of the means by which it has been accomplished. These are matters beyond our jurisdiction. It would be usurpation in us to sit in judgement upon them. As a state, we can neither condemn nor justify revolutions which do not affect our safety and are not amenable to our laws. We deal with the authorities of new states, on the same principles and for the same object as with those of old. We consider them as governments actually exercising authority over the people of a country, with whom we are called upon to maintain a regular intercourse by diplomatic agents for the interests of Great Britain and for the security of British subjects.
*** … An independent state alone can appoint consuls. An independent state only can receive consuls. We have not only sent consuls, but commissioners. What is their character? can it be any other than that of an envoy with a new title? Every agent publicly accredited to a foreign government, and not limited by his commission to commercial affairs, must, in reality, be a diplomatic minister, whatever may be his official name. [HC Deb 15 June 1824 vol 11 cc1344-406]

He went on to urge that diplomatic envoys of a higher rank than consuls – who were at the time commercial consuls only – be sent, to formalize British recognition, and who were more than commissioners, so as to remove all doubt. It was agreed by the House and accepted by the Government, and was in fact the law of nations than as now, that sending not merely a commercial consul, but a chargé and consul-general (or any higher rank of diplomatic envoy), and establishing and accepting in return legations, not mere consular appointments, completed the act of diplomatic recognition beyond quibble or question. Due to the Bonapartist invasion of Spain, the Peninsular War, and the active hostilities between Spain, a British ally against Bonaparte, and the South American rebels, HM Government had previously not recognized the Bolivarian republics. But this was not a permanent stance, and of course Britain did recognize them afterward.

In the case of Texas, the parallel is exact. Legations were mutually established; Elliot was sent to Texas accredited as chargé and consul-general, an actual diplomatic post; his Texan counterparts were received equally as envoys; treaties – the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Great Britain (November 13, 1840), ratified by Queen Victoria, May 26, 1842; the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Great Britain, May 26, 1842; the exchange of ratifications, Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Great Britain (November 13, 1840), June 28, 1842; the Convention Relative to Public Debt, with Great Britain, November 14, 1840; the exchange of ratifications, Convention Relative to Public Debt, with Great Britain, (November 14, 1840), June 28, 1842; the Treaty for the Suppression of the African Slave Trade, with Great Britain, November 16, 1840 – were entered into. (I note that the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, repository of these records, is quite clear on the matter: “Treaties between the Republic of Texas and other nations were created as the most formal and official records of diplomacy, the ultimate product so to speak. These records are signed copies of treaties between the Republic of Texas and other countries - France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, the Hanseatic League, and the United States - dating 1838-1844. Most of the treaties concern amity, navigation, and commerce”; “Following the defeat of the Mexican Army at San Jacinto and the ratification of the Constitution of 1836, the Republic of Texas proceeded to treat for recognition by other nations and for the exchange of diplomatic representatives. This resulted in the signing of treaties between the Republic of Texas and France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, the Hanseatic League, and the United States, primarily for amity, navigation, and commerce. One treaty with Great Britain was for the supression of the African slave trade. Treaties between the Republic of Texas and other nations were created as the most formal and official records of diplomacy.”) The non-recognition of 1836 was not permanent, and by 1840 diplomatic relations at a chargé level, and bilateral treaties, including of commerce-and-navigation – and therefore, as a matter of law, diplomatic recognition – had been established.

This is the law; and these are the facts.

And now, with regret, I must – for the first time in my experience here, the length of which I am, apparently, commanded not to mention by those ... policing my tone – be about the sorry business of reluctantly laying certain matters before the moderators. Iacta alea est; anerrhiphtho kybos.
 
Okay. First of all, can you accept that I am not a friend or fan of Markham? I don't even know the guy. So take my comments in that light.

I think things are getting a little bit out of hand, and it would be helpful to just cool it a bit.

We all say things in the heat of the moment that can be more hurtful than we mean, or that we meant but would rather not have said when we cool down. It happens.

But really, we don't need to do this, and it might be worth taking a deep breath and backing off. You can call a person wrong, without calling them a liar. You can call a person obstinately wrong in the face of what you see as plain facts, without calling them a liar.

The difference is in disputing what they say, versus casting aspersions on who they are.

It's possibly that Markham's overly formal and careful writing style may be pissing you off. You may feel its condescending and personally insulting. It's probably not, it's probably just the way he writes and isn't intended.

So, all I'm saying is, take a deep breath, focus on being a good person.

For god's sakes, we're arguing about stuff from over 150 years ago. I'm pretty sure everyone who was directly involved is dead by now.

Being passionate is fine. Let's all be passionate without being hurtful.

Very true. I agree, and will back off. I was speaking from a matter of de jure, whereas from Markham's latest comment he is taking the de facto position.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Did you read the source? Yes, you are a liar, because you keep saying Britain recognized Texas. It clearly says Britain refused to recognize because "The British were fearful that recognition would jeopardize their friendly standing with Mexico and declined to enter into formal relations; they did consent, however, to admit Texas commerce to British ports on their own terms." This is how the USA treats Taiwan (RoC), but that doesn't mean the US recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign nation and in fact it is against US law for the government to do so! Having bilateral agreements (not treaties) does not mean recognition! You're confusing things.

And since you like to throw around insults and threats, here's one- don't call me son and stop with the condescending attitude of calling me "young" or inexperienced and acting as if you being here longer means ANYTHING. Thank you.
Back down.

Now.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
... what possible part of the very statements in your cited source:



do you assert shows that the UK "refused to recognize" the nation with which it ratified treaties and exchanged chargés?

And, son, if you presume ever again to call me a liar, there will be consequences within the strictures and procedures imposed upon all of us here. You were wrong, your own cited source shows you were and remain wrong, and rather than man up and admit it, you are calling me a liar - there is no other way to characterize your statement that "[f]or you to state otherwise (and sorry I didn't read the rest of your rambling as it was quite verbose unnecessarily) is a lie" - for correcting your evident (and what I had hitherto thought an innocent and inadvertent) error. You might wish to rethink that tactic, and quickly.

While he was out of line calling you a liar, you do very much come off as condescending here. It may well be a regional quirk of speech, but in common usage it is rather demeaning.

Might want to consider that going forward.
 
Indeed I shall.

While he was out of line calling you a liar, you do very much come off as condescending here. It may well be a regional quirk of speech, but in common usage it is rather demeaning.

Might want to consider that going forward.

I apologize to all concerned for the inadvertent impropriety.
 
so really what does it all mean

There is a chance that Lincoln would let Texas declare its independence during the Civil War. That would not significantly hurt the Union or help the South because Texas by itself did not add a huge amount to the Confederate side other than some manpower, and a trickle of goods from across the border at Matamoros that made their way to Louisiana and points east in OTL, and some cattle driven northwest into Louisiana as well (keep in mind once again no rail lines connect Texas to the CSA so everything is by steamboat, coastal schooner or overland by wagon road)

The Fall of New Orleans and effective control of the Mississippi River by Union gunboats soon after brought even that to an end in terms of significance.

So no reason to assume any different situation in this situation.

So the CSA will certainly fall, as it did in OTL barring some major POD which is not required for the Texas independence situation to occur.

All that means is postwar, Sheridan shows up on the Texas border with 100,000 troops instead of the border of Mexico, and Texas can choose to emulate the Confederacy and go down fighting (and go down a lot quicker) or peacefully rejoin the Union because the one thing we can probably rest assured of, in 1865 the Union was not going to be in a mood to let a breakaway Republic border it particularly one that allows slavery.

So all it really means is Texas probably gets by very lightly compared to the South. Which would suit the ghost of Sam Houston fine (he died in 1863), and mean that a lot of Texans still live who otherwise would not have.

It probably means that the Texans focus all their energies on dealing with the Comanches during the Civil War and that war gets even uglier sooner than it did in OTL (but it was still over by the 1870s)

The only thing that would slow things down would be French help, but I think the case can easily be made that the French would get their clock cleaned in 1865-66 if they chose to fight in North America,particularly without British help (who would have no reason to help)
 
Top