Earlier Texas secession

I don't know if this was asked or analyzed earlier but after reading Bulnes' "the greats lies of our history", what would happened if the mexican government enforces the antislavery laws on Texas in 1829, and also enact a new colonization law for admiting only colonial inmigration without slaves?

Bulnes' argue that in 1830 México has a decent navy, ( for an American country) , a well paid army of at least 30000 men with the same state of the Art arms and artillery as the US, the church has all is assets (during the next 6 years they spend all this contractic mercenarios for fighting the liberals) an also has 3 competent generals who doesn't have political ambitions: Manuel Mier y Terán, Felipe de la Garza and José Joaquín de Herrera.

Bulnes doesn't say that those elements could imply a Mexican victory, but could have been an honorably defeat, with less territorial loses and could triggered a civil war in the US in the elections of 1840, or even earlier on 1836 or 1832...even he said that in 1830 México could sell the norther half of Texas to GB in exchange of their involvemt in the war..

bulnes said that by 1830 the US doesnt exist as a hole country but by 2 different countries the proslavery south and the industrial north, the desunited States only united by the compromises of 1787 and 1820.

What do you think? What would be the implications of a 1830 mexican-American war over Texas??
 

TFSmith121

Banned
1830 is pretty early, both for Texas independence AND

1830 is pretty early, both for Texas independence AND a US-Mexican war.

There's a reason it took until 1836 for the first, and 1846 for the second.

Plus, in 1830, the Comancheria goes as far east as the Balcones Escarpment, and Fort Parker is six years in the future...

Having said that, by 1834 (IIRC a particular reference correctly) there were something like 35,000 (essentially) "American" settlers in Texas and roughly 8,000 "Mexican" Tejanos...

The political geography was never really in Mexico's favor (certainly not after 1803), and the demographics were increasingly bad for Mexico (and Spain, for that matter) throughout the Nineteenth Century, in terms of maintaining control of Texas and the far northwest (what became the US Southwest).

Best,
 
Is not early. According to Bulnes and many other historians argue, if the antislavery laws were enforced instead of creating a special case only for Coahuila-Tejas, then the only way the US pro south government could have to acquiare Texas is by force.
Is important to recall that Texas declares its independence not because of Santa Anna or the tyranical president ( That's for Hollywood movies but is not true) that was the excuse, the reality is that the independent movement won because in México was in power a centralized government and that imply the end of the slavery in the territory, the movement to end federalism started in 1834, after the december 1833 revolution ended the Farías regime, not in 1836.
Until 1836, the predominant movement in Texas was that of the free state inside México, independent of Coahuila. The independent movement won because with the enactment of the 1836 seven laws, their hopes of been a state vanished and even if they get to be a department, their governor would be appointed from México city.
 
Is not early. According to Bulnes and many other historians argue, if the antislavery laws were enforced instead of creating a special case only for Coahuila-Tejas, then the only way the US pro south government could have to acquiare Texas is by force.
Is important to recall that Texas declares its independence not because of Santa Anna or the tyranical president ( That's for Hollywood movies but is not true) that was the excuse, the reality is that the independent movement won because in México was in power a centralized government and that imply the end of the slavery in the territory, the movement to end federalism started in 1834, after the december 1833 revolution ended the Farías regime, not in 1836.
Until 1836, the predominant movement in Texas was that of the free state inside México, independent of Coahuila. The independent movement won because with the enactment of the 1836 seven laws, their hopes of been a state vanished and even if they get to be a department, their governor would be appointed from México city.

Well, TBH, Santa Anna may not have been quite along the lines of, say, Mussolini, or Putin; that much is true. But he was very much an authoritarian, and he did screw over Texas. And slavery, to be truthful, had very little to do with the Lone Star State seceding overall(not to mention California broke off for many of the same reasons; in California's case, slavery played no role at all. The only major difference is that Santa Anna himself was no longer in the highest seat of power; but he still had influence behind the scenes); even if Santa Anna had left slavery alone(which isn't all that unlikely, TBH, as he was not particularly abolitionist in his political leanings), Texas still would have broken away under these other circumstances.

Honestly, about the only real difference that would arise in that scenario is, there might not have been such a rush by pro-slavery Southerners in later years who *did* believe slavery was a primary influence in Santa Anna's decisions(and, to be fair, a fair number of them truly did).....OTOH, though, it's also possible(but not as much) that Texas may lean even more pro-slavery than it did in our world.

In any case, it's important to understand the complexity of the issues that were developing at that time. This wasn't just about a few nutty Southron planters throwing a hissy fit just because they couldn't keep slaves. There was much more to it than that.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Well, TBH, Santa Anna may not have been quite along the lines of, say, Mussolini, or Putin; that much is true. But he was very much an authoritarian, and he did screw over Texas. And slavery, to be truthful, had very little to do with the Lone Star State seceding overall(not to mention California broke off for many of the same reasons; in California's case, slavery played no role at all. The only major difference is that Santa Anna himself was no longer in the highest seat of power; but he still had influence behind the scenes); even if Santa Anna had left slavery alone(which isn't all that unlikely, TBH, as he was not particularly abolitionist in his political leanings), Texas still would have broken away under these other circumstances.

Honestly, about the only real difference that would arise in that scenario is, there might not have been such a rush by pro-slavery Southerners in later years who *did* believe slavery was a primary influence in Santa Anna's decisions(and, to be fair, a fair number of them truly did).....OTOH, though, it's also possible(but not as much) that Texas may lean even more pro-slavery than it did in our world.

In any case, it's important to understand the complexity of the issues that were developing at that time. This wasn't just about a few nutty Southron planters throwing a hissy fit just because they couldn't keep slaves. There was much more to it than that.

Never mind the fact that Texas didn't have a climate for your standard plantation, thus your planter elite was quite unlikely to develop there.

Also Texas had a significant, compared to the rest of the south, abolition movement. I believe Sam Houston was one high profile sympathizer.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
So even if the Mexican government cracks down on the Tejanos etc.,

Is not early. According to Bulnes and many other historians argue, if the antislavery laws were enforced instead of creating a special case only for Coahuila-Tejas, then the only way the US pro south government could have to acquiare Texas is by force.
Is important to recall that Texas declares its independence not because of Santa Anna or the tyranical president ( That's for Hollywood movies but is not true) that was the excuse, the reality is that the independent movement won because in México was in power a centralized government and that imply the end of the slavery in the territory, the movement to end federalism started in 1834, after the december 1833 revolution ended the Farías regime, not in 1836.
Until 1836, the predominant movement in Texas was that of the free state inside México, independent of Coahuila. The independent movement won because with the enactment of the 1836 seven laws, their hopes of been a state vanished and even if they get to be a department, their governor would be appointed from México city.

So even if the Mexican government cracks down on the Tejanos etc., that doesn't mean that Jackson is going to say to Congress "okay, let's go to war with Mexico!" ... he didn't in 1836, after all.

And are the potential future demographics any better for Mexico in 1830 than they were in 1836? Unless the Central government is A) going to drive Mexicans to the northeast by force; or B) drive the "Americans" out by force and turn Texas over to the Comanches and Caddos etc, I don't really see the larger issues going away...

Best,
 
In the beginning, the Texans weren't really rebelling for independence... in a rather striking parallel to the ARW, they wanted their special tax rights and immigration privileges kept intact (Santa Anna had thought to remove them after getting a disturbing report from an underling about how unruly the Texans were)... they were getting taxed less than the other Mexican states, had lower customs fees, and practically unlimited immigration. And even after the rebellion turned into open war, it was more for restoring the Mexican constitution of 1824 instead of independence. Somewhere along the way, the idea of independence took hold. It's notable that the defenders of the Alamo are thought to have flown a Mexican '1824' flag instead of any 'independent TX" flags...
 
Well, TBH, Santa Anna may not have been quite along the lines of, say, Mussolini, or Putin; that much is true. But he was very much an authoritarian, and he did screw over Texas. And slavery, to be truthful, had very little to do with the Lone Star State seceding overall(not to mention California broke off for many of the same reasons; in California's case, slavery played no role at all. The only major difference is that Santa Anna himself was no longer in the highest seat of power; but he still had influence behind the scenes); even if Santa Anna had left slavery alone(which isn't all that unlikely, TBH, as he was not particularly abolitionist in his political leanings), Texas still would have broken away under these other circumstances.

Honestly, about the only real difference that would arise in that scenario is, there might not have been such a rush by pro-slavery Southerners in later years who *did* believe slavery was a primary influence in Santa Anna's decisions(and, to be fair, a fair number of them truly did).....OTOH, though, it's also possible(but not as much) that Texas may lean even more pro-slavery than it did in our world.

In any case, it's important to understand the complexity of the issues that were developing at that time. This wasn't just about a few nutty Southron planters throwing a hissy fit just because they couldn't keep slaves. There was much more to it than that.
It was not complicated at all.
Is the institution of slavery that set the movement of independence, but not as per se in Texas. Texas couldn't sustain a massive slave based production as in, say Georgia, south Carolina for example. But is was a Territory below the 36DG 30' of the missouri compromise. Even the low slave Trade have a sustaintial revenue and taxation that the Congress of Coahuila-Tejas(with zero American settler representation) tells Gral. Terán ( the military observer and authority sent by the mexican government) that they must sustain slavery at all costs or the Territory would seceded.
 
In the beginning, the Texans weren't really rebelling for independence... in a rather striking parallel to the ARW, they wanted their special tax rights and immigration privileges kept intact (Santa Anna had thought to remove them after getting a disturbing report from an underling about how unruly the Texans were)... they were getting taxed less than the other Mexican states, had lower customs fees, and practically unlimited immigration. And even after the rebellion turned into open war, it was more for restoring the Mexican constitution of 1824 instead of independence. Somewhere along the way, the idea of independence took hold. It's notable that the defenders of the Alamo are thought to have flown a Mexican '1824' flag instead of any 'independent TX" flags...

Yes, thats correct, but in this thread i'm asking what could happen if the mexican government enforces the anti slavery laws as early as 1830 as Bulnes imply as the earliest date that could have made both immposible for Tejas to seceded and a better outcome of a war with the US.
Bulnes said that it is avoidable a mexican-American war with a rebel Texas at this date, but if could occur then México would have a better outcome. What could this have been? This is my question.
 
Top