In my opinion, the Republic of Texas was dominated by its Congresses with such a weak presidential system. I would think that a natural outgrowth of the money-strapped, imperiled RoT would to give more power to the executive branch to end deadlock in the legislative branch. Is this implausible?
The deadlock was more often than not between Congress and the President. Even then, the most pressing issue was public financing and the whole system made a bit unstable by the short tenure of everyone involved and the frontier nature of the proceedings; if you can get England or France to issue a loan to Texas, than the system will stabilize.
Non-self succession IMO will encourage strong parties, which may have a vested interest in the system. I think you would see reform, precipitated by the success of the Santa Fe expedition and the war with Mexico on behalf of the Mormons. Probably, you'd lengthen the terms of Reps, Senators, and the President to 2, 6, and 6 years respectively, with a complete bar on succession, as the Confederates later did.
Through the 1840s I see the RoT pursuing more and more friendlier relations with Britain when it becomes apparent the United States doesn't want to annex the Republic. The Texans are also slightly more economically well-off due to the Harrison Tariff, which is even more protectionist than the Black Tariff of OTL.
That's probably a good start, but as I said a loan from Britain or France is really key. Texas had incredible money problems in the 1840s. See
here for specifics. The most relevant paragraph is this one:
Handbook of Texas Online said:
During Houston's first administration (1836-38), the public debt of the republic soared from approximately $1,250,000 to $3,250,000. Houston's successor, Mirabeau B. Lamar, pursued aggressive policies toward Mexico and the Indians that added $4,855,000. In his second administration (1841-44) Houston and Congress pursued a policy of retrenchment and economy. The president abolished a number of offices in the government and in the army, combined or downgraded others, and cut salaries. Congress repealed the $5 million loan authorization voted earlier, as Texas had been unable to obtain money in the United States or Europe, and even reduced the pay of its own members. However, the Congress had overlooked an 1839 act that authorized the president to seek a loan of $1 million, and in June 1842, when he was considering a campaign against Mexico, Houston arranged to borrow that amount from Alexandre Bourgeois d'Orvanne[SIZE=-1]qv[/SIZE] of New Orleans. Congress also suspended payments on the public debt until the republic could meet its operating expenses. In his second term, Houston spent $511,000, only $100,000 of which went to Indian affairs. Though income slowly began to equal expenditures, at the time of annexation the public debt had risen to about $12 million.
Really? Hm. Well, I can see Texas pulling for all of Chihuaha and half of Sonora that the Mormons don't claim. A knock-on effect of this will be that Baja California will be even more isolated from the mainland, which might mean that it becomes independent or part of Deseret. This could create some conflict between Texas and Deseret, as neither would want the other controlling the peninsula outright. Perhaps it becomes a jointly-ruled protectorate?
Well, I would think they want something. If anything, it'd be cunning of Desert to give it to them because it means they take on the sole burden of mounting any future defense against Mexico. I'd imagine Baja could go either way; a joint-protectorate sounds as good as anything else.
Deseretian independence only becomes plausible with an independent Texas, and you have to get rid of Sam Houston to do that effectively enough.
I see your point: Houston was the foremost advocate of annexation. However, even its foremost opponent, Mirabeau B. Lamar, came around by 1845. And a huge wash of Texans supported it. The reason?--the mounting public debt and US Manifest Destiny.
There are a couple of ways to fix the debt: 1) get a loan from England, France or the US, 2) the US doesn't go into panic in 1837 spawned by the Specie Circular, 3) secure Sante Fe and find silver around it, 4) don't attempt to drive all the Indians out of Texas. If anything, Houston is probably the most capable person in Texas at the time to accomplish a lot of the above.
The best way to keep Texas independent is to keep the US from wanting to annex it. That isn't too hard if you keep the Whigs in power until at least 1848. Then you need to get Texas solvent, which probably requires help from England and France. Once you get into the 1850s and Texas has solved much of its probelm you've probably changed opinion in Texas that even Houston couldn't make a difference (he didn't in 1861, for example).
Also, given anti-immigrant sentiment in the US in the 1840s, under the right combination of circumstances that could be a boon for Texas. A big chuck of Irish would be nice, since they'd bridge the gap between Tejanos and Anglos.
Definitely. I don't know if I had the opposite opinion while writing the draft, but I recently came to the conclusion that the three consequent Whig victories will bolster the party significantly. In fact it might be that the Democratic Party is the one to collapse. Henry Clay will definitely leave a strong legacy of 'compromise, compromise, compromise', which could lead to the Liberty Party becoming stronger, but it won't shatter the Whigs. Actually, because there are no violent debates over the future of the new western territories, the slavery issue is likely to be less of an issue. I believe I'll have to do a little more research on this facet of the TL.
How does a strong Whig party lead to a stronger Liberty Party? I would think it would be a weaker one. Really, though, it's the American Party that was decisive in 1854-6.
I agree with most of the rest, though. Slavery will surface, because the South will grow angry about Northern politicians holding up the annexation of Texas. Their opinion should change when it becomes clear that Texas doesn't want to be annexed anymore. You'd still have tension induced by the settlement of the Kansas/Nebraska Territory, but remove the Mexican War and there's no history of violent conflict, just tension and compromise.
A Civil War is not out of the question, but it is greatly complicated by having the Whigs remain strong. One the one had, if the Whigs are strong they'll probably retain a following in some of the border states (Kentucky, for example). If so, then the Democrats' coalition of small farmers, some northern non-industrialists and recent immigrants, and Southern planters may begin to fracture. If it does, then that fracture is likely to be along sectional lines. OTL this is what happened in the Election of 1860 with the final collapse of the second party system. However, the road to Civil War is so complicated and the 1850s so chock-full of contingent events, that a lot of things are in the balance.
Best of luck on the TL!