Mexican Texas,Independent California: Is It Possible?

We know,both rebelled againist Mexico (Along with Rio Grande,Baja California and Yucatan),but is there a way to have Texas fail/not secede,and California to be independent (without possibly being annexed by the US)
 
Mexico quickly crushes Texas' bid for independence and halts further American immigration. As a result American settlement is mostly further north and west, avoiding Mexican territory and the Mexican-American War never happens. Then when gold is discovered in the 1840s Mexicans, Americans, and others rush into California. Remembering what happened to Texas Mexico is reluctant to allow Americans in border territories but California is far from American territory and Mexico is desperate to expand infrastructure and extract the metal. By 1855 Mexico find itself the owner of an increasingly populous, largely non-Mexican territory. Remembering Texas, there are harsh restrictions on Americans living there to prevent a pro-American revolt. Within a decade though, Americans find themselves wealthy, numerous, and increasingly influential within California and begin calling for more rights and power and possibly the introduction of slavery from the US. Tensions rise and eventually American settlers declare the Republic of California in 1865. The deserts and mountains keep California relatively isolated from Mexico and supplied with weapons and a constant flow of settlers from the US, they manage to make it stick (the threat of war with the US is also a major factor). There is a lot of desire to be annexed by the US but geographically California is hundreds of miles away from any real US presence and Congress is unwilling to start a war that would bring in so much land when the question of expanding slavery was already so tense.

1865 sees an independent California populated mostly by Americans with a great deal of gold, rapidly increasing population, and isolated from both the US and Mexico by mostly empty Mexican land. In 1874 Californians use the American Civil War and the French invasion of Mexico to start the small Mexico-Californian war the settlement of which gains them Baja. The first Trans-Continental railroad is completed in 1880 through Idaho to Oregon to bypass Mexico who have no desire to see the the US and California communicating easily. The ever expanding US population keeps pushing west and tensions finally reach a boiling point when in 1885 the American War sees an allied US and California divide most of northern Mexico between them.

1900 sees a California that is American but three wars with Mexico has forged its own identity as an independent nation.
 
We know,both rebelled againist Mexico (Along with Rio Grande,Baja California and Yucatan),but is there a way to have Texas fail/not secede,and California to be independent (without possibly being annexed by the US)

Yes, but it may possibly require butterflying Santa Anna's rise to power. This can be done as late as 1833, but the earlier, the better. There is one POD that might really work: in December of 1828, Santa Anna had been a primary participant in the overthrow of Manuel Pedraza, which successfully installed his erstwhile partner, Vicente Guerrero, in office. But what if, perhaps, Santa Anna had been killed during the coup, regardless of whether or not it ultimately succeeded?

Of course, it could lead to butterflying any major future problems in California as well, but Texas mainly broke off because of what was basically seen as Santa Anna's betrayal(btw, slavery had little to do with it, contrary to some myths). If whoever leads Mexico manages to keep *most* of the Texians happy, that problem will be pretty much solved.

On the other hand, though, if the next President ends up not being as good, especially towards California, that might set in motion events not too dis-similar from what happened over there IOTL....and, if things manage to get particularly bad, maybe even along the lines of the Texas Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Mexico quickly crushes Texas' bid for independence and halts further American immigration. As a result American settlement is mostly further north and west, avoiding Mexican territory and the Mexican-American War never happens.

I think Mexico would have to expel the American population of Texas for this to work. Otherwise the Texians are just going to revolt again; they were already the large majority of Texas's population in 1835.
 
Does the Native population remain a target of genocide if the majority of the population of California colonists is American? Oh wait, when do the Miwoks matter. :rolleyes:
 
Does the Native population remain a target of genocide if the majority of the population of California colonists is American? Oh wait, when do the Miwoks matter. :rolleyes:

No matter which non-Native population gains control of California, the Indigenous Californians are going to be targeted for subjugation or annihilation. They simply did not have the population density (especially post-epidemic) nor the political organization to mount an effective resistance the way many Southwestern, Plains and Eastern cultures did. There will be individual tribes who will hit back hard against the colonists (the Wappos, the Yukis, the Modocs), but the retaliation would then be brutal. The only way to have Natives be a significant part of the California population post-contact is for the pace of non-native settlement to be extremely slow.
 
Top