Mexico Successfully Seizes Texas

Really Mexico's best longterm solution by the time of the Texas revolution, would be to recognize Texan independence to the full extent of it's claims under condition that the republic makes no more territorial claims on Mexican territory(specificly including California, nipping Lamar's pipe dreams) and that Texas does not join the US(maybe make some legal language that if Texas does join the US it renouces all claims south and west of the Nueces line they tried to enforce OTL as a further deterrant beyond their word).

This would then give a buffer between Mexico and the US, and if they aggressively keep the Anglos out of California, it's likely they could hold on to it. That's curb at least the southern half of Manifest Destiny. The northern half, you'd likely see a 54-40 war as a kneejerk to this.

No. If they've already defeated the rebellion, they're not going to just give it recognition. And if they did, the Anglos would do exactly what they did in every other situation: ignore the treaties made and conquer what they want. Perhaps President Houston makes this arrangement in good faith, but his successors won't stand for a treaty that doesn't let them join the US or take any more land.

There is a general feeling from this thread that without Anglos nothing happens in Texas, and that is incorrect.

If Mexico puts down the Texas Revolution, then I can see three options:

1. Texas is settled by Mexicans and perhaps with Anglos who accept the supremacy of Mexico
2. Texas is settled by Anglos who attempt revolution again
3. Texas would more accurately be termed Comancheria.

I would suggest option 1. The Whig platform of slower westward expansion gains a lot more credibility in this TL--the butterflies could make it a Henry Clay victory TL, for instance--and we are looking at a Tejas which remains a bulwark against American agression until filibusters attempt the same crap in California, with various butterflied consequences. Most likely, another independence movement, which can succeed or fail, depending.

Also, the American Civil War is delayed by the lack of new land to argue about slavery in.
 
There is a general feeling from this thread that without Anglos nothing happens in Texas, and that is incorrect.

well, not that nothing would happen... just that the rate of settlement of TX by native Mexicans was incredibly slow, which is why the Anglos were invited in in the first place. The defeat of the TX rebellion isn't going to magically increase either Mexican immigration or any desire in native Mexicans to go there. About the only thing that would do that is having a Mexico that is vastly more stable in the first place, which would probably butterfly away the whole Anglo settlement/rebellion in the first place.

1. Texas is settled by Mexicans and perhaps with Anglos who accept the supremacy of Mexico
the Anglos who settled in TX did accept the supremacy of Mexico. The rebellion (at first) was over the fact that they wanted more representation in Mexico's government, along with the continuation of their special tax/customs waivers (rather a parallel with the ARW), and the continuation of immigration from the USA (many in TX had family they wanted to bring in). Only after Austin was mistreated did they really go into independence mode...
 
About the only thing that would do that is having a Mexico that is vastly more stable in the first place, which would probably butterfly away the whole Anglo settlement/rebellion in the first place.

Exactly, this, because of a recent thread, reminds me of the Zimmermann Telegram. The Germans wouldn't have offered if they were in a better situtation, enough to say, be able to send men to Mexico. The same is true with Mexico, if it were more stable, it wouldn't need the Anglo settlers.

the Anglos who settled in TX did accept the supremacy of Mexico. The rebellion (at first) was over the fact that they wanted more representation in Mexico's government, along with the continuation of their special tax/customs waivers (rather a parallel with the ARW), and the continuation of immigration from the USA (many in TX had family they wanted to bring in).

This in my mind begs the question, what if Mexico didn't try to clamp down onto Texjs (such as banning slavery, which was only really happening in Tejas)?
 
E
This in my mind begs the question, what if Mexico didn't try to clamp down onto Texjs (such as banning slavery, which was only really happening in Tejas)?

Santa Anna did plan to clamp down on TX, which is what started the rebellion in the first place... he was going to end further immigration from the USA (rather distressing to those who still had families to bring over), end the Texans' special tax and customs waivers, etc. Slavery... was never really a big issue. For one thing, it was avoided by the Mexican law that allowed 99 year indentured servant contracts. For another, slaves were found among the wealthy Mexican families, mainly 'exotic' Native American house slaves; clamping down on slavery in TX would bring this practice into focus. Thus, although slavery in Mexico was technically illegal, laws against it were routinely ignored.
 
Santa Anna did plan to clamp down on TX, which is what started the rebellion in the first place... he was going to end further immigration from the USA (rather distressing to those who still had families to bring over), end the Texans' special tax and customs waivers, etc. Slavery... was never really a big issue. For one thing, it was avoided by the Mexican law that allowed 99 year indentured servant contracts. For another, slaves were found among the wealthy Mexican families, mainly 'exotic' Native American house slaves; clamping down on slavery in TX would bring this practice into focus. Thus, although slavery in Mexico was technically illegal, laws against it were routinely ignored.

My point about the slavery was that Tejas was had the largest amount of slaves not that it didn't happen elsewhere.
 
My point about the slavery was that Tejas was had the largest amount of slaves not that it didn't happen elsewhere.

true, but when you read accounts about the war, slavery wasn't that much of an issue... it was really more about Santa Anna's concerns about the Anglos 'doing their own thing' in TX, and the Texans desires for the status quo plus a desire for more representation in Mexico's government. SA did make some noise about freeing slaves, but from what I can tell, he freed exactly one... a slave belonging to Travis at the Alamo (IIRC), whom he freed mainly so he could go down the road and tell horror stories about what happened to those who fought there...
 
Top