Need some help for a Texas TL

I'm working on a rough draft for a Texas timeline, but I am needing some help with some of the historical characters and ideas on how to make it realistic.

For one thing, I was wanting to try and have Stephan F Austin becomes president in the first actual election, as a sort of moderate option between Sam Houston and Mirabeau B Lamar, but I can't seem to find much information on his political views, or even his platform during the election.

Another was trying to figure out how Texas could remain independent. (From what I can tell, Lamar and his faction were for independence, while Houston's was for strong relations with the US as well as eventual statehood.) I had thought that (if I am unable to get information on Austin) that I could have Lamar's faction remain in power (or give it a stronger base in the population) I was also considering the possibility that the US offers to make Texas a territory rather than a state (don't know if that would make much of a difference) I was also considering the possibility of a different US president (who is more reluctant to bring Texas into the Union)

I would appreciate any help.
 
well for an independent tx, just killing austin might work. i mean, texas was a rough place back then and any number of things could have done him in. perhaps when he is elected president he is assassinated or ambushed by comanche?

if i recall, austin was a unionist (as in he wanted texas to be a part of the USA), so you might want to kill him before he starts talking about how texas should become a US state in public, so no one wants to honor his wishes or something.

also, there could be something to sour the relationship between texas and the united states. not war-worthy, but enough to miff the texans. maybe texas asks for american troops or something to help fight off comanche, apache, or mexicans, but the USA refuses unless texas joins them.
 
Stephen Austin was actually a quite loyal Mexican citizen before the years running up to Revolution. Colonists who immigrated from the United States swore and oath of allegiance to Mexico though this of course did not include the numerous squatters and illegal immigrants pouring in from the United States. This only changed when he was imprisoned by the Mexican government. I am not exactly sure on his other political beliefs but I am sure they were Liberal (not American liberal, liberal at this time meant something quite different).

An easy way for Texas to remain independent is to have it drift further into British orbit. The European powers were concerned with the growth of the United States and some British politicians wanted to use Texas as a buffer. However this would be complicated by the fact at independence Texas was dependent on cotton exports to the United States. I would suggest reading A Glorious Defeat by Timothy Henderson for more information on Texas.
 
The problem with all of this is that pretty much all of the whites in Texas had come from the US. They had very strong family and economic ties back to the US, and furthermore the US had claimed nearly all of Texas as early as 1803 as part of the largely undefined Louisiana Purchase. Most Texans supported the idea of annexation right from the start. There were calls for annexation to the US as far back as the mid-1820s when the first anti-Mexico City unrest began. Most of the population of Texas supported annexation as well and this wouldn't change even if Lamar somehow won Texan presidency.

In addition to this the slave states saw acquisition of Texas as vital in promoting and protecting slavery. As the slave south had undue influence in American politics prior to the late 1850s the push for Texan annexation would remain an important political issue regardless of the president of either the US or Texas.

To keep Texas independent one needs to weaken the US in some way. Perhaps an earlier American Civil War or a blow up of the Caroline Affair/Aroostook War? If the Union fell apart (or blundered into a war with Britain) sometime after Texan independence but before annexation then perhaps your scenario could be plausible. A war with Britain in the late 1830s could do the trick by making America weaker and forced into a peace treaty that guaranteed Texan independence.

Benjamin
 
They had very strong family and economic ties back to the US, and furthermore the US had claimed nearly all of Texas as early as 1803 as part of the largely undefined Louisiana Purchase.

This part is very true but legally the United States gave up the claim when they annexed Florida from Spain. Not that the United States would admit it to the new Mexican Government.
 
The key is not what the Texians wanted but what the USA was willing to do. The Whigs were against Texas annexation in order to keep the issue of slavery expansion under control. Best case to get a longer run for Texas independence is for Harrison to live out his term and be succeeded by Clay in 1844 and Clay is reelected in 1848. It might also work even if Tyler is POTUS if Clay wins the 44 election because Tyler might not force through his joint resolution. If the US keeps spurning Texas through the 1840's two things might happen - the growth of a separate Texian national identity and the growth of GB influence in Texas, although the slavery issue might interfer with the later. Even in this scenario continued Texas independence is somewhat of a long shot, but the longer annexation is a no-go in the US the better the odds on Texas developing a more powerful pro-independence party.
 
A possibility I considered (though how exactly to get it to work I'm still not sure on) was to have the slavery issue become more Anti-Slavery in the US during the early 1840's. My thoughts were that this might push Texas away from the US, and it might even push some southerners to immigrate to Texas.

One of the reasons Texas sought to be annexed by the US was also because it lacked a proper military. Mexico sent two (I believe, can double-check) expeditions up to Texas, and Texas lost a battle I believe with one of them.

Perhaps have the Texans win that battle, or have a Texan President put forth more effort to expand and create a proper army, that might also help.

One thing I'm trying to figure out is how exactly to deal with Texas's territorial claims (they claim all of Texas, half of New Mexico, the handle of the Indian Territory, central and southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and south-central Wyoming. (which really makes no sense to me, seeing as they not only didn't control those area's, but I believe some of them were also already US territory.)
 
(which really makes no sense to me, seeing as they not only didn't control those area's, but I believe some of them were also already US territory.)

No, I don't think they were. The US border was settled decisively by the Transcontinental Treaty, and Texas only claimed areas south of that.
 
One of the reasons Texas sought to be annexed by the US was also because it lacked a proper military. Mexico sent two (I believe, can double-check) expeditions up to Texas, and Texas lost a battle I believe with one of them.

Perhaps have the Texans win that battle, or have a Texan President put forth more effort to expand and create a proper army, that might also help.

The problem was that the European powers were not willing to negotiate loans to the Texan government because it was too unstable. Britain and France wanted Texas and Mexico to resolve its differences and ease tensions. Quite difficult when most of the Texas government desires to make war with Mexico to seize more land and the Mexican government attempting (unsuccessfully but the Texans weren't that far ahead). The United States also treated Texas quite frosty during the early years of independence so loans were not forthcoming there. The Texas army seemed to be capable at holding the core territory to the Rio Grade but not much further then that without the proper funds.

One thing I'm trying to figure out is how exactly to deal with Texas's territorial claims (they claim all of Texas, half of New Mexico, the handle of the Indian Territory, central and southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and south-central Wyoming. (which really makes no sense to me, seeing as they not only didn't control those area's, but I believe some of them were also already US territory.)

The Texans claimed to the Arkansas River and attempted to raid Mexican merchants in the area but ironically the American government started providing protection to Mexicans. The Texans then attempted to force traders on the river to pay Texan tariffs on the river but the force ran into a detachment of US soldiers. The US soldiers promptly disarmed the Texans and detained them later charging them with illegal invasion of US soil
 
The Texans claimed to the Arkansas River and attempted to raid Mexican merchants in the area but ironically the American government started providing protection to Mexicans. The Texans then attempted to force traders on the river to pay Texan tariffs on the river but the force ran into a detachment of US soldiers. The US soldiers promptly disarmed the Texans and detained them later charging them with illegal invasion of US soil

Now this is interesting.
Could events like this have lead to a souring and hostility between the two nations?
(Well obviously, they *could* have, but how likely is the speculation?)
 
Now this is interesting.
Could events like this have lead to a souring and hostility between the two nations?
(Well obviously, they *could* have, but how likely is the speculation?)

While it could of lead to hostility especially if a solider is killed but events were too uncertain in my opinion for the Texan government to break ties with the United States. After all the only source of income for the bankrupt Texans was the cotton trade with the United States. I would say a shift is also needed in the internal politics in the United States, Mexico, and Texas. Most expansionists (and there were a lot especially in government) clamored for the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico, Texans were more split between annexation or war with Mexico, and the reconquest of Texas was a staple in Mexican political discourse. However, only the United States would be able to achieve these goals as the Texans had no power projection past the Rio Grande and Mexico was divided. Really how I see it the Texans need to make peace with Mexico and open up European investment which is difficult especially with Mexico desiring reconquest (though their leaders knew it could not be done). Texas might need to give up most of its claims especially for New Mexico (their attempted to acquire it was a dismal failure) and worst case scenario give up the Rio Grande (which would be unlikely as even though the land was worthless the Texans would enjoy the buffer).
 
I once tried to write a Texas TL. My idea was that Lamar, having won the 1838 elections, is just a tad more successful in his Indian Wars, eventually causing Martin van Buren to back him as a sort of sensible alternative to annexing Texas and getting like twelve new slave states. I also had Texas expand to California and Mexico fall into civil war (again). Anyway, that's my two cents. Do with them what thou willst.
 
I once tried to write a Texas TL. My idea was that Lamar, having won the 1838 elections, is just a tad more successful in his Indian Wars, eventually causing Martin van Buren to back him as a sort of sensible alternative to annexing Texas and getting like twelve new slave states. I also had Texas expand to California and Mexico fall into civil war (again). Anyway, that's my two cents. Do with them what thou willst.

I'd actually prefer to limit the expansion of Texas to realistic levels. I figure the most they'll expand in the first two or four decades would be the rest of Texas and Oklahoma. Maybe, maybe, if they're lucky, they'll get a piece of New Mexico.

A thought, the issue of slavery could come to a boil alot quicker in Texas than in the Union. The ratio between slaves/freedman will be vastly different than it was across the whole of the south, as it will be more concentrated. In fact, I was thinking that if the issue of slavery isn't resolved within two or three decades, Texas might see a minor (or massive if supported from outside states) slave revolt.
 
You know they owned Oklahoma and more than Texas IOTL, right? With American backing, the sky's the limit for expansion, as far as North America's concerned: what we think of as "Mexico" today is rather a no-no though. And anyway, the gold in California would be certainly useful for keeping an independent Texas afloat.
 
You know they owned Oklahoma and more than Texas IOTL, right? With American backing, the sky's the limit for expansion, as far as North America's concerned: what we think of as "Mexico" today is rather a no-no though. And anyway, the gold in California would be certainly useful for keeping an independent Texas afloat.

Actually, all they owned was eastern and northern Texas. They didn't actually own anything else. However, they claimed a large swath of territory that they had no potential ability of securing.

Also, I'm not exactly sure the United States would back an Independent Texas gallavanting across the south west.
 
what if Lamars Santa Fe Expedition in 1841 was a success giving texas control of the New Mexico area & the Santa Fe Trail. Once controling New Mexico Texas would be able to more easly move towards the California coast or to the Gulf of California
 
You know they owned Oklahoma and more than Texas IOTL, right? With American backing, the sky's the limit for expansion, as far as North America's concerned: what we think of as "Mexico" today is rather a no-no though. And anyway, the gold in California would be certainly useful for keeping an independent Texas afloat.

I think that the United States would rather take California for itself then give it up to Texas. Texas needs to fix its economy before it takes any adventures into Mexico anyway.
 
Top