No European Colonization of Texas

Johanus

WI the Mexicans had not pursued a policy of active European colonization of Texas allowing it to remain an arid wilderness left to the native Indians?

Would the Mexican-American War have been butterflied away or was it inevitable that Texas, California (for its gold), New Mexico, Arizona etc would be annexed or purchased by the US?

How might things have unfolded into the modern age? Would it be those drug dealin', no good, job stealin' Arizonians that we would be racially profiling at the US border instead?

Please pray tell? :eek:
 

Quatermain

Banned
I think, given the concept of Manifest Destiny popular at the time that annexation, purchase, or acquistion by other means of the Southwestern states would have been much more likely than not, regardless of whether the Mexican government allowed/encouraged European colonization or not.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Johanus said:
WI the Mexicans had not pursued a policy of active European colonization of Texas allowing it to remain an arid wilderness left to the native Indians?

Would the Mexican-American War have been butterflied away or was it inevitable that Texas, California (for its gold), New Mexico, Arizona etc would be annexed or purchased by the US?

How might things have unfolded into the modern age? Would it be those drug dealin', no good, job stealin' Arizonians that we would be racially profiling at the US border instead?

Please pray tell? :eek:
Click to expand...

This isn't chat... and your history of colonization of Texas is a little off, seeing how it became part of the US.
 

SeptimusMagistos

If Mexico went with leaving it as a wilderness, it would almost certainly get settled and annexed anyway.

On the other hand, if they began their own settlement of the area, there is some chance they could walk away with at least the Southern parts of Texas...for a while, anyway.
 

Chengar Qordath

Quatermain said:
I think, given the concept of Manifest Destiny popular at the time that annexation, purchase, or acquistion by other means of the Southwestern states would have been much more likely than not, regardless of whether the Mexican government allowed/encouraged European colonization or not.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree here; plenty of Americans turned up in other parts of Mexican territory where settlement was actively discouraged, and when the Mexican government banned further American immigration that barely slowed the flow (Americans illegally immigrating into Mexican territory; irony). By the 1830's the US had a well-established pattern of swamping neighboring territory with settlers, and then having those settlers declare independence and be annexed.

At the most, Mexico not encouraging American settlement delays US acquisition of the Southwest by a few years compared to OTL. To actually stop American expansionism cold, it would probably need outside help.
 

Johanus

Chengar Qordath said:
By the 1830's the US had a well-established pattern of swamping neighboring territory with settlers, and then having those settlers declare independence and be annexed.
Click to expand...

Still, wouldn't patterns of European migrations be impacted in terms of their intensity. I mean the Texan settlers had to contend with an active hostile Indian population, unfriendly government (in this AH), nominal agricultural potential and no gold or other precious minerals to mine. Without government incentives surely patterns of migration would have continued westwards or towards colder climes at least until the mid 1800's?
 

Lord Grattan

Johanus said:
Get past it brother
Click to expand...

I did.:rolleyes:

Johanus said:
Still, wouldn't patterns of European migrations be impacted in terms of their intensity. I mean the Texan settlers had to contend with an active hostile Indian population, unfriendly government (in this AH), nominal agricultural potential and no gold or other precious minerals to mine. Without government incentives surely patterns of migration would have continued westwards or towards colder climes at least until the mid 1800's?
Click to expand...

The impact would have been slight and very short term. Your POD will not diminish or dampen the American belief that the US was destined to expand across the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In fact, it may make the SW more desireable and sought after.

American_progress.jpg
 
Basilisk

Basilisk

Maybe this means immigration to the Pacific Northwest gets a small boost. Not a huge difference, since people are going to illegally settle Texas anyways.
 

Johanus

...yeah and while I'm at it.

Texas had low ratio of Mexicans prior to its 'North Americanization' therefore the impetus to annex would be stronger there compared to, let say, California or Arizona which already had a dominant Mexican population.

Concurrently an armed conflict was probably the only way to retrieve these other territories and, without a colonized Texas, things could have been quite different in the Mexican-American War.

Ala my potentially realistic estimation of events in the modern age at the start of this thread.

Hmmm...;)
 

Chengar Qordath

Dave Howery said:
I think Texas was the only case of that happening, so it was hardly a pattern...
Click to expand...
I suppose then, that it is safe to assume that you never heard of the Republic of West Florida or the Sabine Free State? West Florida in particular reads like a carbon-copy of the later Texas rebellion, except this time annexation came with a couple months instead of being held off for a decade. East Florida was also headed in that direction, which was a big part of why Spain sold it. Infiltration of Americans into Alaska and their expanding influence likewise was one of many factors in the Russian decision to sell Alaska.

Also, to cite more examples of this that occurred after Texas, consider the California Republic. Hawaii also follows the pattern of American immigration-rebellion-annexation, though that case is somewhat different.

So, is four other solid examples and a couple other partial ones enough to count as a trend?
 

DuQuense

Between 1800 and 1821 [when US and Mexico signed a Border treaty] there were close to a Dozen Filibuster Attempts at taking Texas, Before the open Colonization Policy.
 

Dave Howery

Chengar Qordath said:
I suppose then, that it is safe to assume that you never heard of the Republic of West Florida or the Sabine Free State? West Florida in particular reads like a carbon-copy of the later Texas rebellion, except this time annexation came with a couple months instead of being held off for a decade. East Florida was also headed in that direction, which was a big part of why Spain sold it. Infiltration of Americans into Alaska and their expanding influence likewise was one of many factors in the Russian decision to sell Alaska.

Also, to cite more examples of this that occurred after Texas, consider the California Republic. Hawaii also follows the pattern of American immigration-rebellion-annexation, though that case is somewhat different.

So, is four other solid examples and a couple other partial ones enough to count as a trend?
Click to expand...

I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but from what you've put up there, only Texas and West FL did the "Declare independence and get annexed" thing, and Hawaii is close to that, but not quite; the others were purchased or conquered before anything like that happened. So, there are only two examples, which hardly makes a trend. The vast majority of American territory was purchased or outright conquered.
 

Johanus

Chengar Qordath said:
I suppose then, that it is safe to assume that you never heard of the Republic of West Florida or the Sabine Free State? West Florida in particular reads like a carbon-copy of the later Texas rebellion, except this time annexation came with a couple months instead of being held off for a decade. East Florida was also headed in that direction, which was a big part of why Spain sold it. Infiltration of Americans into Alaska and their expanding influence likewise was one of many factors in the Russian decision to sell Alaska.

Also, to cite more examples of this that occurred after Texas, consider the California Republic. Hawaii also follows the pattern of American immigration-rebellion-annexation, though that case is somewhat different.

So, is four other solid examples and a couple other partial ones enough to count as a trend?
Click to expand...

No. I think you are really trying to join the dots by aligning some pretty unconvincing examples of US migration e.g. Alaska and Hawaii.

DuQuense said:
Between 1800 and 1821 [when US and Mexico signed a Border treaty] there were close to a Dozen Filibuster Attempts at taking Texas, Before the open Colonization Policy.
Click to expand...

That only shows that the US couldn't intervene in Texas without the impetus of North American based migration that was already established.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top