No Independent "Republic of Texas"

According to this map published in 1812, The US claimed Texas as part of the Louisiana purchase.
Now OTL the US gave up the claim in the The Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, when whe accepted a boundary along the Sabine River in Texas.

But WI
In 1819 the US had pushed a little more, and been willing to pay a bit more.
POD: Spain looking at losing Mexico, decided to go for the Cash, After all most of he Rebels were in the North in The Tejas area.

So in 1820 the money is paid and the US reaches to the Rio Grande and the Continental Divide.

So No Alamo, No Houston, No Republic of Texas, No Mexican war of 1848,

?What happens next? And ?What do Texicans find to Brag About in TTL.?

us_1812.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm not quite sure how I feel about completely erasing the history of my homeland, but I'm all for the aggrandizement of the USA, so it's all good.

I'd imagine that the Missouri Compromise still comes along (with a POD in 1819 it seems likely), it probably still happens along the same lines as OTL, only the South doesn't feel the compulsive need to acquire more territory to accomodate it (yet).

There may be tensions with Mexico, however, if the new Mexican government feels that Spain has sold off part of their country. If so, then Jackson may pull a Florida and try to seize more territory: there's a similar excuse, with regard to Indian sanctuaries, though it probably wouldn't develop quickly enough to prompt a war on its own in the 1820s or 1830s.

One could still have something like the dynamics which created the RoT in California: a state being settled by Anglos who revolt from Mexican authorities over perceived abuses. It also gives filibusters more time to focus on taking things like Cuba (Spain has already given so much, why not ask for more?).

The one question that looms in my mind is this: if the South's territorial demands are satiated earlier (Texas can provide more states to keep free-slave balances), then US expansionism may be muted. This may affect negotiations with GB over the Canadian border and/or Oregon territory. It may also lead to a California Republic remaining independent for a much longer time than the RoT did: the big question is how easy it is for Mexico to reach it.

Also, Mexico will be correspondingly stronger than it was OTL. It will not fight a war with Texas or the United States, both of which lead to the huge debts which preciptated intervention by the French in the 1860s. Santa Anna may still come to power, but he was able to pacify Mexico itself: without Texas to trouble him, he may have a free hand. A stronger Mexico may in a few decades be able to prevent the loss of California and the Southwest, so maybe Manifest Destiny is blunted altogether.
 
Okay, this is a VERY interesting POD. I would agree that its likely that American settlement of the region of OTL Texas could throw 'Manifest Destiny' out the window. What is likely is that the Texas region may be divided up like the Old Northwest and there be several states carved out of it rather than just one.

The northern border of the Territory of Orleans could be just be extended west to the Rio Grande and one can form three states using rivers as natural boundaries.
 
There may be tensions with Mexico, however, if the new Mexican government feels that Spain has sold off part of their country. If so, then Jackson may pull a Florida and try to seize more territory: there's a similar excuse, with regard to Indian sanctuaries, though it probably wouldn't develop quickly enough to prompt a war on its own in the 1820s or 1830s.
Spain has sold off a lot of territory occupied by the Rebels.
OTL the Rebellion almost failed in 1819~20. ITTL It is likely that the Rebellion Fails and Spain stays in Charge.
 
Mebbe Americans head into what'd be the Republic of the Rio Grande than Texas proper? I dunno.

I'm just surprised we never took that during Manifest Destiny.
 
Spain has sold off a lot of territory occupied by the Rebels.
OTL the Rebellion almost failed in 1819~20. ITTL It is likely that the Rebellion Fails and Spain stays in Charge.

In this case, I'd say the US can still angle to take more of the western lands. The probelm will be a need to play European international politics and have GB's consent. There may be an opening during the hubbub of the 1840s.
 
I'm just surprised we never took that during Manifest Destiny.

It was partly due to politics and race without a doubt. If there had been more, if any, American settlers in Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas - the states that initially formed the Republic - then its likely that annexation may have been possible. However, the Rio Grande does form a natural boundary that may be easily recognized in any peace treaty negotiations.
 
Spain has sold off a lot of territory occupied by the Rebels.
OTL the Rebellion almost failed in 1819~20. ITTL It is likely that the Rebellion Fails and Spain stays in Charge.
Mebbe Americans head into what'd be the Republic of the Rio Grande than Texas proper? I dunno.

I'm just surprised we never took that during Manifest Destiny.

If both these happen, maybe there'd be an earlier Spanish-American war.
 
Just Some Thoughts

Perhaps with more Slave-Western States (assuming they'd be called 'Slave' in the Missouri Compromise) and a more appeased South you'd find a stronger US economically and militarily (no bloody Civil War, no Reconstruction) but still politically fragile? Should the US go to war earlier with Mexico or Spain (or both) it may lead to complications (ie. winning the battles but Washington is worried whether these are going to be more slave states). This is roughly the same prob the USA had OTL just after the Mexican War but on a smaller scale. So....in a postwar US and a larger South could we be seeing a later, longer Civil War or even a victorious Confederacy?
 
Note that in TTL the US got Texas instead of the Spanish South Sea Coast above 42oN.
The Continental Divide was the natural Border of the Oregon Country, And here it is the western Border of the US along Mexico.
Without having bought the Spanish claims to Oregon, the US claim is only the Lewis and Clark one. Much weaker.
The West Coast will be Interesting ITTL, Especially once the Gold is discovered.
 

Rockingham

Banned
this thread makes me skip around like a little fluffy bunny!:pYAY!!!!:p
With a name like Big Tex who would have thought?:D


Just Some Thoughts

Perhaps with more Slave-Western States (assuming they'd be called 'Slave' in the Missouri Compromise) and a more appeased South you'd find a stronger US economically and militarily (no bloody Civil War, no Reconstruction) but still politically fragile?
In the short term after the OTL civil war yes, but in the long term no.

Assuming the slave states remain slave states, it would slow down the South's industrialization badly, leaving a rural, poor, backward and morally dubious southern half and prosperous, industrialized, forward-looking northern half with the moral high ground. Which leads to resentment and a very uncomfortable situation.

Also, high population growth in the South, (and possibly even a black majority would be likley, seeing as blacks would be poorer, thus having more children) would be likely. Politically fragile would be the word, as the north would be infinitely more powerful then the south, but (due to poorer South) probably be weaker in the union vis-a-vis their respective strengths, seeing as the South may even have a higher population then the north(due to being poorer).

Indeed, that is probably why the ACW happened when it did, because the north was powerful enough vis-a-vis the south that
a)the north new it good get away with ending slavery(not realising the south still had some fight left in it)
or b)the south new slavery ending was inevitable by now, due to growing northern strength, if it stayed in the union.

So, given the above, I'm not sure how to prevent either the civil war occuring or the north eventually striding in and ending slavery and the south not being able to do anything but protest. However, you can either of those things happen later, say as late as 1890-1900. Either would, however, lead to far more southern resentment lasting longer, vaster wealth disparity lasting longer, a likely insurrection KKK style, and a crippled southern half of the USA. Which, ironically, may cause the North to leave the drain on wealth that is the south.

Ironically, having slaves in the north as well, and thus no Missouri compromise, may mean no civil war happens, and a peaceful end to slavery throughout the union. Giving up on slavery wouldn't look like being cowed by the north to the southern states.
 
Top