Reality Check: Independent Texas

in OTL, many states whose economies are dependent on oil have tended to be very corrupt and/or unstable.

Yes, like Norway. It is all about instability and corruption.
 
Yes, like Norway. It is all about instability and corruption.

Obviously there are exceptions, like Norway. That's why I said MANY states, not ALL states. I'll see your Norway and raise you Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, and Iran.
 
Another thing to remember when the oil boom comes: in OTL, many states whose economies are dependent on oil have tended to be very corrupt and/or unstable.

That is a terrible generalization which is dependent upon a host of other factors not related to the presence of oil deposits.
 
That is a terrible generalization which is dependent upon a host of other factors not related to the presence of oil deposits.

OK, first off, read my post directly above yours. Second, allow me to clarify: I did not mean to say that oil deposits alone are responsible for all of the corruption in those countries. I understand there are plenty of corrupt countries that have never exported a barrel of oil. However, in my opinion the presence of oil may exacerbate problems in countries with political cultures already disposed to corruption due to the temptations of the wealth generated by oil revenue and the interference of foreign governments and corporations. Competition for oil revenue can (note I didn't say will) generate instability if different factions try to take control of it for themselves, especially if said revenue is not shared equitably among all political factions/ethnic groups/social classes. Also, the presence of foreign governments/corporations can lead countries to do things like ignore their own environmental laws or illegally seize their citizens' land to serve the said foreign interests, and often bribery is involved in this. These are all things that CAN happen in oil-producing countries, and we can probably all think of places where they DO happen; there are also oil-producing countries where those things don't happen, and non oil-producing countries where they do. So, with all this in mind, I don't think the statement "oil-producing countries often struggle with political instability and corruption issues closely related to oil production" is a terrible generalization.

To get back on topic, consider this situation. Say that independent Texas has strong environmental legislation. However, its oil-importing ally the USA needs more oil, and is willing to take steps, including under-the-table steps, to make sure that Texas increases its supply. Is it that implausible that the Texan government might decide to ignore or change its environmental legislation to open up previously protected areas, say, off the Gulf shore, to oil exploration? Is it implausible that this change might be brought about by bribing a few Texan congressmen to vote a certain way on an environmental bill? Is it implausible that opponents of such a change in the laws might be physically intimidated? In conclusion, would it be unfair to say that this scenario was an example of corruption caused by the direct influence of oil production?
 
In conclusion, would it be unfair to say that this scenario was an example of corruption caused by the direct influence of oil production?

Should the Texans decide to change their environmental laws in order to increase oil production for export its not an example of corruption. When trees, birds and fish get the right to vote they can tell their representatives differently.
 

That's silly. What is Cascadia free? The US is going to want a chunk of pacific coastline just as much ITTL. And even if the US didn't get it, why would Britain cast it away?

No reason for Utahn independence unless you're going for some sort of Deseret scenario (in which case, it'd probably be a bit bigger than OTL Utah, since the Mormons originally claimed a lot more land).

Texas shouldn't be nearly so big. It barely managed to hold together until the US intervened. Even if it manages to stay independent, it's not going to have the pull to get Mexico to give up a whole bunch of additional territory. Only scenario I can see is if the US establishes it as a puppet state, and forces Mexico to give up the territory that way. But then since the US is intervening anyway, we should still be having a Guadelupe Hidalgo analog that ends up giving your California to the US. Even if the US is fond of creating puppet states for some reason ITTL (which I suppose would explain Utah and Cascadia), it's still going to want that Pacific outlet, so it's not going to devote its entire West to puppet states.

Lastly, "Confederacy of the United States" is a little redundant. :p
 

Highlander

Banned

That . . . is not so good.


Anyway, here is my rough outline for the early years in my TL.

- PoD: Election of 1844 sees Clay win over Polk, which will put a dampen on the expansion spirit of the American public. Around this time Texas has started to trade with European powers, names the French and British, the latter of which has guarenteed their maximum borders.

- ~1848-9: Second Texas War of Independance, with Mexico attempting to invade Texas. Though they generally beat up the young Texan military, the British step in and wipe the floor of them. The border between British North America (British Columbia) and Mexico is adjusted from the 42nd degree North longitude to the 40th. Mexico is issued to pay Texas some decent amount of cash. Also during this war, minor use of breech and repeating rifles are used, with observers noting their success. Around this time gold is being discovered in California, with Mexico City trying to cash in. The issue of slavery and states rights in the Union is starting to boil over.

- Europe . . . I have no idea. I will have to read about the big revolutions in the 1840s.

- ~mid-1850s: The American Civil War breaks out, though different from OTL. Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and Southern Mississippi secede. Though there is no official foreign intervention, the British secretly support the secessionist movement. After a few bloody years the US overtakes them. During this time of turmoil Texas intervenes in the Indian Territory in OTL Oklahoma, though only briefly, as the US threatens with its newly battle hardened military.
 

Highlander

Banned
Any comments on this?

Anyway, here is my rough outline for the early years in my TL.

- PoD: Election of 1844 sees Clay win over Polk, which will put a dampen on the expansion spirit of the American public. Around this time Texas has started to trade with European powers, names the French and British, the latter of which has guarenteed their maximum borders.

- ~1848-9: Second Texas War of Independance, with Mexico attempting to invade Texas. Though they generally beat up the young Texan military, the British step in and wipe the floor of them. The border between British North America (British Columbia) and Mexico is adjusted from the 42nd degree North longitude to the 40th. Mexico is issued to pay Texas some decent amount of cash. Also during this war, minor use of breech and repeating rifles are used, with observers noting their success. Around this time gold is being discovered in California, with Mexico City trying to cash in. The issue of slavery and states rights in the Union is starting to boil over.

- Europe . . . I have no idea. I will have to read about the big revolutions in the 1840s.

- ~mid-1850s: The American Civil War breaks out, though different from OTL. Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and Southern Mississippi secede. Though there is no official foreign intervention, the British secretly support the secessionist movement. After a few bloody years the US overtakes them. During this time of turmoil Texas intervenes in the Indian Territory in OTL Oklahoma, though only briefly, as the US threatens with its newly battle hardened military.
 
1910s?

I could imagine stuff getting overlooked due to the Civil War and Reconstruction, but what happened in the third case?

Couldn't find a good online description. The Handbook of TX Online gets a lot wrong IMO.

James Sandos, Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of San Diego, 1904-1923 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992).

The short description is that there's an aborted uprising in S Texas, some argue by anarchists influenced by Magon, others argue it was influenced by Carranza's agents.

The more hysterical claims involve it supposedly being a call to race war, even though some of the plotters were German-American and German-Mexican. Most of the sites online describing it today are white racist immigrant bashing sites who claim it will happen again because of Mexican immigration.

The outcome of the revolt was ethnic cleansing of three counties, up to 5000 Mexicans killed by Rangers and National Guard.
 
Obviously there are exceptions, like Norway. That's why I said MANY states, not ALL states. I'll see your Norway and raise you Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, and Iran.

Which of those you "raised" with had a western culture? Like Texas and Norway for example?
 
Excuse me, I mean the westward expansion in the United States. It means the balance between slave and free in the Senate is broken sooner and likely the fundamental issues of slavery come to the front sooner.

I see Texas as a refuge for planation owners after the civil war, which brings more capital and money into Texas. :p

But would California join the union in this timeline? I thought the U.S. was able to take it as a result of fighting to help the Texans? As I understand it that was one of the primary concerncs of the slave states although I admit I do not know a whole lot concerning the period.
 
Last edited:
Which of those you "raised" with had a western culture? Like Texas and Norway for example?

That's a valid point, and in strictly OTL terms I can only admit you're right, Western culture does seem to make a difference.

However, my point in bringing up petrostate corruption was that an AH independent Texas isn't destined to develop what we know as a Western culture--which, if I'm understanding you correctly, basically means a Northern European, Protestant-influenced culture with a tradition of representative institutions and the recognition of certain individual liberties. Imagine that in this independent Texas, political power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of outrageously wealthy people and families. They own most of the land, they fill the government offices, and maybe they even enforce a racial caste system that deprives blacks, Tejanos, and whatever other minorities happen to live in this Texas of their rights. That doesn't really sound like a Western culture, does it? But it does sound like the kind of culture that could give rise to the sorts of injustices and abuses we've seen in OTL places like Nigeria, Azerbaijan, etc. I'm not saying independent Texas would still be like that today--unless the ATL's United States is really fracked up, Texas will face a lot of pressure to reform. But it might not end up as a Norway-like land of sunshine and lollipops, either.

What I'm trying to say is that the problems petrostates have pre-exist the discovery of oil. However, in an ATL it's possible that Texas could have the same underlying factors that could predispose it to becoming a basket case with rampant corruption, a poor human right record, and a lack of political freedom/transparency.

PS: Highlander, I think your sketch looks interesting. I'd be interested to see if the US gets expansionist-y again and goes after Oregon, California, and even Texas. Also, maybe the British will try to go farther south in California? Like towards where the gold is?
 
Last edited:
You could always have a little blood bath bewteen Texan and Union troops or some sort of mishap which makes the Texans view the US in a unfavorable light. Its sometime during or after the war before Texas is admitted, a troop of Texans attack and raid a Mexican trade convoy of some sort and are attacked by Union soldiers or the Union soldiers want a cut of the loot etc.
 
....Imagine that in this independent Texas, political power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of outrageously wealthy people and families. They own most of the land, they fill the government offices, and maybe they even enforce a racial caste system that deprives blacks, Tejanos, and whatever other minorities happen to live in this Texas of their rights. That doesn't really sound like a Western culture, does it?

....What I'm trying to say is that the problems petrostates have pre-exist the discovery of oil. However, in an ATL it's possible that Texas could have the same underlying factors that could predispose it to becoming a basket case with rampant corruption, a poor human right record, and a lack of political freedom/transparency....

Actually what you describe fits Texas IOTL almost exactly. Not just the Republic of Texas IOTL, which also had an ugly history of ethnic cleansing vs both Indians and Mexicans, but the state of Texas to an extent up til the 1970s.

IOTL there were half a dozen tribes entirely driven out of the state or forced to hide within the state. If you look at a map you can't help but notice that in such a huge state you only have three tiny reservations, two at the very borders of the state. The Kickapoo actually used to live under the international bridge on the border between the US and Mexico until a few years ago. As in still living there in the 1980s.

Plus there were ethnic cleansing campaigns vs Mexicans near Victoria, Goliad, and San Antonio. There was an attempt to rid San Antonio of all its Mexican population that was only headed off by some very brave German immigrants who took the side of the Mexican population. (It's important to point out not everybody was racist at the time.)

An independent Texas will have less to worry about outside pressures to, for example, quit lynchings, land theft, barring nonwhites from voting, etc.

The debate over oil brings up an interesting question I don't have any expertise on:

What are the chances that in an independent Texas they don't discover the oil, or discover it much later?
 
Top