Republic of Texas remains Independent

The US- Mexican relations would be interesting in this situation. If the US is able to take all of the Oregon Territories from the British in 1846, the US might not be as interested in California as in our TL. That would change after the discovery of gold. I can see a Mexican- American War in the late 1860s early 1870s. The US would probably win and take all the land west of Santa Fe, all of California most likely including the Baja peninsula.

Of special interest is the Mexican population in the 1840s in California. It was nearly as sparsely populated as Texas before the Anglo-American immigration of Texas. I've seen one source that put Mexican population around 3000 and about 10000 natives. Other sources put the total of the two at 8,000. There wasn't much love lost between the Mexican settlers in the region and the central government in Mexico City.

There's an argument to be made that within a year or two of gold being discovered, American immigration would effectively swamp the existing population completely. Then something similar happens with California as what happened IOTL with Texas.
 
Mirabeau B. Lamar believed in Texian Manifest Destiny. That Texas should stretch from Galveston to San Francisco. If by some miracle it becomes reality (however unlikely) it would be interesting to see how Texas would interact with it's neighbors. Especially the U.S.

Thoughts?
 
Mirabeau B. Lamar believed in Texian Manifest Destiny. That Texas should stretch from Galveston to San Francisco. If by some miracle it becomes reality (however unlikely) it would be interesting to see how Texas would interact with it's neighbors. Especially the U.S.

Thoughts?

Texas' destiny lies south, not west. There's no way Texas alone can deal with the Comanche until it has the demographic pressure to do so (and likely only after a virulent smallpox epidemic). But an agreement with Vidaurri and union with the northeastern Mexican states is much more possible and attractive to both sides.
 

Marc

Donor
Texas' destiny lies south, not west. There's no way Texas alone can deal with the Comanche until it has the demographic pressure to do so (and likely only after a virulent smallpox epidemic). But an agreement with Vidaurri and union with the northeastern Mexican states is much more possible and attractive to both sides.

Pardon, there is that ugly little issue of mass slavery in Texas. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and refused to return fugitive slaves.
 
Pardon, there is that ugly little issue of mass slavery in Texas. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and refused to return fugitive slaves.


Texas shaped by those that settled there. If Texas reamained independent and found a way to survive, the Republic would be a vastly different place than OTL State of Texas. The Republic's stance on slavery is shaped by whoever settles there. If it has a more European, Mexican and Latin population, I'm sure Texas would have outlawed slavery by the late 1850s. Especially if it is looking for recognition from Great Britain and France. (Which it would almost have to)
 
Pardon, there is that ugly little issue of mass slavery in Texas. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and refused to return fugitive slaves.

Vidaurri petitioned to join the CSA, I see no reason why he wouldn't do the same with Texas. He seemed to think it was a non-issue.
 

Marc

Donor
Vidaurri petitioned to join the CSA, I see no reason why he wouldn't do the same with Texas. He seemed to think it was a non-issue.

Association, not join. And an independent Republic of Texas butterflies away most of his involvement north of the Rio Grande.
 
If Nuevo Leon can annex a neighboring state and retain it until the local strongman changes sides one time too many, then it follows that the centralization which was attempted and faltered after Texas independence could result in the eventual loss of remote, peripheral areas, such as Alta California and Nuevo Mexico.
 
In the early 1840s France agreed to pay the Republic of Texas 5 million to build forts along it's border with Mexico. The proposed treaty also called for 10 thousand French settlers to be allowed to move to the Texas. British diplomats also were close to convincing Santa Anna that a weak Texas as a neighbor was better than a strong US. The bill was approved by President Sam Houston and passed the Texas House, but for whatever reason, failed in the Senate. Had the bill passed, could it have kept the Republic afloat?
 
France and Britain would have had to have a vested interest, but looking at history its surprising Britain didn't see Texas staying independent as part of the North American balance of power.

America without Texas is pretty unrecognizable.

It would be so different.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Wouldn't slavery be an issue in Texas? I guess an independent Texas as an independent Slaver Republic can attract some immigrants from Southern States post Civil War (if it happens). But would Texas remain a slaver state much longer if they were independent?
 
Wouldn't slavery be an issue in Texas? I guess an independent Texas as an independent Slaver Republic can attract some immigrants from Southern States post Civil War (if it happens). But would Texas remain a slaver state much longer if they were independent?


It would depend on the people who settle there. I think that if Texas remained independent, then it'd more than likely have a more German and Irish population then in our timeline. If this happens, then slavery is more than likely a non-issue by say, mid-1850s.
 
Top