Texas Scorned

Jasen777

Donor
I have sometimes considered writing an independent Texas timeline, but I don't have the free time I used to, or perhaps I'm just too lazy.


In any case getting a realistic independent Texas (with a POD after Anglo settlement) isn't that. The overwhelming majority of Texians wanted to join the U.S. - and therefore the POD needs to be on the U.S. side. The one I always imagined was having the joint resolution of annexation failing, as the vote in the Senate was quite close and the action was of dubious legality at the time (Supreme Court ruled it legal in 1901). Polk tries again later in the year but fails again as a bloc of anti-slavery Senators lead the way in blocking it.


With that rejection Texas struggles along as independent and with some luck and Mexican incompetence they manage to survive. Perhaps Britain can help negotiate a treaty of recognition with Mexico, maybe even with the Rio Grande border in the east, but certainly not following the river all the way west (Texas never tried to control El Paso, failed miserably in their one attempt to control Santa Fe).


But the more interesting immediate consequences probably have to do with the United States. No Texas annexation means no war with Mexico – at least not right away and not over Texas. Polk campaigned on adding both Texas and all of Oregon to the U.S (though he proved quite willing to compromise on Oregon).


The U.S. and Britain had a joint occupation agreement over Oregon, but as part of the his negotiation tactics, Polk gave the one-year notice required to end the agreement. Does he still do this? What if he does, it leads to a similar treaty as OTL, but then the Senate fails to ratify it? The treaty would need to be passed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Southern senators upset with Texas not being annexed, perhaps allied with a few who want all of Oregon could kill it with just a third of the vote. Time seems to favor the U.S. here as American settlers will pour into the region, even north of the 49th, if there's no treaty. Most on both sides wouldn't want a war, the U.S. has to expect that it might not go well for them (and the South is going to be decidedly unenthusiastic in this scenario), and Britain is more concern about the situation in Europe. But could they be heading towards one anyways?


There's also California. American settlers are arriving and the governments in Mexico City have only very weak control over California. Even without U.S. involvement, the chances of California “pulling a Texas” in the near future seems high. And of course the gold rush is “scheduled” for '49. If they do they'll want to join the U.S. - would U.S politics allow it?


Would the South see the writing on the wall and threaten secession? It's my contention that no Texas annexation likely leads to an early civil war as the South feels hemmed in, the question of California and Bleeding Kansas could be the catalysts.


Then there's the Mormons. They're set to go in to Utah and it seems likely that that would go into Mexican territory, without OTL's Mexican War having already started. They could set up their own government, but how cliché! I'd rather if they managed to complete fall apart during the leadership crisis or decide to settle their winter quarters in Nebraska.


Comments?
 
I agree that the POD is likely to be US-centric. I'd go with the joint-resolution failing. If it's a procedural matter, there may still be time for Polk or Tyler to present a fait accompli.

Texas is likely to need some form of British mediation, if only to secure financing. By 1845, the Republic's finances are in a very sour state. I'd go for something like a Rio Grande Border to the Pecos, and then north along a reasonable line of latitude. Texas gets a chunk of the OTL panhandle, but Mexico retains Santa Fe with a substantial buffer on both sides against Texas and the US.

A key point to figure out is Texas' stance on slavery. While the Republic was pretty deadset on slavery, the Republic in 1845 is less attached than the State of Texas was in 1861. Texas' stance on slavery is also part of figuring out what its relationship is with the US. IMO the most interesting and untried version here is (i) for slavery tensions to continue to rankle in the US for some time until (ii) the North secedes, not the South while in the meantime (iii) Texas has already committed to emancipation. IMO you need to keep Texas and the US South on opposite sides of the issue for long enough to get both on sound enough footing that Union seems less appealing. The inverse, having Texas linger as a kind of allohistoric North American South Africa, has been tried before.

Another variable (and potential catalyst for the arrangement above) is immigration. While the US is consumed by slavery tensions, I could also see parties like the Know-Nothings make greater headway. If Texas pursues friendly policies while the US becomes anti-immigrant, Texas will benefit: for example, if Texas adopts an early version of the Homestead Act while the US does not, then Texas may well be favored.

California and the Pacific Northwest are wildcards. Their future is part and parcel of whether Texas ever acquires additional land. In this respect, we might also add parts of Northern Mexico. It would be ideal, IMO, if Texas can end up with access to the Pacific. I wonder if it would be interesting to have Great Britain end up leading a France-style invasion of Mexico. Texas is an ally. Texas gains some direct land in the OTL Southwest, Sonora and Chiuaha. California goes to Britain, which ends up with a very large holding on the Pacific. Britain then has to manage holdings from Quebec to California. This does interesting things to the birth of Canada. I have visions of the North secessionist nation evolving to federation with at least Ontario (though probably not Quebec) in the aftermath of a nasty war that Britain might lose in the late 19th Century, but that's probably a bit much. Also, just for a change of pace, I think it'd be amusing for Texas to buy Alaska. Russia is even less likely to give into GB if the latter has as large a Pacific presence as I'm outlining.

I like the idea of putting the Mormons in Nebraska. This is likely to create more near-term pressure in the settlement of upper LA Purchase and complicate the US.
 
Top