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?
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?