Texas stays independent

This may sound crazy, but Texas would go into the British orbit because during that time in one way or another; because most of the world was within the British Orbit. British business and industrialization was constantly searching for new raw materials markets, and controlled the majority of seabourne trade.

The big question would be how Mexico and the US relates to Texas. If the Texan government truly wants to keep their independence, they have to avoid war with both (unless Mexico really does totally collapse). Britain is the only one that could stand up to the US.

Very unlikely. Britain and the US already had a very profitable cotton trade going on, the UK has nothing to gain by risking that to prop up a dead-end secessionist country with nothing to offer. The only reason Texas contacted the UK in OTL was to scare the US into annexing them (Texas), not out of any wish to ally or get close to Britain.
 
The Republic of Texas was the classic definition of a failed state. I can't see that really changing, not without American annexation.

EDIT: Just read the first few pages of that Texian Libertarian-wank...Malcolm X as a fucking Texas Ranger...

Good grief.
 
I think that Texan Independence is highly unlikely, the Anglos that revolted were revolting for their right to own slaves and actively wanted to be part of the US. The POD would have to make the Texans actually want their own nation, instead of becoming part of the US.
 
I think that Texan Independence is highly unlikely, the Anglos that revolted were revolting for their right to own slaves and actively wanted to be part of the US. The POD would have to make the Texans actually want their own nation, instead of becoming part of the US.

That's the problem with this premise, that Texas had any real urge to be independent.

However, there is always the option that a Texan identity develops after the US continues to refuse to annex it. This is possible considering that at the time admitting new states was a wrenching affair, and every slave state acquisition had to be matched with a free-soil state being added. Add that to the risk of war with Mexico, and you have motive for the US to downright refuse Texan annexation indefinitely.

So, if you had, say, a much earlier Civil War, or less destructive revolts, you could keep the US on the brink and wary of war with foreign powers for decades more, and thus unlikely to accept Texas' offer. By the time the US re-integrates, there's a chance that Texas may have rescinded its offer.
 
The Republic of Texas was the classic definition of a failed state. I can't see that really changing, not without American annexation.

EDIT: Just read the first few pages of that Texian Libertarian-wank...Malcolm X as a fucking Texas Ranger...

Good grief.
Wait for Franco-Mexican titties and Spaceman friend Jim Henson.
 
Alternate stories? Well, yeah.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/roswell

I haven't read much beyond the "Road Trip" section. ROFL'd at the attemped "robbery" of the Texas truckstop. ;)

GMTA btw, I was considering posting an Independent Texas WI just now.

The biggest problem with it is butterflies: No State of Texas means no Great Compromise. And it also makes Texas a neutral party in the brewing ACW.

I've given it a good solid go. I can only assume that the target demographic are the children of log cabin republicans, ages 6 to 12. Possibly it may be narrower than that. But it's definitely not to all tastes.

The costumes of the 'Texas Rangers' are indescribable, resembling nothing so much as an eight year olds version of a cowboy, in appalling colour combinations. The characters are clean cut in a 'golly gee' hardy boys sort of way. They'd have trouble fitting in with Archie and the Gang in Riverdale, that crowd would be just too racy for them.

There's humour of a sort, but it's of a prepubescent adolescent sort. In one series of panels a character desperately fidgets because he has to go to the bathroom. In another a gunfight takes place with characters hiding behind trash cans because its illegal to damage state property. Not that there's much humour to it. Or for that matter, not much logic, events proceed on a sort of awkward pell mell rush with little to no coherence.

I've said targeted at 6 to 12, I can't imagine pubescent teens getting into it at all. Certainly not ones craving heterosexual influence.

But having said that, it's a big world, there's a place for everyone in it.

L. Neil Smith used to be a good writer.
 
Last edited:
Oh God. Not that crap.
Problems:

  • No butterflies
  • ASBs
  • Useless celebrity cameos that make as much sense as the Puget Sound-1 TL
  • It's a Libertarian Soapbox

Well, the OP *did* ask for stories set in an Independent Texas.

I stopped reading the thing because it got too weird (and if you understand why I took the persona of Midas of Phrygia you'd realize why "too weird for Midas" is an oxymoron). So others agree that it is a...strange...story?

IMO, the best celebrity cameo was Marion Michael Morrison as the Commander in Chief of the California Military. (If the reader is going "who?" go to IMDB :D).

OK Your Majesty, do you feel it is crappy because of the politics of the author? (Should I take that to Chat?)
 
I think that Texan Independence is highly unlikely, the Anglos that revolted were revolting for their right to own slaves and actively wanted to be part of the US. The POD would have to make the Texans actually want their own nation, instead of becoming part of the US.

1835 Texas or 1836 Texas?

In 1835, the "revolt" was a tax and law revolt remarkably similar to build up of the American Revolution. Mexico City had a national constitution, but in the eyes of the Texans, they weren't following the law as written. Note that the revolt was instigated by Latino citizens as well as Anglo immegrants. Had Mexico City had it's act together a bit (I know, I know, we're in ASB territory here ;) ) a non rebellious settlement could have been reached.

It was in 1836, when the rebels had no money but lots (and lots and lots) of land, and fielded an anglo army that was paid in acres, that the demographics changed.

I'm leary that the Grandees were so thrilled at the idea of taking orders from Washington after telling Mexico City to carry it's act.
 
Wait for Franco-Mexican titties and Spaceman friend Jim Henson.
And libertarian-wank Texas supplying nuclear weapons materials to the Irish Republican Army... a leftist/Marxist militant group IOTL...

I'm running up the white flag and surrendering. The fabulous pink-uniformed British-Nazis are too much.
 
1835 Texas or 1836 Texas?

In 1835, the "revolt" was a tax and law revolt remarkably similar to build up of the American Revolution. Mexico City had a national constitution, but in the eyes of the Texans, they weren't following the law as written. Note that the revolt was instigated by Latino citizens as well as Anglo immegrants. Had Mexico City had it's act together a bit (I know, I know, we're in ASB territory here ;) ) a non rebellious settlement could have been reached.

It was in 1836, when the rebels had no money but lots (and lots and lots) of land, and fielded an anglo army that was paid in acres, that the demographics changed.

I'm leary that the Grandees were so thrilled at the idea of taking orders from Washington after telling Mexico City to carry it's act.

Around that time all of Mexico was undergoing a giant civil conflict between Centralists and Federalists. So it would make sense that there was a revolt during that time.

Stephen Austin tried to actively suppress publication of the 1829 Mexican Abolition of Slavery, because Austin was afraid that Texas would revolt. Slavery was a major factor of discontent for the Anglo land owners.
 
Last edited:
Ignoreing the silly Roswell posts :rolleyes:.
Given a Independent Texas -- ?What would the ACW [& post war] relations with the US be like?
 
Yes, there have been one or even a hundred stories. I think Gibson and Sterling's "The Difference Engine" had an independent Texas. Googling for Texas Republic alternate history should also bring things up; remember to use Google, not the lame alternatehistory search.

There were big bodies of opinion both for and against US annexation. President Houston was for, and President Lamar, whom he swapped terms with in office, was against. Independence's probably unlikely but not ASB. A border incident or disagreement might change opinion.

mowque wrote:
Hard to see it. Two powerful nations right next door. Mexico will want it back, and once they get a competent leader they will try (and probably succeed). The other power, the USA, will want it as well AND a large part of the population wants to join the USA.
...well, and that was the problem for MEXICO in a nutshell. Santa Anna was a pretty good leader by caudillo standards, and how many times did he lose to, not just the US, but even little Texas? Meanwhile, voting's the best way of picking leaders, and we did pretty well. Another problem facing dictators is that they have to also lead all the armies or risk losing their spot; and it's hard to be both a good
dictator and a good general simultanously. It was the Mexicans whom lived in fear of the Texas Rinches' scouts, not the other way around.

In the US, though, annexation also had plenty of opponents - both free states and those whom had no interest in war with Mexico were against. Texas was admitted by an out and out warmonger. So, it could've gone either way. And, from the US 19C POV, Texas held no vital anthing, unlike California's coast and gold.
 
Ignoreing the silly Roswell posts :rolleyes:.
Given a Independent Texas -- ?What would the ACW [& post war] relations with the US be like?

Indeed, sorry I posted it, now.
:(
The biggest problem with it is butterflies: No State of Texas means no Great Compromise. And it also makes Texas a neutral party in the brewing ACW.

It certainly makes the Great Land Grab of 1846 more complicated, donnit?

IMO, Texas would be better off as a benevolent neutral (like as neutral as the USA was in 1940) than as a belligerent. How long would the US Navy put up with an Open Port policy?

Also, the Mexicans would be too busy with French adventurism to bother Texas much.

Without admitting Texas into the Union, would there be another free state added?
 
Top