Texas without Annexation

Tin time.

How would Texas fair without annexation in 1845?
How big it could be today?
Would there be annexation after 1845 or even a war with the US?

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I can't find one.
As always, over to you.
 

Glen

Moderator
Tin time.

How would Texas fair without annexation in 1845?
How big it could be today?
Would there be annexation after 1845 or even a war with the US?

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I can't find one.
As always, over to you.

One critical question is whether, sans Annexation, there is a Mexican-American War. Annexation was the spark for that IIRC. The annexation of Texas and lands gained after the Mexican-American War upset the old balance between slave and free states, setting the stage for the American Civil War. Without all that, abolition may take a different course. Actually I explored a lot of this in my timeline, Clay Victorious.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Britain was also extended a friendly hand towards the Republic of Texas just before annexation. Indeed, it was this very development that finally got the United States on board with bring Texas into the Union. If annexation fails to take place, might the RoT become a British ally?
 
Republic of Texas Analysis
I have raked through most of AH.com’s threads about the ROT and the following analysis is what I have compiled from various threads on the site. I use it as a reference while righting a TL I haven’t posted yet. I give credit to people much smarter than I, for this post.

To become a legitimate nation, Texas must first:

Secure authority over its claimed territory

  • The Nueces Strip
  • Santa Fe
  • The Arkansas River
  • The Sabine River
  • Comancheria
Prevent financial collapse

  • By maintaining credit in foreign counties
  • By finding resources to back its currency
  • And by getting currency into circulation
Secure diplomatic recognition from Mexico

  • Or join with a foreign power willing to defend it
The Nueces Border War 1839-1842
Early Texas doesn't stand a chance in any long-term war, no matter what. Texan Militia go on the offensive to lay claim to the disputed lands of the Nueces Strip. Most of the fighting will be on the Rio Grande in the Mexican states of Nuevo Mexico, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas. Even heavily outnumbered, untrained, and undisciplined, Texan militia fight A LOT better than Mexican Regulars (1/4 of which will desert before any action takes place). Texan militias had fought the Mexicans before, as well as Indians and were highly experienced in city fighting. (something the Americans didn't have when they invaded in 1846 of OTL). The Texans also had better leadership, Albert Sidney Johnson, Thomas Rusk, Commodore Edwin Moore, and many more were veterans from the 1836 revolution.

The Santa Fe Expedition 1839-1843
Texas has to convince Santa Fe that it is really part of Texas just as it convinced El Paso. Santa Fe was ruled by a despotic governor named Manuel Armijo. While he kept It's residents safe from Indian raids, he also conscripted lower class men into his army against their will. The Texans fought against (or rather were captured by) his army when they might have been able to get his conscripts to join their cause instead. A successful incorporation of Santa Fe increases ranching culture in Texas and increases the ability of Texas to field cavalry against Mexico. A crucial resource for plains combat. In the peace treaty, (mediated by Great Britain) Texas gains undisputed control of its claims. They would also probably stick Mexico with their enormous debt. French Intervention in Mexico could happen a few years earlier… This would end any talk of American annexation, and it would cement Texas' hold on the continent (no matter how weak it is). Glorious victory in this war will help keep the Liberal/Nationalist/Expansionist party in power (Lamar, Burleson and Burnet) which would cut off annexation plans from the beginning.

Internal Infrastructure and Economy
Free Trade between the US will discourage the development of internal industry (However, Samuel Colt and the RoT had a very good relationship and could move his factory to Texas around 1851.) Texas has all the makings of an extractive economy, relying on agriculture, ranching, and mineral extraction. Independence could make a Southern rebellion much weaker since Britain and France won't be relying on only Southern cotton. (Along with the absence of Texan Soldiers) Texas will be hard pressed, until Gold is discovered in the West and North which will stabilize the Texas' economy. Development of Santa Fe and “Eastern Colorado” could accelerate the Colorado Gold Rush. The California Gold Rush of 1849 will not happen on schedule without the Mexican-American War. If Texas expands to California/Sonora it has both more and shorter routes for a transcontinental railroad than the USA. OTL much of TX was drastically remade by dams and man-made lakes. The Southwest was similarly impacted by projects like the Hoover Dam and man-made lakes. Water in Colorado is OTL pumped from the western side of the continental divide to the eastern, to irrigate farms mostly in Kansas. OTL Colorado will be divided between the USA and the RoT; Could complicate the politics of something like the Dust Bowl in this TL. It does have natural resources, and may grow to wield influence thereby. Nevertheless, the RoT will not be able to manage to truly best the USA. It probably won't have the agricultural or industrial capacity due to size and climate. Once expanded to California or Sonora the railroad industry will be very strong Oil will further fuel the Texas economy at the turn of the 19th century. The US will need to find a new place to test Its Nuclear Weapons as well.

Slavery
Texas couldn’t really be a haven for runaway slaves since Free Blacks were prohibited from coming too or living in the Republic of Texas. (though that didn't stop John Horse.) If Texas develops the same plantation culture as seen in the south, I think the cotton, sugar, rice and lumber would make it quite wealthy. Would be similar relationship to Egyptian cotton producers OTL.
However…
Major Slavery in the RoT is not a sure thing at all. The Population of Texas in 1845 was approximately 125,000 white settlers Most of the Texan Immigrants were non-slaveholding small farmers, craftsmen, and tradesmen - and many emigrated from non-slaveholding areas of the U.S. and Europe.
~24,000 not counted above were slaves (1/5th of the Population)
~3,500 Slaveholders that’s less than 3% of total pop.
~2,800 had less than 10 slaves (80%)
Less than 1% of Texas slave holders had more than 50 slaves

Only after statehood did slavery explode. During the ROT, most of the country was too remote and undeveloped for slaveholding plantations to be workable. Despite its size Texas doesn’t have land suitable to major plantations. Outside of the east and a swath of central Texas, the land is either too hilly, dry, swampy or a combination thereof.
At least until more advanced irrigation techniques are developed. But at best we get an Ethiopia situation with limited slavery remaining, but not the mass slavery of the Deep South or Caribbean. Unless sponsored by the US, The slaveholding class will eventually forfeit their power to: Mexico for recognition, a European sponsor for protection, or the pioneer class of Texan and white Immigrants who will advocate their own labor.

US Political Changes
The US had resisted annexing Texas since 1837 because of the fervent desire of northerners to avoid increasing the power of slave states. If Texas shows its legitimacy by defeating the Mexicans again in 1840’s and becomes protected by a foreign power, with Texas annexation no longer an issue and the 1844 election would probably devolve into the Whig's vs. the Democrat's economic policy. Polk might be butterflied away since he was a black horse candidate; The odds are that Van Buren or more likely Cass would be nominated. Denying Van Buren the nomination could cause an split in the Democratic Party. The Whigs would still nominate Clay. I think Clay would be elected over the Democratic candidate due to his credentials. Without Polk and the Mexican-American War The Whigs won't necessarily split over slavery and there will be No Republican or Liberty Party. The Whigs concentrates on the settlement of Oregon Country or possibly renew the “lease” on Territory for postponing annexation as was the precedent. Florida and Iowa are admitted to the Union before 1848. No Mexican-American War also means that Freemont’s campaign through California won’t turn back to Sonoma in 1846, he will continue north to Oregon. The south will feel Cheated out of western lands by the Domination of Whig Party, The Missouri Compromise, Texas Independence, The US Concentration on Northern Expansion (Oregon Territory). The South will attempt to kill off or change the Missouri Compromise (probably as early 1844-46) so that they can create slave states in places like Kansas and Nebraska. The US will probably see much more Bleeding Kansas Style conflict between slaveholders and free-soilers than we did in OTL, This could lead to outright civil war, with or without the formal secession. The war would be very different than the one in OTL due to lack of experienced officers from the Mexican-American War. The South will unsuccessfully push for expansion into Cuba and Central America so more filibusters like William Walker than in the OTL earlier Ostend Manifesto like documents. I would expect a USA that has sworn off western expansion (with the exception of Oregon) to become more anti-immigrant. American Party (No-Nothing Party) splits from Democrats? If something incredibly extreme doesn’t awaken the giant, The Union will likely stumble along as it had been doing, right up until the 1890s, when various factors were going to converge to render slavery unprofitable and make it a liability, rather than a benefit, to the Southern economy. Within a few years after that, slavery would likely have been abandoned without a war ever being fought.

Foreign Immigration and Alliances
Texas needs foreign protection from Mexican Invasion. Like I said before Texas doesn't stand a chance in any long-term war, no matter what. The three options available are a British, French, or US protectorate (By Protectorate I mean Protected State, Texas would retain local autonomy, Parent country deals with foreign affairs and aids in Major border defense) All 3 offered to mediate a treaty between Mexico and Texas for recognition All 3 were rejected by Mexico because of oblivious annexation goals. Enforcing peace between Mexico and Texas also enforces the maximum extent of territory for Texas: the Rio Grande to its source/a line North to the US border. Texas will need to be freed in order to expand Texas will be released eventually. (again, Obviously) Texas was also recognized by Belgium and Russia (Russia is the only one with American holdings) Intrestingly, Texas was not recognized by the Holy See.

US Territory of Texas
Texans won’t refuse to be annexed by the US. It was many Texans original home. The US can continue to refuse annexation due to concerns about Slavery and Statehood. US Refused annexation of Texas (non RoT) twice. The RoT was also refused twice. When Annexation did pass, by unorthodox means no less, it passed by one Vote. The US was conflicted on whether Texas would be admitted as a State or a Territory. Texas wanted immediate statehood which provided the most protection. By the time the Texans agree to emancipation to get British aid, opinions in Texas will strongly disfavor the Union and their lack of action. The US can pull the Monroe Doctrine if negotiation doesn’t favor them. Perhaps they will agree to Joint-occupation by US and Britain (like Oregon with autonomy) The biggest effect of a Civil War, will be further migration to Texas. The Mormons could also be something of a problem, since they will occupy border land if they still chose to settle in Utah. If they choose to settle in Texas however, Texans will have to deal with genuine religious diversity, in the genuine RC/Protestant split between Tejano’s and Texans. This may make it easier for the Mormons to find a place in the RoT, though polygamy will remain a problem.

British or French Texas
Britain would be their natural ally, and it would benefit them economically. British would have insisted on free trade and emancipation. Most likely legal segregation occurs (if the emancipated slaves aren't sold in the US or exiled). Ties with Britain could lead to more substantial Irish immigrants. San Patricio already has a lot of Irish. The British may subsidize the Irish to immigrate to Texas rather than the US during the famine This would create a cultural tie between Tejanos and Texans by virtue of the Irish being Roman Catholics. If the French intervention happens earlier, I don't think British Texas would enjoy having a Mexican Empire propped up by the French on their southern border, unless the French keep Mexico stable and non-aggressive. (They won’t) Or the French also control Texas. (via Protectorate) I highly doubt there would be a war with French Mexico, but there would definitely be a lot of antagonism there. French TX may participate in the French interventions in Mexico That leads to Emperor Maximilian? Perhaps tears off a chunk of Northern Mexico for itself. Other Foreign Powers and Immigration Many of European settlers were opposed to slavery. - Germans, Swiss, Czechs, French, Irish, etc. many OTL already saw substantial German immigration (Hence New Braunfels and Fredericksburg). Germans, who were as anti-French as could be. Maybe even more in this TL. But all of these possible alliances would develop in the future. Vast waves of immigrants coming from Europe after 1845 may differ to Texas in greater numbers than OTL. At some point, European nations will need to deal with Mexican debts. French Intervention/War of Reform/California Rebellion 1853-54. This would be an opportunity for Texas to gain California and the rest of the Southwest. California has almost no population Pre-Gold Rush, Immigration isn't high. By the mid-1850s, Texas has a growing immigrant population that is beginning to strike out across the Rio Grande to California, hearing of the splendid farming available there. Max of 2 years after the Gold strike settler’s rise up against Mexican officials. It will be hard to keep California and Texas separate from each other. The union of two anti-Mexican, filibuster republics is in both states' interest. Texas and it’s protecting nation invade. If Texas aids California, Texas will be invaded by Mexico. Texas/California theaters will divide Mexican logistics. The key for Texas is the ability to mount a sustained cavalry army on the plains of the Southwest Texas. Riflemen in the style of Eastern Woodsmen can only function effectively in areas that offer cover, like mountains or forests.

Global Expansion
The USA will have Washington's legacy of no foreign alliances but Texas will not. Texas will have a longer history of cooperation with European nations since it will not have the Napoleonic Wars from which to remain aloof. Texas may serve as an arbiter for conflicts, perhaps between the US and Spain, and between Russia and Japan, A trans-isthmian canal will probably also emerge as at some point, for either the RoT or the USA, or perhaps as a joint project. The RoT had very good relationship with the Republic of Yucatan. A substantial issue in this regard is the degree of animosity between the USA and Texas. Texas may want some possession of Cuba or the like to secure access to the Atlantic. This may result in Texas arbitration of something like the Spanish-American War, with a neutral/independent Cuba. If Texas expands it will have more substantial Pacific interests rather than gulf. Texas will be far more likely to get into a Pacific War than the US ITTL. Annexation of Hawaii is probably a given.

The Texas Constitution and Politics
The Republic of Texas was not a Federal Republic. There would and a debate on whether or not to make a multi-state republic. There is some kind of Constitutional revision to bring California into the Republic. Santa Fe was already claimed by the Republic and could by organized into a municipality (County) as in OTL. It's much harder to maintain this municipality structure all the way to California. Might Fix the problem of the non-sequential presidency (though it is unique.) Also, the original Texas Constitution guaranteed certain land rights to settlers. The Homestead Act was part of the Constitution but eventually, though, the land will run out. It's government will probably be well regarded, once fears of centralization derived from Mexican "tyranny" lapse, due to the reliance of settlers on territorial federal support. Texas becomes a rather rambunctious state, since it is largely founded by people who find the US to be too conservative and not expansionist. Given its largely agricultural economy in the late nineteenth century, California may develop a very large Populist movement which gives it a distinctly different culture from either Texas or the USA. In the early 20th century, apart from labor politics, the biggest issue for Texas will be the closing of the frontier. Sadly, Texas will not be kind to Indians.

Race Relations
All in all, Texas has to get very lucky, finding a way of allowing diverse ethnic groups to cooperate, forge a new constitutional regime to avoid sectional division, fight off much larger powers, and grow an economy from negative scratch. As for race relations, that can go a lot of ways too. In Texas, there would be three main races: Whites, Blacks, and Mexicans. Whites will be seen as superior socially no matter what. The ones in the middle would see some better treatment. Not as good as whites, but they'd probably have most rights, they could testify in court, maybe vote, etc. The one on the bottom wouldn't be able to vote, would get the terrible jobs, and for a long time they would either be slaves or a cheap workforce with no rights, depending on how you go. So it just depends on who’s on the bottom: the Blacks or the Mexicans. Texan Whites, now possessing a large amount of territory filled mostly with Mexicans who have no allegiance to the government, may turn to the Blacks to balance things out. With the same language and both groups being Protestant, the Whites may see this as the best way to counterbalance the Catholic Mexicans. Likewise, White Texans, having spent several decades living among Mexicans and being heavily influenced by their culture, may decide to keep the blacks enslaved and give the new Mexican residents more rights. But I highly doubt that both groups would be held at the bottom by the Whites.

On that cheery note, Viva la Tejas!
 
A vary comprehensive analysis Texian. I did note that in the Race Relations paragraph you listed Whites, Blacks and Mexicans, but not Indians. Is that because (referencing your comment in the prior paragraph) Texas won't simply be unkind to Indians, but harsh and violent toward them?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
A vary comprehensive analysis Texian. I did note that in the Race Relations paragraph you listed Whites, Blacks and Mexicans, but not Indians. Is that because (referencing your comment in the prior paragraph) Texas won't simply be unkind to Indians, but harsh and violent toward them?

In RoT politics, the anti-annexation faction lead by Mirabeu Lamar was violently hostile to the native Americans and launched campaigns to drive them out of the state altogether.
 
So at some point, Texas would launch a war of extermination against the natives?:(

First would come actions similar to those surrounding the removal of Indians from the eastern US and the Highland Clearances in Scotland. Then, if that wasn't 100% effective, yes, Texas would probably, definitely if Mirabeu Lemar is in charge, launch such a war.
 
A vary comprehensive analysis Texian. I did note that in the Race Relations paragraph you listed Whites, Blacks and Mexicans, but not Indians. Is that because (referencing your comment in the prior paragraph) Texas won't simply be unkind to Indians, but harsh and violent toward them?

Yes, harsh is a Euphemism. However, if the Native Americans are not completely wiped out by wars (Internal or External), removed from the country or die of disease; their original culture most certainly will. They will most likely assimilate in to all three cultures. For example, Most Hispanics are part Native American, (However probably not Comanche) and John Horse and the tribe of Black Seminoles (who traveled through Texas to Mexico circa 1850) are a testament themselves to the intermingling between Free Blacks and Indians, let alone ITTL.
 
So any "protecting" state would have to bankroll Texas for a good while?
Kind of, but not necessarily. They just need to keep the Indians subdued and Mexico peaceful long enough for Texas to realize it's true potential. In 1838 Texas was at the height of it's power, if Lamar's presidency had been successful, Texas might not have been 15 million in the hole (as it was when it joined the USA.) The only revenue Texas made was from the customs house in Galveston (about 3 million), so If Texas would have had also had a Customs House In Santa Fe as well as East Texas it would have been set. Texas also has plentiful resources within its borders they just need time to be realized and exploited, like the gold in the Ortiz Mountains north of Santa Fe. They started being mined prior to the revolution. By the property laws of the time, the Gold belonged to the Texas Government and this revenue would also be a major boost for Texas. A protecting country might hang on to it until the 1860's if Texans don't throw of their yoke sooner.
 

katchen

Banned
Check out www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachum/sch/AnusimMexico.pdf
and ww.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=7759700, the thread "Jewish population as large as the Mexicans". If Texas remains independent and must fight another war with Mexico, Texian, the Texians are going to find out in a hurry that a majority of the population of Nuevo Leon (which at the time also includes Tamaulipas and Coahuila wants out of Mexico in the worst way and wants to be part of Texas. Then they will discover that these Novaleonian "Hispanics" are not Catholics at all but Jews. And that the Hispanics of New Mexico (the ones who are White and not Indio at any rate) are also Jewish. That's going to create an interesting cultural and yes, religious challenge to Texian society and culture.
Will Jews be granted the tolerance that the Bill of Rights guarantees since there are suddenly a lot of them in Texas?
Or will Texians fear Jews and engage in social discrimination against them?
Remember, all of this will be playing out over the next 70 years at the same time that Reverend Cyrus Schofield is preaching dispensationalism---the idea that Jews never lost their covenant with God and that they are still the "apple of God's eye" throughout the Midwest and South.The popularity of dispensationalist denominations in the South and Southwest is the reason why people in those areas are such strong supporters of Israel IOTL. How will all this play out in an independent Texas if a bunch of Hispanics who initially appeared to be Catholics (but obviously as White as any Texian) turn out to have only pretended to be Catholic to keep from being burned alive and now are coming out of the closet as it were, as Jews, thinking it is safe to do so because of constitutional guarantees of religious freedom?
Makes for an interesting TL, no?
 
Texas was in very bad economic shape and didn't have much population to speak of. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that Mexico came back and reconquered it.
 
Texas was in very bad economic shape and didn't have much population to speak of. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that Mexico came back and reconquered it.

Texas population was 70,000 in 1840, 200,000 in 1850, & 600,000 in 1860. Mexico would have a hard time of it if they tryed
 

katchen

Banned
Texas population was 70,000 in 1840, 200,000 in 1850, & 600,000 in 1860. Mexico would have a hard time of it if they tryed

200,000 Texans Six Million Mexicans. Sounds like a lot. But of those six million Mexicans, maybe 600,000 of them were white. And by the time the Americans ocupied Mexico City they were so tired of the turmoil of Santa Ana that they petitioned Zachary Taylor and Nicholas Tirst and the US Congress to be annexed into the United States. And at that time, it was only the whites whose votes counted.
So when Sam Houston threatened to invade and conquer Mexico if the US refused to annex Texas and Mexico attacked Texas, Houston was not talking tall like a Texan. He meant it and might well have been able to pull it off. It would have taken some doing to fully establish control over the whole country of Mexico from 42nd Parallel north of Humboldt Bay California to Yucatan and Chiapas. And Great Britain and France would definitely not have been happy about slavery being legalized over all that territory. But American Southerners would have flocked to Mexico. And thus would have been established the Golden Circle around the Gulf of Mexico that the Knights of the Golden Circle, the pre-Civil War predecessor to the Ku Klux Klan were on about had been talking about.
I can 't say that there wouldn't have been a crisis though when the question of statehood for Kansas or Oregon or Minnesota came before Congress, though.
That's when the impossibility of new states where plantation agriculture was feasible would become apparent.
 
Texas was in very bad economic shape and didn't have much population to speak of. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that Mexico came back and reconquered it.

It could have happened. In fact the British were trying to mediate the return of Texas to Mexico during 1841-42. However, there proposals went over like a lead balloon. As Texas Sec of State Anson Jones put it, "Mexico must restore us our murdered thousands before we can ever entertain the proposition of being reincorporated with that Government."

Santa Anna considered this response a "mabye" and launched small probing invasions along the Rio Grande in 1842. But he did not plan to attack by land, he was going to invade by sea through Galveston. Santa Anna ordered from Britain two of the most advanced steamship-of-war in the world which, the Sailing ships of Texan Navy attacked, preventing them from invading the Yucatan (whom the Texas Navy was actually on lease too! :D) or Texas. This is the only time Steam and Sail ever fought to a draw/win for sail. EVER! In the History of the World! :eek: This Battle, along with Santa Anna's inability to retake Texas or the Yucatan, caused the British to recognize Texas Independence. (and a coup of Santa Anna. :p) Britain continued to pressure Mexico until it recognized Texas Independence in 1845.

However, despite this achievement the Navy was also what killed the Republic Texas. At the time Texas had the largest and most powerful Navy in the Gulf; but in the span of 10 years the number of ships in fighting condition went from 12 to 2. (some never left Galveston). Texas simply couldn't afford the navy. But I had to have one. For Example: Texas also had a Steamship-of-War the Zavala. At the end of her brief carrier, her crew had to gut the ship in order to keep her boilers up to steam during a storm. The government wouldn't pay for coal... (Books, Beds, Bulkheads... You name it. They burned it.)

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't I suppose. Texas had a lot of luck on it's side.
 
Last edited:
Top