The Republic of Texas

[Big Tex]

Something to consider when talking about Texas and slavery. The cotton growing areas which depended on reliable rain and soil are limited to east of the modern day Interstate 35 line (running Dallas/Austin/San Antonio) and north of the Nueces River. West of that line the terrain is too rocky, and then too arid, while south of the Nueces the terrain is too difficult to clear until you get to the Rio Grande Valley because of the Chapparal.

As cotton exhausts the soil like nothing else (except tobacco, which is worse), then eventually cotton will cease to be profitable enough to support slavery, while other forms of agriculture in Texas, particularly cattle raising, are not worth keeping slaves for either.

This is true also, and that boll wevill (or whatever bug it was) that devestated the south in the late 1800's will probably still take place.

All that being said, cotton will always be big in Texas, I'm a 5 minutes drive from an endless plain of cotton fields along the Brazos. It was even bigger in the mid 1800's. If anything the early loss of the Rio Grande Valley and bits of West Texas will make east-central cotton even more important.

 

[galveston bay]

This is true also, and that boll wevill (or whatever bug it was) that devestated the south in the late 1800's will probably still take place.

All that being said, cotton will always be big in Texas, I'm a 5 minutes drive from an endless plain of cotton fields along the Brazos. It was even bigger in the mid 1800's. If anything the early loss of the Rio Grande Valley and bits of West Texas will make east-central cotton even more important.

That is true, but without modern fertilizer that wouldn't be possible. And most Texas cotton is pretty much limited to the river bottoms within about 100 miles of the coast. A lot of the current African American population is actually descended from slaves who were imported in the first couple of years of the Civil War to safeguard them from Union campaigns (and to make it harder for them to run off). There were sizeable numbers of slaves in Texas prior to that, but the number took a big jump in 1861-62.



The other big issue for Texas is the nearly 40 year war between Texas and the Comanches that wasn't really finished until the 1870s and began during the 1830s. That will tend to keep Texas a well armed society and the Texas Rangers busy for nearly the entire period. Luckily for Texas though, the Republic of Mexico had bigger problems then Texas for the 1837-1843 period, including more civil wars, a Spanish invasion (that failed) and political divisions.

Texas could possibly have gotten larger if the expedition to take Santa Fe had been better planned, led and luckier, although how that would have benefited Texas until the Comanches were crushed escapes me. Communications would have been unreliable, and safer along the Santa Fe Trail (which avoids a lot of Comanche territory as it comes to Santa Fe from the northwest), and of course that trail connects St Louis to Santa Fe, providing no benefit to Texas at all.

I can't see Texas having a real shot at New Mexico or Arizona and especially not California unless the Civil War occurs, Texas stays out of it, the Union loses, and it benefits from the Union (or the CSA or British) sinking some capital into Texas allowing construction of the real life Southern Pacific Railroad line from San Antonio to southern California.

I think California is certainly doomed to become US controlled after 1849 (or whenever an alternate history gold rush occurs), and certainly so once silver is found in Nevada (late 1850s). The sheer weight of numbers of American settlers would sweep aside the rather small number of Hispanic Californians (small compared to the tidal wave of American settlers). Some incident would set off a US/Mexican War, and the Americans can conquer California fairly easily enough even without an overland march (as they essentially did so after all with a relatively small force).

Texas has no such option (no significant seapower other then the Texas Navy, which was small although fairly effective for its size during its brief existance).

 

[Big Tex]

I had a random thought; how effective would a Franco-Texan alliance against Mexico be in the Civil War? Without the US in a position to intervene, Texans working to capture the RGV and New Mexico, and French forces doing their thing in the Mexican core perhaps that French Campiagn to isntall Maximillian goes better? Or at least result in a larger Texas?

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

I think California is certainly doomed to become US controlled after 1849 (or whenever an alternate history gold rush occurs), and certainly so once silver is found in Nevada (late 1850s). The sheer weight of numbers of American settlers would sweep aside the rather small number of Hispanic Californians (small compared to the tidal wave of American settlers). Some incident would set off a US/Mexican War, and the Americans can conquer California fairly easily enough even without an overland march (as they essentially did so after all with a relatively small force).

Maybe not...

If the British are helping the texans, they might help the californians win their own independence.

This could have a number of POD's, one of which would be that the HBC director in the Oregon territory doesn't have a disagreement with his superiors and start encouraging American settlement. I'll find his name later... This allows better British control of the oregon.

That coupled with maybe more intense Russian activitiy around Fort Ross could make the British take a role in the region, if only to keep the Russians out.

In the end, you could find yourself with nation (or dominion) propped up by Britain. If you could couple this formation of a new nation when America is distracted, you'd be gold.

 

[torek]

Maybe I can come up with a way that Great Brittain annexes the Republic of Texas to throw off the rising tension between the Empire and the United States. The british were almost going to accept the Confederacy as an Independent nation until they were defeated by the North at Sharpsburg. What do y'all think? Is it feasible?

 

[Big Tex]

Maybe I can come up with a way that Great Brittain annexes the Republic of Texas to throw off the rising tension between the Empire and the United States. The british were almost going to accept the Confederacy as an Independent nation until they were defeated by the North at Sharpsburg. What do y'all think? Is it feasible?

I doubt it, the British have to little to gain from direct annexation and to much to lose. In addition they completley piss off Mexico and the US which they will still want to have as trading partners. Becoming tied to the area only increases the chances of war in the distant gulf. Also theres the whole Monroe Doctrine thing.

Recognition is one thing, annexation is completley different.

 

[lothaw]

I had a random thought; how effective would a Franco-Texan alliance against Mexico be in the Civil War? Without the US in a position to intervene, Texans working to capture the RGV and New Mexico, and French forces doing their thing in the Mexican core perhaps that French Campiagn to isntall Maximillian goes better? Or at least result in a larger Texas?

I could very well see that actually. Not much the US could do about it either and it could very well spark off another rebellion in California too. And there wouldn't be all that much the US could do about it if there were two independent Anglo-ran republics between Imperial Mexico and the US.

So even with a win in the Civil War it would effectively kill the Monroe Doctorine.

I might also have to rethink the Oregon Treaty going similar to OTL.

 

[jkay]

Maybe I can come up with a way that Great Brittain annexes the Republic of Texas to throw off the rising tension between the Empire and the United States. The british were almost going to accept the Confederacy as an Independent nation until they were defeated by the North at Sharpsburg. What do y'all think? Is it feasible?

I afraid I think Tex had it right. I mean, try putting yourself in the British' shoes, and you'll see his point.

..And, in fact, there's no evidence the British were about to recognize the CSA. Many of PM Palmerston's Tory buddies did sympathize with the slaveholder class, as Davis hoped, but some of those were put off by the the fact that the CSA had started the war (also a problem for CSA in the border states), and even more were put off by the threatening way the diplomats put their cotton deprivation point to the world's superpower. And, the CSA was deeply unpopular with the lower and middle classes. All in all, supporting CSA might've been a good way to lose the next election, and nobody cared about them that much.

 

[lothaw]

Even in most Trent War scenarios, Britain doesn't recognize the Confederacy even when they're at war with the Union.

Basicly any British recognition must be earned by victory on the battlefields or a delcaration of defeat by the north. Both of which are unlikely.

 

[torek]

Napoleon wins the Napoleonic wars and Maximillion signs a treaty with the republic to throw out the old mexican government. Texas gains access to San Fransisco and the French gain access to Houston. I hope that this will be feasible.

 

[GeneralHouston]

As much as I love Texas, do you really think they could beat Mexico descively in the 1840's?

I was under the impression that we did...both as the Republic of Texas and as a part of the US Army.

Let everyone learn this lesson from Texas history: if you sleep on the job, you will be bayonetted by vengeful Texans who are angry that you slaughtered their compatriots.


Seriously, if Santa Ana is in charge of the military I firmly believe he could lose a war to Texas. I also highly doubt that Texas would try to gain any more land South of the Rio Grande because it lacks the Anglo presence to be a stable part of the Republic.

And I don't care what Mexican maps said, the RIO GRANDE was always the border of Texas! I'm still pissed the federal government stole Santa Fe from us.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Texas could repell any Mexican invasions, but would not have resources or manpower for a successive offensive war, not one where they reach Mexico City anyway, i could see them taking Monterrey, but the question is would they be able to hold it??

 

[lothaw]

Thing is, the Battle of San Jacinto is likely one of the single most lucky moments in the history of the world.

If I posted a TL on this forum about a ragtag army viciously slaughtering an army twice it's size of professional soldiers because they decided to take a nap during the afternoon when they knew the enemy was nearby and didn't even post pickets, I'd be directed to the ASB forum.

I verily doubt Texas could recieve two such moments of divine favor. It would be the 60's before Texas could out match Mexico.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Thing is, the Battle of San Jacinto is likely one of the single most lucky moments in the history of the world.

If I posted a TL on this forum about a ragtag army viciously slaughtering an army twice it's size of professional soldiers because they decided to take a nap during the afternoon when they knew the enemy was nearby and didn't even post pickets, I'd be directed to the ASB forum.

I verily doubt Texas could recieve two such moments of divine favor. It would be the 60's before Texas could out match Mexico.

Because in the 60s the Mexicans were busy killing eachother and the French.

 

[lothaw]

Because in the 60s the Mexicans were busy killing eachother and the French.

True, though by the 1860's Texas also has enough of a population and infastructure to maintain a large field army is what I was getting at.

The Civil War/French intervention wouldn't hurt either.

 

[GeneralHouston]

Something to consider when talking about Texas and slavery. The cotton growing areas which depended on reliable rain and soil are limited to east of the modern day Interstate 35 line (running Dallas/Austin/San Antonio) and north of the Nueces River. West of that line the terrain is too rocky, and then too arid, while south of the Nueces the terrain is too difficult to clear until you get to the Rio Grande Valley because of the Chapparal.

As cotton exhausts the soil like nothing else (except tobacco, which is worse), then eventually cotton will cease to be profitable enough to support slavery, while other forms of agriculture in Texas, particularly cattle raising, are not worth keeping slaves for either.

Actually that's is COMPLETELY wrong. West Texas is a HUGE cotton producing region--the largest in the world, IIRC. They produce over a million bales a year. So I don't know where you're getting your information from.

 

[galveston bay]

Actually that's is COMPLETELY wrong. West Texas is a HUGE cotton producing region--the largest in the world, IIRC. They produce over a million bales a year. So I don't know where you're getting your information from.

history books and personal observation... NONE of that existed prior to widespread artisian water wells and pumping... in other words, beginning in the 1890s and later

before that, cotton in Texas (like everywhere else) was purely rain dependent

the California Central Valley, where I live now, also has a huge cotton crop.. from irrigation