Well what are some cultural effects? Does California have as mucha tate pride as Texas does since it would have been independent the same time Texas would be? What are some political effects?
WI: California and Texas switched fates?
- Thread starter The_Russian
- Start date
If we assume both?
Well, both states already have that similar state pride built in, though Texas is larger. Might see a bit of a quasi-alliance between the two, culturally, as they are two states that managed to declare independence and successfully fought for it simultaneously. There'd still be the predominantly Yankee California and predominately Southron California that have major political opposition.
You likely also would have the same component of California built-in, where they could split into multiple states on their own, similar to Texas's own little qualifier. Now, California would likely demand their maximum claims. The butterflies should avoid Nathaniel Trist, so we'll see a California including all of Alta & Baja California at first (like Greater Texas was larger). Then California would sell it to recoup costs, but California would likely be larger than OTL, including either Baja or parts of Nevada.
Politically, it wouldn't be much different, except that the US would have a much stronger presence on the West Coast. when the civil War erupts, the Californians will be able to counter any Texan western push far more easily than OTL. Oregon should likely be the same, as while there seems to be earlier immigration to California, it wouldn't be much more than OTL.
But, in the end, the West Coast will end up slightly stronger and more influential, but California will also consider itself separate from the other Pacific states for the same reason that Texas considers itself separate from the Southern States.
Although, i would say that California is already quite proud of itself OTL. The pride might be just as much as Texas, but simply more along Texas lines.
What about both? And how big of a chunk of Nevada are we taking about?
Puts a whole new meaning to Reagan and Bush.
I don't see it extending that much further east, tbh. The Sierra Nevada is a pretty formidable natural barrier, and the Colorado River a convenient place to draw the eastern boundary. If TTL's California is larger, it'll mostly be in the direction of including Baja California.
Texas will probably be carved up into multiple states. I doubt it will acquire its OTL sense of identity: California managed because of the natural barriers and distance separating it from the rest of country, but Texas has neither. Without its extended history of independence and political unity, there's nothing really holding it together as a distinct unit. The Republic of Texas ITTL will probably no more yield a lasting or distinctive identity than the Republic of West Florida did.
Why would it become multiple states?
Why would Texas be annother West Florida? It’s still gonna be independent for 10 years until it and California are annexed at the same time.
Doubtful both. Too much land, and I'm agreed with @Thisisnotausername If they get all of baja, they'll have plenty of land, anyway.
Unsure about this. The US will seek the Rio Grande Border for certain, so the Nueces strip will likely be added to Texas anyway. Perhaps alt-Oklahoma gets the Texas Panhandle, and a larger New Mexico extends East... But Texas as a region would be established, I feel.
Though if we assume basically minimal settlement (still not sure how that happens when it's right next to Louisiana), then you could have the Eastern Uplands split into two states, one reaching the Nueces, I suppose, assuming that Texas never manages to attract any immigration.
But why would Texas be smaller?
I thought we established that most of the california settelers would be people who would have gone to Oregon. So Texas would still have a decent Anglo population.
Because the IOTL state is pretty large (there's a reason for that bit about them being able to split into five states later, if they want to) and the South will want to get as many slave states out of the area as possible, especially given that California is getting admitted early and almost certainly as a free state.
Because you didn't say it was going to be independent for ten years. You said that California and Texas switched places, with, to quote your OP, "Texas doing what California did and seceding during the Mexican american war." This means that California is independent from 1836 until it is annexed by the US in 1846, and Texas is under Mexican control until 1846, when a bunch of American settlers declare the Texas Republic, which exists for a month until US troops occupy the region and its troops join up with the US military, and its claimed territory is annexed by the US at the end of the war. If you're assuming California and Texas become independent in 1836, you should make that clear, because that's not what the thread title or your OP implies at all.
But why would it be admitted as a unified state? The reason it was held together IOTL was that it had been part of an established state and that state was admitted into the US wholesale. Here, this is not the case, and I see no reason why the territory wouldn't be cut in half along the Brazos or the Colorado to yield more sensibly sized states.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Likely because you won't be annexing a decade-old Republic with large territorial claims you have to compromise around, but a rebelling province who probably can only realistically lay claim to the borders it had within Mexico. That means solid chunks of the west are going to be part of New Mexico territory instead.
Well, one, I don't think it'd lose the borders it already had, as that region of Texas would have a fairly consistent identity. Secondly, admitting more states that are slave states when there is only one free state to balance will create issues. It's the same difference as admitting California along with Texas OTL so as the Free/Slave state senate numbers would remain the same. The same logic would apply here.
As it stands, I'd just say the Tejas Province + Nueces Strip, no more, if it was a rebelling province. That seems reasonable considering how much else is claimed (and how ridiculously large alt-California will be).
The admission of Texas as a single state certainly remains a possibility, but I'm not convinced that this identity will be strong enough to make partition impossible, especially given that the region will not have been meaningfully independent for any length of time prior to its acquisition by the US ITTL, and neither the Southern politicians out east or the Southerners migrating out west are going to care all that much. Keep in mind also the case of OTL California, where the state's sense of identity was so strong the southern portion voted to secede from it in 1859, although in fairness, the circumstances under which TTL's Texas would be divided would most likely be rather different.
California's admission in 1850 left the country with 16 free states and 15 slave states until 1858, when they admitted... another free state (Minnesota). And then another one in Oregon, and then another one in Kansas, and then the Civil War happened and balancing free states and slave states ceased to be of importance. Far from breaking the balance, another Texas or two (especially if they are admitted after the first one) will keep it.
The problem is that if the Lone Star Republic is like OTL's Bear Flag Republic, it will have only controlled a very small portion of its expansive claims and will have dissolved with the arrival of US troops rather than sticking around and forming a provincial/state government, and most of the province will not have been especially rebellious until US troops arrived.
I'm not convinced that TTL's California will be that much larger--even Baja California doesn't represent all that much in terms of people, especially in the 19th century.
But California had to send a pro slavery senator and an anti slavery senator.
We established that both would be independent for 10 years. And why wouldn’t the us just try and take more of Mexico? And California would only add itself. Nevada wasn’t added until the civil war, so it would be more slave than free if Texas splits
FillyofDelphi
Banned
... i don't recall the point we assumed Texas was independent. Still as intensely settled, yes, but not having successfully broken off from Mexico. As for biting off more of Mexico, because most other claims have too many Mexicans on them; the US in the 40's dosen't want state-bound regions (based on their development and population size) like Nuevo Leon that are going to be mainly people's by Catholic Hispanics.
Makes sense
Edit: would the southern borders of Arizona and New Mexico be the same? Is it a straight line after the alt Mexican American war? Do we still get the gardesend purchase if Texas and Cali co exist as 2 republics until American annexation?
Last edited:
No? Where on Earth did you get that idea? How would you even enforce that? That might've been how things shook out, but I can find nothing indicating it was required.
Anyway, you're missing my point, which is that if there was a second Texas, this imbalance would not occur, and there would not be more slave states than free states, because during the OTL 1850s, the US only admitted free states, which multiple Texases would help balance.
When did we establish that?
https://www.scpr.org/news/2010/09/05/18513/californias-first-senators-were-split-over-slavery/
Fine. Required was a wrong word to use, but it happened.
Well if Texas is also likely to be independent then we can’t have California be like Texas if they’re both established and the union admits Texas right off the bat, because then the Mexican American war just happens earlier with California being free to join the union durring it.
Okay, reading through the thread more carefully, I noticed where you decided Texas was also going independent in 1836. It would've been nice if you'd actually pointed that post out when I asked when we'd switched to Texas being independent in 1836, but I'm not going to blame you for my poor reading comprehension.
It did happen, but the point stands that it was just a thing that happened, not necessary for California to receive admission to the union even though it would leave things unbalanced. Anyway, this is all a moot point because in the scenario you changed to mid-thread (as opposed to the original scenario, to which I was responding), Texas is liable to be admitted as one large state as IOTL, for the same reasons as in OTL.
Well it was repeated that it was basically difficult for California to be indepdenent if Texas wasn’t settled so I thought it would be easier to just say they both become independent...