WI: Failed Texan Revolution

[CastIron]

Suppose somehow, Santa Anna suppresses the Texans and reincorporates them into Mexico. How would this effect North American history?

Would the Mexican-American War be avoided, what with no dispute over Texan land, or would there be another justification?

More broadly, what happens to Manifest Destiny? Is the idea stillborn with the defeat of the American volunteers and settlers in Texas, or is it already too late post-Louisiana Purchase for Americans not to want to spread from sea to shining sea?

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

I'd say post-French and Indian War its going to be hard trying to stop Americans from wanting to expand and fulfill Manifest Destiny. I mean, one of the causes of the American Revolution was that the colonists were angry they couldn't expand into the land they thought they deserved following their victory. It was here that the seeds of American Manifest Destiny were planted. As for the Mexican-American War, I'd still see it happening. The Americans not only wanted Texas, but they wanted large chunks of, if not all of Mexico. This is not to say that Mexico could not have defeated the Americans, especially if they had some lucky breaks, and some bullets found the bodies of the more competent American commanders, aka Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, John Wool, and William J. Worth, leaving the commanding roles to such incompetents as David Twiggs and Gideon Pillow. Even if they did lose, however, I still think Americans would not abandon Manifest Destiny as an ideal, even if they had failed to successfully put it into practice.

 

[Nivek]

Suppose somehow, Santa Anna suppresses the Texans and reincorporates them into Mexico. How would this effect North American history?

Would the Mexican-American War be avoided, what with no dispute over Texan land, or would there be another justification?

More broadly, what happens to Manifest Destiny? Is the idea stillborn with the defeat of the American volunteers and settlers in Texas, or is it already too late post-Louisiana Purchase for Americans not to want to spread from sea to shining sea?

, Expect 1860 to become a real civil war as without more land, this will break fire-eaters back

 

[Derek Jackson]

Might Catholic Mexico have welcomed refugees from the Irish Famine (being catholic)

 

[Nivek]

Might Catholic Mexico have welcomed refugees from the Irish Famine (being catholic)

Yes why not?

 

[GeographyDude]

Wasn’t there at least some beginning negotiations to buy British Columbia?

 

[Coyote_Waits]

The aggressive slave power of the southeast was going to push for expansion somewhere- I feel that if it had not been Texas, it would’ve been Cuba or somewhere in Central American (cf William Walker). Although, just because an initial revolution fails, doesn’t mean there might not be a continued influx of non-Spanish/mestizo settlers into Texas and possibly a second Texan revolution. There’s also the possibility of Anglo-American settlers in Utah (Mormons) or California (gold rush miners) starting off revolutions later, perhaps even a chain of them tearing off several chunks of Mexico as has happened with geographically overextended empires elsewhere.

 

[Coyote_Waits]

Mexico’s mountains and arid geography, particularly in its pre-Mexican-American war state, made it difficult to govern some areas before modern communication technology

 

[Marc]

I could a see an alternate Mexican - American war being focused almost exclusively on Texas. Although it's rather hard to see the American not eventually taking California.

 

[CastIron]

Although, just because an initial revolution fails, doesn’t mean there might not be a continued influx of non-Spanish/mestizo settlers into Texas and possibly a second Texan revolution. There’s also the possibility of Anglo-American settlers in Utah (Mormons) or California (gold rush miners) starting off revolutions later, perhaps even a chain of them tearing off several chunks of Mexico as has happened with geographically overextended empires elsewhere.

Interesting. Maybe these later revolutions will result in more nations in the OTL Southwest and West? Like, perhaps we have a Deseret, a California Republic, a Texas and maybe a couple of Amerindian nations pop up (I'm thinking Comanche and Navajo/Apache) as Mexican borders and troops retreat back to the Rio Grande.

That's probably not going to happen, though. We'd probably just end up with an America that has larger Mexican descended Latino communities in the West, plus or minus the Gadsden Purchase area, but a personal thing of mine is to think of ways to break up North America into more nations than the big three and Central America.

 

[Marc]

Here's an amusing in retrospect thought - quoting for the sake of quickness:

"...Mexico had in fact abolished slavery in 1829, causing panic among the Texas slaveholders, overwhelmingly immigrants from the south of the United States. They in turn sent Stephen Austin to Mexico City to complain. Austin was able to wrest from the Mexican authorities an exemption for the department -- Texas was technically a department of the state of Coahuila y Tejas -- that would allow the vile institution to continue. But it was an exemption reluctantly given, mainly because the authorities wanted to avoid rebellion in Texas when they already had problems in Yucatán and Guatemala. All of the leaders of Mexico, in itself only an independent country since 1821, were personally opposed to slavery, in part because of the influence of emissaries from the freed slave republic of Haiti. The exemption was, in their minds, a temporary measure and Texas slaveholders knew that.
The legality of slavery had thus been at best tenuous and uncertain at a time when demand for cotton -- the main slave-produced export -- was accelerating on the international market. A central goal of independence would be to remove that uncertainty.
The Mexican armies that entered the department to put down the rebellion had explicit orders to free any slaves that they encountered, and so they did."

Now, imagine if Santa Ana does, in part as punishment for the failed rebellion, enforce the end of slavery in Texas...

 

[Coyote_Waits]

Santa Ana certainly would’ve tried to end slavery in Texas, if for no other reason than revenge against the upstart Texians. the question is how many men can he spare/afford to garrison Texas and for how long. Remember Santa Ana has many enemies back in the Capital and elsewhere in Mexico who were none to happy with him playing Napoleon, and although actually defeating the upstart gringos certainly would’ve helped his poll numbers, he’s still on shaky ground. And again, if Santa Ana forces the “Texian” IE white Anglo-American slaveholders to free their slaves at gun point, once news of this “radical abolitionist tyrant” reaches the south it will make Mexico an even more tempting target for fillibusterers

 

[Nivek]

if Santa Ana forces the “Texian” IE white Anglo-American slaveholders to free their slaves at gun point, once news of this “radical abolitionist

fixed for you, fuck those fire eaters

 

[Marc]

Santa Ana certainly would’ve tried to end slavery in Texas, if for no other reason than revenge against the upstart Texians. the question is how many men can he spare/afford to garrison Texas and for how long. Remember Santa Ana has many enemies back in the Capital and elsewhere in Mexico who were none to happy with him playing Napoleon, and although actually defeating the upstart gringos certainly would’ve helped his poll numbers, he’s still on shaky ground. And again, if Santa Ana forces the “Texian” IE white Anglo-American slaveholders to free their slaves at gun point, once news of this “radical abolitionist tyrant” reaches the south it will make Mexico an even more tempting target for fillibusterers

Well, since preserving slavery was apparently a casus belli, and with their militia army destroyed or captured or surrendered, Houston dead or captured etc, as per the orginial scenario, I believe that the planters would have had little choice but to either flee back to the US with their slaves - their major source of cash since they would have lost their lands - or tried to work out some kind of postbellum arrangement that the rest of the South did after 1865. As for the American South, they wouldn't have been surprised in the least, they did know why their cousins were rebelling in Texas. They might agitate for the United States to go to war with Mexico then and there, but I somehow don't think that Jackson, or his successor Burr would have been that eager, and certainly they wouldn't have any support from the North.
So they are up that creek without a paddle, and if you wanted to have a more amusing outcome, imagine the Mexicans recruiting black regiments from the former slaves, to help keep Eastern Texas secure from the gringos...
Now the longer term impact of all might mean a far different Mexican-American War when it comes about; for one thing, the idea of western expansion of slavery is probably going to be moot for no one is going to stomach resestablishing slavery in Texas, or elsewhere.

 

[Raferty]

I'm not seeing why another regionalist uprising wouldn't occur. Texas was not the only province to see an uprising at this point. And a second one likely gets American intervention, which may prove decisive if the US Army is prepared.

 

[Enigmajones]

Maybe a similar outcome to the Freedonian Rebellion? (Fought from December 21st, 1826 to January 31st, 1827)

 

[Marc]

I'm not seeing why another regionalist uprising wouldn't occur. Texas was not the only province to see an uprising at this point. And a second one likely gets American intervention, which may prove decisive if the US Army is prepared.

Quite possible, although the power and influence of American settlers would have been much reduced, making it a bit more difficult. I think it's more likely that the US ends up with an earlier Civil War, the ever increasing crisis could easily be accelerated with a "Free" Mexico controlling everything west of the Sabine. And the South by that point was already getting more than hysterical - read up on the "gag" rule of 1836.
Amusingly, the Speaker of the House at that time was none other than James Polk.

 

[Raferty]

Quite possible, although the power and influence of American settlers would have been much reduced, making it a bit more difficult. I think it's more likely that the US ends up with an earlier Civil War, the ever increasing crisis could easily be accelerated with a "Free" Mexico controlling everything west of the Sabine. And the South by that point was already getting more than hysterical - read up on the "gag" rule of 1836.
Amusingly, the Speaker of the House at that time was none other than James Polk.

The trend towards rebellion in Mexico at the time was not abating because of repression or failure. It continued on in Yucatan for decades, and the issues in California, Utah, and things were simmering in Zacatecas and the Northern Sierra Gorda again. The centralizer movement was not especially successful in persuading the periphery to obey (outside of the regions below the American Southwest which needed support against the Apaches).

Analysis of rebellion in Texas frequently takes on a context too tied into American politics and not enough into Mexican politics at the time. There is little to suggest that regionalism was dying down even in OTL after several squashed rebellions. Compliance with the government dropped sharply and assaults on tax collectors rose sharply in Chiapas, for example, which technically never even rebelled.

It is possible a 2nd Texas rebellion would be less focused on independence and annexation and more in tune with Mexican liberal reformers, but if successful, a similar pattern likely follows to OTL.

 

[Marc]

I can't disagree about the possibility of eventually Northern Mexico breaking off in part or whole sometime during the 19th century. (The Yucatan is a lost cause, a rather tragic one for the Mayans). My doubt is who exactly is likely to lead a second rebellion in Texas post the failure of the 1836 attempt. Non-slave owning American settlers? The Tejanos? Would be filibusters from Alabama?
Hmmm, I think the Californios are more likely to be successful in separation than Texas (post 1848), and that would be an interesting discussion - the fate and future of an independent Republic of California.

 

[Dave Howery]

All of the leaders of Mexico, in itself only an independent country since 1821, were personally opposed to slavery,

sorta. They didn't like the mass plantation slavery of the southern US. But they didn't have a problem with domestic type slaves, although in Mexico, these were generally native Americans and not blacks. One of the things winked at in Mexico was wealthy families having domestic slaves. One book I have notes that the peonage system in Mexico was scarcely a step above slavery. And Mexico also had a 99-year indentured servant law on the books, one way the Texans got around the 'no-slaves' rules.

The Mexican armies that entered the department to put down the rebellion had explicit orders to free any slaves that they encountered, and so they did."

Mostly accidentally, but yes. One of the sorta-amusing things about the war was that after the fall of the Alamo, most of the Texans (including the slaveowners) fled one way and their slaves promptly fled the other way. Several of them fled to Mexico itself. Travis' slave Joe, one of the few survivors of the Alamo, found himself being put back into slavery, and promptly escaped and went to Mexico, coming back to TX years later...

imagine the Mexicans recruiting black regiments from the former slaves

maybe a couple. In 1836, there were only about 5000 slaves in TX of all ages, men and women... not sure how many of them would have been healthy young men available for military service...