Why would a New Englander be president of a possibly more anglophone/Germanic Texas? An independent Texas remaining a significant tinge of Mexicanness strikes me as unlikely.
WI the Republic of Texas remained independent
- Thread starter Osakadave
- Start date
Why would a New Englander be president of a possibly more anglophone/Germanic Texas? An independent Texas remaining a significant tinge of Mexicanness strikes me as unlikely.
The US had join ownership of Oregon Country since 1818 with Britain. That means any transcontinental railroad has to go further north than in OTL. Also, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are not prime cotton growing land, so the free state-slave state balance in Congress is still going to end.
There would still probably be a Kansas-Nebraska issue; both were part of the Louisiana Purchase.
But there is no Mexican-American War if Texas doesn't join the US.
For Texas to have remained independent, it needed a whole lot more money than it had. In OTL, the Republic of Texas had very little tax revenue and hence little ability to control the indian population, protect itself from a potential Mexican attempt at a "reconquesta," much less build roads, bridges, etc., provide its population with a currency that had any value, and many other necessities for an independent country to provide to its citizens.
And speaking of citizens, if census reports are accurate, the Republic of Texas had maybe 50,000 citizens in 1837 (the 1st full year of the Republic), and no more than 100,000 in 1845, the last year of the Republic. However, only after statehood came about did more large scale immigration into the state occur. By 1850 there were a little over 200,000, and then in 1860, a little more than 600,000 citizens.
The Republic would have needed a sugar daddy who would have spent his large personal fortune to help prop up the Republic financially and who could have encourgaged other wealthy entrepeneurs and governments in invest large sums into the country. If Texas could have then hung on to its independence until the Civil War broke out, then I have no doubt it would have made it. The Republic would have prospered greatly during the Civil War. An independent Texas' population would have soared as a result of the war.
And speaking of citizens, if census reports are accurate, the Republic of Texas had maybe 50,000 citizens in 1837 (the 1st full year of the Republic), and no more than 100,000 in 1845, the last year of the Republic. However, only after statehood came about did more large scale immigration into the state occur. By 1850 there were a little over 200,000, and then in 1860, a little more than 600,000 citizens.
The Republic would have needed a sugar daddy who would have spent his large personal fortune to help prop up the Republic financially and who could have encourgaged other wealthy entrepeneurs and governments in invest large sums into the country. If Texas could have then hung on to its independence until the Civil War broke out, then I have no doubt it would have made it. The Republic would have prospered greatly during the Civil War. An independent Texas' population would have soared as a result of the war.
Basicly what I said earlier in this thread. If Texas held on to 1860, they'd be solidly assured to remain an independent power.
Using cheap land as a concept to get poor Southerners, Irishmen and German immigrants to come in is likely one way Texas could've gotten enough people to last though it's infancy.
The American South(including Texas) produced a large percentage of the world's cotton during this time period. That's a lot of capitol that could be exported overseas. More families farming, more cotton sold overseas, more money coming back. As I explained earlier, the whole buisness would skyrocket for Texas in the event of a Civil War and a Union blockade.
Using cheap land as a concept to get poor Southerners, Irishmen and German immigrants to come in is likely one way Texas could've gotten enough people to last though it's infancy.
The American South(including Texas) produced a large percentage of the world's cotton during this time period. That's a lot of capitol that could be exported overseas. More families farming, more cotton sold overseas, more money coming back. As I explained earlier, the whole buisness would skyrocket for Texas in the event of a Civil War and a Union blockade.
To create an exact timeline of an independent Texas, you'd need to establish an exact POD. I think the best one would be that David G. Burnet, with the full support of then President Lamar, was elected Texan President in 1841 over Sam Houston. Houston was in favor of annexation, Burnet wasn't. This would cut U.S. annexation plans off from the beginning.
To have a future, Texas would have to resolve its issues with Mexico; most likely by war. Here's how I see it. At some point from 1841-1844 (I think this has to happen before the 1844 U.S. Presidential election) Texas and Mexico go to war. Texas troops go on the offensive, with most of the battle taking place in the states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas. Even heavily outnumbered, untrained, and undisciplined, Texan militia fight A LOT better than Mexican troops (1/4 of which will desert before any action takes place). Besides, the Texans had better leadership, and most were veteran troops from the revolution; plus, the Texan military had fought the Mexicans, and were knowledgeable in city fighting (something the Americans didn't have when they invaded). So after defeating the Mexican Army a few times in the northern provinces, political chaos in Mexico City causes an overthrow of the government, and the new government (probably led by the military) immediately wants peace on Texan terms. I'm going on this assumption because in OTL, Santa Anna had to retreat to Mexico City to prevent a military coup during the Mexican-American War. And in any long-term war, Texas doesn't stand a chance, no matter what.
In the peace treaty, Texas gains undisputed control of its claims, and I think it would annex the top row of Mexican states and everything above them (maybe not the Baja peninsula). They would also probably stick Mexico with their enormous debt, so we'd probably see the French Intervention 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). MAYBE there would be a new constitution to take in the fact that Texas would now be a multi-state republic, but this is open to debate. I do think that Congress would divide the newly acquired northern territory into future states. California would probably decide to remain part of Texas, as long as most of the inhabitants are given proper rights as a fellow state in the Republic.
In the 1844 election, with Texas annexation no longer an option, Tyler doesn't do anything. With expansion no longer the main subject, it would probably devolve into the Whig's economic policy vs. the Democrat's. Polk wouldn't be nominated, and the odds are that Van Buren would be. The Whigs would still nominate Clay. I think Clay would be elected, just because of Van Buren's record with the economy. This would permanently upset American history. There's no Mexican-American War, so there's no new territory; there's no new territory, so the debate over the legality of slavery in the territories never happens; with this debate gone, the Whigs won't split over the issue and they'll remain the main opposition to the Democrats; so no Republican Party, no Civil War, no war heroes, nothing. This leaves the slate of American politics completely open to Alternate History speculation.
I can see Texas either being pro-British or pro-German. Britain would be their natural ally, and it would benefit them economically. But I think like in OTL, we'd see A LOT of German immigration into Texas, maybe even more in this TL. And if the French intervention happens earlier like I stated above, I don't think the Texans would enjoy having a new Mexican Empire propped up by the French on their southern border; I highly doubt there would be a war or anything like that, but there would definitely be a lot of antagonism there. That would send them on the side of the Germans, who were as anti-French as could be. But all of these possible alliances would develop in the future.
As for race relations, that can go a lot of ways too. In Texas, there would be three main races: Whites, Blacks, and Mexicans. So there would be a race on top (the Whites), one on the bottom, and one in the middle. 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. 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. But Whites will be seen as superior socially no matter what (so no intermarriage or anything like it). So it just depends on whose 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, the 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; its one or the other. Like some of the other things, this is up for debate.
So what does everybody think?
To have a future, Texas would have to resolve its issues with Mexico; most likely by war. Here's how I see it. At some point from 1841-1844 (I think this has to happen before the 1844 U.S. Presidential election) Texas and Mexico go to war. Texas troops go on the offensive, with most of the battle taking place in the states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas. Even heavily outnumbered, untrained, and undisciplined, Texan militia fight A LOT better than Mexican troops (1/4 of which will desert before any action takes place). Besides, the Texans had better leadership, and most were veteran troops from the revolution; plus, the Texan military had fought the Mexicans, and were knowledgeable in city fighting (something the Americans didn't have when they invaded). So after defeating the Mexican Army a few times in the northern provinces, political chaos in Mexico City causes an overthrow of the government, and the new government (probably led by the military) immediately wants peace on Texan terms. I'm going on this assumption because in OTL, Santa Anna had to retreat to Mexico City to prevent a military coup during the Mexican-American War. And in any long-term war, Texas doesn't stand a chance, no matter what.
In the peace treaty, Texas gains undisputed control of its claims, and I think it would annex the top row of Mexican states and everything above them (maybe not the Baja peninsula). They would also probably stick Mexico with their enormous debt, so we'd probably see the French Intervention 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). MAYBE there would be a new constitution to take in the fact that Texas would now be a multi-state republic, but this is open to debate. I do think that Congress would divide the newly acquired northern territory into future states. California would probably decide to remain part of Texas, as long as most of the inhabitants are given proper rights as a fellow state in the Republic.
In the 1844 election, with Texas annexation no longer an option, Tyler doesn't do anything. With expansion no longer the main subject, it would probably devolve into the Whig's economic policy vs. the Democrat's. Polk wouldn't be nominated, and the odds are that Van Buren would be. The Whigs would still nominate Clay. I think Clay would be elected, just because of Van Buren's record with the economy. This would permanently upset American history. There's no Mexican-American War, so there's no new territory; there's no new territory, so the debate over the legality of slavery in the territories never happens; with this debate gone, the Whigs won't split over the issue and they'll remain the main opposition to the Democrats; so no Republican Party, no Civil War, no war heroes, nothing. This leaves the slate of American politics completely open to Alternate History speculation.
I can see Texas either being pro-British or pro-German. Britain would be their natural ally, and it would benefit them economically. But I think like in OTL, we'd see A LOT of German immigration into Texas, maybe even more in this TL. And if the French intervention happens earlier like I stated above, I don't think the Texans would enjoy having a new Mexican Empire propped up by the French on their southern border; I highly doubt there would be a war or anything like that, but there would definitely be a lot of antagonism there. That would send them on the side of the Germans, who were as anti-French as could be. But all of these possible alliances would develop in the future.
As for race relations, that can go a lot of ways too. In Texas, there would be three main races: Whites, Blacks, and Mexicans. So there would be a race on top (the Whites), one on the bottom, and one in the middle. 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. 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. But Whites will be seen as superior socially no matter what (so no intermarriage or anything like it). So it just depends on whose 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, the 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; its one or the other. Like some of the other things, this is up for debate.
So what does everybody think?
I think this is an excellent analysis but it's a bit wasted by attempting to bring back an old thread. I do, however, think you would make an excellent consultant and/or contributor for Sicarius's timeline:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=189058
You ought to read it through, and if you like it, PM him. Or make your own Texan timeline!
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=189058
You ought to read it through, and if you like it, PM him. Or make your own Texan timeline!
Wow, thanks. I just put my opinion here because it seemed like most of the Independent Texas timelines are dead. I'll definitely start reading that.
California would give them complete unrestricted access to the Pacific, which is what a lot of Texans wanted. This would also make a transcontinental railroad possible in the future too. They would get some access to the ocean if they only annexed Sonora too, but it would also make sense to strip Mexico of its land anywhere near Texas. So Rio Grande Republic, Sonora, Chihuahua, and all the land north of it (I don't include Baja because I think the Texans realized that it really was worthless desert). And in the earlier 40s, California would be easy to keep militarily; it has almost no population, and gold hasn't been found yet so immigration isn't high. Just have a few forts around the area for the first few years and it'd be fine.
Giysqun Wilde
Banned
I don't see how Texas would have the manpower or support to get much without the Americans or British, while they would need to go on an unprovoked war to get the Gadsen Strip, without which they wouldn't have suitable land for a railroad.
heave you not been down here in real life? there already is a strong Mexican element
Jasen777
Donor
Houston isn't losing that election. Houston won every Texas Presidential election he was eligible for and his candidate won one of the 2 the others. The exception was Lamar's election which was only because the Houston's 2 picks both committed suicide. Houston's popularity is simply too great, something drastic would have to happen for him to lose.
Texas annexing land south of the Rio Gande is also laughable. Texas simply doesn't have the force projection capability to even take, let alone to hold it against the local population (or a Mexican Army). The attempts Texas did make to control anything south of the Nueces River or in the west (Sante Fe) were disasters. And you're giving them OTL's Mexican cession as well?!
Giysqun Wilde
Banned
Look over an old map, with a third of Mexico being in two unrepresented provinces. Their weren't all that many there, as whites didn't want to many blacks, browns, or reds since they would need to be given citizenship. Maybe the Texans would evict the darker skinned Mexicans and replace them with slaves.
in the event of Texas winning a 2nd war with mexico i think theyd only get control of the disputed territory but not much else. it would take more wars for the rest
i don't have to look at a map i can look around me & see a strong mexican element
Giysqun Wilde
Banned
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Primera_Republica_Federal_1825.PNG
Things have changed in the last two years. I doubt you had Jews in San Fransisco back then, unlike now.