The Republic of Texas

torek · Mar 10, 2009

To make a long story short here is my timeline:
1836- Texas gains Independence from Mexico
1839- Texas amends the constitution to allow the president a three year term and allows him to run cosequtively
1840- Mexico sends an army to reconqure Texas
1841- the Republic's Ranger Corps capture Mexico City
1842- Mexico cedes over the states of NM, Arizona, and California

yourworstnightmare · Mar 10, 2009

An independent Texan Republic is plausible, but where you have the Texans invading Mexico all the way to Mexico City without US support it's ASB.

torek · Mar 10, 2009

well the Texas government has gotten controll of the economy and the Texas Redback is almost as much as the American Dollar. The Republic of Texas also allows Britian and France to train the Military.

Glen · Mar 10, 2009

ASB, as mentioned. No way is the Texan redback equivalent to a US dollar (or even a Mexican Peso) this quickly.

Also ASB that they Texans are going to take Mexico City....well, okay they could potentially take it by landing on the coast, but holding it would be a far, far different proposition....

Geekhis Khan · Mar 10, 2009

1. Welcome to the boards!

2. I'm afraid you'll need a lot more justification than your current mini-timeline to avoid a massive dogpiling on this board. I grew up in Texas amid all the nationalist glory stories and I'm very doubtful for Texas' chances invading Mexico, but if you have a clever scenario hidden in there somewhere I'm curious.

yourworstnightmare · Mar 10, 2009

Invading Mexico is not that hard, all you need is acouple of guys, some less obvious weapons like baseball bats and golf clubs. The most important prop is of course at least three barrels of beer. The problem is getting past the policemen in Tijuana.

Geekhis Khan · Mar 10, 2009

yourworstnightmare said:
Invading Mexico is not that hard, all you need is acouple of guys, some less obvious weapons like baseball bats and golf clubs. The most important prop is of course at least three barrels of beer. The problem is getting past the policemen in Tijuana.

If you can spare one of the barrels of beer the policemen now work for you. iViva la revolucion!

Big Tex · Mar 10, 2009

yourworstnightmare said:
Invading Mexico is not that hard, all you need is acouple of guys, some less obvious weapons like baseball bats and golf clubs. The most important prop is of course at least three barrels of beer. The problem is getting past the policemen in Tijuana.

Tijuana isn't a problem if you befriend the right drug lords, now Monterrey is another issue. I remember one spring break when myself and my buddies....oops said to much!

Big Tex · Mar 10, 2009

In regards to the original TL, as much as I always love Mexico getting beat down by Texas this is a stretch. Few people remember but the Mexican army was supposed to be the pride of the continent, not the US. When the US invaded the Mexicans had them outnumbered somewhere around 3 or 4 to 1 and supposedly had them out trained and out gunned. Better commanders, tactics, and what ended up being superior weapons (if i remember) as well as a good navy beat them. Texas had some of those, Lamar established a navy, and their forces were great one on one. But the Texans would be out manned around 10 to 1 and simply did not have the economy, supply logistics, or will to push to Mexico.

Now if they remain independent and industrialize, and find that oil on schedule I can see Texas pushing deep into Mexico in the early 1900's for whatever reason.

lothaw · Mar 10, 2009

Actually I'm playing with a timeline where Texas survives, though they are forced to accept the Nueces River as the boundry after a second war with Mexico.

Texas simply didn't have the manpower in the 1840's to create a massive field army, which is what it's going to take to capture Mexico City.

If the US doesn't want to annex Texas, they're certainly not going to want to fight a war for them. Oh you'll get your usual wave of filibusters from the US but that's about it.

Britain was the key ally to Texas that prevented Mexico from overruning them.

Big Tex · Mar 10, 2009

lothaw said:
Actually I'm playing with a timeline where Texas survives, though they are forced to accept the Nueces River as the boundry after a second war with Mexico.

lothaw · Mar 10, 2009

Big Tex said:

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

Big Tex · Mar 10, 2009

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

no.....but still...we're not supposed to admit it

Will they at least get that land back when Texas turns into the inevitblid diesel-punk nation with a Franco-American-Anglo Alliance to back it up?!?!?!

lothaw · Mar 10, 2009

Well so far I'm still trying to figure out what to do with slavery in America before I go any further.

But so far tenatively I have a revolution in California in the 1840's which Texas immediately recognizes. Short story, the Californians are crushed and the Texans humiliated and forced to accept Mexico's version of their boundries. Santa Anna was wanting to initally annex Texas again, but Britain interceded and so they remained independent.

I'm thinking of having Texas support the South if I decide to go the Civil War route, indirectly anyways. Meaning running supplies/weapons over the border and selling cotton to Europe. This would provide a boost in capitol for the fledging republic. But it would create a rift between the US and Texas.

Krall · Mar 10, 2009

torek said:
To make a long story short here is my timeline:
1836- Texas gains Independence from Mexico
1839- Texas amends the constitution to allow the president a three year term and allows him to run cosequtively
1840- Mexico sends an army to reconqure Texas
1841- the Republic's Ranger Corps capture Mexico City
1842- Mexico cedes over the states of NM, Arizona, and California

Well, it's obvious that you've put a lot of hard work and research into this. Well done.

lothaw · Mar 10, 2009

He's new, cut em some slack and discuss the topic eh?

Big Tex · Mar 10, 2009

lothaw said:
Well so far I'm still trying to figure out what to do with slavery in America before I go any further.

But so far tenatively I have a revolution in California in the 1840's which Texas immediately recognizes. Short story, the Californians are crushed and the Texans humiliated and forced to accept Mexico's version of their boundries. Santa Anna was wanting to initally annex Texas again, but Britain interceded and so they remained independent.

I'm thinking of having Texas support the South if I decide to go the Civil War route, indirectly anyways. Meaning running supplies/weapons over the border and selling cotton to Europe. This would provide a boost in capitol for the fledging republic. But it would create a rift between the US and Texas.

Why would the south go to war? Without Texas and the westward expansion facilitated by all that territory and Manifest Destiny the balance between slave and free states is maintained. Compromise and other issues (such as possibly no longer rushing the creation of western states) would probably postpone the civil war by 10 years or so. By the 1870's slavery should already be on the way out.

Youre right that Texas would support the south's pro-slavery stance.

Also would a combined revolution in California along with Texan military actions be enough to bring in the US or Britain? I can see them intervening to protect assets in the region. The British might accept the Nueces as the boundary but the US might not, especially if they still have some hope of eventual annexation.

lothaw · Mar 10, 2009

Once the western territories are colonized and Oregon is ceded to the US, new pro northern states are going to be admitted to the Union.

As the South is running out of room to expand, they're seeing their influence curbed and since Presidents like Clay(yes, scary on it's own) and Van Buren won't allow the annexation of Texas, Calhoun's faction gets increasingly frustrated, especially once the northern majority senate and congress start passing laws limiting slavery even more.

If slavery can't expand, the situation is going to come to a boil real quick. I'm thinking around the 1850's.

And as I mentioned before, Texas' policy of passively helping the south alienates the US for many years basicly curbing any thoughts on annexation.

Big Tex · Mar 10, 2009

lothaw said:
Once the western territories are colonized and Oregon is ceded to the US, new pro northern states are going to be admitted to the Union.

As the South is running out of room to expand, they're seeing their influence curbed and since Presidents like Clay(yes, scary on it's own) and Van Buren won't allow the annexation of Texas, Calhoun's faction gets increasingly frustrated, especially once the northern majority senate and congress start passing laws limiting slavery even more.

If slavery can't expand, the situation is going to come to a boil real quick. I'm thinking around the 1850's.

And as I mentioned before, Texas' policy of passively helping the south alienates the US for many years basicly curbing any thoughts on annexation.

I can see it, but your going to need a very agressive and irked north to simply push past the south in getting new free states without compromise and not even considering Texas as an option. Basically the north would be acting like fools bent on an eventual war.

President Sam Houston · Mar 10, 2009

Big Tex said:
Why would the south go to war? Without Texas and the westward expansion facilitated by all that territory and Manifest Destiny the balance between slave and free states is maintained. Compromise and other issues (such as possibly no longer rushing the creation of western states) would probably postpone the civil war by 10 years or so. By the 1870's slavery should already be on the way out..

Even without the western territories, an imbalance between slave states and free states will occur when Iowa and Minnesota are eventually made free states. Plus sooner or later the Kansas question would arise as well. In order to counter that the slave holding states will put tremendous pressure to bring Texas in as a slave state. So I think there needs to be some type of alternative compromise to appease the slave states if Texas is to remain independent.

Big Tex said:
Youre right that Texas would support the south's pro-slavery stance. .

However, during its 10 year run as a Republic, Texas, though mainly populated by immigrants from the Southern states had not yet developed the smae antebellum culture of the deep south. In OTL that mainly occurred after statehood with the huge influx of slaveholding/cotton plantation cultured southerners from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In an ATL where Texas remains independent, a different culture could emerge, especially if there is more immigration from Europe. Of course, the government would have to revise that Constitution of 1836.

Big Tex said:
Also would a combined revolution in California along with Texan military actions be enough to bring in the US or Britain? I can see them intervening to protect assets in the region. The British might accept the Nueces as the boundary but the US might not, especially if they still have some hope of eventual annexation.