Reality Check: Independent Texas

An idea that gets thrown around a lot (by myself included) is an independent Texas. But how likely is this?

Maybe Sam Houston dies of his war wounds in early 1836, leading more nationalist people to take over? Yet even with a guaranteed British alliance, could they ever hope to overcome their massive dept?

Highlander said:

An idea that gets thrown around a lot (by myself included) is an independent Texas. But how likely is this?

Maybe Sam Houston dies of his war wounds in early 1836, leading more nationalist people to take over? Yet even with a guaranteed British alliance, could they ever hope to overcome their massive dept?

Click to expand...

Lamar's faction taking over has a good chance of happening even with Houston alive.

First thing is you have to do something about the election of 1844 so Texas' application for statehood gets denied.

They will be in debt for sometime. Their first major chance to overcome that will be during a US Civil War. If Texas doesn't join the Union, this means slavery can't expand westward and the pot could possibly boil over in the late 1850's.

Texas as a neutral power bordering the Confederacy stands to make a fortune selling Southern cotton and running arms to the south. Galveston will certainly be booming.

If Britain is allied or even very friendly to Texas, the Union really won't be able to do much about this, without provoking a war with Britain. A smaller Confederacy likely means the war goes in favor of the North more quickly, but that's a whole other topic.

The brief economic boom will see Texas' creditors with some payment much to their pleasure and have invaluable capital flowing into the fledging republic.

If Texas can make it to 1880 or so still independent, they're pretty much assured to last into modern times when the oil boom hits. Of course there's likely to be another war with Mexico, though British intervention may head that off.

Even in the most optimistic Texas scenarios I don't see the Texas Republic stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific as Lamar envisioned.

This is sure a popular topic today

One thing I wonder about a surviving independent Texas is how democratic (or not) it would be. Would it veer towards Latin-American style caudillismo, especially if a perceived threat from Mexico granted the army an overly important role in public life? Another thing to remember when the oil boom comes: in OTL, many states whose economies are dependent on oil have tended to be very corrupt and/or unstable.

This is exactly what I was looking for - do you mind if I use some of this in a timeline I hope to work on?

lothaw said:

Lamar's faction taking over has a good chance of happening even with Houston alive.

First thing is you have to do something about the election of 1844 so Texas' application for statehood gets denied.

They will be in debt for sometime. Their first major chance to overcome that will be during a US Civil War. If Texas doesn't join the Union, this means slavery can't expand westward and the pot could possibly boil over in the late 1850's.

Texas as a neutral power bordering the Confederacy stands to make a fortune selling Southern cotton and running arms to the south. Galveston will certainly be booming.

If Britain is allied or even very friendly to Texas, the Union really won't be able to do much about this, without provoking a war with Britain. A smaller Confederacy likely means the war goes in favor of the North more quickly, but that's a whole other topic.

The brief economic boom will see Texas' creditors with some payment much to their pleasure and have invaluable capital flowing into the fledging republic.

If Texas can make it to 1880 or so still independent, they're pretty much assured to last into modern times when the oil boom hits. Of course there's likely to be another war with Mexico, though British intervention may head that off.

Even in the most optimistic Texas scenarios I don't see the Texas Republic stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific as Lamar envisioned.

Click to expand...

I believe it was Polk who pushed for Texas' annexation. If he doesn't become president, and a more nationalist faction takes over Texas, then there's a good chance for independence.

Desmond Hume said:

This is sure a popular topic today

One thing I wonder about a surviving independent Texas is how democratic (or not) it would be. Would it veer towards Latin-American style caudillismo, especially if a perceived threat from Mexico granted the army an overly important role in public life? Another thing to remember when the oil boom comes: in OTL, many states whose economies are dependent on oil have tended to be very corrupt and/or unstable.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong on this one, but I think voting rights in Texas were for land owners only. Of course this is also the 1830's we're talking about and that is the surest method of identifying residency.

There's reason to think government in Texas would be similar to that in the U.S. and not a Banana Republic. Though Texas would face a crippling debt problem.

Nationalists in control of Texas is not the answer, the vast majority wanted annexation. Lamar was very fortunate to win election. Houston's first pick refused to run, and his second and third picks both committed suicide. The next time the situation came up Houston's picked man (and the pro-annexation candidate) won easily.

The much better way is to have to the U.S. not unwilling to annex Texas.

I'm surprised no one is mentioning the obvious. That the chance of Mexico allowing Texas to break away is unlikely. It had about as much a chance of success as the Yucutan becoming independent.

IOTL the would be Republic of TX only had maybe 1/3 of the territory it claimed and it couldn't even defend that from expeditions from the MX national govt.

Assuming no war with the US over TX means MX is that much stronger a nation. It means the civil war between the Liberals and Conservatives ends that much sooner, and that the victorious Liberals (central govt advocates) will turn their attention to reclaiming a region in rebellion.

The most TX could hope in a renewed war w/the central govt of MX is to hold onto the territory they actually had, roughly everything east of a line from present day Dallas to Austin to San Antonio to Corpus Christi.

San Antonio probably would't stay part of Texas because of the campaigns of ethnic cleansing carried out vs the Mexican population. IOTL they flocked to the MX Army for protection. It'd become a border city for the north part of MX.

It's also likely the German population in the central Hill Country and north Texas, strongly antislavery Freethinkers, agnostics, and early proto-Socialists, doesn't want to be part of a new slaveowning nation. IOTL they were avid Unionists in the ACW.

Again, that rump TX surviving depends on somehow the TX govt finding a general who could somehow outfight MX's most ruthless general and future dictator, Diaz. I don't know of any candidates.

lothaw said:

If Texas doesn't join the Union, this means slavery can't expand westward and the pot could possibly boil over in the late 1850's.

Click to expand...

What? How do you figure that?

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/yps1.html

The Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) provided that slaves would remain the property of their owners, that the Texas Congress could not prohibit the immigration of slaveholders bringing their property, and that slaves could be imported from the United States (although not from Africa).

Click to expand...

Given these constitutional protections, I don't see an independent Texas being a significant barrier to the westward expansion of slavery.

On the other hand, I think it'd take some serious outside asistance for Texas to remain independent much longer than it actually did. American or British military aid seems most likely to me, although it might be moderately ironic if Spain steps in to help out.

LVK

Highlander said:

This is exactly what I was looking for - do you mind if I use some of this in a timeline I hope to work on?

Click to expand...

Yeah, go ahead.

LordVorKon said:

What? How do you figure that?

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/yps1.html


Given these constitutional protections, I don't see an independent Texas being a significant barrier to the westward expansion of slavery.

On the other hand, I think it'd take some serious outside asistance for Texas to remain independent much longer than it actually did. American or British military aid seems most likely to me, although it might be moderately ironic if Spain steps in to help out.

LVK

Click to expand...

Excuse me, I mean the westward expansion in the United States. It means the balance between slave and free in the Senate is broken sooner and likely the fundamental issues of slavery come to the front sooner.

I see Texas as a refuge for planation owners after the civil war, which brings more capital and money into Texas.

I read a Story where the Lamar People find one of those Legendary -Lost Gold Trains - That manages to pull Texas out of Debt, in time to prevent annexation.

DuQuense said:

I read a Story where the Lamar People find one of those Legendary -Lost Gold Trains - That manages to pull Texas out of Debt, in time to prevent annexation.

Click to expand...

Sounds somewhat ASB to me..

The thing is that most "Texians" were actually American and they did not deny it. Very few of them actually wanted to stay independent. Their independence from Mexico was nothing else than a ploy take the land from Mexico after Mexico had continuously declined.
The idea of an independent Texas republic did not really settle in after a few years when it would not be admitted into the Union out of fear of having to fight a war over it. It was also pretty much a British (and European) idea, so an independent Texas would have a trading with Europe immediately. Though it would have a debt problem, I do not think it would be that serious.
The problem is that Mexico would not recognize it for a while and would repeatedly try to invade, unless you have Herrera (the only smart president of Mexico at the time) stay in power longer. Herrera would recognize Texas and try to align Mexico in Britian's favor.
As for a government because Texas was made by Americans it would be more American like than Latin American. But it is also likely that it would ultimately develop socially like a Latin American country.

Another (and probably more likely) way to see an independent Texas is for the South to win the Civil War and for Texas to later break away. Probably eating a chunk of the Confederate claim of Arizona and part of the Indian territories in the process.

jycee said:

As for a government because Texas was made by Americans it would be more American like than Latin American. But it is also likely that it would ultimately develop socially like a Latin American country.

Another (and probably more likely) way to see an independent Texas is for the South to win the Civil War and for Texas to later break away. Probably eating a chunk of the Confederate claim of Arizona and part of the Indian territories in the process.

Click to expand...

The possibility of Texas developing socially 'like a Latin American country' is pretty unlikely.

Also it is highly likely that there would be any 'Arizona' territory for Texas to claim from either the US or the Confederacy. Thinking about it! I mean, really think about. There could be some potential conflict over the Indian Territory, tho its possible that the region could be kept as a independent Indian nation - a sort of North American Siam or Afghanistan.

A question from someone less knowledgeable on this area: I know that when the RoT first declared independence it came with an almost lightning-shaped chunk of land - New Mexico, Arizona (?) etc. It then ceded this to the US Government after annexation. In this scenario, does the RoT sell this land to the USA? After all, it does provide quite an obstacle to the US' expansion to the Pacific, especially come any ACW where it would effectively cut the Confederates off from California and the like. Or would a flood of immigration to an independent country and dreams of Pacific coastal ownership provide enough of an incentive for Texas to cling onto that Franken-panhandle? Especially if we're using British support for Texas as leverage for keeping them afloat.

You have to remember that Texas doesn't actually control what is today the western half of Texas and the parts that were ceded. Furthermore the land is disputed. If Texas has the Nueces border forced on it, they lose the "Franken-panhandle." This was pretty much offered in exchange for acceptance of Texas independence by Mexico, though not accepted.

All that, and the question of what is happening to the U.S. makes the question tough to answer.

The traditional border of Texas, as set by the Mexican government, was quite different than that claimed by the US government and even the Texan Republic. Texan land claims can't really be considered enforceable so the Nueces River border is the most realistic.

If one did want to jam pack the North American continent will an additional republic one could add the Republic of the Rio Grande which border Texas along the Nueces River.

A pretty unlikely map. IOTL the state of Texas had to resort to threats of force just to get the El Paso area in the western panhandle as part of the state. They wanted to be part of New Mexico.

Plus there were uprisings in the Nueces strip in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1910s.

I've also been working on a story where a modern day Tea Party type movement tries for Texas succession. It ends with TX divided into three states instead because south and central Texas (including Austin) and the western panhandle both pull a West Virginia.