Hello fellow members of the Board, I need some help trying to work out some Ideas about the expansion of Slavery in the Lone Star Republic, had it not been annexed in 1845? I know alot of timelines, think that Texas would have eventually branched off from the Confederates in a CSA Victory timeline...but I need an earlier POD lol. Could the Pro-Slavery faction in the Texan Legistlature really had enough gall to reactivate the African Slave Trade? What would continued expansion southward into Mexico in the succeeding decades effect the grouth of Slavery? Would an Indpendent Texas funnel more Southern Fillibusters who would want to use Texas as a launching pad for adventures in South America? Would a Peonage system really be sustainable if the Texans started using hired Mestizo labor instead of higher priced blacks? Could an Independent Texas stop the Civil War from happening? Potentially how long could Slavery last in Texas?(Might the Boll Weevil infestation of the 1890's be the final straw in the Peculiar institution?)Any other ideas on what possible ramifications of Slavery in an Independent ROT?
Slavery in an Independent Republic of Texas
- Thread starter Historico
- Start date
Well, restarting the Slave Trade isn't going to happen - even if we assume that the entire Texas Legislature goes mad, they don't have a big merchant marine themselves and both Britain and France hang slavers no matter what flag they're flying. Texas REALLY doesn't want to go to war with the British Empire.
Peonage can work for a very long time, basically until a majority of the country is not involved in agriculture or mining - so definitely the 1930s, and it might linger but not be a major part of the economy even after that.
How long slavery can last is of course something there are a lot of differing opinions on - I'm sure you've read Jared's Decades of Darkness, while I personally think the 1880s is as late as you can go, and Texas is small enough that some foreign power might decide to end slavery there without asking the Texan's opinion.
It's conceivable it would prevent the ACW, since an independent Texas means there's probably no territory to carve new slave states out of. However, I suspect a Civil War over slavery is inevitable; hostility to slavery in the North is very real and widespread, the South feels very threatened by this, but the South has a series of misconceptions that make it believe it can win if things turn to violence. These are trends too big to reverse altogether.
Texas as a cover for Southern filibusters is a pretty likely idea, but it's only going to work once or twice before and angry North puts a stop to it one way or another.
Peonage can work for a very long time, basically until a majority of the country is not involved in agriculture or mining - so definitely the 1930s, and it might linger but not be a major part of the economy even after that.
How long slavery can last is of course something there are a lot of differing opinions on - I'm sure you've read Jared's Decades of Darkness, while I personally think the 1880s is as late as you can go, and Texas is small enough that some foreign power might decide to end slavery there without asking the Texan's opinion.
It's conceivable it would prevent the ACW, since an independent Texas means there's probably no territory to carve new slave states out of. However, I suspect a Civil War over slavery is inevitable; hostility to slavery in the North is very real and widespread, the South feels very threatened by this, but the South has a series of misconceptions that make it believe it can win if things turn to violence. These are trends too big to reverse altogether.
Texas as a cover for Southern filibusters is a pretty likely idea, but it's only going to work once or twice before and angry North puts a stop to it one way or another.
As Shawn mentioned, the Slave Trade is a non-starter. Also, invading Mexico is unlikely shy of internal troubles (civil war) to exploit. Instead Texas will need someone (likely Britain or France) to effectively sponsor them to defend them from Mexico for a while coming!
Slavery in TX as a major institution is limited. TX despite its size has less land suitable to major plantations than you might think, at least until more advanced irrigation techniques are developed. Outside of the east and a swath through the center TX is either too hilly or too dry or too swampy or a combo thereof. It'll be losing ground to Egypt on cotton, and tobbacco doesn't really grow there. And the supply of slaves will dwindle without the trade and with all their neighbors going free by will or by force. Plus unless they plug imigration OTL's German population opposed slavery. At best we get an Ethiopia situation with limited slavery remaining, but not the mass slavery of the deep south or Caribbean. British sponsorship will mean a lot of anti-slavery pressure as well.
Baring major butterflies to the north, I'd see TX lasting as an agrarian British satellite until oil is discovered and exploited. Slavery dwindles and dies by 1900, though some Apartheid-like system may remain much longer. TX maybe participates in the Euro intervention in Mexico that led to Emperor Maximillian (if it happens, butterflies pending) and perhaps tears off a chunk for itself. Eventually it's a local power and oil exporter that may industrialise, most probably remaining a British ally and trade partner.
Slavery in TX as a major institution is limited. TX despite its size has less land suitable to major plantations than you might think, at least until more advanced irrigation techniques are developed. Outside of the east and a swath through the center TX is either too hilly or too dry or too swampy or a combo thereof. It'll be losing ground to Egypt on cotton, and tobbacco doesn't really grow there. And the supply of slaves will dwindle without the trade and with all their neighbors going free by will or by force. Plus unless they plug imigration OTL's German population opposed slavery. At best we get an Ethiopia situation with limited slavery remaining, but not the mass slavery of the deep south or Caribbean. British sponsorship will mean a lot of anti-slavery pressure as well.
Baring major butterflies to the north, I'd see TX lasting as an agrarian British satellite until oil is discovered and exploited. Slavery dwindles and dies by 1900, though some Apartheid-like system may remain much longer. TX maybe participates in the Euro intervention in Mexico that led to Emperor Maximillian (if it happens, butterflies pending) and perhaps tears off a chunk for itself. Eventually it's a local power and oil exporter that may industrialise, most probably remaining a British ally and trade partner.
Jasen777
Donor
An independent Texas would likely rival Brazil for being the last to abolish slavery, but I think it would be very hard for it to last into the 20th century.
I think an independent Texas could easily mean an earlier U.S. Civil War, as the Southern planters see the writing on the wall sooner.
West Texas is bad for slavery, but everyone lived in the East, Central, or Valley at that time anyways. In 1847, Texas already had 38,000 slaves for 102,000 whites (counting those of Mexican dissent). It was a major institution.
German immigrants were already, and would continue to be, swamped by pro-slavery settlers from the U.S. South.
Texas doesn't need foreign help to defend itself against Mexico, it only needs a decade or two more of Mexican incompetence, something which is very likely.
I think an independent Texas could easily mean an earlier U.S. Civil War, as the Southern planters see the writing on the wall sooner.
West Texas is bad for slavery, but everyone lived in the East, Central, or Valley at that time anyways. In 1847, Texas already had 38,000 slaves for 102,000 whites (counting those of Mexican dissent). It was a major institution.
German immigrants were already, and would continue to be, swamped by pro-slavery settlers from the U.S. South.
Texas doesn't need foreign help to defend itself against Mexico, it only needs a decade or two more of Mexican incompetence, something which is very likely.
I disagree. The Republic of Texas in 1845 looked very little like the ante-bellum slaveholding State of Texas in 1860. Although slavery grew as an institution during the 10 years that the ROT was in existence, only about 20% of the population of Texas were slaves in 1845. Only after statehood did slavery explode where the number of slaves grew to be over 30% of the population. During the ROT, most of the country was too remote and undeveloped for slaveholding plantations to be workable, and as such, most of the settlers of these regions were non-slaveholding small farmers, craftmen, and tradesmen - and many emigrated from non-slaveholding areas of the U.S. and Europe. While the slaveholding class did hold much of the power in the ROT government, their overarching goal was to be annexed by the U.S. If for some reason, the U.S. declines to annex Texas, and it remains a Republic, the slaveholding class will eventually forfeit their power to either Mexico, A European sponsor state like Britain, or a more frontier/pioneer class of Texan, none of which has as its priority the expansion of slavery. So I see a ROT that somehow, against long odds, endures, it will be a place where slavery does not expand, but likely declines and eventually is killed off.
Well certainly, the South will attempt to kill off the Missouri Compromise probably as early as 1846, so that they can attempt to create slave states in places like Kansas and Nebraska, where we would probably see much more conflict between slaveholders and free soilers than we did in OTL, which could lead to outright civil war, with or without the formal secession. But any war would be so diffeent than the one in OTL.
Texas wasn't swamped with pro-slavery settlers from the U.S. South until after statehood. During the ROT there were many settlers from the Ohio Valley and the Upper South, as well as thousands of Europeans - Germans, Swiss, Czechs, French, Alcacians, Irish, etc.
Plus - even though I am a diehard Texan, and it may be heresy to say - without annexation, I don't think ROT survives. Regardless of Mexico's incompetence, the ROT had no money, no credit, had huge debts, few friends, little recognition, thousands and thousands of miles of land with little or no ability to protect against invasion or even Indian raids, little infrastructure, and way too much political infighting to survive.
I'm not seeing an existence problem for Texas. We beat not one, but two Santa-Ana-led armies; and Santa Ana was one of the best Mexican Caudillos. Democracy has big leadership advantages; caudillos have to do too much of the heavy lifting alone. Capping it all, Texas seriously outgrew Mexico even while still independent by widely advertising gifts of land to new immigrants. So the odds against Mexican rematches just would've gotten longer.
I DO think it'd go the other way. Texas Rangers loved to raid in Mexico and ere much-feared as rinches south of the borders; I don't seeing that being different. OTL, Texans loved to raid and meddle south of the border, because we could.
After Mr. Colt did his thing, the military advantage turned from native Americans to us. We able to continue the ethnic cleansing, bwahaha, across the state.
As I see it, slavery'd last no later than the state's economic turn to oil at the latest, and probably end sooner, between American and British pressure and the demonstration of sharecropping next door.
I DO think it'd go the other way. Texas Rangers loved to raid in Mexico and ere much-feared as rinches south of the borders; I don't seeing that being different. OTL, Texans loved to raid and meddle south of the border, because we could.
After Mr. Colt did his thing, the military advantage turned from native Americans to us. We able to continue the ethnic cleansing, bwahaha, across the state.
As I see it, slavery'd last no later than the state's economic turn to oil at the latest, and probably end sooner, between American and British pressure and the demonstration of sharecropping next door.
In my write-up for a Republic of Texas TL (not posted yet), I based Texian emancipation loosely on both Brazil and the US.
I have the Mexican leadership, recovering from French interference, launching renewed assaults against Texas in the mid-60s and being somewhat more effective against the Texians than earlier. After a while, it is decided that more manpower is needed, so the large slave population is utilized, with the promise of emancipation if they fight through the war.
This begins the slow process of de-slavery, combined with the efforts of Britain (who has long been Texas' biggest buddy against both Mexico and the US), and a larger German and European immigrant population. The 'Slavery Abolition Act' is signed in 1885 by a German immigrant President.
In this, the process begins with many former slaves being freed after the conclusion of the Mexican War, who integrate nicely in areas of Texas that aren't pro-slavery, especially in the San Antonio area (the center of German/European immigrant populations).
Then, Britain starts really pushing Texas diplomatically and by reducing the demand for Texian cotton.
Finally, as industrialization starts up in South Texas, the anti-slavery crowd is able to push through legislation illegalizing slavery.
I have the Mexican leadership, recovering from French interference, launching renewed assaults against Texas in the mid-60s and being somewhat more effective against the Texians than earlier. After a while, it is decided that more manpower is needed, so the large slave population is utilized, with the promise of emancipation if they fight through the war.
This begins the slow process of de-slavery, combined with the efforts of Britain (who has long been Texas' biggest buddy against both Mexico and the US), and a larger German and European immigrant population. The 'Slavery Abolition Act' is signed in 1885 by a German immigrant President.
In this, the process begins with many former slaves being freed after the conclusion of the Mexican War, who integrate nicely in areas of Texas that aren't pro-slavery, especially in the San Antonio area (the center of German/European immigrant populations).
Then, Britain starts really pushing Texas diplomatically and by reducing the demand for Texian cotton.
Finally, as industrialization starts up in South Texas, the anti-slavery crowd is able to push through legislation illegalizing slavery.
Last edited:
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
1. It depends on what you mean by swamped. A majority of colonists were from Southern states, but it wasn't as overwhelming a majority as it became aftet statehood.
2. I wouldn't call that heresy but simple common sense. The dean of St Mary's University wrote an op ed after the militia group "Republic of Texas" standoff in the 90s, "Texas Republic-Not a Good Idea Now or Then."
Annexation by the US was the intent all along of most of the Anglo settlers who revolted. (There's even a theory that Sam Houston was sent by Jackson to Texas with the intent of wresting it away from Mexico. But that's the sort of thing that's impossible to prove unless someone finds a previously unknown document.)
All the facts you point to lead to the conclusion that once annexation chance is gone there's basically a declining banana republic. Without the US Mexico War, Mexico will not be in as much chaos as IOTL. And then Texas will be reabsorbed.
Perhaps slavery will even play a part in that reabsorbtion, with the German population taking the side of anti slavery Mexico.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
1. First, you didn't beat them. Not unless you came here by time machine.
And beating Santa Anna is not anything to brag about. By his own estimation, he wouldn't be much more than a corporal in a European army. There are far more competent generals around, like Urrea for example. Texas' military was so incapable they couldn't stop repeated reincursions by the Mexican army.
2. Rinches were mostly feared by Mexican civilians in Texas. Rangers have the most overrated reputation of almost any law enforcement/militia around. Basically their standard tactic was to execute any civilian handy. Then they'd have to call in other militia or Nat'l Gd (during statehood) to bail them out.
3. I give you that. One thing the military did quite well was ethnic cleansing. Partly by going after tribes that hadn't done them any wrong though, the Texas Cherokee and Caddo. Comanches did quite well.
4. The slave trade continued during the ROT period. One of its most notorious examples was Jim Bowie, who smuggled slaves from his base on Galveston Island along with pirate Jean Lafitte. A lot would depend on how much effort the British will give to stopping the trade.
There was an earlier thread where the discussion brought up other possible colonists to Texas. IfTexas becomes a magnet for former plantation owners after the end of slavery in the US south, it'd be dominated by them. But if the ratio of slaves became high enough, perhaps there'd even be a Haiti-like uprising.
And if the UK makes it a protectorate, there'd likely be many laborers brought in from India or the West Indies. Think Texas as another Surinam.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
You're takjing about the Western World now, slavery existed in Africa well into the 1900s.
Especially since Texas was the only one of the seceded States to explicitly state, in their secession declaration, that they intended that slavery should continue forever.
Or it might prevent the Civil War from happening at all, as an independent Texas likely means no Mexican/American War and no Mexican Cession, and it was the struggle over whether slavery would be introduced into the territories gained from Mexico which created the superheated political atmosphere of the 1850s which exploded into war in 1861. This superheated political atmosphere created the Free Soil movement, which allied itself with the Abolitionists and became, along with refugees from the defunct Whig Party, the Republican Party.
Remove the conflict over the territory gained from Mexico, you also remove the impetus for the creation of the Free Soil movement (which was not opposed to slavery, per se, but to it's EXPANSION into the territories, which the Free Soilers wanted to maintain as a preserve for Free White Labor). The Abolitionists, by themselves, would never have become a major political force without the alliance with the Free Soilers. And so the Union will likely stumble along as it had been doing, right up until the 1890s, when various factors were going to converge to render slavery unprofitable and make it a liability, rather than a benefit, to the Southern economy. Within a few years after that, slavery would likely have been abandoned without a war ever being fought.