WI Texas was never annexed into the union?
- Thread starter codynomad
- Start date
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
This is already in some older threads. The "Republic of Texas" likely wouldn't survive long. It was a trainwreck IOTL, badly organized, feuding factions, incompetent govt, broke, its money worthless, and recognized by no one except France. (And the French ambassador spent his time in New Orleans getting drunk.) The one success it had was in ethnic cleansing of Indians, and to an extent, Mexicans. Only Mexico's own internal troubles kept it from getting returned to its mother country. And without a US invasion (which the issue of TX brought about anyway) Mexico's troubles drop off drastically. Chances are it's part of MX again within a decade or two.
If TX somehow survives past the first few decades, it's an economic backwater. Oil wasn't discovered IOTL til the 20th century. It might become a refuge for slaveowners if slavery is abolished in the US, and that'd contribute even more to its backwardness. It also makes it potentially the site of a Haiti-style slave revolt.
If TX somehow survives past the first few decades, it's an economic backwater. Oil wasn't discovered IOTL til the 20th century. It might become a refuge for slaveowners if slavery is abolished in the US, and that'd contribute even more to its backwardness. It also makes it potentially the site of a Haiti-style slave revolt.
Glen
Moderator
Well, one example of how Texas might develop outside the union can be seen in my Clay Victorious timeline.
It is rather hard to see the survival of an independent Texas (though I am planning for two independent Texas's in my TL) since it was created with the plan of eventual annexation.
As it was pointed out any independent Texas would be extremely backwards in terms of slavery and coexistence between the different ethic groups (whites, Mexicans, Indians, and black slaves). And oil does not come soon enough for it to survive the 19th century without it being swallowed by Mexico or the US at some point.
However it could survive as a British protectorate. Even though Britain never officially recognized Texas until the very end, it did have interest in seeing it survive to counter the US's strength. It never acted on it because at the time it was going though a famine in Ireland and very bad colonial problems in India. However if the opportunity arose, lets say a war between the US and Britain over Oregon, Britain could set up an independent Texas as a protectorate.
But even in this case Mexico will eventually attempt to invade it and reclaim it. The leader that does this is guaranteed to gain the support of most Mexicans. So it could be Santa Anna back form exile, Paredes or Salas (who were very similar to Santa Anna) even the liberals would support it. If Britain plays its cards right instead of supporting Texas it could support Mexico allow the invasion and in the process gain a larger ally/protectorate with much more potential. Also since the US has been kicked out of Oregon and Texas the next logical place for it to look for a gateway to the Pacific is through California. It would be in Mexico's best interest to befriend Britain (and vice versa) to avoid this from happening.
If Texas managed to defeat a rearmed Mexico (that did not went through the worse of the Mex-American war) then it could stay independent. But it will not be a very strong nation until the mid 20th century when oil reserves are found.
I could see a Texas as a Venezuela like country. Some regime controlling the oil. It joining OPEC (or similar) on and off with strange international alliances.
As it was pointed out any independent Texas would be extremely backwards in terms of slavery and coexistence between the different ethic groups (whites, Mexicans, Indians, and black slaves). And oil does not come soon enough for it to survive the 19th century without it being swallowed by Mexico or the US at some point.
However it could survive as a British protectorate. Even though Britain never officially recognized Texas until the very end, it did have interest in seeing it survive to counter the US's strength. It never acted on it because at the time it was going though a famine in Ireland and very bad colonial problems in India. However if the opportunity arose, lets say a war between the US and Britain over Oregon, Britain could set up an independent Texas as a protectorate.
But even in this case Mexico will eventually attempt to invade it and reclaim it. The leader that does this is guaranteed to gain the support of most Mexicans. So it could be Santa Anna back form exile, Paredes or Salas (who were very similar to Santa Anna) even the liberals would support it. If Britain plays its cards right instead of supporting Texas it could support Mexico allow the invasion and in the process gain a larger ally/protectorate with much more potential. Also since the US has been kicked out of Oregon and Texas the next logical place for it to look for a gateway to the Pacific is through California. It would be in Mexico's best interest to befriend Britain (and vice versa) to avoid this from happening.
If Texas managed to defeat a rearmed Mexico (that did not went through the worse of the Mex-American war) then it could stay independent. But it will not be a very strong nation until the mid 20th century when oil reserves are found.
I could see a Texas as a Venezuela like country. Some regime controlling the oil. It joining OPEC (or similar) on and off with strange international alliances.