Independant Texas in the American Civil War
- Thread starter reformer
- Start date
Go the Sliders route and have them annex the Southwest. 
Though I figure an independent Texas will be pretty mcuh too weak to do anything but protest. If they join the CSA they'll be absorbed into the USA and if they join the US they'll be attacked and ravaged by the CSA, though it might lead to a quicker war for the north,with closer bases and divereted men to the west.
The best choice for long term survival is neutrality and the continual struggle against the mexicans for more land.
Though I figure an independent Texas will be pretty mcuh too weak to do anything but protest. If they join the CSA they'll be absorbed into the USA and if they join the US they'll be attacked and ravaged by the CSA, though it might lead to a quicker war for the north,with closer bases and divereted men to the west.
The best choice for long term survival is neutrality and the continual struggle against the mexicans for more land.
reformer said:
Wrong. Most of the early settlers in Texas were Southerners from Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. About the only anti-slavery people in Texas were the German immigrants who came after the annexation of Texas by the Union.
An independent Texas...we are assuming here a Texas which never joined the Union in the first place...would probably remain neutral in the war, but would probably be giving clandestine aid to the Confederacy...for example, allowing Confederate blockade runners to use Texas ports and then shipping supplies across the border with Louisiana. The Union would doubtless protest, but would be unlikely to do anything else because they wouldn't want to broaden the war. So the Confederates get lots of supplies...at least for a while, until the Union conquers Louisiana and seals the border...and Texas profits handsomely.
Of course, if Texas remains independent, there may not even BE a Civil War, because there probably will be no war between the United States and Mexico in the 1840s, leading to the acquisition of huge tracks of land by the Union, leading to bitter squabbles between North and South over access to the new lands during the 1850s. Without those new lands being added to the Union, it is unlikely that the Republican Party is formed, and Lincoln almost certainly never becomes President. No secession by the Southern States, and no war.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Texas should adopt a 'cash and carry' policy towards the Confederacy. Southern cotton can be taken to the world market via Texas and European goods can return in such a fashion. This would lead to the North placing greater emphasist on the Western Theater and aiming to seize Vicksburg and New Orleans earlier.
Mexico has its own problems to deal with. It won't be having anything to do with the American Civil War.
Mexico has its own problems to deal with. It won't be having anything to do with the American Civil War.
robertp6165 said:
Very Good Job Robert, on your Texas History
robertp6165 said:
I just don't know how long the Republic could have lasted for another 15 years without Annexation. I guess, regular but steady trade with the English and are able to stave of Mexico..., they would mostly likley to be to weak to participate in the war themselves.
robertp6165 said:
True, So in this Scenario...The Republic would be sandwiched between a Mexico with more Resources and an Unified Union....I wonder how that will end out?
There were two main political faction, proto-parties. The Houstonians wanted annexation, but the Lamarians wanted independence. They dissagreed on a lot of other things. A civil war in Texas was not impossible, and that would've brought in the US. All they were looking for was an excuse. Manifest destiny was, as a policy, constructed after the Anglo-American War of 1812, but the grounds were based in old English claims of all of North America north of the Central Mexican Plateau[1].
BTW, the Sliders scenario is ludicrous. Texas didn't have the power to control the disputed territory between the Neuces and the Grande, in eastern New Mexico [2], and up on the high plains [3]. The Rio Grande valley could be seized during the civil war in Mexico, but will have to be defended when Juarez wins. Not Easy. The Comanche and Kiowa will have to dealt with and the said proto-parties couldn't agree on that[4].
1. I insist that the US-Mexican War of 1845 would've happened and been the Anglo-Spanish War of 1845 had the US and Mexico failed in their bids for independence.
2. I wonder if the Santa Feans even knew they were in disputed territory.
3. It was controlled by neither Texan nor Mexican, but by Comanche and Kiowa.
4. Houstonians favored friedship, trade, and coexistence; Lamarians favored war, conquest, and expulsion.
BTW, the Sliders scenario is ludicrous. Texas didn't have the power to control the disputed territory between the Neuces and the Grande, in eastern New Mexico [2], and up on the high plains [3]. The Rio Grande valley could be seized during the civil war in Mexico, but will have to be defended when Juarez wins. Not Easy. The Comanche and Kiowa will have to dealt with and the said proto-parties couldn't agree on that[4].
1. I insist that the US-Mexican War of 1845 would've happened and been the Anglo-Spanish War of 1845 had the US and Mexico failed in their bids for independence.
2. I wonder if the Santa Feans even knew they were in disputed territory.
3. It was controlled by neither Texan nor Mexican, but by Comanche and Kiowa.
4. Houstonians favored friedship, trade, and coexistence; Lamarians favored war, conquest, and expulsion.