What if a British Texas

How possible is this?
I have an idea for a timeline where Texas after being turned down for annexation by the US turns to the British Empire…
How likely is that to have happened? Is it even really plausible?
Any ideas what the flag might be like and what Texas might be like today?

I don't think the US or Mexico would have liked this. The US would some how intervene, allowing in the union or as a protectorate, but Mexico would probably only sword rattle.

If they had any connection to Britain it would probably only be as a trading partner and port of call for the Royal Navy, but as part of the Commonwealth, I don't think so.

The flag if it was in the Commonwealth. (changed the red in the Union Jack to that of Texas)

As I recall Texas did start getting a little friendly with the British when the US turned down their request for annexation. Of course, one of the reasons Texas did that was to force the US to rethink annexing Texas, like a teenaged girl who tries to get you to ask her out by flirting with other guys. I suppose if the US responded the way most teenaged guys did and gave Texas up for a lost cause, the Texans could end up with Britain just by default. I doubt we'd see a fully annexed Texas though, just one that is economically dependent upon the British. How would this effect the border disputes between Texas and Mexico? Assuming it isn't butterflied away, what happens when the Europeans intervene in the 1860's?

Thankfully (from a US perspective) international diplomacy is not run by hormonal teenagers.

I agree that Texas as part of the British Empire is unlikely, but a Texas with strong commercial links as well as miliary might pull the two closer together. The interesting thing is what happens to Mexico if Britain is active in Texas. Would the Mexicans let Texas go more easily than in OTL?

What if the civil war happend in the 1830's rather than the 1860's?
I remeber reading about a so called "Black Tariff" that many southern states declared illegal in their borders starting with South Carolina.
Maybe John C. Calhoun leads the south to revolt in 1830 that might keep Texas out of US hands just long enough.

NomadicSky said:

What if the civil war happend in the 1830's rather than the 1860's?
I remeber reading about a so called "Black Tariff" that many southern states declared illegal in their borders starting with South Carolina.
Maybe John C. Calhoun leads the south to revolt in 1830 that might keep Texas out of US hands just long enough.

Click to expand...

The Moroe Doctrine would kick in if Texas ever tried to formally join the British Empire. If anything, Texas plays off both sides against each other in the early civil war. Might this impact the fate of the Oregon Country?

With a civil war in the 1830's and a legal "joint" occupation it's all British by the 1840's.
And as for The Moroe Doctrine the US wouldn't be strong enough to do anything Texas following the 1830's civil war.

NomadicSky said:

With a civil war in the 1830's and a legal "joint" occupation it's all British by the 1840's.
And as for The Moroe Doctrine the US wouldn't be strong enough to do anything Texas following the 1830's civil war.

Click to expand...

Strength would not have stopped the Yankees, especially if they felt that the British were culpable somehow for the war or events within it.

The Monroe Doctrine was an empty scrap of paper that the US was completely incapable of enforcing without British help in the 1830's. Europeans were pretty regularly interfering in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, and the US never did anything sbstantive about it.

The British were considering offering Texas protectorate status in order to prevent annexation by the US. By doing so, they hoped to limit US expansion to the west. They were not willing to add Texas to the Empire, however.

As I recall, it would have probably been a good deal for Texas. I would have almost certainly involved Texas giving up slavery, but their security against invasion from Mexico would have been guaranteed and they would have gained assistance in developing Galveston as a trade port with Britain with the cooresponding lucrative British market. I believe there was also talk of using British influence with Mexico to resolve Texas-Mexico border disputes and that would have likely led to Texas keeping the then-unimportant strip of Texas that stretched into modern Colorado. This strip contained a number of spots that would later be lucrative mines during the OTL Colorado Silver Boom.

I've considered using this as POD for a timeline before. Unfortunately, I know how it starts and how it ends up but don't really have the middle worked out very well.

Chengar Qordath said:

The Monroe Doctrine was an empty scrap of paper that the US was completely incapable of enforcing without British help in the 1830's. Europeans were pretty regularly interfering in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, and the US never did anything sbstantive about it.

Click to expand...

While this is largely true, as time went on, the Doctrine did have greater effect.

MaxKaladin said:

The British were considering offering Texas protectorate status in order to prevent annexation by the US. By doing so, they hoped to limit US expansion to the west. They were not willing to add Texas to the Empire, however.

Click to expand...

That distinction isn't all that great, given the economic situation of Texas it seems likely that any Texan protectorate status would have included a British resident charged with keeping Texan finances inline (since Britain would have to loan the Texans a considerable amount of money f they were to still independent they would need a guarantee of Texan solvency) Texas would have also be forced to bend to British trading whims and military stipulations.

Baring changing the position of President to governor it would pretty much be a part of the Empire.

Britain had a number of protectorates that were part of the British Empire (the Princely states of Indian for example were more or less protectorates as were various parts of the middle Eats and Africa).

I understand this was considered by all sides between 1836 and 1846. It was a possibility but never particularly likely. Mexico would have gone for it as it would have given them a bulwark between them and the USA, the USA or at least northern politicians would probably have accepted it as it was one less potential slave state to worry about. The British might have accepted it as they would have a better chance of limiting the western advance of the USA. The Texicans and Tejanos allways new thier state was under populated and may have gone for it. So possible but not probable.