Texas doesn't join the Union in 1846

'Nuff said. They are still an independent country in 1860, and definitely don't want to give up slavery. How does history play out?
 
'Nuff said. They are still an independent country in 1860, and definitely don't want to give up slavery. How does history play out?

Well, in a timeline (not submitted) on which I have worked, I have a slightly different POD. Essentially, the U.S. never becomes more than a regional power, and Texas manages to grab Nicaragua. In the same timeline, California is independent and a Monarchy, eventually in union with Hawaii. Mexico too is a monarchy (after the Mexican civil war) under Maximilian de Habsburgo, and later under his adopted descendants, the "legitimate" heirs of Agostin de Iturbide.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
I used to own a great book on the republic of Texas, its naval involvement with the Yucatan and one political faction's battle to try and stave off US annexation. IIRC the Texan President actually GOT Mexican recognition of independence on condition of no US annexation, but it had to be put to a referendum within Texas. Something like that. And there was also the position of Britain to consider, but I can't remember what position that was !

Texas if it remained independent would be something of a naval power, at least in prospect. IIRC the navy had got a bit run down under one administration or other and this was generating a lot of resentment in certain quarters.

Was there slavery in Texas ? I never really knew much about that

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

HueyLong

Banned
Slavery was one of the big conflicts the Texans had with the Mexican government.

BTW, while some of the early political leaders were against annexation, the majority of the population was not. Only when their government wasn't able to function representatively did it reject the Union.
 
TX did have slavery... but not a lot of them. Much of the place was unsuited for the typical plantation slavery. From what I've read, several of the heroes of the revolution owned slaves, but they were the servant/butler types, not field hands. There were a handful of plantations in the east half of the state, but elsewhere, the land was too dry for it...
 
I'd imagine the US would try and conquer them anyway.
Maybe claiming to be going in to help slaves or somesuch.
Britain may not even stand in their way, there's not much to gain down in Texas.
 
'Nuff said. They are still an independent country in 1860, and definitely don't want to give up slavery. How does history play out?

1) No Mexican/American War. Mexico retains title to much of the American Southwest. California possibly revolts at some time in the mid-1850s and secures it's own independence, especially if gold is discovered on schedule in 1849 and there is a huge influx of Americans and other foreigners into the territory.

2) Possibly an independent Mormon nation of Deseret. The land where the Mormons settled in Utah would have been in Mexico. If they chose to rebel at some point, they were probably too far away from Mexico for the Mexicans to hold onto them.

3) Quite possibly no American Civil War in the 1860s, as there won't be as many controversies over the admission of additional western territories to completely polarize the two sides against each other. The Missouri Compromise remains intact, slavery eventually dies a natural death sometime between 1890 and 1910.

4) Alternatively, there is still a Civil War, but Texas remains neutral and trades with both sides. The Union is MUCH weaker in this scenario because it doesn't have the California and other western gold and silver reserves to back up it's currency and purchasing power abroad (the Union did import huge quantities of arms and equipment during the war...more so than the Confederacy, in fact. It is true that it also produced most of what it used during the war, but if imports are harder to get, or if sound money to pay for purchase contracts doesn't exist, it's ability to build and equip armies is going to be significantly impacted). The Confederacy, despite the loss of Texas manpower, is actually somewhat stronger than in OTL, because the ability of the Confederacy to use Texas ports to evade the blockade makes it easier for it to bring in the supplies it needs to equip it's own armies.
 
Last edited:
I'd imagine the US would try and conquer them anyway.
Maybe claiming to be going in to help slaves or somesuch.
Britain may not even stand in their way, there's not much to gain down in Texas.
So long as Texas stays roughly democratic, I think the odds of the U.S. invading are roughly the same as the odds of the U.S. invading Canada. In other words, fairly high early on, but diminishing to zero as the two nations get comfortable with one another and begin to realize how much they have in common.
 
1) No Mexican/American War. Mexico retains title to much of the American Southwest. California possibly revolts at some time in the mid-1850s and secures it's own independence, especially if gold is discovered on schedule in 1849 and there is a huge influx of Americans and other foreigners into the territory.

Not necessarily. The US was already looking towards the Pacific, ie. Lewis & Clark and the Oregon Territory. US settlers had been arriving in California by 1841. There aren't enough Californios to offset American settlers, even before the Gold Rush.
 

Alcuin

Banned
Britain's Position

And there was also the position of Britain to consider, but I can't remember what position that was

Britain's position was one of complete disinterest. When Sam Houston approached Britain and asked for Texas to be made a British colony, Britain said no.
 
Maybe if the US stressed Texas entering as not one state, but multiple states that coudl do it. I recall reading (I'll try and find the article) that there was a section within Congress that was ill at ease with such a large state, for with much land avalible Texas could easily overshadow the larger Northern states in influence.
 

Jasen777

Donor
The vast majority of Texans wanted to join the U.S. But you could fairly easily have the U.S. Congress tied up and not able to annex it.

If the civil war still happened (which it very well might not), I think Texas would probably stay out of it, although they'd have Southern sympathies.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
'Nuff said. They are still an independent country in 1860, and definitely don't want to give up slavery. How does history play out?

I've got an über Republic of Texas about half the country had slaves untill 1887 when laws for gradual emancipation were passed.

Republic%2520of%2520Texas.PNG
 
I've got an über Republic of Texas about half the country had slaves untill 1887 when laws for gradual emancipation were passed.

How'd they manage grab hold of California in time to stave off the Americans and Mexicans?


edit: and how'd they deal with the Mormons?
 
Not necessarily. The US was already looking towards the Pacific, ie. Lewis & Clark and the Oregon Territory. US settlers had been arriving in California by 1841. There aren't enough Californios to offset American settlers, even before the Gold Rush.

Yes, there were American settlers there as early as 1841. Yes, the U.S. was looking toward the Pacific. But the U.S. already had a claim on Oregon, which means that it would already have a Pacific outlet. And the fact that there were American settlers there doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. is going to invade California. I view the possibility of a California revolt against Mexico more likely in this scenario than a Mexican-American war. And a California revolt in the 1850s...which, again, really depends on gold being discovered on schedule, which might not happen in the ATL...is just as likely, if not more so, to lead to an independent California as it is to a California being annexed by the U.S. Once gold is discovered, why would the revolutionaries in California want to join the U.S. and be subject to taxation from Washington?

Also, the Mexican War resulted in large part because of changes in the Mexican political landscape which happened BECAUSE of U.S. annexation of Texas. If that doesn't happen, those political changes don't happen and quite probably war doesn't happen.
 
Maybe if the US stressed Texas entering as not one state, but multiple states that coudl do it. I recall reading (I'll try and find the article) that there was a section within Congress that was ill at ease with such a large state, for with much land avalible Texas could easily overshadow the larger Northern states in influence.

Texas did cede a considerable amount of land to the U.S. as it was upon joining the Union. The Republic of Texas had claimed land as far away as today's Wyoming.
 
Republic of Texas (1846-present)

Both Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush would of been Presidents of Texas and not of the United States. No Vietnam War. No Iraq War.
 
Top