One common reoccuring theme in North American AH is that, should Texas stay independent, it will stay large and become a significant military power.
Is there any reason for this, or is it just a cliche? Since Texas is mostly open plains and wouldn't even have the industry to beat an independent CSA, the idea of being the largest state in North America always struck me as unbelivable. It might stay independent by playing the other two/three powers off of eachother, but keeping all it's territory? Mexico would love to reclaim the parts it always said Texas never included, the US would enjoy the northern/western parts in order to make the border abit simpler/better, and I'm sure the CSA wouldn't mind some of the eastern plains for cattle and such.
That kind of collusion between the powers would leave a rump Texas, the only kind I can really see. Thoughts?
Is there any reason for this, or is it just a cliche? Since Texas is mostly open plains and wouldn't even have the industry to beat an independent CSA, the idea of being the largest state in North America always struck me as unbelivable. It might stay independent by playing the other two/three powers off of eachother, but keeping all it's territory? Mexico would love to reclaim the parts it always said Texas never included, the US would enjoy the northern/western parts in order to make the border abit simpler/better, and I'm sure the CSA wouldn't mind some of the eastern plains for cattle and such.
That kind of collusion between the powers would leave a rump Texas, the only kind I can really see. Thoughts?