A Weak Independent Texas?

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?
 
Err.,.. In the title, you mean Texas, right?
Anyways, yeah, good idea. Kind of like, "you betrayed us all, now you'll pay". I mean, Mexico, CSA, USA, all don't like Texas.
 
Err.,.. In the title, you mean Texas, right?
Anyways, yeah, good idea. Kind of like, "you betrayed us all, now you'll pay". I mean, Mexico, CSA, USA, all don't like Texas.

Not trying to sound rude, but is there another Texas?

But yes, it always seems that Texas has the devils luck, and the cause of this always being that "Britian decided to support Texas, so that's that." But what could Britain do if 3 of the 4 continental powers chopped off bits of Texas? It can't blockade/invade them all, and any action would just anger all three powers, whom Britain would probably try to play off eachother in some fashion.
 
One common reoccurring 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?
Cliche. Before the discovery of oil Texas wasn't exactly the wealthiest, most strategic part of North America. In any event, if Texas was well established, none of the neighbours would want the others to annex it. But they might get away with hacking off parts.
 

Jasen777

Donor
I see Texas only facing two continental powers, Mexico and the U.S. Mexico has so many problems that Texas can probably handle itself against it. The U.S. doesn't need to use force to take Texas, it's theirs for the asking. During a U.S. civil war, if Texas stays out of it, neither side is likely to widen the war by attacking Texas. Afterwards would be interesting but I don't see why if the U.S. wanted Texas they'd leave a rump.

Unless of course you're talking about a scenario where Texas splits from a Confederacy that has won it's independence, which I don't think is very likely. In that case, Texas isn't going to be able to expand anywhere, or be a first rate military power. It could very well survive intact though (at it's state borders), nations in Europe have managed in worse situations.

East Texas btw, is not plains but is woodlands similar to Louisiana.
 

Glen

Moderator
Have Lamar's camp come to ascendency in Texas (Independence and Expansionism). They end up fighting another war with Mexico over Western expansion at the same time as America breaks into a Civil War, and lose (though not completely) to Mexico. In the settlement, the Southern border gets set at the Nueces and the Western goes up from the source of the Nueces to the old Mexican/American border. South loses the US Civil War, and plenty of ex-Confederates move into Texas, where slavery is still legal. Because of the influence of ex-Confederates and the fact they still have slavery, Texas annexation is not on the table.
 
But what would keep the US's massive army from marching down into Texas on one pretense or another? Outright (perhaps partial) annexation could be the goal, but it could also be portrayed as arresting the traitors. Going down into Brazil is one thing; that's on the other side of the neighborhood. Going into Texas is another; that's moving in with the next door neighbors who happen to have sympathy with your hunter.

And why would exconfederate slaveholders suddenly become influential in Texas? Slavery is pretty worthless on those plains, and who's going to be foolish enough to take Confederate money?
 
But what would keep the US's massive army from marching down into Texas on one pretense or another? Outright (perhaps partial) annexation could be the goal, but it could also be portrayed as arresting the traitors. Going down into Brazil is one thing; that's on the other side of the neighborhood. Going into Texas is another; that's moving in with the next door neighbors who happen to have sympathy with your hunter.

And why would exconfederate slaveholders suddenly become influential in Texas? Slavery is pretty worthless on those plains, and who's going to be foolish enough to take Confederate money?

Slavery was hardly useless in Texas, seeing as slaves were employed in the wooded and fertile regions of the state in the eastern, more populated regions.

The United States, while perhaps not necessarily noninterfering in its neighbors' affairs, hasn't invaded a sovereign nation's homeland for the express purpose of annexation since the Mexican War. A US invasion of Texas seems unlikely. Economic pressure? Sure.
 
Top