States in a Texas Republic (or Empire)

Highlander

Banned
Assume Texas remains independant, and includes OTL Texas (of course_, New Mexico, Arizona, the southern section of Oklahoma, most of Wyoming, some of Colorado, Utah, Navada, southern California, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, and a strip along the Rio Grande.

Your mission is to carve out some possible States from this territory.
 
Assuming that Texas went independant from Mexico in 1836 as it did in OTL, then; let's see; I can see Utah becoming a state in the late 40s, maybe California around the same time, irregardless of the gold discoveries, but the Californios would probably remain in control of the state [as should have happened in OTL, but the Anglo- Americans treated them very unfairly]
Colorado would have come in sooner or later, probably not until at least the '60s or maybe the 70s [OTL '76] with a strong Spanish influence, somewhat offset by miners and mountain men from the US.
With Santa Fe as the capital, and it being a long established town, I can see NM joining as early as the late '40s, but again, the Spanish [Not Mexican] influence would be very strong here.
Ariz. was too empty of any but Indian tribes to be eligible for statehood until near the turn of the century. Likewise Nevada. In OTL, it was the first of the mountain states to get statehood [1864] but it was empty of people except for a few silver miners. A political decision caused it to be a state about 25 years before it should have been. And as for Wyoming, the map of Mexico before the American land grab of '48 shows only the SW corner of Wyoming being Mexican territory. It too, was not fit for statehhod till about 1890. I can just imagine it as a state when Red Cloud/Spotted Tail went on their rampage in '66. Oklahoma was, I believe, all US territory and never a part of Texas, in any event, the indian treaties which had been signed, probably precluded it from doing anything much different than the 1907 ststehood as in OTL. As from anything south of the border, I won't even speculate about that, we would need to look at the War of the Reform and the French intervention to discuss that.
 

Jasen777

Donor
I really don't see Texas expanding that much, at least not for a long time. They couldn't control Sante Fe (only made one attempt to do so) which was in their claimed borders. For that matter, they couldn't control anything west or south of San Antonio really. It'll take decades of growth before they could control their claimed borders, let alone expand from there.

So they would stick with counties as the largest political subdivision for sometime.
 
What he said. Texas was broke trying to defend against Mexican raids, at a time when the US was already had Texas as a de facto protectorate. Texas never had realistic claims to most of the areas, and never had the ability to enforce said claims. Texas-wank is close to ASB.
 

Susano

Banned
Assume Texas remains independant, and includes OTL Texas (of course_, New Mexico, Arizona, the southern section of Oklahoma, most of Wyoming, some of Colorado, Utah, Navada, southern California, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, and a strip along the Rio Grande.

Your mission is to carve out some possible States from this territory.

Why would Texas federalise? How.... americocentric.
 

Highlander

Banned
Why would Texas federalise? How.... americocentric.

:rolleyes:

I really don't see Texas expanding that much, at least not for a long time. They couldn't control Sante Fe (only made one attempt to do so) which was in their claimed borders. For that matter, they couldn't control anything west or south of San Antonio really. It'll take decades of growth before they could control their claimed borders, let alone expand from there.

So they would stick with counties as the largest political subdivision for sometime.

You're right, it's probably close to ASB, but imagine if you would that they weren't broke, and did expand.
 
Ignore this. I was just being too much of a spoilsport. This may not be anywhere near plausible, but don't let me stop it. Sorry, highlander.
 
Last edited:
I don't really understand Texas independent timelines (unless it involves the South). Didn't Texas, with its heavily Anglo-American population, want to be in the U.S.? Even if the gov't didn't want to at some time, I'd think there would be strong enough loyalties from the populace. It's not as if Texan nationalism was that strong.

Now, an independent Tejas on the other hand.
 

Jasen777

Donor
You're right, it's probably close to ASB, but imagine if you would that they weren't broke, and did expand.

I think people are two quick to say ASB. It's unlikely, but not ASB given enough time. I was reacting to oudi14's schedule.

Texas isn't going to want to go to a state structure where the original Texas gets so badly outnumbered, so if they did go to a state structure the original Texas (by which I mean the actual occupied part) would likely be split up into states. I'd see these states (I'm not going to guess names)

San Antonio/Austin/Hill Country
Rio Grande Valley
North Central (Greater DFW)
North East
South East (Greater Houston)

West Texas and New Mexico
A state north of New Mexico (the parts of Utah/Colorado)
A California including Arizona
Baja/Sonora/Chihuahua
 

Jasen777

Donor
Didn't Texas, with its heavily Anglo-American population, want to be in the U.S.? Even if the gov't didn't want to at some time, I'd think there would be strong enough loyalties from the populace. It's not as if Texan nationalism was that strong.

Yes, but things can change. I might just have to write an independent Texas timeline.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Because of the treaty by which the Republic of Texas became part of the United States, Texas has the unique ability to spilt into five states if it so desires. There is an oft-repeated joke in my town of Austin (a liberal Democratic stronghold in an otherwise conservative Republican state) that Austin should petition the Texas legislature to become its own city-state. Conservatives respond to this joke by suggesting that the name of any suh entity should be "The People's Republic of Austin."
 
No Texas Empire....

but perhaps an expanded Confederation of the Rio Grande.

Texas if it stays independent and out otf the US will be relegated to only the original state of Tejas.
How ever they could support the Confederation of the Rio Grande and even join that to attempt to become an influential part of that new entity along the North of Mexico. However, whether Texas would be more influential than the Span/Mex states of Nueva Leon, Tamaulipas and Coahuila would be doubtful... It would depend on immigration patterns in the aftermath.

Such a state if it successful took in Alta & Baja California, Nueva Mexico, Sonora and Chihuahua could fill the vacuum of North Mexico as an immigrant state. Catholic immigration from Europe anyone? It would have a hard time defending the region though from Mexican reassertion of sovreignty without either US or outside European support.

States...of such an expanded Confederation:

Texas
Tamaulipas ( original Mexican boundaries)
Nueva Leon
Coahuila ( Same as Tam.)
Sonora
Chihuahua
Alta California Norte
Alta California Sul
Baja California
Baja Nueva Mexico ( Think basically West Texas here)
Alta Nueva Mexico
Colorado ( what is Otl Arizona south of the Colorado River)
Deseret/Utah, (depending on the influence of the Mormons)
 

Confederatepatriot1025

Being a strong supporter of the Confederacy and of states rights to secede. I would love to see Texas seced. But if Texas didn't join the US i dont see it expanding pas Oklahoma Loisianna. and new mexico. It seems to me that texas would take the path of Isolationism
 
Because of the treaty by which the Republic of Texas became part of the United States, Texas has the unique ability to spilt into five states if it so desires. There is an oft-repeated joke in my town of Austin (a liberal Democratic stronghold in an otherwise conservative Republican state) that Austin should petition the Texas legislature to become its own city-state. Conservatives respond to this joke by suggesting that the name of any suh entity should be "The People's Republic of Austin."
A Kinda Dubious Ability, And Not REALLY a Unique One ...

As Noted By This Site ...

It's a Largely Superfluous Addition, to The Original Annexation Treaty:

Snopes said:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial] New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

[/FONT]​
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
A Kinda Dubious Ability, And Not REALLY a Unique One ...

As Noted By This Site ...

Much as I adore Snopes (one of the best sites on the web), the point they miss is that Texas has the right to split into multiple states on its own, by a vote of its own legislature. For other states to split into multiple states would require an act of Congress. In that regard, its power is unique.
 

Hapsburg

Banned
Your mission is to carve out some possible States from this territory.
Assuming it becomes a federal republic may be a bit much considering it's somewhat small size, both in population and land area, compared to say, the US.

If it does become a federative republic, then probably quartered into East, West, South, and North Texas, with a central Federal District for the capital city.
Either that, or one of the already given suggestions.
 
Top