Settlement
IIRC Mexico had invited most if not all of the Americans into Texas to settle there.
IIRC Mexico had invited most if not all of the Americans into Texas to settle there.
Can Texas be this large?
- Thread starter NomadicSky
- Start date
In northeastern Texas, and barely. The vast majority of the grain belt is further north.
But fresh fruit doesn't bring settlers in the mid-19th century.
Texas isn't a slavery cotton state, though. At least, not in the sense that the Black Belt is/was.
NomadicSky
Banned
Oops I see a mistake I made on the map.
I used an encarta map to create that one.
I know it doesn't really matter. anyways fixed.
I used an encarta map to create that one.
I know it doesn't really matter. anyways fixed.
NomadicSky
Banned
I know there isn't any way for it to be major english speaking. However it could be like Belgium. In the northern provinces english is the predominant language and spanish to the south.
Maybe have mormons settle farther south of the Colorado river in the area that is "Texas" on the map.
The Republic of the Rio Grande joins Texas and sets the precedence for a bilingual republic.
Maybe have mormons settle farther south of the Colorado river in the area that is "Texas" on the map.
The Republic of the Rio Grande joins Texas and sets the precedence for a bilingual republic.
David S Poepoe
Banned
How about, in reaction to the oppression of Mexico Emperor Agustin de Iturbide a counter revolution in San Antonio de Bexar breaks out under the leadership of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. The revolt leads to the declaration and independence of the Republic of Tejas, encompassing most of northern Mexico. California also rises in revolt and become independent.
Why have Santa Fe be the capital?
Also, I don't see why Yukon would be American. Furthermore, the ramifications for Canada could be interesting.Why have Santa Fe be the capital?
I agree.
It's rather out in the middle of nowhere.
Somewhere in OTL Texas, like Houston or Austin is far more likely.
Climate and Resources
Texas has a substantial "grain belt" through the central and panhandle areas. The eastern portion, between Dallas and the Louisiana line, has the more southeastern U.S. climate. However, most of the territory of the "enlaged" Texas consists of rather arid, desert country. It is though, settled.
An important aspect of Texas is its tremendous mineral resources, namely petroleum. This factor would make an enlarged Texas viable in the twentieth century; however, it would have to be organized in the nineteenth, and those scenarios are difficult.
Suppost Texas never re-joined the Union after the Civil War? Still, it would be hard to imagine expansion. Its resources, though, would make it a viable country.
Texas has a substantial "grain belt" through the central and panhandle areas. The eastern portion, between Dallas and the Louisiana line, has the more southeastern U.S. climate. However, most of the territory of the "enlaged" Texas consists of rather arid, desert country. It is though, settled.
An important aspect of Texas is its tremendous mineral resources, namely petroleum. This factor would make an enlarged Texas viable in the twentieth century; however, it would have to be organized in the nineteenth, and those scenarios are difficult.
Suppost Texas never re-joined the Union after the Civil War? Still, it would be hard to imagine expansion. Its resources, though, would make it a viable country.
Er, why? I assume you mean that the CSA is defeated but Texas isn't. Which is strange, because not only was the Confederacy's claims to New Mexico/Arizona squashed pretty early in the war, but the far west was one of the few places the Union did largely well. Texas wouldn't be able to withstand the Union, and after the slog through Virginia and Sherman's march to the sea, moving troops to take care of the Mexican situation would put a huge-ass force straight towards Texas, likely a force stronger than both the US and Confederate forces in the area during the war combined.
Not going to happen in a Union-win Civil War.
Texas after Civil War
Texas and Georgia were not officially re-admitted to the Union until 1870, five years after the end of the Civil War, after much of the large Union army had been downsized. In 1846, Texas was admitted to the Union by a treaty, a process uniquely different from that applied when other U.S. territories petition for admission. The treaty, as I understand, gave Texas different rights, inclulding the ability to divide itself into up to five states, and presumably, to secede. If Texas chose not to re-join, stressed the point that the U.S. was not honoring a treaty is entered in 1946, and other nations agreed; the Union may have stood down and not invaded. Texas would emerge as a nation in its current boundaries, with no claim to adjacent territory.
I know this is an unlikely scenario, put the point of Alternate History is to discuss unlikely changes.
Texas and Georgia were not officially re-admitted to the Union until 1870, five years after the end of the Civil War, after much of the large Union army had been downsized. In 1846, Texas was admitted to the Union by a treaty, a process uniquely different from that applied when other U.S. territories petition for admission. The treaty, as I understand, gave Texas different rights, inclulding the ability to divide itself into up to five states, and presumably, to secede. If Texas chose not to re-join, stressed the point that the U.S. was not honoring a treaty is entered in 1946, and other nations agreed; the Union may have stood down and not invaded. Texas would emerge as a nation in its current boundaries, with no claim to adjacent territory.
I know this is an unlikely scenario, put the point of Alternate History is to discuss unlikely changes.
Last edited:
David S Poepoe
Banned
The problem here is that the US is not bound to recognize the treaty since Texas made war 'against' the US. Texas does not have option of choosing not to re-join the Union. It can remain occupied territory under military rule or become a state - there is no option for independence. The treaty regarding Texas' ability to divide itself up into as many as five states should also be null and void.
Greetings all. I've been reading these forums for a while now and can't help but join in.
While Texas did agree to enter the Union under the terms of a treaty and while Texas' Legislature did ratify that treaty, the US Senate did not. Tyler (who decided to proceed with annexation after the election of James Polk) could not get the necessary 2/3 vote because of the problem regarding slavery. Hence, to agree to the annexation, a Joint Resolution of Congress was passed. This resolution did not extend Texas the same rights as the treaty. In Texas' eyes, however, it would amount to the same thing, but the Union would have ground to claim they had rejected extending those rights to Texas.
Also, Texas considered seceeding from the CSA due to Indian and Mexican policies and whatwith being cut off from the rest of the CSA due to the occupation of New Orleans.
An easy POD to cause such a Texas (if not perhaps a larger one that might include Mirabeau B. Lamar's dream of a Texas that stretched to California) would be a civil war in 1830s, as almost happened due to the Tarrif Crisis under Jackson. While Jackson certainly would have prosecuted the war vigorously, the South stands a better chance against a less industrialized, less immigrated-to North. If Texas' history proceeds apace, perhaps there's a chance in either a Southern or Northern victory for Texas to either become a refuge for fleeing Southerners (and hence hasten the 1835-6 revolution) or aided by a successful South.
Cheers,
Nicomacheus
While Texas did agree to enter the Union under the terms of a treaty and while Texas' Legislature did ratify that treaty, the US Senate did not. Tyler (who decided to proceed with annexation after the election of James Polk) could not get the necessary 2/3 vote because of the problem regarding slavery. Hence, to agree to the annexation, a Joint Resolution of Congress was passed. This resolution did not extend Texas the same rights as the treaty. In Texas' eyes, however, it would amount to the same thing, but the Union would have ground to claim they had rejected extending those rights to Texas.
Also, Texas considered seceeding from the CSA due to Indian and Mexican policies and whatwith being cut off from the rest of the CSA due to the occupation of New Orleans.
An easy POD to cause such a Texas (if not perhaps a larger one that might include Mirabeau B. Lamar's dream of a Texas that stretched to California) would be a civil war in 1830s, as almost happened due to the Tarrif Crisis under Jackson. While Jackson certainly would have prosecuted the war vigorously, the South stands a better chance against a less industrialized, less immigrated-to North. If Texas' history proceeds apace, perhaps there's a chance in either a Southern or Northern victory for Texas to either become a refuge for fleeing Southerners (and hence hasten the 1835-6 revolution) or aided by a successful South.
Cheers,
Nicomacheus
OK, lets go past the Texas stays independent. Wouldn't most whites from the south want to emigrate to Texas after the ATL Civil War and or crackdown on slavery which could happen earlier? Texas would be bolstered by that and British loans. It may have been weak at the beginning, but Texas has some serious potential.
Unless I am completely off base, in which case tell me.
Unless I am completely off base, in which case tell me.
Heavy and commercial industry, for one thing. Texas proper isn't exactly abundant with the mineral deposits of other parts of the US, and oil can only go so far. From fighting to maintain borders, purchasing goods from the US and Britain and Mexico, and at best very modest manufacturing and farming, Texas is going to be a bit poor to be a rival to the US.
1) While OTL Texas does lack iron, coal, etc. it does have oil and cattle. The latter would be a great reason for Britain to take a constructive hand in investing in the young Lone Star Republic. (In OTL, most ranches were backed by British financing).
2) The Texas outlined in the map does include substantial mineral deposits in what is OTL Northern Mexico.
3) They could have cotton/textile industries, chemical industries (sulfur deposits). The Rio Grande valley is quite fertile and is farm country today. There's no need for Texas to necessarily have a huge arms industry to be big country unless it's planning to fight other such countries. Only the US might be such a contender. In a scenario where it remains independent, Texas might have remained isolationist enough that war simply wasn't a factor in the 19th century: it took enough to fight off the Indians and earn a living.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few more potential PODs that could yield such a Texas:
1) Santa Anna returns to Mexico and recognizes the Treaty of Velasco, leaving Texas free from the necessity to resist Mexican invasions in the early 1840s, which bankrupted the nation. A similar vein, Santa Anna does not rise to power again in 1842 and Mexico descends into civil war, similarly leaving Texas free from the need to bankrupt itself.
2) The Texians manage to coordinate their revolt with the ongoing Liberal revolt against Santa Anna's conservative coup. The Yucatan wins its independence (in OTL it was recognized by Great Britain). The Republic of the Rio Grande aligns with Texas. This wider war drags on for longer than the Texas War of Independence did in OTL, and eventually Texas enacts some form of emancipation/manumission in order to increase the size of its armies. This prompts Great Britain to give even more support to the fledgling Republic.
The really interesting question here is whether Texas really becomes independent or the Mexican Liberal re-institute the Constitution of 1824 with Texas as separate state from Coahuila--Texas' original demands in its revolt. It could easily happen that Santa Anna is not absolutely defeated and the Yucatan is made a free state, and Texas/RGR merge into Texas. Then the US buys California at some point. (Or maybe Texas does, once they find oil and have the money to do so.) Or maybe Great Britain intervenes in the French attempt to impose Maximilian in the 1860s (because they supported a Monroe Doctrine-like policy with regards the Western Hemisphere, dating from Canning's ministry in the 1820s); they force Mexico to cede more land to Texas, supporting it for the same reasons they would invest in Argentina.
2) The Texas outlined in the map does include substantial mineral deposits in what is OTL Northern Mexico.
3) They could have cotton/textile industries, chemical industries (sulfur deposits). The Rio Grande valley is quite fertile and is farm country today. There's no need for Texas to necessarily have a huge arms industry to be big country unless it's planning to fight other such countries. Only the US might be such a contender. In a scenario where it remains independent, Texas might have remained isolationist enough that war simply wasn't a factor in the 19th century: it took enough to fight off the Indians and earn a living.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few more potential PODs that could yield such a Texas:
1) Santa Anna returns to Mexico and recognizes the Treaty of Velasco, leaving Texas free from the necessity to resist Mexican invasions in the early 1840s, which bankrupted the nation. A similar vein, Santa Anna does not rise to power again in 1842 and Mexico descends into civil war, similarly leaving Texas free from the need to bankrupt itself.
2) The Texians manage to coordinate their revolt with the ongoing Liberal revolt against Santa Anna's conservative coup. The Yucatan wins its independence (in OTL it was recognized by Great Britain). The Republic of the Rio Grande aligns with Texas. This wider war drags on for longer than the Texas War of Independence did in OTL, and eventually Texas enacts some form of emancipation/manumission in order to increase the size of its armies. This prompts Great Britain to give even more support to the fledgling Republic.
The really interesting question here is whether Texas really becomes independent or the Mexican Liberal re-institute the Constitution of 1824 with Texas as separate state from Coahuila--Texas' original demands in its revolt. It could easily happen that Santa Anna is not absolutely defeated and the Yucatan is made a free state, and Texas/RGR merge into Texas. Then the US buys California at some point. (Or maybe Texas does, once they find oil and have the money to do so.) Or maybe Great Britain intervenes in the French attempt to impose Maximilian in the 1860s (because they supported a Monroe Doctrine-like policy with regards the Western Hemisphere, dating from Canning's ministry in the 1820s); they force Mexico to cede more land to Texas, supporting it for the same reasons they would invest in Argentina.
NomadicSky
Banned
Why have Santa Fe be the capital?
I like Santa Fe and I thought it was a nice central city to use as a capital.
The Yukon isn't American Canada in TTL would have about the same area as it does in OTL.