I said Yukon, but meant Yucatan
Now that we are on this subject, however, Canada will have its OTL borders?
If Texas is to be that big, then isn't El Paso a more centralized capital?
Can Texas be this large?
- Thread starter NomadicSky
- Start date
I said Yukon, but meant Yucatan
Now that we are on this subject, however, Canada will have its OTL borders?
If Texas is to be that big, then isn't El Paso a more centralized capital?
I said Yukon, but meant Yucatan
You're forgiven. Have a cookie.
Wendell said:
Either that (gradually, of course) or the UK decides to go gung-ho over its claim to the Columbia District (aka the Oregon country).
Wendell said:
Sounds pretty reasonable.
The capital's location depends on 1) when it's founded and 2) the size of the country at that time. Depending on the time period, different kinds of transport technology might dictate different "centers." For example, before railroads become widespread, a capital close to the coast might be essential to maintain rapid contact with the outside world (US in Washington, Mexico, Europe). This might argue more for a detached foreign ministry HQ, perhaps.
Even when Austin was selected as the capital of Texas, it was by no means central to the entire state (which extended north to Colorado). It was central to major population centers, likely zones of conflict (the Mexican border and Indian country), and international shipping/communication (via rivers to the Gulf Coast).
El Paso is difficult to reach, due to the harsh terrain (West Texas desert) that surrounds it. Unless you dredged the Rio Grande and magically increased rainfall, the river wouldn't be navigable enough to afford easy access. At the time, El Paso would have been dangerously close to marauding Indians, if not similarly malefactious Mexicans; it would have been far from both Anglo settlements and Mexican ones.
Maybe something near Brownsville would work, if you have a strong Mexican sentiment in your expanded Texas, but probably something in what is today Texas would be most probable.
Even when Austin was selected as the capital of Texas, it was by no means central to the entire state (which extended north to Colorado). It was central to major population centers, likely zones of conflict (the Mexican border and Indian country), and international shipping/communication (via rivers to the Gulf Coast).
El Paso is difficult to reach, due to the harsh terrain (West Texas desert) that surrounds it. Unless you dredged the Rio Grande and magically increased rainfall, the river wouldn't be navigable enough to afford easy access. At the time, El Paso would have been dangerously close to marauding Indians, if not similarly malefactious Mexicans; it would have been far from both Anglo settlements and Mexican ones.
Maybe something near Brownsville would work, if you have a strong Mexican sentiment in your expanded Texas, but probably something in what is today Texas would be most probable.
Jasen777
Donor
Austin was on the west end of all the Texas settlement and quite vulnerable to Indian raids (which was not a plus). It was moved because some people didn't want the capital at Houston, because it was a dump and because it was named for Sam Houston.
Austin is east of San Antonio (about 80 mi northeast, to be precise). Austin was more central in the same way Richmond was to the CSA: it's not the center of commerce, but it provides the best place from which to issue commands to the major front of interest. In the case of the Republic of Texas, this would be various Native American tribes and Mexico.
Dump should probably be qualified as swamp, which at the time carried all sorts of health hazards.