Texas doesn't join the Union in 1846

[robertp6165]

Both Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush would of been Presidents of Texas and not of the United States. No Vietnam War. No Iraq War.

Assuming, of course, that either man could exist despite the butterflies created by such a timeline.

Also, although Johnson had deep Texas roots, being descended from early Texas pioneers, George W. Bush is not a Texan. He's a Yankee transplant. So the more likely scenario is that the Bush family never moves to Texas and remains up North, and Dubya, if he still ends up in politics, ends up as President of the U.S.

 

[Glen]

Britain's position was one of complete disinterest. When Sam Houston approached Britain and asked for Texas to be made a British colony, Britain said no.

Do you have a reference on that one? I've never heard of it. Sounds rather remarkable, if true.

 

[NomadicSky]

Both Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush would of been Presidents of Texas and not of the United States.

Lyndon Johnson maybe
George W. Bush no
The Bush family is from Massachusetts so he's not a real Texan.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Another good possibility would be a Henry Clay presidency. I recall an article about such possibilities and they included a map of the continental US with both Texas and California existing as independent republics.

 

[Wendell]

Lyndon Johnson maybe
George W. Bush no
The Bush family is from Massachusetts so he's not a real Texan.

It would not shock me if Johnson ITTL proclaimed himself "King of Texas"

 

[Fenwick]

Hmmm...

1843- During Sam Houston's 2nd term he strove from better relations with the N. Americans, and Mexico. Every thing seemed to be going well with Texas until a seemingly random event went down in texas history. A small group of Indians passed into Texas from the Oaklahoma territory and went raiding, unlucky for them and the town they preyed upon their leader was shot point blank by a homesteader. the Indians reacted by attacking the town out right, buring it to the ground.

Mirabeau B. Lamar the interm President of Texas between Huston's first and second terms leapt upon this act of "Indian Savagery." Texas had to defend itself from such people, and expand as well to ensure it can be self reliant in case of more conflict with Mexico.

1844- Lamar is elected the third President of the Republic. He calls for numerous reforms to create a standing military, as well as some form of coastal navy, on top of general land reforms making it easier for Texan citizens to claim land.

1845-In a striking proposal President Lamar sent José Antonio Navarro as a representitive to Europe seeking to open up markets for Texan goods, and more importantly get a source of funding. England turned Navarro down flat, as did the Netherlands, and France. Lucky for the tiny Republic Spain was more then willing to fund the "bane" of an old colony.


1846- As Spainish gold entered into Texas, President Lamar spent it almost as quickly as he gained it. Purchasing arms from europe, paying of debts to America, and creating industry along Austin and Houston.

1847-the first of many expeditions to eastern Oaklahoma occur. Homesteads are setup, and soon townships, all under the watchful eye of the Texan militia. The first signs of contension between the US and Texas start in these regions, Texan shop keepers refusing to accept "Greenbacks," in favor of Texas "Redbacks."

1848- President Lamar decided to run for another term with Edward "the Old Indian Fighter" Burleson as his Vice President. He celebrated his election by asking legislation being passed against any and all American Annexation of Texas and here rightful lands.

 

[Texas_Viking]

Juneteenth

Hello. I've been lurking around for several months and finally got around to registering. Being a Texas native, I have some information:

Texas definitely had slavery; in OTL it was the only Confederate state not successfully invaded by the Union. Slavery didn't end in Texas until June 19, 1865, when Union ships entered Galveston and informed the people there of the passage of the 13th Amendment; this date is still informally celebrated by African-American Texans (and some of the rest of us) as "Juneteenth."

On the rest of the topic, it seems to me that, particularly after the ACW, there would be few in the US who would long tolerate a slaveholding country on their borders, so I suspect we would see some sort of incidents causing a US invasion, after which there would be no more slavery in Texas anyway, and, since a large number of the people (especially those not in the slaveowning class) wanted to join the US, Texas would have probably been annexed around 1867, under far less favorable terms than OTL.

 

[Grey Wolf]

On the rest of the topic, it seems to me that, particularly after the ACW, there would be few in the US who would long tolerate a slaveholding country on their borders, so I suspect we would see some sort of incidents causing a US invasion, after which there would be no more slavery in Texas anyway, and, since a large number of the people (especially those not in the slaveowning class) wanted to join the US, Texas would have probably been annexed around 1867, under far less favorable terms than OTL.

Interesting - would those terms include partition into several states, or the shedding of more territory to other states whilst remaining a rump Texas, if there is any difference between the two ideas ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Texas_Viking]

Partition

I seriously doubt that partition would be an option. One of the terms of the 1845 treaty under which Texas was admitted to the Union in the first place was that it would have the right to partition itself into up to 5 states. The problem with partition into additional states is that each state gets 2 senators in the US Senate, which would raise the Texas Senate delegation from 2 to up to 10; this would actually have the effect of increasing the power the former Texas has in Congress. What I think would have been most likely would be that rather than be admitted as a state, Texas would have been admitted as a territory, thus having NO representation in Congress until such time as the federal government thought it ready to enter as a state on terms the federal government preferred. However, your other suggestion, of more lost territory, makes a great deal of sense. Until the 1870's there were very few Anglo settlers west of the Balcones Escarpment (a line a little west of San Antonio - Austin - Dallas) so that region may well have been made into an additional territory.

 

[David S Poepoe]

What I think would have been most likely would be that rather than be admitted as a state, Texas would have been admitted as a territory, thus having NO representation in Congress until such time as the federal government thought it ready to enter as a state on terms the federal government preferred.

That is what happened historically under the Military Occupation and Reconstruction.