Texas...under the Union Jack.

[Cornwall]

Cricket isn't a popular or national sport in Canada right? So I'm not sure why it would be in a British aligned Texas. Unless you could reverse Dure's point about that being the fault of the British not allowing American participation in international fixtures.

No I don't think Cricket is that popular in Canada, but I'm sure it has to compete with other more popular sports such as Ice Hockey and Baseball and it does in England with Football. However, their Governing Cricket Board was established back in 1892 so Cricket has been a sport that has been consistently played over the last century and they have recently qualified for the 2011 Cricket World Cup Tournament. Other 'non-British' teams play Cricket too; Holland for example. Also, Ireland and Scotland play cricket to a high standard too. Ireland recently doing well in the Twenty20 World Cup.

Rugby is quite popular in Canada and they do have a rather good Rugby team....OK not in the top flight of Rugby teams but they do quite well in the Rugby World Cup. Perhaps a 'British Texas' would play to a similar standard.

 

[Cornwall]

Im interested in what a pro-British Texas would mean in terms of South America. Surely Mexico or an independent Texas would make a tilt at dominating its neighbour economically or militarily considering their history. Would Texas evolve into a kind of southern Canada? What would be these two nations relationship look like?

As far as I'm aware, Britain didn't officially recognise the Republic of Texas as it may not have sat very well with the Mexicans. Britain had a lot of investment in Mexico at the time and didn't want to jeopardise their share of the Mexican market.

Long term,it may have strengthened Britain's position in South America though. Many South American countries were in debt to Britain, Argentina and Chile for example. I think a Texas with Britain as it's number one creditor would only create the majority of Central and South America as a British sphere of influence with Texas included. In regards to Texas becoming a southern Canada, well Canada was an Imperial possession and Texas would not be, it would just be part of the informal empire. But having said that, national characters may have been similar and I'm sure British/Irish immigration directly into the area would increase and that would have a bearing on how it's society developed. Perhaps it would have more in common with Australia, with a heavy American influence too....who knows.

What would be interesting though is what if an independent Texas, with British backing, held onto territory in Colorado and New Mexico and I think, Oklahoma, teritory it ceded when it became part of the Union. How would that affect the expanse of the United States and would the USA and Texas......and let's face it Britain, protecting the 'stake of the British investor' in Texas, as it similarly did in Egypt in 1882 and during the Boer War, come to conflict?

 

[Johanus]

Yes. It becomes even more interesting by the early 1900's with (let's say) BP dominating most of the northern continent's key oil reserves.

 

[Faraday Cage]

Is there a way the British could have had their cake and eaten it to, forced Texas and Mexico to sit down and play nice?

 

[Cornwall]

Is there a way the British could have had their cake and eaten it to, forced Texas and Mexico to sit down and play nice?

There was a lot of bad blood between Mexico and Texas as Mexico viewed the Texan push for independence as a rebellion against Mexico - the Mother Country. Mexican national pride was at stake here. The Mexicans, having kicked out the Spanish wanted to hold onto the land they had accquired. The thing is, the population, by the 1830/40s in Texas was somewhat different than the rest of Mexican territory. Most were white northern European and could never be successfully assimilated into a post-colonial Spanish-speaking Mexico. I think Mexico could have benefitted from an independent Texas, and maybe should have been pragmatic enough to encourage it. However, having said that, there wasn't a political elite in power long enough for a concerted policy to develop and this induced quite a narrow response of resistance to Texan independence from the Mexicans. After the USA had become interested in Texas, war with the US, perhaps was inevitable.

A British dominated Texas may not have joined the Union, and may have acted as a buffer to American westward expansion. Although the Mexicans distrusted the British and their economic intentions, Britain could have mediated between both so as to come to an agreement about Texan independence before the Americans became interested in annexation, thus averting Mexico's war with the USA. Whether Mexico and Texas would've have been the best of friends, I doubt it, but at least there would have been a reduced chance of conflict.

 

[lothaw]

While national pride was at stake for Mexico at the time, especially with Santa Anna's mindset on the whole thing, taking a look at the westward expanding United States, a buffer state could be appealing.

Had Mexico diplomaticly recongized Texas to the full extent of it's claims(Rio Grande and Santa Fe), under the conditions it not join the US and no further territorial claims on Mexician territory, that could have served as a buffer against Manifest Destiny, and would give Mexico a good chance at holding on to California.

That certainly would've gotten diplomatic recognition from Europe, even if it would sour things with the US a bit.

 

[Cornwall]

While national pride was at stake for Mexico at the time, especially with Santa Anna's mindset on the whole thing, taking a look at the westward expanding United States, a buffer state could be appealing.

Had Mexico diplomaticly recongized Texas to the full extent of it's claims(Rio Grande and Santa Fe), under the conditions it not join the US and no further territorial claims on Mexician territory, that could have served as a buffer against Manifest Destiny, and would give Mexico a good chance at holding on to California.

That certainly would've gotten diplomatic recognition from Europe, even if it would sour things with the US a bit.

Yes, I think the European powers would recognise Texas' status if they came to agreement with Mexico, Britain especially, who was walking a fine line between supporting Texan independence and courting influence in Mexico. It would be interesting to see how the Manifest Destiny would have developed if the United States had an independent Texas, happy to stay outside the Union on it's western border, a Mexican Empire consolidating itself along the western seaboard of North America and a British Canada to the north. They definately couldn't have continued their advancement westward without war with either the Texans, the Mexicans or even the British, intent on protecting it's commercial investments in both territories. Even the French may have become involved, especially after their intervention in Mexico in the 1860s.

I'm sure the US wouldn't give up on accquiring more western territory and perhaps some sort of political game would ensue where the US would exploit distrust between Texas and Mexico in an attempt to ally itself with the Texans, exploiting Mexican political instabilty to oust the Mexicans from California......maybe.

However, I still think that there would be a good chance the US would have come to an agreement with the British over the Oregon territory, neither country wanted war at that particular time and an agreement on the 49th parallel was a good comprimise. But, if the US settled for an independent Texas and a Mexican California, I think it's portion of the Oregon Country would be about as much of any western territory the USA would take.