StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This thread is a fairly simple one

1-Could the Republic of Texas have retained it's sovereignty?
2-What would the effects of an Indepedant Republic of Texas on history be?

Zor

It might have been able to survive for a while if it had successfully negotiated recognition and economic aid from Great Britain, as (IIRC) it was working on historically. It would probably be a poor country, though, until oil becomes useful.

Zor wrote:1-Could the Republic of Texas have retained it's sovereignty?

The answer to this question is that they had no intention of "retaining" their sovereignty and pretty much intended to become part of the USA, and only remained as an independent state as long as they did because the United States couldn't annex them until the States were, in effect, willing to go to war with Mexico. It took a few years for them to get to it.

Ignoring that, Texas prior to the oil boom had an economy based around agriculture, mainly cattle ranching. It's likely that Texas's continued status as an independent nation would drive down immigration from the States, and it would definitely complicate trade with the USA, so it's population and economy would grow only slowly, so as a nation it would would probably just be the North American equivalent to Uruguay.

The largest effect would probably be the removal of the primary cause of the Mexican-American War, so Mexico might retain its northern half. Of course, the growing Anglo population of California and the resources there might eventually have lead to war anyway.

Guardsman Bass wrote:It might have been able to survive for a while if it had successfully negotiated recognition and economic aid from Great Britain, as (IIRC) it was working on historically. It would probably be a poor country, though, until oil becomes useful.

Yes. Though Texans wanted annexation to the United States from the get-go. The only reason it took as long as it did was that the Jackson and Van Buren administrations wanted nothing to do with it, and Tyler and Polk only got it by going around the Senate, who refused to come up with the votes needed to ratify a treaty of annexation. And part of the reason Texas wanted to be annexed so badly was that it had amassed a lot of debt and was a poor agrarian nation.

Even if the Flying RAR Monster somehow made it so the Texans changed their minds and wanted to stay the Republic of Texas, it's doubtful Texas would've survived much longer than, say, thirty years as a republic. Either a California-triggered Mexican-American War would've prompted annexation by the United States, or it would've happened during the American Civil War. Even, if by some miracle, Texas makes it to the 20th Century, it does so as a desperately poor, low-population nation of farmers and ranchers. The railroads that would've come through in the OTL are few and far between, so trade and industrialization would've remained limited. Discovery of oil in the Republic of Texas at the dawn of the 20th Century would, in this alternate history, likely lead to its downfall to either the United States, or Mexico.

Problems affecting a hypothetical Texas Republic include the United States: President Polk was a determined expansionist and was, at the time, also quite keen on acquiring the Mexican territories of California and New Mexico, and was trying to figure out just how much of what was termed as "Oregon country" they could take from the British.

On the other side was Mexico, which didn't recognize the Texan claim that the Tex-Mex border was the Rio Grande river. Though, in this time-period, the government of Mexico was characterized by a distinct lack of stability and centralized power.

So the alternative timeline would probably unfold thusly:
1) The British and the United States successfully partition Oregon, per the OTL. It may have been a harder sell for the pro-slavery factions than in the OTL, (as Texas had joined the Union as a pro-slavery state, which made annexation of what would've been the anti-slavery Oregon Territory easier to swallow.)

2) The United States continues to push for purchase of New Mexico and California. Mexico is no more willing to part with them as it was in the OTL. Anglo settlers continue to stir up trouble in California, and the US would still like to limit British influence in the Pacific. Which means:

3) The Bear Flag Revolt still takes place, resulting in the creation of the Republic of California. In the OTL, the Anglos were just as keen on annexation as the Texans were. The US annexes California or otherwise backs California against Mexico.

4) The Mexican-American War takes place. This one is bloodier and longer than the one in the OTL; unless Texas and the US ally, and US troops can push into Mexico from Texas, as per the OTL. One scenario has the US at its present boundaries, minus Texas. The other has Mexico likely holding onto the New Mexico territory and ceding a large part of California to the US. In the scenario where Texas doesn't permit US troops to pass through, Texas is now surrounded by two resentful, hostile neighbors. Though things aren't that much better if Texas does cooperate.

5) Either way, the American Civil War still happens. The only way the Republic of Texas survives is if it turtles up and declares neutrality and meticulously maintains that neutrality. Otherwise it gets steamrolled by the Union as it did in the OTL.

Another possibility, albeit slightly implausible, is an eleventh British intervention. If I remember right, Lord Aberdeen (I think) had managed to get Mexican recognition of Texas independence in return for the abolition of slavery. At this point, there was still a real chance of slavery being abolished in Texas (with Sam Houston very cautiously supportive of conditional abolition). At this point, it was too late, but if it goes through: what next?

Could we see Texas populated by free labor British colonists? My source for all of this is William Freehling's Road to Disunion, if anyone wants to know.

CarsonPalmer wrote:If I remember right, Lord Aberdeen (I think) had managed to get Mexican recognition of Texas independence in return for the abolition of slavery.

Texas didn't really need recognition that badly, because it's main foreign policy objective was to join the USA, and because Mexico in any case lacked the wherewithal to reconquer them. Additionally, any agreement by Mexico viz. recognition would have certainly included the proviso that Texas relinquish it's expansive and unenforced claims on northern Mexico (e.g. the entire western half of modern Texas plus change). So Texas would get something it didn't need in exchange for giving up a lot of stuff it really wanted. Not seeing the point.

CarsonPalmer wrote:Could we see Texas populated by free labor British colonists? My source for all of this is William Freehling's Road to Disunion, if anyone wants to know.

What reason would Britons have for immigrating to Texas during the 19th century? What reason would anybody have for immigrating to the Republic of Texas during the 19th century, while the great cities of the North Atlantic coast are still hoovering up the wretched refuse of teeming shores? IIRC most immigrants to Texas prior to the civil war were engaged in cotton farming, which was less appealing if the labor force had to be free, and Texas remained a whole separate (probably quite poor and debt-ridden) country.

CarsonPalmer wrote:Another possibility, albeit slightly implausible, is an eleventh British intervention. If I remember right, Lord Aberdeen (I think) had managed to get Mexican recognition of Texas independence in return for the abolition of slavery.

Unlikely; without the Civil War to distract the US proper, the Monroe Doctrine would be invoked, meaning the slave states will pressure the Federal Government to declare war on the UK if the Brits tried to get the Texans to abolish slavery. I don't think the Brits thought this was worth the trouble.

At this point, there was still a real chance of slavery being abolished in Texas (with Sam Houston very cautiously supportive of conditional abolition). At this point, it was too late, but if it goes through: what next?

As others have noted, Texas was an agrarian nation at the time, dependent upon cotton crops, which means anyone who advocated abolition would be lucky to avoid getting tarred and feathered for "poking their noses where they don't belong."

Could we see Texas populated by free labor British colonists? My source for all of this is William Freehling's Road to Disunion, if anyone wants to know.

The 1830s weren't the 1760s; Americans were no longer willing to let London browbeat them into foregoing domestic industries and buying British goods to support industries on another fucking continent (see the Sugar, Currency, Townshend and Tea Acts), British nobles could no longer promise their younger sons American land to stop them from fighting with the older sons for inheritence (Canadian land is above latitude TOO FUCKING COLD), and Puritans are no longer oppressed in the UK and therefore encouraged to immigrate to America. Really, what reason would a free British citizen immigrate to Texas for, besides wanting to remain free because British authorities want him arrested and brought to trial?

I don't know; I'm just repeating possibilities raised in Road To Disunion. The idea was that Congress would be deadlocked on Texas annexation (which it was) and that Texas would be independent with British backing, moving towards abolition.

Aberdeen seemed to be of the opinion that free labor British would fill the void left by slaveholders. If not British, than at least free labor.

CarsonPalmer wrote:I don't know; I'm just repeating possibilities raised in Road To Disunion. The idea was that Congress would be deadlocked on Texas annexation (which it was) and that Texas would be independent with British backing, moving towards abolition.

British meddling in Texas would probably have the salutary effect of jolting Congress into prompt annexation, which the Texans would happily accept.

Aberdeen seemed to be of the opinion that free labor British would fill the void left by slaveholders. If not British, than at least free labor.

Again, what exactly is there in 19th century Texas to appeal to potential working-class immigrants, especially from a relatively well-off place like Britain? The opportunity to work on cotton plantations for people who are used to ordering slaves around? The only people I can see wanting to come to Texas would be wealthy Americans investing in ranching.

Finally, we already looked at what would happen to a long-lived Texas Republic--ignominy.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Again, what exactly is there in 19th century Texas to appeal to potential working-class immigrants, especially from a relatively well-off place like Britain? The opportunity to work on cotton plantations for people who are used to ordering slaves around? The only people I can see wanting to come to Texas would be wealthy Americans investing in ranching.

You could make virtually the same argument about Australia during this period, yet when the colonial government tired of the squatter/convict system and began to encourage free immigration people came in droves. The offer of owning your own land trumps virtually anything you could find in Britain, particularly in Ireland and Scotland.

thejester wrote:

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Again, what exactly is there in 19th century Texas to appeal to potential working-class immigrants, especially from a relatively well-off place like Britain? The opportunity to work on cotton plantations for people who are used to ordering slaves around? The only people I can see wanting to come to Texas would be wealthy Americans investing in ranching.

You could make virtually the same argument about Australia during this period, yet when the colonial government tired of the squatter/convict system and began to encourage free immigration people came in droves. The offer of owning your own land trumps virtually anything you could find in Britain, particularly in Ireland and Scotland.

One important difference between Australia and Texas is Australia did NOT share borders with a hostile state with an army just big enough to ass-rape the English-speaking immigrants there. Texas had such a state (Mexico under Santa Anna), and the American Civil War added ANOTHER ONE (the US).