Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas stays independant

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas stays independant

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

    Texas was an independent republic from 1836 but was annexed (with the approval of the electorate) by the US in 1845.

    But could Texas have survived on its own, assuming that a majority of the population wished to stay independent?
    If so how would it have effected the Civil War, I assume an independent Texas would have wanted to stay neutral.
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

  • #2
    Had thee been no annexation by the USA there might well not have been an American- Mexican War in which case the history of New Mexico and California would have been somewhat different

    A neutral Texas would probably have been a better way for the Confederacy to evade the Federal blockade than Mexico.
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

    Comment


    • #3
      My guess is that an independent Texas would probably embolden Mexico to continue fighting until it had retaken the territory, either all of it or a sizable portion of it.

      Interestingly, about 15 years ago, a building in Paris was being renovated and it's facade restored, during which workers found an antique bronze plaque that had been covered up with plaster. The plaque indicated that building had served (or was to serve) as the residency of the Texas ambassador for the few short years that Texas was independent.
      Last edited by asterix; 12 Sep 18, 11:17.
      You'll live, only the best get killed.

      -General Charles de Gaulle

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by asterix View Post
        My guess is that an independent Texas would probably embolden Mexico to continue fighting until it had retaken the territory, either all of it or a sizable portion of it.

        .
        Makes no sense,. Mexico had not attempted to regain Texas during the years that the state has been independent (ie did not continue fighting) and only showed belligerence when the USA annexed it. In other words she had been prepared to accept an independent Texas on her border but objected to having the USA.there. As one future Mexican president put it "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!"

        Texas made quite a good buffer state.
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that Mexico might have been satisfied to leave Texas alone. OTOH, Santa Anna did have a big ego, and his pride might have demanded that he retake his rebellious province. Though certainly with its history, Texas would arm quite heavily overall, and likely have a reasonably decent army for its population. That alone might make it more trouble than it would be worth to Mexico.

          As for the Civil War, I see Texas as neutral but with a substantial pro-confederate side....basically a split opinion aside from neutrality itself. This would create some interesting bits. A Neutral state on the border with Louisiana and other states would help secure them against invasion by the US permanently. Without looking at the numbers of troops Texas provided in the war, I'm actually seeing a neutral Texas as a net profit to the Confederates. In addition to the hard border on the west, the Texas coast would be a prime spot for blockade running....and the USN would have to show some care lest it infuriate not just Texas but any nations that Texas has relations with, like Britain or France. Plus, I would see Texas getting more and more industrialized as war industries popped up to make everything from civilian goods to secret batches of gunpowder, percussion caps, and other common military items.

          As for US/Texas relations, I doubt the US would want to start another war while already in one. And Texas would have a small navy, and a small professional army, both of which would present problems if the US went that route. I would forsee US Cavalry and Texas Rangers or Texas Dragoons having a number of encounters. I would also see Texian corvettes and US Frigates having run-ins, but overall both sides attempting to respect neutrality. When the Confederacy collapsed I could see a number of refugees flooding into Texas, giving it a population boost full of anti-US sentiment though.
          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, the Texas-US union was no accident; the US encouraged the revolution with an eye to absorption from the onset, and most of the Texas leadership intended a return to the Union.

            Continued independence was unlikely because Texas was primarily agriculture-based until the late 19th century, and would have been wholly dependent \upon the USA for finished goods of all sorts.

            But the main reason was that the Comanche dominated the Texas plains; they were the reason the Mexicans invited masses of white settlers in the first place. The US was able to hold Texas in the 40s and 50s by building a string of forts across central Texas forming a defense line; it wasn't until smallpox decimated the southern Comanche, and post ACW-repeating firearms that what is now Texas came under the full control of settlers.

            The only way Texas could have remain independent longer than it did would be if the Comanche were somehow subdued.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Texas had a thriving trade going with Great Britain. There was a significant amount of grain going out that the British encouraged. British investment would have been encouraged if the state had stayed independent. British Railroads West would have been possible.

              I don't know how the Cotton trade would had done. The Farmers grew most of it in Northeast Texas, West of Shreveport, Louisiana. The crop was shipped down the Red River and then went to New Orleans.

              The Indian Problem was severe. The country of Texas did not have the money to fund much of a military. This is one reason Texas wanted entry into the US. Mexico claimed almost a third of the present state of Texas. Juan Seguin relocated to the Rio Grande Valley after Anglos ran him off his land grant near San Antonio. He was tasked by the Mexican government with launching raids into South Texas. He rustled a LOT of cattle before the American Army invaded Northern Mexico.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                Texas had a thriving trade going with Great Britain. There was a significant amount of grain going out that the British encouraged. British investment would have been encouraged if the state had stayed independent. British Railroads West would have been possible.

                I don't know how the Cotton trade would had done. The Farmers grew most of it in Northeast Texas, West of Shreveport, Louisiana. The crop was shipped down the Red River and then went to New Orleans.

                The Indian Problem was severe. The country of Texas did not have the money to fund much of a military. This is one reason Texas wanted entry into the US. Mexico claimed almost a third of the present state of Texas. Juan Seguin relocated to the Rio Grande Valley after Anglos ran him off his land grant near San Antonio. He was tasked by the Mexican government with launching raids into South Texas. He rustled a LOT of cattle before the American Army invaded Northern Mexico.

                Pruitt
                One wonders how Washington would have viewed the existence of an independent Texas, with close ties to Great Britain, in the long term.
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

                  One wonders how Washington would have viewed the existence of an independent Texas, with close ties to Great Britain, in the long term.
                  Developing closer ties with Britain (or for that matter achieving a a rapprochement with Mexico) would necessitate resolving the issue of slavery which would almost certainly have required its abolition. A non slave independent Texas would not have gone down well with the Southern slave .states and added to the pressure on them from the abolitionists. It might well have brought secession closer.
                  Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                  Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

                    One wonders how Washington would have viewed the existence of an independent Texas, with close ties to Great Britain, in the long term.
                    It would not have developed that way. The American Revolution was still in living memory (In fact, at least one veteran of the Revolution fought in Texas), and New Orleans was far too close.

                    But what Texas needed first and foremost that it couldn't provide for itself was military protection. From its inception the USA backed it's survival against Mexico. Unless Britain was ready to commit to decades of war, it couldn't compete with the USA.

                    The Mexican-American War was really just a continuation of the Texas Revolution. Following that, US troops fought on the 'fort line' for thirty-plus years.

                    That was the price of Texas.

                    Another key stumbling block was that Texas was a slave state. One reason the Texans revolted was Mexico's ban on slavery. Since Britain was also anti-slavery, there was no chance of anything other than a economic connection.

                    The US accepted Texas as a slave state because it fully intended to seize the entire southwest and that allowed bringing in non-slave states to maintain the balance. Texas was the fulcrum that delivered California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah into the USA.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      The US accepted Texas as a slave state because it fully intended to seize the entire southwest and that allowed bringing in non-slave states to maintain the balance. Texas was the fulcrum that delivered California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah into the USA.
                      Not completely true. California was sought because of the gold rush and the cash that flowed into the US treasury as a result. Whatever Texas did, California was going to end up joining the US and union. That means the US was going to want a land connection between California and the rest of the US. That in turn means Texas would either have a problem with the US in terms of land possession, or would have to join the US as a state.

                      New Mexico and Arizona were seen as the link from Texas to California by land as the terrain was more suitable for a rail line. In fact, the later Gadsden Purchase was specifically done to provide land for that purpose.

                      During the Civil War, Texas sent an expedition to take the New Mexico and Arizona territories. They managed to grab New Mexico but were met in Arizona by several regiments from California that greatly outnumbered the Texans who withdrew back into New Mexico and left Arizona to the Union under California troop's control. Since gold was discovered in Arizona in 1865, it's not likely that the US would have lightly handed the territory to an independent Texas.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Texas sent several Cavalry Regiments to El Paso and they went up the Rio Grande. Sibley's Brigade took New Mexico and a force raised in South New Mexico took Tucson. Sibley lost his supply train trying to take Colorado. He then proceeded to retreat back to Texas. On hearing this the Confederate units in Tucson also retreated.

                        Both endured great hardship as there was little food, fuel and forage on the way. Sibley's Brigade suffered more as they had more men that the country could sustain. They pretty well pillaged the residents as they passed by. The State of Texas did not forward supplies to even El Paso. Sibley wanted to seize Federal forts to get arms and ammunition. This did not work as well as he wanted. The area west of Fredericksburg to El Paso was pretty much Apache and Comanche territory.

                        Keep in mind many of the Miners in California and Colorado were from Southern States and there was a real danger of them rising to support a Confederate invasion.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X