Realistic Expansion of the Republic of Texas

[Remus Augustus]

Assume the Republic of Texas managed to survive past 1845 and managed to force Mexico to recognize her claimed territory as written in the Treaties of Velasco. What would the most plausible extent of Texas Territorial Expansion be?

I personally believe that the Texas that Mirabeau Lamar envisioned (a Texas controlling the OTL Mexican Cession and Baja California) is not in anyway realistic. However, I can see Texas annexing the Rio Grande Republic and possibly the Republic of the Yucatan. I just don't see Texas expanding that much in 100 years. (1836-1936). And if Texas remains independent in modern times, western nations generally have locked boarders by 1950 and beyond. What do y'all think?

 

[DanMcCollum]

That's a really good question, actually. Naturally, if Texas remains independent, we're in a world without a Mexican-American War as we know it. So , assuming that, t really depends on a few things - 1) what does the population of Texas look like with immigration as well as natural growth and 2) what is the stability and population of the neighboring Mexican regions. If one still sees succession movements in Mexico's northern provinces, and assuming Texas is in a politicla and economic situation to help, I could see them working with the rebels and possibly annexing those territories into Texas. HOWEVER - even with just the territory of OTL's state of Texas, that's a lot of land and will take time to fill up. I think Texas was pretty sparsely populated in OTL into the early 20th century.

But yes, I could see them possible merging with the Rio Grande Republic and possibly the Yucatan at some point. Potentially also spreading into the Southwest at the same time (especially if the other Mexican lands are being embroiled by rebellions in California and possibly Utah as well.

 

[Nephi]

I unless they get another benefactor like say the British eventually they're a footnote in the history of Tejas, the Mexican state of. Like the Republic of the Rio Grande.

 

[M79]

Multiple possibilities, to fit all of them together:

Join US as an ally in Mexican-American War, claim New Mexico and Arizona. Yucatan and Republic of Rio Grande join soon after. During Imperial Mexico offer support in exchange for Sonora and Chihuahua while Oklahoma leaves for Texas as they feel better treated by the 'new anglos'. Louisiana joins as slavery declines in exchange for increased autonomy and other concessions. Texans annex Dominican Republic in 1868 and later Haiti. Cuba joins in 1888 as thanks for aid in rebellion against Spain.

 

[Evan]

Multiple possibilities, to fit all of them together:

Join US as an ally in Mexican-American War, claim New Mexico and Arizona.

Without Texas in the Union, there wouldn't be a Mexican-American War.

 

[M79]

Without Texas in the Union, there wouldn't be a Mexican-American War.

US still wants California and its gold. Have the 1845 Slidell mission go horribly awry (especially if the American members of the expedition die or are killed) and war may yet happen.

 

[Wendell]

Even settling its claimed territory in OTL would have been an accomplishment.

 

[Slime_blob]

But yes, I could see them possible merging with the Rio Grande Republic

Iirc Santa Anna already brutally supressed their republic there, especially in Zacatecas where he allowed his soldiers to have the place sacked for a week.

Mexico can like reform and try to strengthen itself as they got humiliated even by some random ragtag group of rebels. Technically the warmongers like Paredes are not gonna. Be happy with this. Especially the conservatives, likely that the Liberals ratify this. Later coup de ta and stuff, solidying their position. Aside from that, assuming same stuff happens, Santa Anna again a hero once he defended Veracruz, again elected by Congress maybe place afew competent ministers who really did the job like Lucas alaman and Francisco echiverria meanwhile keeping them on leash to not go to far and alienate people. Technically their reforms, centralization, modernization and others would not be impeded by the liberals and others, though not letting them go conservative reactionary crazy as Santa Anna has them secured on a leash. More of a moderate conservative centralist regime.


Technically mexcio can raise alot of money from mining taxes alone during that time. If they decide to like take 20% mining tax even only on gold and silver they're like gonna raise almost 30M pesos, half it if 10% medium range at 15M. Add in copper and others that would be ranging 25-50m pesos in revenue my guess. That alone is from mining taxes. Add in a 20% tax to income it's gonna be +20m. Also add in head taxes and poll taxes worth 2 pesos each it's gonna be at least 4m if everyone can vote and most pay headtax. That's in the best case scenario, if some kind of ala porfiriato happened earlier alot earlier. But still maybe the revenues nearing that range if atleast half competent. And most importantlh stable.

Problem is that federalism created the mess we have otl and instead of the money going to the central government it went to the state government. Also add in those rebellious governors. Instead of an efficient streamlined beurocracy they instead had a. Nightmare. Echiverria resigned because bustamante had become federalist l, disillusioned that his financial and other needed reforms to fix the country it's economy and finances mainly are gonna be thrown out of the bucket due to federalism

 

[Remus Augustus]

Without Texas in the Union, there wouldn't be a Mexican-American War.

And without that, no US Civil War as we know it. In it's place, a third war against Great Britain would have more than likely have been waged over the Anglo-American dispute over the Oregon and Yukon territory.

 

[Sicarius]

I feel like Texas's best bet is biding its time and getting its house in order, then striking during Mexico's next big freakout. If we assume there's a Mexican-American War, that's a good time to go after something, but obviously the US is going to take the bigger bite. If there's not a Mexican War, it seems almost inevitable that there will be some kind of California uprising at some point. Too valuable and too full of goldrushing immigrants with no loyalty to Mexico. Texas could perhaps link up with the California rebels and help them secede to become part of some kind of Texas-California Commonwealth, an amusing image given the OTL relationship. Or, Texas could ally with California and just use the opportunity to try and grab as much of the southwest as they can.

One can perhaps imagine Texas going after northern Mexico, which does have a lot of differences from and grievances with the rest of the nation. More than the logistics, I feel like the real issue here is making the Texas want to turn themselves into a minority of a now predominantly Mexican state. It wouldn't work if Texas was planning to turn them all into serfs - they might be capable enough to take a willing population in uprising away from Mexico, but they won't be able to fight the population and the central government.

Edit: You know, you've got the Mormons running around as well. If Texas can bring itself to tolerate their religious practices, that's a fairly large, well-armed and highly organized group within otherwise thinly populated Mexican territory. They really only have to convince one guy to get them on board. And there you have it: all the ingredients for a heavily Mormon Texas-California Commonwealth. Based.

 

[M79]

I feel like Texas's best bet is biding its time and getting its house in order, then striking during Mexico's next big freakout. If we assume there's a Mexican-American War, that's a good time to go after something, but obviously the US is going to take the bigger bite. If there's not a Mexican War, it seems almost inevitable that there will be some kind of California uprising at some point. Too valuable and too full of goldrushing immigrants with no loyalty to Mexico. Texas could perhaps link up with the California rebels and help them secede to become part of some kind of Texas-California Commonwealth, an amusing image given the OTL relationship. Or, Texas could ally with California and just use the opportunity to try and grab as much of the southwest as they can.

One can perhaps imagine Texas going after northern Mexico, which does have a lot of differences from and grievances with the rest of the nation. More than the logistics, I feel like the real issue here is making the Texas want to turn themselves into a minority of a now predominantly Mexican state. It wouldn't work if Texas was planning to turn them all into serfs - they might be capable enough to take a willing population in uprising away from Mexico, but they won't be able to fight the population and the central government.

Edit: You know, you've got the Mormons running around as well. If Texas can bring itself to tolerate their religious practices, that's a fairly large, well-armed and highly organized group within otherwise thinly populated Mexican territory. They really only have to convince one guy to get them on board. And there you have it: all the ingredients for a heavily Mormon Texas-California Commonwealth. Based.

Californutexas?

 

[The Professor]

Britain will immediately see a lot of potential in an independent Texas at this point in time.
So a lot will depend on US-British relations when the other various Mexican rebellions occur.
Best thing for Texas would be some sort of British-American-Texan Mexican War.

 

[Slime_blob]

This is definitely one way most likely the liberals in Mexico get destroyed.

 

[M79]

Britain will immediately see a lot of potential in an independent Texas at this point in time.
So a lot will depend on US-British relations when the other various Mexican rebellions occur.
Best thing for Texas would be some sort of British-American-Texan Mexican War.

Didn't the UK offer to recognize Texas in 1841 if it recognized the Nueces border?

 

[jycee]

Assume the Republic of Texas managed to survive past 1845 and managed to force Mexico to recognize her claimed territory as written in the Treaties of Velasco. What would the most plausible extent of Texas Territorial Expansion be?

I personally believe that the Texas that Mirabeau Lamar envisioned (a Texas controlling the OTL Mexican Cession and Baja California) is not in anyway realistic. However, I can see Texas annexing the Rio Grande Republic and possibly the Republic of the Yucatan. I just don't see Texas expanding that much in 100 years. (1836-1936). And if Texas remains independent in modern times, western nations generally have locked boarders by 1950 and beyond. What do y'all think?

That's a really good question, actually. Naturally, if Texas remains independent, we're in a world without a Mexican-American War as we know it. So , assuming that, t really depends on a few things - 1) what does the population of Texas look like with immigration as well as natural growth and 2) what is the stability and population of the neighboring Mexican regions. If one still sees succession movements in Mexico's northern provinces, and assuming Texas is in a politicla and economic situation to help, I could see them working with the rebels and possibly annexing those territories into Texas. HOWEVER - even with just the territory of OTL's state of Texas, that's a lot of land and will take time to fill up. I think Texas was pretty sparsely populated in OTL into the early 20th century.

But yes, I could see them possible merging with the Rio Grande Republic and possibly the Yucatan at some point. Potentially also spreading into the Southwest at the same time (especially if the other Mexican lands are being embroiled by rebellions in California and possibly Utah as well.

Texas remaining independent is possible, it just needs to get its house in order and refuse American annexation. Expanding and taking most (or all) the territory it claimed) and maybe the rest of the Nuevo Mexico territory is also very plausible.

But I really can’t see how annexing the Rio Grande Republic (not to mention Yucatán) would be easier than getting Alta and Baja California.

A unión with the RGR would be a union of equals. At the time of their independence Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas each had populations similar to or larger that Texas. Texas grew faster thanks to American immigration, but that might slow down in an independent Texas. Depending of when the union happens, the Catholic Spanish speaking population would be larger or similar in size to the Anglo-American one. I just can’t see either of them being OK with that, unless it is a union of convenience (and those usually don't last).

Yucatán, you can just forget about. That would require a navy, which Texas doesn’t have. And Texas conquering and occupying a foreign land when it would barely have control of its own borders. It simply wouldn’t have the manpower to do that without help. The US and Britain - the only two countries that could help - wouldn’t really want a Texan Yucatán over a Yucatán protectorate or colony of their own. As fun as it sounds a Texan Yucatán is a pipe-dream.

 

[M79]

Yucatán, you can just forget about. That would require a navy, which Texas doesn’t have. And Texas conquering and occupying a foreign land when it would barely have control of its own borders. It simply wouldn’t have the manpower to do that without help. The US and Britain - the only two countries that could help - wouldn’t really want a Texan Yucatán over a Yucatán protectorate or colony of their own. As fun as it sounds a Texan Yucatán is a pipe-dream.

Naval Battle of Campeche - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[DanMcCollum]

Texas remaining independent is possible, it just needs to get its house in order and refuse American annexation. Expanding and taking most (or all) the territory it claimed) and maybe the rest of the Nuevo Mexico territory is also very plausible.

But I really can’t see how annexing the Rio Grande Republic (not to mention Yucatán) would be easier than getting Alta and Baja California.

A unión with the RGR would be a union of equals. At the time of their independence Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas each had populations similar to or larger that Texas. Texas grew faster thanks to American immigration, but that might slow down in an independent Texas. Depending of when the union happens, the Catholic Spanish speaking population would be larger or similar in size to the Anglo-American one. I just can’t see either of them being OK with that, unless it is a union of convenience (and those usually don't last).

Yucatán, you can just forget about. That would require a navy, which Texas doesn’t have. And Texas conquering and occupying a foreign land when it would barely have control of its own borders. It simply wouldn’t have the manpower to do that without help. The US and Britain - the only two countries that could help - wouldn’t really want a Texan Yucatán over a Yucatán protectorate or colony of their own. As fun as it sounds a Texan Yucatán is a pipe-dream.

Honestly, a unon of Texas and RGR as equals is what I had in mind and I think it really is one of the more fascinating options to explore. Even in OTL you did have local Mexicans taking part in the Texan Revolution, and certain leaders such as Houston who were in favor of closer partnership with Texas' Tejanos population. So in a situation with the RGR (or a successor state at somepoint in the future), you would see something like that coming to fruition - and this would have a major impact on the culture of the Republic.

 

[Hastings]

So, if there is no Mexican-American War, California is going to be independent by the early 1850s. The balance is going to rapidly shift against Mexico as it is unstable with a weak grip on the north while Texas in the 1836-1861 period saw its population more than double every 10 years and California will get a lot of people from the Gold Rush. I think there is a good chance that California, Texas, and Deseret gang up on Mexico and strip it to roughly OTL borders (minus Gadson Purchase, maybe plus Baja California). Texas would get its claimed territories plus the rest of New Mexico Territory.

The next opportunity for expansion will be during the French Invasion of Mexico. Texas will be interested in the former territory of the Republic of the Rio Grande and California in Sonora and Deseret in Gadson Purchase. After that I expect borders to stabilize.

Dark Blue is core Texas, lighter blue gained territories. Red is core independent California, pink is territory post-war, yellowish is disputed between Deseret and California, light Green between Deseret and Texas, and dark green between Deseret and US.

 

[Hastings]

Not directly relevant to this thread, but California and Deseret would likely have a fascinating and nasty relationship. Deseret is largely in Alta California, so California may believe they should have authority over the Mormons. Even besides that they are inevitably going to clash on the western flank of the Sierra Nevada and in South California. The Mormons settled San Bernardino in 1851! and that is territory any Californian state will really want.

California will have a significantly larger population (X9 in 1860), but they will really struggle. I doubt California will be able to field a large enough force to subdue the Mormon core areas 650 m/1000 km east of Sacramento. The US in total sent 7,000 regulars during the Utah War against 4,000 Mormon militia. The Mormons knew they could not defeat the US, but California is another story. So that likely leaves it to hit and run fighting in the Great Basin which favors the Mormons because they are more familiar with the area and also non-Mormons just did not show any interest in living in the region until the late 1800s.

I think California sometime in the late 1850s sends an expedition to Utah and it probably goes pretty badly. California is eventually forced to make a fairly embarrassing peace (though Mormons will have to abandon San Bernardino and Genoa, NV). The thing is California cannot really afford a long war with Deseret as the Mormons can probably shut down the California trail, which will stunt California’s growth as long as that is happening. My guess is the border ends up very near the modern California border plus Reno/Carson City. OTL Utah, Arizona, most of Nevada, and western Colorado end up under Deseret. I suspect though there will be on and off border clashes for a few decades.

 

[Slime_blob]

It's more likely Mexico sends in Chinese indentured labourers to California rather than to ask in for foreign settlers due to what happened in Texas. Technically the mine owners investors either in South or there while their gold mines in central America give them money