oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 10, 2021 22:12:12 GMT
Much of this is from a Forbes article from 2012 that left an impression on me.
Why Texas would be a viable nation.
Texas has everything that made America's economy successful--lots of land, natural resources, deep human capital, the rule of law, the "protestant work ethic"/"frontier mentality", etc. plus something else that America used to have, which is a political and social consensus which is hostile to regulation.
Thanks to this Texas, already a Texas with a very healthy economy, could essentially benefit from America's most egregious regulations to suck economic value away from America.
A few examples:
Texas is well-known for being one of the most immigration-friendly states, and to have a strong political consensus in favor of a relaxed stance toward immigration. You could argue that Federal policy has been holding Texas back, and that in an independent Texas a coalition of Latinos and business interests would create a pro-immigration equilibrium.
With a devalued currency and very little labor regulations, Texas would become a manufacturing haven. If you remove federal regulations and add a weak currency, the effect would be multiplied.
Texas could also easily become a financial haven.With no Goldman Sachses and JP Morgans to block any reform, Texas could implement a handful of common sense, anti-TBTF regulations and deregulate everything else. That, plus low taxes, plus great weather, plus a highly-educated English-speaking workforce, creates the first real, serious rival to Wall Street.
Texas could become a technology haven. Austin is already a major startup hub in the US. It has all the right ingredients in terms of human capital, culture, universities, etc. If you add to that a giant wall of money, good patent law and good immigration law, you get something that can be a pretty strong rival to Silicon Valley, or at least something akin to the best of Israel's vaunted "startup miracle."
Energy. Texas has not just oil but uranium and nuclear technology. A great way for Texas to balance the effect of oil on its economy would be to embark on a French-style program of nuclear plants build-outs. It wouldn't just be great policy, it would give Texas bragging rights, as the conservative, oil-guzzling state would end up with lower carbon emissions per capita than, say, Massachusetts. Texas is also well-placed to benefit from alternative energies, as it is placed in the US "wind corridor" and has plenty of sunlight.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 11, 2021 5:01:02 GMT
Much of this is from a Forbes article from 2012 that left an impression on me.
Why Texas would be a viable nation.
They do need to something about this: Two years for the first elected president (Sam Houston) and terms of three years thereafter; the president could not succeed himself, but there were otherwise no term limits.I would see something like no more than 8 years in two separate terms like the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by Schnozzberry on Jan 11, 2021 7:23:26 GMT
The largest problem would probably be Texas' early weakness. Had Texas openly refuted American annexation, hostilities with Mexico would almost certainly resume once Mexico stabilized as Mexico never recognized Texian independence. Without foreign assistance, or similarly exceptional luck as Texas had in the Texas Revolution, a second war with Mexico would extinguish the Texian state.
And, even if Texas survived, there would be Texas' economic issues that could endanger Texas' future. The resources which could make a modern Texas a powerful country were not accessible or even really usable in the mid-1800s and the Texian Republic was limping along as an economically destitute and impoverished state. Had the USA not annexed Texas, and had Mexico not sought to reclaim it, Texas would likely fall into one of the Great Power's economic sphere, if not outright becoming a protectorate. This could be very destructive when oil is discovered as the group who benefited the most would likely be corporations of whatever Power Texas has fallen into the influence of.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jan 11, 2021 10:03:43 GMT
I'm not sure that Mexico would be likely to be in a position to reclaim Texas but the country would be vulnerable and underpopulated. If somehow it survived as an independent state after such a break away you could see an influx of whites fleeing the defeated Confederacy. However, unless the south actually won its independence I couldn't see the union allowing an independent Texas.
On a USCW board, where I've been involved in some AH discussion I do recall that while a break-away Texas is quite a common idea a Texan rejected the idea because the country was too small and under-populated at the time.
The other point that hasn't been mentioned is that Texas was a slave state. Actually one of the reasons it rebelled against Mexico, as this was in breach of the conditions for American settlement in Texas, with Mexico having banned slavery. I can't see an independent Texas giving up slavery willingly, at least not for a while so that would be another problem for it in gaining international support and possibly even recognition. Especially since recognising the south would at least give you access to a large market, including some very wealthy individuals as well as possibly preferably access to cotton exports. What would recognising an independent Texas only give you whereas either/both would earn the mistrust, at least of the US.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jan 11, 2021 10:18:01 GMT
Much of this is from a Forbes article from 2012 that left an impression on me.
Why Texas would be a viable nation.
Texas has everything that made America's economy successful--lots of land, natural resources, deep human capital, the rule of law, the "protestant work ethic"/"frontier mentality", etc. plus something else that America used to have, which is a political and social consensus which is hostile to regulation.
Thanks to this Texas, already a Texas with a very healthy economy, could essentially benefit from America's most egregious regulations to suck economic value away from America.
A few examples:
Texas is well-known for being one of the most immigration-friendly states, and to have a strong political consensus in favor of a relaxed stance toward immigration. You could argue that Federal policy has been holding Texas back, and that in an independent Texas a coalition of Latinos and business interests would create a pro-immigration equilibrium.
With a devalued currency and very little labor regulations, Texas would become a manufacturing haven. If you remove federal regulations and add a weak currency, the effect would be multiplied.
Texas could also easily become a financial haven.With no Goldman Sachses and JP Morgans to block any reform, Texas could implement a handful of common sense, anti-TBTF regulations and deregulate everything else. That, plus low taxes, plus great weather, plus a highly-educated English-speaking workforce, creates the first real, serious rival to Wall Street.
Texas could become a technology haven. Austin is already a major startup hub in the US. It has all the right ingredients in terms of human capital, culture, universities, etc. If you add to that a giant wall of money, good patent law and good immigration law, you get something that can be a pretty strong rival to Silicon Valley, or at least something akin to the best of Israel's vaunted "startup miracle."
Energy. Texas has not just oil but uranium and nuclear technology. A great way for Texas to balance the effect of oil on its economy would be to embark on a French-style program of nuclear plants build-outs. It wouldn't just be great policy, it would give Texas bragging rights, as the conservative, oil-guzzling state would end up with lower carbon emissions per capita than, say, Massachusetts. Texas is also well-placed to benefit from alternative energies, as it is placed in the US "wind corridor" and has plenty of sunlight.
It should be noted that this is referring to modern Texas. The country in 1861 was a lot weaker with a disgruntled Mexican community that had been largely excluded from power, despite some having initially supporting the rebellion against Mexico city and a large slave population. Oil is still a distant event and much of the western part of the country is held by hostile Indian tribes who the state is struggling to defeat. Plus given it would have disputed borders with both Mexico and the US, unless its prepared to make concessions to the latter its likely to have issues with both neighbours. Possibly all three if the CSA was to gain independence as well.
This is apart from whether a Texas in ~1861 would have the resources and will-power to develop the country which would need a lot of investment and especially with a very laissez faire culture as suggested until oil comes along - possibly not even then if the oil companies have too much power - there's no real funding for it.
|
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Jan 11, 2021 20:11:51 GMT
Slightly different what-if, but what about a Texas that stayed independent and took what we call the Mexican Cession, then joined the CS in 1861 as an ally? That'd be a weird one.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 11, 2021 21:08:05 GMT
Slightly different what-if, but what about a Texas that stayed independent and took what we call the Mexican Cession, then joined the CS in 1861 as an ally? That'd be a weird one. Let me see if I understand you jjohnson? 1. Texas wins independence as in OTL. 2. US does not go to war with Mexico. 3. Texas Republic pays $ 15M to Mexico for Alta-California
4. Mexico sells present-day U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, the western half of New Mexico, the western quarter of Colorado, and the southwest corner of Wyoming to the Texas Republic doubling the size.
Not good. All those areas become part of a slave based economy. That would prove to be a powerful addition to the Confederate side of the Civil war. Great wealth would be available from California gold. I'd say the union would really be up against it.
|
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Jan 12, 2021 2:41:32 GMT
Slightly different what-if, but what about a Texas that stayed independent and took what we call the Mexican Cession, then joined the CS in 1861 as an ally? That'd be a weird one. Let me see if I understand you jjohnson? 1. Texas wins independence as in OTL. 2. US does not go to war with Mexico. 3. Texas Republic pays $ 15M to Mexico for Alta-California
4. Mexico sells present-day U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, the western half of New Mexico, the western quarter of Colorado, and the southwest corner of Wyoming to the Texas Republic doubling the size.
Not good. All those areas become part of a slave based economy. That would prove to be a powerful addition to the Confederate side of the Civil war. Great wealth would be available from California gold. I'd say the union would really be up against it.
Or, if you put it differently: Texas wins Independence, 1836; Texas helps Rio Grande in 1840 in independence from Mexico. Texas does not annex to the US in 1846. Sometime after that, it buys or goes to war for Alta California/New Mexico, and wins that territory also, possibly with the assistance of an independent Rio Grande Republic. Perhaps those two federate into a United States of Texas. Part of it might be a slave economy, but most of it wouldn't be viable and might legally have slavery, but like Kansas, would have maybe a dozen or fewer. When Texas discovers gold, settlers will rush in, developing the area. If it's independent, though, if we assume Lincoln still wins, then it's possible the southern states secede, and independent Texas would be the CS's first attempted ally. That would be a crazy alternate timeline. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jan 12, 2021 11:57:23 GMT
Slightly different what-if, but what about a Texas that stayed independent and took what we call the Mexican Cession, then joined the CS in 1861 as an ally? That'd be a weird one. Let me see if I understand you jjohnson? 1. Texas wins independence as in OTL. 2. US does not go to war with Mexico. 3. Texas Republic pays $ 15M to Mexico for Alta-California
4. Mexico sells present-day U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, the western half of New Mexico, the western quarter of Colorado, and the southwest corner of Wyoming to the Texas Republic doubling the size.
Not good. All those areas become part of a slave based economy. That would prove to be a powerful addition to the Confederate side of the Civil war. Great wealth would be available from California gold. I'd say the union would really be up against it.
Frankly I doubt that Texas at OTL would have the capacity to either buy or take by conquest such a huge area of Mexico, even if it had an alliance with a Rio Grande republic. To do the latter as well it would probably have to avoid sidelining its Mexican population as OTL
As you say if they did manage that then the entire area would be open to slavery and while it has little scope in many areas, it could well be used widely in much of California. Most especially when the gold is discovered, in the goldfields, especially once they start to be centralised in large commercial operations. I remember reading a while back that one of the mine owners was complaining about how his workers were always trying to sneak out gold from his mines and it was suggested that he replace them with slaves, which would remove the problem. Fortunately for California the mine owner in question was a certain John Frémont who was rather strongly opposed to slavery. 
I can't really see an independent Texas joining the CSA against the north as its already got its independence and it would put that and its slave holding status at risk by doing so. Also while the CSA is facing blockade and restrictions that give Texas a big boost in expanding its own cotton industry.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jan 12, 2021 18:52:24 GMT
Maybe Texas allies with the CSA and is able to survive the reel-entering because of a treaty saying that they can succeed whenever. Additionally worth noting, another user referred to a Scenario where Tx just stays independent and brings the Mexican Succession with it. Maybe during the French Wars in Mexico Texas could buy some land off of French Mexico. Then when the Civil War comes around, the CSA just joins Texas. The US would be pretty screwed as they’d almost certainly lose everything west of the Mississippi and the Union could take some serious hits from that. Also probably the biggest Texas ever in alternate history |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jan 13, 2021 12:28:23 GMT
Maybe Texas allies with the CSA and is able to survive the reel-entering because of a treaty saying that they can succeed whenever. Additionally worth noting, another user referred to a Scenario where Tx just stays independent and brings the Mexican Succession with it. Maybe during the French Wars in Mexico Texas could buy some land off of French Mexico. Then when the Civil War comes around, the CSA just joins Texas. The US would be pretty screwed as they’d almost certainly lose everything west of the Mississippi and the Union could take some serious hits from that. Also probably the biggest Texas ever in alternate history
That is an interesting idea, that Texas buys California from Mexico during the French intervention. This assumes of course that still occurs. It would be an option for Texas, although it would mean that California is distinctly less developed here compared to OTL in the 1860's. [Since if gold was found there before then its not going to be sold to Texas.]
I can't see the US losing much more of the west compared to OTL as the CSA isn't really any stronger than OTL and Texas will have limited resources to influence much.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jan 13, 2021 12:46:45 GMT
Maybe Texas allies with the CSA and is able to survive the reel-entering because of a treaty saying that they can succeed whenever. Additionally worth noting, another user referred to a Scenario where Tx just stays independent and brings the Mexican Succession with it. Maybe during the French Wars in Mexico Texas could buy some land off of French Mexico. Then when the Civil War comes around, the CSA just joins Texas. The US would be pretty screwed as they’d almost certainly lose everything west of the Mississippi and the Union could take some serious hits from that. Also probably the biggest Texas ever in alternate history
That is an interesting idea, that Texas buys California from Mexico during the French intervention. This assumes of course that still occurs. It would be an option for Texas, although it would mean that California is distinctly less developed here compared to OTL in the 1860's. [Since if gold was found there before then its not going to be sold to Texas.]
I can't see the US losing much more of the west compared to OTL as the CSA isn't really any stronger than OTL and Texas will have limited resources to influence much.
Although yes, Texas won’t be stronger, but more importantly it has recognition from foreign nations. They can (legally) build a navy in Britain, get resources and maybe even allies. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jan 13, 2021 15:13:51 GMT
That is an interesting idea, that Texas buys California from Mexico during the French intervention. This assumes of course that still occurs. It would be an option for Texas, although it would mean that California is distinctly less developed here compared to OTL in the 1860's. [Since if gold was found there before then its not going to be sold to Texas.]
I can't see the US losing much more of the west compared to OTL as the CSA isn't really any stronger than OTL and Texas will have limited resources to influence much.
Although yes, Texas won’t be stronger, but more importantly it has recognition from foreign nations. They can (legally) build a navy in Britain, get resources and maybe even allies.
If they have the funds. The CSA was able legally OTL to buy ships from private shipyards although the British government blocked a lot of this. Getting such a navy to Texas would also be an interesting issue assuming something like the OTL northern blockade. Unless the Texans are thinking of some sort of multiple CSS Alabama's.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jan 13, 2021 16:23:23 GMT
Although yes, Texas won’t be stronger, but more importantly it has recognition from foreign nations. They can (legally) build a navy in Britain, get resources and maybe even allies.
If they have the funds. The CSA was able legally OTL to buy ships from private shipyards although the British government blocked a lot of this. Getting such a navy to Texas would also be an interesting issue assuming something like the OTL northern blockade. Unless the Texans are thinking of some sort of multiple CSS Alabama's.
A blockade of Texas with a West coast would be virtually impossible. Texas would also have a jump start on a navy. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 13, 2021 17:09:03 GMT
California Gold Rush began in 1848 to 1855. If The Texas Republic bought Alta California prior to 1848 I contend it would be in a much better economic state than in the OTL. Money talks and despite laws to the contrary warships, like the Alabama, could be purchased "under the table". Old trick used by gun merchants of buying the right documentation for a legal sale and then turning over the product to another customer was well known in the 19th century.
As an independent nation, even if allied to the Confederacy, I'd think HM government would be much more likely not to oppose the sale. I am thinking of the Laird Rams.
WOULD you like to know more? 
The Laird rams were two ships secretly funded and constructed at Birkenhead by William Laird & Son, England on behalf of the Confederacy between 1862-1863. Iron-hulled from the keel up and fitted with two revolving turrets, these ships posed a grave threat to the sea-going force of the United States Navy and its blockade on Southern ports; strong diplomatic pressure led to their seizure by the British government and eventual commissioning into the Royal Navy.
William Laird & Sonconstructed and CSS Alabama for the Confederacy, which would be a thorn in the side of U.S.-British relations for many years. Two other vessels were on the stocks about the time Alabama was launched: El Monassir and El Tousson, apparently intended for Egypt, and advertised for all intents and purposes as "merchantmen".
The ships were unlike anything encountered in Naval warfare; capable of fighting in the shallows as well as the deep ocean. The guns were in a pair of revolving turrets. Portions of the hull's sides (gunwales) could be lowered to allow the turrets broadside firing, which was further augmented by tripod masts, eliminating much of the rigging which would have normally been in the way. Both were steam-powered with a single screw propeller, and carried a barque sail rig for use at sea. And mounted to the bows was a seven-foot ram made of cast iron.
If purchased by the Republic of Texas these two ironclads would pose an extremely dangerous threat to the Federal blockade and to the Northern seaboard, as both ironclads would have been more than a match for all but one of the United States Navy's seagoing warships.
|
|
