Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:58 AM   #21

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Here's the answers to a lot of your questions.
It is massively expensive to run a country, especially starting
from scratch.
-Texas' terrain was made for farming, cattle and railroad. We lack the natural
geographic blessings of large, deep navigable rivers, i.e. the Mississippi, etc.
-Texas did have a long coast line and access to the sea, which would have been
developed for international trade & the US.
-Texas lacks heavy woodlands, only in the eastern part of the state do we have
heavy rainfall and trees. Of course Texas is sitting on a huge natural gas pocket,
and oil ,but that doesn't come into play in this scenario.
-If Texas was to survive, it would have been a financially dependent agrarian and
cattle nation; both workable, but also unpredictable.
-Given enough time, Texas would have sustained itself as a nation, but it would not
have been a wealthy nation and never a world power. It most likely would have
just been able to sustain itself, the people of Texas are raw-bone tough.
-But, when the parent country is there, looking at you, leaving the porch light on
for you to come home, Texas would have taken the offer for wealth, resources and
protection.
tjadams is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 17th, 2012, 02:52 PM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,678

Don't understand that Texas doesn't have the resources to be a country. Plenty of countries with a lot less. Plus Texas has oil.
betgo is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 03:27 PM   #23

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,249

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Don't understand that Texas doesn't have the resources to be a country. Plenty of countries with a lot less. Plus Texas has oil.
I don't think they knew about the oil in 1846. And it's not to say that Texas couldn't have survived as its own republic. But much of the presperity that it would rapidly enjoy came from joining with the US and drawing in cheep trade for equipment and other needs. For example, farmers and ranchers in Texas would not need to pay important fees on manufactured goods from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Had Texas remained independent, they would have had to pay import fees because the shipment would now be going between two different countries.

It would take time to develop an industry that Texas could export and develop in the 1800s that would allow them to pass protective tariffs that would charge businesses coming into Texas more then for goods made in Texas. And at the time, that would depend on whether or not Texas had large deposits of coal, iron, and other goods that were rapidly considered part of the industrial age at the time.

Remember that the oil boom in Texas wouldn't happen until very late in the 1800s at the earliest. Until then, an independent Texas would have been a poor state, in near constant state of tension with Mexico over its southern border and troubled by raids by the Comanche in the Red River country. Its economy would largely be farming and ranching, but without the major industrial centers that would develop in the north, they would be dependent on trade for any sense of prosperity...

Though, large cattle ranches might do the trick with regard to trade with the US. That mide tide them over until the discovery of oil.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 03:31 PM   #24

Epix's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 630

Being the middleman between US and Mexico trade leaves Texas plenty of money.

This from 2010

Quote:
Texas has become the first state to exceed $10 billion in monthly surface trade with Mexico since the U.S. government started monitoring it 15 years ago.
Texas, with nearly $10.2 billion in August, far outpaced No. 2 California, which had barely more than $4 billion in surface trade with Mexico, according to a report issued this week by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Surface trade includes anything that moves via truck, rail or pipeline.
"The fact that Texas leads all states in exports and attracting foreign investment makes it no surprise that Texas is also the first state to break $10 billion in surface trade with Mexico. This is another significant example highlighting Texas' resilience in the U.S. economy," said Kyle Burns, president and CEO of the Free Trade Alliance San Antonio.
Up sharply in August

The federal bureau's TransBorder Freight Data report shows U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade rose almost 32 percent in August to $28.1 billion, from $21.3 billion in August 2009.
U.S.-Mexico surface trade was up almost 13 percent in August compared with July, when surface trade totaled $24.9 billion.
Epix is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 08:08 PM   #25

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Foundations of Heaven
Posts: 71

An independent and underpopulated Texas would have been gobbled down by either Porfirian Mexico or by a land-hungry US in the XIX C.

Nevertheless, Texas can feasibly support itself if well managed. It has an industry by which it can import raw materials and transform those materials to industrialized goods, Japan style.

Still, I donīt think that the US National Government would sit down in these times and say "Hell yeah, no more conservative-leaned squabblers....aaaand goodbye Texan BBQ sauces...wait what?" *Invasion*

EDIT: and taking into account the US expansionist mindset, Texas was almost a necessary step to reach the Pacific Ocean.

Last edited by Tlacaelel; November 18th, 2012 at 08:09 PM. Reason: Addition
Tlacaelel is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 05:08 AM   #26

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,404

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
Here's the answers to a lot of your questions.
It is massively expensive to run a country, especially starting
from scratch.
-Texas' terrain was made for farming, cattle and railroad. We lack the natural
geographic blessings of large, deep navigable rivers, i.e. the Mississippi, etc.
-Texas did have a long coast line and access to the sea, which would have been
developed for international trade & the US.
-Texas lacks heavy woodlands, only in the eastern part of the state do we have
heavy rainfall and trees. Of course Texas is sitting on a huge natural gas pocket,
and oil ,but that doesn't come into play in this scenario.
-If Texas was to survive, it would have been a financially dependent agrarian and
cattle nation; both workable, but also unpredictable.
-Given enough time, Texas would have sustained itself as a nation, but it would not
have been a wealthy nation and never a world power. It most likely would have
just been able to sustain itself, the people of Texas are raw-bone tough.
-But, when the parent country is there, looking at you, leaving the porch light on
for you to come home, Texas would have taken the offer for wealth, resources and
protection.
Just for the sake of debate. Texas became independent at just about the time that Britain was flush with investment cash. Already in the 1840s British cotton traders were hedging their sources of supply and there was plenty of room for additional supplies of sugar. Britain at this time worked on Free Trade, so there were no tariffs on any but a handful of goods.
Although it was a bit later, British investment in the Argentine ranching business started in the 1850s and from the 1860s until the 1970s the Argentine became Britain's biggest supplier of beef and beef products--that could have been Texas.
As far as Texan communications were concerned, If you spat in the street in the City Of London in the 1840s you would have hit a Railway Engineer and a Banker to back him.
Of course the continued existence of slavery would have been a political problem, but not an economic or business one.
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:55 AM   #27

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
Just for the sake of debate. Texas became independent at just about the time that Britain was flush with investment cash. Already in the 1840s British cotton traders were hedging their sources of supply and there was plenty of room for additional supplies of sugar. Britain at this time worked on Free Trade, so there were no tariffs on any but a handful of goods.
Although it was a bit later, British investment in the Argentine ranching business started in the 1850s and from the 1860s until the 1970s the Argentine became Britain's biggest supplier of beef and beef products--that could have been Texas.
As far as Texan communications were concerned, If you spat in the street in the City Of London in the 1840s you would have hit a Railway Engineer and a Banker to back him.
Of course the continued existence of slavery would have been a political problem, but not an economic or business one.
Is that John Bull in yur avatar?
Yankee is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 07:21 AM   #28

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,404

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Is that John Bull in yur avatar?
You bet!
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:01 AM   #29

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
You bet!
Cool, I've never seen a pic before. Thanks
Yankee is offline  
Old July 27th, 2013, 11:24 AM   #30

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,404

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
Just for the sake of debate. Texas became independent at just about the time that Britain was flush with investment cash. Already in the 1840s British cotton traders were hedging their sources of supply and there was plenty of room for additional supplies of sugar. Britain at this time worked on Free Trade, so there were no tariffs on any but a handful of goods.
Although it was a bit later, British investment in the Argentine ranching business started in the 1850s and from the 1860s until the 1970s the Argentine became Britain's biggest supplier of beef and beef products--that could have been Texas.
As far as Texan communications were concerned, If you spat in the street in the City Of London in the 1840s you would have hit a Railway Engineer and a Banker to back him.
Of course the continued existence of slavery would have been a political problem, but not an economic or business one.
I had lunch today at the Embassy of Texas in London---http://www.texasembassy.com/

so, to repeat the question. Could Texas have thrived as an independent country, erhaps as a British client state?
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
independent, texas


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Texas viable as an independent country? larkin Speculative History 50 August 17th, 2010 11:04 AM
An Independent Filmaker gets it right again! Komrade History in Films and on Television 10 October 24th, 2008 06:00 PM
Independent US States Verus American History 21 August 29th, 2008 03:02 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.