Ancientgeezer

This thread got me thinking http://www.historum.com/current-even...ndence-12.html

Would, could, Texas have made it as an Independent State after 1845?
During the Indpendence period the country had a lot of support and investment from Britain and despite Britain's close relationship with Mexican factions was quick to offer aid, trade and advice short of full diplomatic recognition, restrained by the slavery issue. France and Holland, were quick to recognise the country.
Perhaps Texas would have taken a share of Mexican territory in 1846 and expanded Westward on their own account--- a southern Canada, perhaps?

Sam-Nary

Without entry into the United States, the Republic of Texas would have never succeeded in the way it did as a state. The portion of the Republic that Mexico recognized was that which was north of the Nueces River. The Republic claimed land north of the Rio Grande, but these differences would not have been settled without American involvement. It would ultimately be the Mexican-American War that would settle settle the Texan border on the Rio Grande.

Without American aide, Texas and Mexico would continue to squabble over the territory. With limited military resources, the Republic of Texas did not have the strength in 1846 to challenge Santa Anna's regime. In fact, Santa Anna gave the US a very good fight during the Mexican-American War, particularly in the north. While the Battles of Monterry and Buena Vista were US victories, I've seen sources that would indicate that Taylor had reached the limits of what his forces could do, and further assaults into the deserts of northern Mexico by his forces would do little, and for the most part, the assessment was correct. America ultimately transferred troops from Taylor to Winfield Scott who would land at Veracruz and would defeat Santa Anna closer to Mexico City if not in it.

Without American aide, the Republic of Texas would remain in an intense squabble with Mexico over where its southern border was. It is also doubtfull that the small republic would be able to adequately challenge Mexico in a long term fight. Remember that the victory at San Jacinto in the Texas revolution had more to do with surprise and capturing Santa Anna then with the Texans presenting an overwhelming military force.

Texas NEEDED to join with the US to secure its own strength. And to my knowledge Texas petitioned for statehood immediately but the Congress of the time actually rejected them at that time, and it wouldn't be until Polk's Presidency that Texas would be admitted.

tjadams

Good question and there is no hard yes or no answer.
-Texas had lots and lots of cheap land for sale, three times
cheaper than the price in the US, but it was going to take time
to set up an infrastructure.
-Texas, like any new nation, was beginning her life in debt and with
Mexico always an issue and Indian problems, something had to be done.
President Sam Houston wanted peaceful relations with the Amerindians
and peace was had for awhile. He did not want a large standing army,
the Texas Congress had wanted 40,000 men at the ready, but Houston
wanted Texas Ranger units & the militia to control the natives.
-Texas did get France and England to recognize her independence in hopes
of reducing her $12 million debt via trade.
-Texas' population grew about seven thousand per year and with the influx
European immigrants, the future looked better.
-Money was very tight and Texas was constantly looking for ways
to establish a national bank, land polices and other bureaucratic means
to raise money, or save, even in reducing the size of her navy.
-In the end, Texas found out that it takes time and better natural resources
such as rivers, timber, etc. than she had, to sustain a country. Annexation
seemed the natural course to take after ten years of being a young nation.
It was kind of like having your child move out, then come home after seeing
it's a lot of trouble being on your own.

tjadams

Actually, the surprise attack was good timing on Gen. Sam Houston's part.
The two sides had lightly skirmished earlier and knew where each other
were. Houston's bold stroke came by attacking when the other side
didn't expect them to attack. Santa Anna wanted to engage via the
European style of lines, etc., Houston knew an entrenched Mexican army
with cannon and over 1,3000 men, would be hard to crack without heavy
loses or total defeat. That's why the Texans launched their attack at
4.30p when no one expected it. Surprise! It was a blood bath & rout of
the Mexican Army for this one engagement.

Sam-Nary

I don't dissagree. Wasn't the timing of the attack intended to coincide with when the Mexican army took its afternoon siesta? That's what enabled the Texan attack to prove so succesful.

Baltis

coulda, woulda, shoulda!

S. Jones

tjadams

Yes. The Texans used the terrain, which slopped gently, to walk in formation,
then charge, right up to the Mexican breastworks all the while losing about
ten men and about thirty wounded.

Yankee

From what I understand, before becoming a state, Texas was habitually broke. And even during the Civil Was I heard that the Texans near Mexico and Indians were Unionists because they knew they needed the Federal troops for protection- perhaps this is hearsay, I can't remember where I heard it. My opinion is that Texas would not have made a go of it. I think the FFs were onto something with "unite or die."

Apachewarlord

As I said in that thread, I want Texas to secede so that our country won't have to deal with them anymore.

Yankee

Why don't you like Texas?