Republic of Texas doesn't join the U.S. in 1846

[katarn]

As I see it: Texas still fights Mexico within close proximity to the Mexican American War's time because the border dispute is still there, and Texas was growing quickly enough that Mexico would try to reassert authority in a meaningful way. I pick the Texans to win that fight; they're only going to be more prepared, better equipped, etc than their revolutionary armies that soundly beat the Mexicans on the strategic scale, whereas the Mexicans are under less favorable conditions.

This scenario assumes that Texas doesn't want to join the U.S. for some reason and stays independent until forced otherwise. Considering the territory the Republic possessed, would the U.S. have gone to war with it for land (I think this would happen sometime in the 1850s if at all)?

[TheReal_ND]

Umm yeah. We kicked their ass dude.

[TheReal_ND]

One often overlooked feature of this war is the fact that as a territory of Mexico proper, rather a Spanish holdover, it was a wild frontier inhabited by people such as Apaches. Mexico's strategy to make the territory profitable was inviting Europeans to settle it. Mostly Germans and the ever present Scotch-Irish. In fact, German settlers (read Bohemian,) were held in such high regard for their industry they were given sweet heart deals to come to Texas with gauranteed land steads. As fellow Catholics they were seen as the ideal settler in Mexico's territory. Unfortunately, Mexico made some very rash decisions regarding the state placement of cannons that were needed against the Apaches. Texas settlers didn't give a fig for the revolution that Mexico was fighting at the time and to them it looked as though they were being reneged on the deal so they took up arms against their patrons; as will almost inevitably happen any time the Scotch-Irish are involved with anything. Of course we all know the rest of the story. Once they gained independence they sought out the government of the United States as a protectorate, them being at the time very much like them.

[katarn]

One often overlooked feature of this war
The Mexican-American war or the Texan Revolution?
is the fact that as a territory of Mexico proper, rather a Spanish holdover, it was a wild frontier inhabited by people such as Apaches. Mexico's strategy to make the territory profitable was inviting Europeans to settle it. Mostly Germans and the ever present Scotch-Irish. In fact, German settlers (read Bohemian,) were held in such high regard for their industry they were given sweet heart deals to come to Texas with gauranteed land steads. As fellow Catholics they were seen as the ideal settler in Mexico's territory. Unfortunately, Mexico made some very rash decisions regarding the state placement of cannons that were needed against the Apaches. Texas settlers didn't give a fig for the revolution that Mexico was fighting at the time and to them it looked as though they were being reneged on the deal so they took up arms against their patrons; as will almost inevitably happen any time the Scotch-Irish are involved with anything. Of course we all know the rest of the story. Once they gained independence they sought out the government of the United States as a protectorate, them being at the time very much like them.

And much of the European population had come from the U.S. itself, making that transition to the U.S. that much more expected.

[katarn]

Umm yeah. We kicked their ass dude.

Not what I'm asking. Both Texas as a rebellious territory and the U.S. proper clearly took it to Mexico. I'm asking if you think there is a chance that a Texan Republic which doesn't seek to join the Union faces war with it eventually. That and any other major changes to 1840s-60s history by Texas no joining as the 28th state.

[TheReal_ND]

Not sure tbh sorry. It was always kind of part of the deal once they took up arms. It was just assumed that they would join the confederation just like the rest of the frontier was slated to do.

If, somehow, Mexico didn't piss off their land steaders by depriving them of their state sanctioned defense against the common enemy, I suppose it's possible Texicans would have given Union troops a what for eventually when the southern states seceded.

Interesting to think about actually.

[katarn]

I remember the way it was taught in elementary school- the intrepid Americans migrated to Texas at the behest of Mexico under stringent rules that clearly couldn't be suffered, because not having slaves went against that intrepid American spirit. Then when Mexico did some unforgiveable stuff, the Texans revolted and quickly established the Mexicans really sucked at war. Or the Texans somehow really rocked?... It was all because the intrepid Texans fought for liberty and freedom from tyranny, and Santa Anna was a tyrant, so of course he lost.
Also, there were some Caddo Indians nearby.

I really am surprised at how anti-Mexican the narrative was. I mean, sure, you had Gonzales and Goliad, but they were devils to the second graders learning about them.

[TheReal_ND]

Mexico had recently gained independence through no fault of their own. What the history books leave out is that Mexico was undergoing a world of hurt because of their demographics. Same now as it ever was.

Santa Anna was no tyrant. Not even Texans say that.

[katarn]

Mexico had recently gained independence through no fault of their own. What the history books leave out is that Mexico was undergoing a world of hurt because of their demographics. Same now as it ever was.

Santa Anna was no tyrant. Not even Texans say that.

I know he wasn't. And few modern Texans would think it either. The previous post is how I remember the Texan schools teaching it, not how it really was, which I (probably poorly) tried to bring out in the farcical language.

[TheReal_ND]

Mexico had recently gained independence through no fault of their own. What the history books leave out is that Mexico was undergoing a world of hurt because of their demographics. Same now as it ever was.

Santa Anna was no tyrant. Not even Texans say that.

I know he wasn't. And few modern Texans would think it either. The previous post is how I remember the Texan schools teaching it, not how it really was, which I (probably poorly) tried to bring out in the farcical language.

Well hat tip to a fellow Texas schooler. I remember the social studies text books well myself. Texas has a bit of a unique heritage regarding their enshrinement of the time they fought off their oppressors that weren't British. I wish I was more well versed on the subject.

I would say, while Texas did have slaves, the whole slavery angle seems to be a misnomer.