What If Texas Remained Independent?

The Actual History

The Republic of Texas emerged as an independent nation following its successful revolution against Mexico in 1836. After the decisive Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836, where Texian forces under General Sam Houston defeated Mexican President Antonio López de Santa Anna's army, Texas declared its independence. The Treaties of Velasco, signed by Santa Anna under duress, recognized Texas independence, although the Mexican government later repudiated these agreements, considering Texas a breakaway province.

For nine years, from 1836 to 1845, Texas existed as a sovereign republic. During this period, the young nation faced significant challenges. Economically, Texas struggled with enormous debt (approximately $10 million) inherited from its war for independence. Militarily, it confronted ongoing threats from Mexico, which refused to recognize its independence and launched several small-scale incursions into Texian territory. The republic also dealt with conflicts with Native American tribes, particularly the Comanche, who conducted raids along its western frontier.

Diplomatically, the Republic of Texas achieved recognition from major powers including the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Belgium. However, its primary foreign policy goal quickly became annexation by the United States. Under President Sam Houston (1836-1838, 1841-1844) and Mirabeau B. Lamar (1838-1841), Texas pursued different approaches to its future. While Lamar envisioned an independent Texas that might expand westward to the Pacific, Houston favored annexation to the United States.

The question of annexation was complicated by several factors. In the United States, the potential addition of Texas as a slave state raised concerns about upsetting the delicate balance between free and slave states. President Andrew Jackson recognized Texas independence but delayed annexation due to these sectional tensions and the risk of war with Mexico. The Van Buren administration similarly avoided the Texas question.

By 1843, international dynamics shifted the calculus. British diplomatic interest in Texas—including potential financial support and pressure to abolish slavery—alarmed many in the United States. President John Tyler, concerned about potential British influence in North America, began pursuing annexation more aggressively. In April 1844, Secretary of State John C. Calhoun negotiated an annexation treaty with Texas representatives, but the Senate rejected it amid sectional tensions and antislavery opposition.

The 1844 presidential election became partly a referendum on Texas annexation, with Democrat James K. Polk, who strongly favored annexation, defeating Henry Clay. After Polk's victory, President Tyler pushed for annexation via a joint resolution of Congress rather than a treaty. On February 28, 1845, Congress passed this resolution, offering Texas statehood. The Texas Congress accepted these terms on June 23, 1845, and Texas voters overwhelmingly approved annexation on October 13, 1845.

On December 29, 1845, Texas was formally admitted as the 28th state of the Union. This annexation contributed directly to the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), as Mexico still considered Texas its territory. The war ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, through which the United States acquired vast territories in the Southwest and officially settled the Texas border at the Rio Grande.

Texas statehood profoundly shaped American politics and geography. Its admission as a slave state intensified sectional tensions that would culminate in the Civil War. Geopolitically, annexation was a crucial step in American expansion across the continent, embodying the spirit of Manifest Destiny and establishing the United States as the dominant power in North America.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Republic of Texas never joined the United States? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the annexation efforts failed and Texas continued as an independent nation into the modern era.

Several plausible turning points could have altered this historical outcome:

First, the February 1845 joint resolution in the U.S. Congress might have failed. The resolution passed the House by a reasonably comfortable margin (120-98) but cleared the Senate by only 27-25, a razor-thin majority. Had just two senators voted differently—perhaps due to stronger abolitionist lobbying or concerns about provoking war with Mexico—annexation would have been defeated. President Tyler's lame-duck push for annexation was a political gamble that could easily have failed.

Alternatively, even after U.S. congressional approval, Texas itself might have rejected annexation. In our timeline, the Texas Congress voted overwhelmingly to accept the annexation offer, and Texas voters later ratified this decision with 94% support. However, international dynamics could have shifted this calculation. If Britain and France had made more concrete offers of diplomatic protection, debt relief, and favorable trade terms, Texian leaders might have reconsidered the benefits of independence.

A third possibility centers on President Anson Jones, who succeeded Sam Houston in December 1844. Jones, the "Architect of Annexation," strongly supported joining the United States. Had a different politician won the 1844 Texas presidential election—particularly someone aligned with former President Mirabeau Lamar's vision of an independent Texas—they might have delayed or rejected the annexation terms.

The most compelling divergence scenario combines these elements: heightened British diplomatic engagement, a stronger "independence faction" in Texas politics, and a narrowly failed congressional resolution in Washington. In this alternate timeline, we propose that in early 1845, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen made a substantial counteroffer to Texas, including naval protection, favorable trade status, and assistance negotiating permanent recognition from Mexico. Simultaneously, the U.S. Senate rejected annexation by a single vote after last-minute concerns about sectional tensions and war with Mexico swayed key senators.

President Jones, though personally favoring annexation, recognized that the path to statehood was now blocked. Facing this reality and the attractive British offer, Texas reoriented its foreign policy toward securing its independence rather than joining the Union. When elections were held in Texas in late 1845, the pro-independence faction gained power, cementing Texas's future as a sovereign nation.

This divergence point—the failure of annexation in 1845—would have profound and far-reaching consequences for the development of North America.

Immediate Aftermath

Securing Independence: The British-Texian Alliance

In the immediate aftermath of the failed annexation, the Republic of Texas faced the urgent challenge of ensuring its survival. President Anson Jones and his successor (elected in late 1845) pursued the British alliance that had been negotiated during the annexation crisis. By March 1846, Texas and Britain signed the Treaty of Galveston, which established preferential trade terms between the two nations and, crucially, included a British commitment to defend Texas's independence.

This treaty represented a significant diplomatic victory for Texas and a strategic achievement for Britain, which gained a foothold in North America that could counterbalance U.S. influence. As Lord Palmerston would later observe, "In Texas, we have found our counterweight to the American colossus."

France quickly followed Britain's lead, negotiating its own commercial treaty with Texas in July 1846. The Franco-Texian agreement included provisions for French investment in Texas infrastructure and established a small French military mission in San Antonio to train the Texian Army.

Resolution with Mexico

The most pressing threat to Texian independence remained Mexico, which still refused to recognize the breakaway republic. Britain, eager to stabilize its new ally, mediated negotiations between Texas and Mexico. Using its considerable influence in Mexico City and the leverage of outstanding Mexican debts to British creditors, Lord Aberdeen's government pushed for a permanent resolution.

The resulting Treaty of Querétaro, signed in November 1846, finally established peace between Texas and Mexico. Mexico formally recognized Texas independence with the Rio Grande as the southern border—a significant concession as Mexico had previously claimed the Nueces River as the boundary. In exchange, Texas paid Mexico $10 million (largely financed through British loans) and guaranteed certain rights for Mexican citizens living in Texas territory.

The treaty also contained a crucial clause limiting Texas's ability to join the United States in the future without Mexican consent—a provision strongly encouraged by British diplomats who wished to prevent future annexation attempts.

Economic Reorientation

Economically, independent Texas experienced both challenges and opportunities in the years immediately following the failed annexation. The republic's debt remained a significant burden, but the British alliance provided access to London's capital markets. In 1847, Texas successfully negotiated a consolidation of its outstanding bonds, converting them to new securities guaranteed by the British government at more favorable interest rates.

Cotton exports, the backbone of the Texian economy, increasingly flowed to British ports rather than New Orleans. British textile manufacturers were eager to develop a cotton supply outside the United States, and Texas provided an ideal alternative. This trade reorientation was accelerated by the construction of new port facilities at Galveston and Corpus Christi, financed largely by British capital.

Military Development

Militarily, the republic quickly reorganized its defensive capabilities. The Texas Army, which had declined to fewer than 1,000 regular soldiers by 1845, was expanded and professionalized with British and French assistance. By 1848, the standing army numbered approximately 3,500 troops, supplemented by a reorganized militia system.

The Texas Navy, which had virtually ceased to exist by the annexation crisis, was rebuilt with British assistance. The republic purchased several modern warships from British shipyards between 1846 and 1848, establishing a small but capable naval force to protect its Gulf Coast and commercial shipping.

Internal Political Developments

Internally, Texian politics reconfigured around the new reality of permanent independence. The political faction that had favored annexation gradually transformed into a "pro-American" party that advocated close ties with the United States while maintaining independence. Their opponents emerged as an "Anglo-Texian" faction favoring closer alignment with Britain and European powers.

The question of slavery, which had been central to the annexation debate, remained contentious. The British alliance included subtle but persistent pressure to move toward gradual emancipation, creating tensions with the plantation economy of East Texas. In 1848, the Texian Congress passed the Slave Importation Restriction Act, which banned the further importation of slaves from the United States—a compromise measure that preserved existing slavery while preventing its expansion.

U.S. Reaction and the Alternate Mexican War

In the United States, the failed annexation was a significant political blow to President Polk, who had campaigned on a platform that included bringing Texas into the Union. Polk's administration, determined to demonstrate the consequences of rejecting American protection, adopted a hostile stance toward the young republic, imposing punitive tariffs on Texian goods and restricting border crossings.

More significantly, Polk shifted his expansionist focus elsewhere. In April 1846, tensions over the unsettled Oregon boundary with Britain nearly led to war before a compromise established the 49th parallel as the border. By summer 1846, Polk had engineered a conflict with Mexico over disputed territory in what is now the American Southwest—a war that in this timeline occurred without Texas involvement.

The Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 in this alternate timeline was fought primarily over California and New Mexico territories. Without the Texas annexation as a casus belli, American claims were weaker, but Polk's administration manufactured a border incident on the northern Mexican frontier to justify intervention. The war proceeded similarly to our timeline but with some significant differences: American forces had no access to Texian territory for staging invasions, making the campaign more difficult, and international opinion was more skeptical of American motivations.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended this alternate Mexican-American War still resulted in significant Mexican territorial concessions, but slightly less territory changed hands than in our timeline. The United States acquired California and much of the New Mexico Territory, but certain areas remained in Mexican control, and the final settlement was somewhat less favorable to American interests.

Long-term Impact

Territorial Development and Expansion

The Republic of Texas's territorial development followed a different trajectory than it would have as an American state. Initially confined to its core territories in east and central Texas, the republic gradually expanded westward. The discovery of oil near Corsicana in 1894 (slightly earlier than in our timeline due to more intensive British-financed exploration) provided the financial resources to support this expansion.

By the 1860s, Texas had secured its claims to territories roughly corresponding to the eastern portion of present-day New Mexico, creating a corridor that extended to Santa Fe. This expansion brought Texas into conflict with both Native American tribes and Mexican settlements, leading to a series of frontier wars through the 1850s and 1860s.

Unlike American expansion that often involved formal territorial organization followed by statehood, Texian expansion proceeded through a system of "frontier provinces" that were gradually integrated into the republic's political structure. This process created a more decentralized governance system than the American state model, with frontier regions maintaining significant autonomy well into the 20th century.

Economic Evolution

The Oil Economy

The discovery of the Spindletop oil field near Beaumont in 1901 transformed Texas from a predominantly agricultural economy into an energy powerhouse. Unlike our timeline, where American oil companies dominated Texas petroleum development, in this alternate world British firms like Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later BP) and Royal Dutch Shell took leading roles in developing Texian oil fields.

By the 1920s, Texas had emerged as one of the world's largest oil producers, creating enormous wealth but also increasing economic dependence on Britain and European markets. The Texas Petroleum Commission, established in 1930, regulated oil production and effectively functioned as a price-setting mechanism for much of the world's oil supply until the rise of Middle Eastern production after World War II.

Agriculture and Industry

While oil dominated the economy by the mid-20th century, Texas agriculture remained significant. Cotton production continued to be important, though it gradually shifted toward more diversified farming. Without participation in American agricultural programs, Texas agricultural development followed a pattern more similar to Australia's, with larger average farm sizes and earlier mechanization.

Industrial development proceeded more slowly than in our timeline's Texas. Without integration into the vast American domestic market, Texas manufacturing remained focused on processing raw materials—refining oil, processing cotton, and smelting metals. The republic never developed the diverse manufacturing base that emerged in American Texas during World War II with federal investment in defense industries.

Political Evolution

From Republic to Parliamentary Democracy

The Texian political system evolved significantly over time. The original republican constitution of 1836, modeled on the U.S. Constitution, was replaced in 1876 following a constitutional crisis. The new system introduced a parliamentary model with a ceremonial president and executive power vested in a prime minister responsible to the National Assembly.

This shift reflected growing British influence and practical needs to create more stable governance. The parliamentary system helped integrate the diverse frontier regions and created mechanisms for power-sharing between the republic's various factions.

The Slavery Question and Civil Rights

Texas's handling of slavery diverged substantially from the American experience. Under persistent British pressure and facing international isolation on the issue, Texas enacted a gradual emancipation program in 1862, avoiding the catastrophic civil war that engulfed the United States. The Emancipation Act provided for compensated liberation of slaves over a ten-year period and established a system of apprenticeship that maintained labor control while technically ending slavery.

This gradual approach prevented the immediate social upheaval seen in the American South but created a lasting system of racial stratification. African Texians gained legal freedom but faced severe restrictions on political participation until a series of civil rights movements in the 1940s and 1950s. These movements, drawing inspiration from both American and British colonial independence movements, gradually secured voting rights and reduced legal discrimination.

Native American Relations

Independent Texas developed a distinctive approach to Native American relations. Initial policies were harsh, with frontier warfare against Comanche and Apache tribes continuing through the 1870s. However, by the 1880s, the republic established a system of semi-autonomous "Native Territories" in parts of western Texas, where tribes maintained limited self-governance under Texian sovereignty.

This system, while still fundamentally colonial, provided more autonomy than the American reservation system and created a distinctive multiethnic frontier society in western Texas that survives in modified form to the present day.

International Relations

The North American Triangle

Throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries, Texas occupied a precarious position between the United States and Mexico, while maintaining its crucial British alliance. This created what historians came to call the "North American Triangle"—a complex balancing act that defined Texian foreign policy.

Relations with the United States improved gradually after the initial hostility following the failed annexation. By the 1890s, substantial American investment flowed into Texas, particularly in railroads and later oil development, creating economic integration despite political separation. The establishment of the North American Trade Commission in 1911 formalized economic cooperation between the U.S., Texas, and Canada.

With Mexico, relations remained periodically tense, particularly during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920), when Texas often supported conservative factions and temporarily occupied northern Mexican territories during periods of instability. By the mid-20th century, however, economic integration between Texas and northern Mexico created a interdependent border region.

World Wars and Cold War

Texas maintained neutrality during World War I despite British pressure to enter the conflict. This neutrality proved economically advantageous, as Texas supplied oil and cotton to both sides, accelerating its industrial development.

During World War II, Texas aligned firmly with the Allies, though it entered the war only after the attack on Pearl Harbor, simultaneously with the United States. Texian troops fought primarily in the Pacific theater alongside Australian and American forces.

The Cold War positioned Texas in an ambiguous middle position. While culturally and economically aligned with the Western bloc, its tradition of neutrality and strong trade relationships with developing nations allowed it to sometimes act as an intermediary between East and West. Texas joined NATO as an associate member in 1954, reflecting its strategic position and oil resources.

Modern Texas (1960-2025)

By the late 20th century, Texas had developed into a prosperous middle power with a diverse economy. Oil wealth funded development of world-class universities, technology centers, and infrastructure. The Texas Institute of Technology (founded 1923 with British assistance) emerged as a global research center, particularly in petroleum engineering and later computer science.

The capital, Austin, developed as a major diplomatic center due to Texas's unique position in North American affairs. Population growth remained strong, though lower than in our timeline's Texas due to lesser integration with the broader American economy. The 2020 census recorded approximately 22 million citizens, compared to nearly 30 million in American Texas.

Politically, modern Texas evolved into a stable democracy with a multi-party system typical of parliamentary governments. The dominant parties are the National Democrats (center-right, business-oriented), the Progressive Alliance (center-left), and the Frontier Party (representing rural and western interests).

Culturally, independent Texas developed a distinctive identity that blends American, Mexican, and British influences. English remains the predominant language, but Spanish has official status in border provinces. The educational system follows British models in structure while incorporating American pragmatism and technical focus.

In 2025, the Republic of Texas celebrates 189 years of independence. While smaller in population and economic output than it might have been as part of the United States, it has maintained its distinctive character and carved out a unique position in North American affairs—a living testament to how differently continental development might have proceeded had a few crucial votes gone differently in 1845.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Emily Ramirez, Professor of North American Studies at the University of New Mexico, offers this perspective: "The Republic of Texas represents one of history's most fascinating 'near misses' in terms of national development. Had annexation failed in 1845, we would likely see a very different continental arrangement today. The presence of an independent Texas would have fundamentally altered the trajectory of Manifest Destiny and U.S. continental expansion. Most significantly, it would have created a multipolar North America rather than the U.S.-dominated continent that emerged in our timeline. This alternative power balance would have likely constrained American expansion and potentially preserved more Mexican territory and indigenous sovereignty across the Southwest."

Professor James Richardson, Chair of Comparative Political Systems at Oxford University, suggests: "An independent Texas would have developed political institutions quite distinct from American federalism. The pressure to incorporate diverse frontier regions while maintaining central authority would likely have pushed Texas toward a system resembling Canada's provincial model rather than American states. Furthermore, the British influence would almost certainly have resulted in an eventual transition to parliamentary government. By the early 20th century, I suspect Texas would have resembled Australia politically—a former British ally that developed its own distinctive democratic institutions while maintaining strong Commonwealth ties. The fascinating question is how this would have affected political development in the remainder of the United States, potentially weakening the federal model and encouraging more regional autonomy."

Dr. Miguel Fernandez, Economic Historian at El Colegio de México, provides this analysis: "The economic consequences of Texian independence would have been profound for all North American development. For Texas itself, the trajectory would likely include earlier international investment in oil but significantly delayed industrialization. Without integration into the American common market, Texas would have developed stronger economic ties with Mexico and the Caribbean Basin. For the United States, the loss of Texas would have meant not just territorial limitation but removal of crucial resources, particularly oil, from American control. This might have accelerated American imperial expansion in other regions to secure resources and markets. For Mexico, an independent Texas could have preserved more of its northern territories and created the possibility of a closer economic partnership rather than the subordinate relationship that developed with the United States."