What If Texas Retained Its Independence?

The Actual History

The Republic of Texas began its brief existence following the Texas Revolution against Mexico, which culminated in the decisive Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. After the capture of Mexican President General Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Treaties of Velasco were signed, granting Texas its independence. However, the Mexican government later repudiated these treaties, refusing to recognize Texas's independence and considering it a rebellious province.

Between 1836 and 1845, the Republic of Texas existed as a sovereign nation, though precariously. Sam Houston became the first president of the republic, followed by Mirabeau B. Lamar, and then Houston again for a second term. The final president was Anson Jones, who would oversee the republic's transition to statehood. During its independence, Texas faced numerous challenges: financial instability with mounting debts, military threats from Mexico (which launched several incursions into Texas territory), conflicts with Native American tribes, and diplomatic isolation, as few major powers formally recognized the young republic.

The Republic of Texas had ambitions extending beyond its present borders. Its claimed territory included not only modern Texas but also parts of present-day New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming—following the full length of the Rio Grande. These expansive claims would become a point of contention during later negotiations.

From the beginning, many Texians (Anglo settlers in Texas) had sought annexation by the United States, seeing it as their destiny. However, the question of annexation was complicated by several factors. The addition of Texas as a slave state would upset the delicate balance between free and slave states in the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, annexing Texas risked war with Mexico, which still claimed the territory. These concerns led President Andrew Jackson to officially recognize Texas independence in March 1837 but defer annexation.

Through the early 1840s, Texas pursued independent nationhood out of necessity rather than preference, establishing diplomatic relations with Britain, France, and other European powers. President Lamar in particular championed Texas nationalism and independence, envisioning a great nation stretching to the Pacific Ocean. However, his ambitious policies led to financial ruin and increased conflicts with Native Americans.

When James K. Polk won the 1844 U.S. presidential election on an expansionist platform, the political climate shifted. On March 1, 1845, Congress passed a joint resolution offering annexation, which Texas President Anson Jones presented to the Texas Congress and a specially called convention. On July 4, 1845, the Texas Convention voted for annexation, which was ratified by popular vote in October 1845. On December 29, 1845, Texas was admitted as the 28th state of the Union.

The annexation of Texas had profound consequences, most immediately triggering the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). This conflict resulted in Mexico's defeat and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, whereby Mexico ceded vast territories to the United States, including California and much of the present-day American Southwest. Additionally, the annexation inflamed sectional tensions over slavery, contributing to the political crises that eventually led to the American Civil War.

In the long term, Texas's incorporation into the United States dramatically shaped both entities. Texas grew to become the second-most populous state and the second-largest economy in the U.S., driven by agriculture, cattle, and later the discovery of oil at Spindletop in 1901, which transformed the state into an energy powerhouse. Meanwhile, the United States gained not only a vast territory but also a distinctive cultural region that has profoundly influenced American identity, politics, and economics up to the present day.

The Point of Divergence

What if Texas had maintained its independence rather than joining the United States in 1845? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the Republic of Texas chose a different path, remaining a sovereign nation into the 21st century.

The point of divergence occurs in 1845, when several plausible scenarios could have altered the course of history:

First, President Anson Jones might have more forcefully pursued the diplomatic alternatives to U.S. annexation. Jones, sometimes called the "Architect of Annexation," actually had significant reservations about joining the United States. In this alternate timeline, Jones might have successfully negotiated the "diplomatic triangle" he envisioned, securing recognition of Texas independence from Mexico (with British and French mediation) in exchange for Texas remaining independent rather than joining the United States.

Alternatively, the political balance in the Texas Convention of 1845 could have shifted. Though annexation sentiment was strong, there existed genuine concern about relinquishing sovereignty. In our timeline, the Convention voted unanimously for annexation, but in this alternate scenario, Mirabeau B. Lamar and other Texas nationalists could have mounted a more effective opposition, perhaps leveraging British or French promises of protection and financial aid to sway enough delegates.

A third possibility involves U.S. domestic politics. The annexation of Texas was contentious within the United States, particularly among Northern states concerned about the expansion of slavery. In this alternate timeline, perhaps anti-annexation forces in the U.S. Congress led by John Quincy Adams and other prominent abolitionists might have succeeded in blocking or significantly altering the joint resolution for annexation, making the terms unacceptable to Texas.

Finally, Mexico's stance could have provided the decisive factor. In our timeline, Mexico severed diplomatic relations with the United States upon annexation. But in this alternate scenario, Mexico might have finally recognized Texas independence with border guarantees specifically contingent upon Texas remaining independent—an offer made at a critical moment through British diplomatic channels that changed the calculus for Texas leaders.

Whatever the specific mechanism, the result is the same: in this alternate timeline, the Republic of Texas does not become the 28th state of the Union in December 1845 but instead charts a course as a separate nation on the North American continent, permanently altering the geopolitical landscape of the Western Hemisphere.

Immediate Aftermath

U.S.-Texas Relations

The U.S. reaction to Texas's decision to remain independent would have been complex and evolving. President James K. Polk, elected on an expansionist platform, would have faced significant political embarrassment. His administration likely would have maintained cordial but cooler relations with the Republic of Texas while focusing expansionist energies elsewhere:

Oregon Territory: Without Texas annexation consuming political capital, Polk might have pushed harder in the Oregon boundary dispute with Britain, potentially securing more territory than the 49th parallel compromise reached in our timeline.
Economic Relations: Despite political disappointment, practical economic ties would have continued. The United States would remain Texas's largest trading partner, though Texas would now collect its own tariffs and control its commercial policies.
Migration: Americans would continue to settle in Texas, though now as immigrants rather than domestic migrants, creating an interesting dynamic where many Texas residents maintained cultural ties to the United States while developing a distinct Texas national identity.

Mexican Relations and Border Conflicts

Mexico's relationship with an independent Texas would remain fraught but would evolve differently without U.S. annexation:

Reluctant Recognition: Under British and French pressure, Mexico might have finally extended formal recognition to Texas independence by 1847, though likely with ongoing border disputes.
Nueces Strip Conflict: The territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande would remain hotly contested. Without the full might of the U.S. military, Texas would likely need to compromise, potentially accepting the Nueces as its southern boundary rather than the Rio Grande, resulting in a smaller Texas than in our timeline.
Limited Military Confrontations: Periodic border skirmishes would likely continue through the late 1840s and 1850s, though full-scale war would be deterred by Texas's European allies and Mexico's internal instability.

European Alliances

With annexation rejected, Texas would have strengthened its European ties, particularly with Britain and France:

British Influence: Britain, seeking both a cotton supplier independent of the United States and a check on U.S. expansion, would have increased investment in Texas infrastructure and potentially established naval facilities along the Texas coast. British loans would help stabilize Texas finances.
French Connection: France under Louis Philippe and later Napoleon III would see Texas as a foothold for renewed French influence in North America. French cultural influence would grow, particularly in Texas diplomatic circles and urban centers.
Military Assistance: Both European powers would provide military advisors, naval protection, and modern armaments to Texas, allowing the young republic to maintain a more credible defense force than it could afford independently.

Internal Development

Internally, the Republic of Texas would face significant challenges but also opportunities for development:

Constitutional Reform: The 1836 Constitution, always intended as temporary, would likely be replaced by 1850 with a more robust framework for governance, potentially incorporating elements from both American and European models.
Financial Stabilization: European loans, coupled with land sales and customs duties, would gradually improve Texas's dire financial situation, though debt would remain a persistent challenge through the 1850s.
Early Infrastructure: Without U.S. federal investment, infrastructure development would proceed more slowly, focused primarily on ports like Galveston and Houston and key trade routes to European markets.
Slavery Question: As an independent nation, Texas would face international pressure regarding slavery, particularly from Britain. This might lead to earlier restrictions on the slave trade and possibly a gradual emancipation plan by the late 1850s, distinguishing Texas from the American South.

Cultural Identity

Perhaps most significantly, an independent Texas would begin developing a distinct national identity during these formative years:

Multicultural Foundations: Texas society would blend Anglo-American, Mexican, German, French, and Native American influences more thoroughly than in our timeline, with multiple languages commonplace in government and commerce.
National Symbols: The symbols of the republic—the Lone Star flag, the seal, the celebration of San Jacinto Day as a national holiday—would become more deeply entrenched as markers of a unique Texas identity.
Education System: An independent national education system would develop, emphasizing Texas history and creating founding myths around Houston, Austin, and other early Texas leaders that would distinguish Texas cultural memory from both American and Mexican narratives.

By the mid-1850s, the Republic of Texas would still be a relatively fragile nation, but one with established international recognition, developing institutions, and a growing sense of distinct national identity—positioned to play a unique role in the coming era of North American conflict.

Long-term Impact

The American Civil War Era

The absence of Texas from the United States would significantly alter the trajectory of sectional tensions and the Civil War:

Altered Balance of Power

Delayed Conflict: Without Texas's admission as a slave state in 1845, the balance between free and slave states might have remained stable for longer, potentially delaying the outbreak of the Civil War by several years.
Different Territorial Disputes: The Mexican-American War would either not have occurred or been significantly different in scope and outcome. The Compromise of 1850 would never have existed in its historical form, dramatically changing the debate over slavery in western territories.

Texas's Position

Neutrality Policy: The Republic of Texas would likely declare neutrality in the American Civil War, benefiting economically by trading with both sides.
Confederate Relations: Despite cultural sympathy for the Confederacy among many Texians, the government would maintain official neutrality, though covert support and volunteer fighters might flow southward.
Diplomatic Recognition: Texas might serve as an intermediary for European powers dealing with the Confederacy, potentially affecting the international dimensions of the conflict.

Post-War Consequences

Migration Patterns: Following Confederate defeat, Texas would likely receive an influx of former Confederates seeking to escape Reconstruction, altering its demographic and political landscape.
Territorial Expansion: In the chaotic aftermath, Texas might opportunistically expand its territory, particularly into parts of Louisiana or the New Mexico Territory, if the U.S. were too preoccupied with Reconstruction to effectively respond.

Economic Development and the Oil Era

Texas's economic trajectory would differ significantly from our timeline:

Agricultural Period

Cotton Diplomacy: As an independent nation, Texas would develop direct trade relationships with European textile manufacturers, becoming a cotton power in its own right rather than part of the American cotton economy.
Cattle Industry: The great cattle drives would still develop, but with different routes and destinations, possibly with more processing occurring within Texas rather than driving herds to Kansas railheads.

The Oil Revolution

Spindletop and Beyond: The 1901 discovery of oil at Spindletop would still occur, transforming Texas's economy and global importance. As a sovereign nation, Texas would control its own oil resources directly.
National Oil Company: Rather than private American companies dominating, Texas might establish a national oil company similar to Mexico's Pemex or Norway's Equinor, using oil wealth for national development.
OPEC Relationship: By the mid-20th century, Texas would likely be an OPEC observer or associate member, aligning with global oil producers rather than consumers.

Modern Economic Profile

Diversification: Oil wealth would fund education, infrastructure, and economic diversification, particularly in technology and manufacturing.
Trade Relationships: Texas would maintain complex trade relationships with the United States, Mexico, and global partners, likely joining NAFTA or negotiating a similar arrangement as a sovereign participant.
Financial Services: Houston and Dallas would develop as international financial centers, possibly playing roles similar to Singapore or Hong Kong in the western hemisphere.

Geopolitical Position

An independent Texas would fundamentally alter North American geopolitics:

Border Security and Immigration

Northern Border: The Texas-U.S. border would likely be relatively open but formally controlled, similar to the U.S.-Canada relationship, with significant cross-border communities.
Southern Border: Texas-Mexico relations would experience periods of tension and cooperation, with immigration policies becoming a central political issue similar to our timeline.
Maritime Power: Texas would develop a modest but modern navy to protect its Gulf Coast interests and shipping lanes, possibly hosting foreign naval bases (British, later American) in exchange for security guarantees.

Foreign Relations

World Wars: In both World Wars, Texas would likely enter as an American ally, though possibly later than the U.S. entry dates in our timeline. Texas troops would serve as a distinct national force rather than as part of the American military.
Cold War Positioning: During the Cold War, Texas would firmly align with the Western bloc while maintaining a degree of non-aligned flexibility, particularly in Latin American affairs.
Modern Alliances: Contemporary Texas would likely be a NATO partner (though not a full member), a member of the Organization of American States, and maintain its own network of bilateral defense arrangements.

Cultural and Social Development

The cultural identity of an independent Texas would evolve distinctively:

Language and Demographics

Linguistic Landscape: While English would remain the dominant language, Spanish would have greater official status than in our timeline's Texas. A distinctive Texas dialect incorporating elements of both languages would evolve.
Immigration Patterns: Without U.S. immigration policies, Texas might develop unique patterns of immigration, potentially including more Europeans in the early 20th century and different policies toward Latin American migration.

National Identity

Education System: Texas schools would teach national history focused on Texas independence, emphasizing its distinct path and founding figures like Houston, Austin, and Lamar as founding fathers equivalent to Washington and Jefferson.
Cultural Production: A distinctive national literature, music, and arts scene would develop, combining American, Mexican, and European influences into unique expressions of Texas identity.
Sports Culture: Rather than American football dominating, Texas might develop a more diverse sporting culture, perhaps with soccer (fútbol) achieving earlier popularity alongside distinctive Texas sports traditions.

Political Development

Democratic Evolution: Texas would likely develop a democratic system with elements drawn from both the U.S. and parliamentary models, possibly featuring a strong presidency balanced by proportional representation in a legislature.
Political Parties: A distinct multi-party system would evolve, potentially organized around issues of oil policy, relations with neighboring powers, and regional/ethnic interests rather than following American party divisions.

Texas in the 21st Century

By 2025, the Republic of Texas would be a middle power of significant global importance:

Economic Position

GDP and Living Standards: With a population of approximately 30-35 million, Texas would have a GDP roughly equivalent to South Korea or Canada, placing it among the world's top 15 economies.
Energy Leadership: Texas would be at the forefront of both traditional energy production and, increasingly, renewable energy innovation, leveraging its natural advantages in solar and wind power.

International Role

Regional Mediator: Texas would often serve as a mediator between the United States and Latin America, maintaining positive relations with both while protecting its distinct interests.
Global Perception: Internationally, Texas would be viewed as culturally connected to but politically distinct from the United States—a nation with an outsized cultural and economic impact relative to its population.

Contemporary Challenges

Environmental Issues: Climate change, water scarcity, and sustainable development would be major political issues, particularly as they affect agriculture and coastal communities.
Immigration Debates: As in our timeline, immigration policies would be politically contentious, though the discourse might differ significantly without the framework of U.S. federal law.
Identity Questions: Ongoing debates about what it means to be "Texan" would persist, with civic nationalism competing with ethnic and cultural definitions of national identity.

In this alternate 2025, visitors to the Republic of Texas would encounter a nation both familiar and strikingly different—recognizably "Texan" in its culture and geography, but with the distinct institutions, history, and international presence of a bicentennial nation-state rather than an American state.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Gabriela Montero, Professor of North American Studies at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, offers this perspective: "An independent Texas would have fundamentally altered the balance of power in North America, creating a three-nation dynamic rather than the bilateral U.S.-Mexico relationship that has dominated the continent. Mexico would have developed differently without the traumatic loss of its northern territories to the United States in the 1840s, potentially achieving greater political stability. The relationship between Mexico and Texas would likely have evolved from initial hostility toward pragmatic cooperation, particularly after the discovery of oil on both sides of their border. By the 21st century, we might see a more balanced North American power structure with three major players, each with distinct roles in hemispheric affairs."

Professor James Whitfield, Chair of Texas History at the University of New Orleans, suggests: "The most profound consequence of Texas independence would be cultural and social. Without being subsumed into the broader American identity, Texas nationalism would have developed distinctive characteristics combining Southern, Western, Mexican, and European influences. The Texas national myth—centered on the revolution against Mexico and the hardscrabble years of the early republic—would be comparable to founding narratives of other post-colonial nations. I suspect that rather than being the conservative stronghold we see in our timeline, an independent Texas might have developed a more pragmatic, trade-oriented political culture reflecting its position as a smaller power needing to maintain relations with larger neighbors. Oil wealth would have accelerated this development, potentially making Texas more similar to Norway or the UAE than to the American South in its approach to resource management and social policy."

Dr. Eleanor Chen, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Alternative Geopolitics, provides a strategic assessment: "Texas independence would have significantly altered American expansionism and global power projection. Without Texas and possibly without the Mexican-American War, the United States might have focused more intensely on northward and eastward expansion and naval power. The American Civil War would have occurred in a different context, potentially with different outcomes regarding westward expansion. In the 20th century, an independent Texas would have required American strategists to consider a three-nation continental security framework, with U.S. military installations in Texas requiring formal status-of-forces agreements rather than domestic basing. During the World Wars and Cold War, Texas would have been a critical ally rather than an integral territory, potentially giving it leverage similar to what Canada or Australia exercised in relations with the United Kingdom. Today, Texas would likely maintain its own modest but modern military forces, cooperating closely with but distinct from American command structures."