From the Texan thread:
California
Well, there already had been a series of revolts and civil wars in Mexican California. I'm not sure how well they're modeled atm since I haven't played Mexico, but ingame, sadly, right now, the gold rush events barely bring any immigrants to the place: as Texas, I got to 1860 and California was still mostly full of Indians and Mexicans. But for general flavor, I did try to annex it before then.
Historically, that was almost certainly out of the question. Even given breaks like a more competent Lamar and an early death for Houston, Texas would've been mostly occupied fortifying and raiding to keep the lines open between Santa Fe and Austin. Sadly, the most likely outcome would've been an American revolt followed by annexation to protect the new republic from Mexican reprisals, which would've been more forceful once they knew about the gold. Then Texas gradually accepts inevitable, being hemmed in by the US on both sides (Though possibly a southern manifest destiny, bringing civilization to the benighted Mehicans?) But the example of a successful and independent Texas possibly would've encouraged their own republic.
The real bone of contention becomes SoCal. A Bear Flag Republic should only control the Sacramento: the Southern Californios held their own against the US and actually repulsed the invasion of Baja. At some point, Texas is going to want a transcontinental rail and the port of San Diego.
(& I'm not sure exactly the mechanics involved, but I think that dividing California is generally a good idea. South of the Tehachapi was, for a long time, a different culture & place from the north. The US states aren't all represented precisely, and making Texas larger than California, aside from being gratifying, should make the immigration more sensible.)
California
Well, there already had been a series of revolts and civil wars in Mexican California. I'm not sure how well they're modeled atm since I haven't played Mexico, but ingame, sadly, right now, the gold rush events barely bring any immigrants to the place: as Texas, I got to 1860 and California was still mostly full of Indians and Mexicans. But for general flavor, I did try to annex it before then.
Historically, that was almost certainly out of the question. Even given breaks like a more competent Lamar and an early death for Houston, Texas would've been mostly occupied fortifying and raiding to keep the lines open between Santa Fe and Austin. Sadly, the most likely outcome would've been an American revolt followed by annexation to protect the new republic from Mexican reprisals, which would've been more forceful once they knew about the gold. Then Texas gradually accepts inevitable, being hemmed in by the US on both sides (Though possibly a southern manifest destiny, bringing civilization to the benighted Mehicans?) But the example of a successful and independent Texas possibly would've encouraged their own republic.
The real bone of contention becomes SoCal. A Bear Flag Republic should only control the Sacramento: the Southern Californios held their own against the US and actually repulsed the invasion of Baja. At some point, Texas is going to want a transcontinental rail and the port of San Diego.
(& I'm not sure exactly the mechanics involved, but I think that dividing California is generally a good idea. South of the Tehachapi was, for a long time, a different culture & place from the north. The US states aren't all represented precisely, and making Texas larger than California, aside from being gratifying, should make the immigration more sensible.)
Last edited:
