"The SECOND Republic Of Texas: 2012 AD" Topic

Think of this . . .

DC is taken out in a nuke attack:
TMP link
link

Let's say that this happens November/December 2012. Why that date? Just because:

TMP link

Ok. Here we go . . .

POTUS, VP, Speaker and most of Congressmen gone.

The nation breaks apart. Most try to follow a centralized military government. Others, local constituents, try to follow their remaining Congressmen in isolated pockets of civil government with federal elected officials in the lead.

However, Texas has other plans . . .

Legal or not, Texas secedes from the Union. Imagine a combined republic, comprised of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Northern Louisiana.

1) In the climate described above, what battles do you envision taking place? Who would be your enemies?

2) Who would be your allies and trading partners?

3) Would Texas try to annex parts of Mexico (and create a real "Texaco"*)? Why/why not?

4) What 15mm or 28mm figures would you suggest for the Republican Troops?

5) If you were the President of the Second Republic of Texas, where would you place most of your troops?

Thanks.

CC
* The name "Texaco" (for a Texas-Mexico nation) was really Volstagg's idea:
TMP link

Sounds a bit like the premise behind Tim Truman's 'Scout', 'Scout: War Shaman', New America and 'Swords of Texas'. Well worth reading if you want to get into that sort of thing. I once built an AK47 Republic army based around the Swords of Texas.

The TV show Jericho has a similar scenario.

Depends on who the enemies are.

Seems a lot more likely that we'd just mourn the loss of the museums, celebrate the loss of the politicians, and go on as usual.

Those guys aren't important , they're just temporary public servants.
-Kle.

I would hire these guys; picture

CC, Are You in Fort Bend county? I just moved to Bryan.

OK, CC, let's see

1) Enemies – well, probably mostly your neighbours – I can see a big set – to with Mexico brewing, and maybe California – the other neighbours are too weak to worry much about – the Republic would probably want to take over the bits of Louisiana near the Gulf, though

2) Allies/trading partners – well, trading partners would be anyone wanting Texas natural resources – allies, depends on how the Tex/Mex thing works out, but probably the US remmants would be a logical ally – as well as any number of South American countries – plus, possible, China (China looking for a friend in the new North America)

3) Sure – they can do the math – Mexico will eventually resolve it's internal problems and then might want to look north, so why not look south first

4) Well, pretty much any modern US troops should work – might be a good conversion job to add a few troopers or officers with Stetson hats or field caps

5) Light infantry on the northern borders to deal with border crossings, etc (assuming you are on good terms with what's left of the US), most of the troops on the borders with California/Mexico – on the other hand, if the reconstructed USA is in a bad move, get the heavy armour pointed north fast

Truman's "Scout" series has not aged well. As it progressed, Catherine Yronwood's anti-military politics intruded further into the story. After reading it again earlier this year, it felt "very 80's."

That said, the earlier parts of the story are well done.

The "Texas Israeli War" is probably the pre-eminent novel on the subject, although it definitely has a 1960s feel.

Wyatt

I can't imagine Texas trying to break away at a time like that. Would be like Texas breaking away during 9/11. They'd be better off to break away at an economic low, when patriotism is low, and popular dismay high.

The "Texas Insurgency" would be lead by a small extremist faction of "terrorists". They would be quickly identified, and dispatched by SF operations before significant popular support could be organized. There would be a few small brutal battles involving cells of Texas separatists, but they would have neither the numbers, nor resources to stand against US forces, and maybe not even against local civilians who are as American and they are Texan.

There would be a few additional flare-ups in other states by radically minded individuals or small groups loyal to the Texas cause, or to the idea of independence from the federal government. At this time of rising patriotism in the wake of the DC nuke, they would not be well received by the American people, and would be similarly dispatched with little compassion from the public at large.

1)The skirmishes could be done with any US figs and a combination of US and civilian militia/para-military figs for the rebels.
Battle would be night strikes of Deltas going in and taking out the leaders/organizers, so you will need little birds and UH-60s. Figs could be any appropriate US and civilian types. I'd go with 15mm, Peter Pig, Old Glory, Rebel minis figs, QRF little birds, and plastic kit UH60s.
Additional battles would be cells of loyal military/para-military types that would face strikes by Apaches followed by Rangers and Deltas as needed. There might be a few battles/firefights between Texans and "Texacans" that might be more ballanced in force strength and composition.

2. It would never get this far.

3. It would never get this far.

4. 15mm Peter Pig, OG, Rebel minis, QRF.

5. It wouldn't last long enough to allow me to have a proper military or troops to deploy.

I've lived in Texas for almost 18 years now, and I can say that the idea of Texas breaking away is not feasible, and the people here know it. Well, most of the people anyways. There's big boast about exas having been its own country in the past, but nowadays there are so many more people from other places living here that the Hardcore Texan pool has been seriously diluted.

As Irishserb said, there are some extremists (The Republic Of Texas people to start with), and that's where and with whom the fighting would be.

Texas is proud of itself, but even more proud of its place in the union. I mean, you can't be the biggest, wildest, most larger than life state if you're not a state, right?

More realistic is Tom Kratmans's "State of Disobedience."

link

In this book he posits an increasingly imperial Federal government that for all intents and purposes overturns the Constitution and moves to centralize broad swaths of the economy and private life. At some point the Governor and State Assembly of Texas refuse to comply with a Federal mandate that would essentially end State sovereignty completely, and vote to support their 10th Amendment rights under the Constitution and overturn a number of oppressive Federal measures. The US Government moves to force Texas to comply and attempts to assassinate the Governor of Texas. The stage is set for conflict, though in the book Kratman has Texan units essentially doing a "war" of maneuver and delay in which they deliberately attempt *not* to fire on US troops, with Texas instead waging a propaganda war to pressure the US Government into suspending operations.

Interesting premise, more realistic than others.

I don't think there is any feasable scenario that results in a modern Texas Republic. Sure there are some whackjobs running around mouthing off about it and sadly several gubernatorial candidates (including our sitting governor) have given them some well-publicized lip service. But there is no way Texas will succeed from the union … period.

Now if the goal is to have a Texas Republic as part of an alternate history campaign who cares how feasable your backstory is, we only care about seeing the conversion work you do for your AROT (Army of the Republic of Texas) troops

For skirmish gaming I think a much more realistic scenario would be a return of the Republic of Texas militia only this time they are better organized and actually operating as a terrorist organization/ guerilla group as Irishserb has already suggested.

Dave

As soon as the Texas Legislature discovered it would have to pay the army, there wouldn't be one. End of Republic of Texas.

I agree with irishserb, economics are a better motivation. Why be so violent as a nucular attack.

Consider this: National Health Care passes, government takes control of all health services -- private hospitals are nationalized. Staff must perform abortion on demand. Catholic hospitals refuse, as do many health care professionals in all hospitals.

Texas governor objects to federal take over and supports the health professionals. Leaders in other states do also. The national commander in chief tries to take over the national guard who refuse to be taken over.

Federal forces are recalled from Iraq, leaving the country to fend for itself against jihadists. In the mean time the the president calls out the Civilian National Security Force (that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military). This organization is managed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- The Blue Shirts.

These forces open federal armories and obtain sufficient weapons. They are sent to all hospitals in each state to take control.

The National Tea Party Coalition mobilizes at Whole Food stores around the country.

Now begin the conflict.

GreyLegion: "CC, Are You in Fort Bend county? I just moved to Bryan."

Indeed! I moved from Sugar Land to Katy about 12 years ago. Love it.

CC

"And the Blyue Fez forces Dawg House every one…."

But why? We are all talking about a hypothetical SF situation/scenario!!!

CC

Govenor of Texas has already talked succession once this year. He also said that if healthcare reform passes Texas will not abide by it using the 10th ammendment. It might just be closer than you think…..
As I have said earlier….Republic troops wear flektarn. As for the legality of succession- it wasn't legal for Texas to succeed from Mexico nor was it legal for the United States to do so from Britain- but we did.

Secessionists do seem to be a loud group over here these days. More so than back when 9/11 happened.

But, then again, I don't think Texas would have seceded from the Union while there was a Texan in the White House.

Times change, I guess.

CC

Good thing I live in Austin Texas. :) Viva la Texas.

I wonder how a New Republic of Texas would deal with facilities like Pantex (in Amarillo):

pantex.com

Would they try to control the site, or would the "Union" try to confiscate the weapons (much like Russia tried to do after the breakup of the USSR)?

CC

My understanding (and I could be very very wrong) is that Texas has the only State Constitution allowing a move back to become an independent Republic again. Can any of the Texans here confirm or deny this?

I think that DC has a different interpretation of that agreement than does Texas.

This is very much like DC having a different interpretation of the agreement with Puerto Rico (even though that agreement discrepancy has a lot to do with language).

PR's, English version:

link

PR's, Spanish version:

link

For bilinguals, the differences may seem subtle, but they create two very polarized points of view of the relationship.

CC

Point of view of the Texas Secessionist groups:

texassecede.com/faq.htm
texassecede.com

Many of them view things like this as support of their views:

link

Their view sounds very much like (though not identical to) the sovereignty issue of Native Americans:

link
link

DC's point of view:

link

CC

Kyoteblue,

That's what I thought too. DC views Texas' support of the Confederacy as a forfeit of the original agreement.

However, many here seem to think it is still valid and relevant. Personally, I don't agree with the low figure (1/3) given in the US News article. That might be the rate in colleges and some places with a high non-Texan influence, such as Austin and some areas of Houston.

However, from personal discussions with lots of people in the rest of the State during my 27 years here, I think that the majority of the 25 million Texans feel more regionalistic (Texas as a republic, with a conditional relationship to the Union) than what DC news media in seem to lead portray.

Just my opinion, from my own personal experience.

I'm so confused!!!

CC
PS. Despite the realities of the secession issues, I still think this might make a good gaming premise, don't you think?

1) Given the politically and religious landscape of the state, I would say that an independent Texas would mainly fight against the United States in conflicts over resources, environmental issues (e.g. Texas wants to drill for oil in the gulf despite international outcry), human rights abuses, and cultural conflicts. I can also see internal conflict as the racist/fundamentalist regime tries to subjugate or eliminate ethnic and poltical "undesirables." (e.g. Refugees who escaped the Lone Star Curtain often speak of the horrors of "The Purge of Austin.")

2) Not many given it's racist and isolationist cultural tendencies. I would imagine many corporations being enticed to relocate with promises of a "free market" that wouldn't tax their profits or regulate their profits. Otherwise, see below.

3) I'm sure that they would as a means of acquiring resources and to spread the word of God to the benighted, non-Caucasian, papists.

4) You could get away with any modern U.S. troops for Texas regulars, and any sort of modern militia for gun-toting "Minutemen."

5) The Northern border with the "Soviet States of America." I'd also recommend a naval presence in the Gulf of Mexico lest the "New World Order" tries an amphibious invasion from the Caribbean.

Mutant Q,

I can't stop laughing. Still, that would definitely be the opinion of people outside of Texas. And, as we all know, the truth is usually in the middle, but a lot of conflicts are based on extreme perceptions completely unrelated to facts.

I love it though. It would still fit right in with the motivations driving the forces outside of the Second Republic of Texas.

CC

I've said it before…

Northern Italy looks wonderful this time of century!

Okay, going back to the ORIGINAL question: If Texas separated to form its own country, including other states, I'm not sure that you have the breakdown very well. Oklahoma and Texas don't really seem to like each other all that much… but let's say they're in, just for the sake of discussion. I would also say that parts of New Mexico would join us… if not all of it. It already feels like a poor step-child to much of the Union, anyway, and we would want Los Alamos, White Sands, and other key military installations in that state. It would also give us a better buffer between the West Coast.

We would definitely be more likely to militarize the Mexican border, but that would just be to keep a better watch on Mexico and make sure they don't get any ideas. The truth is, too many people along the border get too much money from our relationship, and I think those parties would continue to feather each other's nests (if you get my meaning). So, I think the very first thing we'd do is (somehow) get a navy together and -- probably working with Mexico -- take control of the Gulf. This would allow us to trade with Europe, the Americas and Canada.

As for outright conflicts, I think they would happen up around the northern borders of Arkansas and Oklahoma, as well as on our Eastern borders.

MMitchell/Kyoteblue,

Ok then. Despite so many things in common with Texas, Oklahoma doesn't join, but parts of NM do (or are taken).

What about Arkansas and Northern Louisiana? Are the geographical boundaries of my Greater Texas that illogical?

If faced with the choice of dealing with portions of federal government (civil or military) centered in the East and North, would any Texas neighbors side with the Lone Star State?

Or have I missed the mark by that much?

CC

THIS is a much more interesting topic than the DC nuked one. i too am a native TEXAN, now transplanted to northern VA, but still a TEXAN.

and i agree with IRISHSERB.

LORD! this is a scenario with lots of gaming potential.

TEXAS and OKLAHOMA united under TEXAS? LOL, i cannot even begin to see this happening with a deadly serious version of the TEXAS/OU game being played out with firearms and extremely colorful language.

do not remember who sent the pix of those IG conversions (viewed above), but, that in itself was cool.

DAWGIE

"TEXAS and OKLAHOMA united under TEXAS? LOL,"

So, the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" wouldn't help at all? :)

CC

Dawgie,

Funny I am a native of Northern VA (Fairfax) and now am a transplant in Austin. :)

I think that the most likely scenario, based on world history, is not that Texas actively breaks away, but rather has to do something when a bloated, heavily-centralized Federal gov't collapses under its own weight, and economic basketcases like California and Massachusetts dive into anarchy.

Eastern New Mexico would join, as they culturally belong to the Panhandle, anyway. Oklahoma would be a close ally, though the state governments would keep each other at arm's length.

The Mexican border would actually be relatively quiet; a collapse of the U.S. economy would keep most illegals home, and most drug cartels squabbling over a sharply-diminished market. Most conflict would actually be naval, in the Gulf of Mexico, as minor players scrap over drilling rights.

Lucius: "The Mexican border would actually be relatively quiet; a collapse of the U.S. economy would keep most illegals home, and most drug cartels squabbling over a sharply-diminished market. Most conflict would actually be naval, in the Gulf of Mexico, as minor players scrap over drilling rights."

Now, why didn't I think of that outcome!

Awesome. Very creative and insightful. I like people that think "outside the box". Thanks.

CC

Hiya Triathlete2000, I live in Austin as well as does dmclellan. Of course, I may already know you I just can't translate the forum handle back to a name

Dave

Okay, so we have the United States under martial law/military control, the republic of Texas (and eastern N. Mexico), and an Independent oklahoma? What about the states up north, The Dakotas, Montana, Idaho or Minnesota, do they break away, what about the south east – a new "Confederacy" maybe, New England, the mid-west, the west coast? I'm just kind of curious who the players might be.

If the situation were unstable enough that Texas could go independent without immediate response from the "Federals", I'm guessing that there would be a some additional break-up of the US. My feeling is that New England and the midwest would stay more or less unified, and that some portion of the south east coastal states as well. But as you go west, regional differences make the decrees of the East less favorable, so I'm guessing some portion of the western states go independent because the East can't stop it.

I would expect a significant portion of the Navy to stay under control of the East, and to maintain a significant force in the gulf, so that initially, the Carribean isn't too wild (though over time that could/would change).

What will happen to US soldiers in the US and over seas that are from the new nation of Texas, mutany, detention camps, or will they be free to go home? The same question for non-Texans deployed in at Texas bases?

And, who are the factions struggling for control in Texas?

My fellow Texas residents above have put their finger on it -- this state is too cheap to ever opt for independence. The original Republic was dirt poor and sold out its sovereignity to the USA as fast as it could to pay off debts and get away from the responsibilities of independence. The current state, with its chronically underfunded education, health, and infrastructure mandates, would never want to pay the costs on nationhood and the majority of the residents would not consent to paying the taxes required either. Texas has been suckling at the federal teat too long to quit now. Plus no one in their right mind would want the current band of bozo legislators and executives actually ruling us at a national level!

If it DID happen, I'd want to trade homes with someone in New England or the Pac NW or the upper Midwest, I believe.

Good crazy sci-fi wargaming potential, though!

IrishSerb,

I love those questions.

Okay. Here's what I thought initially . . .

The TX, OK, AR and NLA block would create a choke-hold on ship traffic going from the Gulf up the Mississippi, to force an anti-US alliance from the Midwest states.

The SE (except FL) would revert to a Confederacy of sorts, leaving the northern states East of the Mississippi as sole supporters of the Union government.

California would try to expand into several other states (AZ, NM, CO, NV, WA, OR) to create a Pacific League of sorts.

Utah would stand on its own, as a neutral state, waiting for a return of the former political structure.

As to what would happen to US troops in those territories, I guess that could vary from territory to territory. However, I would imagine it would follow a pattern similar to what troops did in the aftermath of the breakdown of the USSR.

But, as pointed out by others above, this original plan may need a lot of revision.

The interesting maps I found and posted on the DC thread also point to the need of a re-think in what the potential players would be:

TMP link

CC

In a chaotic situation like that, money will not be the currency of choice. Weapons, ammo, food, water, etc. will have to do for a while.

USSR Rubles were worthless for a while, until the secessionist republics started printing their own.

I imagine the the British Pound went through something similar, as the American colonies coalesced into the United States – though each State (even individual banks) seems to have printed their own.

CC

I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Ayes of Texas, a novel about the battle for independence of the Second Texas Republic (complete with a refurbished battleship Texas!):

link

I don't know how well it aged--it was written in the early '80s, and I haven't read it since the late '80s, but I thought it was interesting at the time.

EDIT: Oh, and there are two more books in the series.

The TX, OK, AR and NLA block would create a choke-hold on ship traffic going from the Gulf up the Mississippi, to force an anti-US alliance from the Midwest states.

We will withhold fresh water from you. Who will force us to do anything? When your bones are done bleaching in the sun we will come and take what we want.

picture

picture

picture

Cyrus: "When your bones are done bleaching in the sun we will come and take what we want."

LOL. I love it. That's the spirit!!!

CC

CC,
Thanks! I enjoy these topics and try to respond in a spirit that might typify another point-of-view i.e. looking at your scenario from the Midwest out. The demands, world-wide, for fresh water are enormous and will only continue to grow.

@ kyoteblue,
Yes, it does, but imagine the demands for water even a decade from now in your area and how precious it may become. You may have missed CC's thread here:

TMP link

CC, keep up the good, thought provoking, work and I hope others will respond in the spirit of the thread. How do you think your region would respond?

I think a RoT after a US fall would be plagued by guerilla warfare from Aztlan seperatists and terrorists. So much so that it would hinder them from becoming a viable nation. I think New England & the Pacific Northwest have the best chances of maintaining any semblence of nationhood after the fall of the US. The rest of us will suffer under what will become broken poor republics, a plethora of little Haitis. However an Aztlan in the southwest will probably rise and prosper, at least for a short period until colonial forces from China or Russia show up.

According to the Car Wars 'future history' "Oklahoma and Texas declared independence on August 9th (Louisiana on the 10th), 2000, and the three formed a loose alliance known as the Free Oil States."

And don't forget about the Texas Rangers (the law enforcers, not the baseball team): "The Texas Rangers, elite military police/commandos, are very efficient; local police are usually less efficient but friendlier."

Get yourself a copy of "The AADA Road Atlas and Survival Guide Volume Six: The Free Oil States," for more good future history fun info. Sadly, I believe it is oop, so I clutch my cherished copy all the harder.

Check out this map:

link

Dan

That is a fun map.

It is nice to see efforts of others who do not just focus on a US view…I am an American so please no wadding of panties…I just mean to say, even I am guilty of focusing my view from home…mostly because this is what I know.

I like it.

Although I am not sure what is coming out of Mexico. The big M is having some serious issues as of today with crime and pollution, I wonder "what" is making the movement arrows on the map move? Mutants…beastmen…zombies?

With all the infighting that would happen in Texas in the early stages, of all the different groups wanting to take control, or fighting others who they don't want them in control, religious beliefs, ethnic beliefs, governmental beliefs. It would end up something like Bosnia. Mexico would see and opportunity to take back parts of Texas for the oil, to support their own country and economy and their somewhat Navy would block Texas from trying to get in too far in the gulf for the oil field out there.

Northern Arkansas would most likely not be part of this union, another love hate relationship like Oklahoma, I lived in Arkansas for many years and most of their thoughts back when Texas talk about leaving the union before was and I quote " good luck, good ridden"

Plus Texas would have a hard time eating, considering most of the corn, wheat, potato, and alike that Texas consumes are grown up here in the north, I heard boiled western tumble weed is mighty tasty, we would just blockade such food to Texas the small things we take for granted. A couple of good droughts in a row and Texas would be in deep trouble.

I did a Beasmstrike game with Texas succeeding from the US after a third ACW. When Mexico invaded, the Texicoians asked a rearmed USA for support and troops.