An odd scenario - Mexican Republic invites Polish exiles and immigrants to Texas in 1830s?

raharris1973

Well-known member
What if the Mexican Republic, by 1832 perhaps getting a little concerned with the growing Anglo-American community in Texas and its loyalty, decides that recruiting a more diverse immigrant stream than just this one connected to the Republic next door is a good idea.

Mexican leadership sees opportunity in Poland, which by 1831, just had an attempted national rising crushed by Russia. The Poles are Catholic and non-American, good qualifications for immigration to northern Mexico, and many are in exile post rebellion in countries like France or Britain and may be looking for a new place to settle down. Doubtless many more Poles at home do not relish a future under Russian rule. Some Poles have money, most do not. There are some international charities, mainly French-based, devoted to Poles that date back to the rebellion of 30-31, which can also help fund migrants passage and start up costs. Some of the Poles have military experience which has potential value even though their rebellion lost, c'mon, they held out well against a far larger Russia.

So what if advertising for Mexican Texas is done, and contacts are made, starting in 1832, and between then and 1836, some several thousand Poles including people from all walks of life, nobility, farmers, tradesmen, intellectuals, some clergy, soldiers, have migrated to Texas.

How might this new community factor in to the Texas revolution, especially if a contingent of them are hired on as part of the Mexican Army garrison when they immigrate? Might some Polish Texas community members spread out to other Mexican provinces across the Rio Grande, like Tamaulipas or Nuevo León, or west to Nuevo Mexico, or California? Should we expect them to be more loyal to the Mexican central government, or find common ground with the Texas rebels? Would they have objections to slavery practiced by Anglo-American neighbors, or assimilate into acceptance of it and participation in it if in an Anglo-Texan rebellion wins and that's the legal order in the new Texan republic?
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member
What if the Mexican Republic, by 1832 perhaps getting a little concerned with the growing Anglo-American community in Texas and its loyalty, decides that recruiting a more diverse immigrant stream than just this one connected to the Republic next door is a good idea.

Mexican leadership sees opportunity in Poland, which by 1831, just had an attempted national rising crushed by Russia. The Poles are Catholic and non-American, good qualifications for immigration to northern Mexico, and many are in exile post rebellion in countries like France or Britain and may be looking for a new place to settle down. Doubtless many more Poles at home do not relish a future under Russian rule. Some Poles have money, most do not. There are some international charities, mainly French-based, devoted to Poles that date back to the rebellion of 30-31, which can also help fund migrants passage and start up costs. Some of the Poles have military experience which has potential value even though their rebellion lost, c'mon, they held out well against a far larger Russia.

So what if advertising for Mexican Texas is done, and contacts are made, starting in 1832, and between then and 1836, some several thousand Poles including people from all walks of life, nobility, farmers, tradesmen, intellectuals, some clergy, soldiers, have migrated to Texas.

How might this new community factor in to the Texas revolution, especially if a contingent of them are hired on as part of the Mexican Army garrison when they immigrate? Might some Polish Texas community members spread out to other Mexican provinces across the Rio Grande, like Tamaulipas or Nuevo León, or west to Nuevo Mexico, or California? Should we expect them to be more loyal to the Mexican central government, or find common ground with the Texas rebels? Would they have objections to slavery practiced by Anglo-American neighbors, or assimilate into acceptance of it and participation in it if in an Anglo-Texan rebellion wins and that's the legal order in the new Texan republic?
Hmm. Sounds quite intriguing!
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Alternate Polish settlement scheme around this time -

France's formulate in 1831, and importantly, put it into action in less than a year to beat Britain to the punch, to settle Western Australia, then not universally recognized as British or settled by the British (first settled in 1833). A nickname for the Western Australia region as the time was New Holland. As a source of willing settlers, beyond select French personnel, France sponsors Polish exiles, and names the colony it establishes around Perth, Albany, or the Swan River 'Nouvelle Pologne', which will have yet another name in Polish. If started in 1832 or very early 1833 it will preempt the British claim to the West Australia area.

Britain can accept that fait accompli, as it during this time has plenty of space to develop, it was round the same time just starting the first colonies in Victoria, South Australia, and organizing administration of relations for New Zealand. In this case the French can continue to develop Nouvelle Pologne and it can grow as a French-protected and French-dependent colony with Poles as the leading colonial settler element but other Europeans, and later Chinese, involved.

Or Britain decides it wants to fight for control of the whole of the Australian continent. That is a fight it should be able to win, and should lead to a larger colonial war, that could end up with Britain crushing the newborn French colony in Algeria, and sets Britain and the July Monarchy at odds with each other from a very early point.
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member
Alternate Polish settlement scheme around this time -

France's formulate in 1831, and importantly, put it into action in less than a year to beat Britain to the punch, to settle Western Australia, then not universally recognized as British or settled by the British (first settled in 1833). A nickname for the Western Australia region as the time was New Holland. As a source of willing settlers, beyond select French personnel, France sponsors Polish exiles, and names the colony it establishes around Perth, Albany, or the Swan River 'Nouvelle Pologne', which will have yet another name in Polish. If started in 1832 or very early 1833 it will preempt the British claim to the West Australia area.

Britain can accept that fait accompli, as it during this time has plenty of space to develop, it was round the same time just starting the first colonies in Victoria, South Australia, and organizing administration of relations for New Zealand. In this case the French can continue to develop Nouvelle Pologne and it can grow as a French-protected and French-dependent colony with Poles as the leading colonial settler element but other Europeans, and later Chinese, involved.

Or Britain decides it wants to fight for control of the whole of the Australian continent. That is a fight it should be able to win, and should lead to a larger colonial war, that could end up with Britain crushing the newborn French colony in Algeria, and sets Britain and the July Monarchy at odds with each other from a very early point.
Strongly following this discussion TL.
 

Buba

A total creep
The number of emigres who reached the "west" in 1832 is about 6000. Professional troublemakers, plotters and subversives, similar to that well known international terrorist Garibaldi.
If you want "normal" people to settle Texan steppes you have to move quickly, autumn/winter of 1831. Then you'd get farmers, not oath breaking officers in search of an army, trecherous politicians&buerocrats in search of a state.
Being mostly family-less, unless wives/brides trickle from Poland over time, I'd expect quite a few of such settlers to marry mestizas or mulattas. Good luck to Anglo racists pushing "one drop" or similar agendas ...
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
The number of emigres who reached the "west" in 1832 is about 6000. Professional troublemakers, plotters and subversives, similar to that well known international terrorist Garibaldi.
If you want "normal" people to settle Texan steppes you have to move quickly, autumn/winter of 1831. Then you'd get farmers, not oath breaking officers in search of an army, trecherous politicians&buerocrats in search of a state.
Being mostly family-less, unless wives/brides trickle from Poland over time, I'd expect quite a few of such settlers to marry mestizas or mulattas. Good luck to Anglo racists pushing "one drop" or similar agendas ...

Honestly both "normal" people from Poland and troublemakers would have their uses for the Mexican republic, for....reasons.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Honestly both "normal" people from Poland and troublemakers would have their uses for the Mexican republic, for....reasons.
The ‘troublemakers’ can be good for Texas if they have military experience or personal liquid wealth that could be taxed or used in service of Mexico. The fact they rebelled once before should not be an overwhelming concern for a Mexican regime, unlike a Spanish one. Catholic Protestant differences make it a reasonable bet they’d side more with Hispanic Tejanos than Anglo-Texians in any break.

‘Normal people’ / farmers should be equally available before and after 1831. You seemed to write as if emigration was only possible or easy when rebels held the Polish lands in 1830-31, and then it was impossible after Russia put down the revolt. But on the contrary, are we sure the Russians banned emigration or land sales by Poles and Lithuanians? Why would they object to seeing a reduction of native population in Vistulaland?

And were the Polish rebel authorities friendly to emigration during the fight? One would think they tried to have conscription and tried to keep young men in particular from leaving the country in the fight of its life.
 

Buba

A total creep
They had military experience, up to commanding more troops than Mexico had.
Money? Not so much ...

I was focusing on the Great Emigration, on the people who left the country after the fall of the rebellion. That's what you asked about. By spring 1832 90% - the lower classes, the rank and file, the conscripts, had returned to Poland.
Don't move goalposts ...

Dirt poor Mexico, incapable of paying for transport from Europe, enticing people to abandon their homes/jobs and settle in a desert where wolves howl and indians prowl ... or even worse, unpaid State Officials ... yeah, I can see a stampede forming
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
They had military experience, up to commanding more troops than Mexico had.
Money? Not so much ...

I was focusing on the Great Emigration, on the people who left the country after the fall of the rebellion. That's what you asked about. By spring 1832 90% - the lower classes, the rank and file, the conscripts, had returned to Poland.
Don't move goalposts ...

Dirt poor Mexico, incapable of paying for transport from Europe, enticing people to abandon their homes/jobs and settle in a desert where wolves howl and indians prowl ... or even worse, unpaid State Officials ... yeah, I can see a stampede forming
I bow to your superior knowledge of the Great Emigration. I guess a much larger group than 6,000 left Poland right after the uprising failed, but had to return soon from exile to be near their family and village support systems to survive.
 

Buba

A total creep
I bow to your superior knowledge of the Great Emigration. I guess a much larger group than 6,000 left Poland right after the uprising failed, but had to return soon from exile to be near their family and village support systems to survive.
My knowledge comes from reading the Polish wiki yesterday :)
In school I was NOT told that ...

According to quickly googled Polish sources (suspect by default, as this is part of Polish National Mythos), some 50k left the country, but c.9k reached France etc., the rest going home. I've also seen the number 20k mentioned ...

I retract my previous asspull of 6k - let us make it 10k. Upper and middle class, few "peasants" among them.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
My knowledge comes from reading the Polish wiki yesterday :)
In school I was NOT told that ...

According to quickly googled Polish sources (suspect by default, as this is part of Polish National Mythos), some 50k left the country, but c.9k reached France etc., the rest going home. I've also seen the number 20k mentioned ...

I retract my previous asspull of 6k - let us make it 10k. Upper and middle class, few "peasants" among them.
Yes,it was "Great Emigration",but maybe 20.000 left for good.
But,if 5.000 of them go to Mexico,they could hold Texas for Mexicans,at least in 1836.
Since some lancers was hired by England to fight carlists in spanish civil war,they could go to Mexico here instead.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Estimate of total Texas population on the eve of the rebellion in 1835 was about 35,000 - Population Growth from Early Texas Settlers - Texas Proud.

A few thousand, in the single-digit thousands, could conceivably make a difference.

The strength engaged on both sides of the Texas revolution was about 2,000 versus 6,500.


However, I will have to look back and reconsider my assumption that Polish immigrants would necessarily side with central Mexican authorities and against Anglo-Texians, seeing the struggle of 1835-1836 in Texas solely as a religious and racial war. That is how Mexicans, and many Americans, later came to see it, but was not necessarily how they saw it at the time.

Several other Mexican states besides Texas (which had the distinction of having Anglo-Protestant landholders, many owning slaves) also rebelled, even though they were populated by Catholics speaking Spanish or Amerindian languages (Mayan), at the same time, against Santa Anna making himself a dictator that year and taking a sharp turn towards conservatism and towards centralism over federalism.

The Poles could see rebellion as being the more 'pro-liberty' side. But, they could be a constituency in Texas quite opposed to either US annexation, or to slavery, and could be an armed and landowning presence enforcing Catholic equality in any independent Texas.
 

Buba

A total creep
The Poles of richer background owned serfs until 1807. They'd not find slavery particularly offending - so much like good old days back home ...
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Estimate of total Texas population on the eve of the rebellion in 1835 was about 35,000 - Population Growth from Early Texas Settlers - Texas Proud.

A few thousand, in the single-digit thousands, could conceivably make a difference.

The strength engaged on both sides of the Texas revolution was about 2,000 versus 6,500.


However, I will have to look back and reconsider my assumption that Polish immigrants would necessarily side with central Mexican authorities and against Anglo-Texians, seeing the struggle of 1835-1836 in Texas solely as a religious and racial war. That is how Mexicans, and many Americans, later came to see it, but was not necessarily how they saw it at the time.

Several other Mexican states besides Texas (which had the distinction of having Anglo-Protestant landholders, many owning slaves) also rebelled, even though they were populated by Catholics speaking Spanish or Amerindian languages (Mayan), at the same time, against Santa Anna making himself a dictator that year and taking a sharp turn towards conservatism and towards centralism over federalism.

The Poles could see rebellion as being the more 'pro-liberty' side. But, they could be a constituency in Texas quite opposed to either US annexation, or to slavery, and could be an armed and landowning presence enforcing Catholic equality in any independent Texas.
Then,5000 or so who would support Mexico would change result of war.
But,as you said,they could support rebellion ,too - in that case,we could have OTL History,but with strong polish minority in Texas.
That could change future History - for example,Texas taking polish refugees after WW2,and those refugees coming back after 1989 and changing Poland for better.


P.S if they remained loyal,they would probably not stop USA army in 1848 war/there would be war over Caliphornia,not Texas/ and nothing would change.
Unless...some good polish general,with polish officers leading local troops...it could work.USA army from 1848 was not tsar army,after all.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Even if Texan history did not go much differently, with the exception of more Polish Catholics among the founder population, there could be interesting downstream consequences. As it was in real life, Texas had enough eastern Germans, Poles, Czechs to introduce Polka. Poles did not have an experience with chattel slavery as practiced in America, and German immigrants arriving in the 19th century generally disdained the practice, but some of the Poles of the upper class had been beneficiaries of serfdom within living memory as @Buba, pointed out, so maybe they would imitate the American practice on their farms..

It would be ironic if some became plantation owners and some of their black slaves adopted some of their surnames, or at least the easier to pronounce ones like Kowalski, Kaminski, or Adamski, and then if they later took part in the great migration to northern cities like Minneapolis, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and of course, Chicago, if they were approved for jobs or housing, sight unseen, under the assumption they Polish white people. Pierogies and kielbasa could be added to the Texas and Chicago branch of 'soul food'.
 

Buba

A total creep
East of the Elbe Germany had serfdom - Prussia until 1807 or so, Sany - IIRC - 1832.
Austria was patchy - some areas had it, some not. I think the core usrtrian lands did not have it - but Galicia and Hungary did, up to the 1840s.
BTW - some of those middle/upper class Poles could had been from lands annexed by Russia, not from the Kingdom. Or had holdings on both sides of the Polish-Russian border. Same applies to having land or relatives in Galicia - in 1830 serf owners or with first hand experience.
 

ATP

Well-known member
East of the Elbe Germany had serfdom - Prussia until 1807 or so, Sany - IIRC - 1832.
Austria was patchy - some areas had it, some not. I think the core usrtrian lands did not have it - but Galicia and Hungary did, up to the 1840s.
BTW - some of those middle/upper class Poles could had been from lands annexed by Russia, not from the Kingdom. Or had holdings on both sides of the Polish-Russian border. Same applies to having land or relatives in Galicia - in 1830 serf owners or with first hand experience.
True.In Galicia it existed till 1846.
Now,some musing what could happened:
1.Poles support Mexico - Texas rebels lost in 1836.
Then,USA attack in 1848/gold in Caliphornia/
1A poles fight and repel them/not impossible/
USA come again about 1863,and win this time.poles lost most of their lands.
1B poles see writing on the Wall and betray Mexico - still important minority there.

2.Poles support rebels in 1836,they win quickly thanks to our ulans.We are important minority still.

Assuming,that poles were loyal to Mexico - nothing changed,except possible black poles.

Assuming,that they betrayed Mexico - poles as important minority,which lead to texan legion fighting for Poland in 1920,and more polish settlers there.

Poland still lost in 1939,FDR still gave us tio Sralin for nothing,but many polish soldiers settle in Texas after WW2.
After 1989 they come to Poland - and,thanks to them,Poland could avoid commie coming back to rule,or german agents.

Stronger,catholic Poland now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top