Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:55 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,610

Why did Texas want to be annexed by the United States?


It seems strange that an independent country would want to be annexed by another country*. I have read three reasons why Texas wanted to be annexed.
1) It was horribly in debt and traded sovereignty for having its debt paid. The lack of hard currency certainly hurt but annexation seems extreme to resolve a debt problem.
2) That Texas always intended to be a part of the United States. Then why was it a country for 10 years?
3) That Texas feared an invasion from Mexico. While the concerns were valid and the issues were not settled until 1848, two years after the annexation, couldn't Texas have been protected by a mutual-defense treaty with the US?




*I don't count Hawaii as "wanting" to be annexed by the United States but rather a result of voting laws favoring white land owners over natives, the Bayonet Constitution and deposing the Queen.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #2  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:03 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,824
Ask yourself where did Texans immigrate from? I think overwhelmingly from the U.S. so they thought themselves as Americans.
  #3  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:44 PM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,347
I mean Austria also got annexed by Germany willingly as well if you're looking for other examples.
  #4  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:51 PM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,357
At the time, the US was growing and the trend was to annex territories to become states. Texans wanted to hop on the bandwagon and not be left behind.
  #5  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:16 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
2) That Texas always intended to be a part of the United States. Then why was it a country for 10 years?
I'm a little fuzzy on exactly why Texas always intended to be a part of the U.S. All I know about that is that a majority of Texans favored annexation by the U.S. right from the moment that Texas declared itself independent from Mexico.

I can however answer why it remained a separate country for 10 years. The two major political parties in the mid 1830s were the Democrats and the Whigs (the Whigs would collapse in the 1850s), and both of these parties opposed the annexation of Texas into the U.S. Slavery was one of the issues. Texas was a large state and it was a slave state, and slavery had been becoming more and more of a contentious issue all through the 1800s. Neither party wanted to throw Texas into the middle of that turmoil.

The second issue was that Mexico initially refused to recognize the independence of Texas. Both the Democrats and the Whigs wanted to avoid a war with Mexico. As long as Texas was in a state of rebellion, the U.S. wasn't directly involved. As soon as the U.S. said that Texas belonged to them, that would put the U.S. and Mexico directly into confrontation over the issue.

Starting around 1840-ish, Texas managed to drag the United Kingdom into the issue, having the U.K. act as a mediator between Texas and Mexico in an effort to get Mexico to formally recognize the independence of Texas.

Also, while most Texans wanted to be part of the U.S., there were some Texans that preferred independence, and while all of this other political turmoil was going on, these Texans who wanted independence managed to kick up enough of a stink to make some of those in favor of annexation think twice about the deal, which further delayed things.

The U.K.'s involvement, plus some political wrangling by John Tyler and others, finally got things going and led to the eventual annexation of Texas into the U.S. But the whole process was a bit chaotic, which is why it took so long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
1) It was horribly in debt and traded sovereignty for having its debt paid. The lack of hard currency certainly hurt but annexation seems extreme to resolve a debt problem.
As for the debt issue, the Texas economy really took a dump around 1840 or so. Debt wasn't so much of an issue initially, but after 1840 or so it started to become a bigger issue, and added more pressure in favor of annexation as a way of dealing with the increasing debt problem.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 11-06-2019 at 04:22 PM.
  #6  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:20 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
2) That Texas always intended to be a part of the United States. Then why was it a country for 10 years?
Colonization of Texas by Americans started shortly after Mexican independence in 1821. Texas at the time was sparsely populated, and initially they were invited in by the local governments. By the time of the Texas War of Independence in 1836, conflicts over slavery (which had been prohibited by Mexico*) caused Mexico to outlaw further immigration. By that time, American colonists considerably outnumbered native Mexicans in the territory. They largely still felt loyalty to the US.

Immediately after the war the Anglo Texans were overwhelmingly for annexation and applied to the US. They were rejected largely because of political concerns that they might enter as several slave states and upset the balance between slave states and free states in the Senate. When the pro-slavery John Tyler succeeded to the Presidency in 1841, he began the process that eventually led to the annexation.

Quote:
3) That Texas feared an invasion from Mexico. While the concerns were valid and the issues were not settled until 1848, two years after the annexation, couldn't Texas have been protected by a mutual-defense treaty with the US?
See above. Texas was a potential political liability for the US. In any case, why would the US have wanted to risk war with Mexico over a foreign state?

* I find it ironic that although the Battle of the Alamo is often depicted as a fight for freedom, the only person actually freed by the battle was Joe, a slave owned by commander William Travis, who survived the battle and was liberated by the Mexicans. (A slave owned by Jim Bowie may also have been freed.)

Last edited by Colibri; 11-06-2019 at 04:29 PM.
  #7  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:39 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,984
Another thing to remember is that the Republic of Texas was a lot smaller than what would become the state of Texas, and Mexico never recognized Texas independence (Mexico felt the "republic" could be self-governing, but not fully independent.) The Texans wanted the area all the way west to the Rio Grande. There were additional battles between Mexico and Texas in 1842. Being a part of the U.S., with the U.S. Army protecting you, must have seemed like a good idea.
  #8  
Old 11-06-2019, 05:12 PM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
I mean Austria also got annexed by Germany willingly as well if you're looking for other examples.
That situation was just a tad more nuanced than you're letting on. While many people welcomed the Germans with open arms, many others, including those at the very highest levels of government, tried to obstruct or delay the annexation for as long as possible.
  #9  
Old 11-06-2019, 05:59 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 15,081
Slavery.

Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829, and was starting to put pressure to enforce this the 'Texas' part of Mexico. But if they joined the US, they could do so as a slave state, keep their slaves, and count on the US military to protect them if Mexico tried to enforce the abolution of slavery.
  #10  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:48 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,963
Another case of two countries joining voluntarily is Guanacaste and Costa Rica. When Central America declared independence, its states were defined by the revolutionaries: two such states were Costa Rica and Guanacaste. Thing is, while the two areas were clearly distinct, they also both had tiny populations (combined current population is 5M): Guanacaste proposed joining forces, Costa Rica happily accepted. They kept the name of the larger one as the name for the state, with Guanacaste becoming one of its provinces.

And that, my children, is why Costa Rica's coat of arms is so busy: it combines the previous two.

Last edited by Nava; 11-06-2019 at 11:49 PM.
  #11  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:13 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Another case of two countries joining voluntarily is Guanacaste and Costa Rica.
A similar thing happened between Panama and Colombia. Panama gained its independence from Spain in 1821 separately from Colombia in a bloodless revolt. (They basically bribed the Spanish troops to desert.) Being small, Panama asked to join the Republic of Gran Colombia (which also included what are now Venezuela and Ecuador) for protection from Spanish retaliation.
  #12  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:14 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,643
Another example: Newfoundland and Canada.

And, though it might not count as a democratic choice, the short-lived United Arab Republic.
  #13  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:22 AM
Horatio Hellpop is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jeju-si, S. Korea
Posts: 9,818
Possibly Tanzania as well, though it's unclear whether Tanganyika annexed Zanzibar or the other way around. Come to think of it, how DID Zanzibar benefit from that union?
  #14  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:59 AM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hellpop View Post
Possibly Tanzania as well, though it's unclear whether Tanganyika annexed Zanzibar or the other way around. Come to think of it, how DID Zanzibar benefit from that union?
Politics.
  #15  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:26 AM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
Slavery.

Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829, and was starting to put pressure to enforce this the 'Texas' part of Mexico. But if they joined the US, they could do so as a slave state, keep their slaves, and count on the US military to protect them if Mexico tried to enforce the abolution of slavery.
I was under the impression that some Confederates fled to Mexico after the Civil War with their slaves, and complied with their release several years afterwards.
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #16  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:50 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I was under the impression that some Confederates fled to Mexico after the Civil War with their slaves, and complied with their release several years afterwards.
There was an attempt to found Confederate colonies in Mexico after the war, under the French puppet emperor Maximilian. I don't know if they actually brought slaves with them. In any event, it didn't last long, since Maximilian fell to republican forces in 1867. The main place Confederates found refuge was Brazil, which still permitted slavery.

Last edited by Colibri; 11-07-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #17  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:42 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,263
Thanks, Colibri
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #18  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:08 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
Slavery.

Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829, and was starting to put pressure to enforce this the 'Texas' part of Mexico. But if they joined the US, they could do so as a slave state, keep their slaves, and count on the US military to protect them if Mexico tried to enforce the abolution of slavery.
OR as an independent republic they could have kept slavery. No need to join the US.
  #19  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:21 PM
Treppenwitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 1,031
As the initial question seems to have been largely answered, may I hijack slightly? I have a related question that this thread has prompted.

For years I used to work with a bunch of Texans – and lovely folks they were as well. Idiosyncratic, though. Their attitude to nationality, encapsulated by one of the younger guys, was thus: I’m Texan.

I wasn’t going to argue, so that was that.

But there was also a very specific claim which he made about the relationship between Texas and the US, which was this: Texas is the only state which has the right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union at any time. At the time I had no particular reason to question the statement (Though I suppose it raises a few questions like what is stopping any state from unilaterally withdrawing from the Union at any time? and: So in what way is the position of Texas different?) – but this thread seems to strongly suggest that when Texas joined the US, it wasn’t negotiating from a position of strength. For me, that makes the claim that Texas has a unique “Walk-away” clause seem rather implausible. What gives? Was I simply being BS’d?

j
  #20  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:31 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
OR as an independent republic they could have kept slavery. No need to join the US.
You seem to be ignoring the last part of the sentence. Texas had a population of 70,000 in 1840, while Mexico had a population of 7-8 million and the US a population of 17 million. After initial successes, Mexico lost the War of Texas Independence in large part due to bad generalship by Santa Anna and his capture by the Texan forces. If Mexico had gotten its act together, they most likely could have crushed the Texans. Mexico had successfully suppressed a rebellion in Yucatan just before the Texan revolt. Joining the US was the best way for Texas to defend itself against being re-incorporated into Mexico.
  #21  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:35 PM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
Slavery.

Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829, and was starting to put pressure to enforce this the 'Texas' part of Mexico. But if they joined the US, they could do so as a slave state, keep their slaves, and count on the US military to protect them if Mexico tried to enforce the abolution of slavery.
Sigh. I love revisionist history.

Texas did NOT join because of slavery. They joined because of a combination of things. First, Mexico was getting ready to try and grab them back. Second, the blithering idiot Mirabeau B. Lamar, who was the second President of the Republic, pretty much bankrupted the state with his wars against the Indians. As a result, Texas would not have been able to mount a decent defense against Mexico.
  #22  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:45 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treppenwitz View Post
But there was also a very specific claim which he made about the relationship between Texas and the US, which was this: Texas is the only state which has the right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union at any time. At the time I had no particular reason to question the statement (Though I suppose it raises a few questions like what is stopping any state from unilaterally withdrawing from the Union at any time? and: So in what way is the position of Texas different?) – but this thread seems to strongly suggest that when Texas joined the US, it wasn’t negotiating from a position of strength. For me, that makes the claim that Texas has a unique “Walk-away” clause seem rather implausible. What gives? Was I simply being BS’d?

j
It's just BS. Here's the text of the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States of the United States Congress, approved March 1, 1845. It contains no such language. (Here's the follow-up Joint Resolution for the Admission of the State of Texas into the Union from December of that same year; it's even shorter.) Both those documents are courtesy of the Texas state government (the Texas State Library and Archives).

Note that both those documents specify that Texas is to be admitted "on an equal footing with the existing States", so either every state has the right to unilaterally secede, or none of them do, but Texas isn't and can't be unique in that regard. Oh, and the United States Supreme Court has actually ruled on the constitutionality of unilateral secession by a state, holding that
Quote:
When, therefore, [the state in question] became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between [that particular state] and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
And which state was SCOTUS specifically discussing? Well, the name of that decision was Texas v. White.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #23  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:46 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treppenwitz View Post
But there was also a very specific claim which he made about the relationship between Texas and the US, which was this: Texas is the only state which has the right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union at any time. At the time I had no particular reason to question the statement (Though I suppose it raises a few questions like what is stopping any state from unilaterally withdrawing from the Union at any time? and: So in what way is the position of Texas different?) – but this thread seems to strongly suggest that when Texas joined the US, it wasn’t negotiating from a position of strength. For me, that makes the claim that Texas has a unique “Walk-away” clause seem rather implausible. What gives? Was I simply being BS’d?
That particular claim is bullshit. Texas did have a special provision in the annexation resolution allowing it to divide into as many as five states after admission.

Quote:
New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
Whether or not this could be done unilaterally, or would require Congressional approval, and whether this right was nullified by Texas's secession and subsequent readmission, are a matter of dispute.
  #24  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:49 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Oh, and the United States Supreme Court has actually ruled on the constitutionality of unilateral secession by a state,
And in practical terms, the issue was decisively decided in the matter of Grant vs. Lee, 1865.
  #25  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:51 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
Sigh. I love revisionist history.

Texas did NOT join because of slavery.
Sorry, that's actual history. Slavery was a major reason for the Texas rebellion, as well as its wish to join the US.
  #26  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:55 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,610
So the US was not willing to defend Texas as a military ally BUT itwas willing to go to war with Mexico 2 years later. That does not make sense.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 11-07-2019 at 01:58 PM.
  #27  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:55 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
They joined because of a combination of things. First, Mexico was getting ready to try and grab them back. Second, the blithering idiot Mirabeau B. Lamar, who was the second President of the Republic, pretty much bankrupted the state with his wars against the Indians. As a result, Texas would not have been able to mount a decent defense against Mexico.
Regarding this, Texas made its first requests for annexation immediately after it became independent, before it became bankrupted. The reason it was not annexed earlier was due to US politics over slavery.
  #28  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:58 PM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Sorry, that's actual history. Slavery was a major reason for the Texas rebellion, as well as its wish to join the US.
It was half and half. Texans wanted to have their cake and eat it too with having both slavery but also keeping the free land the Mexicans promised them as becoming part of the United States would start meaning taxes from them.

Then there were several rebellions in major Mexican states over the Santa Ana throwing out the constitution and basically becoming dictator, and then he brutally fought through the rebelling states on his way to Texas which really didn't goad well for the Texans which some still wanted to remain part of Mexico albeit with slavery still.

Saying it was solely slavery discounts how much of a brutal dick Santa Ana was.
  #29  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:00 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
But that's not the point I was replying to. The point was about how US allowed slavery and mexico did not - not about Texas defending itself.
The Republic of Texas did, of course, re-institute slavery once it became independent. But the only way it could preserve slavery in the long run was to join the US to defend it against Mexico.
  #30  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:01 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
Saying it was solely slavery discounts how much of a brutal dick Santa Ana was.
Who said it was solely slavery?
  #31  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:06 PM
Treppenwitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 1,031
MEBuckner, Colibri - thank you.

j
  #32  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:09 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,211
As for the idea that annexation was a way of resolving the debt problems of the Republic of Texas, maybe I'm missing something here, but that Joint Resolution I linked to specifically says:
Quote:
Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.
(Emphasis added.) That does say the new State of Texas was permitted to retain its own public lands* (except for fortifications and naval dockyards and the like) and specifically that it could sell off the aforesaid vacant public lands to settle the state's debts. But obviously the independent Republic of Texas didn't need to join the Union to do that, and could have done that all by itself as a sovereign republic.

*Note that if you look at the "All Federal and Indian Lands" map on this page there's still relatively little in the way of federally-owned land in Texas compared to the states farther west, and even compared to many states to the east of Texas.
  #33  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:18 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
That particular claim is bullshit. Texas did have a special provision in the annexation resolution allowing it to divide into as many as five states after admission.



Whether or not this could be done unilaterally, or would require Congressional approval, and whether this right was nullified by Texas's secession and subsequent readmission, are a matter of dispute.
The only other actual oddity that I know of with respect to Texas' annexation is that all the unallocated land within the state boundaries didn't pass to Federal ownership on annexation, but rather remained state-owned land.

Last edited by bump; 11-07-2019 at 02:19 PM.
  #34  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:28 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So the US was not willing to defend Texas as a military ally BUT itwas willing to go to war with Mexico 2 years later. That does not make sense.
The political equation had changed. Jackson and Van Buren weren't willing to upset the apple cart by admitting Texas. The presidential election of 1844 was fought largely on the issue of whether or not to admit Texas. Tyler (who succeeded to the presidency after the death of Harrison) was pro-slavery. Although he had been elected on a Whig ticket, he had been expelled from the party for vetoing Whig-supported legislation, and had little political support of his own. He promoted admission of Texas in order to help his chances of being elected to a term of his own. He failed, but the new president-elect, Polk, who was an expansionist, supported annexation. A joint resolution to admit Texas was passed and signed by Tyler, but the annexation took place under Polk.

Polk went out of his way to provoke a war with Mexico by sending troops into a disputed border area of Texas. When Mexican forces attacked, he used this as a pretext to start a war in order to seize California and other Mexican territories.
  #35  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:23 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
As for the idea that annexation was a way of resolving the debt problems of the Republic of Texas, maybe I'm missing something here, but that Joint Resolution I linked to specifically says:
Texas sold its northwest section to the US for $10M specifically to pay off debts as part of the Compromise of 1850. Since this is not part of the treaty of annexation and Texas could have sold their rights to that land and still stay independent I don't think the debt really was the reason for annexation.
  #36  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:45 PM
Hypnagogic Jerk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rouyn-Noranda, Québec
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
Another example: Newfoundland and Canada.
I'm not sure we can really consider Newfoundland to have been independent at the time. It had been a self-governing dominion, so somewhat independent though that depends on the actual definition used, but had reverted to direct rule from London at the time when it joined Canada.
  #37  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:27 PM
yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,981
There was also the Vermont Republic, which lasted for 14 years, longer than the Texas Republic. They pretty much wanted to be in the Union, too. It just took that long to iron out the difficulties such as New York's claims to the region, and balancing a new free state of Vermont by admitting slave state Kentucky at about the same time to make it palatable to the southern states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Republic

Last edited by yabob; 11-07-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #38  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:44 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
1) It was horribly in debt and traded sovereignty for having its debt paid. The lack of hard currency certainly hurt but annexation seems extreme to resolve a debt problem.
The union of the independent countries of England and Scotland in 1707, which shared a monarch but otherwise had separate legislatures and other governmental functions, was in large part motivated on Scotland's part by the financial disaster caused by the failure of the Darien scheme, Scotland's colony in Panama.

Last edited by Colibri; 11-08-2019 at 03:46 PM.
  #39  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:36 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
The union of the independent countries of England and Scotland in 1707, which shared a monarch but otherwise had separate legislatures and other governmental functions, was in large part motivated on Scotland's part by the financial disaster caused by the failure of the Darien scheme, Scotland's colony in Panama.
I think that was private debt, not national debt though. Some politicians' personal post-Darien financial difficulties, along with threats to their personal wealth like the English Alien Act 1705, seem to have made them more susceptible to voting away their country's sovereignty. The People were not impressed.
  #40  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:36 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
I think that was private debt, not national debt though. Some politicians' personal post-Darien financial difficulties, along with threats to their personal wealth like the English Alien Act 1705, seem to have made them more susceptible to voting away their country's sovereignty. The People were not impressed.
It's kind of moot, since the collapse of the scheme had drained Scotland of an estimated quarter of its liquid assets and it was in the Scottish national interest to pay off the debt. Not only the wealthy but many poorer people had invested in the Company of Scotland that initiated the Darien scheme. The Act of Union included the payment of The Equivalent, a sum of about 400,000 pounds:

Quote:
it is now generally regarded as part of a political bargain designed for other purposes as well, such as the costs of winding up the Company of Scotland which had undertaken the Darien scheme – shareholders in and creditors of the Company were to receive 58.6% of The Equivalent[1]
Regardless of whether the debt was public or private, the fact that Scotland was essentially bankrupt was a major motivation for the Act of Union.

Last edited by Colibri; 11-08-2019 at 05:42 PM.
  #41  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:13 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Regardless of whether the debt was public or private, the fact that Scotland was essentially bankrupt was a major motivation for the Act of Union.
But the 6 year gap between the Darien disaster and the union shows that this debt did not cause the state to actually fail. Many Scottish politicians clearly believed that Scotland could continue its independence. Coercion on the part of England was perhaps an even greater motivation.
  #42  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:18 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Texas sold its northwest section to the US for $10M specifically to pay off debts as part of the Compromise of 1850. Since this is not part of the treaty of annexation and Texas could have sold their rights to that land and still stay independent I don't think the debt really was the reason for annexation.
I'm not sure I quite understand this. Are you saying the US would have been willing to buy that land from an independent Texas for enough to pay off Texas's debts?
  #43  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:43 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
But the 6 year gap between the Darien disaster and the union shows that this debt did not cause the state to actually fail. Many Scottish politicians clearly believed that Scotland could continue its independence. Coercion on the part of England was perhaps an even greater motivation.
I said that the debt was a major factor, not the only one. And the fact that England was willing to pony up 400,000 pounds shows that financial concerns were a major issue.
  #44  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:46 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I'm not sure I quite understand this. Are you saying the US would have been willing to buy that land from an independent Texas for enough to pay off Texas's debts?
This seems to be just grasping at straws to find reasons why Texas might have been able to maintain its independence, even after the multiple reasons it desired annexation have been explained.
  #45  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:01 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
This seems to be just grasping at straws to find reasons why Texas might have been able to maintain its independence, even after the multiple reasons it desired annexation have been explained.
That's what I think, but I wanted to give St. Cad a chance to explain in case I was missing something.
  #46  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:01 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,897
Another factor was that Texan independence was pretty tenuous.

Mexico was ruled by Santa Anna and he decided to personally lead Mexican forces into battle against the Texans. It didn't go well and Santa Anna ended up captured by the Texans. Santa Anna signed a treaty with Texas while he was in captivity.

But back in Mexico City, the government didn't accept the validity of the treaty. They said that Santa Anna no longer held his authority as President while he was a POW (and it's a reasonable argument).

The Mexican government also announced that Santa Anna was deposed as President. Santa Anna returned to Mexico anyway and worked on returning to power. The political chaos meant that while Mexico did not officially recognize Texan independence, it didn't send troops to try to reassert control over Texas. But the Texans were aware that at some point the authorities in Mexico City might change their policy, perhaps viewing a renewed war against the Texans as a cause that would unite various opposing factions.
  #47  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:57 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Texas sold its northwest section to the US for $10M specifically to pay off debts as part of the Compromise of 1850. Since this is not part of the treaty of annexation and Texas could have sold their rights to that land and still stay independent I don't think the debt really was the reason for annexation.
However, that area was disputed between Texas and Mexico before the Mexican War resolved the issue. The US would hardly have paid Texas for lands that Texas didn't have clear control over. Of course, Mexico continued to claim that all of Texas was part of Mexico, so any attempt by the US to purchase and occupy that land would have led to war anyway - as did the US attempt to occupy the land south of the Nueces after annexation.

Last edited by Colibri; 11-09-2019 at 02:59 AM.
  #48  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:22 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Mexican government also announced that Santa Anna was deposed as President. Santa Anna returned to Mexico anyway and worked on returning to power. The political chaos meant that while Mexico did not officially recognize Texan independence, it didn't send troops to try to reassert control over Texas.
Was the population difference really 7-8 million: 70,000?

That sounds completely unwinnable. I'm wondering why Mexico allowed this "independence". The numerical difference is so vast that no individual battle or even campaign loss would matter.
  #49  
Old 11-09-2019, 07:09 AM
jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Was the population difference really 7-8 million: 70,000?

That sounds completely unwinnable. I'm wondering why Mexico allowed this "independence". The numerical difference is so vast that no individual battle or even campaign loss would matter.
not everything comes down to simple numbers.
  #50  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:35 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Was the population difference really 7-8 million: 70,000?

That sounds completely unwinnable. I'm wondering why Mexico allowed this "independence". The numerical difference is so vast that no individual battle or even campaign loss would matter.
Mexicans felt the political struggles over control of the government in Mexico City was more important than control of what they saw as a minor breakaway state off on the edge of the country.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017