After all the resources the US spent on getting Texas its independence from Mexico, why did it take them ten years to accept Texas in to the union?
i am recalling my history classes… the debate was about admitting texas as free state or slave state. thus large hangup in time.i think this was sorted out in the famous Compromise of 1850:
The U.S. never officially endorsed the Texans that over threw Mexico.
It would have risked war with a neighboring country.
Politically it made sense to wait a few years to admit Texas as a state. Also, the slave issue that Bardos mentioned.
Were arms given to the texas rebels? Probably so. But, quietly and under the table. U.S. troops did not openly support them.
No cite. But, history was my favorite subject in school. The Alamo and the Texans were covered almost every year in junior high and high school history classes.
It seems like the OP is thinking the USA officially helped Texas win it’s independence.
Mexico actually invited settlers into it’s northern lands. The land was sparsely settled and those “troublesome Indians” would be kept in check. For example you will notice the Mormans settled in Utah, then part of Mexico.
It was only after awhile, the South realize the Missouri Compromise left them with little land to create new slave states from. Up until California’s admission, the balance had always been one slave state and one free state.
After Arkansas was admitted it became rather urgent to have some way of getting more slave states otherwise the balance in the US Senate would be in jeopardy.
But long before this, the Texans already disliked being ruled by Mexicans, even though it was the Mexicans that encouraged the settlement. So when Texas rebelled there was mixed feelings. In the South, the opportunity for more slave states was seen. In North, the idea of one part of a country breaking away without permission was not something to be encouraged. But even in the North there was a strong sense of Manifest Destiny, which was basically the USA should rule from the Atlantic to the Pacific. (Though some forms of Manifest Destiny were more extreme saying the USA should rule all of North America)
After Texas achieved defacto independence from Mexico it enjoyed not only good relations with the US but France and Britian too. This was concerning for everyone.
Mexico considered Texas still a part of Mexico. A rebellious part, but still part. The USA didn’t like the fact that Texas has such potential. The South wanted more slave states. The North was afraid Texas, which ran up a huge debt, could be occupied by France or Britian till that debt was repaid.
Texas being somewhat weak by war and debt played everyone off against each other. Telling the US if Texas wasn’t annexed it might just allow Britian to occupy it till the debt was satisfied, even to the point of abolishing slavery.
Long story short, the USA eventually got around to seeing an independent but weak and in debt Texas was worse than risking war with Mexico. After the USA annexed Texas almost everyone expected war with Mexico. But that never came. Mexico severed diplomatic ties.
The war came later over the exact boundaries of Texas.
I always wondered what would have happened if Texas had still been independent during the civil war. Could they have stayed neutral?
It’s Ironic Texas was an independent republic. They join the US in 1845 and then fight a war to get out 15 years later.
Texas was never a big slave state like Georgia or Virgina. A few Southerners brought slaves with them when they moved to Texas. But, I don’t recall it being a big part of the state at all.
In 1860, out of a total population of about 604,000, about 182,500 were slaves, so about 30% of the population was slave. This was about the same percentage as Arkansas (26%), North Carolina (33%), Tennessee (25%) and Virginia (31%).
Remember that the Texas we know today, Dallas and Fort Worth, San Antionio, El Paso. and so on, grew with the Frontier. Texian population before the Cicvil War was concentrated between the Louisiana border and Houston, the rich croplands of East Texas, not greatly different than Mississippi and Louisiana in climate and culture at the time.
Their personality.
I always thought Texas was a big slave state. From what i understand, the top part of the state was given to Oklahoma just so Texas could stay below the Mason Dixon line.
That makes sense.
I was trying to imagine why a rancher would need slaves. Cattlemen carry guns to protect livestock from predators and themselves from snakes. Giving a slave a gun and a horse would be a bad idea. They’d shoot you and leave. 
You’re thinking of the Oklahoma Panhandle, which was part of Texas but was north of the line set up during the Missouri Compromise. In order to comply with the Missouri Compromise law, Texas surrendered the land. Texas also surrendered what’s now New Mexico as part of the same deal, but for a different reason.
Aside: this may be true, but it hasn’t stopped folks from trying similar things over history, particularly in medieval Muslim societies. Wiki has a brief discussion of military slavery.
Though in the two main cases cited in the Wiki article- the Mamluks of Egypt and the Janissaries of the Ottomans- they were special corps of warriors recruited from foreign and underclass slaves, usually as children. They were in effect offered the choice of being vassals rather than slaves, and only the ones that most strongly assimilated and proved their worth and loyalty went on to become full-fledged members of their corps.
On the other hand, in the late days of the US Civil War, the Confederacy did actually flirt with having slaves serve as soldiers. This led to cognitive dissonance in the South and derision in the North:
Impetuous Charge of the First Colored Rebel Regiment
Perhaps that last sentence should be worded Texas surrendered any claim to what’s now New Mexico. The Republic of Texas never had control of New Mexico, or of the western half of present day Texas for that matter. Any Anglo Texians who dared venture to Santa Fe, even if on a peaceful trading mission, were usually arrested and their goods confiscated by Mexican officials.
If I recall my obligatory Texas-history class in 7th grade, the biggest reason was the lack of a Free state to counterbalance Texas being a Slave state. The counterbalance was eventually Iowa, admitted to the Union a day short of a year after Texas was.
And yes, most of the population back then was largely in East Texas. I recall being taught the main reason for the capital being moved from Houston to Austin was that it was along the frontier and could accommodate the anticipated population move.
The US had a standard recipe for chili voted in by Congress in the late 1700s, (originally from NYC), and accepting Texan’s chili into the Union would have required a constitutional amendment.
I always liked the theory that it took so long because we’d have to figure out how to add all the stars from the US states we’d be annexing into the Republic.
As for New Mexico, there were some very real reasons back then, but now it’s just fun to joke that we gave up the claim to New Mexico because… well… have you BEEN there?! (Actually, I’ve been there. Lots and lots and LOTS and LOTS of good hiking country. And a volcano. For some random reason.)
But yeah, everything is bigger in Texas, including, for a while, our idea of what our borders comprised versus what everybody else in the world thought our borders comprised. 
IIRC, it included parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nevada, and what is now Northern Mexico. I wouldn’t be too surprised if some part of the Republic’s borders on a map managed to reach out to Hawaii just for the beaches.
More than one, actually. The malpais cover a significant portion of the state.
From the wiki on Sam Houston:
Actually the land claimed by the Republic of Texas extended all the way up into Colorado. IIRC Texas gave up those claims upon annexation, in return for some sort of debt forgiveness.