# Why did it take so long for the US to accept Texas in to the union? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 26, 2010, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590 "2010-06-26T12:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/1 "2010-06-26T12:35:26Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![bardos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bardos/32/1069_2.png) [@bardos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bardos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/2 "2010-06-26T13:03:09Z")
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: > **[Compromise of 1850](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850)** > > The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850 that temporarily defused tensions between slave and free states in the years leading up to the American Civil War. Designed by Whig senator Henry Clay and Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas, with the support of President Millard Fillmore, the compromise centered on how to handle slavery in recently acquired territories from the Mexican–American War (1846–48). > The component act... ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/3 "2010-06-26T13:06:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/4 "2010-06-26T13:31:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/5 "2010-06-26T13:55:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/6 "2010-06-26T14:38:39Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > 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%). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/7 "2010-06-26T15:25:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/8 "2010-06-26T15:46:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Why did it take so long for the US to accept Texas in to the union? Their personality. ---
**Author:** ![imfloating](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bc79bd/32.png) [@imfloating](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imfloating)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/9 "2010-06-26T15:47:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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%). 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. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/10 "2010-06-26T15:50:16Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. > Reply With Quote 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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/11 "2010-06-26T16:11:06Z")
> [@imfloating](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/12 "2010-06-26T18:09:46Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Giving a slave a gun and a horse would be a bad idea. They’d shoot you and leave. 😉 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.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Military_slavery) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/13 "2010-06-27T01:19:48Z")
> [@MikeS](#): > > 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.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#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](http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1105.html) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/14 "2010-06-27T01:29:58Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/15 "2010-06-27T05:35:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/16 "2010-06-27T07:58:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/17 "2010-06-27T10:23:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/18 "2010-06-28T03:17:59Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > (Actually, I’ve been there. Lots and lots and LOTS and _LOTS_ of good hiking country. And a volcano. For some random reason.). More than one, actually. The _malpais_ cover a significant portion of the state. > [@Raguleader](#): > > 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. From the wiki on Sam Houston: > **[Sam Houston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston)** > > Samuel Houston (/ˈhjuːstən/ ⓘ, HEW-stən; March 2, 1793 – July 26, 1863) was an American general and statesman who played a prominent role in the Texas Revolution. He served as the first and third president of the Republic of Texas and was one of the first two individuals to represent Texas in the United States Senate. He also served as the sixth governor of Tennessee and the seventh governor of Texas. Houston is the only individual to be elected governor of two different US states. > Born in Roc... > [@](#): > > Between his presidential terms (the constitution did not allow a president to serve consecutive terms), Houston was a representative in the Texas House of Representatives for San Augustine. He was a major critic of President Mirabeau Lamar, who advocated continuing independence of Texas and the extension of its boundaries to the Pacific Ocean. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-so-long-for-the-us-to-accept-texas-in-to-the-union/544590/19 "2010-06-28T04:00:54Z")
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.