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.
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
And which state was SCOTUS specifically discussing? Well, the name of that decision was Texas v. White.
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.
And in practical terms, the issue was decisively decided in the matter of Grant vs. Lee, 1865.
Sorry, that’s actual history. Slavery was a major reason for the Texas rebellion, as well as its wish to join the US.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who said it was solely slavery?
MEBuckner, Colibri - thank you.
j
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:
(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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.