Looking back, Texas as a nation only lasted for 10 years before annexation so what would have happened if it never occured? Do you think that the republic could have lasted more years or would have been invaded by their stronger neighbors?
>>339635
There were immense economical and political motivations for annexation, the case for annexation was so strong it's hard to imagine a world where Texas is never admitted into the union.
First of all, "Texans" were Americans. They were mostly anglos from the southern states who settled in Texas because of the prospect of cheap land and it was open to slavery. There was no 'Texas' heritage. The first white settlers in Texas who came from the US were the very same people who fought the war for Texas independence. Essentially there were no "native texans" fighting for texas independence, just young American men looking for adventure and prosperity. The cultural ties to the US made annexation a smooth and agreeable proposition.
Secondly, the republic of Texas had incurred serious debts in its short life, and the nascent republic had little ability to pay them off, annexation offered the prospect that the US would take on Texas's debt (which would happened during the compromise of 1850), freeing the small republic from its crushing financial obligations.
They really was never any good reason to oppose annexation outside of a very small group of Texas nationalists.
if texas became a nation today it would do fairly well, but as the guy above me said...back in those days there's no way they would have lasted which such large neighbors
>>339705
/thread
>>339705
Basically it sums up to.
A. Debt.
B. Mexico would attack again.
Today I wish to see an independent Texas.
I forgot to mention, the Texas republic also had violent border disputes with Mexico that made annexation desirable.
The treaty of Velasco set the Texas border at the Rio Grande, but the Mexican government protested, arguing that no "texans" lived south of the Nueces river (Their indignation was justified, only hispanic Mexican citizen rancheroes lived in the disputed territory) and that the Texas brigands had extorted the terms of the treaty from Santa Anna while he was held as a prisoner of war and was willing to give in to any terms thinking his life was in danger. The Mexican government never ratified the treaty and the border of Texas would stay under dispute until The Mexican American war.
Another huge benefit Texas gained from annexation was that they had the force of the entire American military to back up their (exorbitant) border claims. Without America's diplomatic and military support the resolution of the disputed border would be difficult to extract from the proud Mexican government.
>>341584
Are you a Texan? Or a Mexican.
Stop making us look bad, I love our romanticism.
>>341615
Texan
I don't think it makes Texas "look bad" that they sort of extorted land from Mexico just because they could. They also had a provision that Mexico must return all runaway slaves back to their owners despite the understanding that it was woefully unenforceable. It gives them character. That they were motivated by self interest just as much as rosy ideals of liberty and independence isn't something shameful, it gives them a human dimension.
>>341685
Highland park here.
You?
>>341696
The wasteland of the Panhandle.
>Come back here you chilli eating fuck!!
And about your question: it was americans the ones who migrated to Texas, if they didn't get anexed by the US, which was very imperialistic back then, they would have annexed themselves to the bigger, badder, richer and better United States of America
