Questions regarding clarification of Texas American Histiry

Dec 2018
1
Austin
I live in Texas and was trying to better understand how it came to be. And if we truly stole it from Mexico or if it was a bit less cut and dry than that. Learned about it as you do, in school 15 years ago but wanted to brush up on it.



So I read the Texas Revolution wiki top to bottom, lol.





Someone let me know if this is basically correct or where I’m getting it wrong:





- Aztec/Mayan Indians etc live in what is now Mexico



- Spain comes in and “colonizes”



- Early 1800’s Spain owns what is now Mexico, Texas, New México, Utah and California (prob Oregon etc)



- Louisiana Purchase happens, US “claims” land west of Mississippi (Texas) but it’s not really recognized by anybody — This is where it’s cloudy for me. Obviously Spain still owned it but we kinda claimed it too anyways? Or what?



- “Mexicans” revolt against Spain, have the Mexican War of Independence. Now they are Mexico and basically own all of what Spain owned.



- Due to more and more settlers coming down to the Texas territory (northern Mexico at the time), they knowingly settle in what is a territory of Mexico under Mexican rule. Or do they consider it kind of disputed territory and just don’t give a **** and move in? Very unclear here for me.



- Texians (white settlers) eventually outnumber Tejanos. Racism happens.



- Texians decide they don’t like Mexico’s rules, and aren’t gonna follow them and if Mexico won’t do everything they want (including slavery), then it’s time for them to revolt. But they could have been happy under Mexican Rule if all terms were met, right?



- Santa Anna says all of the Texas people will basically be treated as “pirates” as they’re not under a recognized flag. And executed as such if captured.



- Texas Revolution happens. Both Texians and Tejanos fight against Mexico.



Little cloudy on Federalist vs Centralist stuff



- Sam Houston defeats Santa Anna at San Jacinto. Gives up Texas up to the Nueces River. The sort of square looking patch becomes Republic of Texas, not the big Texas shape we know today. Santa Anna is sent to US then back to Mexico



- Santa Anna and the Mexican Army gets caught up in civil unrest in Mexico and basically forget about Texas and eventually do officially recognize the Republic of Texas.



- James Polk marches American troops into territory we say is disputed but is really Mexico’s no question and incite the Mexican-American War. (And we don’t really know who shot first) Then asks Congress to go to war with Mexico. Then we “acquire” everything that is the US today.





In closing, my real questions/statements are:



So, Texians weren’t complete assholes in creating the Republic of Texas, which had just been won from Spain, and because everyone was so close and bunched up together in vaguely disputed territory, it was practically inevitable, and not so much that we “stole” it?



The real stealing and travesty is James Polk inciting the Mexican American War, “stealing” (despite a pat on the head payment of 15M + 3M debt payoff afterwards to Mexico) of the rest of Texas (south and northwest), New Mexico, Utah, California, what would become Oregon etc and then of course the genocide of the American Indian/Native Americans that would follow directly after the Civil War.
 
Aug 2011
183
The Castle Anthrax
Wow. Where to even begin. :eek: How about a sincere kudos for your intellectual curiosity, desire to dig down a little deeper, and assumption of personal responsibility for your education. :party: May I not so humbly suggest that you spend less time on that "Wiki." There are a great many books about these topics; however, since you're already in Texas you can actually visit many of the places where much of these events took place. Texas has some wonderfully preserved historical areas. Obviously The Alamo. Sacred ground for any Texan. :halo: It is a great place to visit and revisit. Phil Collins gathered an extensive collection of Texas artifacts which he donated to... some historical society or another. I don't think the donation was to the State of Texas. Either way, those artifacts will be housed in a new display at Alamo Square. Perhaps construction is already completed. I don't know. There are three other missions south of the Alamo. All are in San Antonio and you can even ride a bike on a very nice path along the river to each of them. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, Mission San Jose is more impressive and more beautiful, far more beautiful than the Alamo. There is also San Jacinto just south of Houston. The Capitol in Austin is full of photos, paintings, and many other historical items and because in Texas the legislature only convenes every other year, in off years, the Capitol is completely open and accessible. Go take a few trips. Spend some time wandering among the relics of your past. Take your time. It's a journey. Go where your curiosity guides you. Books, monuments, museums, historical forums, etc. are your friends. BTW, Lockhart is on the way form San Antonio to Houston. Despite it's relative lack of historical endowment, it is blessed with the best barbeque in the world! Now that's a fact! :nerd:
 
Last edited:

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,777
Cornwall

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,590
Dispargum
Your timeline is generally correct. A couple of points:
Most of Texas was not in the Louisianna Purchase. French Louisianna was originally defined as all lands drained by the Mississippi River. The Red River is the southern-most river that empties into the Mississippi, so the southern edge of the Red River Valley is the southern border of the Louisianna Purchase. Only a thin east-west strip north of Dallas-Ft Worth and the Panhandle were ever in the Louisianna Purchase. The Rio Grande, Nueces, Colorado, Brazos, Sabine, and any other Texas rivers that empty directly into the Gulf of Mexico are by definition not part of the Louisianna Purchase. That was 1803. In 1819, the Adams-Onis Treaty redefined the southern border of the Louisianna Purchase along the line of the Red and Sabine Rivers and also the eastern boundary of the Texas Panhandle on the 100th meridian (100 degrees west longitude). Spanish territory continued north of the current Panhandle. (So the Red River Valley was split down the middle. The entire valley, both banks of the river, was no longer US territory, only the northern bank).

The Texas Republic was actually larger than the current state of Texas. After the Battle of San Jacinto, Texas was defined as all territory between the Adams-Onis Line and the Rio Grande. Texas extended as far west as Albequerque and Santa Fe and in the northwest into modern Colorado and Wyoming. Texas assumed its current size and shape when it joined the union in 1845. The Panhandle was chopped off at 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude because the Missouri Compromise was still in effect and no slave states were allowed north of that line. Also, Albequerque and Santa Fe were deliberately denied statehood and left as New Mexico Territory.
Boundaries of the Republic of Texas
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Jan 2014
1,112
Rus
- Early 1800’s Spain owns what is now Mexico, Texas, New México, Utah and California (prob Oregon etc)



- Louisiana Purchase happens, US “claims” land west of Mississippi (Texas) but it’s not really recognized by anybody — This is where it’s cloudy for me. Obviously Spain still owned it but we kinda claimed it too anyways? Or what?
Cloudy because as Spain as US as Mexico "owned" this land only on the map's paper. And there were not any holding on the ground.

Later stir occured from the same reason.

Real deal was: Who WOULD get and settle this land IN FUTURE.
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx

The second book cited is by TR Fehrenbach who died not very long ago, is my favorite “go-to” Texas history book. It’s a fairly thick book, but very well written.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,562
Las Vegas, NV USA
These were the boundaries of the Republic of Texas. It's true they defeated General Santa Anna to win independence, but Mexico was willing to settle for a buffer state between it and the US. Despite its size (or maybe because of it) it failed and desperately sought admission to the US but was denied because of the Missouri Compromise which sought to balance slave and free states. When it was admitted in 1845 its size was reduced to its present boundaries and a provision was included to allow its division into at most five states.
The Five States of Texas - D Magazine

 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
I live in Texas and was trying to better understand how it came to be. And if we truly stole it from Mexico or if it was a bit less cut and dry than that. Learned about it as you do, in school 15 years ago but wanted to brush up on it.



So I read the Texas Revolution wiki top to bottom, lol.





Someone let me know if this is basically correct or where I’m getting it wrong:





- Aztec/Mayan Indians etc live in what is now Mexico



- Spain comes in and “colonizes”



- Early 1800’s Spain owns what is now Mexico, Texas, New México, Utah and California (prob Oregon etc)



- Louisiana Purchase happens, US “claims” land west of Mississippi (Texas) but it’s not really recognized by anybody — This is where it’s cloudy for me. Obviously Spain still owned it but we kinda claimed it too anyways? Or what?



- “Mexicans” revolt against Spain, have the Mexican War of Independence. Now they are Mexico and basically own all of what Spain owned.



- Due to more and more settlers coming down to the Texas territory (northern Mexico at the time), they knowingly settle in what is a territory of Mexico under Mexican rule. Or do they consider it kind of disputed territory and just don’t give a **** and move in? Very unclear here for me.



- Texians (white settlers) eventually outnumber Tejanos. Racism happens.



- Texians decide they don’t like Mexico’s rules, and aren’t gonna follow them and if Mexico won’t do everything they want (including slavery), then it’s time for them to revolt. But they could have been happy under Mexican Rule if all terms were met, right?



- Santa Anna says all of the Texas people will basically be treated as “pirates” as they’re not under a recognized flag. And executed as such if captured.



- Texas Revolution happens. Both Texians and Tejanos fight against Mexico.



Little cloudy on Federalist vs Centralist stuff



- Sam Houston defeats Santa Anna at San Jacinto. Gives up Texas up to the Nueces River. The sort of square looking patch becomes Republic of Texas, not the big Texas shape we know today. Santa Anna is sent to US then back to Mexico



- Santa Anna and the Mexican Army gets caught up in civil unrest in Mexico and basically forget about Texas and eventually do officially recognize the Republic of Texas.



- James Polk marches American troops into territory we say is disputed but is really Mexico’s no question and incite the Mexican-American War. (And we don’t really know who shot first) Then asks Congress to go to war with Mexico. Then we “acquire” everything that is the US today.





In closing, my real questions/statements are:



So, Texians weren’t complete assholes in creating the Republic of Texas, which had just been won from Spain, and because everyone was so close and bunched up together in vaguely disputed territory, it was practically inevitable, and not so much that we “stole” it?



The real stealing and travesty is James Polk inciting the Mexican American War, “stealing” (despite a pat on the head payment of 15M + 3M debt payoff afterwards to Mexico) of the rest of Texas (south and northwest), New Mexico, Utah, California, what would become Oregon etc and then of course the genocide of the American Indian/Native Americans that would follow directly after the Civil War.
I can’t speak to the other states but Texas, however much the US government at the time coveted it, was not stolen from Mexico. President Jackson refused to annex Texas because the US had an existing treaty with Mexico. The Texian victory over Santa Ana at San Jacinto came as a surprise to just about everyone, including Sam Houston. Following the Mexican defeat (Santa Ana was let go), Texas asked the US government to take over Texas, but by then the slave-state vs free-state worm had turned and there was considerably less enthusiasm on the part of northerners to annex Texas because it would upset this balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bedb
Dec 2017
312
Regnum Teutonicum
Could you explain, what you mean with that Texas failed because its size?
I always thought, the reason for its failure was that, when Mirabeau Lamar became president and reversed the policies of Houston. He wanted the goal of total extinction of the indians. First he went after the Cherokee and then attacked the Comanche. But the Comancheria was nearly a great power. After the council house massaker during the peace talks, the troops of the Comancheria managed to destroy Linneville, the second bigest port city of Texas in 1840. That is bad for trade. Lamar constantly pumped more money into the war effort, than Texas made. This source (Mirabeau B. Lamar | TSLAC) says that during his turn, Texas collected 1 million dollar in taxes, but spent almost 5 million dollars. So my impression was that Texas was simply broke, so they had to join their bigger neighbour.