As an independent nation?

I think there was an agreement to give up claims to the excess land as part of the annexation and that would allow assumption of the debt.

Fitch said:

---

The alternate history question no one asks is if we would have been better off in the long run by taking the entirety of Mexico following with Mexican-American War which solidified the US claim on all the lands of Texas and a huge chunk of the southwest.

Instead of a land border stretching for thousands of miles it could have been drawn down at Veracruz and been 150 miles wide.

---

Do you let all of those people in Mexico become U.S. citizens? What if the states coming out of Mexico are anti-slavery states?

Sure, but at that point it's the Mexican claim vs the American claim, and the Americans had the bigger stick.

But in an alternate timeline where Texas stays independent, I don't think Texas would be able to easily sell disputed land to the US to raise funds.

dead said:

---

Sure, but at that point it's the Mexican claim vs the American claim, and the Americans had the bigger stick.

But in an alternate timeline where Texas stays independent, I don't think Texas would be able to easily sell disputed land to the US to raise funds.

---

The Texas claim to that land was somewhat dubious, right?

It is unrealistic for anyone to think that Texas would have been able to stay independent. We would have been surrounded by 2-3 more populous and wealthier countries. Just like Mexico and then Spain/Cuba were slapped by the USA, we would have been as well. Manifest destiny and all.

The claiming of all of Mexico might have been a master stroke by the USA in hind sight but no one wanted to manage it back then.

I don't think Texas was in a position to exert any meaningful influence in the Panhandle, West Texas, or south of the Colorado (all lands they and Mexico claimed).

dead said:

---

This topic isn't about the founding of the United States.

---

This topic isn't necessarily about financial situations of Texas when founded, but you brought it up.

dead said:

---

I don't think Texas was in a position to exert any meaningful influence in the Panhandle, West Texas, or south of the Colorado (all lands they and Mexico claimed).

---

Texas also wasn't in the position to defeat Santa Anna and the Mexican army.

Stressboy said:

---

It is unrealistic for anyone to think that Texas would have been able to stay independent. We would have been surrounded by 2-3 more populous and wealthier countries. Just like Mexico and then Spain/Cuba were slapped by the USA, we would have been as well. Manifest destiny and all.

The claiming of all of Mexico might have been a master stroke by the USA in hind sight but no one wanted to manage it back then.

---

Then why didn't manifest destiny make the US take over Mexico? They did just lose to an inferior Texas.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Fitch said:

---

The alternate history question no one asks is if we would have been better off in the long run by taking the entirety of Mexico following with Mexican-American War which solidified the US claim on all the lands of Texas and a huge chunk of the southwest.

Instead of a land border stretching for thousands of miles it could have been drawn down at Veracruz and been 150 miles wide.

---

Do you let all of those people in Mexico become U.S. citizens? What if the states coming out of Mexico are anti-slavery states?

---

These were the questions of the day and part of why history worked out the way it did.

My own opinion is should have kept Baja at least. Make everyone citizens and admit under the "you choose" doctrine extended to states created in subsequent years.

During the day of manifest destiny and all that it would have been nice to march all the way down to Panama and stop short of the South American continent.

Plus keep Cuba.

Anyways, I digress.

Texas' annexation benefited the US and Texas citizens immeasurably, as time has shown.

There was a lot of armed opposition to the Central Republic in the 1830s.

dead said:

---

There was a lot of armed opposition to the Central Republic in the 1830s.

---

Citing Wikipedia is always a worthy source. /s

I just thought the map had pretty colors

ChemEAg08 said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

It is unrealistic for anyone to think that Texas would have been able to stay independent. We would have been surrounded by 2-3 more populous and wealthier countries. Just like Mexico and then Spain/Cuba were slapped by the USA, we would have been as well. Manifest destiny and all.

The claiming of all of Mexico might have been a master stroke by the USA in hind sight but no one wanted to manage it back then.

---

Then why didn't manifest destiny make the US take over Mexico? They did just lose to an inferior Texas.

---

Because we got California and access to the pacific. Everything south wasn't worth diddly squat (They have trash geography) and they were not a threat to us after US/Mexican War. If they become one again we would have gone to their ass again.

Fitch said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Fitch said:

---

The alternate history question no one asks is if we would have been better off in the long run by taking the entirety of Mexico following with Mexican-American War which solidified the US claim on all the lands of Texas and a huge chunk of the southwest.

Instead of a land border stretching for thousands of miles it could have been drawn down at Veracruz and been 150 miles wide.

---

Do you let all of those people in Mexico become U.S. citizens? What if the states coming out of Mexico are anti-slavery states?

---

These were the questions of the day and part of why history worked out the way it did.

My own opinion is should have kept Baja at least. Make everyone citizens and admit under the "you choose" doctrine extended to states created in subsequent years.

During the day of manifest destiny and all that it would have been nice to march all the way down to Panama and stop short of the South American continent.

Plus keep Cuba.

Anyways, I digress.

Texas' annexation benefited the US and Texas citizens immeasurably, as time has shown.

---

WTH did you get that screwed up map?

The internet machine

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_1842-1845-03.png

You're welcome America

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Should have stayed a republic, or at least kept its possessions in what is now Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.

---

Si.
We would be like Costa Rica by now.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Should have stayed a republic, or at least kept its possessions in what is now Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.

---

definitely should have stayed it's own Republic

would have been better never joining the Confederacy.

imagine the TV shows one could do on the modern Texas Republic which still had slavery.

I think JJ Abrams was going to do that on HBO until they deep sixed the series.

LMCane said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Should have stayed a republic, or at least kept its possessions in what is now Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.

---

definitely should have stayed it's own Republic

would have been better never joining the Confederacy.

imagine the TV shows one could do on the modern Texas Republic which still had slavery.

I think JJ Abrams was going to do that on HBO until they deep sixed the series.

---

Slavery in Texas was in decline in 1861. West and North Texas were essentially "free" due to migration of Europeans (Germans) to those areas. In the 1870s and 80s migration brought the central Europeans to central Texas. They were also anti-slavery. Finally the last wave of migrants from southern Europe settled in central Texas. The slave regions (river valleys) and parts of east Texas did not see any growth.
IMHO by the 1880s slavery would have been outlawed in Texas.

dead said:

---

Not if the growing economy depended on cotton

---

What kind of an idiot are you?

Did I specify a period of time? Are you denying the Texas Economy would not have grown larger than any pre 1900s deficit would have been created. Cattle, Cotton and Oil alone would have eclipsed the deficit off the top of my head.

No need for name calling.

Texas would've had to get through the Panic of 1873 (and possibly those of 1857 and 1893) without the backing of the United States.

Just in 1845 the Republic's debt was estimated to be just under $10 million. 0

Cotton exports definitely could've been able to produce revenue for Texas during the American Civil War (no Union blockade), but it was subject to decent price fluctuations (between 6 and 12 cents in the early to mid-1800s) 1

Cattle boomed during the Civil War and the postbellum period, but wasn't that big during the antebellum period. Also an argument to be made that Texan men not going off to war wouldn't lead to booming herds on the range. 2 3

Oil would be a booming industry for Texas in the 20th century, it would just have to have sufficient capital or foreign investment to exploit it. If alt-history Texas makes it to Spindletop, I agree that it's set for a long time.

dead said:

---

No need for name calling.

Texas would've had to get through the Panic of 1873 (and possibly those of 1857 and 1893) without the backing of the United States.

Just in 1845 the Republic's debt was estimated to be just under $10 million. 0

Cotton exports definitely could've been able to produce revenue for Texas during the American Civil War (no Union blockade), but it was subject to decent price fluctuations (between 6 and 12 cents in the early to mid-1800s) 1

Cattle boomed during the Civil War and the postbellum period, but wasn't that big during the antebellum period. Also an argument to be made that Texan men not going off to war wouldn't lead to booming herds on the range. 2 3

Oil would be a booming industry for Texas in the 20th century, it would just have to have sufficient capital or foreign investment to exploit it. If alt-history Texas makes it to Spindletop, I agree that it's set for a long time.

---

I'll take that as an "you're right, it would have"!

I'm not going to get in the weeds of your justifications but your last one is easy pickings, particularly on how capital investment intense the early oil industry was as today's standards don't apply to early oil exploration and development simply because early oil production was not an industry so different from drilling water wells and reservoirs were easy to exploit. Not Jethro easy, but easy non the less.

Earn your way out of being referred to as one!

Well, I can't stop you from ignoring the latter half of the 18th century and all of its associated economic downturns.

Edit: alt history is a fun thought experiment though, thanks for that.

dead said:

---

Old enough to have sat through a few years of Texas History education

---

Like every single citizen owed around 100k