Why did Texas allow U.S to annex it

Why did Texas allow U.S to annex it

They didn't have the population or the gunpower to fight a renewed Mexican assault that was inevitable within a few years. Furthermore, most Texans were born in America, and still saw it as their homeland. Why not join your home country?

It was afraid of Mexico, which wasn't as much of a joke pre Mexican-American War.

While both and are both right, they forgot that the Texan government had debts it couldn't pay, so they sold that large NW chunk to the federal government to pay for the debt.

That was the whole fucking point you fucking nigger

Because of Slaver owners wanted protections from a renewed Mexican Assualt.

Bad answers
Good answer

>t.brainlet

They had a worse economy than Germany in 1920s

this as well
Texan Republic was a massive fucking meme

You mean why did the US allow Texas to annex it?

It was broke

>allow
They fucking asked

They were all originally American and I imagine their republic wasn't doing to well economically, would also help against an invasion from Mexico which it did.

FUCKING CHECKED

they went bankrupt so they asked the US to become a state. They probabaly gained more power from doing that then staying some ukraine tier farming country sandwiched between two super powers.

I'm for Seceding, the US bankrupt.

>ukraine tier farming country sandwiched between two super powers.
Until oil becomes important. Then it would become saudia arabia in your back yard.

>doesn't even know proper english
Hi mexican

>allow

Might is right.

These are the biggest reasons why Texas joined the US. Mexico was forced into a de facto armistice rather than accepting defeat, due to Santa Anna's capture and selling out his country for his own freedom. Originally, the Mexican army had just undergone a purge, and was rife with mercenary commanders and green troops, along with divided attention on other provinces rebelling. A decade later, they didn't have those issues, and could focus their full attention on Texas in combat. On top of that, Texas had accumulated crushing debt to finance their war, which was in danger of bankrupting them.

As far as the debt was concerned, an option by Britain was proposed at the time. Just like Hong Kong, Texas could "rent" Houston to them for one century to be used as a trade port in the new world. Texas would give up control of the city (Which was basically a swamp at the time, and still kinda is a swamp with structures built on it), and Britain would pay a sum large enough to both cover the Texan debt and then some. This option, strange as it sounds, was supported by the Texan nationalist party at the time.

The military thing, however, had no good solution. Texas could attempt to import arms and purchase ships, which would quickly strain their income and place them right back into debt again without solving the question of how Texas could somehow form an industry overnight to pay it off. Even so, a volunteer army could not be feasibly raised fast enough to be trained on defeating a now drilled Mexican force. The only answer to that was to find a stronger power to align themselves with to ensure their independence, which would realistically mean getting closer in bed with Britain -- which meant British political concessions within the newly formed country.

Accepting annexation with the US was seen as a more reasonable solution to both problems. The US was culturally and politically more aligned with Texas than anywhere else in the world, the US would take on the full Texan debt, and Texas would be allowed to freely trade in the US markets, exporting cattle and cotton. Texas would remain de facto in control of their state in most matters except foreign policy, and gain protection as well, though it came at the cost of the northern territories of now New Mexico and Colorado (Inhabited by the Comanches at this point in history, which made it a no-mans land anyway).

Of course, no one could predict the advent and outcome of the Civil War, which greatly expanded the power of the central US government, reducing Texas autonomy greatly, nor could Texas anticipate the oil boom that would enrich the state as much as it did, and with Houston serving as an English developed and funded port, would put them in an amazing position to make bank off of oil exports. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

I could keep going on possible outcomes of Texas independence, but I'm sure no one wants to hear speculation on the future of a backwater state for the next few hours, so I'll just leave it at that.

same deal with california, excluding the gold rush, it was pretty much ignored until the 1940's

It was populated by Americans and they could not survive economically or militarily on their own.

I wanna hear

Just speculating, but the most immediate turn off of working with the British was their stance on slavery. Texas's conflict with Mexico was in part brought on by Mexico not allowing slavery, which is a tough pill to swallow for southern US immigrants at the time. It's likely that Britain would use their new trade port to put political pressure on Texas to force them to behave a certain way, which makes abolition a strong possibility unless Texas is too lucrative to anger (It's not at this time). There's also imperial concerns to worry about, the US was mostly free of the old regimes of Europe, willingly aligning yourself with one of them is a step backwards and draws you into European power games again. Considering Mexico would be dealing with an Austrian pretender to their vacant throne that was sponsored by the French, it's not unforeseeable looking back that Texas theoretically could've faced similar conflicts with England wishing to install sympathetic politicians in the new Texan government.

That said, assuming Texas did go through with the lease of Houston to Britain, and managed to bargain for British recognition of independence and guarantee: Mexico would be placed in a holding pattern as considering the US was able to defeat them in war, the might of the British Empire would resoundingly crush them. Without Mexico acting as an aggressor, however, Mexico would most likely retain what's now known as Aztlan in modern times, minus of course Texas. And with Texas forming a British backed buffer state between the US and Mexico, it's likely US ambitions towards land in the west would be somewhat reduced. Most significantly, this means the US would probably not acquire California, leading to the gold rush to begin in Mexico instead of the US, which would be a huge boon to Mexican wealth -- assuming Mexico could avoid another revolt similar to Texas, and also assuming the US didn't find some reasoning to take Mexican land anyway.

Of course, the effect of a vast amount of wealth rolling into Mexico is outside of the scope of Texas, so I'll skip over it for now, but it would have interesting effects on European ambitions in the region and would most likely affect the way the Second Franco-Mexican war played out.

Texas itself was reliant on the export of Cattle, and to a lesser extent, cotton, at this point in history. Both were pretty profitable at the time, at least in US markets, and with Britain importing about 25% of their food from the US, would likely have been just as lucrative of trade partner, if not moreso, due to buying out of a now duty free port in the new world, Houston. This would drive up production in Texas from nearby regions, increasing settlement in the area from nearby southern states, and further serve to enrich Texas. In addition, Texas would largely remain exempt from the American Civil War, leaving it free to pursue economic matters, and just might've adverted it entirely (US continues to tighten slave restrictions, plantation owners flee to Texas instead of Brazil, and do so slowly over time instead of doing so in a panicked flight, preserving most of their wealth.).

However, even this sort of economic growth would pale in comparison to the benefits that would be received when the Texas Oil Boom strikes in the early 1900s. Texas would be free to ship all the freshly drilled oil to just about any buyer in the world, obtaining better prices than domestic sales alone. If oil made Texas rich in our time, it would be even more wealthy then, further driving the development of the state. It's likely that this would solidify Texas's position as an independent state and a regional power (As much as one can be with the US on your doorstep, that is) able to rival or surpass Mexico.

Now this is where my projection breaks down, as there's simply too many factors to assume, not counting the fact that I've already assumed a ton of events that aren't guaranteed to happen anyway. WWI is just around the corner from the oil boom, which could theoretically either help Texas (By driving up the demand for oil) or hurt it (By the Brits cutting off trade to anyone other than allied powers, if Texas is exporting mainly to Germany, Austria, or the Ottomans due to Britain securing oil supplies elsewhere.). Even assuming the Great War is unchanged in outcome, there is still the looming specter of WWII not far off, in which Texas would most likely follow the US's historical path of neutrality unless relations with the Brits had completely soured from how their trade port was being handled and another power had not taken advantage of this ill will to drive the Texan people to war. This also assumes the US civil war either fails to happen or Texas doesn't go full retard and attempt to help the people it sees as friendly, and isn't forced to abolish slavery at an earlier time. Also, the US federal government invested heavily in Texas infrastructure (railroads) and education, along with military bases after WWI, so none of that would be given to Texas in this new scenario.

This also doesn't account for whether or not Texas transitions to an industrial power, which could honestly go either way. On one hand, Texas is becoming rich from the export of raw goods, so it's likely to ride it out so to speak and continue to rake in profits much like the south with its system of plantations. However, you now have a densely populated trade port spring up much, much earlier than it historically did, which means Houston could quickly become that industrial hub in the region if the proper investment was carried out. Diversification through industrialization would help Texas in the long run, but it might not have any desire to do so without outside investment.

>mexican goverment allows immigrants to come in gives them some land settle in and everything

>there refuse to intergrate with mexican culture

>they refuse to follow the law

>many thousand illegally cross the border

>then they fucking succeed when the government acutely enforces its laws

anglos are such niggers

this was before oil was discovered there so the economy was shit

had oil been discovered they would have become a mini saudi arabia

>n****r
back to

One of the oil barons in Texas at the time controlled about 10% of the entire wealth of the US based on some estimations, and there were still other ones that were pretty wealthy as well. It's a shame how a lot of that wealth didn't remain in Texas but was distributed through investments to the rest of the US at the time.

But Texas wasn't particularly dirt poor once the cattle industry was functioning, at least when looking at things per capita. The tiny population was the main cause of the state itself not being very wealthy since Texas was mostly unsettled prior to US/German/Czech/Polish immigration in the mid 1800s, and even then paled in comparison to other established states in the US, be they north or south. Which is what's really bizarre, because the Texan revolution was essentially fought by a tiny sliver of people compared to Mexico's population.

>mommy he say mean words on underwater basket weaving forum!

Go for it