Early US Annexation of Texas

I have a series of questions related to an early annexation of Texas by the United States, with a POD around 1837-38, and the impact this would have on subsequent American history.

In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico, and the following year it sent an annexation proposal to the United States. From what I understand President Martin Van Buren rejected the idea for fear of upsetting the sectional balance between the north and south and possibly causing a war with Mexico. This delayed Texas's statehood until 1845, which did in fact result in the Mexican-American War, as well as US acquisition of most of the modern day American west.

My first and most obvious question is, what if Van Buren had not been an opponent of annexation, but instead approved the initiative and sent it to Congress for a vote? Would it have passed? I admit this would be somewhat out of character given that he was a New Englander and didn't have a big interest in acquiring land that would mainly benefit the south (unlike Andrew Jackson, who apparently supported Texas annexation from the get go). However, I've read that Van Buren had a poor showing in the south and west during the election of 1836, and being the consummate politician that he was, I could see him seizing on this to bolster Democratic support there for the upcoming midterm elections. At the very least, it might be a tempting way to stem the growth of the Whig Party following the Panic of 1837, although at the expense of sectional unity.

Assuming for the moment that Van Buren receives the 1837 offer favorably, though, and that the Democratic Congress subsequently passes a treaty of annexation, what happens with Mexico? Do we see a war similar to the 1846-48 conflict break out ten years early, or does the US take a more cautious approach and accept the Nueces River boundary? I can think of a lot of factors that might give the Americans pause about risking war by marching into the disputed area, not least Van Buren's own desire to avoid it (as opposed to Polk's staunch Manifest Destiny) and the tensions with Britain over the Caroline Affair in December, 1837. Not having Polk in office would be the biggest obstacle, I imagine; Van Buren was not elected on a platform of national expansion and did not claim for himself the kind of mandate that Polk did in 1845. (This, of course, is also a good reason why he might not support annexation in the first place, but I digress.)

My own inclination is therefore that a Van Buren annexation would be far more diplomatic and reserved, aiming to placate the Mexicans and settle for Texas itself rather than goading them into attacking so as to acquire more territory. How Mexico responds to American overtures could be a vastly different story, though. They still wouldn't be keen on letting one of their largest states get away without a fight, and the lack of ten full years of Texan independence might further embolden them, as they might see Texas as being unable to defend itself in the long run without help. Then again, if the annexation occurs around the time of the Pastry War, Mexico might decide it doesn't want to alienate the United States, with its Monroe Doctrine, and could be more inclined to accept a permanent settlement. This would have some interesting butterflies for later American history, particularly the chain of events leading to the Civil War.

There are a lot of factors I have left out here, like the portion of New Mexico that Texas claimed and the Alta California uprisings, but Mexican history is not my strong point (neither is American history for that matter) so I was hoping that people could give general observations on this before I looked into it any deeper.
 
I think in the short run you are completely correct. Texas would have to settle for the Nueces River border and Van Buren would aim to avoid war. The U.S. would probably offers money for the Rio Grande border and Mexico might just take it to cover their foreign debts and pay off France.

That being said...Mexico's chance of retaining California is still slim to none. The U.S. really want the port of San Francisco and once gold is found the whole issue of "rebellion from Mexico turns into annexation by America" arises once again with California standing in for Texas. This time with gold on the line and America's boundary problem with Britain solved by way of treaty America will play hard ball. I think a Mexican-American War will still occur. It might be a few years late to give California time to rebel on their own but its coming. And once again the outcome will see America acquiring a lot of Mexican territory, inflame sectional differences and give many future Civil War commanders on the job training.

Benjamin
 
At this time 1847-38 Santa Anna (or one of his lackeys) is still in power, the "liberals" have not deposed him for loosing Texas and the crazy rotation of presidential power hasn't started. Thus Mexico is actually a bit stronger.
If Van Buren annexes Texas on the get go. Santa Anna (who knew Mexico had no chance against the US) would likely step aside and have the blame fall on someone else (he did that several times in OTL).
Sooner or later the Santaannistas will be deposed anyway and a "liberal" government will be established.
Though Texas will claim the Nueces Strip it is likely that Van Buren will settle for the Nueces Border, and probably for most of the smaller Texas borders. So it is likely that Santa Fe and El Paso remain in a Mexican Nuevo Mexico. Mexico will have to concede. But without a war it will get a larger sum of money for less territory.

A problem arises here on how Mexico will react one of two. The new government succeeds and stays in power. Thus in the future it peacefully sells Norther California and access to the San Francisco Bay.
Or the new government is deposed by Santa Anna supporters or an independent war monger that later declares war on the US, as it happened in OTL after Herrera allowed for negotiations to take place.

If there is a war Mexico looses all of Texas, if there is non then Mexico sells the smaller Texas. (Even if its independent Mexico has not recognized it so a purchase will be necessary).

This of course sets a precedent and it is very likely the US will later pull a Texas with Northern California. Settle it. Declare its independence. Annex it.

Maybe in the end the borders end up as something like the Herrera proposal. All of Texas, minus the Nueces Strip of Tamaulipas but up to the Rio Bravo to the west. And then a straight line that passes between San Fransisco Bay and Monterrey Bay (which remains in Mexico).
 

Glen

Moderator
I have a series of questions related to an early annexation of Texas by the United States, with a POD around 1837-38, and the impact this would have on subsequent American history.

In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico, and the following year it sent an annexation proposal to the United States. From what I understand President Martin Van Buren rejected the idea for fear of upsetting the sectional balance between the north and south and possibly causing a war with Mexico. This delayed Texas's statehood until 1845, which did in fact result in the Mexican-American War, as well as US acquisition of most of the modern day American west.

My first and most obvious question is, what if Van Buren had not been an opponent of annexation, but instead approved the initiative and sent it to Congress for a vote? Would it have passed? I admit this would be somewhat out of character given that he was a New Englander and didn't have a big interest in acquiring land that would mainly benefit the south (unlike Andrew Jackson, who apparently supported Texas annexation from the get go). However, I've read that Van Buren had a poor showing in the south and west during the election of 1836, and being the consummate politician that he was, I could see him seizing on this to bolster Democratic support there for the upcoming midterm elections. At the very least, it might be a tempting way to stem the growth of the Whig Party following the Panic of 1837, although at the expense of sectional unity.

Assuming for the moment that Van Buren receives the 1837 offer favorably, though, and that the Democratic Congress subsequently passes a treaty of annexation, what happens with Mexico? Do we see a war similar to the 1846-48 conflict break out ten years early, or does the US take a more cautious approach and accept the Nueces River boundary? I can think of a lot of factors that might give the Americans pause about risking war by marching into the disputed area, not least Van Buren's own desire to avoid it (as opposed to Polk's staunch Manifest Destiny) and the tensions with Britain over the Caroline Affair in December, 1837. Not having Polk in office would be the biggest obstacle, I imagine; Van Buren was not elected on a platform of national expansion and did not claim for himself the kind of mandate that Polk did in 1845. (This, of course, is also a good reason why he might not support annexation in the first place, but I digress.)

My own inclination is therefore that a Van Buren annexation would be far more diplomatic and reserved, aiming to placate the Mexicans and settle for Texas itself rather than goading them into attacking so as to acquire more territory. How Mexico responds to American overtures could be a vastly different story, though. They still wouldn't be keen on letting one of their largest states get away without a fight, and the lack of ten full years of Texan independence might further embolden them, as they might see Texas as being unable to defend itself in the long run without help. Then again, if the annexation occurs around the time of the Pastry War, Mexico might decide it doesn't want to alienate the United States, with its Monroe Doctrine, and could be more inclined to accept a permanent settlement. This would have some interesting butterflies for later American history, particularly the chain of events leading to the Civil War.

There are a lot of factors I have left out here, like the portion of New Mexico that Texas claimed and the Alta California uprisings, but Mexican history is not my strong point (neither is American history for that matter) so I was hoping that people could give general observations on this before I looked into it any deeper.

If it went to Congress I think it would pass. Under a Van Buren administration I could see a negotiated settlement based on the Nueces, but I could also see its failure and subsequent war with all that entails.
 

Glen

Moderator
Another option with Texas being annexed this early (or earlier?) could be the US instead of dealing with Mexico on the Nueces/Rio Grande border, dealing with the Republic of Rio Grande. With the US there, the nascent Republic might agree to the Rio Grande border in return for diplomatic recognition and financial assistance. This in turn might make the Republic of Rio Grande look like a better bet to its leaders and people and keep it in existence as a buffer state between American Texas and the rest of Mexico.
 
Another option with Texas being annexed this early (or earlier?) could be the US instead of dealing with Mexico on the Nueces/Rio Grande border, dealing with the Republic of Rio Grande. With the US there, the nascent Republic might agree to the Rio Grande border in return for diplomatic recognition and financial assistance. This in turn might make the Republic of Rio Grande look like a better bet to its leaders and people and keep it in existence as a buffer state between American Texas and the rest of Mexico.

While possible, the thing is that the Republic of Rio Grande was just a way of telling Santa Anna to stick it by liberal politicians there rather than an actual secession attempt.
The US annexing Texas might make their independence an actual possibility. But fear of later being annexed by the US will also exist and so staying with Mexico might seem like a better idea.
Secondly Rio Grande's capital is Laredo which is located on the northern side of the Rio Grande. The capital could move but any other choice would not be as central as Laredo so you are giving preference to one of the three provinces, which would cause instability.

If you want an independent Rio Grande Rep it would be best to recognize them. But give them the Nueces strip. In exchange the US has a buffer with Mexico and is given the change to take New Mexico with less trouble afterwards.
 
War between the USA and Mexico if Texas is annexed in 1837 is not a possibility, it is a certainty. The Mexicans are not interested in negotiating yet, they honestly think they will win and are determined to push the thieving Anglos back across the Sabine. Maybe past the Sabine, to New Orleans say, since it appears the USA needs an object lesson.

Of course, a cold-blooded partisan (which may or may not be an accurate characterisation of Mr. van B) may not view this as a bad thing. A short, victorious war (because that's always the kind it's going to be, isn't it?) may be just the thing to take voter's minds off the financial collapse and productively employ some people. Wartime makes it possible to twist banker's arms into doing moderately unprofitable things for The Good Of The Nation. He may not have planned to annex Texas, or wanted to, but after the Panic is in full swing he may see it as his best shot at reelection. And he may well be right.

The idea that Santa Anna might step aside in order to allow his political enemies to blunder about is an interesting one I hadn't considered. My gut says the man is far too vainglorious for that, but he was definitely full of surprises...
 
War between the USA and Mexico if Texas is annexed in 1837 is not a possibility, it is a certainty. The Mexicans are not interested in negotiating yet, they honestly think they will win and are determined to push the thieving Anglos back across the Sabine. Maybe past the Sabine, to New Orleans say, since it appears the USA needs an object lesson.

Of course, a cold-blooded partisan (which may or may not be an accurate characterisation of Mr. van B) may not view this as a bad thing. A short, victorious war (because that's always the kind it's going to be, isn't it?) may be just the thing to take voter's minds off the financial collapse and productively employ some people. Wartime makes it possible to twist banker's arms into doing moderately unprofitable things for The Good Of The Nation. He may not have planned to annex Texas, or wanted to, but after the Panic is in full swing he may see it as his best shot at reelection. And he may well be right.

The idea that Santa Anna might step aside in order to allow his political enemies to blunder about is an interesting one I hadn't considered. My gut says the man is far too vainglorious for that, but he was definitely full of surprises...

I think Mr. Endresent has hit the nail on the head. We Americans constantly think of Mexico as our poor relations but in truth when it came to the 1830s, they were just as good of a position to take advantage of there land as we were. btw. if it wasn't for some poor decisions by Santa Ana America may have lost that little war.
 
Wow, quite a few responses.

As said originally, I am not an expert on American history, however, would the early annexation of Texas effect the timing of the American Civil War in any way?
One of the historical reasons, from what I hear, for delaying it was that it would throw off the slave state/free state balance; would this cause the issues that led to the historical civil war come to a head early?

Regarding the Mexican sphere; from what I can tell Mexico was not in a prime position, financially -- expenditure being higher than revenue in these years, and trade being absolutely decimated by the French actions (the Pastry war or something, was it not?) -- however how that in and of itself would affect their mood, I do not know.

It is curious that you mention about all wars being assumed to be short, Mr Endresen, I was thinking the other day how everyone assumed the Great War would be quick due to that being the way the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars were fought; and how then everyone going into the Second World War assumed it would be the same, long drawn out affair that the Great War was. While of course it was rather long, it certainly wasn't in the same way they had expected with another war of attrition.
People do generally seem to be a war behind.
 

Glen

Moderator
While possible, the thing is that the Republic of Rio Grande was just a way of telling Santa Anna to stick it by liberal politicians there rather than an actual secession attempt.
The US annexing Texas might make their independence an actual possibility. But fear of later being annexed by the US will also exist and so staying with Mexico might seem like a better idea.
Secondly Rio Grande's capital is Laredo which is located on the northern side of the Rio Grande. The capital could move but any other choice would not be as central as Laredo so you are giving preference to one of the three provinces, which would cause instability.

If you want an independent Rio Grande Rep it would be best to recognize them. But give them the Nueces strip. In exchange the US has a buffer with Mexico and is given the change to take New Mexico with less trouble afterwards.

I have a cunning plan, m'lord....for another timeline.

Anyway, your point about Laredo is well taken, and it is possible that a compromise border (Nueces in the populated east, Rio Grande in the wild west), could work.
 
Here are some thoughts

1.) Mexico never recognised the Republicof Texas OTL. It had always sent out feelers to the US that annexation would mean war. This was a major factor to dissuade Americans from annexing it. So if Van Buren annexes Texas in '37, it might lead to war even if he goes with the Nueces border.

Say Mexico does not recognise the transfer but needs time to regroup. The USA sticks to the Neuces.

2.) Rio Grande Republic was not established until 1840. It was more of a insurrection than seceeding states. The insurrection might be the spark to the war Mexico. Mexico eventually drives th rebels out of NE Mex. As the Rio Grande forces retreat across the Neuces, Mexico follows and war with the USA is on in 1840.

3.) US wins war with Mexico. USA obtains New Mexico, Cali,and sets border at Rio Grande. Rio Grande is setup as US protectorate.

There are no guarantees what the European reaction and involvement would be. But most likley, they would stay out of the conflict.

4.) Gadsden purchase? Could there be more of Sonora and Baja included in the Gadsden purchase? Will there even be a Gadsden purchase? And if there is, will there be a southern railroad.

5.) US civil war may be same as OTL. Admission of Texas may just mean admission of an additional northern state earlier, Wisconsin or Iowa.
Could there be a new era of good feeling? Could preservation of the Union and alternate admission of slave and free states to keep balance or would the desire to limit the expansion of slavery win over?

6.) Oregon question settled the same as OTL. USA wants no part of a war with Britain. Will it be earlier, same time,or even later?
 
Last edited:
would Mexico be able to declare war at this early date? IIRC, one of the reasons that Mexico didn't go back into Texas right after San Jacinto was that they had to deal with a rebellion somewhere else (Yucutan?), thus allowing the Republic of Texas to establish itself fairly solidly. If Texas gets admitted right after their war for independence, Mexico wouldn't be able to respond immediately...
 
would Mexico be able to declare war at this early date? IIRC, one of the reasons that Mexico didn't go back into Texas right after San Jacinto was that they had to deal with a rebellion somewhere else (Yucutan?), thus allowing the Republic of Texas to establish itself fairly solidly. If Texas gets admitted right after their war for independence, Mexico wouldn't be able to respond immediately...

It was actually the first French Intervention, Yucatan will not revolt until a few years later.
But nevertheless the larger reason was that Mexico had descended into chaos after Santa Anna was deposed for loosing Texas.

Ten years early Mexico might actually be better off fighting. Mexico is much more united and its military equipment is not that out of date as it will be in the late 1840s.
They did quite well against the French, Santa Anna was able to regain his popularity for defeating them at Tampico, and Zaragoza did quite well in Pubela.

Once again Mexico would not win the war but it might get a better deal than what it got in OTL.
 
On the financial position of Mexico, yes it looks bad to any sane person, but a large part of the problem is simply that Mexico has inherited from Spain a belief that a government paying its bills is entirely optional. Anything the Army needs will be requisitioned and a promissory note will be issued and immediately forgotten. If someone resists this idea and is too important to shoot, they can, for example, pay the factory manager very handsomely for his time, but the laborers and investors wind up with nothing. Thus, war is one of the few projects they CAN undertake effectively.

And while true as far as it goes, saying that Mexico would have won if not for some bad decisions by Santa Anna is sort of like saying we could all fly if it weren't for that pesky gravity stuff ;) So long as he's in charge, I don't think much of their odds - and many of his generals are only a little better.

Mexico is a little better off for the earlier date - their artillery is not as obsolete (they would still be using the same pieces they won their independence with in OTL 1846, but a lot of progress was made on artillery in the 1830s IIRC - the Americans will not have quite as much superiority in that area perhaps).

The timing of the ACW depends on many, many little details, and let's face it, we have people who can go on for days about them :D But the central point is whether any newly acquired territory is free or slave, and who gets to decide whether it's free or slave, and whether it enters the Union as a territory or a State. Trying to declare Texas free soil is mildly ridiculous, but anything else is potentially debatable, and people will react to those debates...
 
Top