No European Colonization of Texas

I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but from what you've put up there, only Texas and West FL did the "Declare independence and get annexed" thing, and Hawaii is close to that, but not quite; the others were purchased or conquered before anything like that happened. So, there are only two examples, which hardly makes a trend. The vast majority of American territory was purchased or outright conquered.
California also went through the Independence -> annexation process, though in California's case annexation happened pretty quickly post-independence. However, I will concede that those were the only two that actually got around to formally declaring independence; Hawaii was more like a coup, and the Sabine Free State was only de-facto independent.

However, focusing too much on the question of independence is missing the forest for the trees; the main thrust of my argument was that US immigrants swamped into neighboring land with or without the permission of the owning powers, and this migration pattern frequently led to US annexation of said territory. In hindsight, it might have been better to use a broader term like saying that the settlers revolted in favor of the US.
 
my argument was that US immigrants swamped into neighboring land with or without the permission of the owning powers, and this migration pattern frequently led to US annexation of said territory.

But this is hostile arid territory. Surely migration patterns would be influenced to friendlier more affable climes if the Mexican Govt doesn't promote active colonization in Texas? Otherwise why not just push right on down to Vera Cruz?
 
But this is hostile arid territory. Surely migration patterns would be influenced to friendlier more affable climes if the Mexican Govt doesn't promote active colonization in Texas? Otherwise why not just push right on down to Vera Cruz?
Native Americans never particularly wished for Europeans to settle their lands,
 
Texas is really big - REALLY big. I mean, really big. It's so big, it's got three or four different normal states worth of regions. The horrid, arid bit's the western part. North Texas is prairie good for raising horses and cattle. Central Texas, where Austin is, serves as both borderland and has its own, still different, hill country. East Texas is Southern-compatible farmland where you could grow cotton, and did, back then; that's where Anglo settlement started.

East Texas' the western end of the southern cotton country where lslavery made any economic sense.
 
Thank you jkay!

But this is hostile arid territory. Surely migration patterns would be influenced to friendlier more affable climes if the Mexican Govt doesn't promote active colonization in Texas? Otherwise why not just push right on down to Vera Cruz?

Most of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that Texas is just one big arid shitscape the US wouldn't actually want. That is about as far from the truth as one could get. Texas was proving its economic worth long before it became a sun belt technological hub, long before it became the center of the US oil and chemical economies, and heck long before it made bank off cattle drives. You can grow any thing here, the climate and soil is good for growing cotton, corn, wheat, fruits, vegetables, anything and thats just what the original settlers came here to do and did.

If the Mexican government doesn't promote active immigration of Texas, well then I guess that just makes war more inevitable and perhaps sooner. Immigrants from Arkansas and Tennessee had been going to Texas since the says of the Spanish Empire, not in droves yes, but enough to plant roots that spurred on other settlers. If Mexico is very lucky they delay things to around 1840-1845 with the Mexican-American War following at some point after that...possibly itself delaying the Civil War. But regardless the US probably winds up with those territories anyways. It was under settled by native Mexicans, the native American threat didn't seem to stop anyone in OTL and I doubt that would change, and you can't factor out the sheer ineptitude the Mexican government has shown over the years that the US would capitalize on.

And last point. Let's say Mexico gets it entire act together from the get go and has everything lucky happen to it, stability, lucky, victories, everything. Well then we would have a very different Mexican state than the one we know today and it would also posses California and Texas, two of the most economically productive areas on the Earth. In the event all that happens and Mexico remains stable then there probably won't be "damned Arizonans trying to hop the border" since they would have access to equally great opportunities in Mexico itself.
 
Thank you jkay!



Most of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that Texas is just one big arid shitscape the US wouldn't actually want. That is about as far from the truth as one could get. Texas was proving its economic worth long before it became a sun belt technological hub, long before it became the center of the US oil and chemical economies, and heck long before it made bank off cattle drives. You can grow any thing here, the climate and soil is good for growing cotton, corn, wheat, fruits, vegetables, anything and thats just what the original settlers came here to do and did.

If the Mexican government doesn't promote active immigration of Texas, well then I guess that just makes war more inevitable and perhaps sooner. Immigrants from Arkansas and Tennessee had been going to Texas since the says of the Spanish Empire, not in droves yes, but enough to plant roots that spurred on other settlers. If Mexico is very lucky they delay things to around 1840-1845 with the Mexican-American War following at some point after that...possibly itself delaying the Civil War. But regardless the US probably winds up with those territories anyways. It was under settled by native Mexicans, the native American threat didn't seem to stop anyone in OTL and I doubt that would change, and you can't factor out the sheer ineptitude the Mexican government has shown over the years that the US would capitalize on.

And last point. Let's say Mexico gets it entire act together from the get go and has everything lucky happen to it, stability, lucky, victories, everything. Well then we would have a very different Mexican state than the one we know today and it would also posses California and Texas, two of the most economically productive areas on the Earth. In the event all that happens and Mexico remains stable then there probably won't be "damned Arizonans trying to hop the border" since they would have access to equally great opportunities in Mexico itself.

Well said Big Tex, though I doubt your words (or the words of others on this thread) will alter Johanus' misconceptions and biases any.
 
Top