Have Mirabeau Lamar's campaign against the Comanches be more successful, lending more political credibility to the Lamar-led, anti-annexation faction in Texas politics.
This is by far, the best article on annexation of Texas. That being said, the Whigs controlled congress in 1845, it was almost assured that the joint-resolution would not pass. but of course it did pass, by one vote. It's all in the article. Enjoy!
Have Mirabeau Lamar's campaign against the Comanches be more successful, lending more political credibility to the Lamar-led, anti-annexation faction in Texas politics.
Alternatively, you could perhaps have one of the more anti-slavery presidents take over in 1840 or '44, instead of Harrison(who wasn't pro- but died only a month into his term), Tyler(who seems to have been pro-slavery), and/or Polk(who seems to have been ambiguous more than anything)....how about Daniel Webster for starters?
what if Polk died somehow which way would George Dallas be pro-slavery &/or expansionist & want to annex Texas or leave Texas alone?
Have Mirabeau Lamar's campaign against the Comanches be more successful, lending more political credibility to the Lamar-led, anti-annexation faction in Texas politics.
Actually, without Texas, the British might well wind up with California. Santa Ana was willing to sell California to the UK to keep it out of Texas and the USA's clutches.
The British may get the land, but I see the United States as a far more likely candidate. Who will almost certainly attack the territory if they see the British as coming close to get it. If Britain goes for California, then the US will likely end up in another Anglo-American War. Which....gives me an idea for a map.