Texas annexation question

I was wondering what reasons could there be for in 1845 the US annexation of Texas to fall apart & not end up happening? it can be with either side or a combination of both. I appreciate any feedback thanks.
 
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!
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
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.
 
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.

well i'm trying to have it happen with a POD of January 1,1845. Maybe have it just not pass in the US congress.

i always thought no Lamar at all would have been good for an independent Texas. Since he wouldn't have drained the countries small treasury & resources trying to eradicate the Comanche & secure a hold over the claimed land in Nuevo Mexico in an illprepared Santa Fe Expedition
 
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.

Beat me to it.

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?
 
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?
 
what if Polk died somehow which way would George Dallas be pro-slavery &/or expansionist & want to annex Texas or leave Texas alone?

I don't think George Dallas was ever pro-slavery, TBH(he was from PA after all); I do believe that he may have been pro-expansionist, though, and if you could find some way to get Texas into the Union while placating both sides.....(after all, many Southerners only agreed to let TX in just so they could keep slavery going, but this wasn't true for all of them, and some Northerners weren't so against it like John Q. Adams had been.).
 
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.

Have Lamar, (somehow) capture New Mexico in the Santa Fe expedition, and Texas will have all the prestige necessary for its continued existence as an independent state. The Santa Fe Trail may also help them produce enough money to pay back owed loans to foreign states. Lamar, and the Pro-Indpendence crowd were largely pro-France, so it could be easy to see France intervening in Mexico earlier in this timeline, as well as providing Texas with recognition from Mexico, whose new regime would take orders from France.

I still think America will get California, because once gold is discovered the Americans will want the sparsely populated area. And Oregon provides as good an invasion route as any.
 

katchen

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Enigmajones

That would be extremely rash for the US as their likely to lose all of Oregon as a result. Virtually impossible for them to reinforce it let alone try and attack California. While a blockade does nasty things for the US economy and budget.

Steve
 
Top