Where did the Texas Republic's huge land claims to the panhandle/chimney come from?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
republicoftexasmap.gif


The claims had nothing in common with the historic Spanish and Mexican subdivisions, which placed most of that territory with Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico. What was the Texas Republic's formal basis for claiming all that New Mexico territory and for extending southwest to the Rio Grande. Usually a claim at least has a legal fig leaf of some sort.
 
The treaty ending Texas rebellion (more an armistice really) claimed the Rio Grande, which Texas took as what we call the Rio Grande today, the Mexicans said "no, the Nueces is the Rio Grande; you're talking about the Rio Bravo". And when Texas says the Rio Grande is the border... they decided go big or go home and literally claim the entire Rio Grande to its source and then just due north to the Adams-Onis line.
 
To be fair, if the Mexican govt had simply acknowledged Texas independence and sat down to hammer out definitive borders, perhaps with Britain, Russia, or France as intermediaries they'd probably have held Texas back and even with US annexation of Texas they would probably have delayed the US having an excuse for war. Mexico's constantly fighting to the last for every Sq inch has caused it to lose so much over time. Santa Anna was right when in the Gadsden Purchase he offered even more than the US asked in hopes for more money to modernize the military. Land means nothing if you dont have the military and money to hold it.
 
View attachment 302946

The claims had nothing in common with the historic Spanish and Mexican subdivisions, which placed most of that territory with Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico. What was the Texas Republic's formal basis for claiming all that New Mexico territory and for extending southwest to the Rio Grande. Usually a claim at least has a legal fig leaf of some sort.

I think it's the Treaty of Velasco between Houston and Santa Anna after the battle of San Jacinto. The third article stated "The Mexican troops will evacuate the Territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte."

So I assume that the Texans interpreted it as Santa Anna ceding all of the north bank of the Rio Grande to Texas in the Treaty.
 
Secessionist movements by who against whom?
They meant the secessionist movements shown on the map, such as Yucatan, Republic of the Rio Grande, and others. Mexico in the 1830s and 1840s was wracked by many rebellions, revolts, and secessionist movements due to a lack of consensus on federalism of states versus centralist govt of districts (Santa Anna's vision); whereas the USA was always a "battle" between States rights and federalism, little support for the position of "centralism", even Hamilton wouldn't have supported turning states into mere administrative districts of the central govt.

And of course you have the ethnic diversity, both whites and Mayan in Yucatan didn't see themselves as the same as Sonorans, Zacatecas, or Californios. Mexican identity was in part strengthened through the loss in the Mexican-American War.
 
The treaty ending Texas rebellion (more an armistice really) claimed the Rio Grande, which Texas took as what we call the Rio Grande today, the Mexicans said "no, the Nueces is the Rio Grande; you're talking about the Rio Bravo". And when Texas says the Rio Grande is the border... they decided go big or go home and literally claim the entire Rio Grande to its source and then just due north to the Adams-Onis line.

IIRC the treaty between the French and the Spaniards wasn't very clear regarding the Lousiana-Texas border. Then, with the Lousiana purchase the Americans started claiming a Rio Grande border. Dunno if there's a direct relation with Republic of Texas' borders but I can surely see a correlation.
 
IIRC the treaty between the French and the Spaniards wasn't very clear regarding the Lousiana-Texas border. Then, with the Lousiana purchase the Americans started claiming a Rio Grande border. Dunno if there's a direct relation with Republic of Texas' borders but I can surely see a correlation.
There was a very small minority not serious, about wanting the Rio Grande that early in US history based a very flimsy temporary French settlement in Tejas that had nothing to do with Louisiana, but the real dispute was about wanting the Sabine River as the border versus the Arroyo Hondo (sp?) that the Spanish wanted. The Sabine Free State was neutral territory between the two nations of Spain and the US claims where neither was allowed to put military forces. The Adams-Onis Treaty settled the dispute and Spain handed over the the US their historical claims to the Oregon/Columbia region which boosted American claims since they could now use Spanish claims on their side; and Mexico layer inherited the accepted border.
 
whereas the USA was always a "battle" between States rights and federalism, little support for the position of "centralism", even Hamilton wouldn't have supported turning states into mere administrative districts of the central govt.

Actually, Hamilton's "British Plan" was a counterpart to both the Virginia and New Jersey plans which did almost exactly this. State governors would have been appointed by the national government and have a veto on any state laws. The national legislature was also explicitly given power over state courts and exclusive control of state militias. You can read it here.
 
Top