Why was Texas divided after it joined the USA?
video description
Date: 2023-08-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Lorthe
I know this is a very simplified summary, so I won't be overly pedantic about every detail. However, I would like to provide some clarifications, as some of your statements, while not incorrect at all, come across as quite abrupt:
0: 31 This is true, but I wouldn't solely lean on external pressures and interventions to explain why Mexico never reclaimed Texas back. Instead, I would also add the internal context of the country at the time. The extreme polarization of the government, as well as the frequent changes in leadership, weakened its ability to project power effectively and maintain control over its vast territories, let alone prepare or even plan a viable expedition to reconquer the territory. Most attempts to reconquer Texas originated from individual military endeavors, which, due to the aforementioned reasons, never garnered the support or resources from the central government to launch a genuine project for retaking the territory.
0: 39 This is true to a certain extent; however, asserting that Mexico had no control over it seems to me like a rather abrupt oversimplification. Not almost all of the disputed area was occupied by the Comanche, and not all Comanche territory fell within the disputed area. Much of it was under both Mexican and Comanche control. The Nueces Strip and the majority of the Rio Grande Basin between El Paso and Santa Fe were under Mexican jurisdiction, and the remainder, while legally part of Mexico, was effectively controlled by the Comanche. The Comancheria was vast territorially, yet it lacked homogeneity due to the Comanche never being a unified people. Although some of their individual tribes proved problematic enough to directly sabotage the individual attempts by Mexican military to reclaim Texas, which further contributed to Mexico's inability to regain the territory.
reply
I know this is a very simplified summary, so I won't be overly pedantic about every detail. However, I would like to provide some clarifications, as some of your statements, while not incorrect at all, come across as quite abrupt:
0: 31 This is true, but I wouldn't solely lean on external pressures and interventions to explain why Mexico never reclaimed Texas back. Instead, I would also add the internal context of the country at the time. The extreme polarization of the government, as well as the frequent changes in leadership, weakened its ability to project power effectively and maintain control over its vast territories, let alone prepare or even plan a viable expedition to reconquer the territory. Most attempts to reconquer Texas originated from individual military endeavors, which, due to the aforementioned reasons, never garnered the support or resources from the central government to launch a genuine project for retaking the territory.
0: 39 This is true to a certain extent; however, asserting that Mexico had no control over it seems to me like a rather abrupt oversimplification. Not almost all of the disputed area was occupied by the Comanche, and not all Comanche territory fell within the disputed area. Much of it was under both Mexican and Comanche control. The Nueces Strip and the majority of the Rio Grande Basin between El Paso and Santa Fe were under Mexican jurisdiction, and the remainder, while legally part of Mexico, was effectively controlled by the Comanche. The Comancheria was vast territorially, yet it lacked homogeneity due to the Comanche never being a unified people. Although some of their individual tribes proved problematic enough to directly sabotage the individual attempts by Mexican military to reclaim Texas, which further contributed to Mexico's inability to regain the territory.
reply
Alabama
Fun Fact: The payment the state of Texas received from the U. S. Federal government for the excess lands were in the form of U. S. Treasury Bonds held by the Texas state government. At the outbreak of the Civil War the new Confederate state government of Texas sold those bonds to speculators to help finance the Confederate war effort (among other things. After the War the sale of those bonds were challenged and the case went to the U. S. Supreme Court. In the famous case of Texas v. White (1869) the Supreme Court ruled that the sale of the bonds were invalid because the secessionist state government of Texas had no authority to sell the bonds. This was from the ruling that the secessionist state government of Texas did not legally exist because the act of arbitrary secession from the Union was in itself unconstitutional.
reply
Fun Fact: The payment the state of Texas received from the U. S. Federal government for the excess lands were in the form of U. S. Treasury Bonds held by the Texas state government. At the outbreak of the Civil War the new Confederate state government of Texas sold those bonds to speculators to help finance the Confederate war effort (among other things. After the War the sale of those bonds were challenged and the case went to the U. S. Supreme Court. In the famous case of Texas v. White (1869) the Supreme Court ruled that the sale of the bonds were invalid because the secessionist state government of Texas had no authority to sell the bonds. This was from the ruling that the secessionist state government of Texas did not legally exist because the act of arbitrary secession from the Union was in itself unconstitutional.
reply
Chlo
Important context is that New Mexico was petitioning to become a free state at the same time, with borders that didn t recognize the Texan claim. New Mexico had already repelled one Texian invasion by that time and most people there did not want to be ruled by Texas.
Proposals to divide Texas were mainly intended to counterbalance a free New Mexico by admitting a new slave state.
Both admitting New Mexico as a free state and letting Texas expand slavery into lands where slavery had previously been banned would have upset the balance in a country that was already feeling kinda civil-warry, and so: compromise. Spoiler alert: it didn t work.
reply
Important context is that New Mexico was petitioning to become a free state at the same time, with borders that didn t recognize the Texan claim. New Mexico had already repelled one Texian invasion by that time and most people there did not want to be ruled by Texas.
Proposals to divide Texas were mainly intended to counterbalance a free New Mexico by admitting a new slave state.
Both admitting New Mexico as a free state and letting Texas expand slavery into lands where slavery had previously been banned would have upset the balance in a country that was already feeling kinda civil-warry, and so: compromise. Spoiler alert: it didn t work.
reply
Nabbit
Another reason Texas lost all of that land was because of the Missouri Compromise Line. For those who don't know, The Missouri Compromise line is on the Southern border of Missouri, and it banned any new slave states from being created above the line. Texas wanted to be a Slave state, but most of the territory it lost was above the Missouri Compromise line. So not only was Texas stripped of the territory because the government didn't want Texas to have to much political power, but also so Texas could be a Slave state.
reply
Another reason Texas lost all of that land was because of the Missouri Compromise Line. For those who don't know, The Missouri Compromise line is on the Southern border of Missouri, and it banned any new slave states from being created above the line. Texas wanted to be a Slave state, but most of the territory it lost was above the Missouri Compromise line. So not only was Texas stripped of the territory because the government didn't want Texas to have to much political power, but also so Texas could be a Slave state.
reply
Lazy
The way the Army bullied Texas into giving up our western lands irritates me. It's true, the New Mexicans had little reason to be part of Texas, but that was between us and them and no business of the Army. In the end, we got a pretty decent deal out of it, but the principle remains, the Army violated the US Constitution, and that really should've been given attention in Congress
reply
The way the Army bullied Texas into giving up our western lands irritates me. It's true, the New Mexicans had little reason to be part of Texas, but that was between us and them and no business of the Army. In the end, we got a pretty decent deal out of it, but the principle remains, the Army violated the US Constitution, and that really should've been given attention in Congress
reply
Robert
As a lifelong Texan who took Texas History in school. The government of Texas and Texans always considered the Rio Grande as the Southern border. NOT the Nueches River at Corpus Christie. That was Mexico's attempt to steal back part of Texas. It always angers me to see some people using that other river as the official border. It's the wokes trying to rewrite history again.
reply
As a lifelong Texan who took Texas History in school. The government of Texas and Texans always considered the Rio Grande as the Southern border. NOT the Nueches River at Corpus Christie. That was Mexico's attempt to steal back part of Texas. It always angers me to see some people using that other river as the official border. It's the wokes trying to rewrite history again.
reply
Raoul
I love how the guy who wanted to name different parts of Texas Colorado must've kept proposing to the government that they make a new state, and called it Colorado, they eventually caved and did it. He must've brought it up every chance he could.
Great party James, but Stephen's just came in. I swear, if he mentions creating a state called Colorado once tonight. .
reply
I love how the guy who wanted to name different parts of Texas Colorado must've kept proposing to the government that they make a new state, and called it Colorado, they eventually caved and did it. He must've brought it up every chance he could.
Great party James, but Stephen's just came in. I swear, if he mentions creating a state called Colorado once tonight. .
reply
TheWolfHowling
As well as Debt, Slavery also shaped Texas borders. It was agreed in the Missouri Compromise that Slavery would only be permitted in the states south of 36 degrees 30 N latitude. Texas wanted to have slave put had territory above the line so had to cut a little of the top. This land became the Oklahoma Panhandle
reply
As well as Debt, Slavery also shaped Texas borders. It was agreed in the Missouri Compromise that Slavery would only be permitted in the states south of 36 degrees 30 N latitude. Texas wanted to have slave put had territory above the line so had to cut a little of the top. This land became the Oklahoma Panhandle
reply
marscaleb
The reason they allowed Texas to be cut into the shape it has: MONEY.
If they cut it into that shape, it could be far more marketable and used in souvenirs, t-shirts, logos on steakhouses, and more.
Fun factoid: 80% of Texas's economy is based on people selling things shaped like Texas.
reply
The reason they allowed Texas to be cut into the shape it has: MONEY.
If they cut it into that shape, it could be far more marketable and used in souvenirs, t-shirts, logos on steakhouses, and more.
Fun factoid: 80% of Texas's economy is based on people selling things shaped like Texas.
reply
BS
I'd like to see a video on the division of the New Mexico Territory after its establishment, the subsequent addition of the Gadsen Purchase, the attempt of the CSA to establish Arizona along the entire Mexican-Texan border, and the subsequent division into the shapes they (NM and AZ) have today.
reply
I'd like to see a video on the division of the New Mexico Territory after its establishment, the subsequent addition of the Gadsen Purchase, the attempt of the CSA to establish Arizona along the entire Mexican-Texan border, and the subsequent division into the shapes they (NM and AZ) have today.
reply
education
You failed to mention that the reason Oklahoma got that part of Texas that forms the Oklahoma panhandle is because Texas was a slave state and the Missouri compromise prohibited slavery north of a particular latitude. As a result the northern tip of Texas became the Oklahoma panhandle. .
reply
You failed to mention that the reason Oklahoma got that part of Texas that forms the Oklahoma panhandle is because Texas was a slave state and the Missouri compromise prohibited slavery north of a particular latitude. As a result the northern tip of Texas became the Oklahoma panhandle. .
reply
dgart
Great job! As a Native Texan you learn that the territory claimed by Texas vs was what controlled by Texas in the early 18040's was. vague. The official justification for the Mexican-American war was a dispute over where the border was when Texas became a state (Nueces river vs Rio Grande.
reply
Great job! As a Native Texan you learn that the territory claimed by Texas vs was what controlled by Texas in the early 18040's was. vague. The official justification for the Mexican-American war was a dispute over where the border was when Texas became a state (Nueces river vs Rio Grande.
reply
Pab
Also, the new northern border stayed beneath the Missouri Compromise line, because if Texas had kept any territory above that line, it could not be a slave state. That is why Oklahoma has a panhandle today; it took on the portion of the Texas chimney that was above the slave line.
reply
Also, the new northern border stayed beneath the Missouri Compromise line, because if Texas had kept any territory above that line, it could not be a slave state. That is why Oklahoma has a panhandle today; it took on the portion of the Texas chimney that was above the slave line.
reply
Ben
I have a great video idea Little is known about the part Liberia played in the American Civil War and yet it was founded by American slaves settled by the American colonization society. It would be very interesting especially because they gang they independence around this time.
reply
I have a great video idea Little is known about the part Liberia played in the American Civil War and yet it was founded by American slaves settled by the American colonization society. It would be very interesting especially because they gang they independence around this time.
reply
penningmeester
One should not forget the 1821 Missouri Compromise, which was still valid in 1845. If Texas would want to remain a slavery state, it had to relinquish all its land north of 36. 30 degrees north. so in fact, it did so.
reply
One should not forget the 1821 Missouri Compromise, which was still valid in 1845. If Texas would want to remain a slavery state, it had to relinquish all its land north of 36. 30 degrees north. so in fact, it did so.
reply
Gordyrroy
sad that the Komanshi tribe didnt have any say to it. :y bruh, North and South America were stolen by people with superior technology. And then said people were fighting over the pieces like some children in a sandbox.
reply
sad that the Komanshi tribe didnt have any say to it. :y bruh, North and South America were stolen by people with superior technology. And then said people were fighting over the pieces like some children in a sandbox.
reply
history_matters
The whole unfiltered history of Texas and the Mexican - American War is a nasty business that sees the US being a bunch of land grabbing punks. Ulysses S. Grant dropped some truth on the matter in his memoirs.
reply
The whole unfiltered history of Texas and the Mexican - American War is a nasty business that sees the US being a bunch of land grabbing punks. Ulysses S. Grant dropped some truth on the matter in his memoirs.
reply
penningmeester
The book How the States got their Shapes by Mark Stein does actually comment extensively about the relation between the 1821 Missouri Compromise and the present-day shape of Texas. A really fun book to read
reply
The book How the States got their Shapes by Mark Stein does actually comment extensively about the relation between the 1821 Missouri Compromise and the present-day shape of Texas. A really fun book to read
reply
Franz
joined those Americans who are not of American origin and complain about the Mexicans after they stole all of the north of the country along with the Tejas could refresh their memory before playing the victims
reply
joined those Americans who are not of American origin and complain about the Mexicans after they stole all of the north of the country along with the Tejas could refresh their memory before playing the victims
reply
RedJay
As someone who lives in what people call colorado today, its crazy to think that at one point both Texas and California (states which sort of bother us) had a plan for part of their land to be called colorado
reply
As someone who lives in what people call colorado today, its crazy to think that at one point both Texas and California (states which sort of bother us) had a plan for part of their land to be called colorado
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
