Skip to main content

View Diary: White House Responds: No Secession Today Boys (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No nt (6+ / 0-)

    Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

    by TexasTom on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:55:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not even a little bit ??? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, WB Reeves, gjohnsit, JayRaye

      The one major effect of Texas leaving Mexico was that slavery became legal.

      Mexico did not allow it.

      The utter savagery of the cotton system in Texas beggars modern experience. Black males were shipped out to be worked to death.

      No females.

      Texas was the worst of the worst.

      If the United States had refused to accept Texas and cooperated in returning the area to Mexico, it seems unlike that there would have been a Civil War. Slavery would have been limited already, unable to advance.

      Avoiding the Civil War ? Sounds good to me.

      Both changes would have lessened American power today. That one can be argued either way.

      Or possibly the United States could have bought Texas from Mexico later on which would have been possible -- it was very sparsely populated. Not worth very much.

      "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

      by bontemps2012 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:05:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Trouble with this (0+ / 0-)

        is it wouldn't have just been Texas. California was part of the package.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:29:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Part of the package" ??? (0+ / 0-)

          The main expansion went west out of St. Louis and well north of Texas. People followed routes that provided water.

          The flood of Americans west to California, Oregon and Washington did not relate to the status of Texas.

          Not at all. Nonetheless, better relations with Mexico would have facilitated such as getting the Rio Grande as a border and acquiring California, but hopefully without the Mexico-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

          Maybe the U.S. would have paid $50-million instead of the $15-million of the treaty. Also, you can bet that Mexico would have negotiated a ban on slavery in their Bill of Sale.

          "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

          by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:46:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is a puzzling response (0+ / 0-)

            California was still a part of Mexico at the beginning of the Mexican-American War whereas Texas was an Independent Republic attempting to join the Union. The conquest and annexation of California was a result of that war.

            I doubt the Mexican Government would have settled for the return of Texas without insisting on the return of California as well. They had a far stronger claim to California, which was considered a far richer prize than Texas at the time.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 09:57:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  California was part of Mexico at the (0+ / 0-)

              start of the war.

              U.S. forces took Mexico City, which left both sides in difficult positions. The U.S. was not at all ready to fight a guerrilla war or conquer Mexico.

              The U.S. could have put an end to the Republic of Texas in a couple months. The pro-slavery militia there was hardly up for fighting the U.S. Army.

              Compare the costs of such an action, plus paying any amount of money to Mexico, to the cost of fighting the Civil War.

              "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

              by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:42:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, this is all alt history anyway (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bontemps2012

                The US wanted both Texas and California and wasn't interested in giving anything back to Mexico. Mexico was defeated and not in any position to argue.

                My only point was that the addition of Texas and California to the US resulted from the same historical event: the Mexican-American War. Reversing that outcome would require the US to divest itself of all territory taken by conquest.

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:29:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Allowing Mexico to put the "No Slavery" (0+ / 0-)

                  clause into the Bill of Sale would have been sufficient.

                  That was the issue. The big issue.

                  Mexico was perfectly willing to sell the land. They knew they couldn't control the zillions of gringos flooding west.

                  Best to all --

                  "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

                  by bontemps2012 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:54:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site