Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I believe that the possibility of creating additional states out of Texas died almost immediately because Texas was not going to permit it.
In all my reading about the period leading up to the War, I have never seen any suggestion that anyone, north or south, raised the possibility of revisiting the Texas issue as an element of a compromise. It was not, for example, an element of the proposed Crittenden Compromise or the other related plans that were floated during the period between Lincoln's election and the outbreak of hostilities in April.
I believe that the possibility of creating additional states out of Texas died almost immediately because Texas was not going to permit it.
In all my reading about the period leading up to the War, I have never seen any suggestion that anyone, north or south, raised the possibility of revisiting the Texas issue as an element of a compromise. It was not, for example, an element of the proposed Crittenden Compromise or the other related plans that were floated during the period between Lincoln's election and the outbreak of hostilities in April.
DIVISION OF TEXAS. The congressional joint resolution for the annexationqv of Texas, passed on March 1, 1845, provided that new states, not to exceed four, could be carved out of Texas, the new states to be entitled to admission to the Union, with or without slaveryqv if south of the Missouri Compromiseqv line, and without slavery if north of that line. The gubernatorial campaign of 1847 centered around the division of Texas into East and West Texas-East Texas being a slave state and West Texas being a free state-but the death of Isaac Van Zandt,qv chief proponent of division, ruined the hopes of the divisionists. In 1850 Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri introduced a bill to reduce the size of Texas, and Senator Henry Stuart Footeqv of Mississippi proposed a new state east of the Brazos River, to be called Jacinto, but the proposal received little consideration in the Senate. On February 16, 1852, a joint resolution was introduced into the Texas legislature proposing that Texas be divided into East Texas and West Texas, but the measure was defeated by a vote of 33 to 15.
With the end of the Civil War, carpetbag administrations were keenly interested in the possibility of more carpetbag positions, which would result from the establishment of new states. The Constitutional Convention of 1866 gave much attention to the division of Texas. On March 6, 1866, a resolution was introduced providing for a state east of the Trinity River to embrace thirty-eight counties and be called East Texas. A countermove proposed that Texas sell to the United States all territory lying west of a line beginning at the mouth of the Pecos River, thence up the stream to Fort Lancaster, thence to the point where the 102d parallel crosses the Red River. These resolutions did not come to a vote.
=====
There's more there, but this is what covers the period around the Civil War. Senator Bell of TN was heavily involved in the 1850 Missouri Compromise effort involving Texas, so I assume he would have ben involved again if such an effort was part of an 1860 Compromise move.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
One other thing that occurs to me that probably fits in somewhere. When Texas joined the Union, its boundaries were uncertain. Texas claimed that its western border extended to the Rio Grande River -- over half of what is now New Mexico. As part of the Compromise of 1850, Texas relinquished its claim to that territory.
As large as Texas nonetheless was, it was still a good deal smaller than Texans had originally claimed. Having already "given up" so much land, Texans would presumably have been all the more reluctant to give up even more.
One other thing that occurs to me that probably fits in somewhere. When Texas joined the Union, its boundaries were uncertain. Texas claimed that its western border extended to the Rio Grande River -- over half of what is now New Mexico. As part of the Compromise of 1850, Texas relinquished its claim to that territory.
As large as Texas nonetheless was, it was still a good deal smaller than Texans had originally claimed. Having already "given up" so much land, Texans would presumably have been all the more reluctant to give up even more.
Texas claimed their northern border was somewhere up in Montana, IIRR, and that their territory included parts of what we would now consider Colorado and such. Then as now, Texans saw things in their own special way. <g>
In the same way, Texas declared their southern border was the Rio Grande as well -- which was certainly dubious, to say the least. It never had been before they captured Santa Anna during the Texas Revolution, and the Mexican government repudiated the treaty he signed while a POW that supposedly gave it to them after San Jacinto.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
sorry trice, have to boo your post that Texas' claim to the Rio Grande is dubious ;-)
Even though Santa Ana has no legal authority, he clearly has apparent authority, he talks and walks like the dictator who abrogated the Mexican Constitution. For Mexico not to ratify the Treaty would be akin to the Bundestag repudiating the surrender because Jodl had no authority.
By the Civil War of course the Rio Grande question is largely settled (you can check out some of the interesting border disputes that have arisen due to changing river line/diversion).
I think the question boils down to whether the Northern states would permit a further division of Texas and whether there was sufficient population in various portions of Texas to qualify as a state (I think in 1860 that is a problem)
sorry trice, have to boo your post that Texas' claim to the Rio Grande is dubious ;-)
Even though Santa Ana has no legal authority, he clearly has apparent authority, he talks and walks like the dictator who abrogated the Mexican Constitution. For Mexico not to ratify the Treaty would be akin to the Bundestag repudiating the surrender because Jodl had no authority.
By the Civil War of course the Rio Grande question is largely settled (you can check out some of the interesting border disputes that have arisen due to changing river line/diversion).
I think the question boils down to whether the Northern states would permit a further division of Texas and whether there was sufficient population in various portions of Texas to qualify as a state (I think in 1860 that is a problem)
of couse as you point out, Texans like Texas big!
The only apparent reason for Texas to claim the Rio Grande as its' southern border is the agreement with Santa Anna. That was never the border before that point in history.
Santa Anna was a prisoner. Most of the Texan army wanted to kill him on the spot after what had happened at the Alamo and Goliad. Prisoners have no authority to negotiate in such a situation and, as I noted, the existing Mexican government rejected the agreement Santa Anna signed. Why do you think the Mexican government is bound by an agreement it did not accept?
BTW, Jodl would have had no authority to do anything other than surrender the organizations he was responsible for. Since the German government was falling apart at the time, surrendering the Armed Forces was essentially surrendering the nation to the mercy of the Allies. The situation is not comparable to that of Mexico in 1836.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Its true, traditionally the boundary was considered to be the Nueces. However, the land between the Nueces was essentially a no man's land (not that Mexico wasn't claiming it, just that there really just wasn't much there. The 'difference' on the Gulf isn't actually what matters, its obviously how the river tails off that makes a big difference.
Yes, Santa Anna is a prisoner, but he IS the government. What happens is that essentially Santa Anna becomes a dictator, disbands Congress - sections of the nation go into open rebellion (its not JUST Texas), Santa Anna loses at San Jacinto and gives Texas independence with the Rio Grande, and THEN the Mexican nation reasserts control and declares Velasco Treaties null and void.
Another thing to consider is what the Rio Grande and Nueces AREN'T - Neither river is a true 'cultural frontier' in the same way that the Rhine is or the Alps are. At best the Nueces is a PROVINCIAL boundary and obviously a '19th century' one at that. Look at some contemperanous boundary disputes, ie. UK/USA up in the Northwest where US is claiming a nice chunk of British Columbia and the UK is claiming into what is now Oregon (pretty wide discrepancy).
Bottom line here is that whereas the US is blessed with relatively effective leadership, the Mexicans get cursed with Santa Anna and the only reason why Mexicans challenge it after US annexation is because they think they can win (Mexicans have more troops in Matamoros than Taylor brings).
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
The Compromise of 1860, not 50! 
Linear Mode
