Inligting

Goeie historiografie -artikels oor anneksasie in Texas?


Ek vind dit moeilik om 'n goeie historiografie -artikel te vind oor die anneksasie van Texas op JSTOR. Kan jy my help om een ​​te vind? Ek is nie seker waarna ek moet soek nie. ("Goed" beteken dat dit algemene meningsverskille tussen historici oor die onderwerp bevat.)


OORSAKVERKLARING: 2 Februarie 1861 'N Verklaring van die oorsake wat die staat Texas dwing om van die Federale Unie af te skei.

Die regering van die Verenigde State het by sekere gesamentlike besluite, met ingang van die 1ste dag van Maart, in die jaar 1845 nC, voorgestel aan die Republiek van Texas, toe 'n vrye, soewereine en onafhanklike nasie, die anneksasie van laasgenoemde aan eersgenoemde as een van die gelyke state daarvan,

Die mense van Texas, deur afgevaardigdes in die byeenkoms wat op die vierde dag van Julie dieselfde jaar vergader het, het die voorstelle goedgekeur en aanvaar en 'n grondwet vir die voorgestelde staat gevorm, waarop op die 29ste dag van Desember in dieselfde jaar, gesê dat die staat formeel toegelaat is tot die Konfederasie.

Texas het haar afsonderlike nasionale bestaan ​​laat vaar en ingestem om een ​​van die Konfederasie -state te word om haar welsyn te bevorder, huishoudelike rustigheid te verseker en die seëninge van vrede en vryheid vir haar mense meer wesenlik te verseker. Sy is in die konfederasie ontvang met haar eie grondwet, onder die waarborg van die federale grondwet en die kompak van die anneksasie, dat sy hierdie seëninge moet geniet. Sy is ontvang as 'n gemenebes wat die instelling, negerslawerny, onderhou en beskerm het-die diensbaarheid van die Afrikaner aan die blanke ras binne haar perke-'n verhouding wat bestaan ​​het vanaf die eerste vestiging van haar wildernis deur die wit ras, en wat haar mense bedoel het, moet in alle toekomstige tyd bestaan. Haar instellings en geografiese posisie het die sterkste bande tussen haar en ander slawe-houers van die konfederasie gevestig. Hierdie bande is versterk deur assosiasie. Maar wat was die gang van die regering van die Verenigde State en van die mense en owerhede van die state wat nie slawe besit nie, sedert ons verbintenis met hulle was?

Die oorheersende meerderheid van die federale regering het onder verskillende voorwendsels en vermommings dieselfde gedoen om die burgers van die suidelike state uit te sluit, tensy dit onder afskuwelike en ongrondwetlike beperkings was, van al die enorme gebiede wat alle state in gemeen besit Stille Oseaan, met die doel om voldoende mag in die gemeenskaplike regering te bekom om dit te gebruik as 'n manier om die instellings van Texas en haar suster-slawe-state te vernietig.

Deur die ontrouheid van die Noordelike State en hul burgers en die onbetaamlikheid van die Federale Regering, is berugte kombinasies van branders en outlaws toegelaat in daardie state en die gemeenskaplike gebied van Kansas om die federale wette te vertrap, om oorlog te voer teen lewens en eiendom van die suidelike burgers in daardie gebied, en laastens, deur geweld en skarewet, om die besit te verkry van slegs die eiendom van die Noordelike State.

Terwyl die federale regering, maar gedeeltelik onder beheer van hierdie ons onnatuurlike en seksuele vyande, dit jare lank byna heeltemal versuim het om die lewens en eiendom van die mense van Texas te beskerm teen die Indiese woeste aan ons grens, en meer onlangs teen die moorddadige aanvalle. van banditti uit die naburige gebied van Mexiko en as ons staatsregering groot bedrae daarvoor bestee het, het die federale regering vergoeding daarvoor geweier, wat ons toestand onveiliger en teisterender gemaak het as tydens die bestaan ​​van die Republiek van Texas.

Hierdie en ander onreg het ons geduldig gedra in die ydele hoop dat 'n terugkerende gevoel van geregtigheid en menslikheid 'n ander manier van administrasie sou veroorsaak.

As ons adverteer in die loop van individuele nie-slawe-besitende state, en dat [van] die meerderheid van hul burgers, neem ons griewe veel groter aan.

Die State van Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan en Iowa, het deur middel van plegtige wetgewing die doelbewuste, direkte of indirekte oortreding van die 3de klousule van die 2de afdeling van die vierde artikel van die federale grondwet, en wette wat op grond daarvan uitgevaardig is, en sodoende 'n wesenlike bepaling van die ooreenkoms nietig verklaar, ontwerp deur sy opstellers om die vriendskap tussen die lede van die konfederasie te handhaaf en om die regte van die slawe-besitstate in hul huishoudelike te verseker instellings-'n bepaling gebaseer op geregtigheid en wysheid, en sonder die handhawing waarvan die kompakte nie die doel van die skepping daarvan bereik nie. Sommige van hierdie state het hoë boetes en vernederende boetes opgelê aan enige van hul burgers of amptenare wat die bepaling van die regsbepaling of die federale wette wat daarvolgens uitgevaardig is, te goeder trou kan uitvoer.

In alle state wat nie slawe besit nie, het die mense, in stryd met die goeie trou en gemoedelikheid tussen heeltemal verskillende nasies, 'n groot deelparty gevorm, nou sterk genoeg om die sake van elkeen van hulle te beheer State, gebaseer op die onnatuurlike gevoel van vyandigheid teenoor hierdie suidelike state en hul weldadige en patriargale stelsel van Afrikaanse slawerny, verkondig die vernederende leerstelling van die gelykheid van alle mense, ongeag ras of kleur-'n leer in oorlog met die natuur, in opposisie tot die ervaring van die mensdom, en in stryd met die duidelikste openbarings van die Goddelike Wet. Hulle eis die afskaffing van negerslawerny gedurende die konfederasie, die erkenning van politieke gelykheid tussen die blanke en die negeras, en verklaar hul vasbeslotenheid om hul kruistog teen ons aan te dring, solank daar 'n negerslaaf in hierdie state bly.

Hierdie afskaffingsorganisasie het al jare lank aktief saadjies van onenigheid deur die Unie gesaai en het die federale kongres die arena gebied vir die verspreiding van vuurbrande en haat tussen die slawe- en nie-slawe-houende state.

Deur hul krag te konsolideer, het hulle die slawe-besitstate in 'n hopelose minderheid op die federale kongres geplaas, en het hulle geen nut gehad om die suidelike regte te beskerm teen hul verpligtinge en inbreuk nie.

Hulle het, en by die stembus, die revolusionêre leerstelling verkondig dat daar 'n meer wet 'is as die grondwet en wette van ons Federale Unie, en feitlik dat hulle hul eed sal verontagsaam en ons regte sal vertrap.

Hulle het al jare lank wettelose organisasies aangemoedig en ondersteun om ons slawe te steel en te voorkom dat hulle weer gevang word, en het herhaaldelik Suid -burgers vermoor terwyl hulle wettiglik probeer het om hulle vry te laat.

Hulle het die suidelike bodem binnegedring en onskuldige burgers vermoor, en deur die pers het hul vooraanstaande manne en 'n fanatiese preekstoel lof geskenk aan die akteurs en sluipmoordenaars in hierdie misdade, terwyl die goewerneurs van verskeie van hul state geweier het om partye te lewer wat geïmpliseer en aangekla is vir deelname aan sulke oortredings, op grond van die wetlike eise van die gegriefde state.

Hulle het deur middel van die e -posse en afgevaardigdes gehuur, oproerige pamflette en papiere onder ons gestuur om diensbare opstand aan te wakker en bloed en bloedbad na ons vuur te bring.

Hulle het gehuurde afgevaardigdes onder ons gestuur om ons dorpe te verbrand en wapens en gif vir dieselfde doel aan ons slawe uit te deel.

Hulle het die state wat slawe besit, verarm deur ongelyke en gedeeltelike wetgewing, en sodoende hulself verryk deur ons inhoud uit te put.

Hulle het geweier om krediete te stem vir die beskerming van Texas teen genadelose woeste, net omdat sy 'n slawe-staat is.

En laastens, deur die gesamentlike seksie-stem van die sewentien state wat nie slawe besit nie, het hulle twee mans as president en vise-president van die hele konfederasie verkies, wie se hoofaansprake op sulke hoë posisies hul goedkeuring is vir hierdie lang voortgesette onreg, en hul beloftes om hulle voort te sit tot die finale voleinding van hierdie skemas vir die ondergang van die slawe-besitstate.

Met die oog op hierdie en baie ander feite, moet ons eie standpunte duidelik verkondig word.

Ons meen onteenseglike waarhede dat die regerings van die verskillende state, en van die konfederasie self, uitsluitlik deur die blanke ras tot stand gebring is, vir hulself en hul nageslag dat die Afrika -ras geen agentskap in hul stigting gehad het wat hulle met reg gehou en beskou het as 'n minderwaardige en afhanklike ras, en slegs in hierdie toestand kon hul bestaan ​​in hierdie land voordelig of verdraagsaam wees.

Dat alle blanke mans in hierdie vrye regering geregtig is op gelyke burgerlike en politieke regte, dat die serwituut van die Afrikaanse ras, soos dit in hierdie state bestaan, wedersyds voordelig is vir sowel bond as vry, en dit is oorvloedig gemagtig en geregverdig deur die ervaring van die mensdom en die geopenbaarde wil van die Almagtige Skepper, soos erken deur alle Christen -nasies, terwyl die vernietiging van die bestaande verhoudings tussen die twee rasse, soos bepleit deur ons seksuele vyande, onvermydelike rampe op beide en verwoesting sou meebring die vyftien slawe-houende state.

Deur die afstigting van ses van die slawe-besitstate en die sekerheid dat ander vinnig dieselfde sal doen, het Texas geen ander alternatief as om in 'n geïsoleerde verband met die Noorde te bly of haar lot met die Suide te verenig nie.

Om hierdie en ander redes, plegtig beweer dat die federale grondwet deur die verskeie genoemde state oortree en feitlik opgehef is, siende dat die federale regering nou onder die beheer van ons vyande gaan om van die verhewe voorwerpe van die skepping daarvan af te lei van onderdrukking en verkeerd, en besef dat ons eie staat nie meer na beskerming kan soek nie, maar by God en haar eie seuns-Ons, die afgevaardigdes van die mense van Texas, het in die byeenkoms vergader, 'n verordening aangeneem wat alle politieke verbintenis met die die regering van die Verenigde State van Amerika en die mense daarvan en doen 'n beroep op die intelligensie en patriotisme van die vrymanne van Texas om dit op die 23ste dag van die huidige maand by die stembus te bekragtig.

Aangeneem in die konvensie op die 2de dag van Feby, in die jaar van ons Here duisend agt honderd een en sestig en van die onafhanklikheid van Texas die vyf en twintigste.

BRON:
Winkler, Ernest William, red. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas 1861, uit die oorspronklike geredigeer in die Staatsdepartement. Austin: Texas Library and Historical Commission, 1912, pp. 61-65.


Tydsperiodes:

Die volgende, aangepas uit die Chicago Manual of Style, 15de uitgawe, is die voorkeuraanhaling vir hierdie inskrywing.

C. T. Neu, & ldquoAnnexation, & rdquo Handboek van Texas Online, besoek op 17 Junie 2021, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/annexation.

Uitgegee deur die Texas State Historical Association.

Alle materiaal met kopiereg is ingesluit in die Handboek van Texas Online is in ooreenstemming met titel 17 U.S.C. Afdeling 107 hou verband met kopiereg en & ldquoFair gebruik & rdquo vir nie-winsgewende opvoedkundige instellings, wat die Texas State Historical Association (TSHA) toelaat om materiaal met kopiereg te gebruik om studie, opleiding en die publiek in te lig. Die TSHA doen alles in sy vermoë om aan die beginsels van billike gebruik te voldoen en aan kopieregwetgewing te voldoen.

As u materiaal van kopiereg van hierdie webwerf af wil gebruik vir u eie doeleindes wat billiker gebruik te bowe gaan, moet u toestemming van die eienaar van die outeursreg verkry.


1845 Bylae Ooreenkoms

Tweede sitting van die 28ste kongres
Begin en het gehou op die tweede dag van Desember in die stad Washington, in die District of Columbia, agtienhonderd vier en veertig.
Gesamentlike resolusie vir die anneksasie van Texas in die Verenigde State

Besluit deur die Senaat en Huis van Verteenwoordigers van die Verenigde State van Amerika in die kongres, dat die Kongres toestem dat die grondgebied behoorlik opgeneem in en wat regmatig aan die Republiek van Texas behoort, in 'n nuwe staat opgerig kan word, staat Texas, met 'n republikeinse regeringsvorm, deur die mense van die republiek aangeneem, deur afgevaardigdes in die konvensie, vergader met die toestemming van die bestaande regering, sodat dieselfde toegelaat kan word as een van die state van hierdie republiek Unie.

2. En word dit verder beslis, dat die voorafgaande toestemming van die kongres gegee word op die volgende voorwaardes en met die volgende waarborge, te wete: Eerste-genoemde staat wat gevorm moet word, onderhewig aan die aanpassing deur hierdie regering van alle grensvraagstukken wat met ander regerings en die konstitusie daarvan kan ontstaan, met die regte bewyse dat dit deur die mense van die republiek Texas aanvaar word, word aan die president van die Verenigde State oorgedra, moet voor die kongres gelê word vir sy laaste optrede, op of voor die eerste dag van Januarie, duisend agthonderd ses en veertig. Tweede-genoemde staat, toe hy in die Unie toegelaat is, nadat hy alle openbare geboue, vestings, kaserne, hawens en hawens, vloot- en vlootwerwe, dokke, tydskrifte, wapens, bewapening en alle ander eiendom en middele wat verband hou met die Verenigde State aan die Verenigde State afgestaan ​​het tot die openbare verdediging van die republiek Texas, behou al die openbare fondse, skulde, belasting en gelde van elke aard wat aan die republiek behoort of verskuldig is, en behou ook al die leë en onaangewese grond wat binne sy perke lê , wat toegepas moet word op die betaling van die skuld en die aanspreeklikhede van die republiek Texas en die oorskot van die genoemde gronde, nadat die skuld en laste afgehandel is, van die hand gesit moet word soos genoemde staat mag voorskryf maar in geen geval word skuld en aanspreeklikhede 'n heffing op die regering van die Verenigde State nie. Derde- Nuwe state, van geskikte grootte, van hoogstens vier in aantal, benewens die staat Texas, en met voldoende bevolking, kan hierna, met toestemming van die staat, uit die gebied daarvan gevorm word, wat geregtig is tot toelating kragtens die bepalings van die federale grondwet. En die state wat bestaan ​​uit die gedeelte van die gebied wat lê suid van ses en dertig grade dertig minute noordelike breedtegraad, algemeen bekend as die Missouri -kompromislyn, sal met of sonder slawerny in die Unie toegelaat word, soos die mense van elke staat wat toelating verlang. En in sodanige state of state wat uit genoemde gebied noord van die Missouri -kompromislyn gevorm word, is slawerny of onwillekeurige diensbaarheid (behalwe misdaad) verbied.

3. En word dit verder besluit: As die president van die Verenigde State dit na sy oordeel en diskresie die beste raadsaam ag, in plaas van die voorgaande besluit aan die Republiek van Texas voor te lê, as 'n overture van die Verenigde State vir toelating, om dan met die Republiek te onderhandel, of dit nou besluit is dat 'n staat uit die huidige Republiek van Texas, met gepaste omvang en grense, en met twee verteenwoordigers in die kongres tot die volgende verdeling van verteenwoordiging gevorm moet word, word kragtens hierdie wet in die Unie toegelaat op gelyke voet met die bestaande state, sodra die bepalings en voorwaardes van sodanige toelating, en die staking van die oorblywende Texaanse gebied aan die Verenigde State ooreengekom word deur die regerings van Texas en die Verenigde State: En dat die bedrag van honderdduisend dollar word, en dieselfde word hierby aangewend om die uitgawes van missies en onderhandelinge te dek, om ooreen te kom oor die voorwaardes van genoemde toelating en sessie,óf deur verdrag aan die senaat voorgelê word, of deur artikels wat aan die twee huise van die kongres voorgelê moet word, soos die president mag bepaal.

J W JONES
Speaker van die Huis van Verteenwoordigers

WILLIE P. MANGUM
President, tempore, van die Senaat

Goedgekeur ’d 1 Maart 1845
JOHN TYLER

Bron:
Verdrae en ander internasionale wette van die Verenigde State van Amerika.
Geredigeer deur Hunter Miller
Deel 4
Dokumente 80-121: 1836-1846
Washington: Staatsdrukkantoor, 1934.

NOTA deur Ed Brannum: Ek is nou oortuig dat die hele saak van anneksasie by resolusie vir die republiek Texas Nation van die begin af 'n bedrogspul was.

1- 9de kongres verdaag 3 Februarie 1845

2- Anson Jones vra vir 'n byeenkoms van afgevaardigdes op 4 Julie 1845. Deur watter gesag tree een tak van regering op sy eie op? Watter gesag het Jones gehad om die byeenkoms te belê nadat die kongres verdaag het?

3- Moet die afgevaardigdes nie uit Texas kom nie? Wie was hierdie 57 afgevaardigdes?

4- Argiewe toon slegs 13 afgevaardigdes uit Texas en die res is uit die Verenigde State. Wie het hulle verteenwoordig, die republiek van Texas of die Verenigde State/staat van Texas?

5- Twyfelagtige konvensie verdaag 28 Augustus 1845 met 'n bekragtigde goedkeuring van die nuwe sogenaamde grondwet van die staat Texas op 27 Augustus 1845. Alles word gedoen met 'n de jure kongres wat deur 'n regeringsvertraging uitgestel word in stryd met alle grondwette .

6- Verstaan ​​dit nou: In die nuwe grondwet staan ​​dat die nuwe regering in November 1847 verkies sal word nadat die regering gevorm is!

7- Groter vraag: Waarom is die jaarlikse verkiesing in die Republiek van Texas, 'n week later in 1845, onder die grondwet van die Republiek van Texas, de jure 1836, gehou en nie die regskleur nie, die grondwet van Texas wat pas voorheen op 27 Augustus aangeneem is? 1845? Op 5 September 1845 is verkiesings gehou vir die 10de kongres van die Republiek van Texas, maar die verkose kongres is nooit belê in stryd met die grondwet wat alle uitverkorenes 'n eed afgelê het nie.

8- Daar is baie min dinge wat die president kan doen sonder die toestemming van die senaat. Daar was tans geen senaat byeengeroep nie.

* Feitelike verklaring: die eerste wetgewer vir die staat Texas het op 19 Februarie 1846 in Austin vergader in direkte oortreding van die grondwet van die republiek Texas van 1836 en ook die sogenaamde nuut aangeneem grondwet van die staat Texas in 1845. Dit is in bedrog gedoen en daar is geen tydsbeperkings vir bedrog nie.

9- Met watter gesag is 'n spesiale verkiesing gehou op 15 Desember 1845 toe daar nie 'n wetgewende tak byeengeroep is nie? Die nuut ingestelde grondwet het in 1847 verkiesings vereis en die 10de kongres van die Republiek van Texas het nog nooit vergader nie.

” Vraag wat antwoorde benodig: Waar was die lede van die uitvoerende tak op hierdie tydstip en die belangrikste, waar was al die regterlike takregters?

“ Sonder die gelyktydige toestemming van al drie dele van die regering, geen wet word gemaak of kan gemaak word nie. Sir M. Hale ”.

” In alle grondwette het dit altyd drie voltydse takke van die regering vereis vir die mense deur die mense in Texas, nie een of twee takke deeltyds nie.

Van hierdie wette kan die reëls van die kongresse en refleksie van twee liggame afgelei word. ” Cheyne, Huis van Verteenwoordigers en die Senaat

1- REPUBLIEK VAN TEXAS Gearchiveerde rekords.

Ek, die ondergetekende, prokureur -generaal en waarnemende staatsekretaris van die Republiek van Texas, verklaar hiermee dat die gewone sitting van die negende kongres van genoemde Republiek, verdaag op die derde dag van Februarie,
A. D. duisend agthonderd vyf en veertig.

Gegee onder my hand en seël van my amp in Washington, op die vierde dag van Februarie,
A. D., duisend agthonderd vyf en veertig.

2- In die Amerikaanse kongres Desember 1844 is 'n voorstel vir die anneksasie van Texas ingedien deur gesamentlike resolusie. Toe nadat die 9de kongres verdaag het soos hierbo getoon iemand, wat weet wie, sonder enige gesag, geslaag het einde Februarie 1845 'n gesamentlike resolusie wat voorsiening maak vir die toelating van Texas as 'n staat in plaas van 'n gebied, het dit die voorreg gegee om sy eie openbare grond te behou, en sodoende 'n bron van inkomste bied waarmee sy sy skuld betaal kan word, en die die reg om homself in soveel as vier bykomende state te verdeel.

OPMERKING: Texas sou as 'n gebied geklassifiseer moes word om dit wettig te maak om nie die Amerikaanse grondwet te skend nie. Alle afgevaardigdes wat tot 'n kongresstoel verkies is, was van 'n grondgebied daarom kon hulle net debatteer. *Hulle kon nie stem nie.

Andrew J. Donelson het die voorstel na Texas gebring en dring daarop aan dat dit onmiddellik aanvaar word. Die regering van die Verenigde State het goeie rede gehad om opdrag te gee, want beide Engeland en Frankryk het Mexiko aangemoedig om in te stem tot 'n vredesverdrag. Anson Jones, president van Texas, het ingestem tot die voorlopige voorbereidings van 'n verdrag met Mexiko waardeur die land ingestem het om die onafhanklikheid van Texas te erken op voorwaarde dat Texas sou nie aan die Verenigde State geannekseer word nie. Jones het beide voorstelle, anneksasie en Mexikaanse erkenning aan tdie kongres van die republiek (Hoe kan dit wees as die kongres nooit belê het nadat dit verkies is nie?) en aan die mense van Texas (Watter mense en wanneer?), wat deur die Konvensie van 1845, (slegs 57 afgevaardigdes teenwoordig en slegs 13 van hulle was uit Texas) die anneksasievoorwaardes aanvaar. Hierdie optrede het alle diplomatieke aktiwiteite van die republiek beëindig, hoewel 'n geruime tyd verloop het voordat die verskillende buitelandse verteenwoordigers van Texas teruggekeer het.

3- KONVENSIE VAN 1845. Die Konvensie van 1845 is deur Anson Jones opgeroep om in Austin te vergader om die gesamentlike resolusie van die Amerikaanse kongres oor die anneksasie van die Republiek van Texas aan die Verenigde State te oorweeg. Die konvensie vergader op 4 Julie 1845. Thomas Jefferson Rusk is verkies tot president van die byeenkoms, en James H. Raymond was sekretaris. Met 'n stemming van vyf-en-vyftig tot een, die afgevaardigdeshet die aanbod van anneksasie goedgekeur. Richard Bache van Galveston was die enigste meningsverskil. Daarna, die konvensie het die Grondwet van 1845 voorberei vir die nuwe staat. Rusk het verskeie komitees aangestel om wetgewende, uitvoerende, geregtelike en algemene bepalings van die grondwet te ondersoek, asook 'n komitee van vyf om konvensiereëls op te stel. Van die sewe en vyftig afgevaardigdes tot die konvensie verkies, agtien was oorspronklik van Tennessee, agt van Virginia, sewe van Georgia, ses van Kentucky en vyf van Noord -Carolina. Die byeenkoms word beskou as die mees bekwame liggaam in sy soort wat ooit in Texas vergader het, en bevat manne met 'n wye politieke ervaring, soos Thomas J. Rusk, James Pinckney Henderson, Isaac Van Zandt, Hardin R. Runnels, Abner S. Lipscomb, Nicholas H. Darnell, REB Baylor en José Antonio Navarro. Die konvensie op 28 Augustus 1845 verdaag.

4- Opmerking deur Ed Brannum: Ek tel 44 afgevaardigdes uit die buitelandse Oos -Amerikaanse state wat slegs 13 Texiane laat stem het en ek is seker dat 12 van hulle Anson Jones -mense was. Daar is altyd vir my gesê dat die mense van Texas gestem het om te annekseer. Waar is die Texiane wat in die rekords gestem het?

5- Moontlike antwoord: * Webster ’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828) 2. (a) Een gekies deur die mense van 'n grondgebied om hulle in die kongres te verteenwoordig, waar hy die reg het om te debatteer, maar nie om te stem nie. Voorbeeld Puerto Rico.

6- Artikels hieronder uit die sogenaamde State of Texas Constitution na 1845 na uitstel.

7- SEK. 12. Die eerste algemene verkiesing vir goewerneur, luitenant -goewerneur en lede van die wetgewer, na die organisasie van die regering (.), sal plaasvind op die eerste Maandag in November, duisend agthonderd sewe en veertig, (Let wel: deur watter gesag, aangesien daar vanaf 3 Februarie 1845 geen wetgewers byeengeroep is nie?) en word daarna tweejaarliks ​​gehou op die eerste Maandag in November, totdat die wetgewer anders besluit en die goewerneur en luitenant-goewerneur wat in Desember verkies is, hul ampte beklee totdat die amp van die goewerneur en luitenant-goewerneur verkies word in die jaar duisend agthonderd sewe en veertig.

SEK. 13. Die verordening wat deur die konvensie aangeneem is oor die vierde dag van Julie, (Watter jaar?) die instemming met die openings vir die anneksasie van Texas aan die Verenigde State, sal by hierdie grondwet aangeheg word en deel daarvan uitmaak.

Gedien in konvensie deur die afgevaardigdes van die mense van Texas, in die stad Austin, hierdie sewe en twintigste dag van Augustus, in die jaar van onse Here duisend agthonderd vyf en veertig.

Nota deur Ed Brannum: Waarom word die kongresafgevaardigdes hieronder nou afgevaardigdes van die mense van Texas genoem toe slegs 13 van hulle uit Texas kom?

As getuienis waarvan ons ons name hierop ingeteken het.

John D. Anderson
James Armstrong
Cavitt Armstrong
B. C. Bagby
R. E. B. Baylor
R. Bache
J. W. Brashear
Geo. Wm. Bruin
Jas. M. Burroughs
John Caldwell
William L. Cazneau
Edward Clark
A. S. Cunningham
Fil. M. Cuny
Nicholas H. Darnell
James Davis
Lemuel Dale Evans
Gustavus A. Everts
Robert M. Forbes
David Gage
John Hemphill
J. Pinckney Henderson
A. W. O. Hicks
Jos. L. Hogg
A. C. Horton
Volney E. Howard
Spearman Holland
Wm. L. Hunter
Van. R. Irion
Henry J. Jewett
Oliver Jones
H. L. Kinney
Henry R. Latimer
Albert H. Latimer
John M. Lewis
James Liefde
P. O. Lumpkin
Sam. Lusk
Abner S. Lipscomb
James S. Mayfield
A. McGowan
Archibald McNeill
J. B. Miller
Francis Moore, jr.
J. Antonio Navarro
W. B. Ochiltree
Isaac Parker
James Power
Emery Rains
H. G. Runnels
James Scott
Geo. W. Smyth
Israel Standefer
Chas. Bellinger Stewart
E. H. Tarrant
Isaac Van Zandt
Francis M. White
George T. Wood
Wm. Cock Young

Getuig: JAMES H. RAYMOND,
Sekretaris van die Konvensie

LET WEL: By die lees van bogenoemde is die vraag wat ek stel wie is hierdie 57 mense?

8-Lede van die 10de kongreslede van die Republiek van Texas wat vervang is deur jaarlikse verkiesings wat begin op 5 September 2005 en sedertdien elke jaar.
Gereelde sessie, nooit belê nie
Verkies in September 1845 – Nooit gesit nie

President Anson Jones
Ondervoorsitter (Oorlede Julie 1845 nooit vervang nie)

Lede
Caldwell, John
Damell, Nicholas Henry
Franklin, Benjamin C.
Grimes, Jessie
Johnson, Middleton Tate
Kinney, Henry L.
McCrearey, James J.
Munson, Henry J.
Navarro, Jose Antonio
Parker, Issac
Pilsbury, Timothy
Roman, Richard
Wright, George W.
Vakant

Distrik
# 1
# 2
# 3
# 4
# 5
# 6
# 7
# 8
# 9
# 10
# 11
# 12
# 13
# 14

Provinsies
Bastrop, Fayette, Gonzales en Travis
San Augustinus
Harris, Galveston en amp Liberty
Brazos, Montgomery en Washington
Harrison, Sabine, en Shelby
Goliad, Refugio en San Patricio
Austin, Colorado en Fort Bend
Milam en Robertson
Bexar
Houston, Nacogdoches en Rusk
Brazoria
Jackson, Matagorda en Victoria
Bowie, Fannin, Lamar & Red River
Jasper en Jefferson

HUIS VAN VERTEENWOORDIGERS

Lede
Mabry, Evans
Hudson, James P.
Jones, Augustus H.
Cazneau, William Leslie
Nash, John D.
Sublett, Henry W.
McAnelly, Comelius
Visser, William S.
Vakant
Vakant
Vakant
Williamson, Robert McAlpin
Scott, William Thomas
Earl, William
Truitt, James
McNairy, John B.
Vakant
Vakant
Downs, George N.
Shelborn, John P.
Tipps, Jacob
Vakant
Erath, George B.
Porter, Robert H.
Howard, Volney Erskine
Van Derlip, David C.
Sadler, William Turner
Moffitt, John H.
Barnett, S. Slade
Perkins, Stephen W.
Gaines, William B. P.
Vakant
Kendrick, Harvey W.
Vakant
Chambers, John G.
William, John H.
Vakant
De Morse, Charles
Vakant
Vakant

Provinsies
Bastrop
Fayette
Gonzales
Travis
San Augustinus
San Augustinus
Harris
Galveston
Vryheid
Brazos
Montgomery
Washington
Harrison
Sabine
Shelby
Shelby
Goliad
Refugio
San Patricio
Austin
Colorado
Ft Bend
Milam
Robertson
Bexar
Bexar
Houston
Nacogdoches
Beskuit
Brazoria
Brazoria
Jackson
Matagorda
Victoria
Bowie
Fannin
Lamar
Rooi Rivier
Jasper
Jefferson

Totale senatore 13
Totaal Verteenwoordigers 29

Nota: Hierbo is 'n totaal van 42 kongreslede, dus toe Jones op 4 Julie 1845 'n byeenkoms versoek het wie was die 57 sogenaamde afgevaardigdeshierbo gelys in die sogenaamde konvensie wat afgeteken het?

Jones is in September 1844 tot president van Texas verkies en het in Desember sy amp aangeneem. Hy het geen veldtogtoesprake gehou nie, het hom nie toegewy aan die anneksasie nie en het nie die onderwerp in sy intreerede genoem nie. Na die verkiesing van James K. Polk as president van die Verenigde State op 'n platform van “her-anneksasie (??) van Texas ” en president John Tyler se voorstel van anneksasie deur gesamentlike besluit, Vervolg Jones sy stilte. Maar die Die Texas -kongres verklaar dat hy by die Unie aangesluit het. (Let wel: Hoe het die Texas-kongres verklaar dat hy aangesluit het toe hulle verdaag en nooit weer byeengeroep is nie?) Voordat Jones amptelike kennisgewing van die gesamentlike besluit ontvang het, het die aanklagte van Engeland en Frankryk hom daartoe verplig vertraag aksie negentig dae. Hy het belowe om van Mexiko erkenning van Texas se onafhanklikheid te verkry en het die Texas Congress of 'n byeenkoms vertraag. Intussen het die openbare gevoel vir anneksasie en wrok teen Jones toegeneem. Hy is in 'n skildery verbrand en dreigemente is gemaak om sy regering omver te werp, maar hy het stilgebly tot Charles Elliot teruggekeer uit Mexiko met die erkenningsverdrag.

In die Presidensiële wedloop van Texas van 1844, Het vise -president Edward Burleson te staan ​​gekom vir die minister van buitelandse sake, Anson Jones, wat die ondersteuning van Houston gehad het.Jones het met 'n groot stem gewen. Na hy is op 9 Desember ingehuldig, het hy 'n beleid van ekonomie, vreedsame betrekkinge met die Indiërs en 'n nie-aggressiewe beleid teenoor Mexiko geloods.

9- Die Amerikaanse kongres keur die Texas-grondwet goed, en Polk onderteken die besluit om Texas as 'n staat op 29 Desember 1845 toe te laat. Die voortbestaan ​​van die republiek het nege jaar, elf maande en sewentien dae gestrek. In 'n spesiale verkiesing op 15 Desember het Texans verkose amptenare vir die nuwe staatsregering gehad. Die eerste wetgewer het op 19 Februarie 1846 in Austin vergader. Tydens 'n seremonie voor die Capitol het president Jones 'n gewaardeerde toespraak gehou, die vlag van die republiek is omlaag en die vlag van die Verenigde State is daarbo gehys. (Vraag: Hoe was Jones nog steeds president toe die kongres nooit vergader het nie? Let wel: Watter gesag het hierdie spesiale verkiesing gehou toe hul eie nuut gestigte sogenaamde grondwet in 1847 vir verkiesings gevra het? (Sien artikels hierbo).

Op 19 Februarie 1846, tydens die seremonie waarin die regering van Texas as 'n staat in die Unie opgerig is, verklaar Jones: Die Republiek van Texas is nie meer nie. ” Daarna gaan hy terug na Barrington, sy plantasie naby Washington-on-the-Brazos.

Beskrywing: Die woord “resolusie, ”, as dit gaan oor 'n resolusie wat deur 'n vergadering of wetgewer aangeneem is, beteken dit eenvoudig dat hulle ooreengekom het oor hul voorneme oor 'n saak. 'N Resolusie is nie 'n wet nie. Natuurlik, Black ’s Law Dictionary, sesde uitgawe, sê dat 'n gesamentlike besluit, onderteken deur die president, die effek van die reg. Waarom sou dit gesê word as 'n ander definisie waarna u kyk, dit is verklaring van voorneme? Trouens, verder in Black ’s sê dit reguit dat 'n resolusie nie 'n wet is nie. 'N Wet moet voortspruit uit 'n handeling wat deur 'n kongres met 'n spesifieke taal uitgevaardig is. Dit moet 'n Inwerkingtredingsklousule, soos “Dit word hierby uitgevaardig ” en dit moet 'n voorsieningsklousule. 'N Resolusie het nie een van hierdie twee nie. Jay Enloe


Die Dollars en Gevoel van Bylae

'N Paar maande gelede het Chuck Marohn 'n artikel geskryf waarin hy gevra het of dit goed is om eiendom te annekseer, en dit het 'n senuwee in die Urban3 -kantoor getref.

As Chuck explained, “Annexation — the act of bringing property outside of the city limits into the municipal boundaries—is rarely more than an economic sugar high for a city, one with long-term consequences that are nearly always negative.”

If you want your city to grow in a financially healthy, productive way, it takes discipline and a balanced diet. But if you only seek that sugar high when you’re hungry, you’ll grow, alright—but in a manner that will leave you bloated and unsatisfied.

Annexation is effectively a release valve for the city, and it’s natural. Every growing city has to expand its boundaries at some point. In fact, 90% of cities that could annex additional land in the 1990’s did so. At Urban3, we were most curious about why, where, and when cities annex land.

Chuck pointed out that “a common (incorrect) argument that city staff often put forth when they recommend annexations goes something like this: we already have a fire department, a police department, a library and parks….why not have more taxpayers sharing those costs?”

Another argument is that if workers are moving outside the city, why not move city boundaries outward so they still pay for services? The answer is that annexation is almost always a poor investment that doesn’t consider long term stability. Simply put, annexation is a bailout. So what’s the difference between natural growth and a sugar high? Where do we draw the line?

There are many explanations for the placement of city boundaries, the most obvious of which is geography. In Boulder, the city limits directly abut the Rocky Mountains, so that’s a sensible place to draw the line. Some city boundaries can be drawn across cultural or political lines, but those can seem absurd in situations like where the Missouri River splits Kansas City in two across state lines. In situations where geography isn’t a factor, who’s to say that someone just over the border of a city’s official boundaries is not a citizen, but their next-door neighbor is?


Anson Jones and the Annexation of Texas

Anson Jones was born in Massachusetts in 1798. When he was 22, he was licensed as a physician. Throughout his life, Jones retained the plain, modest manner of a country doctor. But his life would take him in a far different direction. He would be known to history as the "Architect of Annexation." But his actual contribution to Texas statehood is more complex, and his life far more troubled, than the nickname would indicate.

Jones was a restless young man, spending time at Harper's Ferry, Philadelphia, and Venezuela, never making much of a success anywhere. In 1832 he gave up medicine and tried his hand as a commission merchant in New Orleans, where he went broke within a year. Jones next drifted to Texas, where he finally found success as a physician in Brazoria. At first, Jones resisted becoming involved in the tensions between Texas and Mexico, but eventually he became a supporter of Texas independence. When the revolution came, Jones served as judge advocate and surgeon in the San Jacinto campaign.

As Texas struggled to form a republic, Jones found himself drawn to politics. He was elected to the Texas Congress, where he served as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It was in this role that Jones first became involved with the question of the annexation of Texas to the United States.

The question of Texas annexation had been around since the days of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. At that time, Thomas Jefferson himself had asserted that the true southern limit of Louisiana was the Rio Grande, and many Americans agreed. Naturally, the Spanish objected to this interpretation. In 1819, the United States and Spain signed the Adams-Onís Treaty, in which Spain relinquished Florida to the U.S. in exchange for the U.S. giving up claim to Texas.

With the Texas Revolution, the question arose again. After San Jacinto, Texas formally proposed annexation to the United States, and many Texans expected it to follow within a matter of months. Sam Houston was a protégé and close friend of President Andrew Jackson, who was known to favor the annexation to secure and expand the western border of the United States. Business interests in the United States also wanted to move in and develop Texas commercially. And powerful senators from slave states saw the chance to extend the reach of slavery across thousands of miles of additional territory.

Click on image for larger image and transcript.
Instructions to the Texas chargé d'affaires for the republic in Washington, D.C., 1842.

Click on image for larger image and transcript.
Annexation was not the only issue. Jones on the possibility of a treaty with the Indians, 1842.

But there was heated opposition to annexation as well. First, Mexico did not recognize Texas independence, meaning Texas was still at war with Mexico. To annex Texas would be to commit the United States to that war, with the possibility that England might enter the war on the side of the Mexicans. Secondly, the annexation of Texas would breach the 1819 treaty with Mexico. And most importantly, northern states and anti-slavery advocates objected strongly, warning that the annexation could lead to civil war. Opposition to annexation in the North was so overwhelming that the measure had no chance of passing.

In Congress, Jones advocated a withdrawal of the offer of annexation. In 1838, Sam Houston appointed Jones as Texas minister to the United States, and authorized him to formally withdraw the offer. Instead of pursuing annexation, Jones would work to stimulate recognition and trade with Europe to the extent that one of two things would happen: either the U.S. would change its mind and decide to annex Texas, or Texas would become strong enough to remain independent. Jones served as minister until the following year, when Mirabeau B. Lamar became president. Jones returned to Texas, was elected to the Senate, and became a harsh critic of Lamar's foreign policy.

Sam Houston won the presidency again in 1841. This time, he chose Jones as his secretary of state. The foreign policy pursued by Houston and Jones was complex and at times devious. In Washington, they instructed Texas chargé d'affairs Isaac Van Zandt to labor for renewed interest in annexation. At the same time, they entered into serious negotiations with Britain and France to pursue a European alliance.

Click on image for larger image and transcript.
1844 letter to J. Pinckney Henderson, stressing the need for secrecy in annexation negotiations.

Britain in particular was enormously influential in Texas at that time. The British ran most of the important businesses and operated most trading vessels in the Gulf. The British proposed to broker a peace deal between Texas and Mexico that would offer Texas recognition of its independence in return for moving the border to the Nueces River and emancipating the slaves. In return, Britain could use the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande as a staging ground for its own designs on California.

Jones and Houston vacillated between the two policies. Houston was genuinely torn between his desire for annexation and the dream of an independent Texas. Jones believed that the prospects for annexation were dim, and that independence as part a British-French alliance offered the best prospects for peace with Mexico and prosperity for Texas.

Neither the annexation proposal in Washington nor the peace negotiations in Mexico had borne fruit by 1844, a U.S. presidential election year. President John Tyler was an unpopular figure in search of an issue that could bolster his claim to another term. The country was in an expansionist mood, and Tyler decided to tap into the sentiment by moving forward aggressively on the annexation question. The Tyler administration entered into secret negotiations with Houston and Jones.

Tyler assured the Texans that he had the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to approve a treaty of annexation. Houston and Jones were dubious of Tyler's claim, and concerned about the continuing border raids and threats of all-out war from Mexico. Since annexation would torpedo the peace negotiations, what guarantees could Tyler provide for protecting Texas from Mexican invasion? And if the treaty failed to win approval, would the United States still stand by Texas and guarantee its independence?

Tyler was willing to go for broke. He sent the U.S. Navy to the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. Army to the Southwest to protect the Texas border. On April 12, 1844, the negotiations were completed and Texas signed an annexation treaty with the U.S. Ten days later, Tyler submitted the treaty to the Senate, along with hundreds of pages of supporting documents explaining the commercial and pro-slavery benefits of the move.

The proposed annexation set off an election-year political firestorm. And as Jones had privately feared, Tyler had badly overplayed his hand. The treaty was rejected by a large margin. Predictably, northern senators voted against it. Worse, fifteen southern senators also voted the treaty down, denouncing Tyler's actions as unconstitutional and an election-year stunt.

Click on image for larger image and transcript.
Letter on the prospects for the passage of the annexation treaty, May 1844.

Click on image for larger image and transcript.
Letter to Sam Houston revealing Jones's misgivings about the treaty, May 1844.

Jones was disgusted, saying Texas had been "shabbily used." With renewed vigor, he and Houston turned back to the idea of European protection. If all went well, Texas could end up as an independent nation, at peace with Mexico and poised to build a prosperous economy based on trade with Britain, France, and the United States too. Jones was set to succeed Houston as Texas president later in the year. He played a dangerous game, giving private assurances to both the Europeans and the Americans that he was really on their side.

For despite Tyler's bungling, the annexation issue was far from dead in the United States. The Democrats had seized upon annexation as a campaign issue, nominating James K. Polk on a pro-Texas platform. Henry Clay headed up the Whig ticket, opposing annexation unless it could be accomplished without war. In one of the closest elections in U.S. history, Polk was victorious. Texas had a new champion.

Events in the United States now moved quickly. Congress again took up the matter of annexing Texas. This time, advocates introduced not a treaty, which required a two-thirds vote in the Senate, but a joint resolution, which required a simple majority in both houses of Congress. The resolution passed the Senate by a narrow margin on February 27, 1845. The next day, it passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin.

The offer of annexation reached Texas too late for the new Texas president, Anson Jones. In a mistake that would prove fatal to his political career, Jones had already agreed to a British and French proposal to delay the meeting of the Texas Congress by 90 days, in order to give the Europeans time to negotiate a final peace treaty and independence from Mexico.

For years, Jones had promised to lay before Texans a stark choice: annexation or independence, and could not turn away from the possibility. But his years in the diplomatic world had left him grossly out of touch with public sentiment among ordinary Texans. As President Polk's envoy Charles Wickliffe observed, news of Jones's negotiations with Mexico came upon Texas "like a peal of thunder in a clear skie."

Texans recognized that Jones's actions could derail the annexation, and few Texans had any faith in the goodwill of the European powers or the Mexican government. Jones became wildly unpopular, to the point of being burned in effigy and threatened with lynching. Jones's attempts to backpedaling only added to the scorn and contempt heaped upon him by the newspapers and ordinary Texans.

In June 1845, Jones finally achieved his long-sought offer of recognition and peace from Mexico, and called the Texas Congress into session to consider the choice. In short order, Congress quickly rejected the Mexican offer, accepted annexation, and voted to censure Jones. The next month, a special convention wrote a state constitution. The Texas constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress, and on December 29, 1845, President Polk made it official, signing the annexation resolution that admitted Texas as one of the United States of America.

The last official act of Anson Jones as president was to attend the ceremony on February 19, 1846, in which the American flag was raised over the Texas Capitol. In Jones's words, "The Republic of Texas is no more."

As predicted, Mexico regarded the annexation as an act of war and moved to retake Texas. Polk declared that Mexico had invaded American soil and would pay the price for it. The U.S.-Mexican war that followed was bloody, costly, and as controversial as the annexation itself.

As for Jones, he went home to Barrington, his home on Washington-on-the-Brazos. He became a prosperous planter and amassed a great estate, but brooded constantly over his rejection by the people. In 1849, Jones fell from a horse and incurred a painful injury that caused his left arm to become disabled. Over the next few years, Jones' mental state deteriorated along with his physical health. He nursed an obsessive hatred of Sam Houston and a misguided belief that he would someday return to public office and be recognized for his contributions to Texas annexation. Sadly, he committed suicide in 1858.

Portrait of Anson Jones. Prints and Photographs Collection, Texas State Library and Archives Commission. #1993/31-21.


History review: ‘Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands, 1800-1850,’ by Andrew J. Torget

Long before cowboys and oil derricks emerged as Lone Star stereotypes, cotton reigned as king. Cotton was, in fact, the primary reason for the first mass white migration into Texas.

The creation myth of Anglo-American Texas has long centered on Stephen F. Austin and his followers, who settled near the Brazos River in the 1820s. They, and those who followed, are routinely depicted in historical accounts as pioneers yearning for the freedom that Texas — then a province of Mexico — could provide.

While that may be true, it was only part of their motivation, as Andrew J. Torget shows in his deeply researched and artfully written history, Seeds of Empire. These early settlers came to Texas to grow cotton.

The migration to Texas, Torget writes, was more than anything a “continuation of the endless search by Americans … for the best cotton land along North America’s rich Gulf Coast.” And this money crop was, in many cases, cultivated and picked by slaves.

In the years before Austin arrived, Texas loomed empty and wild. American Indian attacks, especially to the south and west, had wiped out any number of Spanish settlements. “Texas is undoubtedly a rich and fertile tract of country,” an American newspaper editor wrote in 1819, but “savage warfare” had left it “almost literally a vast and noiseless desert.”

The most bellicose of the tribes, Comanches and Apaches, rarely ventured into the eastern half of Texas, which offered rich soil and a long growing season, as well navigable rivers suitable for transporting products.

It was, therefore, a perfect spot for cotton farmers. When they rode into Texas, Torget says, they brought their slaves with them, creating a “Mexican version of Mississippi.”

Though some history books choose not to emphasize it, slavery thus played a seminal role in the settlement and formation of Texas. It was Austin himself, Torget reminds us, who said: “The primary product that will elevate us from poverty is cotton and we cannot do this without the help of slaves.”

Torget, an assistant professor of history at the University of North Texas, notes that the opening of Texas to American immigrants coincided with an international demand for cotton. By 1835, Texas was producing more than 3 million pounds of it.

Texas farmers sent their bales downriver and across the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans. From there, most of it was shipped to Great Britain, where hundreds of mills spun it into the fabric the industrialized world had come to love and need.

Many New Orleans brokers and merchants got rich off Texas cotton. In return, they helped finance the 1836 Texas revolution against Mexico — a revolution that was, in part, fueled by the Mexican government’s opposition to slavery.

In terms of agricultural economy, the newly independent Texas differed little from the Mexican version. “When Texans rebuilt the territory … as the Republic of Texas, they constructed their new nation explicitly on the foundation of cotton,” Torget writes.

As before, slaves were an integral part of this construct. The new republic emerged not so much a shining hope for all mankind as an independent rendition of Dixie. “The Texas nation was,” Torget writes, “a dress rehearsal for the creation of the Confederacy two decades later.”

The founding fathers of the Texas Republic imagined this new land as a refuge for slaveholders beset by abolitionists, Torget writes. It didn’t quite work out that way, in large part because the international cotton market collapsed in 1837, leaving the Republic bankrupt.

Texas’ pro-slavery status complicated its annexation into the Union in 1845, of course, and led to its secession in 1861 and its involvement in the Civil War. Four decades of enslavement in Texas were soon ended.

The production of cotton, however, survived. Even now, Texas grows more of it than any other state.

Seeds of Empire brings new insight and nuance to the story of early Texas. Though it is an academic volume, it combines erudition with — unlike many of its university-press brethren — accessibility. This is a fine and valuable addition to the library of Southwestern history, and it's a pleasure to read as well.

Doug J. Swanson is the author of "Blood Aces: The Wild Ride of Benny Binion, the Texas Gangster Who Created Vegas Poker."

Seeds of Empire

Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands, 1800-1850


The history of Texas' most Texas-iest things

Whether it's a tattoo, a flag in the front yard of even a swimsuit top, Texans show love for their state flag in all sorts of creative ways.

Showing Texas pride using as little fabric as possible.

There's no shortage of things unique to the Lone Star State.

From greetings, foods and traditions&mdash Texas is big and old enough to have a culture of its own.

To dive deeper into what makes Texas so Texas-y, Chron.com put together a slideshow above with some neat and historical facts.

After all, sporting a cowboy hat and eating Whataburger will only get you so far in some circles that frequently boast their Texas heritage.

On the other hand, that Texas pride can often balloon into something else entirely and become a hotbed of misinformation.

Last year, Chron.com reached out to two historians from the University of Houston, Associate Professor of History Dr. Raúl Ramos and African American History Professor Dr. Gerald Horne, to find examples of Texas history that have been forgotten or mischaracterized.

1 of 18 Texas didn't want to be the Lone Star State

4 of 18 Texans were recent occupants of the Alamo

5 of 18 Native Americans haven't disappeared

7 of 18 Comanche history is Texas history

8 of 18 Slavery was not a footnote in Texas history

10 of 18 Texas fought two wars over slavery

11 of 18 Politics is muddying Texas history

13 of 18 What was Texas like as a country?

14 of 18 We need to know more about women's history and labor history in Texas

16 of 18 Houstonians need to know about the Camp Logan riot

17 of 18 Texas is filled with Confederate symbols, but most came decades after the Civil War


Resources for educators

This PSA presents various anti-annexation arguments and excerpts from Anson Jones from various period pamphlets and books, along with selected Republic of Texas documents. The student will understand the difficulty in achieving annexation and can observe the growing divide between slave and free states in the country.

Students will examine the politics and controversy surrounding the Texas annexation question during the 1844 United States presidential election. The political maneuvering of Anson Jones, the last President of the Republic of Texas, is also addressed.

    Student Worksheet:

Worksheet questions stem from a variety of learning styles so that each student has the opportunity to shine. Teachers may also modify and easily incorporate these worksheets into their predesigned lesson plans.

The web links provided will help each instructor prepare, research, and present interesting reputable sites during lectures.

Texas Annexation: United We Stand?

By Vale Fitzpatrick

Contrary to what most people today believe, the annexation of Texas to the United States was not a foregone conclusion. After the success of the Texas Revolution (1836), the young nation expected to be brought into the Union. Texan voters overwhelmingly supported annexation (3,277-91) indeed, most Texans expected annexation in 1836-37. The administrations of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren shocked Texans by rejecting annexation on the grounds that it would mean war with Mexico. 1 The issue periodically arose in Texas and United States politics. It would not be until Sam Houston’s second term as president (1841-1844) that annexation was once again a major issue for both countries. The main point of contention in the United States was that Texas was a slave state. Abolitionists argued that its annexation would expand slavery and increase the power of the slave states in the United States Congress.

During his second administration on 24 January 1843, Republic of Texas President Sam Houston wrote England’s chargé d’affaires in Galveston, a friendly letter in which he commented that nine-tenths of Texans who talked with him favored annexation to the United States as a means of gaining peace and security from Mexico. Leaders in Washington, regardless of their sectional loyalties, also favored annexation, he told Elliot, and both parties would advocate the policy in oncoming elections. Houston hinted to Britain that to prevent annexation Mexico must recognize the independence of Texas. Houston implied the Republic would be happy to remain independent. In reality there was only lukewarm support for annexation in the United States, and so Houston used British “ambitions” to spur the United States into action. He was careful during this period to never fully commit to annexation, but to wait and see whether the United States would approve annexation, because a failed bid by Texas would cost it British support. 2

During the administration of John Tyler, President Houston undertook a serious attempt to craft an annexation agreement. Texas ministers Isaac van Zandt and James Pinckney Henderson secretly worked on crafting the agreement. Houston, who received a copy of the treaty on 28 April 1844, was generally satisfied. However, any chance for the treaty to be accepted was destroyed when it became the central issue in the 1844 United States presidential election. Henry Clay, the Whig candidate, announced he would oppose annexation. On 8 June 1844 the United States Senate killed the treaty by a 35 to 16 margin, with fifteen southern Whigs voting against a treaty they otherwise would have supported. Texans reacted bitterly, while Houston announced that Texas was “free from all involvements and pledges” and would pursue its own national interests. Houston, however, said that in the event of a new offer from the United States that was unequivocal in character, and removed all impediments to annexation, “it might be well for Texans to accept the invitation.” 3

Before Houston, left office, James K. Polk, the expansionist Democrat candidate, won the 1844 United States presidential election. President Tyler took Polk’s victory as a mandate and sent a message to congress recommending annexation by joint resolution, which would require only majority approval in both houses.

The United States Congress, encouraged by President Tyler’s message, began to consider proposals for bringing Texas into the Union. The House passed the annexation resolution in late January by a vote of 120 to 98. With minor amendments, the Senate concurred on the night of February 27 by a vote of 27 to 25. The joint resolution called for Texas to enter the Union as a state, that would retain its public lands (something unique among all other states) and its public debt. The United States would settle all boundary disputes, and Texas would have the option of dividing into four separate states. President Tyler sent the resolution to Texas on March 3, 1845, urging acceptance by the January 1, 1846, deadline set by the United States Congress. Houston had limited enthusiasm for an offer from Washington which he felt dictated terms that he thought was unfair to Texas. Republic of Texas President Anson Jones, however, was now in charge of negotiations. 4

News of the Congressional joint resolution spread across the Republic of Texas during the spring, causing a massive outpouring of support for annexation to the United States. Citizens of nearly every county held mass meetings endorsing annexation. President Jones, however, wanted to delay the issue until France and Britain pressured Mexico to guarantee Texas independence. Mexico, on advice of the British, agreed to acknowledge the independence of Texas on the condition that the Republic would not annex herself to any country. Jones wanted to use the guarantee of independence from Mexico coupled with friendly British and French relations, to gain additional concessions from the United States. Texans, however, wanted annexation and they wanted it immediately. President Jones bowed to public pressure and called a special session of the Texas Congress to meet on 16 June 1845 and consider the question of annexation. The delay in endorsing annexation, together with his feud with Houston, politically damaged Jones and ensured he would never again hold political office in Texas.

OAs the convention assembled on 4 July, Jones placed before them and the Texas Congress the choice between annexation to the United States or independence recognized by Mexico. The Senate unanimously rejected guaranteed independence from Mexico, and then both chambers accepted the annexation treaty. The convention accepted the resolution by a vote of fifty-five to one. Richard Bache of Galveston was the lone dissenter. According to legend, he had come to Texas after divorcing his wife in the United States and voted against annexation because he never again wanted to live in the same country with his ex-wife. 5

A state constitution was drawn up by the convention and quickly ratified by popular vote in October 1845. It was accepted by the United States Congress on 29 December 1845, when President James K. Polk signed the Texas Admission Act. The formal transfer of power occurred on 19 February 1846. Republic of Texas President Anson Jones turned over the reins of state government toGovernor James Henderson, declaring “the final act in this great drama is now performed the Republic of Texas is no more.” 6

1 Randolph B. Campbell, Gone To Texas: History of The Lone Star State (NY: Oxford University Press, 2003.), 165.

2 Campbell, Gone to Texas, 183-186.

3 Randolph B. Campbell, Sam Houston and the American Southwest red. Oscar Handlin (New York: Longman second Ed. 2002.), 135.


New York: Redfield, 1855. Two volumes. 482,[4] 576pp., plus four portrait plates, an engraved view of the Mission of San Jose, a folding facsimile letter from Santa Anna, three single-page maps, and two folding maps. Modern half calf and marbled boards, spines gilt, gilt leather labels. Uneven toning, mostly in the first volume, repairs to verso of the Spanish Texas map, folding facsimile noticeably toned. Still, a very good copy. Item #WRCAM54664

This is the first scholarly work on Texas after annexation, and one of the rare surviving 1855 editions, most having perished in a warehouse fire. The author, a lawyer from Tennessee, went to Texas in 1845, befriended Sam Houston, and served in the Mexican-American War. "In spite of its detractors, Yoakum's history remains a necessary source. Modern historians rally to its support, with reservations. Gambrell said Yoakum managed to achieve 'a degree of objectivity unusual for the amateur historian, and literary style not often equalled by the professional'" - Jenkins.

"Mr. Yoakum seems to have collected with great care all the existing material, with much that has never yet appeared in print. All contemporary accounts, personal narratives, private correspondence, individual reminiscences, newspaper statements, and official documents are called into requisition. The work. is still of very great interest and value, and is deserving of general study. The author was evidently an enthusiastic admirer of Gen. Houston" - Raines.