Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(92,991 posts)
14. they were still fighting long after that
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:44 PM
Jan 2024

...besides, Mexico didn't recognize Santa Anna's treaty he signed under duress at all.

For that matter, annexation didn't come until years later, when Texas' slave owners attracted southern slave owners looking for a large territory ally.

In that interim, there were several major skirmishes with Mexico and Texas troops both winning battles, killing a lot of them and Texas really at the end of its rope when Sam Houston agreed to an armistice with Mexico in June 1843.

He did so because it was economically detrimental to maintain the state of war with Mexico that STILL existed. But it was contingent on Texas remaining independent from the slave owning U.S..

The war started with a border dispute in what's now southern Texas, likely provoked by Polk and his expansionist aims.

To me, independence for Texas didn't come from an armistice arrranged by Sam Houston and Britain. In my view, it was the U.S. military that achieved that goal with permanacy through war, not Texas.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»One of the main reasons T...»Reply #14