Why was Texas divided after it joined the USA? (Short Animated Documentary)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- When Texas joined the USA in 1845 it was about 50% larger than it was today but five years after it had joined, its northern and western lands had been handed over to the federal government. But given that Texas had fought a war with Mexico for this land why did it give it up and why did the US feel the need to take it? To find out watch this short and simple animated history documentary.
A special thanks to my Patreon supporters:
Jens Koch-Nommensen
Øystein Alsaker
Arcedia
Sergio M. Vela
Emil Świderek
George Kapoyanis
Colonel Oneill
Gin Aldeguer
Steven B
Brendan W
Dennis Vandeban
robert lalonde
Mathias.C
Michael Kram
CharÉTS
Ethan
Southside Mitch
Justin Kubusch
Adam Barrett
John
Heath Robertson
JakeBak0905
Person
Cippalippus
Leonard Frank
His Empyreal Illuminance The Supreme High Sorcerer Kalynx
ChrisRom
Joshua Schneider
Nathan Mendelsohn
Mario Peshev
Nuukov
Peter Hopkins
Tyler Bomkamp
Alex Teplyakov
Sean Uzar
Jonathan Niehaus
Harley Raptopoulos
Jack Nelson
Philip Yip
Andreas Mosand
Sean D.
Jane Sumpter
sharpie660
Paul Munro
Piotr Wojnowski
Christopher Godfrey
Aaron Conaway
Shauna K
Travis Mount
Vance Christiaanse
Martha Grondin
Jamie van Brewen
Erik Hare
D. Mahlik
Mario Mejia
Dr. Schtnizel
Douglas James
Tactical_Jackal
Manny F
Evan Ellingson
Contdoko12
Ron Johnson
Steven Gibson
Adrian Marine
Tranier Bocaj
Phillip Gathright
Nolan Peale
John Orr
ixs
Nicholas Menghini
zockotron
The Funks
Tony Belmonte
Allen Rines
Andrew F
Peter Marino
Bernardo Cavalcanti
tegsirat
Angel Aguiñaga
Matthew Toles
HelloAgain
Thomas McGraw
John Garcia
Ciege Engine
Garrett Manarin
Konstantin Bredyuk
Sebastian Mayor
Jesse Plung
Chach
Jacob Zachs
Handsoup
Clayton Schuman
Katie Flinn
Alan Romero
mgnesium.poetry
Nick Macarius
Joe DeVito
Duke
Sahni
khaki enthusiast
GrokThis
Chris PeBenito
Serius_Loyola
Chris Weisel
Duane Bridges
KNSTRKTVST
Jason Vandeventer
Matt Reed
Zachary Pascalar
Tino
Leena Al-Souki
Dullis
William Adderholdt
Alexander Zetino
Bradley Backoff
Windischgraetz
Jason Hirsch
Tim Stone
Chase Labiste
blaZzinG_FurY
Matthew O'Connor
Hexapuma
Patty Culp
ARandomPaperClip
Geoffrey Sparrow
alexccg
Jasmin Vikk
Stefan Møller
Spencer DeRosier
Colm Byrne
A. J. Smart
C. C. C.
Tyler Jenkins
Justin Short
George Caponera
Tim Sweeney
Tall Jeff
Peter Wesselius
Patrick Crowne
Magdalena Reinberg-Leibel
Bartosz Zasada
george tyler
Jeff Sharon
Johann_Gambolputty_of_Ulm
Aaron Larrow
Juan Castillo
Warren Rudkin
Joseph Hutchins
No way
Anthony McCann
Andrew Niedbala
Ahmed Roshdi
Valentyn
Clay Carroll
Nathan Ngumi
Ned Burke
Liquid Chief
WolfiZee
Ben Jambor
Vegard Tønnessen
Oliver Jenner
Ethan Harlow
Brayden Perry
Nicolas Dronsky
Matt Busch
Tim Stumbaugh
Carl Blanton
Joseph Reinsch
ThePalestRose
Steve Bonds
Cade Summers
James
Mars Project
Logical Insanity
bas mensink
Matthew Ward
BattleGoat Studios
Burt Clothier
Melissa Prober
Joel Wasserman
Bren Ehnebuske
ZCoupon
SirAlpaka
Robert Meehan
Moraxian
William Clark
Syagrius Beans
SketerK
nullptr
Jonny Minogue
Andrei Listochkin
Rob Rollins
Richard Wolfe
Robin!
Joseph Kerckhoff
Donald Weaver
Ryan DeLaney
Yared Cristiano
David Spellmeyer
BenDrums24
Ruben Rodriguez
Jeffrey Schneider
Sethars
T. c. north
Ryan Haber
Alex G.
Eric Askins
Thomas Wang
Anthony Uk
LambOfLeg
Mark Littlehale
Juan Benet
Joell Bel
Hunter Bayliss
pdswanfleet
Harrison Wiener
Mik Scheper
Tristan Kreller
Wolf
Jasdeep Brar
Charles Kwiatkowski
Aeryn and Lisa Toland
Mark Ploegstra
Charles Doolittle
Dr. Sarno
Roko Lisica
Dutchball Animations
Ian M
Sara Birnbaum
I'm Not In The Description
Miky Hidalgo Morriss
Kirk Hoffman
JT96
Sean Long
Oriki
Dustin Koellhoffer
Andrew Patane
Zachary Oertel
Sean
0_DannyBoy
Doug MacLean
James R DeVries
Isabel Harrison
Kevin Phoenix
Tom Ebert
Robert Brockway
Kishan Nair
Jason Sutherland
Ali Sadighian
Nathan Snyder
Seth Reeves
Ted Ingram
Dan Reiher
Peter Konieczny
Will Sullivan
Michael Sempervive
Jack
Lech Duraj
William Yates
Andrew Sever
YugiJitsu Games
John Gross-Whitaker
Shakira Graham
Taggert Jackson
Brian Giordano
Florian Mäder
Lindorien
Abdallah Al-Ammari
João Santos
Kameohawk
Daniel O'Reilly
Typhoon2401
blei95
Tommi Hewitt
Kasi
blue chicken
M Scho
Jan Bart Verbist
Robin_Col
Schwarzer Hai
Tarsirrus
Rhys Little
James
Ben L
Jackarice26
Ash Elford
Gina Service
Twinny Hill
zemnmez
Rhys Jackson
Roberticus1992
Phil Johnston
A side effect of the ceding of those lands to the Feds is that the state of Texas has hardly any federally owned lands in it, compared to most of its more western compatriots.
Yep forcing Texans to pay expensive hunting lease fees just to go hunting because everything is private
Good, anything the fed gets a hold of is inevitably destroyed....the blm can get bent
@@deanfirnatine7814 good, barbaric practice
@@aidanrock8719yeah, how else have humans survived for thousands of years?
@@aidanrock8719you better be vegan
Fun Fact. The federal government did not take on ALL the debt. About 10% of it was paid of by a single individual named
James Bisonette
Nah
James Bisonette told them 'nah' and with such profound dismissal, the 10% the American govt left to out star sponsor, was canceled.
Don’t forget Kelly Moneymaker, words about books podcast, and spinning 3 plates.
hell nah
Our**
For those wondering about "the rule of splitting states" - that's a reference to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, which prohibits making a new state out of the territory of another without the consent of the state's legislature.
And for those who say anything about West Virginia, technically as far as the federal government in 1863 was concern the loyal West Virginia government was more or less seen as the “legit” Virginia government and the Virginia state governent sitting in Richmond in 1863 were all rebellious traitors so there word meant nothing now. And the “legit” Virginia government merely changed it's name to west Virginia, moved its capital, and gave up its claims to it's rebelling area’s.
Which brings an interesting West Virginian discussion into the fold. 😆
@@trujustice924well Virginia wasn't there to say no so there was consent by "shut up you were rebelling"
@@AndreiChirila-wl7ou Actually, a group of state legislators and other dignitaries that stayed loyal (mostly representing the areas that would be become West Virginia) declared themselves the legal government of Virginia, after the original committed treason, and were recognized as such by the Federal government (for hopefully obvious reasons). They then approved the split... and then all promptly switched to the new state's government since those were the areas they represented. So technically the legalities outlined in the constitution were fully followed.
The video should mention that the Texas state legislature was opposed to any land cession to make it clear. There is no rule against splitting states per se; Virginia consented to give up Kentucky, Massachusetts consented to give up Maine. If Californians were truly upset about their lower representation in the Senate despite their population, their state legislature could easily create several new Californias under a favorable Congress.
America, circa 1845: “Okay, so we won’t admit Texas as multiple states, but let’s keep some of those names in our back pocket in case we ever need them.”
lol
legit
Okay, follow up question:
Why was the federal government so insistent on naming something Colorado? Every proposition had something going to something called "Colorado" even though there was very little territorial overlap. The one at 1:36 doesn't have any Colorado on the area called Colorado.
There is a Colorado River in Texas. Not THAT Colorado, but an important one nonetheless. It runs diagonally from roughly the panhandle down to Bay City on the Gulf Coast. Now you know... ;-)
Because the Colorado river flowed through the area...No, not the Colorado river that goes through Arizona and Mexico, but a completely separate one that runs through Texas. They were both called the Colorado because they were believed to be connected when they actually weren't
Colorado was also planned to be the state of southern california cause both north and south agreed to split. The proposal went missing, probably because a civil war broke out, and the name colorado would never be used again, if Jefferson Territory didnt change their name into the Colorado Territory like 2 month before the civil war that is and later into a state
I know it doesnt answer entirely, but its mostly its a name in the concious of the people and i guess they really wanted a state named colorado. Also Colorado State was very to being called Idaho as that was the first pick, but congress chose colorado for the territory. So colorado really seemed like a name they wanted to use for something.
Austinite here. The Colorado River flows through our city and forms Lady Bird Lake, which is great for stand-up paddleboarding when the lake isn't full of flesh eating amoeba. "Colorado" just means "colored red" or "reddish' in Spanish, so of course multiple rivers have that name.
@@timmccarthy9917 'when the lake isn't full of flesh eating amoeba.' egads, that sounds post-apocalyptic!
Fun fact, the western stretch of Texas was retained largely because it let Texas keep the strategically important city of El Paso. By all rights El Paso should be in New Mexico, which it is historically, culturally, and geographically part of, but Texans managed an eleventh-hour nab. The same tactic failed in Santa Fe and that's why it's now the capital of New Mexico.
If its theirs ,then Let em come and take it.
Wait, mexico already pulled that card.
My family is from El Paso and I can confirm this. Despite El Paso indeed identifying with the overall Texas identity, it still feels way more culturally connected to the rest of the southwest US region than to east Texas.
We're even on the western powergrid and not the Texas power grid lol. I also do like how the city has embraced more of its railroad past by naming the local minor league soccer team The Locomotives
@@rufusray other way around. It was Mexican originally but the US took it
@@rufusray Mexico didn't pull any card lol, the US funded emigration into Texas, backed the Texas rebellion, annexed Texas and used the claims to invade Mexico.
Thank GOD El Paso ain't part of New Mexico. I can proudly call myself a Texan and not some Goddman New Mexican. Can't stand New Mexico.
I always look forward to the weekends for a history matters episode. (Edit) You guys in the comments need to calm down
With the support of James bissonette
Me too.
@@pabcu2507doubt I have much of an impact but thanks lol
Same
Ikr
Im a Texan and the current borders are aesthetically pleasing. That extra bit going north doesn't look nice on a map. There's no way you could make a tortilla chip function in that shape either.
You could try, but it would keep breaking off. Fate, maybe?
Or a waffle for that matter. Current one fits nicely into molds
Why wasn't Texas or Virginia carved up for conspiring to start world world invredneck?
I see a lot of good people here sorely underestimating the human ability to mold food into strange shapes.
Personally, I'd relish seeing chip and waffle makers take on this challenge.
@@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad I have definitely had the Texas-shaped waffles in the hotel breakfast bar.
Video idea as a loyal Patreon supporter: Why was Finland 🇫🇮 given autonomy in the Russian Empire?
like this so history matters sees this
You’ve been asking for this for so long. I hope he does it one day.
That would be a good video.
@@capncake8837 See, that's called dedication. Mad props to itzadambunchofnumbers
As an additional question: Why was Crimea transferred to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev?
Fun fact: During Texas' independence, they asked to join the British Empire and were politely turned down. It's interesting to imagine Britain accepting the deal.
I can't see my countrymen wanting to be caught between the expansive US and the unstable Mexico. Not while expanding their hold over India and the Far East with their incredibly lucrative spice markets.
I haven't heard that one before, but I do know that we got British recognition and and embassy (technically, a legation) in London.
The funny part about that is we have SO MANY British people here in Houston anyway lol. And our English is more similar than we knew (shoutout to Thomas Sowell for teaching me that) because of BP offices. I worked around soooo many British people
Is this true? Where’d you learn that?
Texans would've had to give up their slaves, just like if they'd remained with Mexico.
One of my favorite things about Pueblo, Colorado is the row of flags on the riverwalk bridge. It shows all of the countries who have claimed part of Pueblo as their territory; Spain, Mexico, France, Texas, and the United States.
Perhaps it’s a good thing that city missed out on claiming the sixth flag part of the Six Flags Texas boasts about.
I remember the Gaylord Texan hotel in Dallas had something similar. Spain, France, Mexico, Texas, the Confederate States, and the United States, being all the countries who have owned land in that state.
@@wolliveryoutube the WHAT hotel? are you telling me that actually exists????
@@really9473: Indeed, it does. I've been there.
@@really9473 Yep. I drive past it on my way to work every day. There were surprisingly few jokes about the name when I was in middle school, but that might just be because everyone had heard them all already.
*Everything is bigger in Texas, including original Texas.*
Fun fact: Upon annexation there was a provision that the state of Texas could be split into as many as five states, that provision was never removed and is still in effect, so Texas could still be split up into five states even today
The provision in the annexation document specifically reads: "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution" This is not really different from the normal procedure for separating one state from within another except that it specifies a maximum number -- and Congress would still have to approve it, Texas can't just unilaterally split itself and force four extra states into existence
And that would be assuming a united front for the fragmented Texas. The only reason that states have been partitioned before is because of a difference in economy - see Massachusetts and Virginia as examples.
Texas does not have any unilateral power to make new states. It still has to follow the same rules everyone does.
Why wasn't Texas or Virginia carved up for conspiring to start world world invredneck?
That would quintuple Texas representation in the US Senate. And supremely piss off DC and Puerto Rico statehood supporters. Four new red states jump the line.
You actually missed a key part in why there was often that straight line cutting across the top, including in modern Texas’ pans handle: that was the Missouri Compromise line (36°30'N). In theory they could’ve just lopped it off there, but the federal government didn’t think that was enough land to repay the debts (and fair enough, neither did the Texians, which is why they agreed to also lopping off the western portions extending to the Rio Grande as a way of ensuring their debt was gone and they’d be admitted).
The feds didn't pay or even take over Texas's debt, they just paid Texas $10 million and that was enough to cover 90% of the debt.
Is that when Texia lost the i and became Texa?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 “Texian” is the term used for those who lived in and/or fought for pre-annexation Texas. “Texan” came around once it became a state and is now used to refer to anyone who lived in Texas in any of its forms.
@@ClementinesmWTF And presumably the ones who left went in a Texi.
The Missouri Compromise did not apply to Texas. Texas joined the Union by treaty twenty-five years after the Missouri Compromise, which only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase. In any case, any Act of Congress can be superseded by a subsequent Act of Congress or by a treaty, both of which apply to Texas' annexation. Texas joined the Union in 1846 with her borders intact and as a slave state. The change in Texas' borders came about as a part of the Compromise of 1850, but through negotiation. Texas negotiated both the revised borders and the price for ceding such lands to the United States. Texas could not effectively administer those distant lands and was nearly broke. Texas used part of those funds to pay off her debts from the days of the Republic and kept the remainder. Another interesting tidbit is that just before the Compromise of 1850, Texas had been raising an army to evict federal troops from Santa Fe.
Part of the consideration was the Missouri compromise. In order to enter the union as a slave state, Texas couldn’t have any land north of the 36th parallel.
And Texas very much wanted to keep their slaves.
36⁰, 30'
to be precise.
More democrat made up history
Yes, surprised this wasn't mentioned in the video as it was one of the biggest considerations around statehood at the time.
The 36 30 parallel is also the reason Oklahoma has its panhandle and why Texas didn't go all the way north to Kansas.
Well, who doesn't want a slave? Before you criticize me, go unplug your Roomba.
As a Texan, with roots in the state going back to the 1830s, I have to say this was a great video! The proposed divsions of Texas were interesting to see, those proposed divisions do map generally speaking to cultural and geographic differences that continue to this day. If you travel around the state, especially outside the major cities, you'll hear different accents from different regions. Yes, there's a general Texan culture and identity but it varies widely throughout the State.
I know this through an AlternativeHistoryHub video imagining what would have happened if Texas was split up. Short answer: a nightmare.
They forgot Greer County.
Why wasn't Texas or Virginia carved up for conspiring to start world world invredneck?
What help in the war from the US is he exactly talking about?
Mexico needs to do a reconquista of the yankee southwest
A lot of the “arbitrary” boundaries in the US are not so arbitrary. The Eastern and Western limits of the Texas panhandle resulted from two midway cuts, dividing an empty stretch of buffer zone land into equal halves. The anchor on the West end was the very old mixed Mexican/Native settlements along the Rio Grande in New Mexico (the Spanish/Mexican territory of Nuevo Mexico). Santa Fe, etc. Those people emphatically did NOT want to be ruled by Texans and would have caused trouble if they were forced into that state against their will. (El Paso was more just a regular Mexican settlement and less hostile, which is why it could be forced into Texas. Mexicans along the river boundary with Mexico also had the option of just moving to the other side, which is why a Nuevo Laredo in Mexico popped up opposite Laredo, Texas.)
The Eastern boundary of the Texas panhandle is the old Adams-Onis line, negotiated as the boundary between New Spain and the US. It split the distance between the Western part of Arkansas, which was getting populated by Americans already, and the Eastern edge of the population centers of Nuevo Mexico along the Rio Grande. (That Eastern Anchor line is now the Arkansas / Oklahoma border… and its precise location was determined by putting it just West of where the Red River turns from going East to SouthEast.)
The Western edge of the panhandle just halves the distance again, this time with the Eastern edge of the panhandle as the Eastern anchor.
This info is from a book “how the states got their shapes”.
Something not in the book is why so many North-South boundaries in the Western US are displaced slightly Westward from having a nice round number as a longitude. It is because sometimes instead of using Greenwich longitude, they used a system that put longitude zero at the center point of the original territory of the District of Columbia, which happens to be about .05 degrees West of an integer degree of Greenwich longitude.
For the Eastern edge of the Texas panhandle they snapped the line to an integer Greenwich longitude, but for the Western edge they used an integer DC longitude! The Western edge of the Oklahoma panhandle, which SHOULD line up with the Western edge of the Texas panhandle that it used to be a part of, instead uses Greenwich… which is why in fact it does not quite line up. Which is why there is a strip of New Mexico wrapping three quarters of the way around the NW corner of Texas.
Now you know. :-)
AWESOME! I had to go look that that little tab in northeast New Mexico was an actual thing. And now I know why!
Never knew the eastern border of New Mexico was uneven.
@@MesaperProductions I only learned about why the shift was there because I have visited some of the boundary monuments, and some of them state their longitude as being so-and-so many degrees West of the DC prime meridian.
Bro, I'm not even from the US and I found that interesting af. Especially the part about state boundaries snapping to different longitudinal systems. Thank you.
Thank you. You saved me 30 minutes of writting.
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 🙂
I Love that book and the TV series he did. Lots of interesting information.
Is the book any better than the series?
I know for the Dakota's that was a waste of an episode as it had absolutely noting to do with the borders of ND and SD, which makes me doubt the rest.
Long story short: One legally stolen territorial capitol later(Yankton to Bismarck) and enough people fed up in both the north and south, with the north and south, the south started drafting a constitution and planning for statehood and the north started soon after and...someone drew a line and...that was that. Aside from Minnesota wanting the rest of the Red River Valley again and once again being told by everyone to go away again. And the president signing the papers in a dark closet so no one knew who who was first or second...until it was filed alphabetically.
On a side note, I never understood why SD has nothing, development wise, compared to ND.
🙂
I watch these so often that I usually happen to be rewatching one when a new video drops lol. Every time a new one releases I end up clicking onto it from the annotation in a prior video
Major bonus points to History Matters for the graphic at 1:22. They got it historically correct depicting the old (dark) dome of the Capitol, before the current (white) one was built from 1855 to 1866
When Colorado almost became a desert hellscape instead of today's mountainous hellscape.
Lol
As a Washingtonian, I almost threw up when I saw this first proposed "state".
Colorado is beautiful. Too bad about the granola hippie types taking over.
@@theknightswhosay
The "granola hippies" aren't the ones at risk of destroying the landscape
@@morbidsearch Assuming they live in modern housing, yes they are. It’s become a less pristine environment as the population of lefties who claim to care about the environment has increased. Also, potheads aren’t known to clean up after themselves very well even if they do spend a lot of time outdoors.
The area controlled by the Comanches, along the front of the Rockies from Wyoming down to Abilene and San Angelo and even into Mexico, was the last remaining uncontrolled territory in the US.
The Comanche crushed the Apache and stopped the advance of the Mexicans, Texans, and Americans for almost 200 years. Even into the 1880s it was dangerous to travel through Comancheria, let alone try to build in it. It wasn't until the buffalo herds were culled that the Comanche finally surrendered and moved into reservations, which allowed for the development of those lands.
New Mexicans were unique in that they were the one group that was on good terms with the Comanches. Since a treaty was signed between the two in 1786 they maintained good trade relations and New Mexican settlements even expanded into Comanche territory at Mora and Las Vegas.
New Mexican traders known as Comancheros, who were often part Comanche themselves, could translate their languages into Spanish and English and were indispensable for opening up trade between Missouri and Mexico along the dangerous Comanche-controlled portion of the Santa Fe Trail.
As a New Mexican Hispano I'm glad Texas never realized its claims considering how they treated the Tejanos.
Giant Texas isn't real, it can't hurt you.
Giant Texas: 1:12
I actually thought for a second that was Texas… 😅
Fun fact: You could say Texas is still the largest state because there is more land owned by the state in Texas vs Alaska whose land is mostly federal
For more context, the Comanche had held those “Texan” lands for hundreds of years, halting Spanish, Mexican, Texan, and American expansion into the region despite only numbering in the few thousand.
If you want the full story, I suggest reading Empire of The Summer Moon by S. C. Gwynne. He paints the whole picture of Comanche history and prowess during the colonial era
Got through all this last semester in college. Glad to see a nice condensed version that gets to the point.
I've wondered this for AGEEES! Thank you History Matters!
Fr
0:34 I love that little paper covering the panhandle of texas XD
Fun fact: Texas remained the largest state for the next 104 years, not 11, as shown in the video. Texas became the second largest state in 1959, when Alaska joined the union.
The agreement that is being referred to happened in 1850. Texas left the union in 1861.
He's referring to the fact that civil war kicked off 11 years later so texas was no longer in the union
@@jaopeke OK, gotcha. I was assuming it was from 1845, otherwise I would have realized the "11 years" was a ref to the Civil War.
@@ronan5228 If I remember correctly, the Union never recognized the South as leaving during the Civil War and so from their perspective Texas and the other states were still part of the union but just in rebellion.
@@williamhrivnak7345 They still had to admit as states afterward with Texas in particular getting readmitted in 1870.
I was re-binging your videos yesterday, so glad to see an upload so soon :DD
Key missing bit of information (which, to be fair, was alluded to and I’m sure not outright said for monetary reasons), but Texas specifically being cut off at their northern boundary where they are was so they could maintain slavery
The Missouri Compromise line, 36-30 North.
Later, the Kansas Territory was formed with a southern border of 37 North. This left a half-degree strip of unclaimed land, which was stuck onto Oklahoma, hence the Oklahoma Panhandle.
Not true. That's just a conspiracy theory. The video covered all of the actual facts of the matter.
More democrat made up history
Texas already had slavery. That was not an issue. See some of the above posts for a more thorough explanation.
@@markalexander832Anglo-Texans had illegal slaves as Mexico had previously outlawed the custom. And in fact many of the German and Spanish settlers in Texas, of which made up a plurality at the time of statehood, opposed the legality of slavery and became targets of the Texas confederate army during the Civil war. The reason for why Texas gave up its lands was to maintain slavery in the state.
In an alternate universe, Texas and Colorado have one of the largest state borders in the country. What a timeline.
To be honest there is no reason to be 4states in such a arid and very few populated as the sothwest ou tehe US
It would also split the city of Austin in two as most of their border would have been the Colorado River (no, not that one, the other one). Presumably, both Austins could’ve stayed the capitols for their respective states and made for an interesting history lesson about Austin, Texas and Austin, Colorado.
With the apparent wish of so many territories to be called Colorado, it might have turned into a default - "You've got two weeks to think of a better name than Colorado. If you can't, then Colorado it is."
@@jeremywilliams5107colorado is love colorado is life
I prefer the alternate universe where New Mexico got to keep all of its Territorial-Era land.
As a Texan, this video was well made. Will say as a side note, we did claim a portion of land right before the Civil War called Greer County. It was eventually taken and given to Indian Territory after the people in that area voted on it. Lasted from 1860-1896.
Texas does have a little bit of land just West of the Rio Grande thanks to an event called the Country Club Dispute. In 1927, Texas and New Mexico argued who was able to claim what boundary of land. The Supreme Court sided in Texas' favor. Despite the Rio Grande changing course, the old river border is still legally seen as Texan, much to New Mexico's butthurt. Look up the Country Club Dispute and New Mexico v. Texas, 275 U.S. 279 (1927) if you want to learn more.
And the Supreme Court had to weigh in regarding which fork of the Red River was applicable, since it was poorly articulated in previous surveys. So, I agree this was a good video, but when it says the agreement resulted in "this" shape, Greer County should be included, as the Supreme Court didn't award it to Indian Territory until much later, as you rightly note.
Greer County actually went to Oklahoma Territory, which was split from Indian Territory after the land runs. The twin territories would reunite into the state of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is another story.
You are doing great. Thank you for the videos.
Your vids are addictive (:
Aww little Texan babies! 2:11
"It's hard to run an Empire when you're dead."
*Emperor Palpatine's inevitable return somehow:* "Soon."
Cool to see a historical mention of one of my ancestors, keep up the good work!
As always, great video!
👍👍
Because James Bissonette wanted some of the land for himself
Nah
Speaking of US territorial expansion, I’d like to see a video on the Gadsden Purchase that goes beyond “they wanted to build a train track there”
I seem to recall something about the Rio Grande River changing course, which changed the border. . . .
This was a very great video. Thank you!
I like how these episodes always start with him saying “as many of you will know,” followed by something I don’t know
As a native Texan, I love this video topic! I had always wondered what happened to the claimed border. Thank you for explaining!!
Why wasn't Texas or Virginia carved up for conspiring to start world world invredneck?
As a native Texan you should have paid more attention in your 7th grade Texas History class. You would have learned about the Compromise of 1850. 😉
usa education system is well known to be shit so he isnt exactly to blame.@@maytheus
2:14 bro got the most unoriginal names 😭😭💀
You just made my work day so much better. ❤
Great video!
Love your work.
As a Texan I never imagined getting as History Matters video
2:06 That’s the Brazos River but it’s close enough to Trinity
Nice episode!
As a Texan, I see this as an absolute win.
Texas time 🔫💪
As a Texan, you see everything as an absolute win.
Should we invade all the sates we lost land to? Oklahoma would roll out the red carpet for us.
Yeehaw
@@dannyarcher6370Not true...
The Alamo and the Civil War
Even if they had to be reminded of the L Juneteenth-ish.
The fact you guys are CONSISTENT and ALWAYS COVER ‘INTERESTING’/RELEVANT TOPICS is why I’ve watched your whole catalogue and INSTANTLY watch any new-uploads when I get the notification
I would go as far as saying YOU GUYS are “carrying” the WHOLE ‘history’ community (and creators) on TH-cam (and I don’t say that lightly)
History Matters is just one guy, but I wholeheartedly agree
@@secret5816 pisstake when the HUGE channels with couple million subscribers/hundreds of millions of views; and WHOLE TEAMS can’t even upload 1 or 2 videos A YEAR
@@anomalyldn what was the point of that comment? I didn't disagree with you, I just corrected you.
@@secret5816 I know you agreed (and I doubled down).. My ‘comment’ was to ‘throw shade’ at “certain YT channels” that ARE GIVING ME ANXIETY waiting for their next video(s) (and hoping the ‘follow-up videos’ come sooner rather than later)
Excellent, as always. Thank you.
Great content!
I was actually very interested to hear this. Honestly, I think I would like to learn more about the events leading up to the Mexican-American War and the war's aftermath in general. Thank you for this video!
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
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).
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Excellent videos, subscribed.
Wow, even Texas was bigger than Texas.
I live in Texas and have always been old maps of Texas original shaped, but I never studied why it lost that land.
Yes, your videos are clear and to the point.
Another amazing video
0:43 the Comanche are a really fascinating people. Reading Empire of the Summer Moon right now and it gets a glowing recommendation from me.
As a Texan, thanks for teaching this. I didn't even learn this in Texas history class
I definitely remember learning in Texas History class (in 4th or 7th grade) about the Compromise of 1850 and ceding our northern/western land claims in exchange for $10 million to pay off our debts. I don't think they covered the alternative border proposals, though.
I distinctly remember them talking about how the extra land went to pay off all the debts from the Texas independence.
To be fair, most of Texas history in school is just propaganda. They taught us about what happened during the Texas Revolution, but the given cause of the war was basically “Santa Anna was mean.”
some of it is taught (as mr bishop notes) but not the details about which scheme to split this nation would actually pan out.
@@danielbishop1863 As someone who went K-12 in Texas, I concur - we learned about the debt swap, but not the alternative proposals.
I'm loving all these comments starting "fun fact:", I bet the Fun Fact guy would love seeing how much his influence and love of fun facts has spread
Love these videos.
"As many of you know Texas looked like this."
*Sweats nervously*
0:15 because the US hates funny shapes and prefers the boring ones
Good video!
Thank you for video sir
Please make an episode: "Why is there a _New_ Mexico?" Very good info and history there...
Another day another history lesson summed up in 4 minutes.
4.22am Australia 🇦🇺 time
Really love your new videos 🎉🎉🎉🎉
I always wanted to knew that, thank you so much!
SpongeBob: No, I’m Texas!
Patrick: What’s the difference?
Don't you DARE take the name of Texas in vain!
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.
I second.
I third it! 🌞 🌶
Man, it feels good to have the subject be about your own Homestate!🤗
Good video.
Fun fact: When Texas joined the union there was a provision added that the state could split into five new states if it wanted to.
Well, sure, but the provision specifically reads: "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution" This is not really different from the normal procedure for separating one state from within another except that it specifies a *maximum* number -- and Congress would still have to approve it, Texas *can't* just unilaterally split itself and force four extra states into existence
Yeah, I was really surprised the Texas Split Proviso didn't come up.
@@chedelirio6984 An interesting conundrum -- electing not to admit such states (remember "entitled to admission") might very well be construed as an abrogation of the Treaty of Annexation.
@@markalexander832 However "entitled", it does say admitted "according to the Constitution" i.e. by individual Act of Congress, and one state cannot command the delegations of 26 others how to vote.
There was also the Missouri Compromise to considered. Where no new slave states can be made above Missouri’s southern borders, and Texas a new slave state technically did go over Missouri’s southern border a bit with it's claims. So to be apart of the union and continue on slavery it would have to give up much of it's northern border claimed lands that passes over missouri’s southern border to remain a slave state. It's why Oklahoma has that random panhandle.
The Missouri Compromise applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, not to Texas. In any case, the Missouri Compromise was an Act of Congress. Any Act of Congress can be overridden by a subsequent Act of Congress, not to mention a treaty, both of which apply to Texas' later admission to the Union. Texas joined the Union by treaty, keeping all her claimed lands and borders and entered as a slave state.
Makes sense tbh. Love the videos History Matters!
Awesome thanks
Just because they claimed it didn't make it their territory. New Mexico had been a settled area with their own governor and government for 250 years by then. Kind of presumptuous of them to claim the northern strip of the Rio Grande in the first place.
Liked the video! Here is how Texas "regained" some lost territory with the admission of New Mexico as a state. This proves the theory of having good friends in "High Places". In 1881 the state capitol at Austin was destroyed by fire. To replace the capitol with a new building the State Legislature set aside 3,050,000 acres of public land to finance the building of a new capitol (unlike other states, Texas owns its public lands). A group of investors, largely from Illinois, known as the Capitol Syndicate took title to the land that extended through parts of what would become ten Texas counties. The new capitol building was completed in 1888, paid for by the investors. The land transferred to the Capitol Syndicate was set up as a ranch and named the XIT (Ten In Texas). Ranching would give investors income until land could be divided and sold in parcels for ranching and farming. A good portion of this land abutted the 103rd meridian which was set as the western boundary of the Texas panhandle and designated as the eastern boundary of New Mexico. Going back to 1859, surveyor John H. Clark set out to survey the 103rd meridian which was the boundary set by the Compromise of 1850. The survey was beset by many difficulties including but not limited to lack of water and hostile Indians. End result was the 103rd meridian's north end was placed about 2.3 miles to the west of the actual meridian, while the south end was placed about 3.1 miles to the west of the meridian (you can look at a Google map of the western end of the Oklahoma panhandle and see the location of the actual 103rd meridian). This resulted in Texas gaining about 942 square miles. The 1859 survey was certified as the legal boundary in 1891. Jump to 1910. New Mexico is preparing to be admitted as a state. The New Mexico committee is aware of the boundary error and as part of its requirement to designate borders of the new state to be, has requested that the true 103rd meridian be the actual eastern boundary of the new state. John V. Farwell, one of the Capitol Syndicate investors attempted to get Texas legislators aware of what was likely to occur, but apparently no one was listening. A hefty chunk of the XIT Ranch would suddenly be in a different state. That hefty chunk of land would be in limbo with an enormous loss to the Syndicate. Fortunately, John V. Farwell had a friend. No less than the President, William Howard Taft, Farwell's old Yale College buddy. Long story short, the New Mexico committee was told to accept the 1859 boundary or there would be no statehood. The committee accepted the 1859 survey as law and that boundary exists to this day. The southern end of the "land beyond the 103rd meridian" lies within the Permian Basin which has supplied incredible amounts of oil and gas revenue to Texas.
Great video.
Enjoyed this one very much
I can't imagine Texas not being shaped the way it is now. I come from a long line of Tejano families that have been cowboys and ranchers since the 1780's in the disputed area of South Texas between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande River that was one of the issues that led to the US-Mexico war. As we like to say, we never crossed the border, the border crossed us!
yes, and the border is still crossing you.
enjoy your fentanyl, and enjoy the ms-13 tats on your daughter's classmates.
hispanics sneering at anglos (when they benefit from anglo government) is the dumbest LARP, and I say this as a 1978 immigrant with no particular connexion with either race.
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.
There was only one justice on the Court who had a legally valid opinion in that case. The majority opinion was a political expediency required to justify the war against the seceded states. To take the view that the same people who validly exercised their sovereign right to join the Union by ratifying the Treaty of Annexation did not have the right to reverse their decision requires considerable perverse logic and mental gymnastics.
@@markalexander832 Sam Houston would agree, they had the right to secede. But not the right to join the CSA as an avowed enemy to the USA.
Sending men to fight in Kentucky and Pennsylvania meant Texas became a belligerent to the neutral and loyal states (respectively) which meant Texas lost all its rights vis-a-vis the USA after the USA won.
tl;dr, play stupid games and win stupid prizes. and I say this as a 713 with no love for Washington DC.
@@zimriel We're getting a bit off topic now, but if I understand your argument, we should have been OK if after secession we had just gone it alone without joining the CSA. Given Lincoln's eagerness to provoke a war with the CSA after rebuffing early Southern efforts at negotiating a peaceful and orderly secession, I somehow doubt it.
Great explanation. Thanks.
Excellent history lesson!!! Thank you!!! 😊❤❤❤❤
Good video history 0:39
As a Texan, thank you so much for this vid! While we are in the US it is under unique circumstances and Texians to this day are still a distinct culture. Thank you for shedding light on our history :)!!
I always am excited for a new history matters video I’m a big fan
I love the illustration and details. The hair made me smile where may I donate 😊
As a North Carolinian I can confirm that South Carolina is actually called ‘Less than North Carolina’
5 years living and visiting historical places in Texas. Finally a thorough (yet succinct) explanation putting all the pieces together regarding Mexican Texas, Republic of Texas, and State of Texas.
As a native Texan, we had two years on Texas history and this was NEVER covered. THANKS!
Thank you for the information about Texas. I love the information you share
Please do a video on the following subjects:
1. Why did the People's Revolution of 1848 fail in the Germanies and Spain?
2. Why do people drive on different sides of the road in different countries?
Those two are good. I also want a video where why didn’t Leopold didn’t accept the Spanish throne in 1870.
"People's Revolution"
Lolz
1.- People hated revolutionaries after the Napoleonic wars
2.- Some "people" decided it was more convenient to drive on the left and nobody ever bothered fixing it
From what I read, the drive on the right side was estabilished after Napoleon's conquests of Europe, so the military traffics were semplified, this could explain why UK was pratically the only country in Europe to drive on the left.
2 - there wasn't much fuss in the horse&buggy/pedestrian times. You drove in the middle of the road until you had to move for someone else.