Does Texas have any national historical significance ? (Houston, Dallas: houses, purchase)

[Jack Lance]

I was in a debate with a poster that claimed that the events that brought Texas into the United States were only historically significant on a regional basis, and that Texas was too rural and unproductive to have any national historical significance until the oil boom of the early 20th century. Do you agree with this position ?

[Heel82]

Texas has some historical significance (hello Alamo!). National or regional significance seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

[mwalker96]

Texas was a big reason why manifest destiny was so big in the mid-1800s, Texas is the home US President Lyndon B Johnson and George W Bush, Texas popularized the cowboy image in the US hence the Football team, and Texas is where Tex-Mex food got it's start which is popular all throughout the US.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by mwalker96

Texas was a big reason why manifest destiny was so big in the mid-1800s, Texas is the home US President Lyndon B Johnson and George W Bush, Texas popularized the cowboy image in the US hence the Football team, and Texas is where Tex-Mex food got it's start which is popular all throughout the US.

Yes the Texas Revolution or separation from Mexico, which lead to the Annexation of Texas, which precipitated the Mexican American war, which resulted in Mexico ceding vast amounts of what is now the Southwestern US to the U.S. adding over 900k square miles of territory, was part of the zeitgeist known as Manifest Destiny.

So how could this not be considered of Major National historical importance ?

[Treasurevalley92]

Hi, I'm the other guy. LOL This is Jack Lance, the biggest Houston Homer on the interwebs.

I never said that Texas history was not important.

This is summary of my point.

The Texas revolution though the Mexican American war is pretty important to US national policy. After the (at the time) somewhat shocking US victory over Mexico, Texas history is more of regional history. After that, the focus is further west, to California, the completion of the Railroad, Gold, etc.

That isn't to say what happens between the late 1840s and 1901 is of no importance to the national history, specific events and people are, but on a whole it falls into a similar pattern to the other Western plains States like Kansas, Oklahoma etc or southern states like Arkansas. Interesting stuff happened but the state wasn't super influential or important and fits more within the context of general western history vs being the focal point of it.

Our buddy here thinks Texas was super important during that time and that Houston was super important within that context. Both are wrong. Houston was small city at the time of only regional importance. It doesn't sit on a navigable river and at the time didn't have oil. Des Moines, in Iowa, for a point of reference, was a bigger and more important city during the mid to late 1800s.

Texas was an incredibly rural state that industrialized later than many other states. In 1860 the state had 600K+ people, almost entirely rural. Houston had less than 5k people. Cities in Texas at that time were not that large or important.

Even by 1900 Houston was only the 85th largest city in the country. A mediocre port with no navigable river but with railheads to a rural part of the country with some local, small scale industry.

Now all of this did change with oil which made Texas much more important and was the spark that fueled the 120 years of growth. Oil allowed Texas big cities to grow, industrialize and eventually diversify beyond oil. Oil allowed Texas to built it's road and university system.

***

Another thing out buddy claimed was that the Texas revolution was as important as the Louisiana Purchase, which is silly. You don't have the US interest in Texas without the Louisiana Purchase. You don't have the rest of the western expansion Furthermore, the Louisiana Purchase gave the US control of the Mississippi and her tributaries which cover most of the US between the Appalachians and Rockies.

Claiming the Texas revolution is as important as the Louisiana Purchase is just Texas homerism. The Southerners who invaded Texas never could have without the Louisiana Purchase getting them all fired up about manifest destiny.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Not too much on Jack. I've been lurking in that Dallas v. Houston thread and the Dallas homers are doing a lot of mud slinging themselves...

But the Republic of Texas is the only independent nation to be founded by Americans. I'd say that's very significant.

I also think of Juneteenth, which began as a Texas holiday but is now celebrated by black Americans Nationwide.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

Not too much on Jack. I've been lurking in that Dallas v. Houston thread and the Dallas homers are doing a lot of mud slinging themselves...

But the Republic of Texas is the only independent nation to be founded by Americans. I'd say that's very significant.

I also think of Juneteenth, which began as a Texas holiday but is now celebrated by black Americans Nationwide.

California Republic, Republic of West Florida?

Texas is the same thing. It just took 10 years to be absorbed into the US as was always the plan. Political complications forced it into a longer limbo period.

Almost no one involved in the Texas revolution intended Texas to remain its own country and most of the people who fought in it were Americans from the South who were doing so out of Manifest Destiny and fulled expected it to become part of the US.

Lamar only got into the idea because he was pissed because the US didn't take them. The fact that Texas was "independent" as long as it was is an interesting and accident of history that Texans have clung to.

Anyway, the funny thing is I agreed this is the most important part of Texas history in the 1800s. It set a lot of policy between the US and Mexico. After that Texas pretty much became just another state until oil.

[bluescreen73]

Having lived in Texas I've seen first-hand how kids are indoctrinated into the egocentric view that Texas is the best state ever. Public school kids pledge allegiance to the state flag for chrissakes.

Dyed-in-the-wool Texans routinely say things like "Texas is the only state allowed to fly their flag at the same height as the US flag," and "Texas is the only state legally allowed to secede from the union." Both of those statements are patently false.

Is the history of Texas important in US history? Sure, but I'd put it behind the American Revolution, the Louisiana Purchase, the westward expansion via the Oregon Trail/Mormon Trail/California Trail, the Gold Rush, and the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad.

As others have noted, Texas really didn't come into its own until the discovery of oil in 1901. Oil, combined with air conditioning, are two major reasons why Texas (and the rest of the interior southeast) are the powerhouses they are today. Without AC, the southeast would never have experienced the massive in-migration it's had the last 60-70 years.

FWIW, the Alamo is the seminal Texas landmark, but I find the worship of it to be a combination of revisionist history and slick marketing. For nearly a century after the battle it was just a building. At one point in time it was a freakin' storage shed. By the time they finally decided to preserve the building, the facade looked nothing like it did during the siege.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

I was in a debate with a poster that claimed that the events that brought Texas into the United States were only historically significant on a regional basis, and that Texas was too rural and unproductive to have any national historical significance until the oil boom of the early 20th century. Do you agree with this position ?

Yes, it was significant.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

Having lived in Texas I've seen first-hand how kids are indoctrinated into the egocentric view that Texas is the best state ever. Public school kids pledge allegiance to the state flag for chrissakes.

Dyed-in-the-wool Texans routinely say things like "Texas is the only state allowed to fly their flag at the same height as the US flag," and "Texas is the only state legally allowed to secede from the union." Both of those statements are patently false.

Is the history of Texas important in US history? Sure, but I'd put it behind the American Revolution, the Louisiana Purchase, the westward expansion via the Oregon Trail/Mormon Trail/California Trail, the Gold Rush, and the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad.

As others have noted, Texas really didn't come into its own until the discovery of oil in 1901. Oil, combined with air conditioning, are two major reasons why Texas (and the rest of the interior southeast) are the powerhouses they are today. Without AC, the southeast would never have experienced the massive in-migration it's had the last 60-70 years.

FWIW, the Alamo is the seminal Texas landmark, but I find the worship of it to be a combination of revisionist history and slick marketing. For nearly a century after the battle it was just a building. At one point in time it was a freakin' storage shed. By the time they finally decided to preserve the building, the facade looked nothing like it did during the siege.

Of course it's not as important as the American revolution or separation but I would put it close if not equal in importance to the Louisiana Purchase especially in retrospect.

If you were to look at it from a mid 19th century point of view the Louisiana Purchase without a doubt would be seen as the more valuable acquisition. But considering the chain of events the annexation of Texas triggered and the land acquired as a direct result of that annexation from a current perspective I don't see how anybody can say the Louisiana Purchase was a more valuable or important acquisition.