why did people oppose the annexation of Texas?

Answer 1

The opposition to annexing Texas was largely found in the North, esp. because of concerns about slavery. But there were other reasons for which the national Whig party opposed annexation efforts.

Summary of reasons:
1) it would enhance the slave power (upsetting the slave state/free state balance)
2) it would bring war with Mexico and possibly England
3) it amounted to a landgrab that was counter to U.S. principles of democracy
4) unconsitutional - the U.S. Constitution disallowed annexation (at least in the manner proposed)
5) annexation was a threat to national unity --since the Northern sentiment against it was so strong (see reason #1!)

Again, not all opponents raised exactly the same objections. So here is a look at some leaders, and their reasons (with key documents/statements. (Note that there were TWO great periods of debate about annexation -- the first in 1836-38.)

William Ellery Channing

"In 1837 he published Thoughts on the Evils of a Spirit of Conquest, and on Slavery: A Letter on the Annexation of Texas to the United States, addressed to Henry Clay, and arguing that the Texan revolt from Mexican rule was largely the work of land-speculators, and of those who resolved "to throw Texas open to slave-holders and slaves"; that the results of annexation must be war with Mexico, embroiling the United States with England and other European powers, and at home the extension and perpetuation of slavery, not alone in Texas but in other territories which the United States, once started at conquest, would force into the Union."
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/William_Ellery_Channing


John Quincy Adams (former President)

Led the anti-annexation fight in the House of Representatives in the 1830s. In fact, from June 16 to July 9,1838 (the end of that session of Congress) he spoke all against the annexation of Texas all morning, every morning!
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/timeline.html
http://www.scarborough.k12.me.us/high/projects/civilwar/1838buster.htm

(Read more about this and about Adams right against the "gag rule" that disallowed even discussing petitions against slavery in Congress in William Lee Miller's book *Arguing about Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States* (1996). A brief overview may be found at: http://www.uschs.org/04_history/subs_articles/04e_09.html)

Adams objected to annexation both because of concerns it would involve the U.S. in war against Mexico and because it would upset the balance of free and slave states, enhancing the slave power. (To that end, he later advocated the annexation of Oregon to offset the South's acquisition of Texas.) His speech was actually in support of his own resolution which included President VanBuren's objection that the U.S. government lacked the Constitutional power to annex another nation (short of an amendment).


Henry Clay, Whig candidate for President in 1844

In his 'Raleigh letter,' in April 1844, Clay declared himself against immediate annexation, "mainly because it would bring on a war with Mexico, because it met with serious objection in a large part of the Union, and because it would compromise the national character"
http://www.famousamericans.net/henryclay/

Note that Clay did NOT include opposition to slavery or 'the slave power' among his reasons. This and his later waffling on his position in an effort to shore up Southern support, and thereby lost many abolitionist votes --and hence the close election -- to Liberty Party candidate James Birney. (In other words, opposition to annexation was quite strong.)


Martin Van Buren

At the same time as Clay's Raleigh Letter, Martin VanBuren, expected to be the Democratic nominee expressed similiar views. (He subsequently failed to secure the nomination BECAUSE of his position on this matter.)

In fact, VanBuren was re-iterating the position he took during his own Presidency, when in 1837 he rejected an annexation offer from the Republic of Texas. In both cases he raised Constitutional objections (believing the annexation would require a Constitutional amendment) and the concern that this action would make the U.S. a party to Texas's war with Mexico. The war concern INCLUDED the worry of war of war with England, which might enter the war on Mexico's side.
- Eugene C. Barker, "Annexation of Texas", Volume 50, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v050/n1/contrib_DIVL731.html


The final objection raised to annexation was ANOTHER Constitutional one. When the attempt to annex Texas by treaty failed to gain the 2/3 Senate majority required to ratify a treaty, President Tyler accomplished it by a "Joint Resolution" of Congress, which only required a majority. Throughout the debate the Whig party objected that this method was not Constitutionally appropriate --that such an action REQUIRED treaties between the two nations involved-- as well as that such a move would undercut national unity.
http://www.history.vt.edu/MxAmWar/MxAm/Teams/RWSettle1845JanAprIntro.pdf
(See this article for further explanation of Whig arguments against annexation.)

Answer 2

Texas Annexation Summary

Answer 3

Some people were against the annexation of Texas because it would come into the Union as a slave state, and many people did not want to give slave states more power on the national scene. Another reason was the fear of a war with Mexico, which, or course, came to pass.

If Texas had not been admitted to the Union, it would have continued to be an independent country and likely would have been recaptured by Mexico and made a part of the modern country of Mexico.

Answer 4

Two reasons. First, it would be added as a slave state, and some people were opposed to that, and second, since Texas rebelled against Mexico, some people felt that annexation in 1836 would be a diplomatic affront against that country, making the Texas rebellion look like a sham.

Answer 5

Americans? It would upset the balance of the free and slave states, and be even more dangerous because under the terms of the annexation, Texas could split itself into five separate states.

Mexicans? It would mean the loss of territory that Mexico hoped to win back and occupy.

Texans? They would be giving up their indepenence and the dream of a trans-continental Texas spreading from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.

England and France? Each would have to give up the dream of having Texas as a "protectorate."

Answer 6

It was full of Texans.

"If I owned both Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas, and live in Hell". -- General Philip Sheridan

Answer 7

It's too bad it didn't happen 8 years ago then the bush man couldn't have been in office!!!!

Answer 8

You have to ask?????????????????????????