From comments on MarginalRevolution.com:
Luka 2021-12-01 00:48:42
I'm going to defend Texas, something I rarely get to do. Texas is extremely old, it's history goes back centuries. The name is Spanish and it was at one point part of the Spanish Empire and then independent Mexico. The indigenous people of the region were dominated by the fairly violent Comanches who were a persistent thorn in the side of both the Spanish and the Mexicans. Conflict between whites and natives long predates 1836. Some of the land confiscated seems to have been done before independent Texas.
When Mexico became independent they encouraged "Anglo" migration in part for economic reasons but also to counter the Comanches. Indeed, for as much as you may decry American treatment of indigenous peoples, of which there is much to decry, Mexico was fighting them until the 1930s when the American Indian wars were in effect closed by about 1890(a few minor raids happened after, but historians generally say the war was over in 1890). I've never really understood how the nations of Latin America have seemingly gotten a pass on their treatment of natives and land rights but my guess is that populations are just much more mixed so blame is harder to pinpoint.
On the issue of land and how it was acquired it should be acknowledged that while some land was taken via conquest or illegally seized in defiance of treaties from natives, an enormous amount of the American West and even colonial lands were simply purchased at prices natives willingly accepted absent military threat. I've read that about $800 million was spent by the Federal government alone from independence until around the end of the 19th century. Thats quit a bit more than was spent on Louisiana($15 million), Alaska($7.2 million), Gadsden ($10 million), Florida($5 million) and Mexico(even after the War the USA still paid them $15 million) combined.
From the column. "The book proudly defends the broader sweep of Texas history, including the taking of Texas from Mexico and then the absorption of Texas into the United States"
Thats a strange way of saying "Texas declared independence, later to voluntarily join the USA". Mexico under Santa Anna was headed toward military dictatorship and in many ways was already there. A number of other Mexican states were also in open rebellion under his rule. In the long run the history of Mexico makes it clear that leaving was the best route for Texas both economically and politically. The Mexican revolution(1 million+ dead) was perhaps more deadly than the American Civil War(~750K dead) and that was just one of many internal military conflicts they suffered, to say nothing of their lack of true democracy until 2000.
I think Texas has an interesting history, perhaps they need to tone it down with their state pride, they share many of the serious issues both the nation had in general, and the CSA in particular. Overall, not a bad column, I guess. Its just always surprising to see someone like Tyler, who is generally libertarian and usually pro-America embrace the more critical and revisionist historical take on the USA. Self reflection is good, but it has gotten to the point of self hatred in too many quarters.
