+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Other (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Texas and Alaska (/thread-29.html)
Texas and Alaska - Rsmyth - 07-08-2012 09:04 AM
The annexation of Texas brought up the issue of slavery for this new territory and added to the tension between southern and northern states. After the Civil War William Seward was instrumental in the purchase of Alaska. Manifest Destiny was the term given to the land acquisition by the United State. With the benefit of hindsight which was the better deal for this young country?
RE: Texas and Alaska - Rogerm - 07-08-2012 09:40 AM
Texas and the other lands won in the Mexican War probably had a greater immediate impact on the United States than did the purchase of Alaska. It greatly increased the size of the United States as a country; and helped make it into both an Atlantic and a Pacific power. It probably also helped bring about the conditions for the Civil War less than twenty years later.
RE: Texas and Alaska - Bill Richter - 07-08-2012 01:42 PM
I have no argument with the two preceding posts. But for fun, read Mckinley Kantor, If the South had Won the Civil War. He posits Russian missiles in Alaska, an independent Texas (Having seceded from the Confederacy) and of course a United Sates and a Confederate States.
RE: Texas and Alaska - L Verge - 07-08-2012 05:15 PM
I would agree with Rogerm that Texas was the better acquisition during the 19th century for the same reasons he stated. The Mexican War that produced that acquisition also was a definite proving ground for many of the young officers who would later become prominent decision makers and warriors during our Civil War.
RE: Texas and Alaska - Rsmyth - 07-08-2012 06:25 PM
Roger, I agree about the immediate impact and with the comming of the industrial revolution and the Texas oil fields, that impact lasted far longer.