What If A Different Mexican Cession?

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

A proposal floated in the early 1840s didn't get far, but is interesting. It would be a three-way agreement between the US, UK, and Mexico.

Britain would get Oregon north and west of the Columbia River, resolving the Oregon dispute. They would also forgive Mexico's debt.

Mexico would recognize Texas (let's assume a Rio Grande border) and cede everything north of latitude 36 to the USA. That would include Monterey and San Francisco but Santa Fe, San Diego, and Los Angeles would remain Mexican.

The US would essentially trade northern Oregon territory for northern California and clear title to Texas, firmly establishing all its borders.

The British were open to the idea, but unwilling to formally propose it. There was doubt Mexico would have accepted it. Maybe they would have compromised at latitude 36-30 or 37 instead, which would still put San Francisco Bay in American hands.

Let's assume such a deal was struck in 1843. What is the result?

There's no Mexican War.

Texas is a non-issue in the 1844 election. There were concerns about the expansion of slavery, but the much bigger concern was that annexing Texas would result in a war with Mexico (which it did).

There's no compromise necessary about a transcontinental railroad route because the Southern and Northern Pacific routes are not viable; only the Central Pacific.

There's not really any question of the Mexican Cession as slave territory.

Does such an agreement avert the American Civil War?

 

[Rhea Cole]

A proposal floated in the early 1840s didn't get far, but is interesting. It would be a three-way agreement between the US, UK, and Mexico.

Britain would get Oregon north and west of the Columbia River, resolving the Oregon dispute. They would also forgive Mexico's debt.

Mexico would recognize Texas (let's assume a Rio Grande border) and cede everything north of latitude 36 to the USA. That would include Monterey and San Francisco but Santa Fe, San Diego, and Los Angeles would remain Mexican.

The US would essentially trade northern Oregon territory for northern California and clear title to Texas, firmly establishing all its borders.

The British were open to the idea, but unwilling to formally propose it. There was doubt Mexico would have accepted it. Maybe they would have compromised at latitude 36-30 or 37 instead, which would still put San Francisco Bay in American hands.

Let's assume such a deal was struck in 1843. What is the result?

There's no Mexican War.

Texas is a non-issue in the 1844 election. There were concerns about the expansion of slavery, but the much bigger concern was that annexing Texas would result in a war with Mexico (which it did).

There's no compromise necessary about a transcontinental railroad route because the Southern and Northern Pacific routes are not viable; only the Central Pacific.

There's not really any question of the Mexican Cession as slave territory.

Does such an agreement avert the American Civil War?

The "Mexican War" was a result of James K. Polk's declared intention to acquire liebestraum for slaveholding. He had every intention of starting that war whatever the extraneous situation was.

Link:

Annual Message to Congress (1848)

In his Annual Message, Polk celebrated the gains he had achieved—which had been made even more important by the discovery of gold deposits in California.

teachingamericanhistory.org

 

[jackt62]

I'm not familiar with such a proposal involving Britain, Mexico, and the United States but the whole idea has too many moving parts and players to have ever seemed realistic. In any case, as noted by @Rhea Cole, Civil War would not have been averted.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The "Mexican War" was a result of James K. Polk's declared intention to acquire liebestraum for slaveholding. He had every intention of starting that war whatever the extraneous situation was.

If Texas is not a political issue in 1844 then there is no President Polk. Maybe President Clay, who came came within a few thousand votes in New York of beating Polk. Maybe President Van Buren, who would have won the Democrat nomination on the first ballot if he wasn't anti-annexation. Tyler might have even had a chance if he could point to having settled Oregon and Texas favorably.

 

[Rhea Cole]

If Texas is not a political issue in 1844 then there is no President Polk. Maybe President Clay, who came came within a few thousand votes in New York of beating Polk. Maybe President Van Buren, who would have won the Democrat nomination on the first ballot if he wasn't anti-annexation. Tyler might have even had a chance if he could point to having settled Oregon and Texas favorably.

If Klingons armed the Apaches everything would have been different, as well.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

A proposal floated in the early 1840s didn't get far, but is interesting. It would be a three-way agreement between the US, UK, and Mexico.

Britain would get Oregon north and west of the Columbia River, resolving the Oregon dispute. They would also forgive Mexico's debt.

Mexico would recognize Texas (let's assume a Rio Grande border) and cede everything north of latitude 36 to the USA. That would include Monterey and San Francisco but Santa Fe, San Diego, and Los Angeles would remain Mexican.

The US would essentially trade northern Oregon territory for northern California and clear title to Texas, firmly establishing all its borders.

The British were open to the idea, but unwilling to formally propose it. There was doubt Mexico would have accepted it. Maybe they would have compromised at latitude 36-30 or 37 instead, which would still put San Francisco Bay in American hands.

Let's assume such a deal was struck in 1843. What is the result?

There's no Mexican War.

Texas is a non-issue in the 1844 election. There were concerns about the expansion of slavery, but the much bigger concern was that annexing Texas would result in a war with Mexico (which it did).

There's no compromise necessary about a transcontinental railroad route because the Southern and Northern Pacific routes are not viable; only the Central Pacific.

There's not really any question of the Mexican Cession as slave territory.

Does such an agreement avert the American Civil War?

The Civil War may still have occurred, but world history would certainly be very different.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The Civil War may still have occurred, but world history would certainly be very different.

Spain & France were allied with the British to collect debt from Mexico. The Spanish went for a farcical attempt to reestablish slave holding in Hispaniola. The Brits, rationally, decided to protect their gold mines in Guinea. All that Victorian empire doo-daa was very expensive & the Guinea gold was paying for it.

The last thing on earth Victoria's government was going to get into was taking over a bankrupt, Spanish speaking, country next door to the U.S. They were way too Machiavellian for a bush league Napoleon lll move like that,

 

[Desert Kid]

Santa Anna really was his own worst enemy.

And Mexico's biggest asset AND liability.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The Civil War may still have occurred, but world history would certainly be very different.

Since the issue of slavery that had festered from the Constitutional Convention in May 1787 & the Bolivarian Revolution was abolitionist & the Texas Revolution was slaveholders who wanted slave holding lebensraum.

The actual history is infinitely more interesting & convoluted than any fantasy.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The actual history is infinitely more interesting & convoluted than any fantasy

I think counterfactuals are an interesting thought exercise, as long as they are grounded in a reasonable point of departure and follow a plausible sequence of events.

When the point of departure requires a supernatural or otherwise ludicrous premise then that's fantasy. Usually so is starting with a end goal in mind, especially an idealized one, and working backwards to get there. That turns into wish fulfillment rather than any potentially useful consideration of cause & effect.

 

[steve59p]

Spain & France were allied with the British to collect debt from Mexico. The Spanish went for a farcical attempt to reestablish slave holding in Hispaniola. The Brits, rationally, decided to protect their gold mines in Guinea. All that Victorian empire doo-daa was very expensive & the Guinea gold was paying for it.

The last thing on earth Victoria's government was going to get into was taking over a bankrupt, Spanish speaking, country next door to the U.S. They were way too Machiavellian for a bush league Napoleon lll move like that,

I agree that Britain was seeking to limit its overseas expenditure but the last thing it was was Machiavellian.

 

[Sbc]

A proposal floated in the early 1840s didn't get far, but is interesting. It would be a three-way agreement between the US, UK, and Mexico.

Britain would get Oregon north and west of the Columbia River, resolving the Oregon dispute. They would also forgive Mexico's debt.

Mexico would recognize Texas (let's assume a Rio Grande border) and cede everything north of latitude 36 to the USA. That would include Monterey and San Francisco but Santa Fe, San Diego, and Los Angeles would remain Mexican.

The US would essentially trade northern Oregon territory for northern California and clear title to Texas, firmly establishing all its borders.

The British were open to the idea, but unwilling to formally propose it. There was doubt Mexico would have accepted it. Maybe they would have compromised at latitude 36-30 or 37 instead, which would still put San Francisco Bay in American hands.

Let's assume such a deal was struck in 1843. What is the result?

There's no Mexican War.

Texas is a non-issue in the 1844 election. There were concerns about the expansion of slavery, but the much bigger concern was that annexing Texas would result in a war with Mexico (which it did).

There's no compromise necessary about a transcontinental railroad route because the Southern and Northern Pacific routes are not viable; only the Central Pacific.

There's not really any question of the Mexican Cession as slave territory.

Does such an agreement avert the American Civil War?

The North and South were on an unavoidable collision course. The only way it winds up peaceably is legislation/ funding to buy freedom for slaves. A popular movement funded by abolitionists to buy "property" could possibly cause a collapse of the market for slaves, those selling first probably reaping the highest profits. Of course it much easier to posture and preach than spend personal wealth on moral beliefs. It winds up killing and maiming thousands who had no interest either way.

 

[steve59p]

The North and South were on an unavoidable collision course. The only way it winds up peaceably is legislation/ funding to buy freedom for slaves. A popular movement funded by abolitionists to buy "property" could possibly cause a collapse of the market for slaves, those selling first probably reaping the highest profits. Of course it much easier to posture and preach than spend personal wealth on moral beliefs. It winds up killing and maiming thousands who had no interest either way.

It might work but you would need a lot of money, especially since if some were sold fairly dearly future sellers would want to demand the same. Also there are strong cultural issues on both sides of the divide which have something in common. Neither wants free blacks competing with white men economically. This is coupled in the south by the hatred and demonisation of blacks in many cases to excuse slavery.

Unless your suggesting instead of private individuals the government is to offer a set amount - or some figure depending on their age and sex, for each slave dependent on the owner selling ALL their slaves. Which would cause a fair amount of economic chaos in the deep south and also what do you do with people who refused to sell. Or again with the numbers of freed blacks fleeing north for hope of a better life?

 

[Sbc]

It might work but you would need a lot of money, especially since if some were sold fairly dearly future sellers would want to demand the same. Also there are strong cultural issues on both sides of the divide which have something in common. Neither wants free blacks competing with white men economically. This is coupled in the south by the hatred and demonisation of blacks in many cases to excuse slavery.

Unless your suggesting instead of private individuals the government is to offer a set amount - or some figure depending on their age and sex, for each slave dependent on the owner selling ALL their slaves. Which would cause a fair amount of economic chaos in the deep south and also what do you do with people who refused to sell. Or again with the numbers of freed blacks fleeing north for hope of a better life?

Yes government funding and legislation. The funding would have to come from abolitionist interests to pass congress. Imagine a land rich family coming into a fortune overnight. Could start to overturn the slave holding aristocracy. Couple it with deportation to Liberia and wipe out the need for the fugitive slave act.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Yes government funding and legislation. The funding would have to come from abolitionist interests to pass congress. Imagine a land rich family coming into a fortune overnight. Could start to overturn the slave holding aristocracy. Couple it with deportation to Liberia and wipe out the need for the fugitive slave act.

It is useful to note that (+/-) 60% of the population of South Carolina were slaves. There was good reason for the (+/-) 35,000 white men who were qualified to vote in South Carolina to go to war to protect their right to hold other human beings as property.

 

[Sbc]

It is useful to note that (+/-) 60% of the population of South Carolina were slaves. There was good reason for the (+/-) 35,000 white men who were qualified to vote in South Carolina to go to war to protect their right to hold other human beings as property.

Never looked in depth but would be interested to know what percentage of that population did not own slaves.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Never looked in depth but would be interested to know what percentage of that population did not own slaves.

None of the slaves owned slaves. Individuals such as Mary Chestnut's father in law, owned (+/-) 1,000 human beings. As a married woman she did not own any property in her own name. So, she owned zero slaves. Between her & her husband 50% of the white population owned slaves.

Note : Joshua John Ward owned (+/-) 1,200 had the largest slaveholding in 1860.
These were the families that held total political power over in the state.

1860 Census South Carolina

Link;

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-32.pdf

1860 Census Map showing slave population.

South Carolina slave population by county.

As can be seen, there were areas of the high country with relatively small slave populations. Typically (+/-) 12 individuals constitution by a family were the typical yeomen farm slave holding.

A raw percentage individuals of who legally owned slaves that only included white males is often used to somehow minimize the influence of the institution. In fact, slaveholding was a family matter where generations of individuals were dependent on the income derived from slave labor.

You now have the primary documentation to make your own analysis & draw conclusions from it.

 

[Sbc]

None of the slaves owned slaves. Individuals such as Mary Chestnut's father in law, owned (+/-) 1,000 human beings. As a married woman she did not own any property in her own name. So, she owned zero slaves. Between her & her husband 50% of the white population owned slaves.

Note : Joshua John Ward owned (+/-) 1,200 had the largest slaveholding in 1860.
These were the families that held total political power over in the state.

1860 Census South Carolina

Link;

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-32.pdf

View attachment 556912
1860 Census Map showing slave population.


View attachment 556913
South Carolina slave population by county.

As can be seen, there were areas of the high country with relatively small slave populations. Typically (+/-) 12 individuals constitution by a family were the typical yeomen farm slave holding.

A raw percentage individuals of who legally owned slaves that only included white males is often used to somehow minimize the influence of the institution. In fact, slaveholding was a family matter where generations of individuals were dependent on the income derived from slave labor.

You now have the primary documentation to make your own analysis & draw conclusions from it.

Having lived in SC for almost 30 years I'm fully aware of the historical dominance of low country interests. It was still powerful into the late 20th century but has become more balanced. You struck at the heart of the matter in your first reply to me. A perception that someone is trying to take away their property was going to have violent repercussions.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Just a reminder this is intended to be a thread about the impact of peacefully averting the Mexican War through a US-UK-Mexico agreement, not yet another thread about whether slavery caused the Civil War.

 

[steve59p]

The "Mexican War" was a result of James K. Polk's declared intention to acquire liebestraum for slaveholding. He had every intention of starting that war whatever the extraneous situation was.

Link:

Annual Message to Congress (1848)

In his Annual Message, Polk celebrated the gains he had achieved—which had been made even more important by the discovery of gold deposits in California.

teachingamericanhistory.org

That assumes his ultra imperialist stance is still valid. Since deals with both Mexico and Britain have just been agreed and the US has gotten a large Texas and other lands including a path to the Pacific that would undermine forced expansion, either against Mexico or the UK. It would also be diplomatically a black mark for the US since, if Polk was still elected and came to power in 1845 an attack on either power is going to show that the US government is totally unreliable when it comes to treaties.

In such a case the US is likely to lose much of its new Pacific coast if it decides to go to war with the UK. If it goes to war with Mexico then the north are likely to be unhappy with such a conflict and you could also see support for Mexico from other powers, most noticeably probably Britain.