What If A Different Mexican Cession?

[Sbc]

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.

Idk about that. Could the Brits take and hold the west coast? Seems unlikely given geography and distance. That's a tremendous distance to try and fight a war.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Idk about that. Could the Brits take and hold the west coast? Seems unlikely given geography and distance. That's a tremendous distance to try and fight a war.

Your point is well taken. Sailing time to San Francisco from London around the horn was four to eight months in 1860's. Could take a year. Clipper ships made the voyage in three to six months.

During the Civil War, California gold shipments went via the arduous overland passage at the Isthmus of Panama, not around the horn.





Link:

18th century sailing times between the English Channel and the Coast of America: How long did it take?

At the Caird Library we receive questions about sailing times between two ports of call very frequently.

www.rmg.co.uk

 

[Library Lady]

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

Well now, that opens a whole new, different, interesting can of worms which leads me to ask: Anybody interested in a separate thread on who the Klingons would have supported in the Civil War and why?

 

[Library Lady]

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?

I love alternate history scenarios, both straight-up and sci-fi/fantasy. That said, I'm not understanding what the 54-40 or fight people are getting out of this deal. If they're interested in the natural resources of the area like furs and fishing, then trading for Texas gives them zilch. Are they just not around for some reason? What happens to the idea of "Manifest Destiny?" It's already arrived. How do you convince those people that "enough" is, in fact, "enough?"

You all are reminding me of these books which were a part of my American History classes in college. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Idk about that. Could the Brits take and hold the west coast? Seems unlikely given geography and distance. That's a tremendous distance to try and fight a war.

I had the same thought about the Pacific coast and the Brits.

 

[steve59p]

Idk about that. Could the Brits take and hold the west coast? Seems unlikely given geography and distance. That's a tremendous distance to try and fight a war.

Could the US reinforce and resupply their own units in the region adequately? They would be facing a British blockade and its a long haul overland, especially if your trying to move heavy equipment such as artillery, ammo and the like. Much easier in bulk by sea. As

Also once war starts the US may be able to recruit plenty of men but how does it arm and equipment them? OTL union expansion very much depended on supplies from Europe in the early years for weaponry and even more so for saltpeter.

As Rhea Cole points out ships from the Atlantic can make it in 3-6 months and probably faster from Asia.

 

[uaskme]

Ever heard of that Manifest Destiny thingy?

Polk had support in the North. Most Americans wanted expansion. North wanted Canada. Eventually US took Cuba. Just had too large of a Black population to make a State. US would of taken more of Mexico in 1848 if not for those mongrel Catholics.

 

[steve59p]

I love alternate history scenarios, both straight-up and sci-fi/fantasy. That said, I'm not understanding what the 54-40 or fight people are getting out of this deal. If they're interested in the natural resources of the area like furs and fishing, then trading for Texas gives them zilch. Are they just not around for some reason? What happens to the idea of "Manifest Destiny?" It's already arrived. How do you convince those people that "enough" is, in fact, "enough?"

You all are reminding me of these books which were a part of my American History classes in college. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

View attachment 557117

View attachment 557118

You beat them up until they see sense.

The US, if formally politically united is a sizeable economic power. I think IIRC just behind France in 3rd place at the time but its got some significant weaknesses. [Note I forgot we're talking about a war in the mid-late 1840 not ~1860 so the US is less developed here]. Its military is small, as is its infrastructure for expansion and to expand quickly it would need overseas trade. Which along with coastal traffic is also important for many economic activities as well as government finance. Similarly without sea control it will have problems fighting Mexico if fighting them as well.

It also depends on what war are we talking about? War with both Britain and Mexico, with Britain only or with Britain after it supports Mexico after a US attack on the latter?

a) The 1st would be excessive even for US expansionism and would see a double breach of a only recently signed treaty with both those powers. As such both would see widespread outrage in the attacked countries and condemnation by the wider western world. It would have one advantage in that your likely to get support from expansionist in both north and south, but given your talking about such a war probably even greater internal opposition.

b) In the 2nd case you don't have war with Mexico but what's in it for the southern states. Are they going to suffer economically for northern expansion?

c) This case is more complex but has most of the disadvantages of a) although there could be more unity in the north for the war once Britain enters the fray.

Also don't forget as a democratic state the US is in no position to have a massive military build up, move forces into position then launch attacks without a dow, let alone probably bitter debate in Congress. That is likely to give their target(s) some warning.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I'm not understanding what the 54-40 or fight people are getting out of this deal. If they're interested in the natural resources of the area like furs and fishing, then trading for Texas gives them zilch. Are they just not around for some reason?

According to Borneman's biography of Polk, which I am currently reading and where the OP scenario comes from, "54-40 or Fight" was not yet much of a thing in 1842-1843.

 

[RedRover]

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.

The British had expunged slavery in the empire by a mass payment to slave holders, something like 100 million dollars, in 1833. The slaves fully emancipated after several years apprenticeship.

Mexico had done something similar.

In the USA the issue was perhaps not so simple. The US Constitution did not cognize slavery, so it was questioned that the Government could pay money for slaves as such (the slaves classed in the Constitution among persons who might have owed service or labor under certain State laws, etc., rather than a chattel). And the value of the American slaves, per the evaluations in the market of the late 1860s, came to about 3-4 billion dollars. The US Government never had revenues before 1860 of more than 70 million in a given year.

Senator J.R. Underwood of Kentucky observed on the floor in 1850:

And Joshua Giddings observed in 1857:

And the Abolition movement in America absolutely opposed any payment to former masters upon an emancipation. They developed the movement particularly in the mid-1830s after the British compensated emancipation for slave property, which they considered immoral and illegal.

There were exceptions among the Abolitionists, like Gerritt Smith, but even they promoted a simple compensation for lost "service or labor" alone, at the customary market rates for labor, and not the evaluation of the human property market in the States or Territories where they existed.

When slaves were emancipated in Washington, DC in 1862 by "An Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor in the District of Columbia" the masters were paid a $300 per servant for the service or labor.

Had six million slaves been compensated for in similar manner, that would have been 1.8 Trillion dollars. However, only the War Powers of the United States could emancipate those classed as slaves by State laws, etc. (per Patrick Henry etc.), and such powers were employed from 1863-65 to that end.

The Confederate Constitution, meanwhile, did specify "property" in negro slaves as legal under the Confederate Government, giving it a power and requirement for a compensated emancipation of at the slave property rates per slave market valuations, but the cost would have been prohibitive of course.

 

[Sbc]

The British had expunged slavery in the empire by a mass payment to slave holders, something like 100 million dollars, in 1833. The slaves fully emancipated after several years apprenticeship.

Mexico had done something similar.

In the USA the issue was perhaps not so simple. The US Constitution did not cognize slavery, so it was questioned that the Government could pay money for slaves as such (the slaves classed in the Constitution among persons who might have owed service or labor under certain State laws, etc., rather than a chattel). And the value of the American slaves, per the evaluations in the market of the late 1860s, came to about 3-4 billion dollars. The US Government never had revenues before 1860 of more than 70 million in a given year.

Senator J.R. Underwood of Kentucky observed on the floor in 1850:

View attachment 557266

And Joshua Giddings observed in 1857:

View attachment 557267

And the Abolition movement in America absolutely opposed any payment to former masters upon an emancipation. They developed the movement particularly in the mid-1830s after the British compensated emancipation for slave property, which they considered immoral and illegal.

View attachment 557265

There were exceptions among the Abolitionists, like Gerritt Smith, but even they promoted a simple compensation for lost "service or labor" alone, at the customary market rates for labor, and not the evaluation of the human property market in the States or Territories where they existed.

View attachment 557268

When slaves were emancipated in Washington, DC in 1862 by "An Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor in the District of Columbia" the masters were paid a $300 per servant for the service or labor.

Had six million slaves been compensated for in similar manner, that would have been 1.8 Trillion dollars. However, only the War Powers of the United States could emancipate those classed as slaves by State laws, etc. (per Patrick Henry etc.), and such powers were employed from 1863-65 to that end.

The Confederate Constitution, meanwhile, did specify "property" in negro slaves as legal under the Confederate Government, giving it a power and requirement for a compensated emancipation of at the slave property rates per slave market valuations, but the cost would have been prohibitive of course.

I think you might have missed the point I made in post 14.

 

[RedRover]

I think you might have missed the point I made in post 14.

There certainly were ideas on those heads afloat in the antebellum years. And debate about them. The difficulty was insurmountable however.

The constitutional impediments and opposition of the abolition movement aside, Before the War, if a rich person wanted to buy all the slaves, it would have cost them at minimum 3-4 billion dollars (the evaluation of slave property in the Southern States roughly). And that's if the slave holders were willing to sell at a simple assessment value. James L. Huston observed that just 46,000 of the slave holders (with 20 or more slaves each) held as much wealth in slave "property" as all of the railroad and manufacturing investments in the North combined (less than 2 billion)...

Deportations to Liberia wouldn't have happened either. Slaves weren't foreigners, unfree as they were. Those sent to Liberia by the action of the US Government in the period were actual Africans captured during attempts to smuggle them into the United States illegally, and sent to Liberia.

In the early 1840s the British made known their interest in expunging slavery in Mexico and the Republic of Texas, potentially by compensation of slave owners, as was done in their empire...

The Texans declined to entertain such a program, informing the British...