Under the Eagle Flag 2.0: An Alternate History of the World, 1821-2010

“Good evening. This is Radio Columbia.

Today in New York City, the Premier gave a major address on economic policy in advance of the upcoming Federal elections. In particular, he urged the Federal Congress to approve the government’s proposal to close tax loopholes for companies that have moved manufacturing operations to the southern nations. The Minority Leader criticized the Premier’s proposal as an attack on private enterprise. Polls continue to show tepid support for the government ahead of the elections.

In other national news, the President visited the Lady Columbia statue in Columbus today, stating his support for privately-financed efforts to stabilize the massive sculpture.

In world news tonight, the King of Hawai’i has arrived in London for a state visit to the United Kingdom. The renewal of the lease on the Pearl Harbour naval base, opposed by the ruling Hawaiian National Party, is expected to be an important topic of discussion in the King’s meetings with the British Prime Minister.

This has been a bulletin from Radio Columbia. The time in New York City is five past the hour.”

“If not for the catastrophes attendant upon the Oregon War, James K. Polk might have been remembered as one of the greatest Presidents of the First Union. With the United States reaching from ‘sea to shining sea’ in fulfillment of the nationalist dream, upon his inauguration in 1845 Polk had the opportunity to develop the United States in peace. Instead, he squandered this opportunity in a classic instance of overreach often compared to Napoleon. Indeed, Polk’s overreach may have been even more disastrous than Napoleon’s; for Polk’s folly inaugurated nearly two decades of national humiliation and conflict which eventually brought about the end of the First Union.” ---James Foxe, Polk and the Fall of the United States: 1845-48 (New York: Columbia, 1985).

38. James K. Polk (1845-49). Where to begin? James K. Polk was, without a doubt, one of the worst Presidents in history. He started and lost an unnecessary war with Britain, caused the devastation of much of the North in said war, and always catered slavishly to slave power (unsurprisingly, since he hailed from Tennessee). The only reason he isn’t at the bottom of this list is that some of his successors somehow managed to be even worse (especially the Southerners). ---From USA Weekly, January 1, 2000, special issue, “Best and Worst of Everything in the Millennium: US Presidents.”

The flag of the United States of America:

Yes, it's back!!!!!!!!

Love the new intro. As with the previous I really want to see this TL develop.

In realted news, I was actually planning to restart my TL sometime soon as well.

Best of luck developing this one.

Hey AH.com,

Some of you might remember that I started a timeline called "Under the Eagle Flag" last fall. I kept it up for a while, but then I got busy at work and had to let it lapse. Today, I'm restarting it. The old thread is here.

I chose to start over with a new thread because that will allow me to make improvements to the original TL and write the entire TL in a consistent style. I also think that will make it more accessible to people who are reading it for the first time. While the TL will consist of "reruns" for a while, I'm planning to add a little new material and maybe new maps. And I'll begin every update with an in-universe, present-day bulletin of some kind. I think it'll be fun to see a present-day alternate universe unfolding while the historical TL unfolds at the same time.

Enjoy!

This looks interesting.

Awesome! I missed this one

“Good evening. This is Radio Columbia.

The President of the Mexican Republic arrived in New York today, beginning a three-day state visit to the United States. President Velarde met with the Premier today, and in a joint statement the two leaders announced that they had agreed to continue negotiations on the long-stalled Hemispheric Free Trade Treaty. Tomorrow, President Velarde will address a special session of the Federal Congress, and he is expected to call for the continuation of strong economic and military ties between our two nations.

This has been a bulletin from Radio Columbia. The time in New York is five past the hour.”



“Agustin de Iturbide was crowned as Constitutional Emperor of Mexico on July 21, 1822. His grip on that position was tenuous from the beginning. He appears to have been inclined to run the country in the same dictatorial fashion as he had run his army. He was in constant conflict with the Congress, and even considered dissolving it later in 1822 [POD: in OTL Iturbide did dissolve the Congress, which led many of his supporters to renounce him and started the chain of events that led to his removal. ITTL he is narrowly talked out of dissolving Congress at this time]. As 1823 began, the unpopularity of Emperor Agustin’s lavish lifestyle and excessive military spending meant that he was hanging by a thread. However, as long as prominent military leaders like Santa Anna continued to support Agustin (however grudgingly), his opponents in Congress could not gain the strength to remove him.

The Emperor was further imperiled by a republican revolt that broke out in the Central American provinces in 1823. A substantial part of his army left the capital to fight in Central America, temporarily weakening his position against Congress. However, Agustin knew how to make the most of a crisis. When his forces finished suppressing the Central American revolt at the end of 1823, his status as national hero was burnished. In addition, Agustin tarred his republican opponents with the brush of the Central American revolt. By 1824, the republican faction in the Congress was marginalized and Agustin’s supporters were dominant.

This situation did not endure for long, though. Agustin’s economic policies continued to be unpopular, unrest increased in the capital, there was renewed rebellion in Central America, and the republicans did not stay down for long. In 1826, with the republican faction in Congress resurgent, Agustin finally dissolved the body. However, at this point his ambitious subordinate, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (the chief hero of the first Central American war) turned on him and allied with republican leader Vicente Guerrero to overthrow Agustin. On 19 June, 1826, Iturbide sailed into exile in Europe, where he would remain for the rest of his life, never renouncing his right to the throne until his death, in England, in 1842.
With Agustin banished, Mexico was proclaimed a republic. However, General Santa Anna was a dangerously important figure in the new regime. Officially subordinate to President Guerrero, in fact Santa Anna was the effective power behind the throne. This became even truer after 1829, when Santa Anna covered himself in glory by defeating a Spanish invasion force at Tampico [note: such a force was also sent in OTL, with the same result]. Santa Anna was by nature suspicious of the republican values promoted by Guerrero and other liberals; he took a dim view of the Mexican people’s fitness for liberty, and believed an enlightened despotic government to be preferable. With this in mind, the events of December 1829 are perhaps unsurprising. Realizing the threat posed by Santa Anna’s popularity, Guerrero resolved to remove the General from command of his army. However, Santa Anna got word of his planned arrest and mounted a coup against Guerrero that ended with the President being executed for treason.

Santa Anna took the title of President for himself, but this was not to be his title for long. In an eerie repetition of Agustin’s rise to power a decade earlier, the people of Mexico City demonstrated (almost certainly at the General’s instigation) for Santa Anna to assume the imperial crown. He made a show of reluctance, even publicly refusing a crown on several occasions, but on 18 May 1830 the Congress passed a unanimous resolution offering the crown to Santa Anna (after it had been fully purged of Guerrero supporters), and he ‘reluctantly’ accepted out of respect for the will of the people. That same day he placed the crown on his own head (as had Napoleon and Agustin). Emperor Antonio I was fond of granting himself additional, often outlandish titles, but he was fond of one above all others: the Eagle of Mexico.

Looks like an interesting TL, keep it coming.

DH

Remember this from the 1st time around and found it good then. Hoping this one goes all the way and we see what develops. Subscribing.

Steve

“Good evening. This is Radio Columbia.


The Secretary of State today denounced a Cuban court’s decision to refuse to extradite the infamous cocaine tycoon Senator Arnoldo Mendoza to the United States to face trial. Senator Mendoza has claimed immunity from prosecution based on his election to the Cuban Senate last fall. Noting that the formerly reclusive Mendoza only entered politics after a warrant for his extradition was issued, Secretary Roberts condemned the Senator’s claim of immunity as “a travesty of the democratic process and a transparent attempt to escape justice.”

In the world of sport tonight, New York is stunned as the Rangers suffer a 3:2 defeat at the hands of unfancied Mexican side Nacional de Guadalajara in NACFA Champions’ Cup play. This is Rangers’ first-ever defeat at Rangers Stadium to a foreign opponent in the group stage of the competition. The defeat increases the pressure facing club manager Leo Robinson after a poor start to the National Football League season, particularly heading into this weekend’s crucial match with City rivals Queens United.


This has been a bulletin from Radio Columbia. The time in New York is ten past the hour.”

Click to expand...

It is all too easy to forget that the first years of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s reign as Emperor Antonio I were fairly successful. He managed to negotiate an end to the latest rebellion in Central America in 1832. He mended relations with the European powers, leading to a much-needed influx of investment in Mexico (specifically from France and Great Britain). He oversaw the first period of sustained economic growth since before the War of Independence began.

However, in spite of his numerous successes Antonio came to be plagued by many of the same problems that had doomed Agustin. His insistence on maintaining a large army and his addiction to lavish living required immense sums of money, money that often had to be borrowed from foreign nations. His determination to govern Mexico on a centralized basis caused a gradual increase in opposition in distant provinces like Central America and Texas. The latter especially presented growing difficulties because by 1836 its inhabitants included large numbers of English-speaking Americans. These colonists frequently defied Mexican law by keeping slaves. In addition, they often held anti-monarchist views.

In 1837 a group of prominent Texan settlers met in the town of Washington-on-the-Brazos to draft a petition demanding greater autonomy from the Emperor. Antonio brusquely rejected the petition, and ordered a thousand soldiers north to maintain his control over the province. This led the Texas Convention to issue a Declaration of Independence on 13 September 1837. Antonio, naturally, was furious at this. However, despite sending 5,000 additional soldiers to Texas he could not defeat the rebels, who adopted guerilla tactics under the direction of their leader, Sam Houston.

In any case, by the end of 1837 Texas was not even Antonio’s most severe problem. Inspired partly by his lack of success in quickly suppressing the Texan rebellion, a group of Central American republicans raised the flag of revolt once again at the southern end of the empire. A bad harvest led to hardship in the countryside and riots in Mexico City. Meanwhile, Antonio’s profligate ways were turning France, his main creditor, against him as a debt of hundreds of thousands of francs went unpaid.

By 1838 Mexico faced a severe financial crisis. Antonio needed money to fight rebellions in Texas, Central America and Yucatan but he could barely pay the costs of day-to-day administration in the capital. Late that year he appealed to the government of French King Louis Phillipe for a loan of several million francs only to be denied as Mexico had an even larger debt outstanding. He then appealed to the United States, who declined to advance a loan but offered a counter-proposal: in return for the cession of Texas and certain other territories north of the Rio Grande, the US government would pay Mexico the desired amount. Although some of his advisors urged him to consider the American proposal, Antonio rejected the notion of selling half of his empire.

As the years passed, Mexico’s situation and Antonio’s grip on the crown worsened. By 1840 Mexico had effectively lost the war in Texas, as the Texan Republican forces held the entire countryside north of the Nueces. Texan politics were defined by the struggle between President Mirabeau Lamar, who wanted to country to remain independent, and Sam Houston, who wanted to pursue annexation to the United States. While reluctant to risk open confrontation with Antonio and his still-powerful armies, the US government under President Tyler began to take an increasing interest in finding a way to add Texas to the Union. Such a move was especially popular in the southern states, as adding Texas would mean the admission of (at least) one more slave state.

The war in Central America was, if anything, an even bigger disaster for Antonio. By 1840 the imperial forces had been driven out of all of Central America except for the northern part of Guatemala province (which was debatably in imperial hands, as much of it was occupied by Mayan rebels). The United Provinces of Central America, as the rebels called their state, had established a reasonably well-functioning government in San Salvador, with the various local interests held together by the threat of Mexican re-conquest. The imperial government was also struggling to maintain its control over California and Nuevo Mexico. Both distant provinces had been stripped bare of troops to fight in Central America, and were both being infiltrated by increasing numbers of American settlers with no loyalty to Mexico. Even provinces closer to Antonio’s centre of power like Yucatan were beginning to revolt.

The beginning of Antonio’s downfall came in 1841, when he renewed his application to the French for funds. When he was again denied, he rashly ordered the seizure of the property of French citizens living in Mexico. France viewed this as an act of war, and sent a fleet to blockade Mexico’s Gulf ports in retaliation. This blockade was tacitly supported by the Americans, who allowed the French to resupply in New Orleans before the planned French landing at Veracruz to coerce Mexico into compensating its citizens. Antonio unwisely chose to lead an army to Veracruz in person to break to French invasion. Even though he outnumbered the French almost two-to-one, his army was largely made up of recent conscripts from Mexico City and the surrounding countryside who lacked training and the best weapons; his best soldiers, of course, were stationed in Central America and could not make the march to Veracruz in time to keep up with the Emperor’s unnecessarily accelerated timetable. Antonio’s forces were routed at the Battle of Veracruz. He lost nearly a third of his army, and narrowly avoided death himself when he and his personal guard got caught in a French artillery barrage in the disorderly retreat; the Emperor’s horse was shot out from under him, and most of his bodyguards were killed by cannon fire.

Even though the French had no interest in conquering Mexico and their army soon withdrew in return for a promise to compensate French citizens for damages, the defeat ruined Antonio’s reputation as a defender of the motherland. By 1842 the long suppressed republican and liberal movements began to re-emerge and unify against the monarchy. Under the leadership of liberal Nuevo Leon governor Manuel Maria de Llano, the anti-monarchist forces began to raise an army in the northern provinces. Antonio’s few remaining allies could not provide enough support to save him. On 31 October 1843, as de Llano’s army entered Mexico City while meeting no resistance from the Emperor’s demoralized forces, Antonio abdicated and requested safe passage out of the country. He was allowed to leave Mexico on the condition that he would be executed if he ever returned, and sailed away to exile in Europe. A new Congress soon convened, abolished the monarchy, and elected de Llano president.

Mexico’s problems did not end with the monarchy, though. There was still the issue of what to do about Texas, Central America and Yucatan, all of which had established effective independence from Mexico City. Some felt the new republic should recognize their independence, while others believed it should fight to retain them. Meanwhile, the United States had never forgotten its spurned offer to purchase the northern regions, and in the wake of the civil war the Tyler administration increased its pressure on the republic to reconsider—hinting that military force might be employed if negotiation failed. In addition, the chaos of the post-1841 era had caused the neglect of the promised payments to France, and the French were warning none too subtly that if payment was not forthcoming a new blockade and possible invasion were in the works…

Desmond, where the hell ya been!?

*Pats Back*

Make this TL proud.

“Good evening. This is Radio Columbia.

Premier Brennan visited the key electoral battleground state of Massachusetts today. The Premier appeared at a campaign rally in Lowell, a city that has been hard-hit by the loss of jobs in the textile industry. The district that includes Lowell has been in Progressive Labor hands since the 1930’s, and was once represented by former Premier Jim Callaghan himself, but recent polls show five-term incumbent Congressman Dan O’Leary trailing by double digits. Poll watchers suggest the Premier’s trip to Lowell is a sign that the government’s chances of re-election are bleak with the Federal vote now less than two weeks away.

This has been a bulletin from Radio Columbia. The time in New York is a quarter past the hour.”

Click to expand...

President de Llano’s top priority in 1843-4 was to resolve conflicts with foreign powers and thus eliminate the threat of a destabilizing intervention. The chief obstacle in this was money. He sent ambassadors to Paris to beg more time to make the payments promised by the Emperor. The French government was unreceptive. Mexico was in a near-impossible position: bankrupt, unable to borrow any funds, and at the mercy of increasingly impatient creditors.

The United States resolved to take advantage of this situation. Discussions regarding the status of Texas and the possible purchase of certain northern regions had begun at lower levels almost as soon as the Republican takeover in Mexico. By mid-February 1844, these talks were advanced enough for President Tyler to send Secretary of State Abel Upshur to New Orleans to confer personally with the Mexican president’s ambassadors [note: this means that Upshur does not die on 28 Feb. in the USS Princeton explosion. This will be important later, trust me]. The Americans and Mexicans agreed early on that some transfer of territory for payment should take place; however, the two countries hotly disputed how much territory should be transferred and how much should be paid for it. The Mexicans agreed early on to accept the American annexation of Texas; however, they insisted that the new border should be drawn at the Nueces River—which was unacceptable to the Texans. Llano also faced significant opposition to selling portions of the northern provinces to the Americans from within his own government. There was particular opposition to selling the Pacific ports in California, as they had considerable potential for development.

Ultimately, however, Mexico’s need for money to pay its foreign debts won out. On 23 August, 1844, the diplomats concluded the Treaty of New Orleans. It stipulated that the United States would pay $30 million to Mexico and forgive some $5 million in debt owed to the United States by Mexico; additionally, the US undertook to respect the property rights of Mexican citizens living on the transferred territory. In exchange for this, Mexico sold vast territories in the north to the US, and recognized the independence of Texas so that the US and Texas could arrange terms for Texas’ annexation to the United States. It was a stupendous diplomatic victory for the beleaguered Tyler, already doomed to a one-term presidency. However, it did fall in the middle of a hotly contested election for Tyler’s replacement…

Map showing the U.S.-Mexico border after the Treaty of New Orleans (1844):

Hey! Mexico got a better deal in the previous version!

Desmond

I must admit I was thinking that the various our-time snippets were giving too much away. Then you come up with something like "once represented by former Premier Jim Callaghan himself,". If that's the same Jim Callaghan of OTL then either he's emgrated to New England or it's part of Britain? - Presuming butterflies don't apply as unlikely to be someone that closely like him with so early a POD.

Steve

jycee said:

Hey! Mexico got a better deal in the previous version!

Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe I should revise the new border northward a little, especially in OTL Arizona. But I think this map reflects what I was thinking more accurately than the original, partly because the new one uses a better-quality base map. I had always envisioned most of the same territory changing hands as in the OTL Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty; the exceptions are: in southeastern Texas, the border follows the Nueces instead of the Rio Grande; however, farther west it does follow the Rio Grande as in OTL. Second, the straight lines in the desert out west are drawn a few miles farther north than in OTL; this puts OTL San Diego and Imperial counties in Mexico. But maybe in OTL Arizona I should follow the Gila River instead of drawing a straight line.

stevep said:

Desmond

I must admit I was thinking that the various our-time snippets were giving too much away. Then you come up with something like "once represented by former Premier Jim Callaghan himself,". If that's the same Jim Callaghan of OTL then either he's emgrated to New England or it's part of Britain? - Presuming butterflies don't apply as unlikely to be someone that closely like him with so early a POD.

Steve

Click to expand...

Don't worry, it's not the same Jim Callaghan from OTL. This TL's version is a completely different person who happens to share a name with an OTL figure. It's mostly just a stupid joke, really.

I might slow down on the present-day snippets once I get to new chapters; but I wanted to offer some sense at the beginning of just how different the United States is ITTL.

Desmond Hume said:

Hmm, maybe I should revise the new border northward a little, especially in OTL Arizona. But I think this map reflects what I was thinking more accurately than the original, partly because the new one uses a better-quality base map. I had always envisioned most of the same territory changing hands as in the OTL Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty; the exceptions are: in southeastern Texas, the border follows the Nueces instead of the Rio Grande; however, farther west it does follow the Rio Grande as in OTL. Second, the straight lines in the desert out west are drawn a few miles farther north than in OTL; this puts OTL San Diego and Imperial counties in Mexico. But maybe in OTL Arizona I should follow the Gila River instead of drawing a straight line.

Click to expand...

The thing is that the absolute most Mexico was willing to offer prior to the war in OTL was Texas (minus the Nueces strip) and everything north of the 37th parallel (the current border of New Mex & Arizona with Colorado and Utah). In California that line placed the San Fran Bay in the US but Monterey Bay in Mexico.

Now I understand that you probably want an larger US. What you can do (and would actually make the most sense) would be for the US to but the territories of Tejas, New Mexico, and Alta California with the Mexican defined borders.
So you have the Nueces Strip in Mexico, but also West Texas (officially part of Chihuahua at the time). The US only wanted West Texas (or rather Northern Chihuahua) for El Paso, which is only useful if you have San Diego, to build a railroad to the Pacific. Mexico has San Diego then Mexico should keep El Paso (and as a consequence Yuma, the useful "middle point") The Gila River border works fine to keep Yuma but in the East it should run a little higher than OTL's. If Mexico keeps Norther Chihuahua and the Nueces Strip then the Rio Bravo would not be a border at any point.
In California it would make the most sense to keep all of Southern California in Mexico (once agin only San Diego had true value at the time). So you keep the LA basin in Mexico and make the Santa Monica Mts the border, Making LA/Malibu the equivalent of TJ/San Diego of OTL.

jycee,

I revised the map based on your suggestions, which were very helpful. I'd be interested to know what you think of this:

I think it works well though the border does change color quite often with that setup.

I think that border look perfect . This way non of the northern provinces (Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Sonora, & Baja) loose territory that way Llano would have less opposition in Mexico against the sell. OTL's Mexico would have still opposed to it but Santa Anna and his henchmen are gone when the deal was made, so maybe Llano has smart people like Herrera and Farias at his side.
And if the US, didn't get San Diego in the first place then, they have little reason want El Paso & the Mesilla (Northern Sonora) to build a railroad in.

“The presidential election of 1844 is highly unusual because it was very nearly rendered irrelevant before it even happened. Until the signing of the New Orleans Treaty in August, the key issue promised to be the annexation of Texas. The Democratic candidate, James K. Polk, was in favor, while Whig candidate Henry Clay stood opposed.

It has always been unclear how much the Treaty of New Orleans influenced the election. It certainly increased the prestige of the lame-duck Tyler Administration, an Administration which like Jefferson’s forty years earlier succeeded in almost doubling the size of the United States without firing a shot. This boost in a Democratic Administration’s prestige probably tended to benefit Polk. However, many Whigs were aghast at the enormous price tag attached to the purchase. Moreover, many Northerners were immediately suspicious of how the issue of slavery would be handled in the new territory. Finally, the annexation of Texas stole Polk’s thunder to some degree—although this problem was likely neutralized by the fact that Clay looked foolish for opposing Texas annexation once it had been achieved so easily.

The most important consideration in light of future events, though, is that the obsolescence of such a major element of Polk’s expansionist platform may have prompted him to move towards a more hard-line position on the Oregon issue. Such a position became increasingly popular in light of the general enthusiasm for territorial expansion that obtained in much of the United States—North and South—after news of the purchase broke. The desire to obtain as much of the Oregon Country as possible likely helped Polk to perform better in the North, especially New York (where he was also helped by the presence of a small-party candidate, James G. Birney of the anti-slavery Liberty Party). Paradoxically, the purchase of territory geographically close to the South may have helped some pro-expansion Northerners feel more comfortable voting for Polk, since it was assumed that whatever parts of Oregon were added to the United States would be free-soil. Polk’s newly emphasized support for gaining the most advantageous possible border in Oregon also helped him win exceptionally narrow victories in New Jersey and Tennessee. (note: a significant POD here. In OTL Clay won New Jersey [by 823 votes] and Tennessee [by 123 votes]. ITTL, Polk’s larger margin of victory gives the impression that he has a stronger popular mandate to play hardball with the British in negotiations for Oregon) When the voting was completed all across the country, Polk had won a fairly decisive victory over Clay. The final margin was 190 electoral votes for Polk and 85 electoral votes for Clay, while Polk won just over 50% of the popular vote.

Historians often assume that Polk’s first priority was to grab the entirety of the Oregon Country for the United States. This is somewhat unfair. In his first year in office Polk focused mainly on ensuring the ratification of the Treaty of New Orleans, reducing tariffs, and trying to solve the question of slavery in the new territories. This became a problem almost immediately, as the admission of Texas and Florida to the Union in 1845 meant the addition of two new slave states—and four new pro-slavery Senators. In addition, by 1845 settlers were already moving into the newly organized territories of California and New Mexico, and some Southern settlers were taking their slaves with them. The question of how the Missouri Compromise border should be extended to the Pacific was rapidly becoming extremely sensitive. In this context, the negotiations with Britain that began in the late summer of 1845 seemed like a relatively innocuous diplomatic affair.

However, the talks soon took a dangerously contentious turn. The acrimonious nature of the aborted discussions on the Oregon boundary largely resulted from factors quite unrelated to the issue itself. The two principal negotiators were almost guaranteed to butt heads. On the American side was Secretary of State John Calhoun [note: obviously, another minor POD here: Polk appoints Calhoun to State instead of Buchanan]—ardent defender of Southern power, slavery, and expansion. On the British side was Irish-born diplomat Richard Pakenham—former minister to Imperial Mexico, close friend of the deposed Emperor Antonio, and supporter of the Mexican Royalists.

Polk had instructed Calhoun to offer what was considered a reasonable compromise—drawing the boundary at the 49th parallel, which would split the Oregon Country more or less equally. Per his instructions from London, Pakenham turned down the so-called Forty-Nine Compromise. The rejection of the 49th parallel border should not have been an impassable obstacle, and would not have been one if not for an apparent misunderstanding of Calhoun’s response. As discussed in the American Cabinet, Calhoun responded to Pakenham’s rejection of the Forty-Nine Compromise by asserting the maximum American claim, setting the border at 54’40. In various press reports, Calhoun’s offer was understood as non-negotiable, and this version was the first to cross the Atlantic and appear in the British press. This ultimatum was considered unacceptable, if not actually insulting, and the Peel Government responded by instructing Pakenham to demand additional concessions from the Americans. Back in Washington, the topic of payment in various amounts was floated for the first time, a proposal which found little support on the American side after the huge amount paid to Mexico just a year earlier.

The longer the negotiations continued, the more the topic of Oregon became politicized in the United States. By the end of 1845 some 50 slave owners had migrated to California, bringing around 200 slaves with them. Although this number constituted a tiny percentage of migration to California, the abolitionist press was already printing hysterical predictions of “slave-holder dominion” over the New Orleans Purchase territories. Polk, who already believed he had a mandate to acquire all of Oregon for America, now had a pressing political need to do so as well. Calhoun also felt that need. He firmly believed that the New Orleans lands should be open to slavery in full, but he was a wise enough politician to realize the need for a countervailing balance of free-soil territory to assuage the North. To satisfy both North and South, the Administration had to demand the maximum American claim.

By the end of the year the British were ready to accept the Forty-Nine Compromise. The ostensible reason why the negotiations broke down was Vancouver Island: the British argued it should be excluded from the Forty-Nine Compromise, while the Americans argued it should either become part of the United States in its entirety or that it should be divided along the 49th parallel with the rest of Oregon. However, at this stage even achieving the original Forty-Nine Compromise plus Vancouver Island would have been disastrous for the Polk Administration in domestic political terms. Acquiring the entire Oregon Country was literally the last thing most Americans could agree on regardless of their stance on slavery. It was in this context that Polk personally informed Pakenham early in January of 1846 that the United States intended to abrogate the 1818 Anglo-American agreement establishing joint occupation of Oregon. Although the leaders of both nations would spend the next six months trying to find a way to avoid war, with increasing desperation, the Oregon War effectively began that day.

jycee said:

I think that border look perfect . This way non of the northern provinces (Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Sonora, & Baja) loose territory that way Llano would have less opposition in Mexico against the sell. OTL's Mexico would have still opposed to it but Santa Anna and his henchmen are gone when the deal was made, so maybe Llano has smart people like Herrera and Farias at his side.
And if the US, didn't get San Diego in the first place then, they have little reason want El Paso & the Mesilla (Northern Sonora) to build a railroad in.

Click to expand...

Thanks; and I'm planning to make clear in future updates that the sale of the north is far from uncontroversial in Mexico.

I like it Desmond. Keep it up!