1844: What if President Clay avoids the Mexican-American War?

Robbbbb

This is my first time starting a thread and proposing a timeline, so bear with me...


The US Presidential election of 1844 was basically a referendum on US territorial expansion. The Democratic candidate, Polk, called for the annexation of Texas as well as US claims to all of Oregon country (at the time, jointly occupied by US and Britain). Clay, the Whig candidate, stressed economic issues in his campaign, and was generally against territorial expansion, particularly if it came at a cost of going to war; he admitted that he would approve of the annexation of Texas only if war could be avoided.

Henry Clay lost that election by 65 electoral votes. However, he was only 5000 votes away from winning New York's 36 electoral votes, and therefore the Presidency. James Birney ran as the anti-slavery Liberty Party candidate and got over 15000 votes in New York; it is thought that most of his votes would have gone to Clay if Birney had not been in the race.

James Birney became disabled after a fall from his horse in 1845. Suppose this fall occured in the late summer/early autumn of 1844 instead, preventing him from campaigning, and thus delivering New York's electoral votes to Henry Clay.

Now, we have an anti-expansionist (or at least an anti-Manifest Destiny) president in the White House, during a presidential term that, OTL, arguably had the greatest impact on the territorial expansion of the United States.

Any thoughts?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
I've seen an interesting article along these lines in an academic journal. Basically the author figures that there would be three republics in an America with Henry Clay; the US, the Republic of Texas and the Republic of California. No annexation.
 

King Gorilla

Well Texas will still be encorporated as millard filmore wanted to have some notable achievement as a presidental legacy however, in regard to Mexico I imagine that Clay would prefer settle America's boarder disputes diplomatically rather than using them as a pretext for expansion. Given how clay had no real desire to get involved in a mexican war and in turn bring more slave states into the union, there is a deccent chance that America will press harder on its claims in the oregon territory. Given the territory's rather ancilliary importance to Britain and the prevelence of American settlers in the region, its not unlikely that America could diplomatically end up with the 54' 40'' border.
 

Robbbbb

David S Poepoe said:
I've seen an interesting article along these lines in an academic journal. Basically the author figures that there would be three republics in an America with Henry Clay; the US, the Republic of Texas and the Republic of California. No annexation.
Click to expand...

I initially wanted to start this timeline because I wanted to see an independent California, and this seemed like the most likely way to achieve that.

My only question is with Texas... OTL, Texas was annexed before Polk was inaugurated; do you think it's likely that it'll be put off until after the inauguration if Clay is elected?
 

Darkling

King Gorilla said:
Given the territory's rather ancilliary importance to Britain and the prevelence of American settlers in the region, its not unlikely that America could diplomatically end up with the 54' 40'' border.
Click to expand...

Doubtful, once Palmerston is foreign secretary he will never accept that, he will most likely push for the Columbia River boundary.

This is the reason why the treaty was rushed through in OTL.

Palmerston will be foreign secretary until 51 then an important cabinet member until 55 then PM until 65 (with a brief one year gap in 58).

The US might be able to use the Crimean war to try and get Britain to concede but things probably come to a head before then and could quite likely result in war.
 

King Gorilla

Darkling said:
Doubtful, once Palmerston is foreign secretary he will never accept that, he will most likely push for the Columbia River boundary.

This is the reason why the treaty was rushed through in OTL.

Palmerston will be foreign secretary until 51 then an important cabinet member until 55 then PM until 65 (with a brief one year gap in 58).

The US might be able to use the Crimean war to try and get Britain to concede but things probably come to a head before then and could quite likely result in war.
Click to expand...

Although Palmerstone may not like conceding any of Britain's claims, it still is in britains interest to keep friendly relations with the united states. Anynumber of border disputes could have brought war between britain and america but cooler heads usually prevail because the land wasn't worth the costs of a war. Case in point the dispute with Canada over international borders of Maine. I would imagine even minor border violence could be glossed over because of this. The longer the dispute lasts the stronger America's claims will be due to disproportionate amounts of immigration to the region. Should the disputes last untill the Crimean war, Britain will probably concede due to it not wanting or needing a two front war.
 

Darkling

King Gorilla said:
Although Palmerstone may not like conceding any of Britain's claims, it still is in britains interest to keep friendly relations with the united states.
Click to expand...


"You may stand for this, but damned if I will!"

The British wouldn't want to be shut out from the Pacific coast, Palmerston was very hawkish in his outlook (although not an idiot) and he had a definite stance on the issue.

If the US tries to take the entire territory when in reality they had no real claim over any of it then Palmerston won't stand for it.

The British can just terminate the co-dominion and just say their claims are those north of the river and dare the Americans to do something about it or they can push for international arbitration which will either go for the OTL border or give Britain the Columbia River since any objective arbitrator would realise that the Americans had no real claim at all (except for squatters rights).
 

King Gorilla

Also doing some internet research, wasn't Palmerstone both out of power and rather unpopular between 1841-1846? Given his rather unsteady political postion in 1846, I doubt it would go over too well for him to declare war over a rather backwater part of the empire particularly at a time when Europe was experiencing ratger bad harvests and American Grain was a safety valve preventing further social unrest. Given the amount of time it would take to ramp up for war and the fact that it would almost certainly be a multi year long affair, I wonder what the consequences of no american grain reaching Europe would be in 1848?
 

Darkling

King Gorilla said:
Also doing some internet research, wasn't Palmerstone both out of power and rather unpopular between 1841-1846? Given his rather unsteady political postion in 1846, I doubt it would go over too well for him to declare war over a rather backwater part of the empire particularly at a time when Europe was experiencing ratger bad harvests and American Grain was a safety valve preventing further social unrest.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out the treaty was rushed through because the Tories knew they were going down once they revoked the Corn Laws, the Tories would only be in power for one year out of the next twenty.

Again, he doesn't have to declare war, he states that Britain is taking what it's due because the Americans won't be reasonable and that they can recognise it or not.

Then it becomes a question of whether the US wants a war and I doubt the South would be that eager to add free states when the North wouldn’t add Texas.

Of course it is an especially bad idea to anybody in the US congress with a brain when the likely result of the war is that Britain takes all of Oregon and quite possible the Plain states as well.

It is quite easy to make the Americans unreasonable because they really had no claim on the territory and if they won’t agree to divide it (when Britain is being magnanimous and allowing them to get a slice).

Given the amount of time it would take to ramp up for war and the fact that it would almost certainly be a multi year long affair, I wonder what the consequences of no american grain reaching Europe would be in 1848?
Click to expand...

Bad news for continental Europe and bad news for America however the war doesn’t necessarily have to start before 48, if there is indeed a war and the US doesn’t just agree to arbitration.
 

MerryPrankster

Perhaps the US buys the 54-40 territory from Britain instead of trying to fight for it?

Also, California was full of American settlers. We might see a Texas-style Bear Flag Revolt at some point, unless the Mexicans move a LOT of people into the area (the Gold Rush attracting Mexicans north might work, but it would also attract a lot of Americans and that could get ugly).

Hmm...if California successfully rebels against Mexico and joins the US, we might get a crescent-shaped West with a big hunk of Mexican territory in the middle (although they could revolt against Mexico too and create an independent Spanish-speaking nation).
 

Othniel

Merry, the Bear Flag Revolt took place in the North, so we might not get the San Diego area if it applies to join that way.
 

Robbbbb

Well, Henry Clay was "The Great Compromiser", wasn't he? I can see him coming up with pretty much the same deal concerning Oregon as what happened OTL. I don't see him going to war over Oregon.

As for Texas, I think annexation could have still happened, but at the boundries that Mexico recognized (the Nueces River), and as part of some kind of agreement with Mexico.

As for California, forget it. I see it declaring independence in the 1850's, although a lot of that depends on the Gold Rush. But given what would have happened with Texas and the loss of the area south of the Nueces, I doubt California would really want to join the US.
 

AuroraBorealis

MerryPrankster said:
Perhaps the US buys the 54-40 territory from Britain instead of trying to fight for it?

Well I doubt they are going to sell the whole terr. to the US....

US settlers are starting to arrive in larger numbers in the region but they are settling for the most part in what is the state of Oregon, south of the Columbia River...The "Company" had seen to it that the lands to the north were preserved for their own commercial purposes. Hence the British initial insistence on the Columbia River.

The Premise is that with Clay in the White House he is focused on Economic matters rather than aggressive terr. expansion. Annexation of Texas provided it does not lead to war remember....
If He desn't want a war with with Mexico he is hardly going to want one with the B.E over the far away north west with far less Americans in it than Texas or California. Negotiation is going to be the order of the day.

Therefore the treaty will go through as per OTL or the negotiations will drag out a bit longer... those are the only two logical conclusions.

The V.I. colony was started by the company to bolster Br. claims in the region as a result of OTL treaty ( and keep further Am. encroachement at bay). This will still occur with either of these scenarios. If the treaty negotiations drag out and Palmerston gets his way... Br. Settlers in the region will join those of the Americans in the region in the lands north of the Columbia, perhaps in Washington State instead of V.I. though I think the company would prefer the V.I. settlement and it would be more defensible ( and less likely to get in the way of their commercial interests on the mainland). Those settlers will spill over into the Fraser River and to the shores of Puget Sound if there is no agreement. The possibility of war over the region will not rear its head until Clay's term is over and who is to say he does not seek a second term.

By that time either the Columbia River or the 49th will be accepted as the border in Oregon because of the defacto presence of British settlers to bolster the Br. claim in addition to the commercial assets of the HBC. The US should consider itself lucky then if they get the 49th, as the longer the negotiations drag the more likely it is that the Columbia River will be that border.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Burton K Wheeler

Moderator
What about the possibility of a Bear Flag-style revolt in the Northwest, too? And how would possible Russian intervention on the American side affect British thinking?
 

Othniel

I doubt anywar over Calfironia would take place whilest Clay was President. Ultimately the Free-booters will grow discontent with Mexician rule, if the goverment isn't the type they can get along with, and attempt to pull a Texas.

I would not count any American settlers out in Oregeon either. Good land and growning numbers and the US's own commerical companies in the region are going to change its dynamic again and again until there is either war or compromise.
 

Darkest

Banned
Unless Revolution establishes a successful, functioning, patriotic state of its own in California, it will probably be taken by the President after Henry Clay, or after that. It was up for grabs.

As for the Gold Rush, acknowledge that it was only a year after California became part of the United States. All the settlers were moving in (not because of gold but because of land), thus there was more of a chance of discovering gold. I would make it so that unless Mexico brings in American settlers ala Texas, into the north California valley, gold is NEVER discovered until it becomes part of the USA.

Under Mexico, it will take quite some time before the population is up to the level where it is likely that gold will be discovered. Early 1860s or even 70s, if a revolution hasn't established a new state there, or Mexico has started some kind of program to establish a presence in the area.
 

Darkling

California could end up in British hands, one governor of California had already recommended selling it to Britain to keep it out of American hands, it's possible that if Texas does end up within the US but without a war that they will decide to go for that option especially once trouble becomes evident.

It is also true that in 1844 Californians had approached the British consul and asked the British to declare California a protectorate, the consul however waited from orders from London and before then the Californians made their move and ousted the governor (although they didn't declare independence).

It is quite possible that with Palmerston in the foreign office that the British will back the next attempt to revolt in California especially if Oregon discussions are still on going (although that could lead to problems in itself if the British have claims both north and south).

Of course it is also possible that with the British taking an interest it will force the Americans to take an interest in turn and could lead to an agreement to respect the independence of California as a compromise.
 

Robbbbb

Darkest said:
As for the Gold Rush, acknowledge that it was only a year after California became part of the United States. All the settlers were moving in (not because of gold but because of land), thus there was more of a chance of discovering gold. I would make it so that unless Mexico brings in American settlers ala Texas, into the north California valley, gold is NEVER discovered until it becomes part of the USA.
Click to expand...

Gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill before the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed, so it was still technically Mexico. Sutter received his Mexican land grant in 1840, so it's not at all farfetched to assume that gold would be discovered eventually, regardless of who possesses California at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top