This timeline was first conceived after watching Antique Roadshow (I know, I know haha) and seeing a lithograph of the debate on California's status of being a slave state or not. Ultimately in OTL a concession was reached and admitted California into the Union as a non-slave state at the expense of tighter fugitive slave laws. My idea is that if the debates collapsed and tensions boiled over, we could see a rather different Civil War. I also feature a slightly more rough number of concessions for Mexico. Namely America taking Baja California as a territory, and Mexico giving independence to The Republic of Rio Grande and the Republic of Yucatan. This is partially to help make the slave debate even more vitriolic (more territories to debate over) and also because I previously debated over starting a Mexican-American War TL in which America takes major parts of Mexico. So I just integrated it.
So yeah, it is kinda a Mexiscrew TL. However I don't think this will end up as an Ameriwank as America will be screwed in terms of ethics, morality, and ultimately diplomatic relations.
I do plan on continuing my other TL regarding Ikki Kita, but this caught my attention and I want to start work on it. So don't get down if you've been enjoying that TL, I will return to it soon!
Anyway, let's begin:
The war between Mexico and America was brief and bloody affair. The war was started largely over Sam Houston's Texas declaring independence from Mexico and the war that followed. Although that was a barely accepted reason even during the conflict. The war's real purpose was a combination of three things.
Firstly was Continentalism, or Manifest Destiny. The idea that America's borders should extend to the Pacific ocean and beyond. That the American man must tame the wilderness of the West. The idea is fairly similar to the White man's burden which would manifest in the late 1800's with the colonization of Africa. Regardless if it was born our of pure racism or if it was a well meaning attempt to bring "light" to the world is anyone's guess, but Manifest Destiny would prove to be a divisive issue in American politics. Democrats nearly unanimously supported this idea whereas those against the Democrats (Whigs, abolitionists, and so on) were in firm opposition.
Therefore it is not surprising in the least to learn that the Mexican-American war was a controversial one. The President at the time, President Polk was a Democrat and was a fan of Manifest Destiny. The Democratic administration pushed for war with Mexico and also pushed for a harsh treaty with Mexico. In fact, at one time, Polk even considered the ideas of the "All-Mexican Movement" which supported the total annexation of Mexico. The largest opposing group was the Whigs, who were outraged by the war. A popular Whig, Ulysses S. Grant would later state: "...I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation..." Even after objections for abolitionists and Whigs, the war would end up being fought primarily by volunteers in a strange sort of Imperialism that a country like America had never engaged in.
The second reason was grounded primarily in border conflicts and concern of another strong nation bordering America. Mexico was prone to incredible disunity and infighting in its early days, but American politicians of what Mexico could become. Furthermore, Mexico was mostly pro-British in its policy due to the whole Emperor Maximilian business nearly 40 years ago. The general fear was that if Mexico could become strong, the British would force America into a two front war, one in the West against Mexico, and one in the North against the British provinces of Canada. This was not widely discussed but it helped provide a "greasing element" on the American war machine that helped entrench the idea of inevitable war with Mexico.
Finally was Texas. Make no mistake, Texas was certainly a justification method for war with Mexico, but it had its basis in reality. Texas was a mostly Anglo state that wanted to gain independence from Mexico. Some politicians saw Texas as a "little America" while other saw it as a good buffer in between Mexico. Regardless which was the prevailing sentiment, ultimately America assisted in the Texan debacle. Texas would later be admitted into the Union with breakneck speed and would remove any benefit Texas had as a buffer state once Texas entered the Union.
And so, war between America and Mexico started in 1846 and would end in 1848. The war would end with America on top of Mexico and Mexico signing the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
As mentioned before, the Mexican-American war was highly opposed by Whigs and abolitionists. So, it was no surprise when Whigs and abolitionists opposed the harsh treaty that followed the war. The treaty acquired the territories of Nuevo México, Alta California, and Baja California. All inhabitants were offered American citizenship and most took the offer, realizing that things would be better under the Americans, rather than Mexico. The majority of the population was Native American however, and they did not accept Mexican OR American authority. This led to numerous conflicts with Natives in the Western United States. In the end, these natives would be placed on reservations and would poof away into the mists of time.
Furthermore, it also gave independence to the Republic of Rio Grande and the Republic of Yucatan. Despite the obvious negatives, many Democrat and Democrat apologists in the future would claim that letting Rio Grande and Yucatan go their own way actually helped Mexico. Rio Grande and Yucatan were both very rebellious areas of Mexico that Mexico was forced to dump a great deal of money to keep under their control. In fact, both of these nations previously declared independence from Mexico and forced the Mexican army to put down their revolts. Yucatan was of little worth and Rio Grande was of a bit more worth, but ultimately, both areas would be more trouble then they were worth. Naturally, this was not the way American politicians thought. Rio Grande was to be integrated into the US as a new state and Yucatan was to remain a territory until a good use was thought up. It would make a nice bargaining chip in the future regardless.
Outside of simple objections, there was a major problem brewing within the American government. The slavery debate had laid mostly dormant although the acquisition of new territory had suddenly forced the issue back into the spotlight. The Missouri Compromise had settled the issue by separating America down the 36°30′ north parallel. All states north of the parallel were to be non-slave states, and all south were to be slave states. The Californian territory was in both of these sections, with the parallel running through the middle of the state. If the state was admitted as a non-slave state, it would give non-slave states a senate majority, and it was a slave state, it would give slave states a majority.
Some more logical minds suggested simply splitting New Mexican, and Californian territories based on the parallel. However this was never even considered by either side. The fact was that both the Whigs and the Democrats wanted to get a leg up on the other. Then, Democrats suggested the idea of elections to decide status of slavery in new territories. This, in combination with the discovery of gold wet the appetites of many southerners who dreamed of vast gold slave mines in which they would get rich not off cotton - but gold.
This debate would not end in during Polk's presidency and quickly became the major issue of the upcoming 1848 Presidential election. The Democrats rallied around popular sovereignty, while the Whigs focused on compromise, and the Free Soil Party desired for all new territories to be made free states.
Despite what many historical textbooks will have you believe, Taylor was by no means an ideological individual. He had very few opinions on politics and had never even voted in an election. In any other situation, Taylor would have simply retired from the military and that would be the end of him. However, Zachary Taylor was a successful war hero in a recent war. It didn't matter what he thought, just that he ran for whichever party courted him. In the period before the 1848 election, both the Democrats and Whigs courted him in an attempt to draw votes from the American public who were still fresh from the fever of war. They wanted to fly the flag as high as they could, and sing songs in her praises. Both the Whigs and the Democrats understood this. The Whigs needed him to prevent the much more popular Democrats from winning and the Democrats were well aware (and afraid) of the Whigs and the Free Soil Party. It was the personal belief of a number of high level Democratic politicians that the Whigs and the Free Soil Party were going to band together and completely trounce the Democrats in the upcoming election. This might not have been the case, but this was what they thought.
In the end, the Democrats succeeded in stealing Taylor away from the Whigs.
That year, the Democrats ran Zachary Taylor and Lewis Cass on a mostly moderate ticket. The Democrats were aware that the concept of popular sovereignty only appealed to so many, and that the abolitionists had grown in popularity. So the pro-slavery rhetoric was calmed to a degree, and the success of the Mexican-American War was focused on. The Whigs ran Winfield Scott and Millard Fillmore. They focused mostly on trying to draw Democratic moderates to the Whigs and also maintaining popularity among the Whig's party base. The Free Soil Party ran Martin Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams. They focused more on radical abolitionism and trying to take as many votes away from the Democrats as they could.
In the end, this is what came of the 1848 Presidential election:
---------------
I'm sure I've screwed SOMETHING up. Especially this late, and especially when constructing an infobox. If I got anything wrong, well, I can fix it. I'm certain that some of my math is off on the infobox.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy so far. I'd love to hear what you have to say. I'm going to sleep now (thank god)
So yeah, it is kinda a Mexiscrew TL. However I don't think this will end up as an Ameriwank as America will be screwed in terms of ethics, morality, and ultimately diplomatic relations.
I do plan on continuing my other TL regarding Ikki Kita, but this caught my attention and I want to start work on it. So don't get down if you've been enjoying that TL, I will return to it soon!
Anyway, let's begin:
Prologue: A worse timeline
Prologue 1: The woes of Mexico
A lithograph celebrating the American victory at Battle of Churubusco.
Prologue 1: The woes of Mexico
A lithograph celebrating the American victory at Battle of Churubusco.
The war between Mexico and America was brief and bloody affair. The war was started largely over Sam Houston's Texas declaring independence from Mexico and the war that followed. Although that was a barely accepted reason even during the conflict. The war's real purpose was a combination of three things.
Firstly was Continentalism, or Manifest Destiny. The idea that America's borders should extend to the Pacific ocean and beyond. That the American man must tame the wilderness of the West. The idea is fairly similar to the White man's burden which would manifest in the late 1800's with the colonization of Africa. Regardless if it was born our of pure racism or if it was a well meaning attempt to bring "light" to the world is anyone's guess, but Manifest Destiny would prove to be a divisive issue in American politics. Democrats nearly unanimously supported this idea whereas those against the Democrats (Whigs, abolitionists, and so on) were in firm opposition.
Therefore it is not surprising in the least to learn that the Mexican-American war was a controversial one. The President at the time, President Polk was a Democrat and was a fan of Manifest Destiny. The Democratic administration pushed for war with Mexico and also pushed for a harsh treaty with Mexico. In fact, at one time, Polk even considered the ideas of the "All-Mexican Movement" which supported the total annexation of Mexico. The largest opposing group was the Whigs, who were outraged by the war. A popular Whig, Ulysses S. Grant would later state: "...I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation..." Even after objections for abolitionists and Whigs, the war would end up being fought primarily by volunteers in a strange sort of Imperialism that a country like America had never engaged in.
The second reason was grounded primarily in border conflicts and concern of another strong nation bordering America. Mexico was prone to incredible disunity and infighting in its early days, but American politicians of what Mexico could become. Furthermore, Mexico was mostly pro-British in its policy due to the whole Emperor Maximilian business nearly 40 years ago. The general fear was that if Mexico could become strong, the British would force America into a two front war, one in the West against Mexico, and one in the North against the British provinces of Canada. This was not widely discussed but it helped provide a "greasing element" on the American war machine that helped entrench the idea of inevitable war with Mexico.
Finally was Texas. Make no mistake, Texas was certainly a justification method for war with Mexico, but it had its basis in reality. Texas was a mostly Anglo state that wanted to gain independence from Mexico. Some politicians saw Texas as a "little America" while other saw it as a good buffer in between Mexico. Regardless which was the prevailing sentiment, ultimately America assisted in the Texan debacle. Texas would later be admitted into the Union with breakneck speed and would remove any benefit Texas had as a buffer state once Texas entered the Union.
And so, war between America and Mexico started in 1846 and would end in 1848. The war would end with America on top of Mexico and Mexico signing the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Prologue 2: The great American fistfight
A map of America following the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
A map of America following the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
As mentioned before, the Mexican-American war was highly opposed by Whigs and abolitionists. So, it was no surprise when Whigs and abolitionists opposed the harsh treaty that followed the war. The treaty acquired the territories of Nuevo México, Alta California, and Baja California. All inhabitants were offered American citizenship and most took the offer, realizing that things would be better under the Americans, rather than Mexico. The majority of the population was Native American however, and they did not accept Mexican OR American authority. This led to numerous conflicts with Natives in the Western United States. In the end, these natives would be placed on reservations and would poof away into the mists of time.
Furthermore, it also gave independence to the Republic of Rio Grande and the Republic of Yucatan. Despite the obvious negatives, many Democrat and Democrat apologists in the future would claim that letting Rio Grande and Yucatan go their own way actually helped Mexico. Rio Grande and Yucatan were both very rebellious areas of Mexico that Mexico was forced to dump a great deal of money to keep under their control. In fact, both of these nations previously declared independence from Mexico and forced the Mexican army to put down their revolts. Yucatan was of little worth and Rio Grande was of a bit more worth, but ultimately, both areas would be more trouble then they were worth. Naturally, this was not the way American politicians thought. Rio Grande was to be integrated into the US as a new state and Yucatan was to remain a territory until a good use was thought up. It would make a nice bargaining chip in the future regardless.
Outside of simple objections, there was a major problem brewing within the American government. The slavery debate had laid mostly dormant although the acquisition of new territory had suddenly forced the issue back into the spotlight. The Missouri Compromise had settled the issue by separating America down the 36°30′ north parallel. All states north of the parallel were to be non-slave states, and all south were to be slave states. The Californian territory was in both of these sections, with the parallel running through the middle of the state. If the state was admitted as a non-slave state, it would give non-slave states a senate majority, and it was a slave state, it would give slave states a majority.
Some more logical minds suggested simply splitting New Mexican, and Californian territories based on the parallel. However this was never even considered by either side. The fact was that both the Whigs and the Democrats wanted to get a leg up on the other. Then, Democrats suggested the idea of elections to decide status of slavery in new territories. This, in combination with the discovery of gold wet the appetites of many southerners who dreamed of vast gold slave mines in which they would get rich not off cotton - but gold.
This debate would not end in during Polk's presidency and quickly became the major issue of the upcoming 1848 Presidential election. The Democrats rallied around popular sovereignty, while the Whigs focused on compromise, and the Free Soil Party desired for all new territories to be made free states.
Prologue 3: Taylor's game
Zachary Taylor, the most important man in the 1848 election
Zachary Taylor, the most important man in the 1848 election
Despite what many historical textbooks will have you believe, Taylor was by no means an ideological individual. He had very few opinions on politics and had never even voted in an election. In any other situation, Taylor would have simply retired from the military and that would be the end of him. However, Zachary Taylor was a successful war hero in a recent war. It didn't matter what he thought, just that he ran for whichever party courted him. In the period before the 1848 election, both the Democrats and Whigs courted him in an attempt to draw votes from the American public who were still fresh from the fever of war. They wanted to fly the flag as high as they could, and sing songs in her praises. Both the Whigs and the Democrats understood this. The Whigs needed him to prevent the much more popular Democrats from winning and the Democrats were well aware (and afraid) of the Whigs and the Free Soil Party. It was the personal belief of a number of high level Democratic politicians that the Whigs and the Free Soil Party were going to band together and completely trounce the Democrats in the upcoming election. This might not have been the case, but this was what they thought.
In the end, the Democrats succeeded in stealing Taylor away from the Whigs.
That year, the Democrats ran Zachary Taylor and Lewis Cass on a mostly moderate ticket. The Democrats were aware that the concept of popular sovereignty only appealed to so many, and that the abolitionists had grown in popularity. So the pro-slavery rhetoric was calmed to a degree, and the success of the Mexican-American War was focused on. The Whigs ran Winfield Scott and Millard Fillmore. They focused mostly on trying to draw Democratic moderates to the Whigs and also maintaining popularity among the Whig's party base. The Free Soil Party ran Martin Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams. They focused more on radical abolitionism and trying to take as many votes away from the Democrats as they could.
In the end, this is what came of the 1848 Presidential election:
---------------
I'm sure I've screwed SOMETHING up. Especially this late, and especially when constructing an infobox. If I got anything wrong, well, I can fix it. I'm certain that some of my math is off on the infobox.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy so far. I'd love to hear what you have to say. I'm going to sleep now (thank god)
