A more western Adams-Onis

During the Adams-Onis negotiations, Spain was willing to accept as western a boundary as the Colorado River (not that the US knew this). John Quincy Adams however wanted to limit the territory slavery could expand into.

What if the US in the negotiations had ended up with a Colorado River boundary? Would the 100th meridian west still be used?

Most of the territory where the Americans who revolted against Mexico historically settled in would be in the US here. There likely won't be any sort of Texas revolt. A California revolt on the other hand might occur though.

I used the sixth meridian as the western boundary. The Colorado River I'm referring to is the one in central Texas.


upload_2018-6-27_8-20-14.png
 
Last edited:
During the Adams-Onis negotiations, Spain was willing to accept as western a boundary as the Colorado River (not that the US knew this). John Quincy Adams however wanted to limit the territory slavery could expand into.

What if the US in the negotiations had ended up with a Colorado River boundary? Would the 100th meridian west still be used?

Most of the territory where the Americans who revolted against Mexico historically settled in would be in the US here. There likely won't be any sort of Texas revolt. A California revolt on the other hand might occur though.
I am thinking it would complicate the civil war with slave states/territories officially that far west. It might actually effect where the Mormons go to as well.
 

althisfan

Banned
During the Adams-Onis negotiations, Spain was willing to accept as western a boundary as the Colorado River (not that the US knew this). John Quincy Adams however wanted to limit the territory slavery could expand into.

What if the US in the negotiations had ended up with a Colorado River boundary? Would the 100th meridian west still be used?

Most of the territory where the Americans who revolted against Mexico historically settled in would be in the US here. There likely won't be any sort of Texas revolt. A California revolt on the other hand might occur though.
Well, Adams-Onis was in 1819, but didn't get into effect until February of 1821. Mexico is independent in August of 1821. Only 183 days the treaty is valid. Mexico does not have to ratify that they agree and will respect the treaty. This is the time period where the concept of uti possidetis juris from the more general internationally accepted uti possidetis is being formed in international geopolitics, with this one move by Mexico we can see the concept not accepted resulting in terra nullius regions in many parts of the world with new nations in South America and even to alternate today saying "that land over there isn't mine" and "that land IS mine". Today we have only two regions, one in, or more properly from the perspective of these nations- not in Egypt/Sudan and at Croatia/Serbia along the Danube.
 
At what latitude?

Not sure. That's kind of the question I included in the OP - where would the western boundary be?

If the US really wanted to grab the bulk of the Colorado watershed, then the sixth principal meridian (OTL Kansas's western boundary) could work. Have the sixth principal meridian from the Arkansas River to the Colorado be the boundary.
 

althisfan

Banned
Not sure. That's kind of the question I included in the OP - where would the western boundary be?

If the US really wanted to grab the bulk of the Colorado watershed, then the sixth principal meridian (OTL Kansas's western boundary) could work. Have the sixth principal meridian from the Arkansas River to the Colorado be the boundary.
Again- no way Mexico agrees to this. You have an earlier Mexican-American War and one that the US might not be able to win as decisively.
 

althisfan

Banned
Mexico wasn't even independent yet and the US went into negotiations claiming everything up to the Rio Grande.
As I stated above, it was only 183 days between ratification of the treaty and Mexico becoming independent. Once Mexico becomes independent it does not have to agree to the Adams-Onis Treaty since the concept of uti posseiditis juris wasn't yet accepted as international law, since it was the very problem of Latin American nations becoming independent in the early 1800s that brought about the concept.

And I have yet to see anything that shows the US seriously said up to the Rio Grande, that was a later Texan claim. The US claimed the watershed of the Mississippi River, that's all.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think we are talking about two different Colorado rivers here. I think there is a smaller Colorado river I’m Texas. Also, I do not think slavery expansion fears were the limiting factor for Adams. He aggressively negotiated for Florida, which everybody knew would be Slave state. He also saw Cuba as destined to become American at this time. He also wanted a more western boundary extending to within Texas but O think Monroe did not want him to overreach.
 
I think we are talking about two different Colorado rivers here. I think there is a smaller Colorado river I’m Texas. Also, I do not think slavery expansion fears were the limiting factor for Adams. He aggressively negotiated for Florida, which everybody knew would be Slave state. He also saw Cuba as destined to become American at this time. He also wanted a more western boundary extending to within Texas but O think Monroe did not want him to overreach.

I was referring to the Colorado River in Texas - I'll adjust the OP for this.
 
Well, Adams-Onis was in 1819, but didn't get into effect until February of 1821. Mexico is independent in August of 1821. Only 183 days the treaty is valid. Mexico does not have to ratify that they agree and will respect the treaty. This is the time period where the concept of uti possidetis juris from the more general internationally accepted uti possidetis is being formed in international geopolitics, with this one move by Mexico we can see the concept not accepted resulting in terra nullius regions in many parts of the world with new nations in South America and even to alternate today saying "that land over there isn't mine" and "that land IS mine". Today we have only two regions, one in, or more properly from the perspective of these nations- not in Egypt/Sudan and at Croatia/Serbia along the Danube.

IIRC all the different treaties regarding the Spanish-Portugues borders in South America were not respected by both countries in a very specific area (ie. OTL Uruguay and Rio Grande do Sul). Still, most of the former agreements were somewhat respected by the newly independent nations as the main treaty, the 1750 Treaty of Madrid, followed the concept of uti possidetis - as there were Portuguese/Brazilian forts at the most important points of the border there was very little that the Spanish and the Latin American nations could do to take the region without an important mobilization of efforts (the "only" hotspot was Uruguay, as there were multiple uncontiguous Portuguese and Spanish fortifications and settlements in the area).

So, let's say that Adam-Onís includes half of Texas, as soon as the treaty get into effect the Spanish fortifications (if there are any) will be abandoned and the region is just too lightly populated to take any settlement as any serious measure of the uti possidetis principle. Once the US controls the border forts there's very little that the newly-independent Mexican government can do without concentration of efforts in a politically unimportant piece of land.
 
And I have yet to see anything that shows the US seriously said up to the Rio Grande, that was a later Texan claim. The US claimed the watershed of the Mississippi River, that's all.
The US, and France before them, did consider the territory of Louisiana as continuing down to the Rio Grande, and they only gave up this claim in the Adams-Onis treaty (which is why the dispute isn't well known). Just based on a short google - this book describes the dispute in some detail on page 2.
This is the best map of the dispute I can find, unfortunately - you can see the territory between the Arroyo Honda and the Rio Grande is disputed between Spain and the USA.
lewisandclarkandthewest-160317161259-thumbnail-4.jpg

You can also see a similar dispute in West Florida, where Spain and the US disagreed on whether the eastern border of Louisiana was at the Mississippi or the Perdido River respectively.
 

althisfan

Banned
The US, and France before them, did consider the territory of Louisiana as continuing down to the Rio Grande, and they only gave up this claim in the Adams-Onis treaty (which is why the dispute isn't well known). Just based on a short google - this book describes the dispute in some detail on page 2.
This is the best map of the dispute I can find, unfortunately - you can see the territory between the Arroyo Honda and the Rio Grande is disputed between Spain and the USA.
lewisandclarkandthewest-160317161259-thumbnail-4.jpg

You can also see a similar dispute in West Florida, where Spain and the US disagreed on whether the eastern border of Louisiana was at the Mississippi or the Perdido River respectively.
The way it's drawn poorly I don't think it's from a reliable source. From primary and secondary sources of reliable background I see the US and Spain disputed west from the Sabine River to Calcasieu River, but not as far as the Rio Grande. Any claims to the Rio Grande were brought about later in the 1840s because of Texas independence claiming it, and the US annexing Texas. There was no Louisiana Purchase claim to the area that I can find.
 
Again- no way Mexico agrees to this. You have an earlier Mexican-American War and one that the US might not be able to win as decisively.

Did Mexico vehemently agree and send their armies to contest a resolution to a border dispute previously? After all, Spain ceded the entirety of the Oregon Country, along with the entirety of Florida, to the US in the Adams-Onis Treaty. It isn't like the treaty was only around solving the border disputes.

For that matter, what was the original Mexican reaction to the treaty? You're insistent that the Mexicans would never agree, but how did they react OTL to the OTL treaty? Far as I can tell, they basically ignored it for over half a decade until they signed the Treaty of Limits. The territories in question were border territories that were still sparsely populated, as it was.

It doesn't help that Texas was one of the most poorly populated provinces in Texas. The closest figure I've found was about 2000 people in 1790, which doesn't appear to have greatly increased until Mexico invited settlers in during the 1820s. And, considering that the southern half of Texas would remain under Mexican rule, the majority of the Mexican population (likely) remain in Mexico.

The way it's drawn poorly I don't think it's from a reliable source. From primary and secondary sources of reliable background I see the US and Spain disputed west from the Sabine River to Calcasieu River, but not as far as the Rio Grande. Any claims to the Rio Grande were brought about later in the 1840s because of Texas independence claiming it, and the US annexing Texas. There was no Louisiana Purchase claim to the area that I can find.

I'll quote you from Wikipedia, after spending about one minute searching for any resource on a French claim to the region:

France did not abandon its claims to Texas until November 3, 1762, when it ceded all of its territory west of the Mississippi River to Spain in the Treaty of Fontainebleau, following its defeat by Great Britain in the Seven Years' War. It ceded New France to Britain.[49] In 1803, three years after Spain had returned Louisiana to France, Napoleon sold the territory to the United States. The original agreement between Spain and France had not explicitly specified the borders of Louisiana, and the descriptions in the documents were ambiguous and contradictory.[50] The United States insisted that its purchase included all of the territory France had claimed, including all of Texas.[50] The dispute was not resolved until the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, in which Spain ceded Florida to the United States in return for the United States' relinquishing its claim on Texas.

The Book that they cite here is this one:

https://books.google.com/books?id=MUCmD15yEAYC

It certainly appears valid, if a recent literature (2014). However, the relevant page is not in the preview, and as such I can't provide you the quote for the book, though there is an ebook available for purchase if you desire to see it.
 

althisfan

Banned
Did Mexico vehemently agree and send their armies to contest a resolution to a border dispute previously? After all, Spain ceded the entirety of the Oregon Country, along with the entirety of Florida, to the US in the Adams-Onis Treaty. It isn't like the treaty was only around solving the border disputes.

For that matter, what was the original Mexican reaction to the treaty? You're insistent that the Mexicans would never agree, but how did they react OTL to the OTL treaty? Far as I can tell, they basically ignored it for over half a decade until they signed the Treaty of Limits. The territories in question were border territories that were still sparsely populated, as it was.

It doesn't help that Texas was one of the most poorly populated provinces in Texas. The closest figure I've found was about 2000 people in 1790, which doesn't appear to have greatly increased until Mexico invited settlers in during the 1820s. And, considering that the southern half of Texas would remain under Mexican rule, the majority of the Mexican population (likely) remain in Mexico.



I'll quote you from Wikipedia, after spending about one minute searching for any resource on a French claim to the region:



The Book that they cite here is this one:

https://books.google.com/books?id=MUCmD15yEAYC

It certainly appears valid, if a recent literature (2014). However, the relevant page is not in the preview, and as such I can't provide you the quote for the book, though there is an ebook available for purchase if you desire to see it.
Thank you for that, I normally don't use Wikipedia for research, but since this article seems reliably sourced it is perfect. I'll do more than a Google and Google books search next time.
 
Thank you for that, I normally don't use Wikipedia for research, but since this article seems reliably sourced it is perfect. I'll do more than a Google and Google books search next time.

Always have to take these things with a grain of salt, but if the references pan out, all for the better.
 
Without the Texas issue, is an Mexican-American war really still in the cards? I know some point to California as the next likely Anglo revolt, but do they have the men and the means to be as successful as Texas was? California is an awful lot further from the core US then Texas was.
 

althisfan

Banned
Without the Texas issue, is an Mexican-American war really still in the cards? I know some point to California as the next likely Anglo revolt, but do they have the men and the means to be as successful as Texas was? California is an awful lot further from the core US then Texas was.
But not that far from Oregon, and US ships had been going to China since year 1 of independence, stopping in California, a base at San Diego was long wanted, San Francisco had fears of being British for a long time, there's always people like those who set up the Republic of West Florida, Fredonia, Texas, and William Walker in US history to the point it's impossible to butterfly away the American Manifest Destiny (6 of the 13 original colonies had "coast-to-coast" charters, so we're talking going back to the early 1600s to begin to remove the drive and psychology for later Manifest Destiny). Daniel Boone entered Spanish Louisiana before the US ever bought it, Lewis and Clark went to the Pacific and Oregon Country before the US actually had a real stake in it, West Florida, Florida, Sabine, Fredonia, Texas, the Mormons, California, Hawai'i, the Guano Act, Banana republic interference; Americans moving and trading and exploring and being capitalistic will force the government to protect their citizen's interests. California will still happen.
 
Top