Shooting Yourself in the Foot

RyanF

Banned
Aftermath of the War

The Treaty of Tampico
On November 5th, 1843, representatives of the Mexican Republic and representatives of the Allied powers [1] met to negotiate an end to the War of 1839. The negotiations were largely dictated by the United States, in favour of themselves and their protectorates.

Mexico was forced to recognise the independence of the Republics of California, Rio Bravo, Texas and Yucatán [2], and resolve all previous border disputes between them in favour of the US protectorates. If one were to compare this to Mexico before the Texas declaration of independence [3], Mexico has then lost all of the states of Coahuila y Tejas, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Yucatán, and those parts of Chihuahua and the territory Nuevo México north and east of the Rio Bravo River. As well as all of the territory of Baja California and those parts of Alta California north and west of the Colorado river.

Mexico was also forced to cede what remained of Alta California and Nuevo México [4] to the Allied powers under a joint occupancy [5] between the Republic of California, the Republic of Texas and the United States of America [6]. When taking into account all of its territorial loses, Mexico had lost over half its claimed territory [7] as the result of the peace treaty. However, the Mexican Republic would be compensated for the cession of those parts of Alta California and Nuevo México not claimed by any of the US protectorates with the sum of 6 million dollars [8], to be paid in annual instalments of 2 million dollars. [9]

Other parts of the Treaty included defining the border between New Mexico [10] and the states of Chihuahua and Sonora, effectively noting that all land north of the borders of the latter two was to be considered part of the former. A further part ensured the safety of existing property rights of Mexican citizens living in the land now not part of Mexico, but this was often broken by the various Allied governments [11].


Reactions from Washington, D.C.
In the US capital reaction to the Treaty was divided, with the split falling along those same lines that divided the nation over whether or not to enter the War of 1839 in the first place.

Within the ruling party (National Republicans) the opinions were largely one of jubilation. By leading the United States to its greatest victory since the Revolution and, they had almost cemented their victory in next years presidential election [12]. However, amongst the abolitionist faction opinion was more one of wariness, given that the United States had, even though they had not acquired any new territory [13], they had in a way already expanded slavery through the large number of slaveholding Argonauts now in California; and if the US were to annex any or all of the protectorates then the number of slave states in the US would be on the rise [14]. Furthermore, the Clay and Webster factions of the party realised now that they would have no chance of challenging Crockett’s presidency at the next election [15].

In the Democratic Party, they realised that they would have little or no hope in upsetting the National Republican domination of Congress or the Executive Mansion. Also, the expansionist wing of the party had become increasingly prominent, led by Senator James K. Polk [16]. And the southern delegation within the party were largely pleased with the prospect of in the future annexing the protectorates, given that without them the free and slave state balance would be likely to go in favour of free states in the short future [17].


Reactions from Mexico City
The feeling in Mexico could not have been worse, they had fought for so long and in the end lost so much, and the terms of the Treaty further divided the political factions in the country. After the terms were announced, Mexico City was tormented by a solid three days and nights of riots. And open warfare between the Liberal faction, led by recently appointed President José Joaquín de Herrera [18], and the Conservative faction, led by Santa Anna’s last deputy Valentín Canalizo. [19]


Reactions from the US Protectorates
In Monterrey, the fact that the independence of the Republic of California from Mexico had been ensured caused much celebration, but now there was the issue of their relations with the United States. US intervention had been integral in the eventual victory in the War of 1839, and more and more American settlers were poring into California to take part in the Gold Rush [20]. Many of these settlers from the southern US (as well as settlers from the Republic of Texas) brought with them slaves, which caused friction with the local Californio population, and indeed those US settlers with more abolitionist leanings.

In Guerrero, there was also jubilation at the final victory in their long struggle and at last Mexico had been forced to recognise their secession [21]. Unlike California, the Rio Bravo had very few US settlers [22], but the knowledge that Texas would very likely join the United States [23], caused some doubt as to the future Rio Bravo should take. Texas and Rio Bravo had a united military force since their War of Independence, and if Texas were to join the United States the status of Rio Bravo and their military would fall into great uncertainty, the question of whether or not Rio Bravo should join the United States was hotly debated [24].

In Washington-on-the-Brazos, the Texicans were perhaps the most elated of any of the US protectorates, and within the government discussions were now in place for how and when [25] they should join the United States. This was not without controversy though, there were a vocal minority of Texicans, mainly Tejanos but with a number of Texians led by Mirabeau B. Lamar, that opposed US annexation.

In Mérida, the reaction was more muted. Although Mexico had been defeated and their independence ensured under US protection, the issue of the Indios within the nation now took precedence, with an increasing number of attacks from them on the ruling classes in the nation. US assistance against the Maya rebels was requested in the War of 1839, but no decision had yet been made in Washington [26].


[1] The United States, California, Rio Bravo, Texas and Yucatán.

[2] This has never before been achieved, even after the Texas-Rio Bravo War of Independence Mexico still considered them to be territories in rebellion.

[3] In 1833.

[4] Basically the rest of Mexico north of Chihuahua and Sonora.

[5] Like Columbia/Oregon.

[6] Rio Bravo and Yucatán are excluded, the latter not sharing a border [27] and the former being so far away.

[7] Although most of it has been de facto independent for quite some time.

[8] Way less than the $15 million paid OTL, but the United States doesn’t see that it should have to pay for any of their protectorates.

[9] Again less than OTL, where it was annual payments of $3 million.

[10] The name for the joint occupancy area.

[11] As it was OTL by the US.

[12] Crockett has had a fairly successful presidency thus far, and he isn’t going to have much trouble being re-nominated.

[13] The protectorates are still independent and New Mexico is under joint occupancy.

[14] Texas would almost certainly become slave state(s), and there is worry that the southerners might try to introduce slavery in other protectorates [28].

[15] Both had hoped that Crockett would be a placeholder for them.

[16] Moved from the House of Representatives to the Senate in 1842, one of the few new Democratic senators.

[17] Before this there was no where else to go below the Missouri Compromise line, now slavery could go all the way to the Pacific.

[18] A liberal. [28]

[19] A conservative. [28]

[20] Now no longer a badly kept secret and a number of US soldiers have just deserted to join it.

[21] Never forget that the Republics did in fact secede from Mexico, and the US supported them, which may have some consequences down the line. [29]

[22] There is however a small number of Texican settlers.

[23] Seen as all but a certainty.

[24] Still pretty much in favour of remaining independent though.

[25] The question of if is largely moot.

[26] Or even discussed by this point.

[27] Although the United States also does not share a border it was them that captured it, and they are the dominant party in this relationship.

[28] This distinction will be quite important in the upcoming years.

[29] Not that anyone would ever want to leave the United States of course… [30]

[30] Or that if they did they should be allowed to…
 

RyanF

Banned
Good update!!!

Is the California Civil War in the next update?

We have a few more things to cover before we return to California. Here's the plan for the next four updates: US election 1844; China & Japan; Liberia; the annexation of Texas.
 
Its almost ironic that I always asked for more updates, and once they started coming, I hadn't noticed :rolleyes: Very nice updates stupid_boy, very nice! Can't wait for more :D
 

RyanF

Banned
UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 1844


National Republican Nomination

President David Crockett was largely unopposed as the 1844 election neared, even perennial National Republican candidates Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (Crockett’s Secretary of State and Vice President, respectively) did not challenge his nomination; but Crockett would not go entirely uncontested.

New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen [1] put himself forward for the nomination of his party against the advice of his confidants, and against the wishes of the party leaders [2]. Although Frelinghuysen drew great support from the Northern abolitionist wing of the party, it was not enough to upset the Crockett bandwagon.

Frelinghuysen’s campaign was, in certain ways, over before it began, but it is in some respects a landmark moment in United States history, being the first time that an overt abolitionist candidate had drawn so much support with an anti-slavery agenda an integral part of their platform [3].

Frelinghuysen’s supporters in the National Republican Party, and some disillusioned abolitionists from the Democratic Party, tried to make him run as an candidate independent of the two main parties, on a platform of abolition [4]. Frelinghuysen would decline this offer, but the idea of a new party based upon abolitionist ideas would not die with his candidacy.

Aside from Frelinghuysen, Crockett was unchallenged for the nomination of the National Republican Party, and Webster would be re-nominated as Vice President.


Democratic Nomination
In the Democratic Party, the principle idea for the 1844 election was to match Crockett with a candidate holding similar views on the expansion of the country, given that the election came during the high-point of what was later called First Wave Continentalism [5], but at the same time a candidate who was a Democrat through-and-through.

The contest narrowed itself down quickly to Senators Lewis Cass of Michigan and James K. Polk of Tennessee, two of the most vocal expansionists in the party. Polk, as one of the few Democrats to have had a strong victory during Crockett’s presidency [6], was chosen as the nominee for the Democratic Party, with Cass being nominated as Vice President [7].


The Campaign
Polks’s relative obscurity [8] was a target for the National Republican campaign, asking ‘just who is James K. Polk’ [9], but the main focus of their campaign was one President Crockett’s foreign policy successes in peace and war, and on the continued success of the American System [10] and stability of the Third Bank of the United States [11].

On the other hand, the Democrats largely based their campaign on Polk’s own views on expansion, which can be summed up as the Democrats attempting to portray Polk as more like Crockett than Crockett himself [12], and on internal matters promising a return to the Jacksonian ways of the previous Democratic administration [13].


The Results
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the election resulted in another term for President David Crockett and Vice-President Daniel Webster, what was more surprising would be the massive landslide in favour of the National Republican; 198 electoral votes to the Democrats 77.

This effectively ended whatever presidential prospects James K. Polk held, and he would spend the rest of his long career in the United States Senate [14].

Also, it was thought by many of Frelinghuysen’s supporters in both parties that if the large numbers of anti-slavery voters were given the opportunity to vote for an abolitionist candidate then party loyalty would hold less sway with them. Sensing that there would be no hope on nominating an anti-slavery candidate in either of the two major parties, talk began of forming a third party like was offered to Frelinghuysen, a major part of whose platform would be abolition; this would come to fruition on New Year’s Eve of that year, where in a crowded Baltimore hotel delegates both Democrats and Republicans would declare the birth of the United Liberty Party [15].


1844.png


[1] OTL Clay’s Vice-Presidential nominee in the 1844 election.
[2] Firstly because he wouldn’t have a chance of defeating Crockett, and secondly because they don’t want him rocking the boat and possibly causing a split in the party. [16]
[3] History books have been known to talk more about Frelinghuysen more than Polk when discussing the 1844 election ITTL.
[4] This is the first time such an idea had been considered.
[5] First Wave Continentalism is synonymous with Manifest Destiny, which is a term still known ITTL; John L. O’Sullivan still coins it, but referring to the War of 1839 rather than the Oregon boundary dispute.
[6] Being one of the few Democrats elected to the Senate in 1842, in a landslide and from Crockett’s home state to boot!
[7] Cass isn’t entirely happy about this, and after the election would often be heard to talk of how he would’ve won the election from Crockett.
[8] He is not known much outside of Tennessee, North Carolina and Washington, D.C.
[9] The Whigs made the same comments during OTL 1844 election.
[10] Funding of canals, roads and railways has been a major investment by the National Republican governments, under Mangum and Crockett the South has seen a lot of railway construction, but still lag behind the North.
[11] Started in 1837 and chartered for ten years.
[12] And in some ways he was.
[13] Promises which kind of backfire when people look at the successes of the American System and remember when things started heading downhill in 1837 before the Third Bank was created.
[14] I said a LONG career.
[15] I will accept suggestions for other names, as United Liberty Party isn’t perfect, but the only other halfway decent name I could think of for such a party was Freedom Party, but that one’s already taken...
[16] Which is, for good reason, a very big fear in both parties, but more so in the National Republicans.


1844.png
 
That's a really interesting map. So much U.S. territory isn't connected to it, it'll be hard to govern those regions. If the wild west was bad OTL, its going to be choas ITTL :D

And how long do you plan on having Polk live?
 

RyanF

Banned
The Mysterious East


The Opium War
Since the mid-18th century trade in goods from China had been an incredibly lucrative market for both European and Chinese merchants. However, foreign trade in China was very strictly regulated, with foreign traders only being allowed to do business through a body of Chinese merchants known as the Thirteen Hongs. Furthermore, all business was to be restricted to Canton, foreigners not being allowed to even enter other parts of China.

Payment for goods from China was decreed by the Qianlong Emperor to be paid for only in silver, which resulted in large trade deficits for the United Kingdom. By 1817, the UK came upon the idea to counter-trade in opium, the purpose of which was twofold to reduce trade deficits with China to finally gain profit from the failing Indian colony. By the 1820s, reduced sales in tea and an exponential increase in the opium trade resulted in a reversal in the flow of silver. The opium trade would see a major boom again, after the monopoly of the British East India Company was ended in 1838 [1].

By 1841 [2], the Daoguang Emperor had appointed Lin Zexu as governor of Canton, and one of his main priorities would be to reduce and eliminate the opium trade. Very soon almost 15,000 barrels of opium had been seized and destroyed and the atmosphere in Canton grew quickly tense, especially when the repayment promised by the British superintendent Charles Elliot was not delivered [3].

These tensions reached their peak six months later, when Qing authorities insisted that British merchants must sign a bond stating that they would not deal in opium, under penalty of death [4]. This was the final straw for Elliot, who ordered British subjects to evacuate Canton and forbade them from trading with the Chinese [5]. However, there were those British merchants who did not trade in Opium and were willing to sign the bond; it was because of this that Elliot ordered the Royal Navy to blockade the Pearl River [6].

The already bad relations between the Qing authorities and the British in China deteriorated again, with both sides claiming that their ships were being fired upon by each other [7]. The Emperor soon ordered a halt to all material assistance to the British by foreigners in China, which meant that the Portuguese in Macau were forced to cease even allowing the British to dock, forcing many to illegally dock in Hong Kong [8]. In response to this latest insult, the British East India Company soon began attacking Chinese coastal cities [9].

The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerstone, was denounced in both the United Kingdom and the United States as simply supporting the opium trade by fighting the Chinese. Nevertheless, and expeditionary force was soon on its way to China, to demand the Qing government compensate the British for the losses suffered from the interruption in trade.

Naturally, the Qing government refused, and the British had soon captured Chusan and Hong Kong [10], as well as blockading the mouths of the Pearl and Yangtze Rivers. Between the British attacks and the ongoing Sino-Sikh War [11], the Opium War was ended in August of 1842 [12], with the first of what was later called the unequal treaties [13], but this was not enough the save the Melbourne Government in the general election that followed Frederick I’s death in that same month [14].


The Unequal Treaties of China
The first of the unequal treaties would be signed by representatives of Qing China and the British Empire in Canton [15]. Amongst its provisions was to end the Canton system governing trade in China, opening four new ports for trade [16], reparations for the opium destroyed under Lin Zexu and war expenses, as well as the cession of Hong Kong island [17], the granting of extraterritorial privileges to British subjects living in the open ports, the granting of Most Favoured Nation status to the British by the Chinese, as well as other general trading regulations [18] [19].

Britain was not the only nation to take advantage of these new regulations, in 1845 US President David Crockett dispatched diplomat Caleb Cushing and Commodore James Biddle to Nanking [20], where a treaty was negotiated giving American merchants the same rights as the British gained in the Treaty of Canton, as well as the right to learn Chinese [21], but as a show of goodwill to China the US declared the opium trade illegal [22].

The French also became involved in negotiations with the Chinese in 1845, earning the same rights as the British and Americans, but also having the Qing authorities legalize the practice of Christianity in China [23]. Other nations who negotiated unequal treaties with the Chinese in the wake of the Opium War include Sweden-Norway in 1847 [24], and Russia in 1848, but the Russian treaty was more concerned with cross-border trade between Kazakhstan and Sinkiang [25].


The End of the Curtain
In addition to negotiating the Treaty of Nanking with Qing China, the US Biddle-Cushing expedition [26], was also ordered to Japan in an effort to open the closed nation to US trade. At the time, Japan was under the policy of Sakoku, which stated that no foreigner could enter Japan, nor could any Japanese leave the nation under penalty of death, and foreign trade was limited to the Chinese and the Dutch.

Before the Opium War, an American businessman in Canton named Charles W. King had attempted to open relations with Japan, but his ship was fired upon. King was so outraged by this incident that, upon his return to America, he declared that if Japan was to be opened to western trade it could only be done under force [27].

The US passed a resolution to open Japan to US trade, and so the Biddle-Cushing expedition was dispatched with the dual purpose of negotiating a treaty with the Chinese and to open trade with the Japanese. Before travelling to China, Biddle docked his ship in Edo, where he was met by representatives of the Tokugawa Shogunate. The representatives told Biddle to proceed to Nagasaki, but instead he ordered their guns to be aimed at the Japanese capital, and demanded permission to have Cushing deliver a letter from President Crockett [28]. Before Biddle departed for China, he promised the Japanese he would return for a reply to the letter.

While sailing to the five open Chinese ports, Biddle’s ships anchored of the coast of Formosa, some of the expedition, including Biddle himself, went ashore. Biddle made his suggestions to Cushing that Formosa made a convenient mid-way trading location, and as it was very defensible could serve as a base for US trade in the area. Cushing promised to pass on Biddle’s suggestions when he made his report to the President. [29]

The expedition would return to Japan, where the Cushing Treaty was negotiated, considered to be the first of Japan’s unequal treaties, which opened two ports for US commerce [30], as well as guaranteeing the safety of shipwrecked American sailors, but did not create of provision for permanent residence in the ports. This would pave the way for future unequal treaties with the US, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Russia [31], and ended close to 200 years of Japanese seclusion. However, open trade with Japan would not begin in earnest until the conclusion of the Arrow War in the 1850s [32].



[1] Four years later than OTL.

[2] Again, several years later than OTL.

[3] Many view this as being the principal cause for the Opium War.

[4] The same order was made by the Chinese OTL.

[5] Elliot had the same response OTL.

[6] The first actual military action of the Opium War.

[7] Although the purpose of the Royal Navy was to fire upon British ships attempting to trade with the Chinese.

[8] The British first came to Hong Kong IOTL because many disobeyed Elliot and chose not to dock in Macau, ITTL they have no choice.

[9] Although their monopoly has ended, the BEIC still plays a very large part in the opium trade.

[10] Hong Kong being captured is a bit of a misnomer, the British have been in control ever since they arrived en masse following the Emperor’s declaration, and the few Chinese attempts to retake the island have been easily repelled.

[11] The Sino-Sikh War goes largely as OTL.

[12] In less than a year, due to an increased effort by the BEIC in the conflict, ends sooner than it did OTL.

[13] It seems to me that no matter what kind of government China has, these would be called the unequal treaties.

[14] British politics from 1837 will be covered in a later update.

[15] Rather than in Nanking IOTL.

[16] Amoy, Foochowfoo, Ningpo, and Shanghai.

[17] The cession of Hong Kong, IOTL and ITTL, is the provision the Chinese are least concerned about.

[18] Such as fixed tariffs in the treaty ports.

[19] The Treaty of Canton is a combination of OTL Treaties of Nanking and the Bogue.

[20] The ATL Treaty of Wanghia.

[21] The right to which had been previously banned.

[22] This sign of goodwill became a point of contention between the US and the UK.

[23] Previously forbidden, the French managed the secure the same IOTL.

[24] An ATL Treaty of Canton.

[25] The Russians make the Treaty of Kulja several years earlier, due to changes in the situation of Central Asia, which will be covered in a future update.

[26] The expedition is called Biddle-Cushing because Biddle is recognised as opening Japan, but Cushing is recognised as being the architect of the Treaty of Nanking.

[27] King made similar declarations OTL after he tried to open Japan.

[28] This letter basically laid out the terms for the future Treaty.

[29] Perry made the same observations about Formosa OTL.

[30] Shimoda and Hakodate.

[31] Most of which would only be made after the Arrow War.

[32] More nations will participate in the Arrow War than OTL, but the US may have other concerns by this point.
 
Last edited:

RyanF

Banned
Very nice updates stupid_boy, very nice! Can't wait for more :D

Thanks.

That's a really interesting map. So much U.S. territory isn't connected to it, it'll be hard to govern those regions. If the wild west was bad OTL, its going to be choas ITTL :D

In all honesty, the only part of that map that will remain an exclave for any significant length of time is Vancouver and the Olympic peninsula.

And how long do you plan on having Polk live?

Let's just say I'm doing research on how James K. Polk would've viewed secession. Information on which is quite sparse I must admit, I have a feeling he wouldn't be in favour of secession, but any help on this topic would be of great help.


I'm still also looking for suggestions for which famous faces people would like to hear about ITTL.
 
Let's just say I'm doing research on how James K. Polk would've viewed secession. Information on which is quite sparse I must admit, I have a feeling he wouldn't be in favour of secession, but any help on this topic would be of great help.

I agree, he probably would have opposed it.
 
Top