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…
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…
