The Silent Flag: A Non-Interventionist U.S TL

Introductory Chapter
This is my first(second) Alt History. I hope it goes well. I want to improve, and I would appreciate if you would help me with that along the way.

The Silent Flag

The Clay Presidency: An appraisal by Ben Kroft
December 4th, 1844
Against all odds, it seemed, Henry Clay had beaten the hawkish James Polk at the polls. What made this victory the more startling was that Polk had campaigned on annexing yet more lands(Mainly Texas and the Pacific Northwest). Still, it seems that the voters thought differently.

It was not a question of sympathy towards abolitionism, as Polk would later charge. Indeed, historians have puzzled over this very question to this day. Why did Clay beat the bombastic Polk? No one knows for sure. Indeed, the electon of 1844 would be unremarkable if not for a significant trend after said election; The U.S has not intervened militarily, nor funded militaries, nor entered into military alliances, and perhaps most remarkably, has not expanded an inch of it's territory.

The Nueces Crisis by Alejandro Torquilla

By the mid 1840s, tensions between Mexico and the U.S were at a fever pitch. Much of the dispute centered on Texas. The Mexicans were amenable to Texas joining the Union, but they disagreed with the Americans on where the border should be. The Mexican Government thought that the Texas-Mexico border should be on the neuces river, whereas Much of the American Government(Particularly the Democratic Party) wanted it to be on the rio grande river. This intractable problem was only intensified by the large scale(and generally illegal) anglo immigration into "The Republic of Texas" , a polity that had seceded from Mexico nearly ten years prior. Given these problems, it is still surprising that there was a peaceful outcome to the whole charade.

Henry Clay was not known for being a dove. Indeed, he was, after all, one of the
chief "war hawks" against the British in the 1812 war. Nevertheless, this hawk would trigger one of the greatest shifts in American foreign policy ever seen.

It did not look that way in early 1845, when Clay took office. His party, the Whigs, was hanging by a thread in both chambers of Congress. He faced a hostile and aggressive Democratic Party. To make matters worse, he had seemingly alienated both Southern Whigs(pro slavery, anti tariff) and Northerb Whigs(against slave state expansion, protectionist) with his flip flopping on Texas Annexation prior to the election of 1844. Earlier in 1844, he had declared his support for Annexation. After being heavily criticized by anti slavery groups, he backtracked and reversed his position September 1844. The reason why so many observers were shocked by Clay's victory over Polk was simple: Polk was firm on territorial expansion, acting aggressively towards both Mexico and British Canada. Clay, by contrast, looked timid. Ambiguity toward Annexation during election season would actually reflect back in much of President Clay's foreign policy.

On the 5th of May 1845, Clay sent a delegation to Mexico City, where they were to invite then President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna to the White House. Santa Anna greeted them cautiously, knowing full well the weak position he was currently in. Nevertheless, the general accepted the offer. About two months later, Santa Anna arrived in Washington, where Clay greeted him stiffly. After brief pleasantries, the two of them got to work.

The most pressing issue, of course, was the Nueces. After some haggling, it was agreed:
-That Texas would divided into two: The Mexican State of Texas and the U.S State of Texas. Mexican Texas would be everything south of the nueces; Clay reasoned that few Anglos wanted to live there anyway, given the massive comanche and apache presence, which were a "nuisance", in Santa Anna's words.
-Mexican Texas(Tejas) would have freedom of religion, with amnesty granted to illegal immigrants from the United States, who would be given full citizenship, and subject to the jurisdiction of Mexican Law. Any further illegal settlers would be taken to a joint Mexican-American Headquarters(Which would come to be known as Solo Fortaleza, or "Just Fortress") where Mexican and American customs officials would work out what to do with them. Further, any legal citizen who also had American citizenship who committed a crime(Arson, Murder, etc) would also be taken Solo Fortaleza.
-American Texas(Or simply "Texas"), while certainly not abolishing slavery outright, in effect had it's hands tied on the issue. Because Mexico had abolished slavery, it would be of little suprise that many slaves would flee to it. Naturally, the slaveowners would demand their return. Yet, due to the aformentioned Solo Fortaleza, and the runaways falling into the categories of 'illegal settlers', they would be judged by both Mexican and American law. Coincidentally, at the moment, neither side was much keen at capturing the "property" of slave owners.
-Texas would have full citizenship for Tejanos.

Having cleared up the Texas Headache, they turned to the matter of the rest of the U.S-Mexican Border. It was agreed that(with the exception of American Texas) the border would be adjusted to the Colorado River. This would of course mean Mexico losing some land; However, it would clear up the border issue significantly. As compensation, Mexico would get tariff-free shipping and trading rights up to the 100th meridian. This Final land annexation by the U.S would be known as the Clay Adjustment, and the special economic zone is, to this very day, called tierra de oro, or land of gold, by the Mexicans.

All in all, the crisis had been averted. At least for a little while...
 
Last edited:
If the US doesn't intervene in basically no country that means that Mexico is still big? Oregon is still a joint Anglo-American zone or it's entirely British? Interesting scenario.
 
If the US doesn't intervene in basically no country that means that Mexico is still big? Oregon is still a joint Anglo-American zone or it's entirely British? Interesting scenario.
I'm not quite sure about Mexico. What I can imagine is a more stable Mexico that is conversely less prone to reform. I don't think people often realize the ramifications of the Mexican American War for Mexico. It greatly weakened its economy and likely led to the Reform Wars as well as the attempted French takeover. Eliminating those of course butterflies away the Porfiriato into the wind, and hence the Mexican Revolution/Civil War, and hence the PRI.

As for Oregon and the other territories, I suppose it will ultimately end up as a sort of international zone, a strange melting pot.
 
Sorry I haven't posted in a while, try to do so more often now. Maybe every week or so. I just get a bit stressed posting to online forums almost as an obligation.
The Second Nullification Crisis by John Kesper​
Clay's treaty with Mexico would infuriate hardliners. The result would be a narrow Democratic victory in 1846, taking both the house and senate back. Linn Boyd, a prominent Democrat, proved scathing in his assesment of Clay when he referred to him as "A stubborn, inbred, mulatto lover". As you can imagine, Boyd and Clay did not get along.

More seriously for Clay was that Boyd, along with myriad Southern Democrats, was threatening nullification. Prior to this, it was only South Carolina. Now Louisiana, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Tehnessee all joined with South Carolina.

Through 1846, Clay would fight furiously with Congress, the vitriol hurled at him taking a mental toll. Finally, in early 1847, Clay took drastic and still controversial measures to regain credibility. He managed to come to an agreement with the Democrat controlled Congress, signing a bill with a seemingly benign name, the Sectional Correction Bill. It stated:
-American Texas and Florida would become slave states. This would not be so controversial(at the time, given the Missouri Compromise) except for the fact that territority owned by the United States north of the Mason-Dixon Line would not become free states, or states at all. For several decades following, these territories(the territory to the east of the missisipi river would be called the Minnesota territory).
-The US would forgo any expansion northward or westward, but theoretically(it was thought at the time), it could expand southward, a situation that would obviously boost the slave states. One louisiana senator, on hearing that Clay had signed the bill, infamously stated that "our negro populations have shown themselves to be prone to unrest in our fair country. Perhaps we ought to conquer Santo Domingo. Then these beasts of burden will know true misery harvesting sugar, and we will pocket a fine little income." It was not to be. In many ways, what actually happened would be more miserable and horrific.
-Lastly, the Act modified the law so that slave owners could recapture slaves in Free States and return with them to their respective properties. Not only that, you would be criminally prosecuted if you knowingly helped a runaway or "abetted, out of malice or of ignorance, the fleeing of a negro slave." This vague clause virtually ensured that slave owners would rain hell on the North, and they certainly did.

Clay would be immediately attacked by the anti-slavery Whigs for pandering to the South. If Clay thought the action would calm the situation, it didn't. Although he had cooled the anger of the Democrats and ensured their continued loyalty to him, he had alienated much of his own Whig party, many of whom weren't abolitionist. Clay was being savaged in Northern newspapers because of the Sectional Correction Act. For now, Clay was somewhat numb about the whole situation, further isolating himself in his office. The 1848 election would be bitter indeed, and the start of a long turbulence in american politics was forthcoming...
 
I wonder did the slave catchers have the prove the person they caught was a slave and not a free person of colour?
 
I wonder did the slave catchers have the prove the person they caught was a slave and not a free person of colour?
That's what's going to create a lot of issues now. The clause is extremely ambiguous. Expect a lot of illegal human trafficking and Free Black armed resistance.

Aside from that, the Act has awakened the wrath of the abolitionists. Expect a massive growth in anti-slavery sentiment in the North in the 1850s(in scale and ferocity not like OTL), and I could see a few John Browns, now that I mention it. On the other side, the counter-slavery militiancy will awaken various assorted white intimidation gangs, though more looser than OTL's KKK, and with the added goal of aiding in trafficking of free blacks, capture of runaway slaves, and terror campaigns threatening to kill slaves who they suspect might leave the plantation.

To be honest, the 1850s and 1860s in this TL will be pretty depressing overall.
 
Maybe they might introduce photo id for slaves.
Both to prove someone is a slave a to prevent theft of slaves within the CSA,
 
Last edited:
Very interesting and unusual pod.
Aside from that, the Act has awakened the wrath of the abolitionists. Expect a massive growth in anti-slavery sentiment in the North in the 1850s(in scale and ferocity not like OTL), and I could see a few John Browns, now that I mention it. On the other side, the counter-slavery militiancy will awaken various assorted white intimidation gangs, though more looser than OTL's KKK, and with the added goal of aiding in trafficking of free blacks, capture of runaway slaves, and terror campaigns threatening to kill slaves who they suspect might leave the plantation.

Given the mentioned increased abolitionist fervor and the likely unrest before the more than probably excess that would be likely to be inflicted over the northern States population the many groups/bands of slave catchers sent from/hired locally to 'brought back' escaped slaves...
So, I'd suppose that in many States both the population and the government would obstruct and even would form and protect their own paralegal vigilante groups to obstruct, confront and when possible to let them and their Southern patrons, know that they aren't welcomed and will do well to stay away...
Which, as mentioned would further inflame the situation escalating it even more with probably small battles and raids and counter raids happening as a 'normal thing' along the Mason Dixon divide..
 
Last edited:
Top