The USA get Texas up to the Colorado River in 1819: Effects on further expansion?

David T showed in https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...exas-up-to-the-colorado-river-in-1819.383098/ that the USA could have gotten Texas up to the Colorado River in the Adam-Onis treaty in 1819.
What would be the effects of it happening?
I think, that, this might have ultimately backfired for the USA. As David T mentioned, this timeline's Mexican Tejas would have a lot less American settlers than our timeline's. The areas of Tejas west of the Colorado River, while, still, underpopulated, doubtless, had a larger population than the areas east of the Colorado River. In addition, Mexico might have been more capable of settling this smaller Tejas more. In this timeline, there would be no Texas Revolution.
How would the USA have expanded, in this timeline?
Could Mexico have managed to hold on to more territory than it did, in our timeline?
If so, how much?
 
I mean, the answer to the question would be a resounding maybe Could be a bigger US, could be a smaller one.

Easy answer would be "The US might push harder for 54-40 to make an additional free state". But that isn't necessarily going to happen - there are plenty of other issues that are involved, and what really is an issue is that the whole free/slave state balance is messed up. I imagine Iowa gets admitted earlier to counter Texas, but that's the biggest change off the top of my head.

The big question is where the western boundary is drawn. The proposed boundaries from the http://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/95/a/?view=plate show the rivers following the projected flow to their source up to the Continental divide, which of course didn't exist. However, these are merely proposals, and I honestly feel that it'd continue up to the 100 Degree W line, same as OTL. So Texas would end up being 1/3 of its OTL size, roughly, and this balance could be achieved.

Assuming that is the only change, the westward expansion shouldn't be altered too much. The biggest issue being that the Mexicans won't be agitating for more settlement to distract to Comanches and to try and entrench the frontier, as those would be coming from the USA anyway. So you don't change much except that the population overall might be higher, and that slavery would continue outright in Texas as there would be no abolishment under Mexican law.

Any Mexican-American war that emerges would emerge over California, and in the event of war most of the final borders would probably converge. Just pointing out that the Rio Grande makes a very good border, so in the event of war with Mexico it's possible the the border would be extended south. Also, the Colorado River border means that some of the regions settled by Americans OTL would not at first, so you'd probably have Mexico invite some into that part of Texas anyway - the region between the Nueces and the Colorado, that is. Their population wouldn't be large and a threat to Mexican rule so would likely be accepted - so you could have a small American community emerge there, but not be a majority within the region.

You'd also have a different negotiator than OTL as with a PoD 30 years prior it's unlikely Nathaniel Trist is the one negotiating, and he didn't even press for all of the OTL US's demands. The US would still want San Diego for its port, which did drive part of the expansion south. The original treaty even called for Baja to be annexed, along with any additional territory that could be sought.

Of course, you could end up without an expansionist government at the time, but that's something you could best attribute to butterflies. Same with the timing of the discovery of gold in California. You could have the US try to bite off too much and end up in a war with Britain and Mexico at once, but that is likely doubtful. The war would likely end up a few years later compared to OTL, though with how many Americans moved into California so quickly.

So best case scenario, assuming everything else stays similar, Mexico retains the Colorado border, with a straight line connecting the Colorado and Gila Rivers.

Still, it might be better to track Mexico's evolution without Santa Ana being removed from his first period of rule (Assuming he even is elected in the first place, which isn't a bad bet, but still an assumption). He would likely continue his centralization path, combating with the more federalist groups on the fringes of republic. Without the Texas example, there would be far fewer that might actually step right out and attempt to revolt - conversely, this means that many rebellious/secessionist groups may survive longer. This could work either way. You might have a stronger Mexican military that could better fight off the Americans. Conversely, there might be other independence movements - you could have a Republic of the Rio Grande that stretches to the Colorado and has a small American-centered minority north of the Nueces that could end up an influential part of that country.

For its sake, California was already relatively autonomous from Mexico, so Santa Ana's centralization might be viewed with opposition by California proper, and California itself is extremely remote to the Mexican metropole.
 
I mean, the answer to the question would be a resounding maybe Could be a bigger US, could be a smaller one.

Easy answer would be "The US might push harder for 54-40 to make an additional free state". But that isn't necessarily going to happen - there are plenty of other issues that are involved, and what really is an issue is that the whole free/slave state balance is messed up. I imagine Iowa gets admitted earlier to counter Texas, but that's the biggest change off the top of my head.

The big question is where the western boundary is drawn. The proposed boundaries from the http://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/95/a/?view=plate show the rivers following the projected flow to their source up to the Continental divide, which of course didn't exist. However, these are merely proposals, and I honestly feel that it'd continue up to the 100 Degree W line, same as OTL. So Texas would end up being 1/3 of its OTL size, roughly, and this balance could be achieved.

Assuming that is the only change, the westward expansion shouldn't be altered too much. The biggest issue being that the Mexicans won't be agitating for more settlement to distract to Comanches and to try and entrench the frontier, as those would be coming from the USA anyway. So you don't change much except that the population overall might be higher, and that slavery would continue outright in Texas as there would be no abolishment under Mexican law.

Any Mexican-American war that emerges would emerge over California, and in the event of war most of the final borders would probably converge. Just pointing out that the Rio Grande makes a very good border, so in the event of war with Mexico it's possible the the border would be extended south. Also, the Colorado River border means that some of the regions settled by Americans OTL would not at first, so you'd probably have Mexico invite some into that part of Texas anyway - the region between the Nueces and the Colorado, that is. Their population wouldn't be large and a threat to Mexican rule so would likely be accepted - so you could have a small American community emerge there, but not be a majority within the region.

You'd also have a different negotiator than OTL as with a PoD 30 years prior it's unlikely Nathaniel Trist is the one negotiating, and he didn't even press for all of the OTL US's demands. The US would still want San Diego for its port, which did drive part of the expansion south. The original treaty even called for Baja to be annexed, along with any additional territory that could be sought.

Of course, you could end up without an expansionist government at the time, but that's something you could best attribute to butterflies. Same with the timing of the discovery of gold in California. You could have the US try to bite off too much and end up in a war with Britain and Mexico at once, but that is likely doubtful. The war would likely end up a few years later compared to OTL, though with how many Americans moved into California so quickly.

So best case scenario, assuming everything else stays similar, Mexico retains the Colorado border, with a straight line connecting the Colorado and Gila Rivers.

Still, it might be better to track Mexico's evolution without Santa Ana being removed from his first period of rule (Assuming he even is elected in the first place, which isn't a bad bet, but still an assumption). He would likely continue his centralization path, combating with the more federalist groups on the fringes of republic. Without the Texas example, there would be far fewer that might actually step right out and attempt to revolt - conversely, this means that many rebellious/secessionist groups may survive longer. This could work either way. You might have a stronger Mexican military that could better fight off the Americans. Conversely, there might be other independence movements - you could have a Republic of the Rio Grande that stretches to the Colorado and has a small American-centered minority north of the Nueces that could end up an influential part of that country.

For its sake, California was already relatively autonomous from Mexico, so Santa Ana's centralization might be viewed with opposition by California proper, and California itself is extremely remote to the Mexican metropole.

I agree that Mexico would, still, lose California or, at least, most of it. It would, also, have lost the northernmost areas of the cession: Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
However, I think that Mexico would have kept Arizona, New Mexico and the remainder of Texas.
Do you agree?
 
I agree that Mexico would, still, lose California or, at least, most of it. It would, also, have lost the northernmost areas of the cession: Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
However, I think that Mexico would have kept Arizona, New Mexico and the remainder of Texas.
Do you agree?

No.

That leaves a huge salient into the southern US border is now much, much longer than originally. It is based on artificial, man-made borders on most sides, and those borders wouldn't even be the ones that existed at that point in time. And it also ignores part of the objective, and there's nothing to gain by letting Mexico keep it (as in... if the US has conquered to Southern California, why would they not take Arizona and New Mexico? They would have to be conquered in the process). You would have effectively produced a similar salient with this. The only proposals OTL involving a border like this were both made by the Mexican Commissioners in an attempt to hold onto what is Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico. If the war is similar to OTL, then what the Mexican Commisioners want isn't what matters, it's what the US wants to take.

The possession of Texas up to the Colorado does not remove the driving factors for the California and Arizona/New Mexico claims: a port at San Diego, and a path that connects the old Southwest with the new Southwest. That would be the driving factors that determine the results there.

I'll also note that the US never maintained the Nueces Strip OTL and every single proposed border, excepting the proposal by anti-expansionist Trist, involved a Rio Grande border. So even though the US didn't control a strip of land connecting to the Rio Grande OTL, that didn't stop them from desiring to keep it. Here you have a larger strip of land possibly a bit more densely populated - again, not necessarily going to force the US to reduce concessions elsewhere.

Assuming all else is equal, I would stand my original statement. The best Northern border for Mexico would be a Gila River-Colorado River border. Not the most likely, but the best of even the semi-likely options. And that is ignoring that a potential southern route

I linked the site with the plates I'm referring, but here are the plates again. http://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/94/a/?view=plate I'll also point out that no wartime plan by the US considered the possibility of allowing Mexico to retain Arizona or New Mexico. The quibbling was over whether they took San Diego or Baja, or whether they took Nueces or the Rio Grande Republic territory (comparing extremes of both ends).

-

To keep the Mexican border further north, you have to make Mexico stronger and the southern states of the US weaker. That's your easier route.
 
Maybe California becomes TTL's Texas, except that because of the discovery of gold it doesn't feel the economic/debt pressure to be annexed like OTL's Texas did.
 
Given that the Americans who settled in Texas were pretty much all east of the Colorado, this all but guarantees that the Texas Revolt doesn't happen.

California will likely try and secede from Mexico. The Californios were grumpy with Mexico City, Americans were already swarming in, and odds are the two groups would come together to form a new country. The Californios, probably aware of American desires to annex them, probably will use the Republic as a means for not only breaking away from Mexican authority but also to avoid being absorbed by the Americans.

California will probably be a US-affiliated nation, however. With so many Americans who in California who like the United States of America, I think there'd be a natural affinity towards the "mother country"... at least in the north of California. The US probably would not really mind an independent California so long as the United States is able to get access to west coast ports (San Diego, Monterey, San Francisco, etc) for the purposes of trade and security. California probably wouldn't mind not having to spend as much to defend itself and getting paid by Americans for the right to have bases in their territory.

California's boundary with Mexico will probably be set at the Colorado. It'd be amusing to have Mexico have two borders on two different Colorado Rivers.

upload_2019-7-26_23-20-45.png

Maybe down the line the USA and California opt to bully Mexico out of its northern territory. The Rio Bravo River would make a fine enough border between the two.


I can't see the US getting more in Oregon from the British than they did OTL. The British could curbstomp the Americans and the yanks knows it.


One nifty knock-on is going to be southern expansionism. With east Texas part of the US since 1819, the Slave Power is going to be looking elsewhere. Despite Cuba and Puerto Rico being sort of the obvious go-to's due to the intense desire for those islands OTL, I think the most probably southern expansion is that other Republic that broke off from Mexico and petitioned the United States to annex it: Yucatan. OTL Polk pushed for the annexation of Yucatan and the annexation treaty was passed in the House of Representatives. The Senate shot it down because the United States was already at war with Mexico and didn't need another conflict or front to think about.

Without Texas being annexed, I wonder if Florida would be admitted as two states (Panhandle and Peninsula).

Instead of the Mexican-American War, the United States is fighting the Yucatan Caste War. Instead of a glorious little war, it's a drawn out headache in the jungle.

No Mexican-American War means Zachary Taylor isn't President. I guess the nominee is Henry Clay or Daniel Webster.


Upside: No Mexican Cession means no popular sovereignty in the Mexican Territories which probably means no Kansas-Nebraska Act. Popular Sovereignty as included in the Kansas-Nebraska act was inspired by popular sovereignty in the Mexican Territories.
Downside: No Kansas-Nebraska Act and no ensuing political turmoil and violence in Kansas means that come 1854 Franklin Pierce (assuming he is President) isn't distracted by all that stuff. The Ostend Manifesto and the Black Warrior Affair could go very differently - perhaps even with the United States going to war with Spain. Cuba and Puerto Rico would likely be annexed. I guess Kansas and Cuba become states together; later on Nebraska and Puerto Rico become states together.


upload_2019-7-27_0-1-24.png


The USA, California, and Mexico following the 1854 Spanish-American War.​
 
Last edited:
No.

That leaves a huge salient into the southern US border is now much, much longer than originally. It is based on artificial, man-made borders on most sides, and those borders wouldn't even be the ones that existed at that point in time. And it also ignores part of the objective, and there's nothing to gain by letting Mexico keep it (as in... if the US has conquered to Southern California, why would they not take Arizona and New Mexico? They would have to be conquered in the process). You would have effectively produced a similar salient with this. The only proposals OTL involving a border like this were both made by the Mexican Commissioners in an attempt to hold onto what is Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico. If the war is similar to OTL, then what the Mexican Commisioners want isn't what matters, it's what the US wants to take.

It isn't that artificial. The Colorado River was basically the western extent of the type of environment that most Americans had been slowly trekking into in the south (Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, etc). Plus beyond that general area you have the Comanche Barrier.

Plus, there's the Great American Desert and the Rockies to think about. From the 100th meridian to the Rockies, the lands were pretty much useless for farming until the 20th Century. There's a wee bit of exception to this w/ regards to using lands for grazing and the use of lands that were pretty immediate to significant rivers, but on the whole the Great American Desert contributes to there being something of a natural barrier for settlement before the HUGE natural barrier that is the Rockies.

With regards to California, a 35th parallel boundary means you've got the Transverse Ranges and the southernmost stretch of the Sierra Nevada as something of a boundary, not to mention there being quite a bit of desert. Stretch the boundary from the 35th to the Colorado.


GreatAmericanDesert.jpg
 
Given that the Americans who settled in Texas were pretty much all east of the Colorado, this all but guarantees that the Texas Revolt doesn't happen.

California will likely try and secede from Mexico. The Californios were grumpy with Mexico City, Americans were already swarming in, and odds are the two groups would come together to form a new country. The Californios, probably aware of American desires to annex them, probably will use the Republic as a means for not only breaking away from Mexican authority but also to avoid being absorbed by the Americans.

California will probably be a US-affiliated nation, however. With so many Americans who in California who like the United States of America, I think there'd be a natural affinity towards the "mother country"... at least in the north of California. The US probably would not really mind an independent California so long as the United States is able to get access to west coast ports (San Diego, Monterey, San Francisco, etc) for the purposes of trade and security. California probably wouldn't mind not having to spend as much to defend itself and getting paid by Americans for the right to have bases in their territory.

California's boundary with Mexico will probably be set at the Colorado. It'd be amusing to have Mexico have two borders on two different Colorado Rivers.


Maybe down the line the USA and California opt to bully Mexico out of its northern territory. The Rio Bravo River would make a fine enough border between the two.


I can't see the US getting more in Oregon from the British than they did OTL. The British could curbstomp the Americans and the yanks knows it.


One nifty knock-on is going to be southern expansionism. With east Texas part of the US since 1819, the Slave Power is going to be looking elsewhere. Despite Cuba and Puerto Rico being sort of the obvious go-to's due to the intense desire for those islands OTL, I think the most probably southern expansion is that other Republic that broke off from Mexico and petitioned the United States to annex it: Yucatan. OTL Polk pushed for the annexation of Yucatan and the annexation treaty was passed in the House of Representatives. The Senate shot it down because the United States was already at war with Mexico and didn't need another conflict or front to think about.

Without Texas being annexed, I wonder if Florida would be admitted as two states (Panhandle and Peninsula).

Instead of the Mexican-American War, the United States is fighting the Yucatan Caste War. Instead of a glorious little war, it's a drawn out headache in the jungle.

No Mexican-American War means Zachary Taylor isn't President. I guess the nominee is Henry Clay or Daniel Webster.


Upside: No Mexican Cession means no popular sovereignty in the Mexican Territories which probably means no Kansas-Nebraska Act. Popular Sovereignty as included in the Kansas-Nebraska act was inspired by popular sovereignty in the Mexican Territories.
Downside: No Kansas-Nebraska Act and no ensuing political turmoil and violence in Kansas means that come 1854 Franklin Pierce (assuming he is President) isn't distracted by all that stuff. The Ostend Manifesto and the Black Warrior Affair could go very differently - perhaps even with the United States going to war with Spain. Cuba and Puerto Rico would likely be annexed. I guess Kansas and Cuba become states together; later on Nebraska and Puerto Rico become states together.


View attachment 475891

The USA, California, and Mexico following the 1854 Spanish-American War.​

It isn't that artificial. The Colorado River was basically the western extent of the type of environment that most Americans had been slowly trekking into in the south (Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, etc). Plus beyond that general area you have the Comanche Barrier.

Plus, there's the Great American Desert and the Rockies to think about. From the 100th meridian to the Rockies, the lands were pretty much useless for farming until the 20th Century. There's a wee bit of exception to this w/ regards to using lands for grazing and the use of lands that were pretty immediate to significant rivers, but on the whole the Great American Desert contributes to there being something of a natural barrier for settlement before the HUGE natural barrier that is the Rockies.

With regards to California, a 35th parallel boundary means you've got the Transverse Ranges and the southernmost stretch of the Sierra Nevada as something of a boundary, not to mention there being quite a bit of desert. Stretch the boundary from the 35th to the Colorado.


GreatAmericanDesert.jpg

I don't think that Mexico would manage to keep so much of what's now Colorado.
I, also, think that the USA would eventually annex California.
What do you think?
 
I don't think that Mexico would manage to keep so much of what's now Colorado.
I, also, think that the USA would eventually annex California.
What do you think?

It's not inconceivable that the US would annex California. However, California's rebels would likely not be as into joining the US and Texas's were historically. A big part of why Pio Pico and other Californios wanted to secede from Mexican was in order to preempt United States annexation. Furthermore, eastern California - aka Salt Lake Valley - is full of Mormons who have less-than-positive ideas of what life would be like under United States rule.

If the Colorado River is the boundary between California and Mexico, I don't see why Mexico wouldn't have all that land in the north.
 
Given that the Americans who settled in Texas were pretty much all east of the Colorado, this all but guarantees that the Texas Revolt doesn't happen.

California will likely try and secede from Mexico. The Californios were grumpy with Mexico City, Americans were already swarming in, and odds are the two groups would come together to form a new country. The Californios, probably aware of American desires to annex them, probably will use the Republic as a means for not only breaking away from Mexican authority but also to avoid being absorbed by the Americans.

California will probably be a US-affiliated nation, however. With so many Americans who in California who like the United States of America, I think there'd be a natural affinity towards the "mother country"... at least in the north of California. The US probably would not really mind an independent California so long as the United States is able to get access to west coast ports (San Diego, Monterey, San Francisco, etc) for the purposes of trade and security. California probably wouldn't mind not having to spend as much to defend itself and getting paid by Americans for the right to have bases in their territory.

California's boundary with Mexico will probably be set at the Colorado. It'd be amusing to have Mexico have two borders on two different Colorado Rivers.


Maybe down the line the USA and California opt to bully Mexico out of its northern territory. The Rio Bravo River would make a fine enough border between the two.


I can't see the US getting more in Oregon from the British than they did OTL. The British could curbstomp the Americans and the yanks knows it.


One nifty knock-on is going to be southern expansionism. With east Texas part of the US since 1819, the Slave Power is going to be looking elsewhere. Despite Cuba and Puerto Rico being sort of the obvious go-to's due to the intense desire for those islands OTL, I think the most probably southern expansion is that other Republic that broke off from Mexico and petitioned the United States to annex it: Yucatan. OTL Polk pushed for the annexation of Yucatan and the annexation treaty was passed in the House of Representatives. The Senate shot it down because the United States was already at war with Mexico and didn't need another conflict or front to think about.

Without Texas being annexed, I wonder if Florida would be admitted as two states (Panhandle and Peninsula).

Instead of the Mexican-American War, the United States is fighting the Yucatan Caste War. Instead of a glorious little war, it's a drawn out headache in the jungle.

No Mexican-American War means Zachary Taylor isn't President. I guess the nominee is Henry Clay or Daniel Webster.


Upside: No Mexican Cession means no popular sovereignty in the Mexican Territories which probably means no Kansas-Nebraska Act. Popular Sovereignty as included in the Kansas-Nebraska act was inspired by popular sovereignty in the Mexican Territories.
Downside: No Kansas-Nebraska Act and no ensuing political turmoil and violence in Kansas means that come 1854 Franklin Pierce (assuming he is President) isn't distracted by all that stuff. The Ostend Manifesto and the Black Warrior Affair could go very differently - perhaps even with the United States going to war with Spain. Cuba and Puerto Rico would likely be annexed. I guess Kansas and Cuba become states together; later on Nebraska and Puerto Rico become states together.


View attachment 475891

The USA, California, and Mexico following the 1854 Spanish-American War.​


I don't think that the Senate would, ever, have approved the annexation of Yucatan. I think that racists wouldn't like the idea of bringing so many non-whites into the Union. What do you think?
 
Top