US annexes all of Mexico in 1848: what does the US look like today?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by M79, Nov 4, 2018.

  1. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    I would urge caution on that front, as Cass likewise had went on record as being opposed to All Mexico-only to later do the following as noted by Merk:

    [​IMG]
     
    jjstraub4 likes this.
  2. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Cass's statement was made on December 27, 1847 in the context of an argument for Polk's ten-regiment bill:

    "To attempt to prevent the American people from taking possession of Mexico, if they demand it, would be as futile in effect, as to undertake to stop the rushing of the cataract of Niagara. I, myself, should think it a very unfortunate thing to extinguish the independence of that country, and annex it to our own; but the more the war is prolonged, the longer it is suffered to go on, the greater will be the danger of such an occurrence..." https://books.google.com/books?id=9ZbhCyRXgjMC&pg=PA79

    It was on January 10, 1848--later than the above-quoted statement, not earlier--that Cass said


    MR. CASS. I hope that the Executive will say, in so many words, that its object is, in any circumstance, to conquer Mexico.
    MR. MANGUM (in his seat). To conquer Mexico?
    MR. CASS. I repeat, to conquer Mexico.
    SEVERAL SENATORS. The whole?
    MR. CASS. The whole, but not to hold it all. [my emphasis--DT]

    https://books.google.com/books?id=XlQHi_dJyRUC&pg=PA171

    So was Cass, as is so often claimed, an All Mexico man? As a modern biographer noted, "he refrained from explicitly calling for the annexation of all of Mexico" though many concluded from his remarks that such were his intentions. https://books.google.com/books?id=XlQHi_dJyRUC&pg=PA171 It seems to me that even in the case of people like Cass and Davis, calling them All Mexico supporters (as is usually done) is something of an oversimplification of the rather ambiguous positions they took. Assuming that they really wanted All Mexico, the very fact that they felt it necessary to disclaim advocating it shows that they must have realized it was not all that popular an idea...
     
  3. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Ok with Polk replacing Pierce in this scenario, with Polk in turn followed by Buchanan, etc.

    Would Jefferson Davis still succeed Sam Houston as Confederate President during this ATL American Civil War if the latter does indeed accept the role?

    With a larger Texas can see there being later on further calls for it and others like New York and California, etc to be partitioned/divided into smaller US states.

    Have to wonder how long the US would be able to maintain its hold over Nicaragua (instead of Panama) in the event they push through with the Canal project.

    Would the US under a 2 term Houston be able to take Cuba from Spain (let alone any other territory)?
     
    jjstraub4 likes this.
  4. Grand Archduke of Austria Jimmy Fever 105

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    Heaven (land of peace)
    Ok with Polk replacing Pierce in this scenario, with Polk in turn followed by Buchanan, etc.

    Houston should persuade Polk to run for President in 1853 and then again in 1857 as a continuation of his presidential legacy. If he cannot persuade him in 1857 then get someone else but he will be difficult to replace.

    It would have been best to offer Polk the presidential ticket as Vice President in the 1845 election. Houston should have then made him Secretary of State. I only include him in his cabinet because he is the only democratic President who had any realism. The only problem is would Polk reject Houston drawing that farthest line south in Mexico. Polk may need persuading but he Houston is great orator.

    Would Jefferson Davis still succeed Sam Houston as Confederate President during this ATL American Civil War if the latter does indeed accept the role?

    Jefferson was mainly picked for his military credentials which proved worthless. Forget Davis what about Robert E. Lee being persuaded by Houston to run for president.

    With a larger Texas can see there being later on further calls for it and others like New York and California, etc to be partitioned/divided into smaller US states.

    No, if the compromise of 1850 still passes. But I have no idea if Houston would agree to it. You would think he would have to agree to it, as he might cause a civil war in not signing it or at least cause pro and anti-slavery violence.

    Remember Houston will add a lot of states in that line he would draw across Mexico. California will get Lower California. Republic of the Rio Grande will be re-established and he may create one large state from the current border of Mexico to the ‘straight-line’ in the far south where Lower California begins to end. If he annexes Cuba as well, Houston has just added three states making Confederates states 14 states not 11 and he’s got a larger Texas.

    Have to wonder how long the US would be able to maintain its hold over Nicaragua (instead of Panama) in the event they push through with the Canal project.

    The land to build the canals had no populations on them or very little. They would annex the land by offering money or by force and militarise the canal with warships and troops. I do know if one canal could be built within 10 years, it's possible, but if built it would aid the confederates to open trade with other countries.

    Would the US under a 2 term Houston be able to take Cuba from Spain (let alone any other territory)?

    Yes democrats were asking Polk to invade Cuba after Spain rejected Polk’s offer of 100 million. Polk refused whereas Houston will accept the offering to invade Cuba willingly.
    • "In mid-1848, President Polk authorized his ambassador to Spain, Romulus Mitchell Saunders, to negotiate the purchase of Cuba and offer Spain up to $100 million, a large sum at the time for one territory, equal to $2.9 billion in present-day terms. Cuba was close to the United States and had slavery, so the idea appealed to Southerners but was unwelcome in the North. However, Spain was still making profits in Cuba (notably in sugar, molasses, rum and tobacco), and thus the Spanish government rejected Saunders's overtures. Though Polk was eager to acquire Cuba, he refused to support the filibuster expedition of Narciso López, who sought to invade and take over the island as a prelude to annexation."

    This image shows the advantages the USA had over the CSA. Annexing Cuba and that Mexican territory will only give them more of everything below.​

    Advantages.jpg

    Compare this map with the Atlas of proposed treaty lines drawn, it will give you an indication of what would have been annexed.

    Political_divisions_of_Mexico_1836-1845.png

    Houston's view on the Oregon dispute:

    It is said that Houston strongly advocated for the annexation of the Oregon Country in early 1846. Polk believed the US had a strong claim but didn't push for political reasons in the expansion of free slave states in the North. But it would equal out under a Houston government which is what he advocated for. The annexation of a large part of Mexico in the south and claiming 54-40 in the North. Polk did not want to annex a large part of Mexico, only lower California and therefore was compromising on the boundary line which was drawn in the North.

    Houston's view on the Kansas–Nebraska Act:

    "In 1854, Senator Stephen A. Douglas led the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which organized Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory. The act also repealed the Missouri Compromise, an act that had banned slavery in territories north of parallel 36°30′ north. Houston voted against the act, in part because he believed that Native Americans would lose much of their land as a result of the act. He also perceived that it would lead to increased sectional tensions over slavery. Houston's opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act led to his departure from the Democratic Party." - Strange how he cares about the native Indians but wants to annex a large piece of Mexico.

    Houston's view on the Confederacy:

    I really believed that Houston would be in contestation for the Confederate presidency but history says otherwise. However, Houston being a post-US president would drastically change this equation. The question is what would he do given this opportunity? Would he alter his position because he has been a US president? If he feels so much loyalty to the Union and betrayal to the Confederacy, this indicates that he might aim for re-establishing the union and he would not want independence for the Confederacy.

    Houston refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy. In an undelivered speech, Houston wrote:

    "Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas. ... I protest. ... against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void."

    On April 19, 1861, he told a crowd:

    "Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South."

    Houston considered secession unconstitutional and thought secession at that moment in time was a "rash action" that was certain to lead to a conflict favouring the industrial and populated North.

    He definitely has a sense of realism about him, doesn't he? The big question is would the addition of Cuba, a large chunk of Mexico and a larger Texas change Houston's mind? One would need to analyse the state of these areas in 1861 and what value they would give the Confederacy. One would then have to compare the renewed industrial and populations strengths. In hindsight Houston was wrong, the Confederacy came very close to winning at the Battle of Gettysburg. If Lee wins it he goes onto Washington to force a peace.

    One also must question Houston's idea of "rash action" and what was the correct moment or did Houston just see the Confederacy get steamrolled by the Union.

    Other information:

    I found this image of Texas. (https://www.deviantart.com/toixstory/art/Travel-the-Republic-of-Texas-Commission-665121437)

    I'm not surprised if you see Houston trying to make Texas dominant among the US and Confederate states because of his Texas origins and extremist nature. This brought up a couple of ideas:
    • The Republic of the Rio Grande becomes apart of Texas
    • Cuba becomes apart of Texas.
    • He adds territory to Texas from the Mexican concession like in the image.
    With such a strong Texan patriotic fever one could see him running as governor of Texas in 1853 just after leaving Presidential office. He would leave office on March 4, 1853, and then run for the Texas gubernatorial in August. With his popularity, you would expect him to breeze it having been the former Texan and US president. The numbers in the election are really low as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1853_Texas_gubernatorial_election I only say this because even though he won the Texas Governorship in 1859 with the Constitutional Union party. He also ran in 1857 on the American Party and came close to winning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1857_Texas_gubernatorial_election
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  5. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Meant there being calls for larger states to be partitioned later on either post-ACW or sometime post-1900.

    Would this scenario also increase the likelihood of the US later accepting President Baez's offer to annex the Dominican Republic in 1869 (assuming it is not taken prior to the Civil War)?

    Even though Houston was very ambitious it still seems his ATL success would be tempered by his realism and distaste for secession to the extent it appears to be a close call on whether he accepts the role of Confederate President after leaving office or remains as governor of Texas.
     
  6. Grand Archduke of Austria Jimmy Fever 105

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    Heaven (land of peace)
    Partition groups will arise to partition Texas and California but it won’t work because they have tried to this day and it has not worked. Texas will not want to let go of it’s territories.

    There are increased chances of the Dominican republic being annexed but after the civil war expansionism died. The US was not looking to expand as much as it was. There was only Philippines, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal that we’re the major acquisitions. Whereas slave owners and the Confederacy wanted the Golden Circle.

    One can see from those two speeches that he has the same realism and intellect as James Polk.

    Therefore let’s say he turns up at the Democratic nomination as President of Texas.

    He positions himself as a president who will expand both free slave states and slaves states in the North and South. He agrees with Democrats that Cuba should be acquired.

    He also agrees that Free trade is important and that Tariffs should be reduced and an independent treasury system should be reintroduced for financial state independence. (These are the other two achievements Polk set out in his Democratic nomination and election.) - Houston and Polk were actually former allies and friends. This must come from that Polk also ran and won the subnational race for Tennessee.

    The Democrats nominate Houston based on his more expansive expansionism policy. Houston then asks Polk as his running mate and he agrees.

    First term:
    • British-American war / America sweeps Oregon as Britain back down because lack of Trade
    • American-Mexican war
    • Reintroduces independent financial system
    Second Term:
    • Spanish-American War
    • Reduces trade tariffs
    Post presidency:
    • Runs for Texas Governor
    Or
    • Runs for Texas Senator

    This is where it gets murky. There is “the correspondence of Sam Houston” which would help in this situation.

    There are two scenarios:

    Houston is persuaded enough that the Confederacy has a fighting chance against the union because of his territorial acquisitions. He has also been flocked and courted by Democrats and confederates for 5 years (1855-1861) to throw his ticket into the ring to become the confederate president because they believe he is there best chance at independence. He is also well immersed and connected within the Democratic Party.

    Houston has so much political power and popularity within Texas he re-proclaims the Republic of Texas and becomes its 6th President. (He actually wanted Texas to become independent again upon seceding from the union in 1861.) Texas is a lot larger because he gave territory to it from the Mexican Concession. He is considered a martyr in the modern-day Republic of Texas.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    phx1138 likes this.
  7. Thanksforallthefish King of Dolphins

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Location:
    Territorios Espaciales Argentinos
    Why are people on this thread comparing Mexicans to "inmigrants"? In this case, they are NOT inmigrants, they are a conquered people who were invaded and forcibly annexed (don't even think that most Mexicans would take the surrender from a couple of their rich countrymen as the surrender of their entire nation)

    Did Indians assimilate into British subjects? Did Vietnamites became loyal citizens of the French Republic?

    Inmigrants have the will and incentive to go, form part of a country, and assimilate.

    Colonial subjects do not.
     
    VirginiaStronk likes this.
  8. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Not after the ATL US going too crazy with expansionism and annexation of territories in this scenario so no annexation of Yucatan (can see value of it it being independent or part of a wanked Maya state / Guatemala as a counterweight to a rump Mexico from the South though not as a non-island non-contiguous US state), all of Quebec or everything south of the ATL Houston line, etc.
     
  9. Grand Archduke of Austria Jimmy Fever 105

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    Heaven (land of peace)
    The reason Yucatan did not become a state is complicated. In relation to the remaining Canadian lands, it rests on if The Annexation Bill of 1866 is still written, it is actually put before congress and who the President is.

    In relation to Houston becoming the US and Confederate President. I like the whole narrative but I hate the fact that he'd be enslaving people and fighting for slavery. Therefore I suppose this a good opposite to President Lincoln. Otherwise, I like him proclaiming the Republic of Texas which he somehow makes slave free.
     
  10. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Haiti is another territory that along with Yucatan would probably not be worth annexing, and while do not imagine the US annexing more of Mexico south of the ATL Houston line do see there being a little bit of room for an ATL US (with a more wanked history of expansion) making some gains elsewhere either around Houston's 2 terms or much later on.

    If some form of 1866 Annexation Bill is written and put before congress, which Presidents or Presidential Candidates would have the fortitude to pass it? Otherwise could an earlier version have appeared some 2 decades earlier?

    What rationale would Houston have in proclaiming a slave-free Republic of Texas in the American Civil War
     
  11. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Here you were replying specifically to my argument that "Actually, I think northerners will be particularly insistent on the Wilmot Proviso in the unlikely event All Mexico goes through. Many antislavery northerners had denounced the War as a slaveholders' conspiracy, and would hate the idea of an extension that could result in slavery going into not only California and New Mexico but potentially in some states south of the Rio Grande--at least the ones just to the south of it."

    I don't think the willingness of some Republicans to admit New Mexico as a state in 1860-1 (with the tacit understanding that it would at least nominally be a slave state at first) has any relevance at all to whether the North would be insistent on the Wilmot Proviso if All Mexico somehow was accomplished in 1848. Remember that the Republicans in Congress in 1860 voted unanimously against the Crittenden proposal to restore the Missouri Compromise line and protect slavery south of it and to extend it to all territories "hereafter acquired." One of their fears was precisely that "hereafter acquired" could ultimately apply to the rest of Mexico (as well as Central America, Cuba, etc.). By comparison, admitting New Mexico would set no precedent for federal protection of slavery in future territories, and moreover the Republicans were pretty confident that African slavery would not flourish in New Mexico--ten years after the Compromise of 1850 had theoretically thrown the territory open to slavery the census of 1860 showed not a single slave there. They had no such confidence about the rest of Mexico. As Lincoln wrote Seward, "Nor do I care much about New-Mexico, if further extension were hedged against." [emphasis added--DT] "All Mexico" whether in 1848 or later, would present precisely the danger of such "further extension."

    As Potter and Ferhenbacher wrote in The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861: "Yet now a majority of Republicans on a House committee were endorsing the admission of a state to the Union, with the tacit understanding that it would be a slave state and with the knowledge that its boundary would extend well north of 36°30'. And most southerners, in turn, refused to accept this seemingly generous offer as a substitute for the Missouri formula. The anomaly is not inexplicable, however. Admitting New Mexico, unlike authorizing slavery in a federal territory, would have little symbolic value for the South, and it would offer no security for the institution in any territory subsequently acquired. Furthermore, there was considerable agreement on both sides that slavery would never flourish in New Mexico. Adams and his associates had been reassured on this point by a former federal judge in the territory.40 Thus Republicans were actually yielding less, and slaveholders stood to gain less, than it appeared on the surface.." (p. 534)

    To go back to 1848: Extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific was well understood to be a southern position, unsatisfactory to most Northerners, even when it only applied to California and New Mexico--let alone if it could have potentially opened up All Mexico to slavery! To show how regionalized support for extending the Missouri Compromise line was: When the House passed a bill to establish a territorial government for Oregon prohibiting slavery in the territory, southerners objected (not because they thought slavery could go into Oregon but because they were worried about the precedent set for the Mexican Cession) and the bill passed the House on sectional lines (similar to the early votes on the Wilmot Proviso). The Senate added an amendment by Jesse Bright of Indiana (nominally a northerner but in fact a Kentucky slaveholder) saying that slavery was prohibited in the territory because it was north of 36°30′. This was done "over the objection of all ten northern Whigs and most northern Democrats." https://books.google.com/books?id=hMkYklGTY1MC&pg=PA338 Bright's formula "offended most Northerners because it implied that slavery would be permitted south of the Missouri Compromise line, that is, in most of the Mexican Cession." https://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA335 When the bill got back to the House, it refused to accept the Bright amendment on "virtually a strict sectional [not party!--DT] vote." https://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA338 The Senate then grudgingly accepted the House bill, with three southerners (Delaware Whig Presley Spruance and Democrats Sam Houston and Thomas Hart Benton) voting Yes, and Polk signed it--but Polk was careful to say he accepted the bill only because Oregon was north of 36°30'.

    In short, extension of the Missouri Compromise line was overwhelmingly rejected by Northerners even when only New Mexico and California were at stake--and would be even less popular in the North if it would involve the rest of Mexico. Yes, it is true that a majority of northern Democrats eventually abandoned the Wilmot Proviso--but they did so in favor of "squatter sovereignty" not the Missouri compromise line, and they did so only after it was clear that (1) the US was not taking any territory south of California and New Mexico, (2) northerners were pouring into California and guaranteeing it would be a free state, (3) the Mormons in Utah had no use for slavery, and (4) that left only New Mexico which most northern Democrats--as well as Daniel Webster--thought of as a desert unsuited for slavery. If there was any way to get northern Democrats to stick to the Proviso or else lose all popular support it would be to annex All Mexico!
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
    jjstraub4 likes this.
  12. Grand Archduke of Austria Jimmy Fever 105

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    Heaven (land of peace)
    If some form of 1866 Annexation Bill is written and put before congress, which Presidents or Presidential Candidates would have the fortitude to pass it? Otherwise could an earlier version have appeared some 2 decades earlier?

    Houston is the only one I could see wanting an 'Annexation Bill' to go before Congress and who would want an actual vote on it. There is no other president who is as jingoistic enough and wants to create both slave and free slaves states at the same time.

    The Oregon Treaty was signed on 15th June 1846, whilst negotiations, war tensions and escalation took place between March 1845 to June 1846. The American-Mexican war took place between April 25th, 1846 and February 3rd, 1848. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on 30th May 1848. Let's say Houston does not give in to his own bluff as Polk did, that the British would "commission immediately some thirty ships-of-the-line in addition to steamers and other vessels held in reserve." Houston waits and to his surprise, the Peel government ends on the 29th June 1846 and is replaced with a Whig government and Lord John Russell as Prime Minister. On the 15th August 1846, the 54-40 line is agreed as the Whigs back down because of the war scare, more pressing issues in Europe and that issue had dominated government since March 1845. On the 15th October 1846, Congress passes legislation to declare war on Mexico.

    If Houston annexes the Oregon country, you don’t have to think too far ahead to think about annexing ‘Canada’. Annexing Oregon will have spilt this future territory in half. His realistic and intelligent attitude should inform him that if he offers statehood to any of the Canadian territories, it is their prerogative to accept it or not, which is what 'The Annexation Bill 1866' did. So if he draws up an ‘Annexation Bill’ he will come to the conclusion that he needs to annex more territory in the South to balance the Slave states against the Free Slave states. I’m afraid the Golden Circle becomes not some thought anymore but more of an actual proposal and prominent in US politics and if it’s Houston’s idea it’ll become government foreign policy. The Golden Circle was originally though up post 1857, this scenario pushes it back to 1848-50. If Houston does not accomplish it, which is likely, it will dominate the next Democratic president's term.

    Yucatan did not become a state because of internal conflict between Mayan and Yucatecans: (European decent)
    • "In desperation, President Santiago Méndez offered Yucatecan sovereignty in exchange for military assistance to the governor of the island of Cuba, the admiral of Jamaica, the ministers of Spain and the United Kingdom, but none responded to his pleas. Finally, the Yucatecan delegation in Washington made a formal offer for the annexation of Yucatán to the United States, an argument that appealed to some of the radical expansionists and the Young America movement. President James Knox Polk was pleased with the idea and the "Yucatán Bill" passed the U.S. House of Representatives but was discarded by the Senate. The war with Mexico had become more complicated than anticipated, and the US Congress did not want a second war with the indigenous of Yucatán."
    There is a problem at this point with Houston's foreign policy. Having taken all of Oregon and drawing that farthest line south in Mexico, he'll conceptualise an 'Annexation Bill' to annex all of Canada but he has not got much territory left in the South to balance Slave states against the free slave states. Now I know the Golden Circle will be the counterbalance but how on earth is the US going to justify annexing the remaining part of Mexico alone? What are you going to do, just invade it and illegally annex it? If that's what Democrats call for pre-civil war, the Golden Circle could play a role, if not a central role, in the reason the civil war comes about.

    ied8lp8e2is21.png

    What rationale would Houston have in proclaiming the slave-free Republic of Texas in the American Civil War

    His quote that the Confederacy will get steamrolled by the Union forms part of his future mindset, although it is murky when it could happen. If the Union win the Civil War and he is not willing to ban slavery, it will be eventually be banned post his 6th Texan presidency by another Texan president. Therefore why not ban it himself and claim that “I supported an in-humane policy but I eventually corrected my ways and recognise that slavery is barbaric.” The point is if he does not ban it, the Texan republic will remain conservative to its traditional values and not change; if he bans slavery he'll have an everlasting effect on the Texan republic. People will recognise that he changed and as a result, he will be credited for changing. It could form part of the Republic's consciousness that the 'only constant is change' and that if Houston changed why can't anyone change. He was the most hardcore expansionist in the US legislative and it would be a radical policy for him to ban slavery but he knows the Union is going to win, so why stick to a policy that is going to die. He should, therefore, ban slavery in 1860 through a chilling speech to the Texan Legislative that we are all "equal". The legislative bans slavery unanimously.

    The Republic is resubmitted into the United States of America as the "Republic of Texas, Cuba and The Rio Grande" in the late 20th Century. It also has its own canal in Central America. Sam Houston consciousness forms a central part of the Republic and the Union, equal to that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Knox Polk (x1000) and Theodore Roosevelt combined. Houston was Texan President from 1860 to 1875 on three 5-year terms. He retired and shortly died thereafter aged 85.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    jjstraub4 likes this.
  13. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    The New York Herald, a notoriously sensationalistic newspaper, was hardly a reliable source. It was an All Mexico journal in a part of the country where Wilmot Proviso sentiment was strong (among Democrats as well as Whigs) and so of course it had an interest in claiming not only that there was no danger of slavery going into Mexico, but that even northern antislavery Whigs agreed with the newspaper on this and secretly favored All Mexico. This was characteristic of the northeastern penny press as a whole--for example, the New York Sun spread a false report that John Quincy Adams favored the acquisition of All Mexico as an antislavery move (whereas actually Adams was against annexing any Mexican territory). These northeastern Democratic newspapers by the way were almost the only people who paid much favorable attention to Gamaliel Bailey and the National Era's "Plan of Pacification and Continental Union." Bailey's fellow antislavery northern Whigs thought it was chimerical or even "pandering" to the spirit of conquest.

    In any event, I find it impossible to see any "all Mexico" plan that could get a majority in Congress. Let's look at two diametrically opposed alternatives: (1) Bailey's plan, and (2) the plan of one of the few southern supporters of All Mexico, Henry Foote of Mississippi.

    (1) Bailey's plan: The US should declare peace, and send invitations to each Mexican state to join the United States--presumably with their antislavery laws intact. The Mexican states accept and suddenly the South is surrounded by free states on all sides!

    Now there are a number of reasons why I think this plan could not possibly come to pass. For one thing, the Mexican states--whose genuine, unpressured agreement Bailey insisted would be required--would be most unlikely to agree. (And yes, that goes for the Puros, too, or even especially. As I wrote elsewhere, "I notice that to support your contention that the Puros favored annexation, you cite p. 215 of Pedro Santoni, Mexicans at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848 who quotes Colonel Hitchcock and Commissioner Trent to this effect. But consider what Santoni writes just three pages later!: 'The opinions of contemporary observers like Colonel Hitchcock and Trist about the puros are also flawed. They failed to recognize the factionalism—which puzzled many politically conscious Mexicans—within the party in late 1847. For example, moderado leader Mariano Rica Palacio commented that he did not understand the double conscience of the puro party, in Mexico in favor of annexation and in Queretaro for a war without respite."65 Although some of Gomez Farias' backers harbored annexationist ideas as 1847 came to an end, most puros followed Gomez Farias' leadership. [my emphasis--DT] Gomez Farias' contingent made every effort to insure that hostilities continued with the United States to avoid what they considered to be a dishonorable peace. Gomez Farias' Yankeephobia, in fact, remained as resolute in the fall of 1847 as in the more visionary days of 1845...'") Second, as noted, Bailey failed to convince most of his fellow Whigs, even in the North, of this idea. (Even if they were convinced that annexed Mexican territory would not support slavery, one should remember that opposition to slavery was not the only reason Whigs tried to prevent or at least limit territorial expansion.) Third--and this is what makes Congressional consent for this plan impossible even if the first two obstacles are somehow removed--southerners, whether Democrats or Whigs, would unanimously oppose this idea. Even if the South stood alone in opposing it, they would have half the Senate against it! And they would not stand alone, in any event; a good many northerners, especially Whigs, would still oppose the idea.

    (2) Henry Foote's plan is the only all-Mexico policy that would have some southern support:

    "Foote agreed, arguing before the Senate that Mexico should be annexed and divided into territories in the traditional American manner and that, after a period of "gradual civilization and Americanization," the Mexican territories might become states. He was clear to maintain, however, that before this process took place, the United States should establish a list of priorities, at the top of which included "securing the mining districts from encroachment from a, quarter, the introduction of our system of import duties," and the declaring of millions of acres in Mexico "public lands," which would be open to American settlement and commercial exploitation. Foote's arguments before the Senate also made it clear that, while former Mexican provinces might become states under his plan, true control of Mexico would remain Anglocentric to create a "perfect social order throughout the whole extent of the region." https://books.google.com/books?id=hHJyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95

    This plan at least would have some attractions to Southerners. No need to worry about dark-skinned antislavery voters dominating the US, because the Mexican territories would not be admitted to the Union until they had been Anglo-Saxonized. There would even be the chance to introduce slavery into Mexico unless the Wilmot Doctrine was introduced and upheld by the Supreme Court (True, it could be argued that even without the Wilmot Proviso the Mexican laws against slavery would remain in force ; but some southerners already hoped and some northerners feared that the Supreme Court would find such laws unconstitutional as a denial of the right of slaveholders to bring their human "property" into the territories; as indeed it did some years later in the Dred Scott case.) But in the first place, not even all Southerners would accept the idea. Sure, if removal of the Indians and Mestizos and "Anglo-Saxonization" of the heavily populated areas of Mexico could be accomplished, they might favor it But removing millions of Mexicans would be immeasurably more difficult than removing 16,000 Cherokees. As a recent study has concluded, "All Mexico failed to garner much southern support because few believed forced removal was plausible. Therefore, the United States would be stuck with lands populated by “undesirable” races. The editors of the Pensacola Gazette countered All Mexico proponents by explaining that Mexicans were “not ripe for the blessings which we would confer upon them- the blessings of wise laws and a stable government.” The paper asked readers: “What shall we do? Carry on the war until we force them to be happy?” The nightmare of acquiring a large, mixed-race population would be a frightening reality if supporters of All Mexico had their way. Not only were the Mexicans not enslaved, they had already shown with their guerrilla tactics that they would not docilely submit to American rule. A North Carolina newspaper editorial opined that such an acquisition would “cost our Government a great deal of trouble and money, and, after all, what do we gain? A bankrupt country, with three millions of whites and five millions of stark-naked Indians to be supported.” When Secretary of State James Buchanan advised President Polk that the United States ought to secure the territory as far south as Tamaulipas, even Polk “expressed a doubt as to the policy or practicability of obtaining a country containing so large a number of the Mexican population.” Throughout the war the wholehearted belief by most southerners in the intellectual and moral inferiority of the Mexicans continued, and the thought of extending the liberties of the Constitution to them aroused concern in the South. Representative Edward Cabell of Florida doubted the “black, white, red, mongrel, miserable populations of Mexico- the Mexicans, Indians, Mulattoes, Mestizos, Chinos, Zambos, Quinteros” could ever become “free and enlightened American citizens.”57 Underlying these racist attacks of the All Mexico movement, of course, were fears for the southern social order." https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/...ll_wsu_0251E_11346.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Second, even if Foote's idea could get unanimous support from southern Democrats (which it could not) it would be doomed by unanimous opposition from the Whigs. That northern Whigs would oppose it is obvious; and so would southern ones, as the quote from the Whig congressman Edward Cabell of Florida, cited above, makes clear. Southern Whigs did not believe that Mexico could be "redeemed" for the Anglo-Saxon race for a long time to come. In any event, though the Whigs by themselves were strong enough to block All Mexico in the House, they would probably be joined by many Democrats who wanted some territorial acquisitions from Mexico, but thought this was going too far...

    (Of course there is another obstacle to either of these plans being approved; Polk would not support either of them, in part because he knew the opposition they would arouse but also in part because he was never an All Mexico man, even if his anger over the Mexican rejection of his initial offer made him for a while desirous of getting further territorial acquisitions from Mexico.)
     
  14. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Understand
     
  15. Grand Archduke of Austria Jimmy Fever 105

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    Heaven (land of peace)
    Nevertheless obtaining Houston’s line in Mexico, 54-40 in Oregon, Cuba and asking all the British-American territories to join the union, makes the US huge. Some British-American territories will initially join and some will not. Expect Canada to never exist but separate North American territories dominated by the US. I think the reluctant territories will join over time through US cultural influence, maybe even into the 21st Century. With these territories, it makes the US more global. Alaska and Hawaii will join but the possible surprise is Greenland. Expect it to be possibly sold by Denmark in 1917 along with the Danish Virgin Islands. The US proposed buying Greenland in 1946 for $100 million but Denmark refused because they knew oil was present beneath.

    I think an unknown is the Philippines if it's occupied in the Spanish-American war of 1850-2. The Philippines at first was under a 'Military Government' it then turned into an 'Insular Government' before becoming a 'Commonwealth'. Who knows what 50 extra years will do under a US government?

    An interesting consequence of America Philippines is the US territorial influence in Asia between post-civil War (1865) and 1900. To put bluntly territories around that area are ripe for pickings. The reason America never had a colonial empire was because of distance in relation to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. It is very difficult to establish colonies when you don't have territory in Asia or Africa. In terms of territories, we are talking about small islands as big as Guam but no bigger than the Island of Hawaiʻi. These could include:
    • New Caledonia
    • Tonga
    • Wallis and Futuna
    • Ellice Islands (Tuvalu)
    • Pleasant Island (Nauru)
    • Marshall Islands (Independence from the US in 1979)
    • Caroline Islands (Federated States of Micronesia, administered by the US until independence in 1979)
    • Viti Levu, Vanua Levu and Taveuni (Republic of Fiji)
    • Solomon Islands
    • French Polynesia
    • Samoa
    • Belau, Palaos, or Pelew (Republic of Palau)
    • New Hebrides archipelago (Republic of Vanuatu)
    • Pitcairn Islands
    • Easter Island
    The current US territories in the Pacific are:
    • Hawaii
    • American Samoa
    • Wake Island
    • Johnson Island
    • Midway Island
    • Guam
    • Northern Mariana Islands
    • Howland Island
    • Jarvis Island
    • Kingdom Reef
    • Palmyra Atoll
    With a combination of current US territories, past territories and integrate them with other islands and archipelagos. You could create a Pacific US state spanning a large part of Oceania. Cool:rolleyes:.

    I saw someone propose 'American Hong Kong'. Impossible without territorial, cultural, soft and hard power but with territorial influence it's an interesting proposal, not impossible but difficult and messy. The British established the Crown Colony in Hong Kong in 1841 but this only encompassed Hong Kong Island. (See image)

    D2FF34B5-2BCD-4CD8-BD22-A307F757D592.png

    What I do think is up for grabs is Singapore Island, it would not be too difficult to buy it off the natives. It would make a fantastic acquisition and investment in Asia. (See map) I would definitely say the commonwealth of the Philippines in 1850 would open more avenues to integrate more territories even if the US does not intend on integrating it. I personally think they should not turn it into US states and just use it further there gains within the region and then give it independence when the time is obviously right. This makes the post-civil war up to 1900 way more colourful.

    Singapore.png
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
    legend017 likes this.
  16. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Would probably leave the Philippines be, whilst allowing scope for a rump independent Quebec. Would be interesting seeing the US gain both Iceland and Greenland, can also see them gaining parts of the British West Indies later on post-WW1 (should the British decide to sell some/parties of the West Indies as a way of paying back war-debt - would probably leave out Belize, Guyana and possibly Trinidad & Tobago).

    Read of the Russians reputedly considering adding Chukotka to the Alaska Purchase though cannot really see the appeal of it beyond potentially allowing for a Bering Strait crossing (with the pitfalls of both the ATL US and USSR sharing the same border).

    upload_2019-8-16_21-19-3.jpeg
     
  17. Grand Archduke of Austria Jimmy Fever 105

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    Heaven (land of peace)
    It really depends on if Houston and his advisors can see the opportunity of occupying the Philippines and what it will bring in the future. The opportunity would be to obtain the Oceanic islands. I have looked at the historic population numbers of the states across Oceania in relation to Hawaii and they are all very low around the 100,000 to 150,000 bracket. An American Oceanic state would make the US more diverse rather than just concentrating on North America.

    I never knew Chukotka was considered but beyond 1900 there will be plenty of candidates to become part of the US.
     
  18. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    The subjective ideal would be for an ATL US to dominate most of North America up to the Houston line in the south bordering a reduced Mexico along with a rump Quebec in the northeast (that either remains independent or embraces some form of Walloon like Rattachism), whilst including Greenland, Iceland, most of the Caribbean (sans Haiti, Belize, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago and Yucatan) as well as some more Pacific Islands.

    That would IMHO be the absolute maximum extent of this ATL US, it can still have a similar relations to an ATL Nicaragua that has a Canal akin to OTL Panama though could easily see it and any other potential territories (e.g. Chukotka, Belize, Guyana, etc) being the US equivalent of semi-enclaves like Ceuta and Melilla (due to the Alaska no longer being a semi-enclave in this TL) or the US equivalent of semi-exclaves like French Guiana and Kaliningrad.

    Even with an ATL US of that size, the inclusion of such territories would allow the US to later on be a significant soccer, rugby and cricket power as a result of annexation much of Mexico (e.g. FIFA World Rankings), Fiji (e.g. World Rugby Rankings - further aided due to Teddy Roosevelt having Rugby replace American Football by banning the latter) and the Caribbean (e.g. West Indies Cricket Team) respectively.