alternatehistory.com

In 1844 Democrats demanded the "*re*-annexation" of Texas, implying that it had really been US territory under the Louisiana Purchase and that John Quincy Adams had unwisely ceded it to Spain to get Florida in 1819. (Unfortunately for this theory, Adams was able to show from his diary that Andrew Jackson at the time had fully approved of the Louisiana-Texas border line agreed to in the Adams-Onis Treaty. Jackson replied that the assertion that he had approved the Sabine boundary was "false, false, false, his [Adams'] diary to the contrary notwithstanding." Actually, even apart from Adams' diary, there is a letter in Jackson's own hand to Monroe in 1820, advising the president "to be content with the Floridas." https://books.google.com/books?id=7aw-AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT391 According to Robert Remini, "What Jackson forgot in 1844 were all the good reasons that once compelled him to lay aside temporarily his true expansionist sentiments." A less charitable biographer might observe that Jackson often felt free to rewrite history, as when he bizarrely told Philip Hamilton, "Colonel, your Father was not in favor of the Bank of the United States." ) It is very unlikely that the US could have gotten all of Texas in the Adams-Onis Treaty, even if it had been willing to pay more money. (Besides Florida, the US got the dubious Spanish claim to the Oregon Country.) However, there is an alternative which seems more plausible and which I haven't seen discussed here: the US gets Texas up to the Colorado River (of Texas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_(Texas) At least two sources confirm the plausibility of this:

(1) Thomas A. Bailey, *A Diplomatic History of the American People* (10th edition 1980), pp. 172-4:

"In Washington the Adams-Onis negotiations on Florida, which had been rudely interrupted by the Jacksonian invasion, were now renewed. Incredibly enough, the bull-in-the-china-shop tactics of Jackson had actually facilitated the work of the diplomats. The slow-moving Spanish Court now saw clearly the handwriting on the wall. Laboring under domestic difficulties, lacking effective support from Britain, and hoping for a freer hand to crush the South-American rebels, Madrid perceived that Florida would inevitably fall to the grasping Yankee. The course of wisdom would be to dispose of the territory gracefully and for a consideration, while there was yet time, rather than lose it after a bloody, costly, and humiliating war...In essence, Spain ceded Florida and her vague toehold in Oregon in exchange for the tenuous American title to Texas and the renunciation of $5 million in claims...

"The subsequent history of the Adams-Onis pact was troubled. The Senate approved the treaty unanimously only two days after the signing...But the pact now met with an agonizing delay in Spain. The feet-dragging tactics of the Madrid regime could be partially accounted for by the Revolution of 1820 at home, and by personal intrigues over land grants in Florida. Perhaps most important of all was Spain's fear that once Florida was safely in the possession of the United States, Washington would promptly recognize the rebellious Latin-American republics. But Secretary Adams, faithful to his earlier policy, sternly resisted all pressures to extort a non-recognition pledge. The longer Spain withheld ratification, the more worried the administration became, and President Monroe forcibly considered a forcible occupation of Florida. But fortunately he decided upon a policy of patience, and Madrid finally yielded.

"The Senate was required to approve the treaty again, for the six-month time limit stipulated in the document had expired. Meanwhile, considerable opposition had developed, notably in the West, over the alleged surrender of Texas. Henry Clay, who was not unmindful of politics, denounced the base betrayal, while the *Louisiana Advertiser* declared that Texas was 'worth ten Floridas.' Finally, on February 19, 1821, the Senate again approved the treaty, this time with four dissenting votes.

"In fairness to Adams, one must say that he fought resolutely for the interests of his country. He strongly favored retaining Texas, *and the documents now reveal that he probably could have obtained the huge area to the Colorado River* [my emphasis] (about half of present Texas) if his colleagues had not overruled him. But practical politics, combined with the fearsome slavery issue, decreed against holding out for Texas. The South--even Andrew Jackson--had few qualms about sacrificing the West if, by so doing, the nation could acquire Florida. In fact, there probably would have been no treaty at all if the United States had not yielded its claims to *at least a substantial portion* [my emphasis] of Texas..." (pp. 172-4) True enough, but the area between the Colorado and the Rio Grande would seem to count as a "substantial portion."

(2) From a review of Philip Coolidge Brooks' book *Diplomacy and the Borderlands: The Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819* (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939):

"The Spanish foreign ministry, by successive instructions, authorized Onis to propose various lines from the Mississippi to the Sabine as the western limits of the United States, but Adams insisted upon the Colorado River flowing into Matagorda Bay as the minimum western delimitation. Onis resorted to subterfuge in contending that the only Colorado the Spaniards knew was the Red River passing by Natchitoches, Louisiana. When news of Jackson's invasion of Florida reached the capital in July, 1818, only Adams among the Washington officials defended Jackson, in order 'to bolster his diplomatic strategy.' Uneasy lest the United States occupy other Spanish territory, Onis expedited his discussions with Adams. At these conferences Adams first mentioned extending the boundary line to the Pacific Ocean.

"In January, 1819, Onis received instructions to agree first to the Colorado if necessary to avoid a rupture in the negotiations, and second, to grant the extension to the Pacific. But Onis offered only the Sabine as the western limit; then north and west to the Pacific, however, the proposed line followed approximately the course finally agreed upon. Adams regretted giving up Texas, but he considered that concession requisite for an agreement, since Onis concealed his instructions to yield to the
Colorado. Furthermore, Adams was securing a major point in his demands-- the first title by treaty of the United States to land on the Pacific." http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth146053/m1/430/

So suppose the US government learns--or in any event guesses--that Onis has been authorized to cede Texas east of the Colorado and insists that he do so. (President Monroe swallows his doubts about provoking Northern antislavery opinion; he figures that this is such a good deal it is worth the risk.) Questions:

(1) Will the inclusion of part of Texas lead antislavery Northerners to reject the treaty? It would certainly provoke opposition, especially in the Northeast. Still, there would be many Northerners, especially in the Northwest, who would favor expansion into Texas. At that time, the Northwest was not as differentiated from the Southwest as it would later become. (Many of its residents, after all, were from the South; and recently admitted Illinois, though it had formally banned slavery, had African American "apprentices.")

(2) Assuming the treaty is ratified, is the Missouri Compromise still possible, or are enough Northerners outraged to prevent it? In OTL, Rufus King wrote in 1820 that the ban on slavery north of the Compromise line did not amount to much, because (a) the act in that particular could always be revoked by a subsequent Congress, and (b) the "Spanish Province of Texas" would be brought into the Union as a slave state. (Both of these prophecies of course turned out to be accurate.) [1] If the "Spanish Province of Texas"--or even half of it--had already been acquired, the idea that the Compromise was a sell-out to the South would gain popularity in the North, especially the Northeast.

(3) Assuming the US ratifies the treaty (and that the Missouri Compromise still passes, so that the Union is saved), presumably the resistance to ratification in Spain is even stronger than in OTL. Let us, however, assume that as in OTL, Spain eventually gives in, realizing that if it does not do so, the US might simply seize both Florida *and* Texas (the latter possibly even beyond the Colorado River line). The treaty must as in OTL be re-ratified by the US Senate. This time, unlike the OTL re-ratification, the critics are likely to be, not angry Westerners, but angry Northeasterners, who even if they voted for the treaty a couple of years earlier, feel that in view of the further course the Missouri controversy has taken in the past two years, they must now reject southward expansion.

(4) Let's assume that with support from the South and from just enough Northerners, this *Adams-Onis treaty is re-ratified. Mexico then gains independence and includes Texas south of the Colorado. Can it retain this area, and if so, for how long? There will certainly be a temptation for American settlers to move across the Colorado; this was not a desert border--by 1850, counties either south of the Colorado or straddling it had about one-fourth the population of Texas (though of course much of that population was Mexican). Still, the border does presumably count for something, and settlers may move west before they move south.

So there are two Texases--American (up to the Colorado) and Mexican. For the sake of convenience, let's call the American one Texas and the Mexican one Tejas. What are the consequences for US politics? (Eventually the Jacksonians *still* criticize John Quincy Adams for not having gotten the Rio Grande, but even they will probably not call for a war to "reclaim" it as a boundary.)

Texas is presumably admitted to the Union as a slave state by some time in the 1830's. (The list of Senators, Representatives, Governors, etc. of Texas will probably contain some names unfamiliar to us and lack some familiar names. Because Texas after 1819 is already part of the US, some people will move there who didn't in OTL--and some people who moved there in OTL will not.) Like most frontier states it is probably Democratic-leaning, but its electoral votes will not be enough to save Van Buren in 1840.

Assuming that as in OTL we get President Harrison followed by "Don't Call Me Acting" President Tyler, what happens if in 1844 we get no Texas issue? (Unless the alleged mistreatment of US settlers in Tejas becomes an issue.)

Also, what happens to two famous heroes--Sam Houston and Davy Crockett? In this TL, with no Battle of San Jacinto, I think Houston is remembered mostly as an eccentric who after some incident with his bride stepped down as Governor of Tennessee and fled to the Cherokee country. Even if he eventually moves to Tejas, his chances of leading a successful revolt there are much less than in OTL Texas. Does Crockett also move to Tejas to escape the indignity of living in the US under Van Buren? ("Before I will submit to his government I will go to the Wilds of Texas" he said in OTL--AFAIK the *first* case in US history of someone prominent saying "If so-and-so is elected, I am moving to...") Of course by the time Van Buren was elected in OTL, Crockett had already perished at the Alamo. But I doubt that there will be any Battle of the Alamo in this ATL; Tejas will have far fewer Americans than Texas did in OTL, and it will be harder to have an American-settler revolt with any prospect of success.

But that is only true if the American settlers in Tejas are acting on their own. One thing that occurs to me is that for decades there was talk of forming an independent "Republic of the Sierra Madre" composed of the northern states of Mexico. Trying to create such a republic became an almost traditional accusation against northern *caudillos.* According to Ronnie C. Tyler's *Santiago Vidaurri and the Southern Confederacy* (Austin: Texas State Historical Association 1973), pp. 22-3, in the case of Vidaurri in 1855 these accusations may have had some substance to them: "Texas slaveholders had contacted Vidaurri immediately after his victory requesting that he found a republic in northern Mexico to serve as a buffer zone between slave territory and free territory, which would enable them to retrieve their fugitive slaves who had sought freedom in Mexico." (See http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/fugitive-slaves-mexico.pdf on fugitive slaves in Mexico.)

Now presumably if the border between the US and Mexico is the Colorado rather than the Rio Grande, Texas slaveholders will be even more anxious about the escape of fugitive slaves to Mexico, because the border will be much closer than in OTL to places with substantial numbers of slaves. (See the map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_texas/slaves_population_1860.jpg though of course one should remember that some counties just north of the Colorado might have fewer slaves than in OTL precisely because the Mexican border--and escape--would be nearby.) Consequently, we can expect to see northern Mexican caudillos' attempts to establish a Republic of the Rio Grande (which would include Tejas as well as Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Chihuahua) to be supported not only by US settlers in Tejas but also by Texans and other Southerners in the US. (In OTL, some people in independent Texas hoped for the establishment of a Republic of the Rio Grande circa 1840 which would serve as a barrier between Texas and Mexico, which had refused to recognize Texan independence: see https://web.archive.org/web/20120511040209/http://www.fotw.net/flags/mx-rgr.html The difference between that proposed republic and the one I am discussing here is that the latter would extend to the Colorado.) Obviously whether such a republic would survive would depend on how much help Texans and other Southerners would give it (and how powerful the South was in the US government) and also on how strong or feeble the Mexican government was.

[1] King's letter to Oliver Wolcott, Jr., May 3, 1820:

"..the Missouri question is carried without Restriction, by the requisite Majority--and tho there is a restriction agt. slavery in such part of the remaining Territory as lies north of 36° 30' No. lat., Arkansas and another State to be formed west of it & north of 36° 30' will be slave States, Florida also will be a fourth state, and I think that I perceive that west of the River Sabine another Region, the Spanish Province of Texas, will now be demanded of Spain so as there to form a fifth slave state. In the course of Time, one more state may be settled on the Mississippi above 36° 30' n. lat. The residue of the Country on this side of the Rocky mountains will for ages be unsettled.

"The observation of a Compromise is therefore deceptive. The slave States with the requisite Recruits from the Senators & Representatives of the free States have carried the Question--we are absolutely and completely defeated--the pretended Concession, for it is revocable at pleasure is itself of no value, and has been provided as an apology to the Members of the free States who have assisted in putting us under a Govt. of the privileged order of Men who are henceforth to be & forever to remain our Masters..."
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02718838&id=MKbUBItEWhcC&pg=RA3-PA287&lpg=RA3-PA287
Top