WI: Mexico sold California and New Mexico to the US (in 1845)?

Deleted member 100251

So, prior to the Mexican-American War, President Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico (on November 10, 1845), in order to offer money to buy the Mexican territories of Nuevo Mexico and Alta California. 5 Million for Nuevo Mexico and 40 Million for Alta California.

Slidell was dismissed by the Mexican Government, who also refused to meet with him.

So, what would happen if the Mexican Government didn't dismiss Slidell and arranged a deal to sell the 2 territories to the US?

Remember by then Mexico had broken off diplomatic relations with the US (regarding Texas), so is it even possible for them to accept?
If so, do you think the terms for selling Nuevo Mexico and Alta California would be different?
Like establishing a border for Texas? The Mexicans wanted it to be along the Nueces River, but the US declared Texas' border with Mexico to be along the Rio Grande River.
The price would probably be higher. While Mexico would probably have to recognize American annexation of Texas.

Would this avert the Mexican-American War?
 

AcaciaSgt

Not sure what needs to be changed for them to accept. They've been saying "No" to purchase attempts since the 1820's (Poinsett was told no twice regarding Texas). By the 1840's they had even less reasons to say "Yes" than before.

Anyway, assuming it does happen that the land is sold... well, most likely it might. But honestly, don't know. It would depend on what happens regarding to extending the Missouri Compromise Line west and/or if the Southerners want to expand further.
 

Deleted member 100251

AcaciaSgt said:
Not sure what needs to be changed for them to accept. They've been saying "No" to purchase attempts since the 1820's (Poinsett was told no twice regarding Texas). By the 1840's they had even less reasons to say "Yes" than before.

Anyway, assuming it does happen that the land is sold... well, most likely it might. But honestly, don't know. It would depend on what happens regarding to extending the Missouri Compromise Line west and/or if the Southerners want to expand further.
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts. What would happen to states like California (assuming a version of it gets carved out of Alta California), if the Missouri Compromise is extended further west.
Could we see the west be more rural, and less industrialized then areas are today?
How would this effect the Civil War (assuming it happens)?
 

Deleted member 100251

Does anyone know the US's GDP (nominal) in 1845?
 

Sicarius

Beta.003 said:
Remember by then Mexico had broken off diplomatic relations with the US (regarding Texas), so is it even possible for them to accept?
Click to expand...
It's not terribly likely. The reaction to Slidell trying to just present his credentials caused such a fierce reaction that the Herrera government had to flee Mexico City. I can't imagine a conservative accepting it; I can't imagine a liberal not being overthrown if he tried.

But that's no fun, so. Slidell was a huge jerk and had no idea how to deal with Mexico. He had zero sensitivity to the psychic wounds the Texas secession had left on the body politic. If you sent someone down there who had some experience with the Mexican way, and some tact, you might get farther. Too, it would help to have a Mexican president who a.) has firm backing by the military, and b.) is outrageously corrupt. Fortunately (for thread purposes) just such a man exists: Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón. You'd have to fiddle with the timeline to have him in power at the right moment, but Santa Anna popping back into power at improbable times is firmly OTL. Just imagine a large scale version of the Gadsden Purchase, complete with all the money disappearing into bribes, palaces, and awesome military uniforms.
 

AcaciaSgt

Sicarius said:
It's not terribly likely. The reaction to Slidell trying to just present his credentials caused such a fierce reaction that the Herrera government had to flee Mexico City. I can't imagine a conservative accepting it; I can't imagine a liberal not being overthrown if he tried.

But that's no fun, so. Slidell was a huge jerk and had no idea how to deal with Mexico. He had zero sensitivity to the psychic wounds the Texas secession had left on the body politic. If you sent someone down there who had some experience with the Mexican way, and some tact, you might get farther. Too, it would help to have a Mexican president who a.) has firm backing by the military, and b.) is outrageously corrupt. Fortunately (for thread purposes) just such a man exists: Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón. You'd have to fiddle with the timeline to have him in power at the right moment, but Santa Anna popping back into power at improbable times is firmly OTL. Just imagine a large scale version of the Gadsden Purchase, complete with all the money disappearing into bribes, palaces, and awesome military uniforms.
Click to expand...

I would disagree on Santa Anna. Gadsden Purchase was mostly a case of "Fine, let's see if selling land for once we avoid loosing even more later" (if I'm not mistaken, places like Baja were almost lost if not from actions like these), helped by the being after the war when it was clear they had no chance to defend it otherwise. Other than that, he would be as much against selling land as anyone. Unless you go Treaty of Velasco 2.0
 
HaroldGodwinson

HaroldGodwinson

Beta.003 said:
So, prior to the Mexican-American War, President Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico (on November 10, 1845), in order to offer money to buy the Mexican territories of Nuevo Mexico and Alta California. 5 Million for Nuevo Mexico and 40 Million for Alta California.

Slidell was dismissed by the Mexican Government, who also refused to meet with him.

So, what would happen if the Mexican Government didn't dismiss Slidell and arranged a deal to sell the 2 territories to the US?

Remember by then Mexico had broken off diplomatic relations with the US (regarding Texas), so is it even possible for them to accept?
If so, do you think the terms for selling Nuevo Mexico and Alta California would be different?
Like establishing a border for Texas? The Mexicans wanted it to be along the Nueces River, but the US declared Texas' border with Mexico to be along the Rio Grande River.
The price would probably be higher. While Mexico would probably have to recognize American annexation of Texas.

Would this avert the Mexican-American War?
Click to expand...

POD: Martin Van Buren wins the Democratic nomination after he agrees to support Texas annexation.

Van Buren/Polk win the general election.

Van Buren negotiates the peaceful annexation of Texas with Mexico in 1845.

A few years later, the Mexican government needs money and agrees to sell a large chunk of territory (N California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado) to the US in 1848. All this territory is north of the Missouri Compromise line and is therefore free territory.

No Mexican War would mean no dress-rehearsal for the Civil War.

1848: Polk/Pierce wins the over Clay/Fillmore.

1850: Polk dies in office and Vice President Franklin Pierce becomes the 13th President.

1852: Pierce/King wins over Scott/Graham.

1854-1864: Pretty much the same as OTL.

1865: Mexico agrees to sell the US the rest of California (including Baja) and New Mexico.
 

M79

It might also alter national boundaries a bit. California might be divided at the Tehachapi mountains (LA and possibly Las Vegas remain in Mexican hands) while New Mexico might not include what later became the Confederate Territory of Arizona (adios Phoenix and Tuscon). As for the Civil War it depends on how the territory gets divided and whether William Walker et al can succeed in filibusters later on. As for Mexico this will further fragment the government and might prevent them from retaking the Yucatan at all. There were two or three other provinces seeking their own way as well and without the Mexican American War I am unsure if Mexico as we recognize it survives.
 

Deleted member 100251

HaroldGodwinson said:
POD: Martin Van Buren wins the Democratic nomination after he agrees to support Texas annexation.

Van Buren/Polk win the general election.

Van Buren negotiates the peaceful annexation of Texas with Mexico in 1845.

A few years later, the Mexican government needs money and agrees to sell a large chunk of territory (N California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado) to the US in 1848. All this territory is north of the Missouri Compromise line and is therefore free territory.

No Mexican War would mean no dress-rehearsal for the Civil War.

1848: Polk/Pierce wins the over Clay/Fillmore.

1850: Polk dies in office and Vice President Franklin Pierce becomes the 13th President.

1852: Pierce/King wins over Scott/Graham.

1854-1864: Pretty much the same as OTL.

1865: Mexico agrees to sell the US the rest of California (including Baja) and New Mexico.
Click to expand...
Interesting TL I'm liking it. I presume North California is the same as here?
\/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California
 
HaroldGodwinson

HaroldGodwinson

HaroldGodwinson said:
POD: Martin Van Buren wins the Democratic nomination after he agrees to support Texas annexation.

Van Buren/Polk win the general election.

Van Buren negotiates the peaceful annexation of Texas with Mexico in 1845.

A few years later, the Mexican government needs money and agrees to sell a large chunk of territory (N California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado) to the US in 1848. All this territory is north of the Missouri Compromise line and is therefore free territory.

No Mexican War would mean no dress-rehearsal for the Civil War.

1848: Polk/Pierce wins the over Clay/Fillmore.

1850: Polk dies in office and Vice President Franklin Pierce becomes the 13th President.

1852: Pierce/King wins over Scott/Graham.

1854-1864: Pretty much the same as OTL.

1865: Mexico agrees to sell the US the rest of California (including Baja) and New Mexico.
Click to expand...

1876: Samuel Tilden wins the election after he wins Southern California.

1880: Tilden retires and Hendricks beats Garfield.

1884: Hendricks loses reelection to Blaine.

1888: Blaine reelected over Cleveland.

1892: Cleveland elected presodent.

1896-present: Very similar to OTL.

TODAY: The US has 51 states with South California being a state.
 

Deleted member 100251

HaroldGodwinson said:
1876: Samuel Tilden wins the election after he wins Southern California.

1880: Tilden retires and Hendricks beats Garfield.

1884: Hendricks loses reelection to Blaine.

1888: Blaine reelected over Cleveland.

1892: Cleveland elected presodent.

1896-present: Very similar to OTL.

TODAY: The US has 51 states with South California being a state.
Click to expand...
Nice. I'm liking how you finished the TL.

How is South California different from today?
Does the entertainment industry (well more specifically Hollywood and maybe the early days of Disney) take its home there?
 
HaroldGodwinson

HaroldGodwinson

Governors of California since the 1943.

Earl Warren.............1943-1953
Pat Brown...............1955-1967
George Christopher...1967-1975
Jerry Brown.............1975-1983[1]
Leo McCarthy...........1983-1991
Dianne Feinstein.......1991-1999
Kathleen Brown........1999-2011
Meg Whitman...........2011-2015
Kamela Harris...........2015-present

Governors of South California since the 1943.

Fredrick F. Houser..........1943-1951
Goodwin Knight.............1951-1959
Sam Yorty.....................1959-1967[2]
Ronald Reagan..............1967-1975
Houston Flournoy...........1975-1983
George Deukmejian........1983-1991
Pete Wilson...................1991-1999
Gray Davis....................1999-2003
Bill Simon.....................2003-2011 [3]
Arnold Schwarzenegger...2011-present

[1] Brown has served in the Senate since 1983. He runs for president in 1988, 1992, and 2004, making him the Harold Stassen of the Democraitc Party.
[2] Yorty runs for President in 1968 and 1972. He doesn't win, but his favorite-son candidacy in 1968 causes Bobby Kennedy to stay out of California and avoid assassination. Kennedy will run again in '72 and be the front-runner until he is shot and killed in Maryland.
[3] Simon ran for President in 2008 and 2012. He wins the nomination in 2012 but loses the general election.
 
Last edited:

M79

Beta.003 said:
Interesting TL I'm liking it. I presume North California is the same as here?
\/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Think of Bakersfield and Santa Monica as being just north of the border in this case as mountains would make for easy boundaries. Las Vegas and Los Angeles end up just on the Mexican side but the gold fields stay American. Aguascalientes and the Yucatan continue their separation efforts as does Los Altos and eventually the USM begins to fragment.
Sonora and Baja become a filibuster nation. And the decline continues from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top