WI Napoleon gains Florida and/or northern Mexico in Treaty of San Ildefonso?

If Napoleon got more territory from Spain in New World,US would have bought it and kept it

  • yes

    Votes: 24 100.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if in addition to regaining Louisiana from Spain through this treaty, Napoleon also secured the cession of Florida, Texas, New Mexico and Alta California, perhaps in exchange for a revised more favorable boundary of whatever territory the Spanish Bourbons were getting in compensation (I think it was Parma, but perhaps it was Tuscany)?

Presuming there is still a French failure to defeat the Haitian revolution, and a resumption of Anglo-French warfare, would Napoleon offer all this expanded territory for sale to the US?

Would the US purchase it all? What would it pay?

If the US did pay for it all, could it successfully establish and maintain sovereign control over it in the ensuing years, or are other powers (chiefly Britain) likely to contest US claims and take it over themselves? Or would separatists in the far flung regions of this territory rebel and make it stick?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How does this affect the politics of slavery?

Well- initially, it should not effect it much differently than OTL's Louisiana Purchase did. While slavery was *an* issue it was not *the* defining political fault line in 1803, and no special compromise was made to deal with the Louisiana Purchase. The Northwest Ordinance ban was not extended, but it was not as controversial as later proposed slavery expansions.

Emancipation was still in progress in the north at this point and I am guessing the north did not solidly identify itself as free states in 1803 as it did by 1820, that identification became much more relevant after the war of 1812 and by 1820 and the period of the Missouri Compromise.

But, when it does become an issue, and it easily could, by 1820, I suppose the solution will be to extend the 36-30 line to the west coast, with California split into two different territories.

Of course that all assumes that California can be held over the intervening time, especially if there's a war with Britain in the meantime.

Other effects on the politics of slavery- Northerners won't marry their anti-slavery sentiments in the 1840s with sentiments against a wicked, aggressive war against Mexico, because America is much, much less likely to fight Mexico in this ATL.

I could imagine the southerners still coming to find the 36-30 line insufficient, and that widening the sectional divide over slavery by mid-century.

In terms of American foreign policy, I imagine the US will be equally Monroe Doctrine minded.

I also imagine that American commercial interest in Gran Colombia's Panama Isthmus and Nicaragua will rise early because of the transit route it provides to California.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
We could try to obtain some similar results with an earlier PoD. For instance, the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697, in which Spain conceded to France control of the western third of Hispaniola (aka Haiti) could with some changes have ceded territory to France on the mainland, like Texas, Florida, or New Mexico and Upper California.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How would the presence of an Hispanic population influe on the politics?

In these early times, not so much. None of the former Spanish west will be on track for statehood quickly. And in terms of population numbers, the Spanish speaking population in the territories probably is not any greater than the French-speaking population acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The only thing giving Tejanos, Nuevo Mexicanos and Californios a little more political leverage is their extra distance from the Anglo-American core and ability to threaten credibly to revolt or flirt with foreign powers.
 
How would the presence of an Hispanic population influe on the politics?
It was only around the time of the Mexican-American War that the territories listed were beginning to be populated in any relevant numbers, with the obvious exception of Texas. And at this time, Texas was still underpopulated. Honestly, there wouldn't be all that many new Hispanic citizens at all, especially not compared proportionally to the Anglo-American population or even the Native American population. This might mean a worse situation for Hispanic citizens though, as Southern expansion into Texas will he even faster, and the spillover further West will probably mean discrimination against local populations in favor of the new white settlers.
 
Top