The US gets Texas up to the Colorado River in 1819: Effects on further expansion?

[Ricardolindo]

The US could have had Texas up to the Colorado River in the Adam-Onis Treaty in 1819. What are the effects of this? I think this could have, actually, hurt the US in the long run. In our timeline, almost all American settlers in Tejas were east of the Colorado. Thus, the Texas Revolution almost certainly wouldn't happen. Could this timeline end up with Mexico keeping Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and rump Tejas?

 

[Japhy]

US expansionism, fueled by the need for more land to crow Cash Crops isn't going to be sated that way. By that point it seems likely that the US would still aggressively pursue Mexican lands especially since the Comanche Wars aren't going to be butterflied away by the PoD.

 

[Ricardolindo]

US expansionism, fueled by the need for more land to crow Cash Crops isn't going to be sated that way. By that point it seems likely that the US would still aggressively pursue Mexican lands especially since the Comanche Wars aren't going to be butterflied away by the PoD.

I agree that Mexico isn't going to keep all its territory. The US absolutely wanted a port in the San Francisco Bay area. However, I think it's doable for them to keep the territories I listed, which are closer to their heartlands and that the US didn't want that badly.
Also, I think it's worth noting that Texas east of the Colorado River is still the South and when you cross the river, the Southwest begins.

 

[zaffre]

Agree with Japhy that a Colorado River border doesn’t really deal with the core issue of a power imbalance and a lot of American politicians willing to pursue an amoral foreign policy - the most immediate consequences are probably with the Missouri Compromise the next year, actually, just because it no longer creates *at most* one slave territory but instead promises to expand slavery quite a bit. Not convinced this would be a true dealbreaker, but I think you would see a different line drawn or a bit more Northern discontentment, either of which would have knock-ons.

 

[Yossarian]

Also, I think it's worth noting that Texas east of the Colorado River is still the South and when you cross the river, the Southwest begins.

That's not really relevant to the broader issue Japhy and zaffre have identified, though; how does the US expanding further and earlier constrain the pressures that IOTL led to the desire to expand into Mexican land? If anything, it'd open up the Southwest earlier and make it easier for American emigrants to trickle into northwest Mexican territories.

Besides which, Southern planters still want to expand west, Eastern emigrants will be lured further and further west by the promise of open land ("well, the Mexicans aren't really using it" will still be the argument; Nuevo Mexico wasn't exactly governed to the standard of the metropole), and sooner or later the gold of California will invite a rush like OTL.

There's also an open question of whether the Mexican indepedentists would recognise a treaty that carved off a big chunk of their northeast. Texas irredenta might actually be an earlier flashpoint for US-Mexican antipathy.

 

[Japhy]

I agree that Mexico isn't going to keep all its territory. The US absolutely wanted a port in the San Francisco Bay area. However, I think it's doable for them to keep the territories I listed, which are closer to their heartlands and that the US didn't want that badly.
Also, I think it's worth noting that Texas east of the Colorado River is still the South and when you cross the river, the Southwest begins.

The US was just as committed to securing easy lines of communication with the ports they wanted on the West Coast so no I don't think that the border you're proposing is likely as an American goal. It can happen as a feat of Mexican Arms but not due to the United States shrugging off its expansionist goals.

Also that is a very arbitrary line to try and claim separates the two regions.

 

[Ricardolindo]

That's not really relevant to the broader issue Japhy and zaffre have identified, though; how does the US expanding further and earlier constrain the pressures that IOTL led to the desire to expand into Mexican land? If anything, it'd open up the Southwest earlier and make it easier for American emigrants to trickle into northwest Mexican territories.

Besides which, Southern planters still want to expand west, Eastern emigrants will be lured further and further west by the promise of open land ("well, the Mexicans aren't really using it" will still be the argument; Nuevo Mexico wasn't exactly governed to the standard of the metropole), and sooner or later the gold of California will invite a rush like OTL.

There's also an open question of whether the Mexican indepedentists would recognise a treaty that carved off a big chunk of their northeast. Texas irredenta might actually be an earlier flashpoint for US-Mexican antipathy.

The US was just as committed to securing easy lines of communication with the ports they wanted on the West Coast so no I don't think that the border you're proposing is likely as an American goal. It can happen as a feat of Mexican Arms but not due to the United States shrugging off its expansionist goals.

Also that is a very arbitrary line to try and claim separates the two regions.

I agree that observation isn't very relevant to the discussion. I just wanted to mention it. I would say that Texas east of the Colorado is definitely the South and that, to its west, the Southwest gradually begins, with the increasingly arid climate.
Regardless, back to the discussion, the 37th parallel north looks like a good border to me. The US still has territory to communicate with its western ports. Also, the gold was only in Northern California.
Also, I don't think Mexico would really care about a remote and almost unpopulated piece of land.

 

[Ricardolindo]

That's not really relevant to the broader issue Japhy and zaffre have identified, though; how does the US expanding further and earlier constrain the pressures that IOTL led to the desire to expand into Mexican land? If anything, it'd open up the Southwest earlier and make it easier for American emigrants to trickle into northwest Mexican territories.

Expanding on this bit, as I said, almost all American settlers in Tejas were east of the Colorado. West of it, the land gets arid and agriculture is harder. Thus, I'm not sure American settlers would be very interested in it.

 

[Steve Brinson]

Expanding on this bit, as I said, almost all American settlers in Tejas were east of the Colorado. West of it, the land gets arid and agriculture is harder. Thus, I'm not sure American settlers would be very interested in it.

Yes, but it's not clear how obvious that was at the time - Southern ambitions to much of arid northern Mexico thrived throughout the period, and "rain follows the plow" would be conventional wisdom for decades further. If anything would constrain American ambitions, it would be the fear of the Comanche, and that didn't stop them OTL either.

Also, I don't think Mexico would really care about a remote and almost unpopulated piece of land.

I don't think it says anything positive about Mexico's level of interest in Texas that they let it get full of Americanos, but at the same time "it was shitty land anyway" doesn't strike me as that convincing of a response to "they took our land" in the public eye. It could be important for political reasons without having that much practical resonance.

 

[Arthur_Phuxache]