USA Buys Texas to the Colorado River

[Umbric Man]

From 1804-1807 (pgs 114-115), 1818-1819 (pgs 136-137), and as late as 1825-1829, the USA attempted to buy Texas north of the Colorado River-in-Texas from mouth to source (at the 103rd meridian, Texas's OTL western border) and then a straight line north to the "highlands" (watershed border, IE the bluffs that rise to become the Sangre de Cristo Mountains) of the Mississippi River basin (or, a line north to the Arkansas River post-Transcontinental Treaty) as part of the Louisiana Territory. A physical buffer for New Orleans was the original major factor, once American colonists started settling Texas absorbing them became an additional one. Geographically, Texas north of this river is similar in rainfall and fertility to the Mississippi watershed east of it while to the south it becomes more arid, and in ethnocultural terms the majority of American Texians settled north of it when studying maps showing where empresario claims and English place-names are of at the time.

What are the butterflies that evolve if the northern half of Texas is peacefully purchased by America? It would take the half of Texas that's seen as fertile and has a little over half of the modern-day state - plenty of land for southern farmers to settle. The Colorado River and Sangre de Cristo Mountains are genuinely convenient natural borders. There's a strong chance the Mexican-American War is averted if *Texas is already part of the USA (since *New Mexico and *Socal's primary value of the time was as a southern route to the Pacific) and it could focus more strongly on the Pacific Northwest for western seaports and to mollify northern expansionists the way southern ones were before the Missouri Compromise would even become an issue. And speaking of that and statehood, *Texans won't be fighting a war of independence as a singular province but start out as a part of Louisiana Territory with a greater likelihood of being split up into various states... though the distance and borderland status nonetheless may evoke some sense of regionalism.

 

[durante]

It could be great for Mexico. How much money were they talking?

I'm not sure it butterflies the Mexican-American war, but it could, and that is fantastic news for Mexico.

 

[Umbric Man]

It could be great for Mexico. How much money were they talking?

I'm not sure it butterflies the Mexican-American war, but it could, and that is fantastic news for Mexico.

Amazingly, five million dollars was the most common price in all the negotiations - it was the most common and median price discussed in 1804-1807 (when they were trying to buy the Floridas alongside talking about Louisiana's western border), was the amount paid for the Floridas in the OTL Transcontinental Treaty and without reference to any higher amount when discussing the west as part of that, and Henry Clay and JQ Adams were willing to spend that much in the 1820s for it in alone once Florida was secured.

I'm truly curious and even leaning it can butterfly the war away because the potential for a number of states (since Texas wouldn't think of itself as a singular entity without a war for independence, it's just part of the Louisiana Territory when first settled) can help offset the inevitable free-slave divide, and the USA in further attempts to purchase Texas and a western corridor to the Pacific in OTL's 1830s focused on "empty" - of European and Mexican settlement - lands above the 37th parallel which would allow Pacific access in general. The southwest was nabbed almost entirely so southerners could settle land for extra states since Texas came in as one big one alongside desire for specific Pacific access. Here those arguments become nonexistent or much weaker.

 

[durante]

Amazingly, five million dollars was the most common price in all the negotiations - it was the most common and median price discussed in 1804-1807 (when they were trying to buy the Floridas alongside talking about Louisiana's western border), was the amount paid for the Floridas in the OTL Transcontinental Treaty and without reference to any higher amount when discussing the west as part of that, and Henry Clay and JQ Adams were willing to spend that much in the 1820s for it in alone once Florida was secured.

I'm truly curious if it can butterfly the war away because the potential for a number of states (since Texas wouldn't think of itself as a singular entity without a war for independence, it's just part of the Louisiana Territory when first settled) can help offset the inevitable free-slave divide, and the USA in further attempts to purchase Texas and a western corridor to the Pacific in OTL's 1830s focused on "empty" - of European and Mexican settlement - lands above the 37th parallel which would allow Pacific access in general (and lessen the argument that southerners need one in specific).

Hindsight being what it is, Mexico should take the deal and use the money to build up their military and encourage settlement of California and what remains of Texas.

Hopefully the climactic differences between American Texas and Mexican Tejas (?) means less Americans move into the Mexican area...but even if everything goes right, wont a war be prompted by the discovery of gold in California?

 

[Umbric Man]

Hindsight being what it is, Mexico should take the deal and use the money to build up their military and encourage settlement of California and what remains of Texas.

Hopefully the climactic differences between American Texas and Mexican Tejas (?) means less Americans move into the Mexican area...but even if everything goes right, wont a war be prompted by the discovery of gold in California?

It's why I mentioned the talk on the potential land purchases of the 1830s for Texas and above the 37th parallel. Mexico was actually willing to hear that out but was partly dissuaded by the ambassador (Butler)'s rudeness, partly by British creditors pressuring them by not needing the traditional North American rival gaining more territory and Pacific access. If part of Texas is already purchased and preferably pre-independence, Mexico at the time may not really mind seeing relatively worthless land and a nice but one of many Pacific ports (San Francisco, natch) sold off for some easy cash. Simply put, if enough peaceful purchases happen or at least the right ones, a LOT of grief is avoided for Mexico, and a LOT of justification for Manifest Destiny is lost because America has plenty of land and stretches from sea to sea.

This link in particular explains the USA wanted to avoid established Mexican settlements outside of Texas, where by now they wanted the entire Rio Grande border.

EDIT: And this is one where the British pressured a purchase to not happen, presumably behind the scenes.

 

[Insane Ranter]

I think you will still get a Mexican-American War just later like 1848-1849 if the discovery of gold is the same as in OTL. When Spain lost Mexico due to independence the governance of California changed a great deal. With a large number and influx of Non-Mexicans into the area for various reasons. California fought what could be seen as a war of independence alongside the Mexican-American War against Mexico.

I'm not certain that this results in a Mexican victory. It might even cause Mexico to lose more territory in OTL Mexico due to the US in this timeline already having a large area under its control before the war. But even then I think the opposition to adding territory would be like our timeline.

Just some speculations.