British California and/or Texas

I was looking around on the internet, and I found that Pio Pico (the last Mexican governor of California) was in favour of California becoming a British protectorate. I also read about a British Admiral Seymour who was beaten to San Fransisco by the American Commodore John D. Sloat.

I also read (at the Texas State Library and Archives Commision website) that "President Houston’s government wanted to preserve Texas independence and was prepared to throw itself into the arms of Great Britain to secure it."
And also, "Houston ordered the Texas chargé d’affaires in Washington, Isaac Van Zandt, to drop any further efforts to secure American aid or reopen the annexation issue." Then basically the US heard about Texas considering being a protectorate and decided to annex Texas after all. From what I had read, Britain had been pretty friendly with Texas and Houston had called Britain a 'friend' and the US an 'enemy'.

Britain wanted slavery abolished in Texas before they would take them in, so what (if anything) could have abolished slavery in Texas so they could be admitted? Or could the abolishonists in the North that didn't want another slave state in have refused to annex a slave territory and stopped Texas from being annexed?

Then the unannexed and independant Republic of Texas could have had a war with Mexico, and then could have called in the British for help.


Any ideas, comments, facts, critisisms, or any other help?

Sloat’s conquest, on July 7, 1846, was fortuitous, for sailing ever more closely (less than two weeks away) to Monterey was Admiral Seymour and his English Pacific Fleet. Seymour intended to seize the town and all of California in payment of a huge debt owed to England by Mexico.

Click to expand...

http://museumofmonterey.org/events/sloat-landing/

I don't know much more about this, but the Museum of Monterey seems to be a reputable museum. I don't know if Britain just expected Mexico to accept it, or if they were prepared for a war. This would make the US invoke the Monroe Doctrine.

There are a couple interesting things here. The British wanted California, and they kind of wanted Texas. They perhaps could have gotten an alliance or protectorate out of Texas had the US Senate not approved (I believe it was close, by two votes if I recall correctly), perhaps over a longer Texan-Mexican conflict, or if a notable politician changes his mind.

I don't know how long the British could keep the West (as I imagine they'd own everything between California and Texas, or take it in the eventual war with Mexico), but this would stage them for further expansion in Oregon Country. The US would not tolerate this. I imagine it would be 54-40 or fight, ending in a fight. But how would this fight play out? Would the US and Mexicans ally with one another against a common enemy? Would Texans really accept the British if they had to fight the Americans?

If the British had gotten Texas as a protectorate (driven by rejection by the US, if that's the only way), a war with the US is nearly guaranteed. How would this war play out? I'm assuming the US would try to invade Canada again, and I assume they'd fail.

How is it possible to get a British California and/or Texas, and what would the US and Mexico do?

IMO, the issue that most vehemently pushed the Texans away from the British was slavery. One of the big reasons the Texan Revolution was fought was the ban on slavery in Mexican territory which irked Anglo-American settlers to no end, and I don't see the independent Texans throwing away something that they'd fought so hard to attain only a few years in the past.

Dathi's Canada Wank TL has both a British Tejas and a (northern) British California.

Britain was the worlds leading manufacturer at the time and was looking for market outlets, not raw materials. So I wonder why Britain would want to upset a market that is growing year on year (the US) by dumping the Monroe Doctorine, which it had supported for 20 years.

I feel the British would only intervene if it looked as if the USA was going to do nothing, but given the strenght of anti-slavery feeling in the UK it would be high on the adgenda to ban slavery.

TheMadPPSh said:

http://museumofmonterey.org/events/sloat-landing/

I don't know much more about this, but the Museum of Monterey seems to be a reputable museum. I don't know if Britain just expected Mexico to accept it, or if they were prepared for a war. This would make the US invoke the Monroe Doctrine.

Click to expand...

The only reason the Monroe Doctrine even worked was because of the backing of the UK. The Americans might kick up a fuss, but unless they're willing to go to war over California (which I highly doubt), it's kind of a moot point.

Color-Copycat said:

I don't see the independent Texans throwing away something that they'd fought so hard to attain only a few years in the past.

Click to expand...

I don't see that happening either. If it could happen, it would be to preserve their independence from Mexico if the US would not accept them into the union - which is possible but would need some trigger.

What about replacing slaves with indentured labor from British India? Such a scheme was set up in Dutch Guiana, if I recall correctly, and some minor islands (maybe Mauritius). I would love to see this happen if only to see the culinary combination of Indo-Tex-Mex. I assume tortillas would take the place of naan, but I imagine they're somewhat interchangeable. Rice is a common factor, and I'm sure the spiciness of Indian and Mexican food would mix well. The food aside, I don't think Texans would like immigration from India if the immigrants would have eventual equal status with Texians, so in the case that they would allow indentured Indian laborers they would be put in a second-class status.

If Britain also got California through their fleet that (it seems) tried to take California as payment for debts, perhaps Indian immigrants could replace the Chinese at least as the boogeyman for nativists to rally against. I imagine the California gold rush would attract settlers from the US no matter who owns it (I believe like the Yukon, but of course on a larger scale) but I am unsure whether British/Canadian immigrants would outnumber the Americans.

The Gunslinger said:

The only reason the Monroe Doctrine even worked was because of the backing of the UK. The Americans might kick up a fuss, but unless they're willing to go to war over California (which I highly doubt), it's kind of a moot point.

Click to expand...

So the US would not actually fight over it? I don't recall how seriously 54-40 or fight was taken in the US, but if it was then California would be the final straw. I don't see the US winning in a war and I don't see them seeing that either, so I don't think there would be a war. Unless I am misjudging the seriousness of 54-40 or fight and how it would have been amplified by a British allied Texas and British owned California (unsure about the lands in between).

The Mormons expected what is now Utah to be Mexican when they settled there, and they settled there after/during the US ownership of New Mexico (if that is what the Mexicans called it then), so I don't see the ownership of the land in this case being any different. The British position towards Deseret would probably be somewhat friendly, as I don't recall that the Mormons were that friendly with the Americans - there was an isolated massacre of American settlers headed west which might have only been isolated due to the fear of the US' military strength. I suppose the British would accept either an independent or nominally independent Deseret because they can't be bothered about administering such 'worthless' land when they have come into possession of the far more profitable lands of California and (either directly or with indirect control over) Texas.

So what I'd like to see (and I don't think its too far) would be that Texas' annexation was rejected by the US for some reason, and they enter an alliance with the British to preserve their independence (perhaps accepting Indian indentured laborers in exchange for abolishing slavery). A war between the UK and Texas on one side and the Mexicans on the other would be come from the border between Texas and Mexico, with the British taking California with Seymour's fleet. At the end of the war (Mexico is no match for the British in military terms), British have direct control over California and indirect control over Deseret (give perhaps a year for the Mormons to arrive), treaties establishing control over tribes in Arizona and New Mexico (I think Texas had claims here, so maybe it goes to them in the peace treaty) and an alliance or protectorate relationship with Texas. It would be hard for the US to not go to war, but they would not because they could not win. A war could come from escaping slaves fleeing Louisiana for Texas if the British do not require the slaves to return. How possible is this?

Stop me if this gets implausible.

I have a couple PODs.
1.) The Texan War of Independence is closer, leading to Texas accepting a treaty negotiated by Britain that puts Texas under Britain's protection in exchange for abolition of slaves in 5 years and replacement of them with Indian indentured servants
2.) The Peacemaker explosion kills President Tyler. I'm not sure who would succeed Tyler. I think this would cause a crisis in the US as Tyler had not (if I recall correctly) a vice president at this point. Tyler wanted Texas annexed and the US would be too busy with its internal affairs to pursue annexation unless the president (whoever that would be) was even more in favor of annexation than Tyler. This is interesting because of the potential butterflies. If anyone knows who would have succeeded Tyler had he also died in the Peacemaker explosion, I'd love to hear the consequences.
3.) Slaves from Louisiana escape to Texas and are not returned because Texas under Houston is attempting to bargain with Britain, and the amnesty of these escapees is a gesture to Britain that Texas is considering abolition in the future.

As I said, I like #2 because of the potential butterflies but I don't know what they'd be. Emancipation of slaves would be a pre-condition of any alliance/protectorate relationship of Texas with Britain, and I think this could be resolved through Indian indentured servants as in Dutch Guyana years later.

In the case of abolition, there would be many prominent Texans opposed. Would these leave or fight? I think they'd be more inclined to leave. If so, would they leave to the US (presumably back home) or would they head north ? If north, along the Indian Territory side of the Red River, this has interesting possibilities regarding the Native Americans there.

Unfortunately, I cannot have Sam Houston leave a band of reactionary slaveholding Texans to refuge with the Cherokee unless he is very drunk, and this doesn't work so well because he was the most pro-British figure. Maybe he could realize that Texas is less than independent, and again, very drunk. Too much rule of cool to be plausible.

Anyway - if the Texans in favor of slaveholding refuse abolitionist British rule and flee West instead, what would they find? There's not any land that is conducive to agriculture until California, and by the time they get there the British fleet under Sloat would have arrived already.

As for Sloat arriving in California - I believe he intended to take it in 'exchange' for cancelling Mexico's debts. Would this lead to a war with Mexico similar to the French or would Mexico just sit down and take it? The Mormons would arrive in Utah on time and set up as they intended in Mexican territory. The Anglo-Mexican War would result in a British victory, and guarantee their borders (not the California-including dream they had, probably Nevada and Utah, maybe some Arizona).

Walls of text and many questions, I know. Requesting feedback if any of this is possible - particularly on PODs. I'll write up a short rough timeline after I decide on one, but I need to know the consequences of Tyler's death in the Peacemaker accident.

TheMadPPSh said:

Stop 2.) The Peacemaker explosion kills President Tyler. I'm not sure who would succeed Tyler. I think this would cause a crisis in the US as Tyler had not (if I recall correctly) a vice president at this point.

Click to expand...

It would be the President of the Senate, Willie Mangum of NC. He was a Whig and an ally of Henry Clay.

TheMadPPSh said:

If Britain also got California through their fleet that (it seems) tried to take California as payment for debts, perhaps Indian immigrants could replace the Chinese at least as the boogeyman for nativists to rally against. I imagine the California gold rush would attract settlers from the US no matter who owns it (I believe like the Yukon, but of course on a larger scale) but I am unsure whether British/Canadian immigrants would outnumber the Americans.

Click to expand...

OTL there was actually quite a significant influx across the Pacific from Australia, too: This included a gang (called the "Muddy Ducks", IIRC) that tried to run San Francisco for a while, until vigilantes dealt with them... and the speedy way in which those of the gang's members who got taken alive were "tried" before being lynched is where the term 'kangaroo court' originated...

Mikestone8 said:

It would be the President of the Senate, Willie Mangum of NC. He was a Whig and an ally of Henry Clay.

Click to expand...

This seems to work well. IIRC, Clay opposed the annexation of Texas to avoid the pro/anti-slavery debate from coming up again. I don't know much about Willie Mangum, but as he was an ally of Clay it seems he would support Clay's position here and I believe that was the position of the Whigs. If you or anyone else know about this, I'm all ears/eyes.

@Simreeve: I couldn't find anything with a Google search, but what did you have in mind? This makes me wonder if California would be the destination for British migrants instead of Canada or Australia - I think that it would after the gold rush and possibly before.

Cool ideas! I've got some feedback.

I must say, British California seems more likely to me because history has shown we Texans were sadly willing to fight before ending slavery, and California's both closer and more accessible by sea. And that, alone, is a big and interesting difference.

OTl Mexican leadership of Caudillo General Santa Anna was unwilling to sell to settle the debt; you'd have to fix that somehow. Mexicans probably would've been helped if he'd, say, caught a bullet early, bwahaaha.... Though, in that case, depending on when, it's also likely Texas wouldn't've revolted and the wrong American invasion would've probably fairly had a harder time, though still likely won. Of course, also, selling off turf was pretty unpopular with Mexicans.

President Polk, of course, was a maximalist, and would've been unhappy losing ANYTHING. But, for all his OTL big TALK, I don't think he would've gone to war with the bigger Britain to stop the transfer, just been loudly unhappy. Especially since we did have a slice of strategically important Pacific turf in the Oregon Territory.


I'm married to a Texas State Spanish literature professor, BTW. I've got to and remember to tell her about this.

I'd had some reservations about the possibility of Texas giving up slavery, but if it was that or the annihilation of the state I think they would choose to keep Texas extant. I'm not at all sure on this, as Texas is not my area of expertise, but that Texas State Library and Archives Commission website I alluded to mentioned that protection by Britain was an option that Houston kept open.

I didn't think Mexicans as a whole would be willing to sell California, but from that site I found, the British had sent an Admiral Seymour to California to take it but he had arrived about two weeks after the American Commodore Sloat. I've only found a couple sites about this, but I intend to research what I can in print. I'm unclear what the British expected to happen, or what their goals were. From the sources I have, they intended to keep California and forgive debts by Mexico.

Its possible that Santa Ana could be killed during his war with Texas, but I'm not familiar with Mexican politics to say who would have succeeded him or if they would be willing to end the war and let the British get away with taking California.

I imagine the most that would happen in the US if they lost California or Texas or both to the British would be some war hawks talking a lot of talk and some newspapers writing about how there needs to be war but in the end nothing would happen. Relations between the US and UK would be a bit strained, but probably not permanently damaged.

I look forward to advice from a knowledgeable source, I hope.

edit: http://books.google.com/books?id=PG...&q=admiral seymour british california&f=false

This seems to be a detailed source with great relevant information I've not seen before. Allegedly, there was a land grant of "one-third of the richest portion of California" including the entire San Joaquin Valley from the Mexican government to an Irish Catholic priest named Macnamara, who conspired with a British vice-consul known as Mr. Forbes to settle 10,000 Irishmen on that land. The source (a Captain Gillespie) claims that Macnamara had assembled some Mexican citizens in California as a 'junta' to expel the American settlers before declaring independence and asking for British aid.

The other thing to remember about Houston's warming up to the British is the fact that he was first and foremost trying to look out for Texan interests by playing the great powers against one another. He might've said publicly that he favored a British protectorate status and railed against the US, but that may only have been a ploy to sweeten negotiations with Washington.

This seems to be a detailed source with great relevant information I've not seen before. Allegedly, there was a land grant of "one-third of the richest portion of California" including the entire San Joaquin Valley from the Mexican government to an Irish Catholic priest named Macnamara, who conspired with a British vice-consul known as Mr. Forbes to settle 10,000 Irishmen on that land. The source (a Captain Gillespie) claims that Macnamara had assembled some Mexican citizens in California as a 'junta' to expel the American settlers before declaring independence and asking for British aid.

Click to expand...

That's really cool, it kind of plays in to how Irish Catholics often found very profitable employment helping the Spanish, or the newly founded Spanish American nations (see Bernard O'Higgins). I could see a possible split between a Protestant North California, and a Catholic South California!

It's also interesting because, apparently it was mainly Irish that worked on the Eastern half of the trans-continental railroad. It would be interesting if they worked on both. Hopefully my ancestors would probably wind up in California quite a bit earlier, than they did in OTL.

Color-Copycat:
That is my initial thought, but I believe if the US was unwilling to help Texas that he would turn to Britain.

Tobit:
Yes, that Macnamara conspiracy really surprised me. He had gotten or was negotiating for some of the best land in California. 10,000 Irishmen would have made quite a handsome colony, if that figure is to be believed, and only more would come once gold is discovered - many to come would be Irishmen. All I know of Mexican-Irish relations at the time is the St. Patrick's Battalion, did Mexicans and Irish get along well just because of the common faith, or was there more? Where from and to would railroads be built?

Would Irish labor be 'cheap' enough to work on the railroad? Would the British use Chinese, Irish, or Indian labor in California? Some mixture?

TheMadPPSh said:

Tobit:
Yes, that Macnamara conspiracy really surprised me. He had gotten or was negotiating for some of the best land in California. 10,000 Irishmen would have made quite a handsome colony, if that figure is to be believed, and only more would come once gold is discovered - many to come would be Irishmen. All I know of Mexican-Irish relations at the time is the St. Patrick's Battalion, did Mexicans and Irish get along well just because of the common faith, or was there more? Where from and to would railroads be built?

Would Irish labor be 'cheap' enough to work on the railroad? Would the British use Chinese, Irish, or Indian labor in California? Some mixture?

Click to expand...

I think there will probably be conflict between the Irish and the Rancho owners $considering the huge influx of new people looking to own their own land. But I think the Mexicans won't really be able to oppose them.

Irish labor would probably be cheap enough depending on some other factors. If the 10,000 are all promised a plot of their own land, and some help from the government to settle it. Then the Irish will probably not want to do the back breaking labor. But they definitely have the expertise and the ability. It is very skillful job to lay track quickly, not just any people can do it they were called navvys or gandy dancers.

Tobit said:

I think there will probably be conflict between the Irish and the Rancho owners considering the huge influx of new people looking to own their own land. But I think the Mexicans won't really be able to oppose them.

Irish labor would probably be cheap enough depending on some other factors. If the 10,000 are all promised a plot of their own land, and some help from the government to settle it. Then the Irish will probably not want to do the back breaking labor. But they definitely have the expertise and the ability. It is very skillful job to lay track quickly, not just any people can do it.

Click to expand...

I don't expect that Britain would honor the land grants given by the Mexican government except perhaps Father Macnamara's. If 10,000 would actually arrive, I think they would form the basis of the society (as they are the society apart from the marginalized Mexicans, until further immigrants arrive) and not just the lowest rung. As soon as another group, generally lower on the ladder in British society, arrives, that other group would do the back breaking labor.

I don't think its realistic to expect that Irishmen form the whole of the society, but I'm not sure what would happen when Englishmen arrive. I think that California would be the first choice for any would-be emigrant from Britain, ahead of Canada or Australia, even before gold was discovered. Would the English and Irish coexist peacefully?

TheMadPPSh said:

@Simreeve: I couldn't find anything with a Google search, but what did you have in mind? This makes me wonder if California would be the destination for British migrants instead of Canada or Australia - I think that it would after the gold rush and possibly before.

Click to expand...

I can't remember now where I read about that, as it was some time ago, but it did seem to me that it would set a possible precdent for further migration between Australia and California or for migration from Britain via South Africa and Australia to California as an alternative to going round the Horn.

Incidentally, remember that Sir Francis Drake is supposed to have claimed at least part of California for England -- under the name of 'Nova Albion' -- during his voyage around the world, which would also have given us an arguable pre-existing claim on the area under international law in the 19th century too...