If the US buys everything north of the 37th parallel in 1829 - 2 big questions and others

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I read on here somewhere that the United States considered buying everything north of the 37th parallel from Mexico in 1829 that is the parallel that divides Colorado and New Mexico and Utah and Arizona, among other things.

Suppose the Mexican Revolution takes a little longer in the United States helps them gain freedom and exchange for this, for instance, or for some other reason the United States goes through with it. Perhaps it is done a little in the name of internal improvements. I'm not sure if Texas out to the Rio Grande was in among the purchase suggestions but let's say to the Nueces anyway.

1. Will there still be war with mexico? There would be a lot less reason for it the more that is purchased from texas, especially because there won't be the settlers getting there as fast. However I suppose it could happen sometime later in the century?

2. Which way do the Mormons go? Originally, they chose Utah because it was Mexican and they decided that it would be a place where they would not be interfered with by the United states. If they do this again, they might just be left alone. The United States might consider that it's just not worth getting more territory because it's all desert and there wouldn't be much room for settlers anyway.

Or, do they go north? Traveling north into Manitoba might be considered unwise but Utah was a desert. So it's not like they had a lot of good choices.

Except of course for California, but they didn't go there in our timeline either.

How do the Mexicans react to the Mormons I wonder. This is one reason why it's possible they could select Manitoba, a central government's reach isn't quite as far in Canada as it would be from Mexico City up to Arizona. I seem to recall someone's timeline years ago had that happening in fact.

Speaking of California, if the United States gets Northern California that quickly, there are still likely to be settlers moving into Southern california. I wonder if they would try to form their own country. It's possible that, if the United States has taxes, it wouldn't be Sam Houston and James Bowie and the others - and certainly not David Bowie who I wrote and almost pressed send before changing it or Sam Bowie who was an NBA player known pretty much only for being picked before Michael Jordan and who I also get confused with James Bowie.
However, it's possible that John framont could be the leader of such a revolt. What would a nation like that be called if California was already considered part of the United states.? Or would they just call it the Bear Flag Republic and ask for the US to an exit like the Texans did?

Which might just cause war with Mexico anyway.

 

[raharris1973]

I read on here somewhere that the United States considered buying everything north of the 37th parallel from Mexico in 1829 that is the parallel that divides Colorado and New Mexico and Utah and Arizona, among other things.

If that happens along that geographic line, the 37th parallel, as opposed to 36-30, the Missouri Compromise Line, then the US is not getting any of Texas in the purchase. Also, note at this time empresario grants in Texas and American settlements have been going on for about three or four years, but the numbers of Americans in Texas are not big. We are still 7 years shy of the Texas Republican revolution. 1829 is also just the first year of the Jackson Presidency. The most salient political issues of his time were the Bank and tariffs, not slavery, but the Missouri Compromise did hint that keeping sectional balance between free and slave states *could* becomes important, and Jackson and some other southerners might notice that basically purchasing the upper northern reaches of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico, while granting the USA a wonderful transcontinental corridor to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific, does so at a latitude, which by precedent has been treated as "free territory" in the Louisiana purchase lands to the east.