Editing Gadsden Purchase (section)

== Final negotiations and ratification of the treaty of purchase ==
The Pierce administration, which took office in March 1853, had a strong pro-southern, pro-expansion mindset. It sent Louisiana Senator [[Pierre Soulé]] to Spain to negotiate the acquisition of Cuba. Pierce appointed expansionists John Y. Mason of Virginia and Solon Borland of Arkansas as ministers, respectively, to [[France]] and [[Nicaragua]].<ref>{{harvp|Nevins|1947|p=48}}.</ref> Pierce's Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, was already on record as favoring a southern route for a transcontinental railroad, so southern rail enthusiasts had every reason to be encouraged.<ref>{{harvp|Roberson|1974|p=170}}.</ref>

The South as a whole, however, remained divided. In January 1853, Senator [[Thomas Jefferson Rusk]] of Texas introduced a bill to create two railroads, one with a northern route, and one with a southern route starting below Memphis on the Mississippi River.<ref>{{cite thesis |first=Jeffrey Gordon |last=Mauck |title=The Gadsden Treaty: The Diplomacy of Transcontinental Transportation |type=PhD dissertation |publisher=Indiana University |year=1991}} DAI 1992 52(9): 3405-A. DA9205951.</ref> Under the Rusk legislation, the President would be authorized to select the specific termini and routes as well as the contractors who would build the railroads. Some southerners, however, worried that northern and central interests would leap ahead in construction and opposed any direct aid to private developers on constitutional grounds. Other southerners preferred the isthmian proposals. An amendment was added to the Rusk bill to prohibit direct aid, but southerners still split their vote in Congress and the amendment failed.<ref>{{harvp|Roberson|1974|pp=170–171}}.</ref>

This rejection led to legislative demands, sponsored by William Gwin of California and [[Salmon P. Chase]] of [[Ohio]] and supported by the railroad interests, for new surveys for possible routes. Gwin expected that a southern route would be approved—both Davis and [[Robert J. Walker]], former Secretary of the Treasury, supported it. Both were stockholders in a [[Vicksburg, Mississippi|Vicksburg]]-based railroad that planned to build a link to Texas to join up with the southern route. Davis argued that the southern route would have an important military application in the likely event of future troubles with Mexico.<ref>{{harvp|Roberson|1974|p=172}}; {{harvp|Kluger|2007|p=490}}.</ref>

=== Gadsden and Santa Anna ===
[[File:Gadsden Purchase historical mark.jpg|thumb|The Gadsden Purchase historical marker near [[Interstate 10]]]]

A treaty initiated in the Fillmore administration that would provide joint Mexican and United States protection for the Sloo grant was signed in Mexico on March 21, 1853. At the same time that this treaty was received in Washington, Pierce learned that New Mexico Territorial Governor [[William Carr Lane|William C. Lane]] had issued a proclamation claiming the Mesilla Valley as part of New Mexico, leading to protests from Mexico. Pierce was also aware of efforts by France, through its consul in San Francisco, to acquire the Mexican state of [[Sonora]].<ref>{{harvp|Nichols|1969|p=265}}.</ref>

Pierce recalled Lane in May and replaced him with [[David Meriwether (Kentucky politician)|David Meriwether]] of Kentucky. Meriwether was given orders to stay out of the Mesilla Valley until negotiations with Mexico could be completed. With the encouragement of Davis, Pierce also appointed James Gadsden as minister to Mexico, with specific instructions to negotiate with Mexico over the acquisition of additional territory. Secretary of State [[William L. Marcy]] gave Gadsden clear instructions: he was to secure the Mesilla Valley for the purposes of building a railroad through it, convince Mexico that the US had done its best regarding the Indian raids, and elicit Mexican cooperation in efforts by US citizens to build a canal or railroad across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Supporting the Sloo interests was not part of the instructions.<ref>{{harvp|Nichols|1969|p=266}}; {{harvp|Kluger|2007|p=496}}; {{harvp|Roberson|1974|p=183}}.</ref> Gadsden met with Santa Anna in Mexico City on September 25, 1853, to discuss the terms of the treaty.<ref name=Kemp2010 />

The Mexican government was going through political and financial turmoil. In the process, Santa Anna had been returned to power about the same time that Pierce was inaugurated. Santa Anna was willing to deal with the United States because he needed money to rebuild the [[Mexican Army]] for defense against the United States. He initially rejected the extension of the border further south to the [[Sierra Madre Occidental|Sierra Madre Mountains]]. He initially insisted on reparations for the damages caused by American Indian raids, but agreed to let an international tribunal resolve this. Gadsden realized that Santa Anna needed money and passed this information along to Secretary Marcy.<ref name="Kluger3">{{harvp|Kluger|2007|pp=497–498}}.</ref>

Marcy and Pierce responded with new instructions. Gadsden was authorized to purchase any of six parcels of land with a price fixed for each. The price would include the settlement of all Indian damages and relieve the United States from any further obligation to protect Mexicans. $50 million (equivalent to ${{Formatprice|{{inflation|US-GDP|50000000|1853|r=-8}}}} in {{inflation-year|US-GDP}}{{inflation-fn|US-GDP}}) would have bought the [[Baja California Peninsula]] and a large portion of the northwestern Mexican states while $15 million (${{Formatprice|{{inflation|US-GDP|15000000|1853|r=-7}}}}{{inflation-fn|US-GDP}}) was to buy the {{convert|38000|sqmi|km2}} of desert necessary for the railroad plans.<ref name="Kluger3" />

"Gadsden's antagonistic manner" alienated Santa Anna. Gadsden had advised Santa Anna that "the spirit of the age" would soon lead the northern Mexican states to secede so he might as well sell them now. Mexico balked at any large-scale sale of territory.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/gadsden-purchase |title=Gadsden Purchase, 1853–1854 |publisher=U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian |access-date=July 8, 2018}}</ref> The Mexican President felt threatened by [[William Walker (filibuster)|William Walker]]'s attempt to capture [[Baja California]] with 50 troops and annex Sonora. Gadsden disavowed any government backing of Walker, who retreated to the U.S. and was placed on trial as a criminal.<ref name="May39">{{harvp|May|1973|p=84}}.</ref> Santa Anna worried that the US would allow further aggression against Mexican territory. Santa Anna needed to get as much money for as little territory as possible.<ref name="azstar" /> When the United Kingdom rejected Mexican requests to assist in the negotiations, Santa Anna opted for the $15 million package.<ref name="Kluger4">{{harvp|Kluger|2007|pp=498–499}}.</ref>

Santa Anna and Gadsden signed the treaty on December 30, 1853, and the treaty was presented to the U.S. Senate for confirmation.<ref name=Kemp2010>{{cite book |editor-first=Roger L. |editor-last=Kemp |title=Documents of American Democracy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JHawgM-WnlUC&pg=PA195 |year=2010 |page=195|publisher=McFarland |isbn=978-0786456741 }}</ref><ref name=Tuckered2013>{{cite book |editor-last1=Tucker |editor-first1=Spencer |editor-last2=Arnold |editor-first2=James R. |editor-last3=Wiener |editor-first3=Roberta |editor-last4=Pierpaoli, Jr |editor-first4=Paul G. |editor-last5=Cutrer |editor-first5=Thomas W. |editor-last6=Santoni |editor-first6=Pedro |display-editors=2 |title=The Encyclopedia of the Mexican-American War: A Political, Social, and Military History |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FZVQcZpic-8C&pg=PA255|year=2013|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=255|isbn=978-1851098538 }}</ref>

=== Ratification ===
[[File:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png|thumb|300px|Territorial enlargement of the United States, the Gadsden Purchase shown in red-orange]]
Pierce and his cabinet began debating the treaty in January 1854. Although disappointed in the amount of territory secured and some of the terms, Pierce signed it, and submitted it to the Senate on February 10.<ref>{{harvp|Nichols|1969|p=325}}.</ref> Gadsden, however, suggested that northern Senators would block the treaty to deny the South a railroad.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1854/04/25/76457120.pdf |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |title=Pacific Railroad: Southern Plan |date=April 25, 1854 |access-date=November 4, 2016}}</ref>

The treaty needed a two-thirds vote in favor of ratification in the US Senate, where it met strong opposition. Anti-slavery senators opposed further acquisition of slave territory. Lobbying by speculators gave the treaty a bad reputation. Some Senators objected to furnishing Santa Anna financial assistance.

The treaty reached the Senate as that body focused on the debate over the [[Kansas–Nebraska Act]]. On April 17, after much debate, the Senate voted 27 to 18 in favor of the treaty, falling three votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority. After this defeat, Secretary Davis and southern Senators pressed Pierce to add more provisions to the treaty including:
* protection for the Sloo grant;
* a requirement that Mexico "protect with its whole power the prosecution, preservation, and security of the work [referring to the isthmian canal]";
* permission for the United States to intervene unilaterally "when it may feel sanctioned and warranted by the public or international law"; and
* a reduction of the territory to be acquired by more than {{convert|10000|sqmi|km2}} to the final size of {{convert|29640|sqmi|km2|adj=on}},<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cranor |first1=David |title=Gadsden Purchase: How the US gave up a Vermont (and got part of it back) |url=http://nothingmorepowerful.blogspot.com/2018/12/gadsden-purchase-how-us-gave-up-vermont.html |website=Nothing More Powerful |date=August 17, 2023 |access-date=31 August 2023}}</ref> and dropping the price to $10 million (equivalent to ${{Formatprice|{{inflation|US-GDP|10000000|1854|r=-7}}}} in {{inflation-year|US-GDP}}{{inflation-fn|US-GDP}}) from $15 million (${{Formatprice|{{inflation|US-GDP|15000000|1854|r=-7}}}}{{inflation-fn|US-GDP}}).

The land area included in the treaty is shown in the map at the head of the article, and in the national map in this section.{{#tag:ref|The Purchase treaty defines the new border as "up the middle of that river to the point where the parallel of 31° 47' north latitude crosses the same {{coord|31|47|0|N|106|31|41.5|W}}; thence due west one hundred miles; thence south to the parallel of 31° 20' north latitude; thence along the said parallel of 31° 20' to the 111th meridian of longitude west of Greenwich {{coord|31|20|N|111|0|W}}; thence in a straight line to a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado rivers; thence up the middle of the said Colorado river until it intersects the present line between the United States and Mexico". The new border included a few miles of the [[Colorado River]] at the western end; the remaining land portion consisted of line segments between points, including {{coord|32.49399|N|114.813043|W}} at the Colorado River, west of [[Nogales, Arizona|Nogales]] at {{coord|31.33214|N|111.07423|W}}, near Arizona-New Mexico-Mexico [[tripoint]] at {{coord|31.332099|N|109.05047|W}}, the eastern corners of the New Mexico southern boot heel ([[Hidalgo County, New Mexico|Hidalgo County]]) at<!--isn't there another one?--> {{coord|31.78378|N|108.20854|W}}, and the west bank of the [[Rio Grande]] river at {{coord|31.78377|N|106.52864|W}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/mx1853.asp |via=The Avalon Project, [[Yale University]] |title=Gadsden Purchase Treaty |date=December 30, 1853 |publisher=[[United States Department of State]] |first1=Franklin |last1=Pierce |first2=William L. |last2=Marcy |name-list-style=amp |access-date=October 10, 2008}}</ref>|group=lower-alpha}}

This version of the treaty successfully passed the US Senate April 25, 1854, by a vote of 33 to 12. The reduction in territory was an accommodation of northern senators who opposed the acquisition of additional slave territory. In the final vote, northerners split 12 to 12. Gadsden took the revised treaty back to Santa Anna, who accepted the changes.<ref>{{harvp|Kluger|2007|pp= 502–503}}.</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=David N. |last=Potter |title=[[The Impending Crisis 1848–1861]] |year=1977 |location=New York |publisher=Harper Torchbooks |page=[https://archive.org/details/impendingcrisis00pott/page/183 183] |isbn=978-0061319297 }}</ref> The treaty went into effect June 30, 1854.<ref>{{cite thesis |first=Paul Neff |last=Garber |title=The Gadsden Treaty |year=1923 |location=Philadelphia |publisher=University of Pennsylvania}}</ref>

While the land was available for construction of a southern railroad, the issue had become too strongly associated with the sectional debate over slavery to receive federal funding. Roberson wrote:<ref name=Robersonp180>{{harvp|Roberson|1974|p=180}}.</ref>

{{blockquote|The unfortunate debates in 1854 left an indelible mark on the course of national politics and the Pacific railroad for the remainder of the antebellum period. It was becoming increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, to consider any proposal that could not somehow be construed as relating to slavery and, therefore, sectional issues. Although few people fully realized it at the close of 1854, [[sectionalism]] had taken such a firm, unrelenting hold on the nation that completion of an antebellum Pacific railroad was prohibited. Money, interest, and enthusiasm were devoted to emotion-filled topics, not the Pacific railroad.|Jere W. Roberson|"The South and the Pacific Railroad, 1845–1855"}}

The effect was such that railroad development, which accelerated in the North, stagnated in the South.<ref name=Klugerp504>{{harvp|Kluger|2007|p=504}}.</ref>

=== Post-ratification controversy ===
As originally envisioned, the purchase would have encompassed a much larger region, extending far enough south to include most of the current [[List of states of Mexico|Mexican states]] of [[Baja California]], [[Baja California Sur]], [[Coahuila]], [[Chihuahua (state)|Chihuahua]], [[Sonora]], [[Nuevo León]], and [[Tamaulipas]]. The Mexican people opposed such boundaries, as did [[Abolitionism in the United States|anti-slavery Americans]], who saw the purchase as acquisition of more slave territory. Even the sale of a relatively small strip of land angered the Mexican people, who saw Santa Anna's actions as a betrayal of their country. They watched in dismay as he squandered the funds generated by the Purchase. Contemporary Mexican historians continue to view the deal negatively and believe that it has defined the American–Mexican relationship in a deleterious way.<ref name="azstar" />

The purchased lands were initially appended to the existing New Mexico Territory. To help control the new land, the [[United States Army|US Army]] established [[Fort Buchanan, Arizona|Fort Buchanan]] on [[Sonoita Creek]] in present-day southern Arizona on November 17, 1856. The difficulty of governing the new areas from the territorial capital at [[Santa Fe, New Mexico|Santa Fe]] led to efforts as early as 1856 to [[Territories of the United States|organize a new territory]] out of the southern portion. Many of the early settlers in the region were, however, pro-slavery and sympathetic to the [[Southern United States|South]], resulting in an impasse in Congress as to how best to reorganize the territory.

The shifting of the course of the [[Rio Grande]] would cause a later dispute over the boundary between Purchase lands and those of the state of Texas, known as the [[Country Club Dispute]]. Pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Gadsden Treaty and subsequent treaties, the [[International Boundary and Water Commission]] was established in 1889 to maintain the border. Pursuant to still later treaties, the IBWC expanded its duties to allocation of river waters between the two nations, and provided for flood control and water sanitation. Once viewed as a model of international cooperation, in recent decades the IBWC has been heavily criticized as an institutional anachronism, by-passed by modern social, environmental, and political issues.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Robert J. |last=McCarthy |title=Adaptive Treaty Interpretation, and the International Boundary and Water Commission |ssrn=1839903 |journal=Water Law Review |date=May 12, 2011}}</ref>