What would have been the long-term consequences of annexing Mexico entirely in 1848?
Annexing Mexico
- Thread starter emperorharry86
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
Take a look in the Archives, thats what we have the archives for. This WI has been discussed before.
Chris
Banned
Several things come to mind:
The US would gain a state or three with larger non-white populations. That would force some kind of equality legislation through america, at least in those three states.
The US would be closer to the small states of central america and more able to push them inot US patterns. US might annex them as well, one by one.
Mexico would probabuly lose a generation of cruoppt landlords/prists. Might be better for mexican democraphics.
France would have to find somewhere else to meddle with in 1864. Might avert the franco-prussian war entirly.
CSA would lose the war sooner with union supporters to the east, not to mention possible mexican populations in Texas.
Chris
The US would gain a state or three with larger non-white populations. That would force some kind of equality legislation through america, at least in those three states.
The US would be closer to the small states of central america and more able to push them inot US patterns. US might annex them as well, one by one.
Mexico would probabuly lose a generation of cruoppt landlords/prists. Might be better for mexican democraphics.
France would have to find somewhere else to meddle with in 1864. Might avert the franco-prussian war entirly.
CSA would lose the war sooner with union supporters to the east, not to mention possible mexican populations in Texas.
Chris
David S Poepoe said:
You know, I really don't understand why some of us insist on saying things like this to someone who is posting a thread on the board. Let's face it...just about every major historical "what if" there is has been discussed in some form at some point in the past on this board. Unless we want to get down to things like "What if mint flavored toothpaste had never been invented", some historical events will likely be discussed more than once. If you don't feel like discussing it again, then don't chide the person who took the initiative to post the thread...go look at another topic that you find interesting. Some of us might find it interesting to discuss it again.
David S Poepoe
Banned
robertp6165 said:You know, I really don't understand why some of us insist on saying things like this to someone who is posting a thread on the board. Let's face it...just about every major historical "what if" there is has been discussed in some form at some point in the past on this board. Unless we want to get down to things like "What if mint flavored toothpaste had never been invented", some historical events will likely be discussed more than once. If you don't feel like discussing it again, then don't chide the person who took the initiative to post the thread...go look at another topic that you find interesting. Some of us might find it interesting to discuss it again.
Some posts are very open ended and if the poster would first look in the Archives and see what has been discussed before and they can refine their POD.
Chris said:
Not necessarily. In the decades following the Mexican war in OTL, the population in California, Arizona and New Mexico was heavily Mexican, but there was no equality legislation passed in those states. A small upper class of whites pretty much lorded it over the local Mexicans, who they called "Greasers" (to use the 19th Century parlance) and who were pretty much disenfranchised until the middle of the twentieth century (the South was not the only section of the country to practice something similar to Jim Crow, and blacks were not the only victims of it). Most likely you would have a repeat of that process in the various states of Mexico proper.
Chris said:
Very likely...I can see Teddy Roosevelt annexing central America so the Panama Canal would be built on American soil...
Chris said:
Very likely true.
Chris said:
France would definitely not be able to meddle in Mexico at that point. But as to whether it would avert the Franco Prussian War, I don't know about that. Bismarck needed that war to complete the unification of Germany. I think it was pretty much inevitable at some point. Butterflying away the French humiliation in Mexico might cause it to happen a few years later, but I think it still happens.
Chris said:
This would depend a lot on how the Mexican States are treated as they are admitted into the Union. There probably would not be a Civil War from 1861-1865 as we know it in OTL. Instead, we probably would have had a secession crisis, and possibly a war, in 1850, based on one of the following two scenarios...
1) Congress votes to admit the Mexican States on the basis of popular sovereignty with regard to the slavery issue. Each state votes whether to have or not have slavery. Most Mexican States would probably vote "no", which could very well cause Southern secession in 1850, as Southerners would view this as a clear violation of the Missouri Compromise. The South would probably be better able to win it's independence in this scenario than it was in OTL 1861-1865...the North was not nearly as well industrialized; the population disparity was not as big; there were quite a few arms factories in the South which were operational in 1850 but which had gone out of business in 1860; the huge advantage which railroads gave the North in OTL would not exist (only about 1/3 as much railroad track mileage existed in 1850 as did in 1861, and what did exist consisted of small, unconnected lines which were not very useful for military operations); and the U.S. Army would be hard pressed to both hold down the recently conquered Mexican territory (which would most likely be rife with roving bandits and revolutionaries, as it was in OTL) as well as to put down the South. So the CSA might actually win in this scenario.
2) The South wins the debate in Congress and the Missouri Compromise is applied. All of the territory in question lies south of the Missouri Compromise line, which would mean that all of the Mexican States would enter the Union as slave States. The addition of another 10 or so slave states (assuming the existing Mexican States, or most of them, enter the Union as States) would actually tip the balance of power back in favor of the South. This leads to the NORTH trying to secede in 1850 (there was a movement in several Northern States to secede from the Union in OTL following the Mexican War which was averted by the Compromise of 1850. Interestingly, Abe Lincoln was one of those who was arguing that secession might be necessary at that time). If the North secedes, there probably is no Civil War, as the attitude of the South would probably be "Erring sisters go in peace...don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you, and take all your damned abolitionist rabblerousers with you."
The previous thread on this subject said that in 1848 the north of Mexico was thinly populated and would have been quickly swamped with Americans and that the most trouble from resisting Mexicans would be in the old Aztec heartland.
Anthony Appleyard said:
Well, Arizona and New Mexico were not quickly swamped with Americans in OTL...by the time the Civil War broke out in 1861, Anglos still numbered less than 1/4 of the total population (although they controlled the government of the territory) and the states of northern Mexico would have been no more attractive to American settlement.
As for Mexican resistance, the states of northern Mexico in OTL were homes for numerous bandit and revolutionary bands which raided into U.S. and C.S. territory during the Civil War. There is no reason to think this would be any different in the proposed ATL. Indeed, it may even be worse because of widespread Mexican resentment of the loss of their independence to the "heretic gringos."
emperorharry86 said:
Unfortunately, this is a highly unlikely event to happen in a USA which is at all similar to ours in 1848. The strongest voices really calling for annexation were from the 'penny press' of the northeastern states (mostly Pennsylvania) and they were never seriously considered at governmental level. Not to put too fine a point on it, most of the Americans did not want to try to rule seven million people whom they saw as "mongrel papist greasers".
The problems were substantial; would the states go slave or free, how could the former Mexicans be classified, severe anti-Catholicism in some sections of the American population, and some fears of a 'bleeding sore' in occupying all Mexico. It could be done from a military point of view, but it would be expensive, lengthy and bloody unless the USA granted substantial civilian rights to the Mexicans (something which was unlikely). Indeed, Trist, the negotiator, while he was unpopular for offering such generous terms to the defeated Mexicans, was also quietly congratulated for conquering the maximum amount of Mexico with a minimum number of Mexicans.
To get a movement to annex all Mexico, you probably have to go back further than 1848. What might be more possible, however, is to have the USA acquire somewhat more of Mexico... any other negotiator than Trist would probably have arranged it. The most likely border would be between the 26th and 25th parallel, and annexing the Gulf Coast down to, say, Tampico was also considered. Even this would dramatically change the potential outcome of the civil war. Tamaulipas, Durango etc are good cotton country, and would probably produce some additional slave states.
Or, for added fun, have Winfield Scott accept the offer of dictatorship which some Mexicans offered him after he occupied Mexico City. That would be an interesting WI in itself...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Mexican states, if they were admitted as states any time before an American Civil War, would have been free states. This alone would have kept them on the territorial waiting list for statehood for many years, or at least until the South seceded. As mentioned, the problem of Catholicism, and probably the fact that they spoke Spanish - one can easily content that annexation of the total of Mexico would have ended up with a bilingual United States - with english in the minority. There are alot of problems, so it is also possible that secession will not occur until much later because of a prolonged occupation.
Also there is no guarantee that Southern secession wouldn't also cause Mexican secession.
Also there is no guarantee that Southern secession wouldn't also cause Mexican secession.
David S Poepoe said:
If Mexican animosity towards America for taking them by force would still exist in 1860, which there is probably 100% chance that it would, Mexican secession probably would occur then. Would the South and the Mexican states seceed together or seperately? Probably seperately; Southerners wanting the independance of the CSA and Mexicans wanting the reestablishment of Mexico. They would probably form some kind of alliance during the war; just to make things harder for the USA.
How much of the former Mexico would likely secede? Would California and New Mexico go, or just the ones south of the OTL border? If they got their independance, would Mexico later be angry with the CSA for taking Texas?
On a different note, what would the powers of Europe do if the USA did something so imperialistic?
David S Poepoe
Banned
tetsu-katana said:
California would not secede. The population base is not in favour of the Californios. Don't know about New Mexico - tho if they are anyway similar to Texas then they will probably remain in the Union. Those with a greater degree of Yankee settlement (California, New Mexico, Texas) will remain loyal.
tetsu-katana said:
No. The US has a long history of being an imperial power, its just that we don't like to think we are/were. Besides, this would only be considered just rewards for a war won.
The US becomes substantially poorer trying to raise the living standards of Mexicans, building roads and railroads, providing education to all the illiterate peasants (in English, of course), and brutally suppressing rebellion by the above-mentioned peasants.
In the meantime, we develop a viscious and despicable secret-police, initially to nip Mexican revolts in the bud. Of course, it's only a matter of time before it is also used on English speakers - communists or anarchists, I'd bet.
The southern states probably manage to use the never-ending violence in Mexico to their advantage, and extend slave states slowly down the east coast. A literacy test may be a requirement for voting in these states. It will, of course, be in English.
I doubt the southern states would need to secede for a while. Slavery is no longer the nation's big issue. Certainly no-one like Lincoln would be elected since he would be calling for giving rights to the Mexicans, or letting them go, which no-one would support.
In the meantime, we develop a viscious and despicable secret-police, initially to nip Mexican revolts in the bud. Of course, it's only a matter of time before it is also used on English speakers - communists or anarchists, I'd bet.
The southern states probably manage to use the never-ending violence in Mexico to their advantage, and extend slave states slowly down the east coast. A literacy test may be a requirement for voting in these states. It will, of course, be in English.
I doubt the southern states would need to secede for a while. Slavery is no longer the nation's big issue. Certainly no-one like Lincoln would be elected since he would be calling for giving rights to the Mexicans, or letting them go, which no-one would support.
Assuming all of Mexico is annexed, I'd think that the OTL portion of Mexico that got annexed and perhaps the emptier portion of northern Mexico would become territories and then states. As for southern Mexico and the Yucatan, however, my belief is that it might be treated more as a colony than as equal citizenship or territory for settlers to expand into. Maybe the set up wouldn't be too different from the later American administration of the Philippines, with a civilian administrator as governor based in Mexico City and forts established here and there to hold down the countryside.
I'd think that Mexico would be fairly calm in the immediate aftermath of being annexed after losing the Mexican-American War, but beyond that it would depend on who Washington, DC sets as the governor of Mexico. Get someone who is brutal and/or bigoted and they'll have the equivalent of the Philippine Insurrection. Get someone as the Philippines did, who actively tries to weave the Mexicans into the fabric of the Union and tries to bridge the gap between Anglo-Saxon Protestants and Mexican Catholics, and you may have Mexican volunteer regiments fight for the Union during the Civil War and have Mexican states by the end of the 19th century.
Who would Polk likely place in that position and which one would he be? Winfield Scott? Someone else?
I'd think that Mexico would be fairly calm in the immediate aftermath of being annexed after losing the Mexican-American War, but beyond that it would depend on who Washington, DC sets as the governor of Mexico. Get someone who is brutal and/or bigoted and they'll have the equivalent of the Philippine Insurrection. Get someone as the Philippines did, who actively tries to weave the Mexicans into the fabric of the Union and tries to bridge the gap between Anglo-Saxon Protestants and Mexican Catholics, and you may have Mexican volunteer regiments fight for the Union during the Civil War and have Mexican states by the end of the 19th century.
Who would Polk likely place in that position and which one would he be? Winfield Scott? Someone else?
I don't think the British would allow the United States to get away with annexing all of Mexico because it would essentially, with the exception of Cuba, turn the Gulf of Mexico into an American lake. That could threaten British possessions in the Caribbean.
But if the US does get away with it, the fallout in the foreign policy area would be enormous. Britain will begin fortifying Canada, which could have impacts on the Crimean War. A war with Britain, and possibly France, would be more than likely in the future.
But if the US does get away with it, the fallout in the foreign policy area would be enormous. Britain will begin fortifying Canada, which could have impacts on the Crimean War. A war with Britain, and possibly France, would be more than likely in the future.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Admiral Matt said:
I find this take on things very interesting. I believe I initiated the prior discussion in the Archives, or at least one of them for one of my many aborted novella, but this aspect was not fully flagged up then. There would be an interesting diminishing return here, investment to recoupable monies. At some time the mineral wealth of Mexico becomes fully exploitable so the mines, ports, railroads pay back. But would the purely civilian infrastructure ever do so ?
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf: I think the odds are that once Mexico is annexed to the United States, it will not be getting back out again, so the US will benefit in the long run. Wars, secession of states, and guerilla warfare could force the US out, but I don't think it's likely.
One might think of it in terms of the collapse of empires that occurred in the last couple centuries. But how many land empires have collapsed lately? Russia went in 1917, but they rebounded and lasted another 70 years. Austria-Hungary, the very model of a disfunctional empire, lasted longer in WW1 than Russia. The Ottomans did better still, despite the victors' best efforts to swallow them whole. And that's it.
I think the Americans will act similarly to the way France treated (and treats) its colonies: don't let them go unless you absolutely have to.
Hmmm. Looking back, you may have been asking whether the civilian infrastructure would pay back at all, even if it was within the US. My guess is that it would, but only in the very long run. Until well into the 20th century, the OTL states will be poorer than as we would know them. Of course, long before that, Mexico will be better off socially (well, between Mexicans, anyway) and economically.
One might think of it in terms of the collapse of empires that occurred in the last couple centuries. But how many land empires have collapsed lately? Russia went in 1917, but they rebounded and lasted another 70 years. Austria-Hungary, the very model of a disfunctional empire, lasted longer in WW1 than Russia. The Ottomans did better still, despite the victors' best efforts to swallow them whole. And that's it.
I think the Americans will act similarly to the way France treated (and treats) its colonies: don't let them go unless you absolutely have to.
Hmmm. Looking back, you may have been asking whether the civilian infrastructure would pay back at all, even if it was within the US. My guess is that it would, but only in the very long run. Until well into the 20th century, the OTL states will be poorer than as we would know them. Of course, long before that, Mexico will be better off socially (well, between Mexicans, anyway) and economically.