WI:America had annexed all or most of Mexico in 1848?

[Timmy811]

Upon achieving military victory in The Mexican War many of the war's supporters wanted the US to go far beyond it's original war aims when demanding terms.

These varied from those wanting to annex a third of Mexico south of the Rio Grande (the northwest which wasn't that densely populated) to the whole country. (THe population of America in 1850 was 23,000,000 compared to a Mexican population of 8,000,000~ if I remember correctly)

Polk even called back his ambasador Nicholos Trist because he was taking to long and was in Polk's view being to lenient. However Trist ignored this call, and sent to Washington the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was signed.

What would have been the result of a larger or complete annexation of Mexico by the United States?

First of all a larger standing army would have to be kept even if the government of the Mexican territories was lenient. They would almost certainly remain territories up to the begining of the civil war, whose begining would surely be affected. There would be no need for a compromise of 1850 in response to California gaining statehood, because of the amount of land gained south of the Missouri compromise line, and te hope of southerns to turn them into slave states.

However the majority of Mexicans were against slavery so that itself becomes an issue. How would the antebellum congress envision the development of these territories proceeding? I imagine that the northern and southern opinion on this would be greatly divided

Upon the outbreak of the civil war I can see Mexico descending into near anarchy as pro northern, pro southern, and pro independence militia's duked it out while the main Union and Confederate armies fought where they did in real life.

Assuming a Union vicory I can see most of the Mexican territories gaining statehood during reconstruction.

(This idea just popped into my head, so I'm sure there are plenty of holes in it, feel free to point them out)

[Xen]

Something would have to happen, the south would certainly see an opportunity to create many new slave states, and gain an upper hand in the US Government, the northern states would hate it. I can see the north seceding from the Union, and the south couldnt do anything about it.

[Timmy811]

Originally Posted by Xen

Something would have to happen, the south would certainly see an opportunity to create many new slave states, and gain an upper hand in the US Government, the northern states would hate it. I can see the north seceding from the Union, and the south couldnt do anything about it.

The north still had a huge population advantage and Mexico was antislave, the South would have alot harder time enforcing their will on Mexico then you seem to think. The advantage still lies with the North as much as it did in our time line.

[NapoleonXIV]

I don't think the Civil war would ever happen because the Mexican war wouldn't end with the treaty. Mexico would collapse into anarchy immediately and the fighting would resume. This time it would be a large scale guerrila scenario, bloody on both sides and prolonged.

Whatever bitterness the Mexicans felt (and still do) about the loss of such a huge amount of territory it was mollified by recognising that it was a concomitant depletion of relatively few Mexicans, since the territories were only lightly populated.

Trying to incorporate 8,000,000 strongly Catholic Spanish-speaking Mexicans into 28,000,000 lightly (and despite what everyone says the US was NOT strongly religious at this time, altho it was beginning) but still proudly Protestant (Irish Catholic emigration was just beginning and Middle European Catholic was still far off) and English speaking Americans would have been a culture clash to end all culture clashes.

In keeping with this there is also the idea that Mexico was founded on a much more European royalist model than the US. The first ruler of Mexico, a Spanish General named Iturbide (whose family still maintains some claim to the throne.) was seen as very legitimate in a royalist sense.

This still didn't keep him from being overthrow by Santa Ana, who then founded the tradition of the CAUDILLO, yet another Latin/South American idea that US Americans would not understand.

A third problem is that the modern Mexican freedom movement was founded by a priest and early Mexico considered the Catholic Church as one of its most absolute and strongest mainstays. A position definitely problematic from the POV of American Constitutionalists

(tho they might yet do well with the present President).

I'm not saying it might not have worked. Mexico had its American admirers, just as America had many who felt that Mexico was being treated badly, but I think it would have been the dominant political issue in the 19thc.

Another aspect to consider is foreign involvment and slavery. If it appeared that slavery was going to be forced onto a prostrate Mexico then England or maybe even a coalition of European powers might very well claim that America was violating the spirit of its own Monroe Doctrine and step in. American in 1845 was becoming a world power, but definitely still no real match for England, though she might have given France or Prussia a run for their money.

Its a very interesting timeline. America might have become a bilingual country by the early 1800s. Also,

[Jus Pau Hib]

The United States would have more Spanish Catholics.
The other thing is no illegal immigration from Mexico!!

[David S Poepoe]

"This still didn't keep him from being overthrow by Santa Ana, who then founded the tradition of the CAUDILLO, yet another Latin/South American idea that US Americans would not understand."

Santa Ana didn't found the tradition of caudillo, it was a fairly prevalent institution following independence from Spain throughout Latin America.

[PJ Norris]

Nah, I still think the south would revolt. ALthough by then the US army and economy would have become sucked and bogged down in an earlier and closer Vietnam.The entire US army would have been in Mexico or in western forts, I also think the 'Mexinam' War would have a better trained and larger but weary US army.
Slavery, Lincoln and the war issue would only have fueled the fire as it did. It's just that instead of two organised armies at Manassas you would have seen two rabbles with rifles. A somewhat unprofessional and chaotic beginning of the Civil War instead of the clean cut it actually war. Just my opinion.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by PJ Norris

Nah, I still think the south would revolt. ALthough by then the US army and economy would have become sucked and bogged down in an earlier and closer Vietnam.The entire US army would have been in Mexico or in western forts, I also think the 'Mexinam' War would have a better trained and larger but weary US army.
Slavery, Lincoln and the war issue would only have fueled the fire as it did. It's just that instead of two organised armies at Manassas you would have seen two rabbles with rifles. A somewhat unprofessional and chaotic beginning of the Civil War instead of the clean cut it actually war. Just my opinion.

I dunno. If we posit a hostile and unaccepting Mexico, then we see an America forced to increase its military commitments to deal with the problem. War does a great deal to unite people, in its way, so I don't see secession being an issue for the South when its officer class is already compelling other states to stay in the Union. There probably would have been problems over whether slavery was extended, but if the states themselves get plebiscites on the issues, what I've read here suggests that the Mexicans would have rejected it out of hand.

If Mexico is more peaceful and happily joins the USA, then I'd expect a weaker South in any Civil War caused by slavery as poor Southron types wander off to colonise the emptier bits of Mexico. This'd strengthen Texas, but knock a few thousand off the size of any CS armies at the war's outbreak. Given how close run Bull Run was, this could well have a very definite effect on that battle's outcome at least.

[JHPier]

I can't qiute see Mexico going peacefully. 1848 saw quite a lot of provincial caudillos with their armies having never joined in the war effort. I don't think they'd take kindly to being annexed by the USA.

[NapoleonXIV]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

"This still didn't keep him from being overthrow by Santa Ana, who then founded the tradition of the CAUDILLO, yet another Latin/South American idea that US Americans would not understand."

Santa Ana didn't found the tradition of caudillo, it was a fairly prevalent institution following independence from Spain throughout Latin America.

I wouldn't call Simon Bolivar, Jose de San Martin or even Emperor Iturbide caudillos but rather great liberators. Caudillos I see as more nationalistic opportunists. Santa ana may not have founded the institution but he was one of the first.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

I wouldn't call Simon Bolivar, Jose de San Martin or even Emperor Iturbide caudillos but rather great liberators. Caudillos I see as more nationalistic opportunists. Santa ana may not have founded the institution but he was one of the first.

I would consider it more correct that Bolivar and San Martin, etc. had to deal with caudillos in the process of liberating South America. It is political creation of Spain's colonial structure, and geographic disposition, that continued to live on following independence.

[Straha]

Actually IMO annexing all of mexico in 1848 is implausible if you use OTL's mexican war as the reason. A more realistic scenario is to have the US start backing the texans earlier(with texas trying to secede from mexico to oin the US) and take a LARGE chunk of northern mexico, the yucatan, veracruz and a few southern parts of mexico in the mid 1830's. Come the ATL's 1846 the Mexican government would probably try retaking its land and get conquered.... all by 1848.

[Raymann]

How about this? An alliance between Plantation owners and Hacienda hacendados. There wasn't slavery in Mexico but the peon system wasn't far off and the hacendados would have still wanted government protection just like the plantations. I don't know where they were concentrated so I don't know if its geographic but in the upper classes at least, I can see a lot of people welcoming the annexation.

As for the religious divide, I doubt there would be a flood of immigrants going up North, most would stay in Mexico and anti-Catholic would stay OTL. The real kicker of course is the Civil War, only 12 years after annexation, some might try to take avantage of that. If they stay neutral or fight among themselves, its OTL; if they help the North, its a quick northern victory; if they help the South, they might get their independence back.

[Dave Howery]

The US had an unspoken but pretty effective policy of only annexing lands that were thinly populated so they could be quickly filled with American settlers and turned into states. Thus, I don't think you would ever get the US to annex the heavily populated Mexican states around Mexico City and points south. The US could have annexed a lot more territory in the northern half of Mexico and made them work as states, but the southern half would have been freed, sooner or later....

[Raymann]

And the Phillipeans and Puerto Rico fit into this how?

[Tucker Dwynn]

I could certainly see a large number of the immigrants coming from Europe being diverted down into Mexican ports, as to use it as a "melting pot". Plus the Catholics (Italians and Irish) would probibly feel more comfortable in a region where their religion was in the Majority.

[Timmy811]

Originally Posted by Tucker Dwynn

I could certainly see a large number of the immigrants coming from Europe being diverted down into Mexican ports, as to use it as a "melting pot". Plus the Catholics (Italians and Irish) would probibly feel more comfortable in a region where their religion was in the Majority.

Most of those immigrants were poor and could bearly afford the trip to New York, adding another 1,000 miles onto the trip wouldn't be financialy feasible for most of them.

Also the Mexican War wasn't the only oppurtunity to gain much of Mexico, another oppurtunity to gain more of Mexico was the Gadsen purchase, President Pierce originaly offered $50,000,000 for 250,000 sq. miles of northern Mexico encompassing most of the current Mexican states of Coahuila, Chihuahua, and Sonora as well as all of Baja California. However Santa Ana would only agree to sell 30,000 sq. miles for $10,000,000 because though Mexico needed the money he feared the backlash. Well, he ended up getting over thrown because of it anyways. Would have been interesting to see if the new Mexican government would have tried to get back that land if Santa Ana had sold, whether through diplomacy or force.

[Raymann]

emphasis on "tried". When it comes the land all sales are final.

[Timmy811]

Originally Posted by Raymann

emphasis on "tried". When it comes the land all sales are final.

Well, obviously the Mexican's couldn't do anything about it, the country was bankrupt and primed for revolution.

[Darkest]

I particularily like the idea about the larger Gadsgen purchase. Inspired a few seconds to make a map.

How is it?