Mexico as member of the USA

[zeppelin247]

How is it possible to have at least 75% of modern Mexico annexed into the United States?

[Wolfpaw]

Having the early US overcome its intense anti-Catholicism and general dislike of "greasers" and brown people in general would help.

[Russian Sailor]

Yah maybe even trying to promote unbiased slavery (white blackand asian)


But that may be very ASB

Or having early settler's rely on succesful Indentured servants

[TheNordicBrit]

Have the view of 'Manifest Destiny' be more widespread throughout the US and more along the lines of conquering/Imperialism...

[The Kiat]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Having the early US overcome its intense anti-Catholicism and general dislike of "greasers" and brown people in general would help.

Northern suspicion of the Slave Lobby (or whatever the technical term was) had just as much to do with it. If not for the fact that all land south of the SW would have automatically been open to slavery, a bit more of Mexico might have been taken... er... purchased as a result of the treaty.

[CaliBoy1990]

1. First of all, you'll need to try to placate the governments of the Dixie States.
2. Slavery may last a bit longer than OTL, but certainly, by 1900, you'll need to eliminate it, at least as far as bondage is concerned.{The original DoD timeline had things such as peonage and 'debt-slavery', though, so you could add that dystopic little element if you so wished.}
3. Overt racism won't go over well with the Mexicans, or any other peoples of of Latin America, for that matter.
4. The Civil Rights Movement, or anything similar, would probably have to have much earlier roots than OTL.

That's all I can think of now...............hopefully it helps somebody.

[The Admiral Hook]

Originally Posted by Russian Sailor

Yah maybe even trying to promote unbiased slavery (white blackand asian)


But that may be very ASB

Or having early settler's rely on succesful Indentured servants

White slavery would not happen ever (unless something ASB-ish occurs early on to increase the amount of "white non-whites" i.e. Jews, Irish, Gypsies, etc. forced into the institution; and even then it's probably only sticking to the Irish) but you have brought up an interesting question I have often pondered:

Why were Africans the primary enslaved race? Why did no one think about enslaving Native Americans, Latinos, and to a significantly lesser degree Asian immigrants?

It seems a lot more useful to enslave Amerindians than to spend all that time trying to kill them and move the survivors about. Besides, adding the Afro-Mexicans and other lower class Mexicans (dark-skinned poor Mexicans of barely any European descent) to the mix would have to have appeared a good economic decision. Once Mexican territories are annexed or conquered (as in this prospective TL) the higher classes of European Mexicans and wealthy first generation Mestizos would embrace this as enthusiastically or more-so than chattel slavery...

...Right?

[MerryPrankster]

Amerindians died off too fast. The Spanish started importing blacks, who had tropical-disease resistance, to replace them.

And blacks were much more distinctive in appearance than Irish, Jews, etc., so they were easier to enslave.

[archaeogeek]

Not to point out the obvious but with 8 or 9 million mexicans and slavery abolished in 1824, how do you intend to expand slavery in Mexico and still KEEP Mexico?

(Also what Merry Prankster said; some groups in west Africa have high prevalence of sickle cell anaemia which leads to increased resistance to Malaria, something the natives and the europeans didn't have)

[The Admiral Hook]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that the alternative to enslaving a group of people who died too easily was spending government money sending troops to try for decades to kill them. It can't be disease that discouraged limiting slavery to Africans.

Also, to archaeogeek: Indentured servitude and chattel slavery continued WELL after the abolishment of slavery in Mexico in 1824. There are reports of its existence as late as the early 20th century (Mexican Revolution.) Many of the Mexican elite would sniff at slavery and yet still privately excuse or profit from it. Others still would support its existence as a necessary evil or the right of a "white Mexican" to own poor native slaves (especially the Mayans) and if Mexican territory is under American hands by the time of the Civil War it is likely there would be Mexican states joining the Confederacy, IMHO.

It's wholly possible that slavery would be embraced in much of former Mexico until after the ACW.

Sorry to get off topic a bit but the concept of more racially inclusive slavery (particularly when considering the Amerindians) has recently fascinated me.