United States which annexed Canada and Northern Mexico?

[Setofan1]

Starting from 1765 to present day, how can the United States come to include Canada and Northern Mexico? You may leave Quebec an independent country if need be, however the rest of Canada and Northern Mexico must be included. I'm not too familiar with Canadian history, but I figure it would be easy to include Northern Mexico following the Mexican-American War if President James Polk had gotten his way in the treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Assuming Quebec is apart of this larger United States, the US would encompass an area of 20,875,046 km2 and today assuming population densities coincide with present day, a population of roughly 386,736,619 people.

Furthermore, what would be the political, military and economical implications of this super sized United States of America? For one, the US obviously wouldn't have Canada to rely on, which would in turn force the US to seek out stronger alliances elsewhere. I also doubt the US and Mexico would have good relations today.

By the way for anyone who cares, this US fits in with my alternate world I'm building which includes a larger and surviving Imperial State of Iran.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Just going to point out that the US DID annex northern Mexico.... Texas, California, Colorado....

 

[moxn]

There's been countless topics about how to accomplish this, so I don't know how useful it'd be to go over the same things again. I would just note that, personally, I think the revolution is the only realistic chance the US had at taking Canada in most timelines, since afterward they'd be too weak to take it, and once they did become strong enough they'd have no reason to want to take it.

I think exploring the repercussions could be interesting, though. Both Canada and Northern Mexico have plenty of natural resources, but then so does OTL USA. Population would be larger, but not by very much. So overall, the USA would still likely become a hyperpower, but again not very much more powerful than OTL.

Domestically, the former province of Canada would probably become several new states, all of which would eventually become free states. This could lead to an imbalance in the senate in favor of the North, unless the South responds by breaking areas up into more states as a counter (like East and West Florida instead of just the one Florida). This could lead to an earlier civil war, which would favor the South's chances of winning, or lead to a domino effect where slavery is slowly fazed out nation-wide. I think it could go either way.

In terms of foreign relations, I think there could be an earlier friendship with Britain, since there wouldn't be a Canada or the War of 1812 (assuming it was taken in the revolution) to damage their relations. A USA that is even more self-sufficient in terms of resources, farmland, domestic markets, etc., and which has more internal issues to deal with, could also stay more isolationist for longer. Then again, I could also see a larger USA being more willing to throw its weight around, especially without a War of 1812 to hurt its ego. A lot depends on how Canada would affect the party system and which Presidents get into office as a result.

 

[Setofan1]

Just going to point out that the US DID annex northern Mexico.... Texas, California, Colorado....

Yes but Polk wanted all of what is present day Northern Mexico as well. So in this timeline, the US would include provinces such as Chihuahua and Sinaloa.

There's been countless topics about how to accomplish this, so I don't know how useful it'd be to go over the same things again. I would just note that, personally, I think the revolution is the only realistic chance the US had at taking Canada in most timelines, since afterward they'd be too weak to take it, and once they did become strong enough they'd have no reason to want to take it.

Yes I suppose. So then let's assume that the US got em and simply discuss the implications of a uber United States. Perhaps they'll befriend the UK sooner as you pointed out, but I also see this US forging stronger relations with Argentina.

I'll write more tomorrow since it's getting to be my bed time.

 

[Luminous]

Yes but Polk wanted all of what is present day Northern Mexico as well. So in this timeline, the US would include provinces such as Chihuahua and Sinaloa.

That was Polk's grand scheme. His actual negotiating position was for the OTL cession + Baja +whatever else they could get. Nathaniel Trist, the negotiator, didn't even attempt to meet the minimum starting point of the US.

A different negotiator gets you at least Baja. We've run the numbers before, and Sonora/Chihuahua could be integrated into the US based on demographics. However, Sinaloa/Durango/Rio Grande Republic are too populous for a US that wanted to maintain its overall ethnic makeup. Those southern regions are too Hispanic, too Catholic, and too anti-slavery for the US as we know it to pursue it.

 

[moxn]

Yes I suppose. So then let's assume that the US got em and simply discuss the implications of a uber United States. Perhaps they'll befriend the UK sooner as you pointed out, but I also see this US forging stronger relations with Argentina.

Why Argentina, specifically?

 

[Jared]

Just going to point out that the US DID annex northern Mexico.... Texas, California, Colorado....

Ah, but what about southern northern Mexico?

 

[Magnum]

Wouldn't Britain be able to retain control of places like Newfoundland or (at least parts of) Rupert's Land, should the bulk of Canada be occupied by its southern neighbor ?

 

[VirginiaStronk]

Newfoundland yes, Rupert’s Land I doubt. It’s too cold, terrible, and generally inhospitable. The best I could see for them is the US ‘leasing’ it to them or vice versa.

 

[Clandango]

No matter what areas are suggested the US annex, my thoughts are usually the same. "That hellhole?" It matters not if it is Quebec, Rupert's Land, Sonora, Venezuala, or even good old England itself. The US managed to snag just the sort of land it wanted. Which is to say (mostly) empty. I have seen some good maps on here about the US annexing more land to the north and south, ending up with Texas, California, and Northern Mexican areas being counted as Spanish states, with Quebec as a French one. And with this came different languages, legal traditions, etc.

Ah, but what about southern northern Mexico?

They didn't want it. Southerners were all for moving West and a big issue for Texan independence was the Mexicans wanted to stop illegal immigration as well as the use of slaves. That didn't go over well. Afterwards they wanted more land. Then the US came in, etc etc. Getting territory in a war that was supposed to be about protecting American settlers, (and deciding to move into the Rio Grande which tried to get independent of Mexico themselves anyways) just so some planters could seize all the best land and get more seats in the Senate wouldn't go over well with Northerners. They wanted the land they settled in the West to be lily white, in part because of how the Planters took the best land and left the whites in the south poor dirt farmers, their closet shot at dignity being that they could say they were better than the local bigwig's slaves.

Anyways, the areas south of the Rio Grande were heavily populated., while Gadsen and Sonora had loads of Apache. None of it was especially great for cotton, and while you could go even further to the Yucatan, then you would have loads of dark skinned Catholic Mayans with expectation of either independence or quick statehood. The land might end up good for cocoa, coffee, citrus fruit, etc in half a century, but that was a long ways away and it wouldn't go over well to try to bring in slaves that had lighter skin than most of the local populace. Hell, I imagine most states taken form Mexico, if given the right to vote on it, would keep their abolition.

 

[Setofan1]

Why Argentina, specifically?

The US has long considered South America to be within its sphere of influence and without a steadfast ally in Canada and likely worse relations with Mexico, I forsee Argentina as a potential strong ally. Argentina IRL has always had considerable potential which for the last century they've squandered.

 

[Sevarics]

The Mexican North (IE the north of what remained in Mexico) had lots of mineral deposits that could be enticing for Northern business magnates. I believe there was also Silver deposits in the area as well.