US annexes all of Mexico in 1848: what does the US look like today?

[Tripledot]

This was exactly the case of Germans in the Midwest and they still ended up speaking English. We're also seeing this now in the Southwest.

German only really died out as a first language after WWI and resultant anti-German sentiment. The number of Spanish-speaking Mexicans may decline, but absent concerted attempts to get people to stop speaking Spanish (akin to native boarding schools), it's there to stay. Though really, I don't even think authoritarian measures at language control would cause the majority of Mexicans to give up Spanish before rebelling.

 

[History Learner]

The factors that led to this were widespread poverty and instability, leading to a high death rate. Under any circumstances that lead to stability, sanitation improvements, and economic growth the Mexican population will begin to skyrocket as the demographic transition begins its start.

Undoubtedly, but I don't think that could come about until the late 19th or early 20th Century given the mid-19th Century understanding as far as sanitation and the fact Mexico was pretty stable during the Porfiriato. Some previous speculation of mine:

Reflecting on this, I do indeed believe there would be a jump as Mexico developed after joining the United States, but it wouldn't be as big as what was experienced as an independent nation in the late 20th Century. For example, in the 50 year period between 1854 (Post-Gadsden Purchase) and 1904, the Mexican population grew from 7,859,600 to 14,209,000; for comparison, between 1950 and 2000, the Mexican shot up from 26,282,000 to 100,349,800. That the latter growth rate was due to the advances in medicine and food production (Green Revolution) seems obvious, and we can safely conclude such wouldn't happen ATL. So what do I propose would happen? Let's say that Mexico gets developed from 1848 onward to 1920, and thereafter converges in demographic trends with the rest of the United States as it reaches the same standard of living as their counterparts. Given such, I'd think you'd be more likely see 80 to 100 Million Mexicans, instead of the roughly 160 Million that there are today (Mexico+American diaspora).

Combined with local landowners and law still being in Spanish on the state level, theres going to be great pressure for native migrant workers, immigrants, and investors to learn Spanish.

Absolutely, at least for the first few decades although I expect convergence in the 20th century as by that point you have multiple generations under American rule and popular media will have emerged. As far as the upper classes go, they seem to have already been bilingual, or at least a good number of them, during the occupation of the city; they definitely were eager to ingrate themselves with the Americans and appeared eager for annexation according to multiple sources. Scott, in personal correspondences, said they offered him the Presidency of Mexico with the intention of joining it to the United States.

 

[History Learner]

German only really died out as a first language after WWI and resultant anti-German sentiment. The number of Spanish-speaking Mexicans may decline, but absent concerted attempts to get people to stop speaking Spanish (akin to native boarding schools), it's there to stay. Though really, I don't even think authoritarian measures at language control would cause the majority of Mexicans to give up Spanish before rebelling.

I'll quote David T on the matter:

In 1893-4 there were almost 800 German-language publications in the US. "With the decline of immigration and the consolidation trends after 1890, German-language publications declined to 613 in 1900 and 554 in 1910...*World War I accelerated an ongoing decline.* [my emphasis--DT] *Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups,* p. 420 (article "Germans")

The main reason German was a flourishing language in the US in the early twentieth century was simply that there were so many fairly recent German immigrants. As late as 1890 Germans represented 30.1 percent of the foreign-born in the US--that went down to 25.8 percent in 1900 and 17.1 percent in 1910 and then to 12.1 percent in 1920--that last figure being only in part a result of the War. With the decline of German immigration, the German language was likely to decline. This happened with other languages, too. "In 1923, when the Polish-American journals were at their height, at least 19 dailies, 67 weeklies and 18 monthlies were in circulation." *Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups,* p. 800 (article "Poles") After 1930, "the number of the Polish press titles...began to decline steadily." https://books.google.com/books?id=Jyd_DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA202 Yet the US had never gone to war with Poland...

Again, I am not denying that the world wars encouraged German-American assimilation--but they only accelerated a trend that would have taken place anyway.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...cuisine-in-the-us.415902/page-2#post-14738637

***

In general, a non-English language in the US needs new immigrants to avoid decline through assimilation. Latin America supplied the new immigrants for Spanish. Remember that even the restrictive legislation of the 1920's did not have any quota limits for the Western Hemisphere. (Ironically, those were first set by the 1965 law which many people mistakenly think led to the upsurge of Latin American immigration.) And Puerto Ricans, being US citizens, were always free to move to the mainland.

No doubt the fact that Mexico--unlike Germany or Italy--was next door, and that people in the Southwest had ready access to the Mexican press (and movies, radio, etc.) played a role. But the fact remains that without new immigration, Spanish would be in decline in the US. 75 percent of third-generation Hispanics who identify themselves as Hispanic say that English is their primary language--and 90 percent of third-generation Hispanics who do not identify themselves as Hispanic (and there are quite a few of those) say so. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/...fall-away/ph_2017-12-20_hispanic-identity_10/

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

You know, all this talk about regional difference brings up the other option I considered besides what I proposed with a 2.5 party system of conservative democrats/the opposition/some third party.... The other option I was thinking of was a US dominated by a center-left(in the sense of new deal dem+rockefelelr rep, not clintonite third way) party while you have two conservative parties, one for dixie/evangelicals and another one for catholics/latins splitting the opposition.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Undoubtedly, but I don't think that could come about until the late 19th or early 20th Century given the mid-19th Century understanding as far as sanitation and the fact Mexico was pretty stable during the Porfiriato. Some previous speculation of mine:

But we have a few caveats here- namely the introduction of stopping Mexicos absurdly high death rate, the introduction of better farming methods under mass commerical farms brough about by consolidation of land ownership among magnates and the spread of peasants off communal land (this paradoxically seems to trigger population growth for some reason despite the lowering of quality of life; see- Argentina, Palestine, even Britain proper) and most importantly perhaps, immigration. As Ive pointed out all the new money makers are heavily labor intensive which will spike a far greater demand for immigration than historically ocurred for a variety of sources. I suspect many of these will cut into the migrants that historically moved to America proper in addition to siphoning up demand from Asia. These guys are going to assimilate into Mexican culture given its much easier to ''buy" into Whiteness and its privileges, in addition to the necessities of knowing the local culture and conditions. The inertia of these factors is why Id bank on something like a Mexico with 20-30 million people by 1900 (assuming the Union doesnt implode into a brutal multi sided conflict) by which point you get such a large and hard to digest minority. To say nothing of how nationalist movements of identity are going to pop up sooner rather than later as regional identity consolidates. (If Mexico invests in Latin America -and it will- then thats another pressure to be Spanish speaking)

Absolutely, at least for the first few decades although I expect convergence in the 20th century as by that point you have multiple generations under American rule and popular media will have emerged. As far as the upper classes go, they seem to have already been bilingual, or at least a good number of them, during the occupation of the city; they definitely were eager to ingrate themselves with the Americans and appeared eager for annexation according to multiple sources. Scott, in personal correspondences, said they offered him the Presidency of Mexico with the intention of joining it to the United States.

By that point Id expect bilingualism to be the norm much like Quebec. Its actually fairly standard for most nations on the elite level.

Particularly given I would bet on a Mexico that has all this extra wealth will start to export its own culture as much as it recieves.

Assimilation is hard when a homeland is close by, much as say the Poles were never assimilated in the German Empire.

 

[Tibi088]

I think you also underistimate the importance of choice in regards of minorities. The germans were willing immigrants to the USA and thus much easier to integrate. They or they fathers made the choice to become citizens of the USA. The Mexicans would be forced to be citizens of the USA. They didnt choose to live in the USA and thus will be most likely much less willing to assimilate and give up their language. It will happen but assimilation rate will be much lower especially initially.

 

[Linbot]

Another thing is that Spanish has been the primary language of Mexico for centuries (like French in Quebec), whereas German had only been present in the Midwest for a few decades. Furthermore, American German had no distinct cultural identity to speak of, but Mexicans considered themselves a legitimate nation with an established culture. So comparing American Mexico to Quebec is much more relevant than comparing it to Germans in America.

 

[naraht]

Does anyone have a good estimate for what percentage of the Mexico population would have been taken over if the United States had imposed a border running from the OTL southern tip of Texas to the Sea of Cortez? (the US gets all of Baja California) and what percentage did we actually get iOTL?

 

[Brunaburh]

Does anyone have a good estimate for what percentage of the Mexico population would have been taken over if the United States had imposed a border running from the OTL southern tip of Texas to the Sea of Cortez? (the US gets all of Baja California) and what percentage did we actually get iOTL?

OTL the US took a bit over 1% of the population (80,000 of 7,600,000)

This is a good source for historical population of Mexican states. Baja was practically empty, 8000 Mexicans, excluding some Indians. The US should probably have got this in the treaty, it shows how far the US was from being able to annex Mexico when they couldn't even get Baja. Practically all of Chihuahua and Sonora would come with those borders, they had 150k each. You also get nearly all of Coahuila, 50k maybe. You'd also conservatively get about 100k from the chunks of Sinaloa, Durango and Nueva Leon you'd annex.

So thats an estimate of 458k, 6 % of the population. Plus the 80k from OTL.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

more on demographics/assimilation

Honestly, I expect manufacturing cities in both the north and Dixie* to absorb quite a bit of the extra population growth in old Mexico. Well that and faster urban growth in various frontier regions -- the plains, midwest, west coast. The resulting migration north means you'd see the ah cultural exports into the US, and as the US becomes a world leader culturally eventually abroad. A reasonable analogy in OTL would be how the US from say 1960 to sometime in the 2000s became more and more dixie-influenced culturally overall but make it a late 19th century cultural shift.

* Latins from mexico/central america/the broader us caribbean basin and filipinos being 1) willing to move to dixie 2) the presence of north/south economic ties and railroads making it doable.

 

[naraht]

OTL the US took a bit over 1% of the population (80,000 of 7,600,000)

This is a good source for historical population of Mexican states. Baja was practically empty, 8000 Mexicans, excluding some Indians. The US should probably have got this in the treaty, it shows how far the US was from being able to annex Mexico when they couldn't even get Baja. Practically all of Chihuahua and Sonora would come with those borders, they had 150k each. You also get nearly all of Coahuila, 50k maybe. You'd also conservatively get about 100k from the chunks of Sinaloa, Durango and Nueva Leon you'd annex.

So thats an estimate of 458k, 6 % of the population. Plus the 80k from OTL.

Thank you very much. It looks like all of the numbers 1895 census are educated(?) guesses. For example, for Sonora, the population was 270,000 in 1847 and 147,143 1850. I'm having a hard time imaging what would have cut the numbers in half, I don't think it was split either into other states or lost *that* much land to the USA (or all fled USA military)

So if *that* was the border it would be closer to OTL than this swallowing the entire country scenario.

Thanks!

 

[Brunaburh]

Thank you very much. It looks like all of the numbers 1895 census are educated(?) guesses. For example, for Sonora, the population was 270,000 in 1847 and 147,143 1850. I'm having a hard time imaging what would have cut the numbers in half, I don't think it was split either into other states or lost *that* much land to the USA (or all fled USA military)

So if *that* was the border it would be closer to OTL than this swallowing the entire country scenario.

Thanks!

It's almost certainly a result of the war; refugees and death. Sonora was in a constant state of conflict due to its frontier status, the Comanche and Apache were very serious players round there. When Mexican power collapsed, they must have had a field day. Later on that century there was the French invasions, the 1857-1860 war and the Yaqui rebellions and genocide. Let's not forget the revolution and the cristero war

A lot of people talking about low population growth in Mexico are ignoring war as a major cause.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Honestly, I expect manufacturing cities in both the north and Dixie* to absorb quite a bit of the extra population growth in old Mexico. Well that and faster urban growth in various frontier regions -- the plains, midwest, west coast. The resulting migration north means you'd see the ah cultural exports into the US, and as the US becomes a world leader culturally eventually abroad. A reasonable analogy in OTL would be how the US from say 1960 to sometime in the 2000s became more and more dixie-influenced culturally overall but make it a late 19th century cultural shift.

* Latins from mexico/central america/the broader us caribbean basin and filipinos being 1) willing to move to dixie 2) the presence of north/south economic ties and railroads making it doable.

Thats not gonna happen when the initial growth will be absorbed by the expanding labor intense extractive industries in Mexico proper and later by local industrial hubs like Mexico City or Veracruz.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I'll quote David T on the matter:

At the same time, look at this sentence: And Puerto Ricans, being US citizens, were always free to move to the mainland. Contrary to the hypothesis of English assimilation, Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico have remained steadfastly Hispanophone despite being part of the United States for over a century by now. Why would a similarly large, concentrated, and culturally distinct population of Hispanophones not be able to survive in Mexico when they could in Puerto Rico?

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

At the same time, look at this sentence: And Puerto Ricans, being US citizens, were always free to move to the mainland. Contrary to the hypothesis of English assimilation, Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico have remained steadfastly Hispanophone despite being part of the United States for over a century by now. Why would a similarly large, concentrated, and culturally distinct population of Hispanophones not be able to survive in Mexico when they could in Puerto Rico?

Puerto Rico has had more autonomy as a commonwealth than as a state and is much more isolated than an annexed mexico would have been.

 

[VaultJumper]

The US controlled Mexico city, the Camino real and a road from Veracruz to Mexico city. It also had a strip of coastal territory from Texas down to Tampico. Why and how do you see a government accepting Annexation under that situation? There may be a way, but I can't see it. So your job, as a proponent of this theory, is to explain how it happens, what changes the attitude of the Mexicans and the Americans. If there is no treaty, and even if there is one, the US needs to extend political and military control over a country of 7.5 million people and 770,000 square miles (in addition to the near uninhabited by Mexicans territory further north, ceded OTL). I reckon that requires hundreds of thousands of men even if there is no organized resistance, which there would be. The US can't afford that, and I doubt they can even politically do it in the 1840s.

So, sorry, I am not trying to shut down debate, but I'm trying to keep it based on history rather than fantasy. By all means propose a scenario by which the US annexes Mexico, but don't just go "US gets Mexico" (waves hand).

well the US literally had to find 3 random land owners to sign the peace treaty. The Mexican government wasn't really operational at the time and Mexican citizens even went to us officials to solve disputes because they were fairer and less corrupt under Winfield Scott. If Scott's policies are continued, America's self interest beats it's racism and America's federalism spreads to the newly acquired Mexican territory, I am pretty sure America would find plenty of collaborators and most former Mexican wouldn't care if their lives weren't disrupted too much if not improved.

 

[VaultJumper]

OTL the US took a bit over 1% of the population (80,000 of 7,600,000)

This is a good source for historical population of Mexican states. Baja was practically empty, 8000 Mexicans, excluding some Indians. The US should probably have got this in the treaty, it shows how far the US was from being able to annex Mexico when they couldn't even get Baja. Practically all of Chihuahua and Sonora would come with those borders, they had 150k each. You also get nearly all of Coahuila, 50k maybe. You'd also conservatively get about 100k from the chunks of Sinaloa, Durango and Nueva Leon you'd annex.

So thats an estimate of 458k, 6 % of the population. Plus the 80k from OTL.

well the reason why the us didn't take more was negotiator did not want to take more.

 

[M79]

We seem to have a lot of talk about guerilla warfare here but I think there would not be that level of opposition. With US annexation many of the mestizos suddenly gain rights if only rights to travel within the country - a wave may head for the emerging factory zones in the Northeast and create a sort of 'spectrum of culture' with New England and Neo-Colonial Mexico as the two extremes. Moreover, these folks are likely to emerge as Americans in their own right with a distinct subculture. Something like, "Wicked plant, Ese, y'all on point Holmes"! might not be out of place in the ATL vernacular.

 

[Brunaburh]

well the reason why the us didn't take more was negotiator did not want to take more.

The president wanted to get more, Trist was instructed to get as much as he could negotiate and give up to 30 million in exchange. The Mexicans would not cede any more.

well the US literally had to find 3 random land owners to sign the peace treaty. The Mexican government wasn't really operational at the time and Mexican citizens even went to us officials to solve disputes because they were fairer and less corrupt under Winfield Scott. If Scott's policies are continued, America's self interest beats it's racism and America's federalism spreads to the newly acquired Mexican territory, I am pretty sure America would find plenty of collaborators and most former Mexican wouldn't care if their lives weren't disrupted too much if not improved.

I see, so you foresee a benevolent colonial situation? The US was fully aware it could not hold and dominate all of Mexico, which is why it didn't try.

 

[Nurhaci]

Like a bigger Mexico