Im not sure if sports will follow the same timeline: football is popular in North America and soccer in Latin America. Both sports weren't codified until the vert late 19th/early 20th century. So, with a dominant US in thia ATL Mexico I can see North American sports being as popular in Mexico. Also, Im pretty sure Catholic immigrants would prefer to immigrate to Mexican lands and live with their Catholic coreligionist. So, I would expect to see this Mexico to have more people of Irish, Italian and Polish descent.
US annexes all of Mexico in 1848: what does the US look like today?
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
Im not sure if sports will follow the same timeline: football is popular in North America and soccer in Latin America. Both sports weren't codified until the vert late 19th/early 20th century. So, with a dominant US in thia ATL Mexico I can see North American sports being as popular in Mexico. Also, Im pretty sure Catholic immigrants would prefer to immigrate to Mexican lands and live with their Catholic coreligionist. So, I would expect to see this Mexico to have more people of Irish, Italian and Polish descent.
Refugees would have been a secondary effect, I don't believe that American troops set foot in Sonora during the war. Was the Mexican military that much weaker in Sonora in 1850 than it was in 1845? And did the Apache benefit from having a safe zone where the Mexican military could not persue? Also, were there that many people in the Gadsen purchase area?
Not doubting lots of other wars, doubting that a state of mexico would drop to half of its previous population in 3 years...
Max Sinister
Banned
Decades of Darkness has a bit about this too: Baseball is restricted to New England, ringball (basketball) more popular in the *US.
Ringball was based off of an aztec/nahua ballgame and isn't OTL's basketball though.
History Learner
Banned
Largely for the reasons @interpoltomo outlined. Even then, around 20% speak English fluently and another 71.9% can speak it.
History Learner
Banned
I'll either respond to this later today or tomorrow; drinking an entire bottle of liquor was not a smart move last night.
These "reasons" are reasons for nothing. Puerto Rico cannot conceivably be described as "more isolated" in the modern era than Mexico was in 1848, given that it's possible to fly there in a few hours or at most take a steamship there in a few days, and transmit messages in seconds, while it wasn't even a commonwealth until 1950--and I don't see how a commonwealth is "more autonomous" than a state, anyway. If anything, these "reasons" just strengthen the case that Mexico under American control would probably remain mostly Hispanophone.
And sure, Puerto Ricans might generally be able to speak English. As a second language, not their sole language, which is what you were asserting would happen in Mexico.
History Learner
Banned
We'd need to establish if the high death rate was related to the various conflicts fought within Mexico from 1848 onwards or more mundane reasons; same for farming. Would you happen to have any good sources on hand? I could look through JSTOR if not.
Now this, in particular, I am wary of as we have a good contemporary example in the form of the South to the contrary. Intense labor shortages, best evidenced by the skyrocketing price of slaves, still did not result in significant numbers of immigrants arriving there, even into the early 20th Century.
I'm not sure what you mean with these two.
Presuming no Civil War and a fairly decent Dixie movement into Northern Mexico, I could see 20 Million. This would, however, be counteracted by a larger "original" U.S. population as a result, however.
One thing that I think needs to be said about Quebec is that they have had to enact very stringent laws to protect the status of French within the Province, and in that have been aided by the Federal Government of Canada; I don't foresee that happening in the alt U.S.
In Posen yes, but in East Prussia we also saw significant numbers of Poles voting against incorporation into Poland in 1919 as well as the near complete assimilation of Ruhr Poles. If Mexico is entirely annexed, there also isn't a nearby Homeland for ex-Mexicans.
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
I'm not sure what your argument is with this? Comparing Mexico in 1848 to 2018 Puerto Rico is a non-starter namely because Mexico in 1848 had not been apart of the U.S. for any length of time.
Before 1950 it was a territory and here's a pretty good primer on what being a Commonwealth entails.
We can't say that they wouldn't give it up - Trist refused to negotiate the minimum he was instructed to obtain, and instead only sought less than what Polk instructed.
Note that I quite deliberately did not mention how communications could be sent to Puerto Rico "in seconds" to leave open the possibility of the messages arriving via telegraphy and telephony, which of course existed in 1898. I also specifically mentioned that steamships could also reach the island quickly to forestall exactly this objection, about there not being aircraft in 1898. If anything, Puerto Rico was probably easier to reach from Washington than some places on the mainland.
The point was (and is) that Puerto Rico has not significantly assimilated to speaking English as a first or primary language despite having been controlled by the United States for over a century. @interpoltomo's argument was that this was because it was isolated from the mainland and a Commonwealth instead of a state. But if anything Puerto Rico was less isolated from the mainland in 1898, and certainly more recently, than the more populated parts of Mexico would have been in 1848 and for a good while afterwards, and until 1950 it wasn't a Commonwealth at all--yet there was still not significant assimilation to English as a primary language. This makes me skeptical that at least central Mexico and other populated regions would have significantly assimilated to English as a primary language. Perhaps in the upper classes, but not among the bulk of the population.
Um, yes, that's what I said? It wasn't a Commonwealth until 1950, before that it obviously must have been an ordinary territory.
I am aware of what being a Commonwealth entails. What I do not see, and what that link does not indicate, is how being a territory of the United States ultimately subject to Congressional control gives Puerto Rico more autonomy than being a state would, as @interpoltomo claimed. PROMESA alone would seem to explode that argument; I'm pretty sure it would be unconstitutional for Congress to try to control any state's budget that way.
In any case, the point of pointing out that Puerto Rico didn't have Commonwealth status until 1950 is that this status didn't come until half a century after not having Commonwealth status, and yet there wasn't significant assimilation during that period, either. So it does not really seem to me that the Commonwealth could have had any significant effect on Puerto Rican ability to resist or forestall assimilation, because while they were a territory they certainly were not more autonomous than any state.
Honestly it really depends who gets in power in the Mexican territories, how the majority of Mexican citizens are treated, and how many collaborators the US gets.
My guess is elites sell out/buy in, mestizos get treated as poorly as non-protestant whites while Indians get massacred/repressed to varying extents* for a few generations depending on the tribe/state. Probably strong pushes for a mix of anglicization/hispanicization for Indians earlier than OTL.
* language-based franchise, for example or in say arizona/chihauaha/rio grande jim crow-lite or simple wealth-based franchise
Yeah, that'd be the case at first but increased political/economic stability meaning more markets for them will help get them on board. Well that and the likely post-annexation partial social turnover as those who needed the instability the most decline in status while new money, including yankee/dixie carpetbaggers rises.
History Learner
Banned
Those communications certainly existed, but to my knowledge no direct connections, especially for telephone, existed between CONUS and Puerto Rico for some time. I also find the whole point about communications as being hollow; I can send a message to someone in China today and vice versa, that does not mean assimilation is occurring.
Not really; Washington D.C. is almost 2,000 miles from Puerto Rico while by the dawn of the 20th Century you could generally get just about anywhere in the U.S. within three days thanks to railroads.
An annexed Mexico would have direct land connections and more active interactions the Anglophone population of the U.S. particularly as a result of migration from the Southern states. It also would be directly tied into the political structure of the U.S. in a way Mexico never has been.
Your post was unclear, my apologies.
Again, you were very unclear on this:
The relevant bits:
Before becoming a Commonwealth it was an unincorporated territory, which in of itself was a special designation. Despite this loose political relationship and and sheer isolation from the U.S. roughly a fourth of the population still speaks English fluently and 70% overall at least speak some.
That's the point. @interpoltomo argued that Puerto Rico did not assimilate because, in part, it was more isolated from the United States than Mexico would have been; I was demonstrating that this is not true. You are merely adding additional evidence that isolation is not really such an important factor.
And you can sail 2000 miles in 6 days at 12 knots, which isn't a particularly fast cruise; the point is that Puerto Rico was approximately as difficult to reach as many other places in the country, especially somewhat remote areas such as mountainous areas in the Mountain West, which were nevertheless completely Anglicized in a linguistic sense. This indicates that a large native population of Hispanophones is not so trivial to Anglicize.
Remember that a considerable portion of northern Mexico is relatively empty desert or mountains. In practice, the main connections between the United States and central and southern Mexico for some time are likely to be by sea; those areas will probably be very much like islands in many respects.
EDIT: Also, given available technology in 1848 it will take much longer for people to reach the central or southern Mexico overland than via sea travel; rather longer than it took to reach Puerto Rico from the United States in 1898, for sure.
Sure, I just question how significant all of these factors would actually be in driving the abandonment of the Spanish language in favor of English. They might drive bilingualism, but that's not at all the same thing as the claim that Mexico would become mostly English-speaking.
Yes, I read the material you're quoting. It explains how being a commonwealth gives Puerto Rico more autonomy than it would have as a territory, which I already knew. It does not explain how it has more autonomy than it would have as a state, which was the assertion @interpoltomo made, which I very specifically and repeatedly said was what I was talking about in the material you quoted:
I can literally, for example, replace every single instance of the term "Puerto Rico" and "insular" in the other material you quote with the word "state" and it's still entirely true or favors states as being more autonomous:
By contrast, the limitations outlined in the next paragraph mostly do not apply to states:
Again, Congress can't simply pass a law to establish an unelected commission to run any state's budget the way they can and has done to Puerto Rico, which is a major indication that being a Commonwealth makes Puerto Rico less autonomous than states, not more; it has less ability to run its own affairs without the specter of Congress coming in at any moment and changing things up, which is pretty much the definition of autonomy.
Meanwhile, the third paragraph could equally well be true of a state; in fact, the state of Texas meets many of those criteria, such as having a defined territory, history, and language (languages, in Texas' case; English is the main language of Texas, of course, but Spanish is far too historically important and well-used along the border to be left out). It has its own flag, the Lone Star Flag, and its own anthem, "Texas, Our Texas"; it has heroes like Davy Crockett or Sam Houston that kids learn about in school and rituals like the state pledge; it has its own university systems (plural!), museums, libraries, and other institutions; and its own traditions in literature and art, although I'll grant that many of these share great commonalities with neighboring literatures in the South, Mexico, and the Plains states. Unlike some other states, perhaps, there are many inhabitants of Texas who strongly identify with being Texan, along with or even perhaps in some cases before being American, so it also has a national population. It only lacks independent representation in sports and beauty contests. So unless you think independent participation in the Olympics and Miss World is a major sign of autonomy, I don't see how this is relevant.
It was special alright, but @interpoltomo's argument was that Puerto Rico was partially protected from assimilation by virtue of being more autonomous than states, and the entire point of designating it an unincorporated territory was so that the federal government could treat it as being less autonomous, or at least equal, than other parts of the United States. So I don't see how the special status of pre-Commonwealth Puerto Rico supports the argument that having greater autonomy that it would have as a state played an important role in preserving the dominance of the Spanish language in Puerto Rico.
I am skeptical that central and southern Mexico will become primarily English speaking--that is to say, regions where English is the usual first language--not that Mexico might become bilingual to some greater or lesser extent, so this statistic means nothing. And, again, Puerto Rico is not isolated from the United States, and hasn't been at any point during the time it's been part of the United States, and it does not have a loose political relationship with the United States, and certainly didn't before 1950!
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
Puerto Rico is indeed more isolated than Mexico would be and my entire point was that the communications bit is largely irrelevant to both sides of this debate; isolation is, however, vital to the issue.
Which furthers the point I made, in that the claim that parts of the U.S. are more isolated than Puerto Rico isn't valid. If it only takes you three days to get anywhere in the U.S. versus six days to sail to Puerto Rico, it's obvious. The Mountain West is also an invalid example largely because it was devoid of inhabitants for the most part.
Probably for no more than a decade, as by then the Trans-Continental railway will be underway most likely.
Largely counteracted by an additional 50 years of ownership and regular rail traffic.
Except it does, repeatedly.
Your entire argument rests on ignoring everything else that differentiates Puerto Rico in favor of arguing budgetary process rules can decide whether or not assimilation occurs.
You're conflating regionalism with a sense of nationalism. Further, I am not aware of any polling with regards to Texas that they place that identity before being American. This is, however, irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Last edited: