It wouldn't. Even changing nothing else, higher U.S. standards of living will bring the birthrate in the Mexican territory down substantiall.
US annexes all of Mexico in 1848: what does the US look like today?
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
These aren't "new immigrants" though. Mexico as a society has existed far longer than the US has. As I said, don't compare it to OTL immigrants, compare it to Quebec.
Skallagrim
Banned
Considering that the more egalitarian, anti-elite revolutionaries in Mexico have time and again had strongholds in the north of the country, it's entirely possible that Northern Mexico is more susceptible to agrarian-populist politics, rather than libertarian-ish attitudes. Think of a Catholic version of the ideas of William Jennings Bryan, combined with OTL Catholic populism. (Which was once a fairly strong movement among Catholics; the term 'social justice' -- once again popular nowadays -- was their invention. I can see that being a big thing in this ATL.)
If the religious gap can be bridged, then an alliance between the "Agrarian West" of the OTL United States and the Northern Mexican states can make for a very powerful rural populist bloc. In fact, this might sweep up OTL Arizona and New Mexico, ironically kind of reducing the libertarian-ish attitudes that prevailed there in OTL.
The Mexican core, on the other hand, was more likely to be a stronghold of elite interests. The way the USA would be bound to set of citizenship and voting qualifications would be almost certain to ensure it stayed like that for a while. The elites were not as opposed to joing the USA as one might think: they understood the potential benefits for themselves. So long as the pro-wealth, pro-business faction of US poltitics is willing to accepts wealthy Catholics as equals and countrymen, there won't be a major issue. (Except in the long term, since such an approach is likely to create anger among the poor. I can see poor urban Mexicans being a big factor in any future *socialist movement.)
Deleted member 109224
I get that, but my point is that there's still going to be Americans trying to sell their religious beliefs.
Lusitania
Donor
All we have to look at is Puerto Rico and its continued high birth rate, today to see that while America influence and power has existed for over 100 years the majority of people are catholic and continue having larger than normal family sizes.
The other thing is if the US did Annex all of Mexico the imperial mindset that would of set in with "America imperial might" along with need to bring "America civilization to these uneducated peasant" by sending all knowing and smarter English speaking protestant missionaries to the backwards catholic peasants. The thing is that while they might teach them some English and try to strip the catholic church of its grip. Unless they ban the church the people would of continued to speak their native languages in home and where they worked. 100 years of American colonial has not changed Puerto Rico and there no reason that it would of changed in a more imperialistic America.
So my point is that an America that encompasses Mexico and most of Central America along with some Spanish speaking Carribean islands would slowly become "Spanish" which is contrary to what the American conquerors wanted.
The other thing is if the US did Annex all of Mexico the imperial mindset that would of set in with "America imperial might" along with need to bring "America civilization to these uneducated peasant" by sending all knowing and smarter English speaking protestant missionaries to the backwards catholic peasants. The thing is that while they might teach them some English and try to strip the catholic church of its grip. Unless they ban the church the people would of continued to speak their native languages in home and where they worked. 100 years of American colonial has not changed Puerto Rico and there no reason that it would of changed in a more imperialistic America.
So my point is that an America that encompasses Mexico and most of Central America along with some Spanish speaking Carribean islands would slowly become "Spanish" which is contrary to what the American conquerors wanted.
It would have also brought in or opened up levels of immigration to Mexico that it didn't have.
As well the US itself had/has quite a high birth/growth rate itself compared to most western countries. 100 million people 1920, 200 million 1970, 300 million 2006, 400 million 2050 (expected).
The influx of greater mass migration to Mexico throughout the late 19th/early 20th and beyond could have had substantial impacts.
A more developed Mexico would be an even bigger magnet for migrants from other regions of Latin America.
Deleted member 67076
You're right, it would be a far higher growth rate. One more resistant to assimilation than people think since Mexico proper as a region is going to start being a huge moneymaker demanding labor intensive immigration. Living standards won't actually get higher as much as death rates would dramatically drop from war.
You lean fairly heavily on Fuller. David T has already dealt with Fuller and with All-Mexico in general.
Even most expansionists didn't want all of Mexico. In OTL, Jefferson Davis tried to have the treaty amended to add "the greater part of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, the whole of Coahuila and a large part of Chihuahua". The attempt failed by a vote of 44 to 11, with the "definite expansionist" Cass voting against it.
Lack of accurate information may have played a role in some of that decision making. When New Mexico was thought to have a quarter million people instead of a fifth to a tenth of that...
US birthrates in the 19th century were explosive in spite of the higher standard of living- demographic transition is far more of a 20th century phenomenon*, so shouldn't be extrapolated to mean that the Mexican population would necessarily be lower.
*and it's probably no coincidence that demographic transition coincides with increased urbanization.
Lusitania
Donor
Also poverty rate actually increases the birth rate. Today poor families have more children than more well todo and higher educated people. Therefore a poorer Latino population will have larger families for longer than more educated and urban Europeans.
This scenario probably is not enough to give the United States a Spanish-speaking majority by itself. Even literally adding the population of Mexico to the Hispanic and Latino population of the United States (some of which are actually of Portuguese or Brazilian ancestry, and in any case many people in the greater category only speak English) gives you a number smaller than that of non-Hispanic Americans, and even this does not take into account the strong possibility that an American Mexico might have gone through the demographic transition much sooner.
To give the United States a Latino majority, the country would have needed to annex the entirety of Central America and the Caribbean, as well as a substantial portion of South America. Not impossible, but not exactly likely.
Lusitania
Donor
I had stated that my premise was that a US that anexes Mexico would not stop at thT snd would extend their imperialism to most if not all the Caribbean . Plus the 3 Spanish speaking islands in Caribbean.
That together with the higher birth rate would guarantee that by mid 20th century the Latino population reaches mid with American English.
I would say it must be, even allowing for a late start, because the Mexican standard of living is very, very much lower than the U.S. for the 20th Century. It might be higher than I'd think, on its face, but lower than OTL, even so.
That is probably because most people understood the OP as a "WI" and not a "PC" or even an "AHC".
I have the feeling that you consider that TTL spanish speakers are going to be restricted to OTL Mexican territory, but I think that it is highly improbable. I think that spanish speaking settlers are going to start moving up north to OTL California in even greater numbers than the English speakers, railways connecting the Mexican Western Coast up to Texas and Louisiana are probably going to be prioritized over any other east-west railroad, it will be easier to mexicans go north.
Possibly, at the end of the 19th century what in OTL 1853 were the territories of Utah, Oregon, New Mexico and the State of California, could be majority spanish speaking, with many pockets of spanish speaking communities in Texas and the (OTL 1853) Unorganized territories.
The thing is, the United States has done a good job of assimilating folks into Anglophone culture historically. Heck, this was the case for the descendants of many of the Hispanic inhabitants present in Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, and California at the time of American annexation have descendants I do not doubt that the America of this timeline would have a much larger Latino population in the sense that many more Americans would be the descendants of such people, but it does not at all follow that it would mean a Spanish-speaking majority.
Now, you could definitely argue that the America of this timeline would have a solid Catholic majority.
Not entirely true, in this situation Oregon and California are going to be akin more to Puerto Rico than to Florida. There is no Anglo population in these territories to assimilate the spanish speakers, and it is easier to get Mexicans than Anglos there.