AHC have the all Mexico Movement succeed

Reduce the influence of slavery. All of Mexico would add quite a few Slave States, which the anti-slave States would and did oppose.
 
How would the US stamp out rebels and social unrest in Mexico? Anything they do would just make it worse.

Considering Americans considered a great many Mexicans to be nothing more than Indians, you can pretty much guess what their fate might be. Although the sheer number of Indians in Mexico would make reservations a difficult option.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Why wouldn't it be? Dixiecrats were slavering over the cotton regions south of the Rio Grande up until 1860.
Because adding -any- slavery states in the Mexican territories is going to vehemently opposed by the northern states, because that's a fairly blatant attempt at retaining the power of the slave states within the union. And for the opposite reason, opposed vehemently by the south if slavery isn't allowed in the territory.

So you end up having to think of some sort of way to compromise between the two, the simple problem is that I can't think of anyway that's going to work out. OTL the compromise end is basically popular sovereignty, so how is this suppose to work when there are large number of Mexicans in the disputed territories? I guess you can just sort of disregard them, but by denying the Mexicans a say in their own political future you are basically instituting a racial caste, only this time the ones at the bottom form a firm majority, which was not the case even in the deep south (I don't think any southern state had under 40% white population). I basically don't know how this is suppose to remain stable.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Considering Americans considered a great many Mexicans to be nothing more than Indians, you can pretty much guess what their fate might be. Although the sheer number of Indians in Mexico would make reservations a difficult option.
Not really, Mexicans definitely were above Indians on America's racial ladder.
 
The problem with having the "all of Mexico" movement succeed is that the political and racial attitudes were dead against the idea.

It's best summed up by a couple of representative quotes:

John C. Calhoun, the quintessential Southern Democrat, said:

"I know further, Sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race--the free white race. To incorporate Mexico would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a Union as that!...Are you, any of you, willing that your States should be governed by these twenty-odd Mexican states...a mixed blood equally ignorant and unfit for liberty, not as good as the Cherokees or Choctaws?"

The opposition to annexing Mexico came from both sides of the political spectrum. Waddy Thompson, a Whig who had also worked in Mexico as a diplomat, said:

"A friend said to me today that we will not take the people, but the land. Precisely the reverse will be the case; we shall take the people, but no land. It is not the country of a savage people whose lands are held in common, but a country in which grants have been made for three hundred and twenty-five years, many of them two and three hundred miles square...it is all private property, and we shall get no public domain which will pay the cost of surveying it. I speak of the country beyond the Rio Grande. We shall get no land, but we shall add a large population, alien to us in feeling, education, race, and religion..."
 
How do you think the US would succeed in holding Mexico? In DoD they took three bites, not one.

The short version is that the US could only hold Mexico by either:

(1) giving the Mexicans full citizenship rights, ie there may well be racism and prejudice, but Mexicans would have to have voting rights, decent legal rights, etc; OR

(2) give most Mexicans no rights at all, and treat them as little better than slaves.


(1) was unacceptable to OTL Americans because they were, well, racist and anti-Catholic. The usual view that Americans of the time had of Mexicans ran along the lines of "mongrel papist greasers".

(2) would be bloody, lengthy, and expensive. Not impossible if the USA has the political will to do it, which was the DoD route, but nothing which the OTL USA of 1848 was interested in doing.

Note that the sort of PoD required to produce an attitude to do either (1) or (2) would lead to a different USA well before 1848, which is why having the OTL USA annex all of Mexico in 1848 is wholly implausible.

For a couple of previous threads which look at this topic in more detail, try here and here.
 
Here's my idea. The USA plays divide and conquer with the Iberio-Mexicans by giving them full citizenship while Amerindian Mexicans are regarded as "Indians" and have no rights. The Black Mexicans are deported to Belize or sold into slavery.
 
Here's my idea. The USA plays divide and conquer with the Iberio-Mexicans by giving them full citizenship while Amerindian Mexicans are regarded as "Indians" and have no rights. The Black Mexicans are deported to Belize or sold into slavery.
You're missing the part where most Mexicans are Indian or part-Indian, so something like this would never work in the slightest.
 
The first one. It may be possible to keep Mexico as the majority of soldiers would only need to be stationed in the densely populated south. Some measures such as encouragement to speck the English language, staying out of Mexican traditions and not trying to force things on them unlike what the US did with the Native Americans, and just generally being less corrupt then the old Mexican government can go a long ways.

That implies the US would go about it sensibly, all evidence points towards the US in this period being nothing like that when dealing with large populations who where not of their culture but under their control.
 
There could be a paper bag or hickory stick test to determine who's "white" and who's "not white". A person who is lighter than a random, debarked stick of hickory is considered "white", and anybody who is darker than that color is considered "nonwhite". There are a lot of lighter skinned mestizos who could be considered "white" under this definition.
 
Sorry, Snake, but really, WHY would the US break up over Mexico, when, hmm, it didn't in the much more troublesome and challenging Civil War, and had already succeeded in conquering, ethnically cleansing and absorbing a vast amount of turf without splitups?

Nah, Cuāuhtemōc prolly has the right of it. First annexation works (the Mexican caudillo at the time was amazingly lame. Then, during the Civil War, they do rebel, and after the Civil War, Grant, whom hated the Mexican War because he was ordered into the warmongering expedition, would've likely at least tried to handed alot, at least, back, not the least because his army was busy with an occupation. It's anybody's guess what Southern borders we'd get.

But, that'd be fun in and of itself.

And there's precedent on citizenship and civil rights in the OTL Mexican turf, which I imagine'd be unchanged. Grant Mexicans citizenship, but mostly don't let them actually use their civil rights.
 
We Take Nothing By Conquest, Thank God!


OR


How One Drunk Hoosier Accidentally Annexed Mexico


However helpless a nation may feel, there is necessarily a point beyond which she cannot be expected to go under any circumstances, in surrendering her territory as the price of peace.” -Nicholas Trist


On November 27, 1847 Nicholas Trist, Commissioner-Plenipotentiary to Mexico, received word of his replacement from President James K. Polk. He was to be relieved of his duties as negotiator of a peace treaty with Mexico to be replaced by former Senator Edward Allen Hannegan of Indiana. [1] The news could not have hit Nicholas Trist harder. Not only was he not to be reimbursed for his efforts [2] but he would be returning to Washington with the stigma of incompetence and insubordination. And furthermore, he had to suspend peace talks with the Mexicans, his only allowed duties to be the preparation for Hannegan's arrival. Interim President of Mexico Manuel de la Peña y Peña and the Mexican Congress were annoyed at this recent turn of events, as were the British representatives in Mexico City. Manuel Peña resigned as Interim President over the issue, to be replaced by Pedro Maria Anaya. [3] Trist wrote to the President that replacing him would be an act of brinksmanship, where the collapse of government in Mexico would be left to chance. His correspondence was ignored.


James K. Polk could not have chosen a worse replacement for Trist. Hannegan was an alcoholic, an unapologetic expansionist and worse, knew no Spanish himself. He brought a Creole from Louisiana to serve as his interpreter. He arrived in Veracruz in late December and made his way to Mexico City by early January. He showed up drunk, having annoyed the merchant-marines he had sailed with by drinking more than his grog ration and he spent his time traveling to Mexico City even more drunk, getting a taste for pulque on the very path that would one day be known as the “Pulque Trail”. [4] His arrival in Mexico City was a scandal followed by intrigue. He delivered a sealed letter asserting his authority to Nicholas Trist and another to General Winfield Scott- a letter that told of his dismissal and replacement by General Gideon Johnson Pillow. Scott was furious, having arrested Pillow for insubordination shortly prior to Hannegan's departure for Mexico. He was made to release Pillow and was relieved of command, returning to Washington later in the month.


The Mexican peace delegation was horrified by the selection of Hannegan. He often showed up drunk to their meetings and unlike Trist, whose Spanish was fluent and had a hint of Havana, he could speak only through the poor Spanish of his Creole interpreter. Beyond that, Hannegan had ignored all of the work Trist had put towards the negotiations, essentially starting the discussions anew. Trist had offered the least harsh terms he was allowed to which were almost too harsh for the Mexicans to accept. Hannegan began negotiations with the harshest terms, including as a demand much of the territory of the former Republic of the Rio Grande. [5] Negotiations came to a standstill and Anaya warned Hannegan that his authority as President was only getting more and more tenuous with each day that went by without progress.


The situation for the government in Mexico was dire. The Yucatan had practically declared independence and was in the midst of a three way civil war, Michoacon, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon were refusing contact with envoys from the government in Querétaro. Other provinces seemed soon to follow. But even then, order could have been maintained in Mexico, if not for the actions of Brigadier-General Sterling Price.


Price, Military Governor of New Mexico, had received reports of a planned Mexican attack from Chihuahua and into New Mexico. He moved his command to El Paso in preparation for a preemptive strike. He was told by his superior, Adjutant General Robert Jones not to act on this intelligence and to remain in El Paso for further orders. He disregarded this and marched on the city of Chihuahua on March 6, 1848. He was approached by envoys of General Angel Trias under flag of truce and told they had no intention of marching on New Mexico. He believed this to be a ruse by the Mexican force and continued his march, occupying the city of Chihuahua. He pursued Trias' forces south of the city, finally meeting them at a hardened position south of Chihuahua. There, at Santa Cruz de Rosales he laid in for a siege against a force three times his size. Little happened until he took the city by assault on March 16. A repositioning of his artillery led the Mexican force to believe a retreat was happening and he used their hasty response to outmaneuver them. Trias surrendered by sundown and General Price forced on him a treaty to end fighting in Chihuahua. Modeled on the Treaty of Cahuenga, which ended fighting in Alta California, the Treaty of Santa Cruz de Rosales was an informal military treaty that disarmed all Mexican forces in the state of Chihuahua and turned the state over to Price's authority. When word of this treaty reached Querétaro on March 30 1848, it was the last straw. [6]


Representatives from Chihuahua left the Congress, believing themselves to be betrayed by the American pretension of peace negotiations. They believed the Treaty of Santa Cruz de Rosales had the same intention as the Treaty of Cahuenga- a none too subtle interlude to annexation. Representatives from other states followed, leaving an already bare chamber all the more empty. They believed that the stalling of peace negotiations was intentional on the part of the Americans. Pedro Maria Anaya, disgraced and abandoned, resigned as President and famously declared, “There is no government in Mexico.”


[1] This is part of the POD. Upon being told by friends in the State Legislature that he will be replaced in the Senate by Indiana Governor John Whitcomb, he resigns early and seeks appointment as Commissioner-Plenipotentiary to Mexico from Polk, whose troubles with Trist were well known. IOTL, Polk never appointed a replacement and Trist refused to leave his job despite orders to the contrary- and that lead to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
[2] As IOTL, only here he doesn't at the least have a success
[3] He was replaced very shortly by Anaya for different reasons IOTL. And unlike IOTL, Trist doesn't manuever him back into the top seat.
[4] The OTL name for the rail line between Veracruz and Mexico City completed in the 1860s
[5] Polk and his Cabinet at one point considered demanding these territories and abandoned it after finally being delivered the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The demand here includes Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas.
[6] Except for the informal treaty, this is pretty much as IOTL. Only difference is it happened after the peace treaty was ratified by Congress.
 
An excellent and well written start to this time-line.

The truth is, until someone explores in detail how the premise might execute itself, alot of these debates remain very unsubstantiated,

However, would Congress ratify the resulting treaty?
 
Sorry, Snake, but really, WHY would the US break up over Mexico, when, hmm, it didn't in the much more troublesome and challenging Civil War, and had already succeeded in conquering, ethnically cleansing and absorbing a vast amount of turf without splitups?

Nah, Cuāuhtemōc prolly has the right of it. First annexation works (the Mexican caudillo at the time was amazingly lame. Then, during the Civil War, they do rebel, and after the Civil War, Grant, whom hated the Mexican War because he was ordered into the warmongering expedition, would've likely at least tried to handed alot, at least, back, not the least because his army was busy with an occupation. It's anybody's guess what Southern borders we'd get.

But, that'd be fun in and of itself.

And there's precedent on citizenship and civil rights in the OTL Mexican turf, which I imagine'd be unchanged. Grant Mexicans citizenship, but mostly don't let them actually use their civil rights.

Because the USA has neither the institutional nor the military nor the cultural equipment in the 1840s to overtake all of Mexico.
 
Because the USA has neither the institutional nor the military nor the cultural equipment in the 1840s to overtake all of Mexico.

This, in spades.

Plus, of course, any peace treaty which annexes all of Mexico has absolutely zero chance of getting past Congress, and the Senate in particular. None. Nada. Zilch. Not the faintest chance.

Since the Missouri Compromise, the US political system has relied on a balance between slave states and free states. Admitting twenty-odd new free soil states (less maybe four or five max which might become slave states in time)... well, to say it throws that system out of balance is an understatement.

If it looks like the majority of Mexican states will become free soil states (most likely), the Southern Senators won't have a bar of such a treaty. Likewise, if it looks like the majority of Mexican states will become slave states (very unlikely in practice, but if it looks like it at the time) then the Northern Senators won't have a bar of such a treaty either.

In short, I'm sorry, but any timeline which has the USA of 1848, or an *USA which is similar to that, annexing all of Mexico has crossed over the implausibility event horizon and is well into the ASB zone.
 
Id highly doubt the Mexicans were that different from the current U.S culture, Perhaps the US could handle them like the US handled white immigrants from Europe. Learn our language and assimilated and you'll be left alone.

Both the Mexicans and the Americans thought they had significantly different cultures. There was a great deal of discrimination against white Catholics from Ireland, Italy, Germany, Poland, etc. There would be even greater discrimination against the non-white Mexican Catholics.
 
Id highly doubt the Mexicans were that different from the current U.S culture, Perhaps the US could handle them like the US handled white immigrants from Europe. Learn our language and assimilated and you'll be left alone. Settlers would largely settle in the northern area of Mexico (Sparsely populated). This may even result in the largely white north join the confederacy, and the South would join the Union assuming a later civil war- 1870 due to the expansion of slavery into Mexico.

The Mexicans and Americans had a vastly different culture. And I doubt a lot of Mexicans would be willing to learn the language of the Anglos if they're being discriminated against, which they will be.
 
Top