AHC: More Hispanic USA

Spaniards could also immigrate in larger numbers to the United States, if Spain lost its colonies earlier. Actually it is somewhat surprising that there was not more immigration from Spain to the United States, similarly to France.
I always thought the same. Spain and France had a lot of political issues, civil unrest, war, and economic issues in 1800s until after ww2. I would also think the US would be more welcoming to the French then they would Italians.
 
Have all of the all of Mexico annexation movement succeed - after much wrangling and negotiating, arrangements are made with the locals that, if not satisfying to both sides, at least keep things cordial, ie, local land rights are respected, basic rights are extended, Mexico gets stability, some increased trade, and mostly left alone by DC, though there is some talk about organizing states.

Then comes the Civil War - despite expectations that Mexican nationalists may take advantage of the Civil War to secede, instead, dozens of volunteer regiments are organized by Mexican-Americans to fight for the Union, many looking to enjoy the idea of wiping out slavery early on, and to kill a few of the Dixie Golden Circle bastards, so much the better. Several divisions from Mexico cover themselves in glory fighting in Texas, and alongside Grant and Sherman throughout the South. Post-Gettysburg, alongside the likes of Nevada, West Virginia and Nebraska, several states are admitted from the more populated core of Central Mexico while Lincoln is President, with several territories organized in Northern Mexico.

Post-Civil War, there is a new sense of unity between at least the Yankees and the Mexicanos - both fought to preserve the Union, and to eliminate slavery. During reconstruction, the gilded age and Western Expansion, railroads and factories go up in Mexico, creating much wealth, and hewing America and Mexico even closer together. While there is some suspicion because they're Papists, English is increasingly spoken in the Mexican states, even if it is one heavily seasoned with the local Spanish. The various Mexican states become a favored destination for Irish and Italian immigrants because of how they treat Catholics, even if the local elites still look down on the newcomers. The Northern Mexican territories draw the usual mix of Western settlers, with some additional settlers from central Mexico, and even pretty well off groups of freedman.

Over the next few decades, several other Hispanic regions are annexed to the United States - everything North of the Darien gap, (sans British Belize), Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, with Mexico serving as not only a blueprint for how to integrate them, but one of the main pushers for annexation - they've embraced the American idea of Manifest Destiny as a way to (slowly) increase their voting bloc.

By the OTL 1950s, the various Mexican states is seen as American as Texas or Louisiana or Arizona, even if the region has an odd, slowly declining form of American English, Spanglish, comparable to the German-heavy versions of the midwest, or the various Cajun languages of former French Louisiana. Oddly enough, racially, Mexicans are seen as white, more than even Italians or Irish, or more often than not Puerto Ricans and Filipinos, or god forbid, those Guatemalans and Hondurans.

While there is a "Hispanic/Latino" identity, there is a hierarchy to it of sorts.

Tejanos, Mexicans are Cubans are white, and have been integrated into American culture for years - John Wayne is well known for his taste in Mexican women and wives, and all of America watches Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz on TV every night, while Fidel Castro, Mickey Mantle and Joe Dimaggio have turned the Yankees into a dynasty. Politically, the Mexican states are often wild cards in elections, though they tend to vote GOP or pro-Catholic Democrats - it's expected that Vice President Nixon will pick Mexican Senator and oil tycoon Lazaro Cardenas (R-MX) as his running mate in 60.

Then, there are the Filipinos and Puerto Ricans. Filipinos may be in for some change in those fortunes soon, with President Eisenhaur set to admit Luzon and Visayas as states alongside Alaska and Hawaii, Manila is the pearl of American Asia, and deeply important for American power projection in Asia. A generation of American GIs, sailors and Marines coming home with Filipina wives has also sped things along. Puerto Ricans are still looked down upon, more so now for "why can't you lazy bastards be more like the Cubans or Mexico?" made somewhat worse by Puerto Rico still dragging it's feet on committing to statehood. Some things never change.

Near the bottom of American society - save perhaps African Americans in the deep South or the Irish up North - are the various Central American peoples. While Panama may have earned statehood from the Canal, the rest are territories mostly exploited for resources and cheap labor. Racial stereotypes about people from this region are common and popular, and unless you're an American soldier or working for the various fruit companies here, life here is poor and often miserable. Mexican-Americans are famously vocal about their disdain for their southern cousins - the fastest way to start a fight with a Mexican-American is to call them Guatemalans and Hondurans. There is some hope the long talked about canal in Nicaragua may change fortunes in the region, but it's only talk for now.
 
why would they vote GOP and not democratic? rural, highly elitist, the south but catholic and minus civil war resentments.

A side effect of the deal made with Lincoln, and the Dems spending the first few decades of American Mexico's existence as the Party of the South (TM), admittedly lessened by the 20s as Dems up North began tapping Catholics as a voting bloc.
 
I'd believe mexicans in ttl's northern US voting GOP because of democrats = irish but I really don't see former Mexico voting GOP much past ttl's *reconstruction.
 
1. How: The conclusion of the Mexican American War is the Annexation of Mexico.
2. Effect: The US Civil War is not between the North and South, but between Texas and the rest of the former Mexico states, over what constitutes "Mexican" food. Side revolts in New Mexico occur. In the end, all parties simultaneously agree to peace and a joint declaration of war against the heresy that is Taco Bell.
 
Have all of the all of Mexico annexation movement succeed - after much wrangling and negotiating, arrangements are made with the locals that, if not satisfying to both sides, at least keep things cordial, ie, local land rights are respected, basic rights are extended, Mexico gets stability, some increased trade, and mostly left alone by DC, though there is some talk about organizing states.

Then comes the Civil War - despite expectations that Mexican nationalists may take advantage of the Civil War to secede, instead, dozens of volunteer regiments are organized by Mexican-Americans to fight for the Union, many looking to enjoy the idea of wiping out slavery early on, and to kill a few of the Dixie Golden Circle bastards, so much the better. Several divisions from Mexico cover themselves in glory fighting in Texas, and alongside Grant and Sherman throughout the South. Post-Gettysburg, alongside the likes of Nevada, West Virginia and Nebraska, several states are admitted from the more populated core of Central Mexico while Lincoln is President, with several territories organized in Northern Mexico.

Post-Civil War, there is a new sense of unity between at least the Yankees and the Mexicanos - both fought to preserve the Union, and to eliminate slavery. During reconstruction, the gilded age and Western Expansion, railroads and factories go up in Mexico, creating much wealth, and hewing America and Mexico even closer together. While there is some suspicion because they're Papists, English is increasingly spoken in the Mexican states, even if it is one heavily seasoned with the local Spanish. The various Mexican states become a favored destination for Irish and Italian immigrants because of how they treat Catholics, even if the local elites still look down on the newcomers. The Northern Mexican territories draw the usual mix of Western settlers, with some additional settlers from central Mexico, and even pretty well off groups of freedman.

Over the next few decades, several other Hispanic regions are annexed to the United States - everything North of the Darien gap, (sans British Belize), Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, with Mexico serving as not only a blueprint for how to integrate them, but one of the main pushers for annexation - they've embraced the American idea of Manifest Destiny as a way to (slowly) increase their voting bloc.

By the OTL 1950s, the various Mexican states is seen as American as Texas or Louisiana or Arizona, even if the region has an odd, slowly declining form of American English, Spanglish, comparable to the German-heavy versions of the midwest, or the various Cajun languages of former French Louisiana. Oddly enough, racially, Mexicans are seen as white, more than even Italians or Irish, or more often than not Puerto Ricans and Filipinos, or god forbid, those Guatemalans and Hondurans.

While there is a "Hispanic/Latino" identity, there is a hierarchy to it of sorts.

Tejanos, Mexicans are Cubans are white, and have been integrated into American culture for years - John Wayne is well known for his taste in Mexican women and wives, and all of America watches Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz on TV every night, while Fidel Castro, Mickey Mantle and Joe Dimaggio have turned the Yankees into a dynasty. Politically, the Mexican states are often wild cards in elections, though they tend to vote GOP or pro-Catholic Democrats - it's expected that Vice President Nixon will pick Mexican Senator and oil tycoon Lazaro Cardenas (R-MX) as his running mate in 60.

Then, there are the Filipinos and Puerto Ricans. Filipinos may be in for some change in those fortunes soon, with President Eisenhaur set to admit Luzon and Visayas as states alongside Alaska and Hawaii, Manila is the pearl of American Asia, and deeply important for American power projection in Asia. A generation of American GIs, sailors and Marines coming home with Filipina wives has also sped things along. Puerto Ricans are still looked down upon, more so now for "why can't you lazy bastards be more like the Cubans or Mexico?" made somewhat worse by Puerto Rico still dragging it's feet on committing to statehood. Some things never change.

Near the bottom of American society - save perhaps African Americans in the deep South or the Irish up North - are the various Central American peoples. While Panama may have earned statehood from the Canal, the rest are territories mostly exploited for resources and cheap labor. Racial stereotypes about people from this region are common and popular, and unless you're an American soldier or working for the various fruit companies here, life here is poor and often miserable. Mexican-Americans are famously vocal about their disdain for their southern cousins - the fastest way to start a fight with a Mexican-American is to call them Guatemalans and Hondurans. There is some hope the long talked about canal in Nicaragua may change fortunes in the region, but it's only talk for now.
This is probably my favorite of the ideas shared on this thread, would love to see a written timeline like this!
 

Deleted member 114175

A perfect world doesn't exi--

The US Civil War is not between the North and South, but between Texas and the rest of the former Mexico states, over what constitutes "Mexican" food. Side revolts in New Mexico occur. In the end, all parties simultaneously agree to peace and a joint declaration of war against the heresy that is Taco Bell.
 
1. How: The conclusion of the Mexican American War is the Annexation of Mexico.
2. Effect: The US Civil War is not between the North and South, but between Texas and the rest of the former Mexico states, over what constitutes "Mexican" food. Side revolts in New Mexico occur. In the end, all parties simultaneously agree to peace and a joint declaration of war against the heresy that is Taco Bell.
Perfect
 
I keep seeing post about pods that start before 1900. I think I have a good idea that involves a all Mexico movement winning out in the United States after winning the Mexican-American War. Is that ok to start with and use if it goes into the 1900s?
 
Mexico (or New Spain) gets more land after its independence. More Mexican immigrants move to Texas or Puerto Rico.

If it's post 1900? Annexing Cuba, making Puerto Rico a state, and maybe making some sort of transnational union similar to the EU but throughout all of America.
 
I keep seeing post about pods that start before 1900. I think I have a good idea that involves a all Mexico movement winning out in the United States after winning the Mexican-American War. Is that ok to start with and use if it goes into the 1900s?
Yeah this thread is more “span” I just put it under after 1900’s because the end goal is 30% Hispanic around now, but changes before the 1900’s would be fine!
 
Due to the government leaning a bit more towards southern favor and having more democrats in office then otl during the Mexican-American War decides to just annex all of Mexico. The decision is very controversial especially in the north among abolitionist. The US will able to control anything above the Tropic of Cancer without too much trouble. They will have to deal with natives and outlaws in Northern Mexico but nothing too much worse then the otl American west. The heart of Mexico and Yucatán will be where American sees the most opposition and fighting right after the war. After heavy fighting in the region and realizing reshaping these regions along southern lines would not go well copperheads and democrats decided to change and adept their plans for this reason. They might not be able to turn most of the regions conquered into plantation societies like the south but they could have established a similar society based off the caste system of the past. Hispanics that are considered more Spaniard and white in blood are put at the top, Mestizos and assimilated natives in the middle, unassimilated natives and blacks at the bottom. Didn’t the white Spanish minority in the Yucatán ask for US annexation hoping they could help them put the natives(Mayans I think) back into something that was like a mix between sharecropping and serfdom? These areas are still made into slave states but in many areas the slave population is small to none. Much of the labor is done by the local mestizos or non-whites who are put into a situation that is like a mix between sharecropping, indebted labor, Jim Crow, and the caste system. The local elites accept American rule and slavery in the area in exchange the Americans(mostly southerners) support their own aristocratic system, language, culture, and political dominance. Maybe they also somehow get the support of the local Catholic Church who they protect from anti-clericalism elements. In elections and politics Latin American areas and everything below the 36.5 parallel in the US supports the south like the Midwest supported the North. Maybe the resources exported to the north from these regions might make more northern industrialist look the other way to what’s going on in the region.

Due to the public outrage a draft could cause, the US uses private groups to keep order and control in areas bottom the Tropic of Cancer that are outside of the city and port areas. The same people who are filibustering in Central America are going out into the Mexican countryside to deal with any local resistance or nationalist. With government support and assistance from local elites they are able to do this pretty efficiently. Filibustering by the copperheads in Central America eventually leads to the US annexing all of it. By the turn of the century the US also takes Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all of Panama. Pro-slavery southerners use the unrest and issues in Latin America to distract people from the slavery issue before it is eventually down away with slowly by the turn of the century and replaced with complete segregation(ends somewhere between the 40s and 60s). This American took these regions before a strong national identity takes place there they can make these people consider themselves as Spanish speaking Americans or at least some of them.
 
I was going to refrain from talking about "All Mexico" given the fact this is in Post-1900, but since it has been brought up so much I figure I'll add my usual spiel as well as clear up some confusion about it I'm seeing.

Vice President George Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Walker, and Secretary of State James Buchanan were all in favor of All Mexico. President Polk according to several contemporary sources and modern research was also likely privately in favor of it as well. More importantly, perhaps, is that a large and growing faction in the Senate, increasingly dominant in the Northern states and having split the South, was also in favor of annexing Mexico:

The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48
In the Congress which assembled in December, 1847, the question of the acquisition of all Mexico appeared in the open for the first time. Among those who may definitely be numbered with the expansionists were Senators Dickinson and Dix of New York, Hannegan of Indiana, Cass of Michigan, Allen of Ohio, Breese and Douglas, of Illinois, Atchison of Missouri, Foote and Davis of Mississippi, and Houston and Rusk of Texas. The leadership in the fight, against imperialism fell not to the anti-slavery element but to pro-slavery Democrats. On December 15, Calhoun in the Senate and Holmes in the House introduced resolutions opposing the acquisition of Mexico. Other pro-slavery Democrats, Butler of South Carolina, and Meade and Hunter of Virginia, also registered their opposition.
In the Congress which assembled in December, 1847, the question of the acquisition of all Mexico appeared in the open for the first time. Among those who may definitely be numbered with the expansionists were Senators Dickinson and Dix of New York, Hannegan of Indiana, Cass of Michigan, Allen of Ohio, Breese and Douglas, of Illinois, Atchison of Missouri, Foote and Davis of Mississippi, and Houston and Rusk of Texas. The leadership in the fight, against imperialism fell not to the anti-slavery element but to pro-slavery Democrats. On December 15, Calhoun in the Senate and Holmes in the House introduced resolutions opposing the acquisition of Mexico. Other pro-slavery Democrats, Butler of South Carolina, and Meade and Hunter of Virginia, also registered their opposition.

Between October, 1847, and the following February the theme of the story underwent considerable alteration. By the latter date, as noted above, the National Era was advocating the absorption of Mexico, insisting that it would be free territory, and citing along with other evidence, Calhoun's opposition to annexation as proof that the anti-slavery interests had nothing to fear from extensive territorial acquisitions. In other words, the National Era was convinced that if there had been a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to acquire all Mexico, it could not realize its ends even though the whole country were annexed. This conviction seems to have come largely as a result of the propaganda, which was streaming from the northern expansionist press and the opposition of Calhoun.The editor probably reasoned that since Calhoun was opposing absorption the expansionists at the North must be correct. If the main body of the anti-slavery forces could be converted to this point of view, the movement for absorption which was growing rapidly at the time would doubtless become very strong indeed.

Care should be taken not to exaggerate the anti-slavery sentiment for all Mexico. It is evident that some such sentiment did exist, but there was not sufficient time for it to develop to significant proportions. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had already been signed in Mexico when the National Era took up the cry of all Mexico with or without the Wilmot Proviso. In a short while the war was over and whatever anti-slavery sentiment there was for all Mexico collapsed along with the general expansion movement. Had the war continued several months longer it is not improbable that increasing numbers from the anti-slavery camp would have joined forces with those who were demanding the acquisition of Mexico. Their action would have been based on the assumption that they were undermining the position of the pro slavery forces. It was, not to be expected that those abolitionists, and there were undoubtedly some, who were using the bogey of "extension of slavery" to cover up other reasons for opposition to annexation, would have ever become convinced of the error of their ways. They would hold on to their pet theory to the bitter end.

To summarize briefly what seem to be the conclusions to be drawn from this study, it might be said that the chief support for the absorption of Mexico came from the North and West and from those whose pro-slavery or anti-slavery bias was not a prime consideration. In quarters where the attitude toward slavery was all-important there was, contrary to the accepted view, a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to prevent the acquisition of all Mexico and the beginnings of an "anti-slavery conspiracy" to secure all the territory in the Southwest that happened to be available. Behind both these movements was a belief that expansion would prove injurious to the slavery interest. Had the war continued much longer the two movements, would probably have developed strength and have become more easily discernible. Lack of time for expansionist sentiment to develop was the chief cause of this country's, failure to annex Mexico in 1848. Even as it was, however, there might have been sufficient demand for annexation in February and March, 1848, to have wrecked the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had it not been for the opposition of pro-slavery Democrats led by Calhoun. Their attitude divided the party committed to expansion in the presence of a unified opposition. Whatever the motives which may be attributed to Calhoun and his friends, the fact remains that those who feel that the absorption of Mexico in 1848 would have meant permanent injury to the best interests of the United States, should be extremely grateful to those slaveholders. To them not a little credit is due for the fact that Mexico is to-day an independent nation.

I'd also include The United States and Mexico, 1847-1848 by Edward G. Bourne in the The American Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Apr., 1900), pp. 491-502 as he largely came to the same conclusions as this aforementioned work did.

The issue of race is also rather overblown, I think, as the situation at the time was far different than currently thought of. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans, even going as far as to write poetry on such. These sentiments did not stop at rhetoric, however, as such inter-marriages were actually common in the parts of the Mexican cession that had existing, sufficiently large populations and were, apparently, considered respectable. Essentially, everyone outside of Calhoun's Pro-Slavery faction didn't really care and it was pretty well understood Calhoun's stance was born out of fears of additional free states entering the Union as opposed to his rhetorical concerns of a threat to the WASP ruling elite of the United States.

As far as Mexican sentiment on the issue, the Federalists, one of the two major Pre-War factions in Mexico, were in favor of annexation:

eWDa9beH_o.png


Winfield Scott also suggested this in his own correspondence:

[34] However, two years later, after the treaty of peace was signed at Guadaloupe on Feb. 2, 1848, and sixteen days later, after he was superceded in the command of the army by Butler, he could write, "Two fifths of the Mexican population, including more than half of the Congress, were desirous of annexation to the US, and, as a stepping stone, wished to make me president ad interim.'"

The United States Army in Mexico City, by Edward S. Wallace (Military Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1949), pp. 158-166) also states a desire for annexation among the well off of Mexico City, and goes into detail about the relationships cultivated between American soldiers and Mexican civilians.
 
All Mexico is FAR more plausible than all-canadas, or annexation of any more canadian territory than we got OTL minus the special case of newfoundland if they decide to join the us and not canada in the 1940s.

Why? 1) the royal navy 2) anglophilia in US elites
 
I was going to refrain from talking about "All Mexico" given the fact this is in Post-1900, but since it has been brought up so much I figure I'll add my usual spiel as well as clear up some confusion about it I'm seeing.

Vice President George Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Walker, and Secretary of State James Buchanan were all in favor of All Mexico. President Polk according to several contemporary sources and modern research was also likely privately in favor of it as well. More importantly, perhaps, is that a large and growing faction in the Senate, increasingly dominant in the Northern states and having split the South, was also in favor of annexing Mexico:

The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48



I'd also include The United States and Mexico, 1847-1848 by Edward G. Bourne in the The American Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Apr., 1900), pp. 491-502 as he largely came to the same conclusions as this aforementioned work did.

The issue of race is also rather overblown, I think, as the situation at the time was far different than currently thought of. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans, even going as far as to write poetry on such. These sentiments did not stop at rhetoric, however, as such inter-marriages were actually common in the parts of the Mexican cession that had existing, sufficiently large populations and were, apparently, considered respectable. Essentially, everyone outside of Calhoun's Pro-Slavery faction didn't really care and it was pretty well understood Calhoun's stance was born out of fears of additional free states entering the Union as opposed to his rhetorical concerns of a threat to the WASP ruling elite of the United States.

As far as Mexican sentiment on the issue, the Federalists, one of the two major Pre-War factions in Mexico, were in favor of annexation:

eWDa9beH_o.png


Winfield Scott also suggested this in his own correspondence:



The United States Army in Mexico City, by Edward S. Wallace (Military Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1949), pp. 158-166) also states a desire for annexation among the well off of Mexico City, and goes into detail about the relationships cultivated between American soldiers and Mexican civilians.
The All of Mexico route is probably the easiest to go. I’m glad you replied to this thread! Your comment gave me alot of insight into the topic!
 
Top