American Reform if More Territory Annexed?

TFSmith121

Banned
Because there's this little thing call the "sectional crisis" going on...

I don't see why they can't just invent the new territorial distinction with this situation as they did in that one.

Because there's this little thing call the "sectional crisis" going on...

Statehood status, and the question of whether states entered the Union as free or slave, was pretty much the issue of the day...

http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/overview.htm

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The only people Mexicans have fought more than the US are:

The first or second empire lasts longer, has troubles, descends into autocratic dictatorships with pretentions to empire, US settlers in the norther part of Mexico form a core resistance group, including notable Catholic pioneers from the northeast, and the rebel cause becomes identified with the US.

Eventually, with the toppling of the government, the Mexican people look towards the US expatriot leadership as representative of the true ideals of the Mexican people. Conservative and nationalistic Mexicans flee south, while the American alligned rebels take over the majority of Mexico.

The US itself doesn't really want all of Mexico, but if this is in the midst of Manifest Destiny many in Congress sell this as a second Louisiana Purchase and a sign of the destiny of American leadership across the continent.

Might work.

Not sure what this does for American Reform.

The only people Mexicans have fought more than the US are:

a) the Spanish;
b) the French;
c) the Indians.

Other than that, maybe ... but it sort of requires the foundational reality of Mexico to be other than what it was, which requires a point of departure a lot earlier than the Nineteenth Century.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Missed a comma...

Legislation must be passed by Congress and either signed by the President or enacted over his veto; it may be found unconstitutional by Federal Courts. States have nothing to say about it.

Constitutional amendments must be passed by Congress or a constitutional convention, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states; neither the President nor the judiciary have anything to say about it.

In any event, ain't going to happen without running full tilt into the minor issue of free states vs slave states.

Best,
 
Can the US take all of Mexico? Yes.

Can the US HOLD all of Mexico? Ummm... ah, maybe.

What is the likely status of Mexican lands? For a long time, much of Mexico is going to be, and stay, territories. Territories do NOT vote federally, and the White, Anglo, Protestant US is NOT going to allow Brown, Spanish, Catholic Mexicans to suddenly become a major power in the US.

Actually, what I see happening is that the US would try to co-opt the Mexican elite (of mostly European blood), and let them set up voting systems that disenfranchised most of the brown and black poor. When the system was 'under control', then some of those areas might be admitted as states. The voters here would then still be Catholic, but at least they'd be White and rich. There might even be a requirement for English speaking.

In this US, however, you are never going to get a 14th Amendment equivalent, and US subjects/residents will never be the same as US citizens. Which makes the Civil War less likely - if slaves can be converted to sharecropping peasants rather than 'equals', the Southron way of life is far less threatened.

OK. To address the question posed. Would there be a 'Mexican' sub-union of states? Nope. No Way. No How.
There is absolutely no constituency in DC or the rest of the US for creating such a massive change to the Constitution.
 
Puerto Ricans are US citizens, as opposed to US nationals. They get the vote and everything (sort of):rolleyes:

Little different than the residents of the Phillippines when it was still a US possession.

Yes. Because they’re territories. It has nothing to do with “commonwealth” in the name.
 

scholar

Banned
The only people Mexicans have fought more than the US are:

a) the Spanish;
b) the French;
c) the Indians.

Other than that, maybe ... but it sort of requires the foundational reality of Mexico to be other than what it was, which requires a point of departure a lot earlier than the Nineteenth Century.

Best,
The foundational reality of Mexico was not firmly established until the early twentieth century. Before that point, Mexico remained a deeply divided country between north, center, and south; heavily divided in politics and cultural values. The revolution, the creation of the socialist constitution, the attempted coup by Victoriano Huerta, and the US backing Huerta is what truly forged the united Mexican identity. Before that it was merely what Mexico was not: not French, not Spanish, not Monarchists, and Not Indians. Ironically, the southern part of Mexico was heavily Indian and Zapata cultivated a great deal of sympathy for them from that region.

Further, I would like to remind you that Mexico was forged as a state in the nineteenth century, and Mexico cultivated close ties to the US right up until Polk invaded, but much of that damage was repaired in the majority of the country after the French were ousted and Max was murdered. The North still had a cavalier attitude towards the US, and was not against taking their money and arms. It wouldn't become hostile until Villa attacked the US, and once again things cooled down after a few decades.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Americans in territories still got to vote

Yes. Because they’re territories. It has nothing to do with “commonwealth” in the name.

Americans in territories still got to vote, and the entire point of the territorial structure was to prepare for statehood.

Unless you somehow change 7 million Mexicans who come from a nation state that fought for their freedom from a) the Spanish; b) the French; into seven million people who are content to be something far less than that, it ain't going to happen.

And just so it is crystal clear, a "commonwealth" as I have referred to it is not a synonym for state, as in Massachusetts; it is the legal entity of a US dependency that is not a territory on its way to statehood, as in Puerto Rico.

Not sure why that would have been unclear, but in case it was, there it is.

There was not a "colony" type status in US law before the 1890s, and trying to create one as such in the 1850s or before, at a time when the sectional crisis is in full flower, is going to require political compromise in the US Congress, split between slave and free states, as well as the acquiescence of the Mexicans, who - as pointed out above - did not go gently on such issues.

Just ask Maximillian and his merry men...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Also "NOT the United States"....

The foundational reality of Mexico was not firmly established until the early twentieth century. Before that point, Mexico remained a deeply divided country between north, center, and south; heavily divided in politics and cultural values. The revolution, the creation of the socialist constitution, the attempted coup by Victoriano Huerta, and the US backing Huerta is what truly forged the united Mexican identity. Before that it was merely what Mexico was not: not French, not Spanish, not Monarchists, and Not Indians. Ironically, the southern part of Mexico was heavily Indian and Zapata cultivated a great deal of sympathy for them from that region.

Further, I would like to remind you that Mexico was forged as a state in the nineteenth century, and Mexico cultivated close ties to the US right up until Polk invaded, but much of that damage was repaired in the majority of the country after the French were ousted and Max was murdered. The North still had a cavalier attitude towards the US, and was not against taking their money and arms. It wouldn't become hostile until Villa attacked the US, and once again things cooled down after a few decades.

sort of like Canada ... so far from God, etc.

What is interesting is that no one has raised the "receivership" idea, that was actually raised in Mexico (as opposed to Washington or Richmond or New Orleans or Austin) and was offered to none other than Winfield Scott...

Scott, of course, being a supremely realistic military professional, said "thanks, but no thanks" and headed home.

Significantly different than outright conquest and annexation, but at least it has the advantage in plausibility terms of being considered by Mexicans, and at a time when such changes were (remotely) within the realm of the political possible.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Slight differences in US domestic politics between the

Um...



Guess what Puerto Rico will be in a couple of years.



Um...

Slight differences in US domestic politics between the middle of the Nineteenth Century and the beginning of the Twenty-First, I expect you'd agree?

And, frankly, the liklihood of Puerto Rican statehood at any time in the future is marginal; the GOP is not exactly going to fall all over themselves welcoming two new Democratic senators...:rolleyes:

Again, there was nothing in US law to enable the establishment of some sort of status for carving off any additional pieces of Mexico in the 1840s, other than as territories and/or states; the concept of a "commonwealth" as applied (historically) to the Philppines and Puerto Rico under US soveriegnty, did not exist.

Given the above, any effort to create such a status in Congress immediately founders upon the rock of the the slave state/free state divide, which was, after all, demonstrated at great cost in the aftermath of the Cession in historical reality...

Again, there are reasons no one of significant in the US wanted to open that particular door; 7 million Catholic voters had something to do with it.

The only option would be military occupation, and any attempt at a US miltary occupation of Mexico proper in the 1840s or after is doomed to failure on economic and demographic grounds.

The US in the Nineteenth Century - certainly up until 1898 - was not looking to establish a colonial empire governed by men appointed from Washington against the consent of the locals (whether home-grown or "imported"); there are reasons the various and sundry efforts to do so all failed.:cool:

Among other things, the resistance of those who didn't want it.

Best,
 
Slight differences in US domestic politics between the middle of the Nineteenth Century and the beginning of the Twenty-First, I expect you’d agree?

Of course. I don’t recall territories voting back then, though.

And, frankly, the liklihood of Puerto Rican statehood at any time in the future is marginal; the GOP is not exactly going to fall all over themselves welcoming two new Democratic senators...:roll eyes:

That’s funny in its incorrectness.

Again, there was nothing in US law to enable the establishment of some sort of status for carving off any additional pieces of Mexico in the 1840s

Of course there was. It’s right in the constitution. Any land annexed would be reorganized as territories.

Given the above, any effort to create such a status in Congress immediately founders upon the rock of the the slave state/free state divide, which was, after all, demonstrated at great cost in the aftermath of the Cession in historical reality...

So don’t do that; just keep doing it the way they’ve always been.
 
What is interesting is that no one has raised the "receivership" idea, that was actually raised in Mexico (as opposed to Washington or Richmond or New Orleans or Austin) and was offered to none other than Winfield Scott...

Scott, of course, being a supremely realistic military professional, said "thanks, but no thanks" and headed home.

What was this about? Just curious.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Territories had legislatures, which tended to want statehood

Of course. I don’t recall territories voting back then, though.



That’s funny in its incorrectness.



Of course there was. It’s right in the constitution. Any land annexed would be reorganized as territories.



So don’t do that; just keep doing it the way they’ve always been.

Territories had legislatures, which tended to want statehood, for the obvious reasons of political power.

Beyond that, the cession territories paths to statehood included recognition of existing legal systems, the local franchise, etc - which had precedent going back to the Louisiana Purchase.

Bootom line, without statehood and the franchise, the Mexicans in territories that were not (essentially) empty and/or quickly filled by emigrants from the States, would fight, as witness Max and company; likewise, statehood for said territories would require a) the slave state vs free state question to be addressed (which given that Mexico had already outlawed slavery, is going to end the discussion rapidly) and b) the oft-mentioned 7 million Catholics.

You can try and argue this all you want, but there was no constituency for a larger annexation/cession than historically on either side of the border; certainly not from anyone with any significant political power.

And good luck getting Puerto Rican statehood through a GOP-controlled House anytime soon...:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
In 1848, there was a group of conservatives in Mexico City

What was this about? Just curious.

In 1848, after the surrender, there was a group of conservatives in Mexico City who offered Scott a limited term (six years, IIRC) as, essentially, military governor of the Republic of Mexico, to be supported by 15,000 American and 15,000 Mexican troops, at least publicly so as to allow the nation a chance to recover from the war.

There was undoubtedly more to it, and there were some variations on the idea that included additional possible territorial gains for the US down the road depending upon events, but it pretty much foundered on the reality that Scott understood the political and military ramifications and wanted no part of it.

http://www.nps.gov/people/winfield-scott.htm

Best,
 
In 1848, after the surrender, there was a group of conservatives in Mexico City who offered Scott a limited term (six years, IIRC) as, essentially, military governor of the Republic of Mexico, to be supported by 15,000 American and 15,000 Mexican troops, at least publicly so as to allow the nation a chance to recover from the war.

There was undoubtedly more to it, and there were some variations on the idea that included additional possible territorial gains for the US down the road depending upon events, but it pretty much foundered on the reality that Scott understood the political and military ramifications and wanted no part of it.

http://www.nps.gov/people/winfield-scott.htm

Best,

Wow. This is the sort of thing that would seem ASB until you learn it actually happened.
 
Slight differences in US domestic politics between the middle of the Nineteenth Century and the beginning of the Twenty-First, I expect you'd agree?

And, frankly, the liklihood of Puerto Rican statehood at any time in the future is marginal; the GOP is not exactly going to fall all over themselves welcoming two new Democratic senators...:rolleyes:

Again, there was nothing in US law to enable the establishment of some sort of status for carving off any additional pieces of Mexico in the 1840s, other than as territories and/or states; the concept of a "commonwealth" as applied (historically) to the Philppines and Puerto Rico under US soveriegnty, did not exist.

Given the above, any effort to create such a status in Congress immediately founders upon the rock of the the slave state/free state divide, which was, after all, demonstrated at great cost in the aftermath of the Cession in historical reality...

Again, there are reasons no one of significant in the US wanted to open that particular door; 7 million Catholic voters had something to do with it.

The only option would be military occupation, and any attempt at a US miltary occupation of Mexico proper in the 1840s or after is doomed to failure on economic and demographic grounds.

The US in the Nineteenth Century - certainly up until 1898 - was not looking to establish a colonial empire governed by men appointed from Washington against the consent of the locals (whether home-grown or "imported"); there are reasons the various and sundry efforts to do so all failed.:cool:

Among other things, the resistance of those who didn't want it.

Best,

I believe he was arguing against the fact that you made a distinction between 'Territory' and 'Commonwealth'. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. That is what it is legally. 'Commonwealth' is simply what it has chosen to name itself. There is no particular legal framework, as far as I know, to describe territories as 'commonwealths', it is simply irrelevant nomenclature.

If Mexico were to have been annexed, it would have been divided into territories. Perhaps they would have kept the original state boundaries for said territories, perhaps they wouldn't. They could technically create one large territory and subdivide it later, depending on how they wanted to administrate it. This presumes that the US wants to annex Mexico, of course, this is what they constitutionally would do to the territory. They don't really have any other choice.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Territories had appointed chief executives

I believe he was arguing against the fact that you made a distinction between 'Territory' and 'Commonwealth'. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. That is what it is legally. 'Commonwealth' is simply what it has chosen to name itself. There is no particular legal framework, as far as I know, to describe territories as 'commonwealths', it is simply irrelevant nomenclature.

If Mexico were to have been annexed, it would have been divided into territories. Perhaps they would have kept the original state boundaries for said territories, perhaps they wouldn't. They could technically create one large territory and subdivide it later, depending on how they wanted to administrate it. This presumes that the US wants to annex Mexico, of course, this is what they constitutionally would do to the territory. They don't really have any other choice.

Commonwealths get to elect their own - that is a significant difference right there. The legislative and judicial branches are "local" as well; the Pi - as a self-governing commonwealth in the 1930s, which is about as close to the "dominion" status suggested above for Mexico - had control of just about everything except foreign affairs. Notably, it took enabling legislation in Congress to create that structure, which, given the sectional crisis in the US in the 1840s and after, is very unlikely to happen.

As an aside, the PI, for example could raise their own armed forces; territories were limited to militias and/or volunteers under US federal authority.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Fascinating, isn't it?

Wow. This is the sort of thing that would seem ASB until you learn it actually happened.

Notably, those making the offer apparently limited it to Scott.

There's an interesting POD - Scott rebuffs the Mexican Conservative faction, and the make the same offer to someone else - Taylor? Wool? Presumably not Harney? - who accepts.

I'd expect ultimately such an arrangement would never be accepted outside of Central Mexico, and maybe not there for very long, but there's a slim chance it might work out, at least for a limited period of time. Not sure of the ripples in Mexican and U.S. history to follow, but if (for example) the Reform War is not as costly, perhaps the French stay out in the 1860s.

Best,
 
Top