Borders after the Mexican American war

Why was The US so adamant at the southern border being at Rio Grande. I mean most of the disputed territory after the US annexed Texas was apart of New Mexico. What was so valuable about controlling this border that they did not just take accept the original border of Texas during Spanish Mexico. They probably would have acquired the Baja peninsula if they took the border at the Nueces. Also, why was the US so forceful with Mexico? I mean Great Britain completely destroyed the US during the War of 1812 and they compromised quite a bit even though they basically won. Texas was willing to accept the border at the Nueces river so, why did Polk want the Rio grande so badly.
 
Should've cut a straight line west and taken at least Baja California…

The current border is a mess to manage.
 
It was the claimed southern border of the Republic of Texas.

Yeah that is pretty much it.

Although the US would have likely conceded had Mexico not pushed them into going to war. Let's say that Santa Anna dies in the years between Texian Independence and the Mex-American War (he did loose a leg during the French Intervention so just aim the cannonball a bit more to the right and up). And somehow after his death, the moderates like Herrera, Llano, Arista, Yañes etc. gain and secure power by 1844. Then when Polk comes to power (assuming he still beats Clay), Mexico would negotiate a border with the US, and Texas to settle things.

If things stay civilized, Texas would likely agree to the Nueces Border in the East, but allowed to keep the Western end at the Rio Grande. The Mexican populations of Santa Fe, & San Fernando would be given safe passage to the Mexican side of the border. (You might see a clause there that the United States will not be allowed to annex Texas for a certain period of time).

Separately Mexico and the US would negotiate the purchase of Norther Alta-California, that grants the US access to the Pacific; the 38th or 37th parallel work just fine.

Mexico thus keeps the Nueces and most of Alta-California, until the moderates loose power for their dealings and someone else raises some shenanigans.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Let's also remember that the original intent of President Polk was to annex all of Northern Mexico as well. The actual US-Mexican border is the result of the US diplomat charged with negotiating the treaty going rogue and giving Mexico a more more lenient peace than the instructions he received from Washington. If he hadn't gone rogue, the border would be at Tampico.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Should've cut a straight line west and taken at least Baja California…

The current border is a mess to manage.

Blame Nicholas Tilsit for that. If it hadn't been for him, the US-Mexican border would stretch from southernmost Sinaloa to Tampico, Tamaulipas.
 
Let's also remember that the original intent of President Polk was to annex all of Northern Mexico as well. The actual US-Mexican border is the result of the US diplomat charged with negotiating the treaty going rogue and giving Mexico a more more lenient peace than the instrutions he received from Washington. If he hadn't gone rogue, the border would be at Tampico.

Blame Nicholas Tilsit for that. If it hadn't been for him, the US-Mexican border would stretch from southernmost Sinaloa to Tampico, Tamaulipas.

But this was only after the war had already ocurred. Prior to the war there are still many other possibilities.

Also even if occupied, I doubt Mexico would accept such terms. Monterrey took long to fall, and the US faced greatest resitance in the Tampico/Tamaulipas area. A straight line from Matamoros to the Pacific is much more duable.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Also even if occupied, I doubt Mexico would accept such terms. Monterrey took long to fall, and the US faced greatest resitance in the Tampico/Tamaulipas area. A straight line from Matamoros to the Pacific is much more duable.

A defeated, occupied country has no choice whatsoever in the peace terms it gets. Beggars can't be choosers, "Vae Victis", and all that.

The only true reason why the USA didn't annex all of Mexico after the war has to do with US domestic politics, not what the Mexicans themselves wanted or were "willing" to accept. Such reasons, however, did not matter for the sparsely populated Northern Mexico.

And for that matter, a southern Sinaloa-southern Tamaulipas border is much shorter and more manageable than the OTL one.
 
Last edited:
Blame Nicholas Tilsit for that. If it hadn't been for him, the US-Mexican border would stretch from southernmost Sinaloa to Tampico, Tamaulipas.

Oh, I do. :mad:

The only true reason why the USA didn't annex all of Mexico after the war has to do with US domestic politics, not what the Mexicans themselves wanted or were "willing" to accept.

Wish we hadn't been hypocrites back then.

Wish we weren't hypocrites right now.

All men are created equal. Doesn't matter if they're Catholic. Doesn't matter if they're darker-skinned. Would it have been an injustice done to have imposed English on the land in such an annexation (as either All Mexico or the above option)? I don't think so; that's rather subjective. You know we WOULD have imposed English, but would Spanish have been thrown by the wayside? Probably not.

Frigging stupid racist past Americans. Mexico the country would've just become Mexico the region, no less unique than the Midwest, Northeast, South, or what have you. We didn't stifle Southern regional traditions after the Civil War. Well, except for the ONE, but that was a given.

And they wouldn't be a third-world country today, ravaged by drug lords and a useless government.

And you can bet that we wouldn't have given up Cuba in any Spanish-American War (analogue) after a larger/full Mexican annexation. Heck, Cuba and Puerto Rico would've just been considered for statehood within a reasonable timeframe, like any of the other states made up of former Mexico, instead of a CENTURY later like right now.

And for that matter, a southern Sinaloa-southern Tamaulipas border is much shorter and more manageable than the OTL one.

And the border with Guatemala, 300 miles of near-impassable mountains, is even more manageable than that. :D
 
LOL at these Ameriwanker replies.

I actually wish we hadn't bought the Gadsden purchase so we'd have almost all-river borders.

Anyhoo, I read somewhere that in negotiations the entire Texan Republic was to be taken, and thus the Rio Grande would still be (part of) the border but then a straight line west from the end of the river to the Pacific was considered - America'd still get San Francisco and thus a lovely port.
 
I was looking at the border and I don't like the shape of Texas. I think the shape of country would look way better if the southern border was at the Nueces and if we acquired Baja because would have two peninsulas on each side of the country. Anyway the current border looks retarded and must be a pain to manage.

I just don't understand why Texas was so valuable. I mean at that time the US had plenty of arable land and its not like Texas has hotter weather or anything. Besides most of the oil was found East Texas I think Baja California would have been a better deal because you trade with South American countries at that time easier because Florida is blocked by all those Caribbean islands and it is mainly a desert so, Mexico wouldn't have really wanted it that much.

I am kind of tired of people blaming all of Mexico's problems on the US. The truth is Mexico much more corrupt than the US and this country is messed up so when you think about it its kind of mind boggling. Mexico is not a poor country , I think it was like the tenth largest economy in the world. It's just not the power is concentrated in the hands of a few people. That said, I believe that we are helping the war on drugs continue with our stupid laws. But, they have the means to alleviate their problems but they are choosing not to.
 
Last edited:
LOL at these Ameriwanker replies.

I actually wish we hadn't bought the Gadsden purchase so we'd have almost all-river borders.

Anyhoo, I read somewhere that in negotiations the entire Texan Republic was to be taken, and thus the Rio Grande would still be (part of) the border but then a straight line west from the end of the river to the Pacific was considered - America'd still get San Francisco and thus a lovely port.
Y'know, the original plan that Gadsden started with was to get the very areas that Ameriwankers want. the Southern Rio Grande states, Chihuahua and Sonora.
 
I just don't understand why Texas was so valuable. I mean at that time the US had plenty of arable land and its not like Texas has hotter weather or anything. Besides most of the oil was found East Texas I think Baja California would have been a better deal because you trade with South American countries at that time easier because Florida is blocked by all those Caribbean islands and it is mainly a desert so, Mexico wouldn't have really wanted it that much.

The reason the war was fought was because US troops were placed along the Rio-grande (because Texas allowed them access) and Mexico, who maintained that the US troops were on Mexican soil, reacted and attacked. If the border was not placed at the Rio grande it would entirely discredit the US's causus belli as they would essentially be admitting that they placed troops on legitimately Mexican soil. I appreciate that you're leaving the possibility open for a different Mexican war or even for a purchase, but really after 1836 you're not going to get Texas to renounce its claims unless you get a liberal Mexico (as has been suggested).
 
Not really, I read that after annexation Texas was willing to accept the past border. Polk just wanted the Rio Grande border. I don't agree with you about the negotiations. Texas claimed the Rio Grande because they were trying to reach the Gulf of California or the Pacific Ocean to trade with the Orient. The US could decided to keep the current borders and they would have acquire Baja. To me that's a better deal. Imagine if Cabo was American, probably be bigger but not as charming.
 
Top