Culturala and Social Effects of Mexico Being Part of the US

What would be the social and cultural effects of all of Mexico being annexed into the US?

My first instinct is to say, culturally not much...look at the Southwest. Socially, I think we get a lot more Conservative, but probably more Liberal economically. Populism would take over.
 

Susano

Banned
Actually, most effects would result from trying to keep Mexico down. It would be an expensive occupation, mostly polarising the country: To keep the occupation up, some people would develop rather radical ideas, while the opponents of the occupation would become rather radical over time, too, to end the burden on the USA...
 
What would be the social and cultural effects of all of Mexico being annexed into the US?

Would the US rule it as a state or a territory, or would it be under the jurisdiction of the US military?

What is done with the Mexican military and police forces after it is annexed? Do they return to duty or does the US simply seek to replace them entirely?

What is the US's position on land reform of the aristocracy and the church? Mexico during the 19th century struggled with balancing the rights of the Church and the right of the farmer. Would the US be able to walk the narrow path of trying to keep each side happy?

If the US takes the side of large landowning aristocracy and the powerful church then I see the society of the peasants essentially staying the same, if they get to vote they probably would have to vote for whoever their priest or the owner of the land told them to vote for.

For the US to truely succeed in Mexico it woul likely mean an increase in taxes, which most Americans are notoriously upset about. You know about the Whiskey Rebellion when taxes were raised on whiskey and the citizens took to arms? Well if the US was occupying Mexico I would image that Americans would not be willing to pay forever.
 
I'm going to repeat something Jared said because I feel like it has to be known.

Unfortunately, this is a highly unlikely event to happen in a USA which is at all similar to ours in 1848. The strongest voices really calling for annexation were from the 'penny press' of the northeastern states (mostly Pennsylvania) and they were never seriously considered at governmental level. Not to put too fine a point on it, most of the Americans did not want to try to rule seven million people whom they saw as "mongrel papist greasers".

The problems were substantial; would the states go slave or free, how could the former Mexicans be classified, severe anti-Catholicism in some sections of the American population, and some fears of a 'bleeding sore' in occupying all Mexico. It could be done from a military point of view, but it would be expensive, lengthy and bloody unless the USA granted substantial civilian rights to the Mexicans (something which was unlikely). Indeed, Trist, the negotiator, while he was unpopular for offering such generous terms to the defeated Mexicans, was also quietly congratulated for conquering the maximum amount of Mexico with a minimum number of Mexicans.

To get a movement to annex all Mexico, you probably have to go back further than 1848. What might be more possible, however, is to have the USA acquire somewhat more of Mexico... any other negotiator than Trist would probably have arranged it. The most likely border would be between the 26th and 25th parallel, and annexing the Gulf Coast down to, say, Tampico was also considered. Even this would dramatically change the potential outcome of the civil war. Tamaulipas, Durango etc are good cotton country, and would probably produce some additional slave states.

Now as for culture (if the US did ended up with all of Mexico) I think the US might come to see itself as a successor to the Mesoamerican Civilizations or possibly the Iroquois Confederation.
 
My first instinct is to say, culturally not much...look at the Southwest. Socially, I think we get a lot more Conservative, but probably more Liberal economically. Populism would take over.

The Mexican population in the South West prior to the Anexation by the US was much smaller that the population in Central Mexico, so it's not comparable.

The efects of having millions of Catholic Mexicans in the mostly WASP early XIX century US will be huge.

However, I agree with Susano in the sense that Mexicans will try to get away from the US, and would have to be kept in by force. The cultural effects will be indirect: an US that keeps a lot of people under his control against their will might be less democratic.

I think it was Eric Hosbawn who wrote that one of the reasons of fascism was the following: some influentianial people realised around 1900 that, although they could control millions of brown people by relatively few soldiers and members civil service, internally they had to please the masses of the poor and allow them to participate in politics. Why couldn't the same principles used to run a colony be used to run the country internally? If this happened in the US, we might have seen a proto-fascist US.
 
Depends on WHEN Mexico is added.

Mid 1800's, Lots of class friction in regards Wasp vs. Mestizo Catholic vs. Hildalgo Catholic.

But if admitted as equal territory, as the Southwest was, you could probably integrate the two. but the result wouldn't be what we see in either the US or Mexico today.

The bigger question is the CW. How would the nem territories fall out in the conflict if it is annexed Antebellum? Split like the US? Side with the South? Breakaway from both?

And if the latter, and the North is still victorious, would they attempt to reclaim these territories in Meso-America?

If the two do remain United post CW, Why would the US not continue to expand Southward?


If the Union is made by force of arms post 1900, then you would possibly see a more resentful Hispanic population in constant simmering rebellion. If it is done in a more diplomatic way (hard to think it would be, given the US culture of seeing darker skin tones as less desirable as citizens) then a merging might be more permanent.

Something overlooked by a lot of people is that Mexico's elite classes tend to be more European then Native in make up. So it is conceivable that in Union they could become more acceptable as a whole, especially takiing into consideration they would be politically represented in Government, and from the 1850's to the 1920's status in the US was defined by the wealth you accumulated and there were little to now barriers of race in that. At least as long as you were not Black. But even that may be ameliorated if a Hispanic Population of Mestizos is successful in the boom times of industrialization.

It would be interesting to see the history that would play out if two of the three major American Cultures were to have United into one.
 
The Mexican population in the South West prior to the Anexation by the US was much smaller that the population in Central Mexico, so it's not comparable.

The efects of having millions of Catholic Mexicans in the mostly WASP early XIX century US will be huge.

However, I agree with Susano in the sense that Mexicans will try to get away from the US, and would have to be kept in by force. The cultural effects will be indirect: an US that keeps a lot of people under his control against their will might be less democratic.

I think it was Eric Hosbawn who wrote that one of the reasons of fascism was the following: some influentianial people realised around 1900 that, although they could control millions of brown people by relatively few soldiers and members civil service, internally they had to please the masses of the poor and allow them to participate in politics. Why couldn't the same principles used to run a colony be used to run the country internally? If this happened in the US, we might have seen a proto-fascist US.

I think the US might do something like the United States of Mexico in For Want of a Nail, that is grant Mexicans, especially the lighter-skinned ones full civil rights and citizenship. Perhaps this could lead to an earlier end to racism in the United States.
 
I think the US might do something like the United States of Mexico in For Want of a Nail, that is grant Mexicans, especially the lighter-skinned ones full civil rights and citizenship. Perhaps this could lead to an earlier end to racism in the United States.

This won't be without bloodshed in home (as well!!).....
 
US annexes Mexico in 1848, Mexico Joins the CS in Leaving the Union 1861, US has the Virgina, Mississippi, Trans Mississippi, and the Mexican Fronts in The ACW.
 

General Zod

Banned
US annexes Mexico in 1848, Mexico Joins the CS in Leaving the Union 1861, US has the Virgina, Mississippi, Trans Mississippi, and the Mexican Fronts in The ACW.

The mexicans joining the most racist side ? Ridiculous. Instead, they would go their own way, and you would have a three-sides Civil War. However, if Linclon is quick and convincing in promising civil rights for the Mexicans, they can side with the Union against the slavers.
 
If Mexico is still garrisoned, perhaps proto-secessionist movements can be put down quicker than states without lots of Federal troops (aka the Confederacy).
 
Top