Great_Stag
Banned
Britain probably wouldn't have pushed so hard in Canada taking the Columbia District - Oregon Country to the Yanks- in its entirety and seizing the Alyeska in the Crimean War. Not to mention the aggressive colonisation that preceded Mexican annexation They practically forced people from the Home Nations to the Canadian West Coast and almost paid them have kids, the land pensions for officers probably helped settle the territory as well.
We also wouldn't have the Protestant-Catholic divide in America that exists today either. Especially after the Civil War and the Yucatan Rebellion which led to France making a protectorate of the central American states and the construction of Le grand canal de Panama which they mak
We also wouldn't have the Protestant-Catholic divide in America that exists today either. Especially after the Civil War and the Yucatan Rebellion which led to France making a protectorate of the central American states and the construction of Le grand canal de Panama which they mak
Last edited:
Well, for one thing they wouldn't have expended all the men and material on trying to keep it. It was a nice idea, and by dividing the Mexicans among eachother they did shatter the idea of "Mexico" as a state (for so far as that was needed) but the squabbling pile of states south of the USA would not have sucked in quite so many US soldiers.
So I think the USA would have been better off without the trauma of the first through third Yucatan expeditions, nevermind the two sieges of Mexico city.
Of course it might be that a unified Mexico rather than being an open wound would be an actual threat to the USA, but far more likely is that Mexico would still fall apart, just into statelets much more likely to accept being US puppets (and thus expending much of their violent impulses fighting eachother rather than the US). Of course the USA would have a less-southern border than it did end up with after the final fall of the Guadalajara league.
So I think the USA would have been better off without the trauma of the first through third Yucatan expeditions, nevermind the two sieges of Mexico city.
Of course it might be that a unified Mexico rather than being an open wound would be an actual threat to the USA, but far more likely is that Mexico would still fall apart, just into statelets much more likely to accept being US puppets (and thus expending much of their violent impulses fighting eachother rather than the US). Of course the USA would have a less-southern border than it did end up with after the final fall of the Guadalajara league.
History Learner
Banned
Probably the U.S. would've been worse off, perhaps fighting a civil war over the issue of slavery. Given the relatively non-contentious death of the institution over the course of the 1890s and 1900s, it's often forgotten how serious of a matter it was to the United States over the course of much of the 19th Century. The extension of the Missouri Line to the Pacific, leading to the entry of the slave states of Colorado and New Mexico, followed by the slave states of most of Mexico, did much to ease the sectional tensions as it provided an outlet for the South to remain competitive in the Senate versus the North while removing the fear the Free Soilers of the North had about slavery possibly extending into the territories they wished to settled in the North. Perhaps with retaining the Northern tier of Mexico issues can still be avoided, given that was where most of Slavery was extended into.
Economically, I still see the U.S. being the top power like it is today. The mineral resources and tourist spots of the Mexican states, while helpful, are not fundamental to the success of the United States. Given that, perhaps we'd have a GDP of $20 Trillion today instead of the $25 Trillion like we do now. Socially, I'd expect a lot less Spanish loan words in American English, as well as Spanish being better preserved in the rump Mexico than it is today. Mexican cuisine, fashion and music would probably be a lot less influential. Race relations would also be much different, as the adoption of the Latin American concept of Blanqueamiento would be less likely to gain traction like it did IOTL. Perhaps the One Drop Rule would've had staying power?
Economically, I still see the U.S. being the top power like it is today. The mineral resources and tourist spots of the Mexican states, while helpful, are not fundamental to the success of the United States. Given that, perhaps we'd have a GDP of $20 Trillion today instead of the $25 Trillion like we do now. Socially, I'd expect a lot less Spanish loan words in American English, as well as Spanish being better preserved in the rump Mexico than it is today. Mexican cuisine, fashion and music would probably be a lot less influential. Race relations would also be much different, as the adoption of the Latin American concept of Blanqueamiento would be less likely to gain traction like it did IOTL. Perhaps the One Drop Rule would've had staying power?
Last edited:
Off-topic and point of fact: Aren't DBWI threads supposed to be about things that happened that we're pretending haven't happened? This is just a straight-out WI, not a DBWI.
OOC:This is a DBWI. OP talked about how the US took the entirety of Mexico as opposed to just California etc.
Conversely slavery had been anathema in Mexico previous to the conquest. The Mexican constitution at the time banned slavery. This became one of the continuing tensions between the Hispanics an & Anglos with about all the revolts, riots, resistance and tension having a anti slavery component. Closely related to that were the efforts to establish large plantation style agricultural in the former Mexican states. Land reform and land ownership were as near and dear to the Hispanics as in the norther states. In this the 'Planters' were frequent offenders as they created a judiciary and body of law that gave poor recognition to former Mexican land ownership records. The deliberate destruction of old land ownership records in several cases is well documented.
In a sense the war over slavery was fought in the new Hispanic states, and lost there by the Plantion/Slave owners. One of the crucial tipping points was the practice of calling up state militias to suppress the rebellions. This extremely unpopular practice was part of the divide between the white rural population in the old south eastern slave states and the upper class. The "Redneck" small farmers and agricultural laborers who aspired to farm ownership, became deeply estranged from the 'Southern Aristocracy' that demanded they leave their homes in Alabama or Virginia to fight fellow small farmers in Tejas, California, or Yucatan who were basically defending their homes. The Free States north of the Mason Dixon line effectively revolted as well through their failure to contribute more than token militia to the suppression of the Mexican revolts.
.[/QUOTE]Economically, I still see the U.S. being the top power like it is today. The mineral resources and tourist spots of the Mexican states, while helpful, are not fundamental to the success of the United States. Given that, perhaps we'd have a GDP of $20 Trillion today instead of the $25 Trillion like we do now. Socially, I'd expect a lot less Spanish loan words in American English, as well as Spanish being better preserved in the rump Mexico than it is today. Mexican cuisine, fashion and music would probably be a lot less influential. Race relations would also be much different, as the adoption of the Latin American concept of Blanqueamiento would be less likely to gain traction like it did IOTL. Perhaps the One Drop Rule would've had staying power?[/QUOTE]
There is the hypothesis the mass migration of Hispanics to the northern industrial cities would have occurred anyway. A counter argument that the Catholic migrants would have been blocked bears examination. One of the unconsidered effects by the US leaders was the annexation made Catholics the dominate religious denomination in the US. into the 20th Century there was a lot of hysteria among the WASPS over that. But it faded down to a few "Old Families" as ethnically the Hispanic and Anglo populations merged. I remember how my Grandfather, an Indiana farmer in the late 19th and to mid 20th Century was fluent in both Swabisch German and Mexican dialect Spanish. The ability to conduct business in three languages by someone who's formal education ended in a two room township school.