Effects on Mexico if the US annexes more of northern Mexico?

So, what would happen to Mexico economically and culturally , should the US annex this much, minus Yucatan?
Proposed-expansion-of-the-United-States-to-include-Yucatán-Cuba-and-northern-Mexico.jpg

Also, as a bonus, what would be the effects of the US gaining all the Oregon territory? Like how would both Canada and USA be affected by this in terms of economy and other subjects, like what cities would be popular, and which ones won't be because if this?
 
Two very different questions being asked......

A more compact Mexico is probably more stable, and might evolve culturally in a more neo-Aztec and neo-Maya direction as it would be reduced to areas essentially of those cultures precontact.

Canada without most of BC is more Atlantic focused, and Anglocentric unless butterflies give it Alaska.
 
That much? You might as well not have a Mexico. They'll probably end up collapsing into multiple small nations that war against each other.
On the other hand, if it manages to stay together and the ACW occurs as OTL (or sooner) I can see those states choosing to go back to Mexico in a glorious collapse of the US (until the most likely victory against TTL Confederacy). My guess is the US doesn't bother with the Mexican part ("it was the south who wanted them, not us" kind of thing)
 
That much? You might as well not have a Mexico. They'll probably end up collapsing into multiple small nations that war against each other.
On the other hand, if it manages to stay together and the ACW occurs as OTL (or sooner) I can see those states choosing to go back to Mexico in a glorious collapse of the US (until the most likely victory against TTL Confederacy). My guess is the US doesn't bother with the Mexican part ("it was the south who wanted them, not us" kind of thing)
It would be weird though to let some secessionists states go free......Bad precedent....
 

Deleted member 67076

You get a more centralized Mexico, and arguably a more stable one because there's no far off places rebels can go or start up in (Yucatan nonwithstanding).

The short to mid term of this sees a Mexico that has a much stronger economy, relative to what happened historically.
 
Most of the population of Mexico at the time wasn't in the area lost. It'll be a denser more compact country. But it also just lost a lot of mineral wealth.
 
Most of the population of Mexico at the time wasn't in the area lost. It'll be a denser more compact country. But it also just lost a lot of mineral wealth.
Could that inspire Mexico to focus less on exporting resources, and more on manufacturing products, similar to Japan and other countries that makeup for low resources through quality products?
 
Could that inspire Mexico to focus less on exporting resources, and more on manufacturing products, similar to Japan and other countries that makeup for low resources through quality products?

Maybe. The good thing is that if Mexico is more stable due to being smaller, it stands to attract more immigration. Maybe more Irish people end up going to stable Catholic Mexico in this scenario?
 
Maybe. The good thing is that if Mexico is more stable due to being smaller, it stands to attract more immigration. Maybe more Irish people end up going to stable Catholic Mexico in this scenario?
I know that a lot more Italians and Spaniards would end up going to a more stable Catholic Mexico.
 

Deleted member 67076

Could that inspire Mexico to focus less on exporting resources, and more on manufacturing products, similar to Japan and other countries that makeup for low resources through quality products?
Yes and no. Manufacturing would in my opinion be a major economic sector, probably making just as much money as resource extraction, but its going to be ISI. ISI will be the mainstay of Mexico for the time being since that was the economic doctrine of the day and one that would make the most sense for the time being. There simply isn't enough infrastructure, merchant shipping and capital to retool manufacturing capacity to a world market (Central America and the Caribbean aside). After a few decades of that you can get a Japan or Korea style external export model.

Central and southern Mexico still have plenty of resources that can be exported, from cash crops to minerals and later on, oil. The difference is with a strong manufacturing sector starting from earlier foreign investment and more stability, you get less chance for Dutch Disease.

Maybe. The good thing is that if Mexico is more stable due to being smaller, it stands to attract more immigration. Maybe more Irish people end up going to stable Catholic Mexico in this scenario?
My guess would be more Southern and Eastern Europeans, Levantines and other North Africans given these are the regions that saw plenty of emigration to Latin America and often times couldn't enter the US.

Additionally, there's the possibility of increased immigration from China; Mexico did use thousands upon thousands of migrant Chinese laborers, but admittedly most of them returned home after their contracts expired.
 
Losing the north is huge for Mexico. A lot less resources. But it also doesn't solve the problems in the Yucatan or other areas with high indigenous populations like Oaxaca or Chiapas. Hopefully it can divert the development of the Mexican economy to something that can serve the people there so Mexico will not undergo anything comparable to the Mexican Revolution.

The new border, incidentally, will almost certainly have a city like Ciudad Juarez on it or other OTL large cities on the border (which of course will be sleepy local towns TTL). It's a very ugly border compared to OTL, and that will mean that it will be even more porous than the OTL border. This will affect urbanisation patterns in Mexico (as well as the US). I'm not sure which towns will end up growing to become major urban areas thanks to this.

I know that a lot more Italians and Spaniards would end up going to a more stable Catholic Mexico.

That depends. Porfirio Diaz's Mexico was very stable, it still didn't receive anywhere near the amount of immigration the Southern Cone did. Clearly neither stability nor Catholicism is the answer.

My guess would be more Southern and Eastern Europeans, Levantines and other North Africans given these are the regions that saw plenty of emigration to Latin America and often times couldn't enter the US.

Additionally, there's the possibility of increased immigration from China; Mexico did use thousands upon thousands of migrant Chinese laborers, but admittedly most of them returned home after their contracts expired.

Levantines and North Africans was basically Mexico OTL. Same with the Chinese, who incidentally OTL mostly went to the territories that we have the US taking in this scenario. However, since many Chinese (and Levantines and other races the US excluded) immigrated to Mexico to jump over the border (which was pathetically easy a century ago), this might just shift most of the emigration south.
 
Losing the north is huge for Mexico. A lot less resources. But it also doesn't solve the problems in the Yucatan or other areas with high indigenous populations like Oaxaca or Chiapas. Hopefully it can divert the development of the Mexican economy to something that can serve the people there so Mexico will not undergo anything comparable to the Mexican Revolution.

The new border, incidentally, will almost certainly have a city like Ciudad Juarez on it or other OTL large cities on the border (which of course will be sleepy local towns TTL). It's a very ugly border compared to OTL, and that will mean that it will be even more porous than the OTL border. This will affect urbanisation patterns in Mexico (as well as the US). I'm not sure which towns will end up growing to become major urban areas thanks to this.



That depends. Porfirio Diaz's Mexico was very stable, it still didn't receive anywhere near the amount of immigration the Southern Cone did. Clearly neither stability nor Catholicism is the answer.



Levantines and North Africans was basically Mexico OTL. Same with the Chinese, who incidentally OTL mostly went to the territories that we have the US taking in this scenario. However, since many Chinese (and Levantines and other races the US excluded) immigrated to Mexico to jump over the border (which was pathetically easy a century ago), this might just shift most of the emigration south.
I have to say that Porfirio Diaz maybe actually a negative for Mexico as according to my Mexican mother and some other Mexicans I have encountered on the web, Diaz only helped the elites in Mexico, which is one of the reasons people hated and overthrew him, which would lead to the Mexican Revolution. Check here and here for more info. Basically the working poor, had worse conditions then they did before and didn't really benefit from the modernization of Mexico as all the profits went to the elite, not to mention that he rigged elections in his favor and was too reluctant to give way to democracy, so it probably be best that Diaz doesn't come into power if the Mexican Revolution is to be avoided
 
That is absolutely true, but it is also absolutely true that Diaz's rule led to a very stable Mexico. Can there be someone better? Of course, especially since Mexico's whole situation has changed. Not that they won't be rigging elections left and right. Maybe more than one person, like in Argentina with the Generation of '80.
 
the northern parts shown annexed are low population density and either extremely desert or extremely mountainous. the vast majority of the population shown on WalterWilliams' map comes well after the war. other than denying (somewhat) rebels a place to run to and hide, I'm not sure how the loss somehow enables Mexico to become more stable. Mineral extraction is fairly minimal at that point. I'm guessing the border bisects half of OTL Sinaloa, Durango, and takes the northern/eastern borders of Zacatecas/San Luis Potosi.

edit: in looking at the OP map, I see the northern part of SLP and the western half of Z are taken, which do include some rich mineral areas. I can't remember if they'd already been discovered, but I think I recall that a lot of the mining industry was in tatters post independence. If there were known deposits being underutilized, you could see some massive yankee capital coming in to take advantage, spurring an earlier European migration to that region
 
Last edited:
That much? You might as well not have a Mexico. They'll probably end up collapsing into multiple small nations that war against each other.
On the other hand, if it manages to stay together and the ACW occurs as OTL (or sooner) I can see those states choosing to go back to Mexico in a glorious collapse of the US (until the most likely victory against TTL Confederacy). My guess is the US doesn't bother with the Mexican part ("it was the south who wanted them, not us" kind of thing)
They almost certainly won't be states by the time of the Civil War, and will still be territories. Even if there is secessionist activity, it will be squashed pretty easily; the population will probably be more concerned with Apache/Comanche raids while the military is elsewhere, rather than with fighting the US government.
 
They almost certainly won't be states by the time of the Civil War, and will still be territories. Even if there is secessionist activity, it will be squashed pretty easily; the population will probably be more concerned with Apache/Comanche raids while the military is elsewhere, rather than with fighting the US government.

Assuming that South Carolina seceded in this TL, maybe the Apache and Comanche are at such a threat level that TX decides to stay in the Union as it's more focused on dealing with them, leading to a shorter Civil War.
 
Assuming that South Carolina seceded in this TL, maybe the Apache and Comanche are at such a threat level that TX decides to stay in the Union as it's more focused on dealing with them, leading to a shorter Civil War.
The Comanche did a ton of damage to Texas during the war OTL, pushing back the line of settlement for basically the only time in post-Revolutionary history; I doubt the concern is going to affect the decision-makers in Texas (most of whom are safe from any Comanche threat, as they came from more established holdings).
 
The discussion on indigenous peoples and the rough terrain of northern Mexico leaves me wondering if the former would come to dominate the latter under U.S. rule.
 
The discussion on indigenous peoples and the rough terrain of northern Mexico leaves me wondering if the former would come to dominate the latter under U.S. rule.

I think after an alt Civil War we would see a more aggressive campaign against the indigenous people in an attempt to pacify and settle the west.
 
Top