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

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.
Well, I was wondering if, after siding with the rebels, the major groups in Indian Territory might be moved further southwest.
 
Well, I was wondering if, after siding with the rebels, the major groups in Indian Territory might be moved further southwest.
They weren't moved OTL, just had large chunks of their territory confiscated. The US wanted them where they could be controlled, and OTL most of the West was still only nominally under government control; essentially various native tribes with varying degrees of recognition of the US government (not helped by the massive corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which meant friendly tribes were frequently cheated out of the goods they were promised, while being left unprotected from hostile bands).

We would definitely be seeing massive pushes to pacify the natives and round them up onto reservations after the ACW, just as OTL. You'd also probably see increased railroad investment in the region.

Getting back to Mexico, one question is the fate of Santa Anna. OTL he managed to stage a comeback, only to be deposed again after the Gadsden Purchase (among other missteps). With an even bigger territorial loss, can he still stage a comeback? And without the Gadsden Purchase, how much longer could he last before being overthrown?
 

Deleted member 67076

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'm well aware, its just here you're likely to get more from the increased demand for labor stemming from urbanization and the shift from agrarianism to manufacturing, which promotes the need for immigration, especially considering how Mexico's population was about 1 million people less than during the Porfiriato.

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.
Its because the troops don't have to be dispersed and can more easily move to where needed and smack down revolts.
 
OTL, for all of Mexico's issues, Mexico city is an alpha city on the level of Chicago and Moscow. So, with the population being focused more inwards, Mexico city will have a larger population and probably be more of a major city than in OTL.
 
OTL, for all of Mexico's issues, Mexico city is an alpha city on the level of Chicago and Moscow. So, with the population being focused more inwards, Mexico city will have a larger population and probably be more of a major city than in OTL.
I'm not seeing how losing the north makes Mexico City more populous.
 
I'm not seeing how losing the north makes Mexico City more populous.
I am not saying it will, just that the population will be focused more on Mexico city and the surrounding metropolis, so it will probably be more of a major population due to the sheer size as one of the largest human settlements on the planet.
Edit: misunderstood "populous" for "prosperous".
 
They weren't moved OTL, just had large chunks of their territory confiscated. The US wanted them where they could be controlled, and OTL most of the West was still only nominally under government control; essentially various native tribes with varying degrees of recognition of the US government (not helped by the massive corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which meant friendly tribes were frequently cheated out of the goods they were promised, while being left unprotected from hostile bands).

We would definitely be seeing massive pushes to pacify the natives and round them up onto reservations after the ACW, just as OTL. You'd also probably see increased railroad investment in the region.

Getting back to Mexico, one question is the fate of Santa Anna. OTL he managed to stage a comeback, only to be deposed again after the Gadsden Purchase (among other missteps). With an even bigger territorial loss, can he still stage a comeback? And without the Gadsden Purchase, how much longer could he last before being overthrown?
I know that thy were not moved in OTL, just that their lands were reduced, but my thought was that with more relatively useless land and a tenuous border, there might be motivation to force a second migration.
 
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 Yaqui and others will be as doomed as the aforementioned Comanche were (in the end) if they step out of line. That said, I'd love to know how the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other aspects of Native American policy in the US would work in places with such a huge indigenous component. That part of Mexico might as well be New Mexico on steroids if the US annexed it. These states will be basically like New Mexico, no doubt.
 
If Union holds (or soon recovers) most of the additional territory, that could be a problem for Texas.

Could the ACW see an additional front on the Rio Grande?
 
If Union holds (or soon recovers) most of the additional territory, that could be a problem for Texas.

Could the ACW see an additional front on the Rio Grande?

I would think the additional territory would be sacrificed to Southern ambition butterflying the K-N Act, it's all below 36' 30" and at least the Tamaulipan portion is well-watered enough to render profitable plantation agriculture.
 
Mexico is infinitely better off. Their North, to this day, has been a constant source of rebellion and instability, and was not densely populated. Lost minerals hurt at first, but a more compact Mexico allows for centralizing modernism to take better hold of the Mexican state. An independent Yucatan (don't think America could/would take it) would also help.

They'd take more immigrants, although the distance hurts (So-Cone had better overall Atlantic access). The natives of Northern Mexico would be in for a bad, bad time.
 
Northern Mexico contained few of its people for much of its history, if the U.S. decides to annex everything North of Tampico, as late as 1900 fewer than 15% of Mexico's population lived in that region. In 1848 that population was less than 800,000, a large number of whom were indigenous peoples with whom the Spanish and later Mexican governments had a small degree of formal control over until the 20th century. The states in the North did receive a large number of migrants from central Mexico, and at least according to the Mexican Census' around one in every four inhabitants in the region was born elsewhere by 1970. In Baja, that number was even higher, with half of the inhabitants being born elsewhere.

Northern Mexico also contains much of the country's irrigated agricultural lands, producing around 35% of the country's annual agricultural output, including nearly 90% of the country's cotton production. The Mexican heartland by contrast produces most of its corn, beans, livestock and what one traditionally associates with "Mexican cuisine". It also contains around one-third of the natural gas production, but very little of the country's oil.

The Southern Region of Yucatan, and Quintana Roo remained heavily indigenous and underdeveloped until the arrival of tourism in the late 20th century, with Campeche being more Mexican in character, but containing fewer people. Around 3% of Mexico's population lived there in 1900. As late as 1940, around 40% of the population consisted of monolingual speakers of indigenous languages. The area did become important for the production of henequin and produced some sugarcane as well. I imagine the U.S. rule over this area would be much more colonial in nature, with few Americans settling the area, at least for the first century. On the other hand, I can also envision a scenario where the U.S. takes advantage of separatism in Chiapas to annex that state along with Tabasco later on to have a transcontinental territory, or at the very least to establish an independent republic under U.S. aegis.
 
Is the Yucatán independent/possible US protectorate in this scenario? The OP says the map minus Yucatán but people keep mentioning it.
 
That northern tier of Mexico was mostly desert and underpopulated at the time, but there are some big effects it will have if Mexico does not possess it.

1) It was basically the region that Benito Juarez and the Mexican Republicans fled to during the French Intervention. If it belongs to the US, Juarez has less options as France can project power into the heavily populated interior. Juarez simply can't flee to the north, be protected by the desert, and wait for the US to ends its civil war and begin dropping military aid to them.

2) Northern Mexico provided many of the future leaders of the Mexican Revolution. That was the location of the largest middle class and local elites who did not depend too much on Diaz' patronage (as their wealth was based on serving the American market with their mines and ranching).

3) Economically, Mexico isn't hit too badly. That northern tier does have some oil and gas, but most of Mexico's supplies are south of Tampico. They will lose the Burgos Basin and Sabinas Basin however, but those are mainly modern shale gas plays - not something important historically. The biggest loss will be the city of Monterey as it is a very important industrial and educational center for Mexico. This area has a lot of industrial development now along the borders, but that is only because of the maquiladora program which was created in the 1960s to create employment by serving the US market. Similar programs can still be introduced in the area that Mexico has left at an appropriate time. Until recently, most of Mexico's wealth was south of the new borderline.

4) Northern Mexico became a stronghold of parties opposed to the rule of the PRI. That is the area which first started electing the National Action Party (PAN) that helped break the control of the PRI. Without being able to win control of these states to incubate the party's record of success, it will be much harder to challenge the PRI. It would take much longer for any opposition party to win control in the southern states. The main opposition would probably be more left wing parties.

While Mexico can easily survive economically in its truncated borders, there are a lot more questions in regards to how the country will develop politically. Without the north to provide a means for dissidents to challenge the central government, Mexico will likely have a much stronger tradition of caudilloism. Semi-dictators will be able to control the population much more easily and rule the country centrally as opposed to federally.
 
Mexico is infinitely better off. Their North, to this day, has been a constant source of rebellion and instability, and was not densely populated.

I happen to believe that source of rebellion is a benefit in the long run as it helped establish principles of rule of law, civil rights, and democratic politics. I don't think a more highly centralized Mexico modernizes more quickly. I think it just allows bad dictators to better exploit their own people. Mexico today is much better for having weathered the Mexican revolution compared to most Central American nations.

While many like the idea of the enlightened dictator who can get things done and build the country (a Frederick the Great or Lee Kuan Yew) too often we get corrupt kleptocrats who impoverish the people instead (a Somoza or Mobutu Sese Seko). If the Profiriato survived several more decades, will it really help build Mexico to be in a better place? I find that questionable.
 
Assuming a Frentervention happens at some point while the US is in a Civil War and assuming that Maximilian accepts the invitation, would he be more successful with a Mexican rump state?
 
Top