Greatest Possible Mexican Cession if Canada was part of the USA

Now there have been several threads about how much of Mexico could the United States realistically annex after the Mexican-American War (the only reason they did not annex more than they did in OTL was because of the agenda of the diplomat who agreed the deal more than anything else).

Of the various threads I have read the most America could have taken without suffering too much of a military burden (In addition to their OTL Annexations from Mexico) is either:

1: Everything North of the Tropic of Cancer

2: The Rio Grande Republic, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Sinaloa, Nayarit, Durango, Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi

3: Everything North of 22nd North Parallel

However I have as of yet I have not found a thread on how much America can take off Mexico if Quebec and Nova Scotia joined the ARW, were part of the founding members of the USA and remained as part of it to this day ITTL.

The likely butterflies of this are that intolerance of Catholics is likely to be a lot less (although the race issue is likely to remain, how much depends on the butterflies), the free states are bigger in numbers than the slave states from day 1 and the Federalists remain a political force which in turn means that more effort is put into developing the US Economy, Infrastructure and Military.

Now considering that the anti-slavery side is bigger and there is more migration outward from the East Coast in pretty much all directions than OTL it is highly unlikely that there would be uninterested in Mexico due to the potential land and the potential slaveholding states to prevent their disadvantage against the Free States becoming ever bigger.

So they will be very interested in expanding into Mexico, the question I want to ask is how much considering these ITTL circumstances?

My view is that at least option 1 can be done with 2 and 3 likely in this case at least, but would these circumstances allow for the Cession itself to go beyond option 2/3? If so by how much?
 
Assuming all of Canada is open to US expansion and the British do not pose a threat to the US, the US will likely pretty much get anything it wants. Slavery is unlikely to be an issue because Congress will have a Free State majority early on, and slavery will likely be restricted after 1820 although protected to the states that already have it. That likely means little pressure in Congress to reject any of the land.

However, I would doubt the US grabs more than the northern tier of Mexican states plus all of Baja California. Anything heavily populated won't be wanted. Given the political turmoil in Mexico, I don't think any US negotiator will want to include the core population. However, the Tropic of Cancer (but all of Baja California) as a border could also be done.
 
Assuming all of Canada is open to US expansion and the British do not pose a threat to the US, the US will likely pretty much get anything it wants. Slavery is unlikely to be an issue because Congress will have a Free State majority early on, and slavery will likely be restricted after 1820 although protected to the states that already have it. That likely means little pressure in Congress to reject any of the land.

However, I would doubt the US grabs more than the northern tier of Mexican states plus all of Baja California. Anything heavily populated won't be wanted. Given the political turmoil in Mexico, I don't think any US negotiator will want to include the core population. However, the Tropic of Cancer (but all of Baja California) as a border could also be done.

The UK was unwilling to fight the USA in OTL after 1812 so I doubt they will be willing to fight an even stronger USA over Mexico. Likewise as you say yourself Congress (Canada is unlikely to be different from other Free States on the slave issue and expansion0 will have less objections over Mexico since they have a major advantage over slavery and when Dixie finds that the the former Mexican Territories are not keen that will remain.

For the record I think that the USA could have coped as well with all 3 options in OTL, since the population (including those that moved to escape American rule) of those annexed territories would have totaled 1.5 million at most in a USA that between 25-30 million.

Do you think however that they would have coped with annexing Mexico up to the 20th North Parallel?

What happens to Mexico and America after this?
 
I'm actually not sure how much the French Catholic population being added would make the US less anti-Catholic, actually. It might cause the Anti-Catholics to spread propaganda about a "Fifth Column" ready to join with later emigrants as part of a grand conspiracy to destroy Protestantism. Ethnic tensions often become more notable when the minority is more visible.
 
I'm actually not sure how much the French Catholic population being added would make the US less anti-Catholic, actually. It might cause the Anti-Catholics to spread propaganda about a "Fifth Column" ready to join with later emigrants as part of a grand conspiracy to destroy Protestantism. Ethnic tensions often become more notable when the minority is more visible.

Would really depend on if the US government let the French Catholic identity grow and spread across what would be OTL Ontario and Quebec (and bits of Nova Scotia) at all. Personally I doubt it and there would probably be considerable backlash against further French immigration and probably attempts to fill the land with English Protestant settlers as much as they could to dilute the potential political power of a large minority population.
 
I'm actually not sure how much the French Catholic population being added would make the US less anti-Catholic, actually. It might cause the Anti-Catholics to spread propaganda about a "Fifth Column" ready to join with later emigrants as part of a grand conspiracy to destroy Protestantism. Ethnic tensions often become more notable when the minority is more visible.

For the record there were Catholics who sighed the DOI and the Constitution make it quite clear they were free to practise their faith. (Name one mainstream person in politics or any of the Founding Fathers who opposed this_ Likewise the main issues with Quebec was over land more than anything else.

Also unlike OTL the French Canadians would be actively fighting with the Patriots against the British and by the time the USA goes to war over Mexico, French Canadians would be part of the American identity for 50-60s.

The main issue related to different peoples will race more than what form of Christianity they believe in. Of course there will still be bigots but they cannot use the Catholic Faith as a reason to be hostile to them.
 
It's funny but I have a rather opposite point of view.

What makes you think that the US would still push against Mexico if it had already all Canada ?

My guess is rather that there would be much less pressure to go against Mexico and grab huge parts of its territory than OTL.
 
It's funny but I have a rather opposite point of view.

What makes you think that the US would still push against Mexico if it had already all Canada ?

My guess is rather that there would be much less pressure to go against Mexico and grab huge parts of its territory than OTL.

I also hold this view. I always imagined the sole purpose of the landgrab in the Mexican War was a connection to the Pacific (I'm not sure how concrete the US acquisition of Oregon was at this point, after all). If the US holds all of Canada, there is no Oregon Dispute as such (though there might be some issue with Russia, butterflies, butterflies) and so the US has a clear way to the Pacific.

I would suggest that in the event that the US acquires Canada early on, the Mexican-American War may not even occur. And if it does, what would the goals realistically be, because surely they wouldn't be to reach the Pacific.
 
It's funny but I have a rather opposite point of view.

What makes you think that the US would still push against Mexico if it had already all Canada ?

My guess is rather that there would be much less pressure to go against Mexico and grab huge parts of its territory than OTL.

The slavers are not going to give up that easily and more importanly the migrant pressure is going to increase the demand for more land.

I also hold this view. I always imagined the sole purpose of the landgrab in the Mexican War was a connection to the Pacific (I'm not sure how concrete the US acquisition of Oregon was at this point, after all). If the US holds all of Canada, there is no Oregon Dispute as such (though there might be some issue with Russia, butterflies, butterflies) and so the US has a clear way to the Pacific.

I would suggest that in the event that the US acquires Canada early on, the Mexican-American War may not even occur. And if it does, what would the goals realistically be, because surely they wouldn't be to reach the Pacific.

There is still the question of slavery, the Pro-Slavery side is even more disadvantaged than they were in OTL and secondly due to the number of migrants going west incresing (remember about the point were the Federalists remain a political force)
 
Well, Texas apart, the other territories grabbed from Mexico were not slaverist.

And if the USA already includes the whole of Canada let's say in 1820, then the pro-slavery States are already marginalized. This does not mean that slavery will be abolished by the Union in these States.
 
I'm not sure how much, if anything, the addition of Canada affects America's actions in the Mexican War.

Adding another million or two people to the North will not significant's affect the balance of power or wealth required for an invasion.

The Key matter in my mind is that a couple more free states would ease or increase the dissent as one of the primary arguements against was how it would affect the slave to free state ratio.

Southern Slave states obviously hoped to expant the institution but, in reality, many people realized that little to no portion of these new lands were ideal for the large southern style plantations.

Free states were afraid they'd be granted slave state status and vice-versa.

I dont' think any argument would be made for adding much additional land.

The US took half of mexico's territory but only 3% of the population, and much of that was american indians whom were never truly conquered by Mexico anyway (or knew they were citizens).

I don't believe a primary catholic state or two would entice the US to add several primary catholic, spanish speaking states with millions of Mexicans residing there.

In short, adding Canada wouldn't significantly alter the Mexican War.
 
Well, Texas apart, the other territories grabbed from Mexico were not slaverist.

Well the South did not realize this of course. :rolleyes:

And if the USA already includes the whole of Canada let's say in 1820, then the pro-slavery States are already marginalized. This does not mean that slavery will be abolished by the Union in these States.

Fully agree with you there, that is why they would be motivated to do something about that.
 
Is still don't understand how the minority of slaverist southern States could force on the majority to have a war against Mexico if they don't feel the need because they have incorporated Canada in the USA.

But if you want it for any reason and at any cost, you are of course free to write it. I just won't buy it.
 
Is still don't understand how the minority of slaverist southern States could force on the majority to have a war against Mexico if they don't feel the need because they have incorporated Canada in the USA.

Well the Mexicans were not keen on the annexation of Texas, there was border disputes between Texas and Mexico and then there is the land factor as well. Some have said access to the Pacific was a factor but by the time they started the war they already settled the Oregon issue with the British. So having what is now Cascadia part of America would not alone butterfly the war.
 
Top