Had the US Annexed Canada & Mexico by (1861)

If the US annexed Canada & Mexico by (1861) it would..

  • Be a Hyperpower

    Votes: 51 23.7%
  • Be a Superpower

    Votes: 28 13.0%
  • Be a Regional Power

    Votes: 12 5.6%
  • Collapse under its own weight

    Votes: 124 57.7%

  • Total voters
    215
Now for the record I was more than aware that Southern Congressmen and Senators pretty much opposed giving equal rights to non-white Mexicans and hence they were opposed to All-of-Mexico if that is what it resulted in. On the other hand though there might have been more willing to to annex Mexico and Central America if it meant not giving equal rights and have those regions as slaveholding.

When you factor in that adding Canada would mean that they hold a disadvantage in this front, the Slaveholders would have been more desperate to gain more territory to compensate and thus they would be less picky in terms of annexation if it meant the balance of power can be maintained.

Yes, but if Mexico entered as an economic colony of the south, as you surmise, then the Mexicans would have been that much more resistant, especially when the southern imperialists began the necessary ethnic cleansing to get their colony the way they want it.
 
Yes, but if Mexico entered as an economic colony of the south, as you surmise, then the Mexicans would have been that much more resistant, especially when the southern imperialists began the necessary ethnic cleansing to get their colony the way they want it.

I was thinking rather that the various Mexican Elites remain in control and continue to use the peonage system to keep the "Indians and Mixed-Race Tribes" in line. Of course this is not going to be sustainable in the long run, that is why I had the ACW being used to full co-opt the Mexicans into the Union to make sure the CSA is surrounded on 3 sides. Which would also have the Mexicans fighting for there Union and against slavery (which of course they opposed).

This could be done though granting Mexicans equality before the law, in case you are wondering about the prospects of a Hispanic Jim Crow well that is were you encounter problems, that is actually trying to enforce it due to the larger numbers involved.

Remember also that if Canada and Mexico are annexed and there is a ACW, Radical Reconstruction is more likely, why you may ask because it would mean that it is more likely that the French at least would try and "save the CSA" which in turn means this is more than an internal dispute, this is a war to protect the American Revolution.
 
I was thinking rather that the various Mexican Elites remain in control and continue to use the peonage system to keep the "Indians and Mixed-Race Tribes" in line. Of course this is not going to be sustainable in the long run, that is why I had the ACW being used to full co-opt the Mexicans into the Union to make sure the CSA is surrounded on 3 sides. Which would also have the Mexicans fighting for there Union and against slavery (which of course they opposed).

But if the Mexican peonage system remains in place then slavery can't be expanded so why does the south go along with it? The two systems can't exist side by side, they're mutually exclusive.

This could be done though granting Mexicans equality before the law, in case you are wondering about the prospects of a Hispanic Jim Crow well that is were you encounter problems, that is actually trying to enforce it due to the larger numbers involved.

Blacks were in the majority or near majority when and where Jim Crow was instituted. Some even say it was why it was instituted. Numbers are meaningless. You are assuming reason on the part of slavers and bigots. They are not reasonable. Reason kind of precludes the level of bigotry that was institutionalised in the south for 100 years.

Remember also that if Canada and Mexico are annexed and there is a ACW, Radical Reconstruction is more likely, why you may ask because it would mean that it is more likely that the French at least would try and "save the CSA" which in turn means this is more than an internal dispute, this is a war to protect the American Revolution.

I really don't understand why you think a society that ethnically cleansed the Indians from the United States would turn around and give that land back to the Indians from Mexico.
 
But if the Mexican peonage system remains in place then slavery can't be expanded so why does the south go along with it? The two systems can't exist side by side, they're mutually exclusive.

The South is not going to win the battle over who settles which territory that has been annexed. Especially the further west you will go, you might get the RGR to be a slave state but anything else?

Blacks were in the majority or near majority when and where Jim Crow was instituted. Some even say it was why it was instituted. Numbers are meaningless. You are assuming reason on the part of slavers and bigots. They are not reasonable. Reason kind of precludes the level of bigotry that was institutionalised in the south for 100 years.

Numbers do matter when you try and enforce it, good luck for example in getting Jim Crow though in Central Mexico or even in the more Northern Territories. That is were you have issues. I mean there were 3 million or so African Americans and there is more than double that in terms os Hispanics.

I really don't understand why you think a society that ethnically cleansed the Indians from the United States would turn around and give that land back to the Indians from Mexico.

Did I say that Central Mexico would be independent? So what do you mean by this?
 
The South is not going to win the battle over who settles which territory that has been annexed. Especially the further west you will go, you might get the RGR to be a slave state but anything else?

So the south is going to get its way in the annexation but not the actual effects of it? Sorry, I don't buy it. What I think is far more likely, based on what actually happened in the territory the US took in OTL is something between the Trail of Tears and Generalplan Ost. The Mexicans will be displaced/cleansed/exterminated by the slavers so they can recreate their beloved plantation system in Mexico-what-was. And the North won't give a damn. Just like they didn't give a damn when the old slaver class retook control of the south after the Civil War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemers

Numbers do matter when you try and enforce it, good luck for example in getting Jim Crow though in Central Mexico or even in the more Northern Territories. That is were you have issues. I mean there were 3 million or so African Americans and there is more than double that in terms os Hispanics.

Do they really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Did I say that Central Mexico would be independent? So what do you mean by this?

What I mean is that, in a country that even today with 320 million people still has below average population density, the powers that be still took every inch of land from the Indians that was worth anything at all. They didn't do it because they needed the land, they did it because they believed they had a God given right to it. And this is how they treated every single group of Indians they came across. So why in the world would Mexican Indians be treated any differently at all? Because it's logical? Rofl. Pull the other one, friend, it's got bells on.
 
annexing Canada will spark some regional differences in the rest of the USA. In OTL, the south was deadset against the invasion, as they didn't want all those presumably free soil voters being added to the ranks. The coast/port/shipping areas were against it too, since they really didn't want to piss off the UK and disrupt trade. Not sure about Mexico... in OTL, the parts we took weren't all that suitable for plantation slavery, and if we took more of it, the same would apply. Still, the south might be all for it, since it's adjacent to their part of the country, and if they can swing them into being slave states, it gives them a boost in Congress... which probably means the north will be unhappy about that...
 
Seriously? Are you familiar with the term "distinction without a difference"? The meaning of the flag is clear, wherever it's being flown: resistance to cultural change. And if it's still happening now in such a public way despite all the criticism, why will it be any different in the ATL?

Given that flags are all about symbolism, the positioning of a flag is equally symbolic.
 
So basically the United States decides to liberate the Viceroyalty of New Spain from colonial rule and afterward formed the US Territory of New Spain then?

Personally it could work if Canada joins the Revolution and the Federalists stay in power enough to build up a strong armed forces. Then once they take control they co-opt the Criollos and maybe the Mestizos into forming a reforming and stable territorial government.

Then as the territory in what is now the American West and Northern Mexico is settled then come the Civil War the rest start to join the USA itself over time.

Have I got this correct?

More or less. I imagine they'd have no problem with the Criollos anc Mestizos having a say in their own local government.
 
In OTL though, the south was against it; Mexico was too brown for their liking.

Wouldn't that have meant more slaves for them?

And back to the topic... yeah, I take option 4. The US would have collapsed onto itself. Hell, I can already imagine the Mexicans attempting not just seccession, but a coup d'etat on either Washington DC or, more plausible, the Confederate Capital of Richmond.
 
Wouldn't that have meant more slaves for them?

Nope. At that point it was illegal to import new slaves; slavery continued because of children being born into slavery. Besides, I said brown for a reason; the varying skin tones found in Mexico would have thrown a wrench in their comfortably distanced, dichotomous, skin-based social class.
 
How are we defining "collapse"?

I could see Mexico eventually revolting and winning independence while the rest remains together . . . is that a "collapse"?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Mormon Church wants a word with you...

Fair enough - though there is still that suspicion of Catholicism specifically. If I wanted to think of the religion most (informally) discriminated against in the US prior to the late unpleasantness with Islam, I'd say Catholicism.

The Mormon Church wants a word with you...

In addition, Charles and Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimmons want a word with you; as does Archbishop Carroll.;)

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Mexico annexed? No...

Had the US successfully campaigned in Canada during the War of 1812, annexing the north in its entirety..

As well as choosing to annex all of Mexico during the Mexican-American war..

The US would:

1 Be A Hyperpower

2. Be A Superpower

3. Be A Regional Power

4. Collapse under its own weight

Postulate Long Term Foreign Policy


Mexico annexed? No... but the "receivership" offer to Scott leading to an alliance is a possibility.

As far as Upper and Lower Canada go, that's a possibility, as are points west, depending on the deltas; the Maritimes would be a bridge too far in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth centuries, absent a French expeditionary force in London.

Best
 
Top