How can the US annex most of Mexico?

casaubon

How far back can the POD be? Getting a little bit more of Mexico is definitely possible with small changes, but the 20th parallel includes a lot of Hispanic Catholics to integrate into a country which is reluctant to do so, and also in territory that has banned slavery since 1829. Once Mexico has developed a national identity and the socio-political forces around slavery and white (+Protestant) supremacy in the US are set going this far becomes pretty difficult to do. Both Whigs and Southern Democrats were opposed to annexing all of Mexico during the war for various reasons.

However if you go back far enough:

1774 - Derail or just delay the Quebec Act, preventing French Canadians from being mollified by it and seeing their odds as better within a lenient UK than independent.
Late 1770s - The Revolutionary War might be slightly delayed since the Quebec Act was one of many issues the colonists had, but it is likely to occur regardless. This US includes Quebec (historic province of Quebec, probably no Rupert's Land), Acadia/Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick due to French Canadian opposition to UK rule.
1790 - Constitution includes more strict language granting state authority to protect and establish churches, both to appease French Catholics in their state and Protestant English states worried about Catholicism. General cultural effect is less Protestant supremacy.
1800s - French Revolution probably still occurs, but butterflies either remove Napoleon entirely or cause him to make different decisions. Principally and most importantly, there is no Peninsular War. Without such the independence movements in the Americas are significantly muted, since they can't get royalist/conservative support by claiming to be in the name of the true ruling family. Mexico never successfully achieves independence and retains legal slavery.
1830s/40s - This larger US goes to war with Spain which still controls Mexico (and maybe Louisiana, depending on how closely the 1800s align with our own). This time, it's in Southern Democrats best interest to take more of Mexico since it could conceivably be slave territory which is even more needed to counter-weigh the stronger North. Additionally, the presence of Catholics in the US since it's inception reduces though does not eliminate cultural resistance to incorporating the northern half of Mexico. Mexican liberals, frustrated with history of failed attempts to gain independence see their best opportunity for such as joining with the US. The southern (and importantly, more Mestizo/Indigenous descended) half maybe stays with Spain or becomes an independent republic allied to the US.
 
History Learner

History Learner

Banned
PleistoceneWanderer said:
How can the US annex Mexico north of the 20th parallel?
Click to expand...

Vice President George Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Walker, and Secretary of State James Buchanan were all in favor of All Mexico consistently or leaned towards such in the case of Buchanan.

The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48
In the Congress which assembled in December, 1847, the question of the acquisition of all Mexico appeared in the open for the first time. Among those who may definitely be numbered with the expansionists were Senators Dickinson and Dix of New York, Hannegan of Indiana, Cass of Michigan, Allen of Ohio, Breese and Douglas, of Illinois, Atchison of Missouri, Foote and Davis of Mississippi, and Houston and Rusk of Texas. The leadership in the fight, against imperialism fell not to the anti-slavery element but to pro-slavery Democrats. On December 15, Calhoun in the Senate and Holmes in the House introduced resolutions opposing the acquisition of Mexico. Other pro-slavery Democrats, Butler of South Carolina, and Meade and Hunter of Virginia, also registered their opposition.
Click to expand...
Between October, 1847, and the following February the theme of the story underwent considerable alteration. By the latter date, as noted above, the National Era was advocating the absorption of Mexico, insisting that it would be free territory, and citing along with other evidence, Calhoun's opposition to annexation as proof that the anti-slavery interests had nothing to fear from extensive territorial acquisitions. In other words, the National Era was convinced that if there had been a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to acquire all Mexico, it could not realize its ends even though the whole country were annexed. This conviction seems to have come largely as a result of the propaganda, which was streaming from the northern expansionist press and the opposition of Calhoun.The editor probably reasoned that since Calhoun was opposing absorption the expansionists at the North must be correct. If the main body of the anti-slavery forces could be converted to this point of view, the movement for absorption which was growing rapidly at the time would doubtless become very strong indeed.

Care should be taken not to exaggerate the anti-slavery sentiment for all Mexico. It is evident that some such sentiment did exist, but there was not sufficient time for it to develop to significant proportions. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had already been signed in Mexico when the National Era took up the cry of all Mexico with or without the Wilmot Proviso. In a short while the war was over and whatever anti-slavery sentiment there was for all Mexico collapsed along with the general expansion movement. Had the war continued several months longer it is not improbable that increasing numbers from the anti-slavery camp would have joined forces with those who were demanding the acquisition of Mexico. Their action would have been based on the assumption that they were undermining the position of the pro slavery forces. It was, not to be expected that those abolitionists, and there were undoubtedly some, who were using the bogey of "extension of slavery" to cover up other reasons for opposition to annexation, would have ever become convinced of the error of their ways. They would hold on to their pet theory to the bitter end.

To summarize briefly what seem to be the conclusions to be drawn from this study, it might be said that the chief support for the absorption of Mexico came from the North and West and from those whose pro-slavery or anti-slavery bias was not a prime consideration. In quarters where the attitude toward slavery was all-important there was, contrary to the accepted view, a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to prevent the acquisition of all Mexico and the beginnings of an "anti-slavery conspiracy" to secure all the territory in the Southwest that happened to be available. Behind both these movements was a belief that expansion would prove injurious to the slavery interest. Had the war continued much longer the two movements, would probably have developed strength and have become more easily discernible. Lack of time for expansionist sentiment to develop was the chief cause of this country's, failure to annex Mexico in 1848. Even as it was, however, there might have been sufficient demand for annexation in February and March, 1848, to have wrecked the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had it not been for the opposition of pro-slavery Democrats led by Calhoun. Their attitude divided the party committed to expansion in the presence of a unified opposition. Whatever the motives which may be attributed to Calhoun and his friends, the fact remains that those who feel that the absorption of Mexico in 1848 would have meant permanent injury to the best interests of the United States, should be extremely grateful to those slaveholders. To them not a little credit is due for the fact that Mexico is to-day an independent nation.
Click to expand...
I'd also include The United States and Mexico, 1847-1848 by Edward G. Bourne in the The American Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Apr., 1900), pp. 491-502 as he largely came to the same conclusions as this aforementioned work did.
 
Last edited:
Siberian Tiger

Siberian Tiger

1596572515454.png

Perhaps the 25th parallel north could be more realistic?
 
Last edited:

Ficboy

Banned
It was very unlikely all of Mexico would be annexed by the United States (not withstanding the Decades of Darkness United States). If other parts of Mexico are made American states then Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon would be the most likely candidates as pointed out by this map. Baja California (also on the map) is likely to be annexed into California given the close proximity of these areas. Yucatan could have also conceivably joined the United States as well had the "Yucatan Bill" been approved. There's also Cuba which at the time was a territory of Spain and something the United States really wanted to take over.

Cuba would most likely become a Southern state since many already wanted to be part of them. The former Mexican states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon would more or less be organized as territories and Northern ones to be precise since slavery was already outlawed in Mexico. Yucatan is a toss up as well. It also effects the Civil War since the Confederate States would want to possess these ex-Mexican states bordering Mexico in an attempt to grow and expand not to mention having Cuba which would more or less be a valuable possession given it's planter-dominated society.

As for any White Americans settling Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon since they were predominantly desert regions compared to the central and southern areas of Mexico I can expect them to go there for land and the chance at a new life thus inevitably coming into conflict with the mestizo Mexicans and Amerindians similar to the state of New Mexico. Since Yucatan is the furthest away from the ex-Mexican northern states by the United States there are no major changes in demographics and the same goes for Cuba. Cuba as a U.S. state would more or less be similar to Canada's Quebec a culturally distinct region that is Catholic and non-Anglo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top