How difficult would it be for the US to reintroduce Slavery into Mexican States

[damein fisher]

Let's assume a typical wank US victory in the Mexican American War; that is that the US annexes all the North Mexican Territories as well as the states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. Mexico was very anti-slavery at the time and had abolished slavery decades earlier. In a lot of Timelines dealing with such a US victory, I often see the US reintroduce slavery these areas with little or no resistance by the locals.

Realistically, how difficult would it be for the United States to introduce Slavery into an area where the people didn't want it?

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Note that at the dawn of the ACW, Mexico was a net importer of cotton, so there would be little economic point to slavery there. The cotton growing regions in Chihuahua state required massive investments in railroad and irrigation canal building, which weren't funded in OTL until the ACW drove up prices.

So either:

no Civil War (in which case cotton prices are too low to pay for all the new infrastructure needed to start growing cotton in Chihuahua on the scale of other slave states)

Civil War with Chihuahua on Confederate side (in which case every scrap of railroad iron is going to the war front, not Mexico)

Civil War with Chihuahua on Union side (meaning slavery is a no-no)

 

[drewmcgunn]

It's really worth it to develop an understanding about debt peonage in Mexico. Much of northern Mexico was heavily invested in debt peonage during the mid-19th century. As I understand it, one of Benito Juarez's key things he was trying to do was liberalize that system. But 1846 wasn't 1867. The regions the OP includes in this "annexation" were areas where debt peonage was worse than in the rest of Mexico. In the Mexican border states it wasn't uncommon to find peons who owed up to several years "pay" to their landlords.

This doesn't directly address the issue of slavery, but it points the way that slavery could be "modified" in these "new states."

It's no guarantee that Southerners wouldn't attempt to import black chattel slavery, but it's also worth remembering that the vast majority of the land the OP is listed as "annexed" is about as far removed from suitable for Southern agriculture as can be imagined.

It's also worth asking the question, how many people live in the annexed states? IIRC, the OP has picked some of the most sparsely populated Mexican states. It's likely the Mexican population of the "annexed" area would be less than 900,000. You could expect an exodus of 10 to 20%. I believe that a similar percent actually left New Mexico IOTL.

One last thought... what would such an annexation do to the political balance in the US? There were plenty of people on both sides of the Mason Dixon line who didn't favor such a destabilizing event. You would need to alter this to a degree to create a situation that would cause the annexation of the Mexican north.

 

[Rockydroid]

Northern Mexico was a bastion of liberalism in that century so the locals would be ideologically opposed to that. Debt probate was enough for cognitive dissonance to take hold, but straight up slavery would have been too much. Your have to flood the place with southerners first.

It was also populated by a fair number of light skinned Mexicans, read white, so you'd have to find creative ways to disenfranchise them too. I doubt the North would allow such blatant attempts at slave spreading and demand citizenship for that population.

I think it's plausible but only if done in some states not all and very tricky/difficult. I can see an earlier civil war as a result of this.

 

[drewmcgunn]

I can see an earlier civil war as a result of this.

I'm leaning in that direction, too.
Regarding citizenship, it's hard to argue that any treaty between the US and Mexico won't require citizenship extended to the Mexican population. That was certainly the case with the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and brought in the Mexican Cession.
A quick google search shows that Tejano voting patterns were a thing in Antebellum Texas, so I don't think you could get rid of the vote entirely in the newly acquired states. Pro-Southern state governments could institute a poll tax or literacy tests to get rid of most voters, if such state governments could even be formed.
To get an idea of how Mexicans would have been integrated, you can look at South Texas in the antebellum period or California. Not great, by any measurement, but loyalties can be very odd things. Around 2,500 Mexican-Texans served in Confederate service. Given the poor civil rights record Texas had in the antebellum period, it's still worth noting that more than 10% of the Tejano population of Texas in 1860s enlisted in the Confederate army. Here's the source: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pom02

I wonder... in this unlikely scenario from the OP, would some subset of the South look at the debt peonage system practiced in Northern Mexico and possibly begin to adopt it earlier in the South than what actually happened. I'm inclined to think not, but I wonder.

 

[Mikestone8]

I'm leaning in that direction, too.
Regarding citizenship, it's hard to argue that any treaty between the US and Mexico won't require citizenship extended to the Mexican population. That was certainly the case with the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and brought in the Mexican Cession.

Would peons count as "free persons" for the purpose of Congressional representation?

If they are theoretically free to leave their masters (bar the little matter of settling their debts first) I should think that technically they would, but I could see some argument about it.

And might this impact on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill? I'm guessing that these areas would be "Popular Sovereignty" territories like OTL's NM and UT. So if all this extra land was theoretically open to slavery, might a feeling that the South already "had its fair share" tip over enough Northern Democrats to defeat the measure? It would only need seven, after all.

 

[Philip]

Would peons count as "free persons" for the purpose of Congressional representation?

If they are theoretically free to leave their masters (bar the little matter of settling their debts first) I should think that technically they would, but I could see some argument about it.

They would likely be counted as full persons bound in service. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

 

[damein fisher]

So basically, we can expect a system similar to apprenticeship in OTL post-civil War to take place, but with ridiculous unachievable debts that these "Free-blacks" would need to overcome while their bound in service? Interesting system if that is the case. Are there any chances that one of these more populated Mexican states might end up as a free state?

 

[drewmcgunn]

So basically, we can expect a system similar to apprenticeship in OTL post-civil War to take place, but with ridiculous unachievable debts that these "Free-blacks" would need to overcome while their bound in service? Interesting system if that is the case. Are there any chances that one of these more populated Mexican states might end up as a free state?

These Mexican states referenced in the OP were not "more populated." Those states made up no more than 9% of the whole of the Mexican population of the time. Maybe as much as 900,000 people spread across 5 states.

I think you'd have a multi-tiered system, with a slight bit of fluidity at the top made up of rich Anglos and European-Mexican hacienda owners, below that would be whatever might pass for middle-class, maybe yeoman farmers and merchants in the towns in places like Monterrey or Durango. Below that would be those in debt peonage and below that African slaves.

But this is just idle conjecture. Immigration rates from the South and from other places will matter in this scenario. If Southerners don't go there in any appreciable numbers then chattel slavery will likely not take off, even if technically legal. But debt peonage is already heavily fixed in those locations, so new norteamericano hacienda and mine owners would adapt rather quickly to that economic system, even if chattel slavery doesn't catch on.

 

[Rockydroid]

These Mexican states referenced in the OP were not "more populated." Those states made up no more than 9% of the whole of the Mexican population of the time. Maybe as much as 900,000 people spread across 5 states.

I think you'd have a multi-tiered system, with a slight bit of fluidity at the top made up of rich Anglos and European-Mexican hacienda owners, below that would be whatever might pass for middle-class, maybe yeoman farmers and merchants in the towns in places like Monterrey or Durango. Below that would be those in debt peonage and below that African slaves.

But this is just idle conjecture. Immigration rates from the South and from other places will matter in this scenario. If Southerners don't go there in any appreciable numbers then chattel slavery will likely not take off, even if technically legal. But debt peonage is already heavily fixed in those locations, so new norteamericano hacienda and mine owners would adapt rather quickly to that economic system, even if chattel slavery doesn't catch on.

Sad thing is I can't find my source for population in the 1840's and only have a rough memory of their numbers in those states but using your number, 900,000 is about 5 percent of the US population in 1848 (some 17 million people) a number that grows closer to 6% if you count 1/3 of the slave population only. It's still quite a bit of people with zero Anglos present. The main problem is, as you mention, where new settlers come from. Proximity to Texas and California would probably impact it a bit. I can see Chihuahua and Baja California becoming states (They should have enough people to meet the pop requirements). Maybe Sonora soon after.

But a earlier civil war is a guarantee if you ask me.

 

[Mikestone8]

So basically, we can expect a system similar to apprenticeship in OTL post-civil War to take place, but with ridiculous unachievable debts that these "Free-blacks" would need to overcome while their bound in service? Interesting system if that is the case. Are there any chances that one of these more populated Mexican states might end up as a free state?

They could end up free as far as outright chattel slavery was concerned. But as this thread amply demonstrates, there is "free and "free".

 

[Mikestone8]

But a earlier civil war is a guarantee if you ask me.

Maybe if they try to get Kansas-Nebraska as well as North Mexico.

Otherwise I don't see why. Few Northern pioneers are likely to want to go to Nth Mexico, so it doesn't put a "slave" barrier across their path to the West. And it's not inevitable that the Nth Mexican states would be "slave". Given the ample supply of peons is there much incentive to introduce black slaves as well?

 

[drewmcgunn]

But a earlier civil war is a guarantee if you ask me.

Indeed. More potential states = More potential stresses on the fabric of American civil life. That's one of the reasons why the "annex all of Mexico" crowd was small. While Northern Whigs were pretty much against the war, somewhat more so than the Southern Whigs, both regional factions were very anti-annexation for the reasons cited above. Even Democrats in the South were very split on taking more of Mexico than what the US got in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

 

[Dave Howery]

Mexico was very anti-slavery at the time and had abolished slavery decades earlier

mostly, but wealthy Mexican families often had domestic slaves, although they were Native Americans stolen as children, not black slaves. But in general, yes, Mexico was very opposed to the US plantation style slavery. Although they had two legal ways around it... the previously mentioned peonage/debt system, and indentured servant contracts that could last up to 99 years (American slave owners in TX used this to get around the law). But the main question that needs answering is if any of the territory in those northern Mexican states is suitable for US plantation style slave-based agriculture. If not, then I think that domestic slavery would be accepted without much protest. If yes, then there would likely be more of an uproar....

 

[David T]

Noel Mauer (who has considerable knowledge of Mexico: see https://business.gwu.edu/noel-maurer for his background) had an interesting blog post on this some years ago:

"We have an example of a populated area switching to American rule. New Mexico had a population about as large as Coahuila's and a little more than half of Nuevo León or Chiahuahua. It provides a perfectly valid template for how those territories would have developed under American rule; with one wrinkle that I'll get to later.

"We also know what American troops experienced during the occupation. Mexican politicians in the D.F. were horrified at the level of indifference, shading over in many cases -- not least Nuevo León -- outright collaboration.

"The wrinkle, which would make Coahuila and Nuevo León different from New Mexico, is that the elites in the northeastern states actively desired American annexation and the extension of slavery. We know this because they asked for it! Santiago Vidaurri wrote a letter to Richmond in 1861 volunteering Coahuila and Nuevo León to the Confederate cause. (Vidaurri annexed Coahuila to N.L. and installed himself as the governor of Tamaulipas.)

"These sympathies predated the Civil War. In fact, Vidaurri had been perfectly happy in 1855 to return escaped slaves to Texas. The agreement failed because the Texans wanted to send in their own people to recapture the escapees, not principled opposition; ironically, he made a whole bunch of antislavery proclamations in 1857, only to reverse them and start sending slaves home in 1858. It is hard to believe that Vidaurri or the elites that supported him would have opposed slavery, given their opportunism and their incessant complaints about labor shortages..." http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/what-would-lesser-mexico-have-been-like.html

 

[Rockydroid]

Noel Mauer (who has considerable knowledge of Mexico: see https://business.gwu.edu/noel-maurer for his background) had an interesting blog post on this some years ago:

"We have an example of a populated area switching to American rule. New Mexico had a population about as large as Coahuila's and a little more than half of Nuevo León or Chiahuahua. It provides a perfectly valid template for how those territories would have developed under American rule; with one wrinkle that I'll get to later.

"We also know what American troops experienced during the occupation. Mexican politicians in the D.F. were horrified at the level of indifference, shading over in many cases -- not least Nuevo León -- outright collaboration.

"The wrinkle, which would make Coahuila and Nuevo León different from New Mexico, is that the elites in the northeastern states actively desired American annexation and the extension of slavery. We know this because they asked for it! Santiago Vidaurri wrote a letter to Richmond in 1861 volunteering Coahuila and Nuevo León to the Confederate cause. (Vidaurri annexed Coahuila to N.L. and installed himself as the governor of Tamaulipas.)

"These sympathies predated the Civil War. In fact, Vidaurri had been perfectly happy in 1855 to return escaped slaves to Texas. The agreement failed because the Texans wanted to send in their own people to recapture the escapees, not principled opposition; ironically, he made a whole bunch of antislavery proclamations in 1857, only to reverse them and start sending slaves home in 1858. It is hard to believe that Vidaurri or the elites that supported him would have opposed slavery, given their opportunism and their incessant complaints about labor shortages..." http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/what-would-lesser-mexico-have-been-like.html

Coahuila and Nuevo Leon would be Slave states while Chihuahua would be a free state. I imagine Baja remains a territory and Sonora becomes a free state too? So where does that leave Tamaulipas? It would throw the balance off. Would the North try to block it or just go for broke and push for abolition? Or maybe make either Baja California or New Mexico a free state to balance a slave Tamaulipas state? And in post Civil War era, would these states stay loyal to the Union? Or would a Rio Grande republic rise again and try to get French support? So many timeline ideas...

 

[damein fisher]

Coahuila and Nuevo Leon would be Slave states while Chihuahua would be a free state. I imagine Baja remains a territory and Sonora becomes a free state too? So where does that leave Tamaulipas? It would throw the balance off. Would the North try to block it or just go for broke and push for abolition? Or maybe make either Baja California or New Mexico a free state to balance a slave Tamaulipas state? And in post Civil War era, would these states stay loyal to the Union? Or would a Rio Grande republic rise again and try to get French support? So many timeline ideas...

Those who supported splitting California into two states IOTL supported the admission of New Mexico as a free states [which would include Arizona as well] so I could see a Slave Tamaulipas and Free New Mexico