How would American annexation of Mexican border states impact the Civil War

The Slave States in former Mexican territory would be run by a small slave holding group of whites, who wouldn't be to popular with the local population.
Trying to keep the population from rising in revolt would be a major drain on Confederate resources
 
The problem you have there is, why swarm settled territory whose fertile land is taken? And who's going to swarm? It's difficult to overstate how empty of Mexicans New Mexico (incl. 5 modern states), California and Texas were: Less than 100k people between the three. Of course they were swamped. The border provinces had 6-7 times as many people in a 10th of the area. To swamp that population you require a movement of 700k settlers, which would be 3% of the US population, into populated territory with little available land. Meanwhile, in California...Gold!

And, for this to have the effect of creating a slave state, the vast majority of settlers must be southern. You are quite right about Mexico's social ills, but there is a long way from that to opening up slave markets. I just don't understand how it is conceivable to have these states as pro-southern slave-states within 12 years, it requires not just migration, but an exodus from the South, and the North to be fine with that.

BTW, in this scenario, whatever happens, the region rebels during the Civil War, probably with support from Mexico. Chaos ensues.

That would have been about 150k in Sonora and Chihuahua, thereabouts, with the remaining 400-500k living in the three eastern states. (Baja's population is miniscule, of course). New Mexico had the majority of the population of the northern territories of Mexico, roughly about 60k or so in total. And those are assuming the US would be annexing the whole of the border states, where it's more likely they'd only annex the northern parts. (there is silver mining in Chihuahua, but of course California gold will be much more appealing at first).

So, I'd imagine that Sonora and Chihuahua would likely have a similar fate to New Mexico, though more skewed to the native Mexicans (and other natives aside). With the eastern states (Coahulia/Nuevo Leon/Taumalipas), there'd be a far more established population that would have basically no chance of being overrun by any type of settler population (and would likely be reinforced from migrants over time as well).

Good point on the migrants needing to be from the South, but that didn't stop northerners from creating de facto slavery in California among the native population that lived there already.

I remember a 4 year old thread where we discussed this - I would suppose that with the high population in those three states, that they would have to be admitted as a single free state to avoid any more issues with the local populace - and, in exchange, instead of California being admitted as a single state, some of Southern California+Baja is admitted as a slave state, and the other two territories (Sonora/Chihuahua) are confirmed as slave territories. That doesn't mean that the latter two would actually have much in the way of slavery evolving, and that doesn't mean the South wouldn't attempt to subvert a Rio Grande state, but with a population of near half a million, it is hard to prevent the latter from being granted statehood.

And... considering Mexico was busy fighting off foreign intervention during the Civil War OTL, I doubt that Mexico would be in any shape to support insurgency in the North when they are busy being invaded. And considering that a larger Mexican cession doesn't strengthen the South nearly enough to promote victory, all any insurgency will do will force the North to march down after the war is concluded with a much larger army, and Mexico gets occupied again. At the very least, it'd provide a region for the German/Mexicans/other Unionists in Texas to fall back to.
 
And... considering Mexico was busy fighting off foreign intervention during the Civil War OTL, I doubt that Mexico would be in any shape to support insurgency in the North when they are busy being invaded.
Pretty much the only parts of Mexico left during the war were the northern bits, so I can definitely see some Mexican military spillover into American-annexed areas.
 
Pretty much the only parts of Mexico left during the war were the northern bits, so I can definitely see some Mexican military spillover into American-annexed areas.

I mean, there could definitely be some spillover, even in a "we're going to look the other way and pretend you're not here" kind of way.

But actively stirring up trouble in the US territories while simultaneously fighting the French? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Then again, without Sonora and Chihuahua to fall back to, there is a chance that the French could succeed in placing their puppet on the throne. Or perhaps not - it's hard to tell without delving deep into everything.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
That would have been about 150k in Sonora and Chihuahua, thereabouts, with the remaining 400-500k living in the three eastern states. (Baja's population is miniscule, of course). New Mexico had the majority of the population of the northern territories of Mexico, roughly about 60k or so in total. And those are assuming the US would be annexing the whole of the border states, where it's more likely they'd only annex the northern parts. (there is silver mining in Chihuahua, but of course California gold will be much more appealing at first).

So, I'd imagine that Sonora and Chihuahua would likely have a similar fate to New Mexico, though more skewed to the native Mexicans (and other natives aside). With the eastern states (Coahulia/Nuevo Leon/Taumalipas), there'd be a far more established population that would have basically no chance of being overrun by any type of settler population (and would likely be reinforced from migrants over time as well).

Good point on the migrants needing to be from the South, but that didn't stop northerners from creating de facto slavery in California among the native population that lived there already.

I remember a 4 year old thread where we discussed this - I would suppose that with the high population in those three states, that they would have to be admitted as a single free state to avoid any more issues with the local populace - and, in exchange, instead of California being admitted as a single state, some of Southern California+Baja is admitted as a slave state, and the other two territories (Sonora/Chihuahua) are confirmed as slave territories. That doesn't mean that the latter two would actually have much in the way of slavery evolving, and that doesn't mean the South wouldn't attempt to subvert a Rio Grande state, but with a population of near half a million, it is hard to prevent the latter from being granted statehood.

And... considering Mexico was busy fighting off foreign intervention during the Civil War OTL, I doubt that Mexico would be in any shape to support insurgency in the North when they are busy being invaded. And considering that a larger Mexican cession doesn't strengthen the South nearly enough to promote victory, all any insurgency will do will force the North to march down after the war is concluded with a much larger army, and Mexico gets occupied again. At the very least, it'd provide a region for the German/Mexicans/other Unionists in Texas to fall back to.

A border further south is possible, especially one avoiding more-populated areas, but the OP said "the border states". The population data for the border areas at the time shows about 300k in Sonora and Chihuahua combined (excluding the part that was annexed in 1848), 300k in the three eastern states. The Western states are marginal land, but most of what it is practical to farm is held with solid legal title. Not an attractive destination compared to the vast expanses of unfarmed land to the north, you don't get anglo majorities until much, much later than the civil war, perhaps never. Baja is easy though, as you said. I simply can't see any of the conquered territories being admitted as states, individually they would be two powerful in congress, united they would have too many presidential electors. And we have to remember, Americans at this time considered Mexicans both racially and culturally inferior.

The foreign intervention in Mexico didn't start till 1861, but we are looking at a very different Mexico. The principle cause was reneging on debts to France, but in the TL the US would need to pay more for the lost territories ($25,000,000 was the highest authorised figure), and the political situation would be very different. To an extent, the French intervention was actually taking sides in a civil war, so I'd say it's far from clear that a different Mexico would face the same problem.
 
A border further south is possible, especially one avoiding more-populated areas, but the OP said "the border states". The population data for the border areas at the time shows about 300k in Sonora and Chihuahua combined (excluding the part that was annexed in 1848), 300k in the three eastern states. The Western states are marginal land, but most of what it is practical to farm is held with solid legal title. Not an attractive destination compared to the vast expanses of unfarmed land to the north, you don't get anglo majorities until much, much later than the civil war, perhaps never. Baja is easy though, as you said. I simply can't see any of the conquered territories being admitted as states, individually they would be two powerful in congress, united they would have too many presidential electors. And we have to remember, Americans at this time considered Mexicans both racially and culturally inferior.

Mind, the only way I think any American annexation of the "Rio Grande Republic" states would have to grant them a state status in the short run. They are too highly populous to prevent from becoming states, in any such case. And, while definitely Mexican, those three areas hold, I believe, the highest concentration of European-origin Mexicans (rather than Mestizos) outside of the Mexican metropole in the southern part of the country. And, to the US at this time, that would matter.

It'd be a comparison to Cuba - which, while having the highest concentration of European-origin Spanish speakers, was also far, far more populous than even an extended Mexican cession, and was certainly looked at as governable and possible for integration into the US. We're looking at 900k for Cuba in 1850, half again as much as any further Mexican cession, and it was certainly considered for integration as a (slave) state. Cuba is far more profitable, but the possibility of even more slave states than just a single one in Cuba would be very intriguing for the Southern States. Note that it was two southern Senators who proposed altering the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo even further south - Davis proposed including the south bank of the Rio ground and an earlier Gadsden, while Houston proposed pushing it as far south as San Luis Potosi.

I'd still stand by opinion, with a "Rio Grande" State entering as compensation for splitting California rather than permitting it to enter as a single entity, but with Southern efforts to attempt to subvert the Rio Grande with both settlers, hustlers, and other politicians in order to secure their electoral and senatorial votes for themselves. You would likely see "Rio Grande" statehood be delayed in the courts, perhaps for years, as various settlement attempts are made (mostly to fail). As for Sonora/Chihuahua, it is likely that they'd remain territories similar to Arizona and New Mexico well into the 1900s, so you'd have that mixed culture developing. While it may not be completely Anglo-fied, it would be much farther along than, say, Puerto Rico, simply due to being acquired far earlier and sharing a common market with the rest of the US, rather than being relatively isolated.

And, with the Americans thinking so little of the Mexicans at this point in time, it's not unlikely that they would attempt to use unsavory methods to relieve various natives of their possessions and deeds, some successfully, some unsuccessfully, which could result in a low grade conflict developing with land snatchers and hustlers fighting each other over property and land rights.

The foreign intervention in Mexico didn't start till 1861, but we are looking at a very different Mexico. The principle cause was reneging on debts to France, but in the TL the US would need to pay more for the lost territories ($25,000,000 was the highest authorised figure), and the political situation would be very different. To an extent, the French intervention was actually taking sides in a civil war, so I'd say it's far from clear that a different Mexico would face the same problem.

That would only be 10 million more, and I'm not sure how much the loss of the more developed territories, Chihuahua silver mines, taxation from Tamaulipas/Nuevo Leon/Coahuila, etc would come from that. It'd certainly eat into the difference, and there's no telling whether the Civil War will erupt or not (though I doubt these annexations would eliminate the underlying cause that lead up to it just as much as they don't alter the calculus leading to the American Civil War).

And, in the event of the American War occurring, the region would be a net drain on the Confederacy - either it provides a region where Union (or rather, anti-slaver factions) would be able to retreat and find shelter, which turns even more of Texas as a battleground (Texas would be in an uproar! The Rio Grandians would be coming to claim the Nueces as the border between them and Texas! Troops must be diverted to stop this), and there would be no more slavers there, relative, than there were in New Mexico historically.

Or, let's say, that Mexico does intervene in an attempt to take back the territories - the Confederacy would then find themselves in a two front war, as their western claims (basically their OTL ones + this Southern California + Sonora/Chihuahua/Rio Grande) would be assaulted by Mexico, and they'd be in even more trouble than OTL. And, when that is all said and done, what better way to unite the North and South than to march together and expel the Mexicans from American territory? I don't see a way in which Mexico regains the territory, unless we have some Confederate/Mexican deal that somehow doesn't turn into backstabs... and a deal that would make an actual appreciable difference in the war, as the war will be won in the East as it is.
 

Marc

Donor
Another ugly question, is where do you get the additional slaves? Importation is banned, enslaving is highly illegal. Slavery does not organically encourage a high birth rate. Slaves were increasingly an expensive capital asset.
A good article on the subject of slave cost is this: https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Basically, a prime age male slave would have a price tag of about $40,000 in current dollars. To give you all some perspective, a typical farm tractor runs about $200,000, a combine about a half million; and both are hugely more productive tools. Slaves in terms of cost had by 1850 become either status symbols for upper-class families, or expensive "equipment" for elite planters.
(Of course, this is about the buying and selling of slaves, slaves families - slaves owned generation after generation by their masters had intrinsic economic value, like other property, but relatively low cost)
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
BTW, this radio programme gives the lie to the idea that Mexico's population was happy and passive to the occupying force. It mentions quite a lot more Mexican resistance was stronger than anybody thinks of, and a brutal American response which led to opposition to the war in America. It also details the racist aspect present before the war.
 
Top