Maximum Plausible US Annexation from Mexico?

I know that "All Mexico" is pretty unlikely, but what is the most territory that the US might plausibly annex from Mexico following the Mexican American war?
 
We JUST had two threads about this.

The furthest south the US could have annexed without any massive problems is the Tropic of Cancer. A more likely alternate annexation would be OTL+ the five border states today (counting all of Baja as one).

"All Mexico" winds up destroying the US.
 
We JUST had two threads about this.

The furthest south the US could have annexed without any massive problems is the Tropic of Cancer. A more likely alternate annexation would be OTL+ the five border states today (counting all of Baja as one).

"All Mexico" winds up destroying the US.

Unless it is annexed gradually through two or more wars against Mexico.
 
We JUST had two threads about this.

The furthest south the US could have annexed without any massive problems is the Tropic of Cancer. A more likely alternate annexation would be OTL+ the five border states today (counting all of Baja as one).

"All Mexico" winds up destroying the US.

Wait, so All Mexico was plausible, just very bad?
 
We JUST had two threads about this.

The furthest south the US could have annexed without any massive problems is the Tropic of Cancer. A more likely alternate annexation would be OTL+ the five border states today (counting all of Baja as one).

"All Mexico" winds up destroying the US.

I agree, 100%. There were a few uberhawks at the time who wanted to annex all of Mexico; fortuntely, we had the wisdom not to attempt this. During the Mexican War, a guerrilla insurgency tormented US columns all the way to Mexico City, although many of our history books omit this interesting fact (the war is cursorily covered in most schoolbooks anyway). Imagine how fierce and costly the resistance would have been, had we tried to annex all of Mexico. I think any American who has spent much time south of the border and known Mexicans socially will agree with me.
 
Unless it is annexed gradually through two or more wars against Mexico.

Even that's implausible. The best you could hope for close to that is annexing to the Tropic of Cancer, setting up a puppet Republic of the Yucatan, and maybe another puppet buffer state on the US/Mexican border. Then, as white settlers move down to the lower American annexations, they could also branch down to the Yucatan and the other buffer state, eventually petitioning for annexation. But really only the Yucatan is plausible.

Wait, so All Mexico was plausible, just very bad?

No, no, no. Well, yes. It's possible that it could have happened, had we had a more… liberal Congress. It would NOT have lasted. We're talking major guerrilla nonsense in the super-deep South leading up to the Civil War (which is also pushed up a few years), and when the Confederacy breaks free, you can bet the super-deep South will, too. The former will obviously be defeated and reincorporated, but I doubt all of the latter would.

And that's only because we were intolerant, racist idiots back then. Treating all citizens of former-Mexico as true, legitimate US citizens and you don't wind up with guerrilla warfare.
 
Personally, I don't believe most Mexicans would ever have accepted annexation, no matter how many decades passed, they'd always remember that they'd had a country and a culture of their own, that had been stolen from them. This feeling would be passed on from one generation to the next, and there would always be some level of unrest (we'd probably have called the resistance fighters insurrectos or banditos rather than insurgents, to delegitimize their activity).
A bit more territory in the north could have been seized and held; we could have brought in new settlers from Europe to dilute the indigene and mestizo population and solidify claim to the land. The United States would probably have brought the fairer skinned "European" Mexicans into our own governing class as patrones or politicians and likewise treated everyone else according to their American social equivalents. The poorest Indios and peones would have been particularly out of luck if slavery had been introduced into the new states on a large scale, as seems likely.
But the entire country could never have been pacified and assimilated. Too much territory, and too many people, for the US to swallow, even in several "bites". The US suffered bloody anti-conscription riots even during the comparatively brief Civil War. How much more would our people have resented the almost continuous military service, that would have been required to hold down Mexico?
 
Last edited:
No, no, no. Well, yes. It's possible that it could have happened, had we had a more… liberal Congress. It would NOT have lasted. We're talking major guerrilla nonsense in the super-deep South leading up to the Civil War (which is also pushed up a few years), and when the Confederacy breaks free, you can bet the super-deep South will, too. The former will obviously be defeated and reincorporated, but I doubt all of the latter would.

And that's only because we were intolerant, racist idiots back then. Treating all citizens of former-Mexico as true, legitimate US citizens and you don't wind up with guerrilla warfare.

My aim is maximum issues, so if the all Mexico movement could plausibly have succeeded but ended in chaose that's good for my goal.
 
Personally, I don't believe most Mexicans would ever have accepted annexation, no matter how many decades passed, they'd always remember that they'd had a country and a culture of their own, that had been stolen from them. This feeling would be passed on from one generation to the next, and there would always be some level of unrest (we'd probably have called the resistance fighters insurrectos or bandits rather than insurgents, to delegitimize their activity).

Why? The same wasn't true of anywhere else.

But the entire country could never have been pacified and assimilated. Too much territory, and too many people, for the US to swallow…

Agreed.

…even in several "bites".

Eh… not quote agreed. If we're talking about backing places that wanted independence from Mexico… that then became part of the US thanks to US involvement in their independence and equal representation as states of the Union… we could have taken a fair bit more. A lot of what didn't get annexed peacefully didn't because of stuff on OUR end (racism, fear, and insults), not of any concern over insurgencies… that quite possibly wouldn't have taken place.

Look at our two countries today. The US is first world, Mexico remains third world. Look at quality of life. Look at lifespans. Look at INCOME.

The Mexican states with the highest personal incomes are, surprise surprise, the five that border the US. Their citizens are far and away the best off of any in the country (minus, of course, the fear of the drug cartels there that have less sway further south). But they're still NOTHING compared to the incomes and quality of life of proper US states. Hence the massive illegal immigration.

With absolutely no disrespect meant to anyone, I'd like to pose a personal theory/solution to this problem OTL and in present day. I won't if our thread creator doesn't want it, however.
 
Well, since the end of the Cold War, the Second World has pretty much dwindled down to Cuba, North Korea, and China if we're going by the nominal definition.
 
My aim is maximum issues, so if the all Mexico movement could plausibly have succeeded but ended in chaose that's good for my goal.

That will be fun, but yeah the successful all mexico could result in a very fun at least tripple sided (possibly more) civil war that will leave the US absolutely devastated.
 
The below is IMO the maximum territory America could get from Mexico, based on the state borders of the time;

Max. American Mexico.png
 
I know that "All Mexico" is pretty unlikely, but what is the most territory that the US might plausibly annex from Mexico following the Mexican American war?

If the USA wants more than half of it, they're probably going to have to go for all of it. That reality of course underscores that Guadalupe Hidalgo was plenty vindictive enough.
 
Why? The same wasn't true of anywhere else.

Mexico has civil wars often enough when Mexicans rule Mexico. 1840s America ruling it would cause the Antebellum USA to collapse.

Eh… not quote agreed. If we're talking about backing places that wanted independence from Mexico… that then became part of the US thanks to US involvement in their independence and equal representation as states of the Union… we could have taken a fair bit more. A lot of what didn't get annexed peacefully didn't because of stuff on OUR end (racism, fear, and insults), not of any concern over insurgencies… that quite possibly wouldn't have taken place.

Look at our two countries today. The US is first world, Mexico remains third world. Look at quality of life. Look at lifespans. Look at INCOME.

The Mexican states with the highest personal incomes are, surprise surprise, the five that border the US. Their citizens are far and away the best off of any in the country (minus, of course, the fear of the drug cartels there that have less sway further south). But they're still NOTHING compared to the incomes and quality of life of proper US states. Hence the massive illegal immigration.

With absolutely no disrespect meant to anyone, I'd like to pose a personal theory/solution to this problem OTL and in present day. I won't if our thread creator doesn't want it, however.

We're talking more that US stupidity and arrogance leads it to act like the generic AH wank state and then Reality Ensues.
 
If the USA wants more than half of it, they're probably going to have to go for all of it. That reality of course underscores that Guadalupe Hidalgo was plenty vindictive enough.

Taking half of it makes sense, taking it all does'nt, considering that the Northern hald was sparsely populated while it was the Southern half where everyone lived, though IOTL we DID take more than half technically.
 
Top