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.
Here we go again...
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.
The problem is that almost no-one uses the phrase "Second World".
Mexico is not Third World, unless Serbia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. are.
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.
Everyone seems so focused on the "holding" part, which isn't something I want to work out. I want things to turn into chaos that breaks the US's back so to speak.
If you want Mexico to be the "poisoned gift," then go with "ALL MEXICO!"
The Republic of the Rio Grande and relatively underpopulated northern Mexico can be assimilated, but trying to hold the really populous parts of Mexico?
Not going to be easy, especially if you get a bunch of Southern chauvinists trying to bring in slavery and ESPECIALLY if they try to enslave the locals.
Alright, I wasn't sure if All Mexico was too implausible to have happen or not.
The annexation of the entirety of Mexico is plausible, but the consequences of doing so could quite possibly cause nothing but extreme hardship for the US, to the point where its not worth it or the US becomes the weaker for it. However, it is wrong to say that its complete annexation would doom the US to ruin. That relies on too many assumptions without proper evidence, apart from circumstantial evidence and romantic ideas.
The annexation of the entirety of Mexico is plausible, but the consequences of doing so could quite possibly cause nothing but extreme hardship for the US, to the point where its not worth it or the US becomes the weaker for it. However, it is wrong to say that its complete annexation would doom the US to ruin. That relies on too many assumptions without proper evidence, apart from circumstantial evidence and romantic ideas.
You're forgetting that the South Tried to impose slavery on other Mexican lands, even those lightly populated by Mexicans, and they did not become slave states. The South can cry "Missouri Compromise!" all they want, but the the people inside the states make it clear the answer is "no." then there's nothing they can do about it. California had gold which allowed for enough people not from the traditional south to make this a certainty, but in Mexico there won't be a need for northerners to come in and say no, the Mexicans are already there and they'll say no. And unless the Americans overwhelm them (unlikely in the center of populations) the South will grumble, but the states and territories will become Free States.Trying to impose slavery on even part of Mexico proper could provoke violent strife against the whites, with non-co-opted Mexicans playing both Anglo factions against each other.
If we get Popular Sovereignty in Mexico in TTL, it's going to be a bloodbath.
Popular sovereignty would lead to the opposite of a bloodbath. If we lose popular sovereignty that's certainly a possibility. However this assumes there will be no significant faction of collaborators, or that a nation that has been consumed by civil wars and massive conflicts since its birth would have a desire for continued resistance after the stability being conquered might just give them.
Not quite, while the United States was not a Great Power or a Super Power, on a localized comparison between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico one would find a side by side comparison to show a greater disparity of both population and economic power than between the North and the South, and this is both of those combined against Mexico. Further, the Mexican government is plagued with corruption and civil strife, further giving it a handicap. Not to mention collaborators, would be or otherwise.Actually the opposite concept relies far more on them. We should not mistake the 1840s US for the USA as either a Great Power or a superpower.
Not quite, while the United States was not a Great Power or a Super Power, on a localized comparison between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico one would find a side by side comparison to show a greater disparity of both population and economic power than between the North and the South, and this is both of those combined against Mexico. Further, the Mexican government is plagued with corruption and civil strife, further giving it a handicap. Not to mention collaborators, would be or otherwise.
Not quite, while the United States was not a Great Power or a Super Power, on a localized comparison between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico one would find a side by side comparison to show a greater disparity of both population and economic power than between the North and the South, and this is both of those combined against Mexico. Further, the Mexican government is plagued with corruption and civil strife, further giving it a handicap. Not to mention collaborators, would be or otherwise.
Baja, perhaps.