Mexcio or Canada: Which is more likely to be completely annexed to America?

More likely to be annexed


  • Total voters
    205
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Quebecois didn't want to be in America. That's why they didn't join when they had the chance in the Revolution.

That's probably more due to apathy then anything else. Why trade in one Protestant English Warlord for another? Again, this is were the whole Chaos Theory/Butterfly effect comes in to play. If we look at Revolution Era America, a large percentage of people wanted to stay in the British Empire, and it was through a combination of Luck and politics that their land became part of a new nation. In any case, it's probably vey likely that the British Empire would of kept at least Georgia or South Carolina in other TLs.

The Canadians have had their share of problems, but least among them is a lack of national identity. If anything, they've had more of one than the Mexicans have. They didn't have to give up or sell whole parts of their country to another nation.

I thought a lack of a solid Identity was one of Canada's biggest problems due to it's short history, and the large degree of freedom it's Provinces have had over the years.

As for the Mexican part, well...that's probably one of the most offensive things you can say to a Mexican. Honestly, it isn't hard to imagine that the Average Mexican Citizen is probaby more patriotic then the Average American.

As with China, Germany, etc, having your nation's land "stolen" by a foreign power doesn't weaken National Identity. If anything, it makes it stronger. From what I've observed, the hatred for the Mexican Cession and the Gadsen Purchase in Mexico has done much to strengthen the Mexican Identity and give it's people a stronger sense of unity then either the Canadians or Americans.
 
I would say Mexico, if we ever did try and annex anything. Mostly because the chance of the country just falling into anarchy, and turning into a failed state is very likely in the next decade or two. In such a event where the mexican government either failed, or lost control of the country, the U.S would no doubt get involved, either to stop the millions trying to get into the country, or for other security reasons. It is possible, that in such a event, the U.S may expand.

It's either that, or at some point in the far future we've become united to the point where we finally decide to merge. However, that is now, back then there were many good chances. After the mexican-american war, the revolution, 1812, but those all didn't work. If we won the 1812 war... and didn't do so horrible at the start... who knows.
 
Anyone who honestly thinks that the United States will ever annex Mexican territory, raise your hand. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that isn't going to happen.

Aye and verily.

I still cannot imagine how people forget how big a piece of an entire continent America's taken. Even more so if you look at Anglophone culture/the English-language sprachum in North America in general.
 
Anyone who honestly thinks that the United States will ever annex Mexican territory, raise your hand. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that isn't going to happen.

There are too many Mexicans in Mexico for us to want to annex it. Maybe if there's a Hispanic demographic takeover of the US, but that's the earliest we'd even start thinking about it.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
That's probably more due to apathy then anything else.

I don't think Benedict Arnold's troops would agree with you. The Canadian militia and handful of British regulars managed to wail them pretty handily. I think it was because they were better off where they were.

I thought a lack of a solid Identity was one of Canada's biggest problems due to it's short history, and the large degree of freedom it's Provinces have had over the years.

The provinces don't have as much latitude of action in Canada as the states do in America. The settlement of the Canadian West is a good example: the Northwest Mounted Police (the Mounties) were founded by the federal government to travel out ahead of the vast amount of settlers so that there would be law and order when they arrived in the areas we now know of as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.
This is in marked contrast to the American West, where there was a very high degree of personal and communal autonomy. In Canada, the government was quite literally looking out for you: they even made a police force for that job.


As with China, Germany, etc, having your nation's land "stolen" by a foreign power doesn't weaken National Identity. If anything, it makes it stronger. From what I've observed, the hatred for the Mexican Cession and the Gadsen Purchase in Mexico has done much to strengthen the Mexican Identity and give it's people a stronger sense of unity then either the Canadians or Americans.

That's a good point.
 
Canada is an artificial construct.

As a federal state, Canada was organized in 1867. Minnesota didn't give up its control over trade with what is now the Prairie Provinces from the Red River for another decade. If Washington had supported St. Paul the way London supported Toronto, there would be no Canada today.

Sorry, I have an utterly useless semi-degree in Canadian Studies.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
As a federal state, Canada was organized in 1867. Minnesota didn't give up its control over trade with what is now the Prairie Provinces from the Red River for another decade. If Washington had supported St. Paul the way London supported Toronto, there would be no Canada today.

Sorry, I have an utterly useless semi-degree in Canadian Studies.

Hey...now there's 2 people that can be anal Canadian history nerds on the board. Sweet.

As for the Red River area...ah...the Points of Departure I've pitched for that...and how not a damn person knew what I was talking about...

...Louis Riel is the most underrated figure in Canadian history as far as alternate history goes.
 
What's this about St. Paul? Also, which one and where? When is probably a good question to ask as well.
 
I don't think Benedict Arnold's troops would agree with you. The Canadian militia and handful of British regulars managed to wail them pretty handily. I think it was because they were better off where they were.

What Canadian militia? It was the British regulars that chased them off. Ouebec did not join the British against the revolutionary colonlists despite the urgings of the Roman Catholic Church who were bought off by Britain. It remained neutral in the conflict between the two Protestant and francophobic armies.

The provinces don't have as much latitude of action in Canada as the states do in America. The settlement of the Canadian West is a good example: the Northwest Mounted Police (the Mounties) were founded by the federal government to travel out ahead of the vast amount of settlers so that there would be law and order when they arrived in the areas we now know of as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.
This is in marked contrast to the American West, where there was a very high degree of personal and communal autonomy. In Canada, the government was quite literally looking out for you: they even made a police force for that job.

That is bull. Louis Riel and the Métis would strongly disagree with you. Typical Canadian propaganda
 

Sachyriel

Banned
That is bull. Louis Riel and the Métis would strongly disagree with you. Typical Canadian propaganda

Louis Riel went quite crazy in exile. Spent some time in a mental hospital, and even though I like him, I'd take whatever his opinions were with a pinch of salt.;)
 
Personally I think Mexico would have been likelier to be annexed by the United States of America then Canada or it's component provinces. Canada was well-defended by the British Empire and no chance it would have been annexed by the US 1890 or before. Mexico on the other hand was weak and wrecked by civil wars and internal disturbances. Indeed the Mexican armies were so weak that an outnumbered and inexperienced American army defeated them in every single major battle of the Mexican-American War. Indeed in the few of the battles where the Mexicans triumphed in the war they were militias like the Californios at San Pasquel. Also President James K Polk wanted to annex all of Mexico to the US and would have if not for Nicholas Trist's Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
 
American Revolutionary War and War of 1812 PoDs radically disagree with you. :rolleyes::eek:

American Revolutionary War perhaps but not War of 1812. The War of 1812 was such a war of overwhelming odds that the US is pretty lucky that we got out unscathed. Perhaps a bits of territory could have been annexed but certainly not all of Canada-after 1814 without Napoleon Britain could devote all of it's resources against the US.
 
Yeah, I have to go with Mexico here. Huge swathes of it was taken. Had the US wanted to take all of it, it could have.

Realistically the only chance the US has had to take Canada and absorb it without a long occupation would be the ARW. Had Arnold's invaision succeeded perhaps, or US diplomats been more ambitious for the territory.

Mexican annexation, though never really a goal would have been much more easily accomplished.
 
As a federal state, Canada was organized in 1867. Minnesota didn't give up its control over trade with what is now the Prairie Provinces from the Red River for another decade. If Washington had supported St. Paul the way London supported Toronto, there would be no Canada today.

Sorry, I have an utterly useless semi-degree in Canadian Studies.
This is quite interesting, largely because I have little knowledge in this area of Canadian history. Could you post some more info, be it wiki links or books or what have you? Thanks.


Mexican annexation, though never really a goal would have been much more easily accomplished.
Err, no. It would not have been easily accomplished. I never understood why people think controlling seven million Mexicans would be a cakewalk for the United States army. :confused:
 

Eurofed

Banned
American Revolutionary War perhaps but not War of 1812. The War of 1812 was such a war of overwhelming odds that the US is pretty lucky that we got out unscathed. Perhaps a bits of territory could have been annexed but certainly not all of Canada-after 1814 without Napoleon Britain could devote all of it's resources against the US.

The War of 1812 would likely require a pre-war PoD to give the US a decent army, but if Upper and Lower Canada are occupied in 1812-13, I can totally see Britain coming to regard British North America as a hopeless cause (most of it was lost in 1783, now the rest as well, truly seems the Almighty frowns on keeping the Union Jack in North America), making a quick peace with the USA that concedes Canada and focusing on the real enemy, Boney.

In 1812 Canada was little more than a swath of Loyalists and French Catholic settlers on the northern shore of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, and some fur-hunting grounds in the Big Frozen Nowhere, they were nowhere that precious or dear to the British Empire that a two-front war to the death needs to be fought with Napoleon looming to reconquer them if they are lost.
 
Assuming we are talking about Annexing as turning it into a state: Mexico is very unlikely. Most the land taken from Mexico in the Mexican American war was very lightly populated. Anything with large concentrations of Mexicans would result in much civil unrest and the US really never had a permitate army to keep such unrest down.

Canada would be the better choice, but I also find it unlikely. Canada has always had a halfway decent military (and the US usually has not) and the US hates to take big losses during such an "adventure".

So with Canada taking it over would be expensive in terms of men lost and taking over Mexico would be expensive in terms of holding it. Nether conditions would lead towards the US annexing either nation successfully.
 
Err, no. It would not have been easily accomplished. I never understood why people think controlling seven million Mexicans would be a cakewalk for the United States army. :confused:

Maybe because the United States army successfully controlled the former Confederate States, which was larger than present day Mexico. The Confederacy had a larger population than Mexico, though I believe they were roughly the same if you don't include the former slaves.

Furthermore, the Mexican population is congregated around Mexico City. Control the city, which we did, and you control the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top