Mexico fights on in 1848

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
According to John D. P. Fuller's The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848, such was happening:



tl;dr Outside of the Southeast and Calhoun's allies, support was growing for annexation, with Abolitionists starting to embrace it as a way to check Slavery's expansion.

I see the materials quoted saying that abolitionists and anti-slavery forces were trending towards support for all-Mexico annexation, but even in the short and medium term, isn't Calhoun's opposition to all-Mexico annexation, and his broad following among southern Democrats, be indicative that proslavery politicians would migrate to oppose annexation and basically cancel out the movement of antislavery politicians to the all-Mexico trend, thus leaving the all-Mexico movement thwarted anyway.
 
I see the materials quoted saying that abolitionists and anti-slavery forces were trending towards support for all-Mexico annexation, but even in the short and medium term, isn't Calhoun's opposition to all-Mexico annexation, and his broad following among southern Democrats, be indicative that proslavery politicians would migrate to oppose annexation and basically cancel out the movement of antislavery politicians to the all-Mexico trend, thus leaving the all-Mexico movement thwarted anyway.

Essentially, by the time the Treaty had arrived in Washington, the South had already been split. The Atlantic South had become very much opposed to annexation but the Western South was very much in favor of it, as Fuller noted:

In the Congress which assembled in December, 1847, the question of the acquisition of all Mexico appeared in the open for the first time. Among those who may definitely be numbered with the expansionists were Senators Dickinson and Dix of New York, Hannegan of Indiana, Cass of Michigan, Allen of Ohio, Breese and Douglas, of Illinois, Atchison of Missouri, Foote and Davis of Mississippi, and Houston and Rusk of Texas. The leadership in the fight, against imperialism fell not to the anti-slavery element but to pro-slavery Democrats. On December 15, Calhoun in the Senate and Holmes in the House introduced resolutions opposing the acquisition of Mexico. Other pro-slavery Democrats, Butler of South Carolina, and Meade and Hunter of Virginia, also registered their opposition.

It's clear the North was trending towards being totally in favor of it, and with the Southern defections, they can certainly get it through. As an aside, it's certainly hilarious to consider The National Era and Jefferson Davis could be on the same page of an issue.

Who did it fight the Water Wars with?

Also, wouldn't it still get some good rail links in this TL and possible still get the movie industry to come there?

The Owens Valley.

Possibly, but with a Super-San Diego in close proximity sucking up the trade I just don't see it getting much investment. It also won't become the premier port of the West Coast either here, since it only gained that title after San Francisco got devastated and such won't happen with San Diego. As far as the movie industry goes, we're talking around 70 to 80 years of butterflies by that point, so it's hard to speculate on such. Edison might not be born, and thus the movie industry might consolidate in Arizona or New Jersey, for example (These two being places I've seen it argued before that could've taken L.A.'s place).
 
So... no comments about a short-term increased death toll on the American army from the fighting still not being over and diseases and the like, along its effect on the war itself and afterwards?
 
So... no comments about a short-term increased death toll on the American army from the fighting still not being over and diseases and the like, along its effect on the war itself and afterwards?


I somewhat addressed it in prior points, but it would appear the disease thing was somewhat due to unusual circumstances, at least according to The United States Army in Mexico City, by Edward S. Wallace (Military Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1949), pp. 158-166):

Diaries and letters naturally give a more personal slant on affairs than would an official publication like the American Star, or memoirs written by prominent men with an eye on the public reaction. Richard M'Sherry, a Navy Surgeon serving with the U. S. Marines, afterwards published a volume of his letters home (El Puchero or a Mixed Dish from Mexico) and from this it is possible to obtain the impressions of an educated officer. M'Sherry was much concerned over the high mortality rate of the American wounded in the Mexico City hospitals during the month following the city's occupation and ascribes this to the result of too much and too rough traveling in the hospital wagons as Scott's attacking column moved forward, cut off from its base. Also there were many raw days in October as the rainy season had begun. He later blamed excessive sickness among the troops to the fact that most of the men were from farms and not used to city life. At the time of entry he estimated there were only about 5,000 men on the duty list.

As the months of the occupation went on, the issues diminished in their effect, although you are certainly right about casualties still happening due to the ongoing partisan warfare.
 
Coming back to this with some new research.

Perhaps; however, please keep in mind that population growth in Mexico appears to have really took off in the 20th century in our TL. In contrast, in this TL, population growth in Mexico could both take off sooner and end sooner--thus still resulting in approximately the same population as in our TL.

Reflecting on this, I do indeed believe there would be a jump as Mexico developed after joining the United States, but it wouldn't be as big as what was experienced as an independent nation in the late 20th Century. For example, in the 50 year period between 1854 (Post-Gadsden Purchase) and 1904, the Mexican population grew from 7,859,600 to 14,209,000; for comparison, between 1950 and 2000, the Mexican shot up from 26,282,000 to 100,349,800. That the latter growth rate was due to the advances in medicine and food production (Green Revolution) seems obvious, and we can safely conclude such wouldn't happen ATL. So what do I propose would happen? Let's say that Mexico gets developed from 1848 onward to 1920, and thereafter converges in demographic trends with the rest of the United States as it reaches the same standard of living as their counterparts. Given such, I'd think you'd be more likely see 80 to 100 Million Mexicans, instead of the roughly 160 Million that there are today (Mexico+American diaspora).

Also, wouldn't it still get some good rail links in this TL and possible still get the movie industry to come there?

Essentially, what happened IOTL that got them said rail links was the existing Central Pacific monopoly trying to handicap the threat to it posed by the development of the San Diego route. As well, as the article notes, not only would the San Diego route probably eliminate Los Angeles as a major city, it'd likely do the same to San Francisco once the Gold Rush ends:

It was at this moment that Stanford, in an interview published in the San Francisco Chronicle, first set forth publicly the plan to push the Southern Pacific from Yuma across into Texas. In concluding his interview he said: "The people of San Francisco will never appreciate how great a danger menaced them . . . Had Tom Scott built his road to the Pacific he would have taken from us our best prospective traffic and carried it East . . . He would have given San Francisco a blow from which she would never have recovered."

As to why the Southern route wasn't built first, the answer lies in the sectional disputes leading up to the Civil War. The North, quite obviously, favored the OTL route since it geographically favored them, while the South preferred the, well, Southern Route. The Southern Route was superior in terrain, as it didn't cut through the Rockies, and ultimately the momentum for it is what led to the Gadsden Purchase in 1854. The Civil War wrecked these plans, however, and by the time such could occur after the conflict the Central Pacific monopoly had emerged.

It would be fascinating to see a more Latino US.

You'd probably see a lot of minor things, like Salsa emerging far earlier as a favored condiment and Spanish loan words entering into mass usage in the rest of the United States. Earlier Mexican communities in American cities would also lead to earlier introduction of Mexican cuisine, which could lead to more regional variations on the same format as "TexMex" food. The biggest one, in my estimation, might be the abandoning of the "One Drop Rule" in favor of the Latin American Concept of Branciemento. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women, even going as far as to write poetry on such. These sentiments did not stop at rhetoric, however, as such inter-marriages were actually common in the parts of the Mexican cession that had existing, sufficiently large populations and were, apparently, considered respectable. Should such a concept gain national acceptance, it could over time come to be applied to other racial groups, which would be a change from IOTL; not a less racist America, mind you, but a different outlook all the same.
 
Last edited:
You'd probably see a lot of minor things, like Salsa emerging far earlier as a favored condiment and Spanish loan words entering into mass usage in the rest of the United States. Earlier Mexican communities in American cities would also lead to earlier introduction of Mexican cuisine, which could lead to more regional variations on the same format as "TexMex" food. The biggest one, in my estimation, might be the abandoning of the "One Drop Rule" in favor of the Latin American Concept of Branciemento. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women, even going as far as to write poetry on such. These sentiments did not stop at rhetoric, however, as such inter-marriages were actually common in the parts of the Mexican cession that had existing, sufficiently large populations and were, apparently, considered respectable. Should such a concept gain national acceptance, it could over time come to be applied to other racial groups, which would be a change from IOTL; not a less racist America, mind you, but a different outlook all the same.
Would make a very cool timeline, imo.
 
Top