No Guadalupe Hiladgo--the USA annexes Mexico

Instead of the Historic peace deal that granted the USA the northern part of Mexico (Guadalupe Hildago), the USA decides to annex the entire nation of Mexico. With the war following a historical course, ending with Winfield Scott in control of Mexico City, President Polk decides to honor requests to end the war by annexing Mexico, as some radical elements in the country demanded.

Now what happens?
 
Instead of the Historic peace deal that granted the USA the northern part of Mexico (Guadalupe Hildago), the USA decides to annex the entire nation of Mexico. With the war following a historical course, ending with Winfield Scott in control of Mexico City, President Polk decides to honor requests to end the war by annexing Mexico, as some radical elements in the country demanded.

Now what happens?
First, I'd like you to consider something very relevant.

Is this a "hang the reasons why not" question focused on the outcomes of the POD, or a rather more serious attempt? I ask this because even the part of the country that caused, incited, and won from the war (the South) opposed annexation, while the North mostly hated the war from the start. As a POD, it's a non-starter. But as a discussion of butterflies, it could go.
 
Sorry, I'd like this to be on a realistic basis, if possible. The Wikipeida article mentions that many members of the Eastern Seaboard wanted to annex the area. The South certainly has a desire for land, but not for the people living there already. This could well be a desire for "Manifest Destiny" in a whole different way.

I'm not sure that it needs to be "hang the consequences", but I'm convinced that the events of 1860-5 are going to play out in a whole different manner when millions of Mexicans are being treated like second class citizens. And I'm kind of interested in what this would cause. Not only would the South Secede from the USA, but much of Modern Day Mexico would probably want to leave as well. And there is the giant issue of having to deal with the large number of people living in Mexico.

I'm just thinking that the Annexation of Mexico, while it would probably work heavily in favor for the USA today, would probably be very painful in this time period. But the US Government might well have done it anyway.
 

King Thomas

Banned
From what I heard somewhere the US Government of the time was too racist to want Mexico, since the Mexicans could not be treated like Indians and were not thought worthy of being treated as whites.
 
All of Mexico? I think there would be an eventual retreat from the southern states of Mexico, where most of the population was... the US would have done poorly in trying to make states out of those areas. The US succeeded in adding states as it did precisely because all the territories that eventually became states were thinly inhabited and filled with immigrants, who made them American states. This wouldn't have worked with southern Mexico... too many people. Plus, there was the divide of religion and language. In trying to assimilate them, the US would likely spark a rebellion (history shows that Mexicans are pretty damn good at rebellion and guerilla warfare). The US might get away with taking more territory than they did in OTL (Sonora and Chihuahua were thinly populated), but eventually, they'd let the southern parts go their own way...
 
I'm wondering if we might see something like an annexation if the Mexican government is somehow decapitated before the end of the war. Perhaps if some one tries to resist Santa Anna and he retaliates with mass executions. This might leave the US with no one to negotiate a treaty with. One might see extension of what occurred when Winfield Scott took Puebla: the city voluntarily capitulated because of antipathy to Santa Anna.

Hence, the US might only formally annex the Mexican Cession (or maybe more) but it essentially ends up having to run the rest of Mexico as a protectorate or evacuate and leave the rest in complete anarchy.
 
Sorry, I'd like this to be on a realistic basis, if possible. The Wikipeida article mentions that many members of the Eastern Seaboard wanted to annex the area. The South certainly has a desire for land, but not for the people living there already. This could well be a desire for "Manifest Destiny" in a whole different way.
In that case, there's an easy answer to this: the US wouldn't. About the only people speaking in favor of "All of Mexico" were newspapers and penny presses; the Southern political elite (the ones who pushed and ran the war), the President (a member of the Southern elite), the Northern states in Congress (who opposed the war and subsequent land grab) all were generally agreed on one thing: that all of Mexico would be a long, protracted war with Santa Anna's army resisting from the mountains and thousands of American troops being required to hold down insurrection, and all those men and money for minimal economic gain and the very real risk of masses of cheap labor wiping out the working classes.

Deliberate policy of annexation from the start? No. Wiki sold you the farm there.

But more of Mexico is very possible (in fact, more likely than OTL), and should the Mexican congress collapse before the US can get someone, anyone to sign a treaty giving the US land and ending the war, then the war will continue and the US will be forced to keep men in the area. Men to hunt down Santa Anna's mountain army, men to keep order, and eventually the US would end up with far more than in intended (and, if you play with the events, perhaps all of Mexico by default, if not by wish).
 
Ouch. That's what I get for trusting Wiki. But let's roll with the last idea: That the USA grabs most of Mexico due to a failure to negotiate peace with any kind of Mexican Government. What would the USA do with Mexico, now that they've got the whole thing? (perhaps unintentionally)

Some kind of insane reservation system for Mexico? A massive landgrab with ejections of Mexicans from much of the country? Establishment of some kind of Protectorate over unwanted Regions of Mexico?

And, of course, the administration of territory at this point is going to put incredible pressure on the United States. Mexico is going to lose much more territory than OTL, definitely Baja California and much of the Northern Desert. And if the USA is being a jerk, they might take even more and roll the Mexicans right out of that area.

All of this will be happening while US internal tensions are rising...
 
I would imagine America would most readily incorporate the sparsely populated regions of northern Mexico as states, then the potentially valuable coastal regions, with the remaining regions being partitioned off into American dominated protectorates comparable in size and power to your average Central American nation.
 

Hnau

Banned
Well with the conservadores squaring off against the liberales, you might just be able to split the two factions into different areas and call each a country. They might war against one another any way or unify somewhere down the road, but it would give the Americans a good deal of power over Mexico.

No, I don't know how to handle this. Pretty implausible the USA would take all of Mexico... You'd have to go back pretty far to set up such a scenario, maybe even to the early colonial days.
 
On the other hand, you could do something like the US did in Decades of Darkness, by annexing Mexico in several goes, rather than all at the same time...

IIRC, the *US annexes *Mexico in four wars (the first one annexing *Texas)
 
Ouch. That's what I get for trusting Wiki. But let's roll with the last idea: That the USA grabs most of Mexico due to a failure to negotiate peace with any kind of Mexican Government. What would the USA do with Mexico, now that they've got the whole thing? (perhaps unintentionally)
Trying to hold it would be a big thing for decades, requiring troops from across the nation. Not only does this likely Butterfly a Civil War away by giving the country a different (contentious) focus, but if a Civil War does break out, then the North would have much more experience to take onto the field of combat, as well as pseudo-veteran men to call upon. (On the other hand, Southern military leaders and soldiers are stuck in Mexico with Northern soldiers, while the greater proportion of the North is still freer to fight.)

Some kind of insane reservation system for Mexico? A massive landgrab with ejections of Mexicans from much of the country? Establishment of some kind of Protectorate over unwanted Regions of Mexico?
A reservation system would be impossible, really; Mexico has a massive population, not the relatively small number of tribes that the US did a few at a time. And the US has the almost empty bulk of the normal US to fill, before it can think about displacing and colonizing parts of Mexico. The US just really doesn't have the population, or quite likely even the ability, to drive out the Mexican population.

A protectorate for the unwanted parts of Mexico would simply be called, Mexico. Except for a few parts, most of it wasn't worth it, and was already populated. If we're going for an "all of Mexico" here, it's not going to be by choice.


And, of course, the administration of territory at this point is going to put incredible pressure on the United States. Mexico is going to lose much more territory than OTL, definitely Baja California and much of the Northern Desert. And if the USA is being a jerk, they might take even more and roll the Mexicans right out of that area.
As I mentioned before, the only way to get a most-of-mexico thing going is for the government to collapse, so that no one can sign a treaty while a significant army remains in the Mountains. In that scenario, where anarchy pretty much takes control, there will be no one for the US to negotiate with to make such a deal. The government of Mexico more or less collapsed shortly after the deal OTL; make any deal much worse or extend the time much longer, and collapse it will.

(Oh, and one of the key provisions of the treaty of OTL was that Mexicans in lands annexed by the US wouldn't get kicked out and all that.)

All of this will be happening while US internal tensions are rising...
It really depends on how the political scene turns out, but the Civil War as we know it won't take place. If the escalation of tensions of a unpopular occupation cases the South to secede earlier, it's very possible that it won't be a fight at all, as much as a wave goodbye. If there is violence, a significant part of the lesser Confederate manpower would be in Mexico, while the North would be able to fill ranks faster.
 
If the government of Mexico collapses couldn't the US make a new "America Friendly" government? Sort of the same idea we had with Cuba, they're "independent" with the understanding that there's a good chance they'll be brought into the fold sooner or later.

So a few years later we have a few extra chunks of underpopulated land from them and they have a copy/paste of the US constitution, a US created interim government, heavy US investments, a NAFTA style free trade agreement, and a handfull of troops in case militants turn up.
 
If the government of Mexico collapses couldn't the US make a new "America Friendly" government? Sort of the same idea we had with Cuba, they're "independent" with the understanding that there's a good chance they'll be brought into the fold sooner or later.
The problem with that is anarchy and a army in the field. The fighting only stopped because Santa Anna agreed to. If the government collapses before it can sign a ceasefire, a US-propped government would only have authority as far as the US Army could reach, which really wasn't that far. In that case, the US-propped government could issue as many declarations and treaties as it wants, but the fighting still wouldn't stop, and the US still wouldn't have total control. Hence the occupation.

So a few years later we have a few extra chunks of underpopulated land from them and they have a copy/paste of the US constitution, a US created interim government, heavy US investments, a NAFTA style free trade agreement, and a handfull of troops in case militants turn up.
It wouldn't be NAFTA; at the time, trade treaties were "how low can the other get while mine is still high." One way NAFTA. But you still have the crux of the problem: the army in the field. A few hundred, perhaps even a few thousand, isn't going to stop an army in the mountains that can rely on support from locals. If the US army leaves just a few hundred, the Mexican army is going to roll into Mexico City, declare that the treaty was signed by an illegitimate government and thus void, and proceed to keep fighting. Hence why the US needs an occupation force as well as the troops to root out the Army, a task expected to take from single to double digit years.
 
Manifest Destiny - Southward

There was plenty of ambition in the States to extend Manifest Destiny not only Westward but also Southward.
Check out the real history of William Walker, the San Francisco lawyer who became King of Nicaragua after the fall of the USCA (Federal Republic of Central America).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Central_America
Walker might have been able to sustain the position if he hadn't angered Mr Vanderbilt (the NY billionaire) who sent the US Navy to remove him.

Also, several US presidents made serious cash offers to buy Cuba from Spain outright. There were also many minor invasions - many halfhearted but a lot of people died in this cause. Culminating with Kennedy's Bay of Pigs in the 1960s.

Much of this real history is even stranger than our alt-history speculations.
 
Top