U.S. annexes Mexico: cultural impact on U.S.?

whitecrow

Banned
OK, a few times I have seen discussed the idea of U.S. annexing all of Mexico in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War. So assuming that the “All Mexico” movement is successful, what long-term impact would the new citizens have on U.S. culture? Would U.S. as a whole adopt some aspects and values of Latin culture or would the Mexican population become “Americanised” and assimilated into U.S. Anglo culture after only a few generations?
 
At this time, the Mexican population was still vast majority "Indian" rather than "mixed", with a small minority of whites. So what you would probably get is a fairly quickly integrated coastal elite of whites, who would likely adopt a Southern/Texan style identity, and potentially begin a lot of slave plantations.

But you would also have a huge mass of poor Native Americans, who will likely cause a lot of White Panic in the rest of the population. It's quite possible some huge Indian reserve will be set up, with immigration controls to the rest of the country. Such controls will only be so successful, so you will probably get Native American ghettos around the major US cities similar to what happened after the Great Migration with blacks. This will likely harden white racist attitudes and possibly reduce abolitionist sentiment in the North.

However, business interests will probably lobby hard to make use of the cheap labour, and its possible this sudden surge in cheap labour might economically undermine slavery in the South.

I imagine most of the "Mexican" population would also adopt a Native American identity rather than a Hispanic one, and would merge with Native American groups already in the US, mainly overwhelming them in numbers and mostly transplanting their culture.

In the long run, it probably means most mixed marriage will happen sooner, and likely will cause racial pluralism to happen earlier. This would probably start in the mining camps around California and then spread East gradually.
 
The long-term impact is imperial overstretch and the collapse of the United States, whose expansion is seen as the direct cause of its collapse. The USA becomes the ATL watchword for the dangers of overzealous expansion.
 
I can't imagine a successful absorption of Mexico. Unlike the Mexican Cession there are just too many Mexicans and armed resistance would start immediately. It would end poorly. America could get more of Mexico but the Northern states are heavily populated. Penninsulars and creoles might be accepted but mestizos and natives would be discriminated against.
 
At this time, the Mexican population was still vast majority "Indian" rather than "mixed", with a small minority of whites. So what you would probably get is a fairly quickly integrated coastal elite of whites, who would likely adopt a Southern/Texan style identity, and potentially begin a lot of slave plantations.

No.

By the time of considered American annexations Mexico had both a considerable white population and a thriving Mixed population in the censuses of the 17th century (if not to the extent that later cultural conditioning would create), with the demographers of 1810 thinking it was about 50% indigenous, 15% white and the rest some level of mixed/other.

Also the elite have never ever lived on the pestilential coasts but rather near Mexico city and other high value highlands. Plus the elite are already massively well off, why would they acquiesce to changing their culture and assimilating into the lower middle of a different one?
 
Also the elite have never ever lived on the pestilential coasts but rather near Mexico city and other high value highlands. Plus the elite are already massively well off, why would they acquiesce to changing their culture and assimilating into the lower middle of a different one?

Okay, this is low probability, but...

Let's handwave something in the Napoleonic Wars so that Spain was never invaded. New Spain is turbulent, with something like Hidalgo happening to worry the elite, but nothing else. Around 1819, war breaks out with the USA, which trounces Spain pretty thoroughly. (Maybe it's part of the end of an alt-Napoleonic Wars.)

Spain's prestige is shattered after some embarrassing defeats, and the United states ends up with an army in Mexico City around the same time as another peasant uprising happens. In these circumstances, the Mexican elite trying to come to a deal with the Nortemaricanos isn't impossible.

It's a stretch, and you've gotta stack the deck just so, but it's not impossible, IMO.
 
Something i proposed in an earlier thread was that it could be gradual conquest of mexico. Piece by piece instead of all in one go.
1830s - we have texas, which is annexed.
1840s - California and the other territories in OTL US are absorbed after a war with Mexico.
1850s - successful Filibusters in parts of mexico, perhaps veracruz and maybe even Cuba.
1860s - Another war with mexico butterflies away the US Civil War (or temporarily stops it), and they gain the northern mexican states.
1870s-1880s - absorbtion of the remaining mexican states. This could be a process which continues until the early 1900s.

That is a stretch, but, i guess its something similar which happened in Decades of Darkness, just without the complete and die-hard fanatical enforcement of slavery.

I guess doing it piece by piece will be an attempt to slowly Anglicize/Americanize the mexican people, but it would also introduce their customs into the US, perhaps even their die-hard Catholicism.

Although he may have been born in 1830, can you imagine Porfitio Diaz as POTUS, by some strange (ASB;)) event.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
There was an "All Mexico" movement in Congress, even until the end of the Mexican-American War. These energies were later refocused into much less potent and much more radical filibuster movements.

Anyways, I do not see why the United States would not be able to overtake the majority of Mexico, especially if they manage to strike deals with secessionist movements in the Periphery. Good ol' fashioned divide-and-rule.

Population wise, Mexico had around 7 million in 1840, and 8.2 in 1860. The US had 17 million in 1840 and 31.4 million by 1860. So Mexicans would be 30% and 21% of the US population, respectively.

Now lets look into the Catholic factor. By 1840 there are 600,000 in the US, 3.1 million by 1860. That is 2.5 and 8.5% of the joint Mexico-US population, respectively. Added to the Catholic Mexicans, this brings the "Papists" to
around 33% and 30% of the population, respectively.

The United States was most definitely not Catholic-friendly in the Victorian Era, and they are not going to be very accepting of a bunch of "Romish savages" now making up 1/3 of the population..

If the "white" population of Mexico is around 15%, they may be awarded franchise (and regional political monopoly) since that will limit the electorate enough to appease the bigots back East.

The more hands-off the US is with governance ("states rights" in newspeak) the easier the whole thing will be. Co-opting autonomists/regionalists and the criollo elite will likely be enough. It's always enough in quasi-feudal regimes.

Though now I'm thinking; Mormon settlers commissioned to "Bring Order" to Mexico (i.e. get the Mormons out of the West, put 'em somewhere they'll toe the Fed line).

Or slavers rushing away to Michocan, Rio Grande or Chiapas :(
 
Last edited:
It all depends on how the US acts in Mexico, from there one of a few different outcomes may occur

What follows are some ideas in order of stability not anything else.
Probabilities and Stability are rated 1-10... sort of

1. US is perfectly understanding of Political and Social situation in Mexico and provides an only slightly limited democracy, while enacting quiet social reforms in the background. All states must meet certain adequate benchmarks to reach statehood.
Possibility: -11
Stability:10

2. US largely acts like a child with a new toy, but over all manages to keep most social groups happy, by doing the bare minimum to ensure health, and education, does not affect most Mexican states overmuch for the first 20 years or so.
Possibility: 2
Stability: 8

3. US is just enough of a racist ass, and makes the right deals with the influential and rich, in order to keep the rest in line. The rich get richer and the poor, poorer.
Possibility: 5
Stability: 7

4. US is a hypocritical racist. Pretends to actually promote democracy in Mexico, in reality it all becomes a gigantic playground for the rich, and a trash heap for every one else. The beautiful beaches, and tourist zones are kept pristine, everything else becomes a gigantic gutter.
Possiblity: 6
Stability: 5

5. US is too open and learing in its racism towards all Mexicans. Makes most Mexicans believe that dying with rifle in hand is better than living with Gringos up their A**es.
If the US decides to stay anyways, expect a typical bloody Guerrila warfare campaign, but with more religious fervor coming in from the part of the Mexicans. Constant Military presence needed in most areas where Guerrila warfare is possible.
After about fourty years or so either Mexico's spirit is broken, or the US has had enough... which do you think is more likely considering the American Public.
Possibility: 6
Stability: 2

There are probably more, but this is where my list ends.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It all depends on how the US acts in Mexico, from there one of a few different outcomes may occur



4. US is a hypocritical racist. Pretends to actually promote democracy in Mexico, in reality it all becomes a gigantic playground for the rich, and a trash heap for every one else. The beautiful beaches, and tourist zones are kept pristine, everything else becomes a gigantic gutter.
Possiblity: 6
Stability: 5

....

Good analysis, I like 4 as most likely. The USA will be a hypocritical racists, and find some way to assure that whites dominated. The USA could tolerate small numbers of non-anglo people if they are isolated, so the Cajun of LA or the Spanish of NM are tolerable. Isolated populations may be ignored, but thirty percent catholic/Native-American is just too high. Best Guess is that the USA views large numbers of the Mexicans as Indians and tries to use the reservation system. After a short, brutal war, the USA realize it will not work, and sells out to local elite. We made a peace treaty with the Sioux on favorable terms to the Sioux in 1850, so the USA can compromise with local power structures if forced.

Option 5 is second most likely. I just don't see the USA not being racists.

The Slavery issues is huge. If Mexico is free, then slavery will die in USA, and the South knows this. If Mexico is slave, then all the USA will
remain slave, and the abolitionist know it. The USA having Mexico smells of bleeding Kansas with the additional issue of the Mexican/Indian population revolting at the same time. Mexico Free/Slave issues butterflies the civil war into something unrecognizable to OTL. The civil war is still an important cultural issue in the USA.

If slavery is solved somehow without major war or exploding the USA, the next issue will be voting rights for Mexican/Indian population. If the Mexicans all vote, then the USA is ripe for a 3 party system of Republican (Free Anglo), Democrat (Slave Anglo) and a Catholic Party. USA with a true 3 party system is a lot different from OTL. If severely restricted voting rights, then the second class status of Mexican/Indians is a huge issue that drives USA politics.
 
Top