U.S. expansion: north or south?

If the U.S. was to take over entire nations (either one piece at a time, or gradually), which way is the more likely way to go?

Canada is far less populated than Mexico, but I can't see the Americans upsetting the British aside from the ARW and the War of 1812 (though I don't see how they could have managed to conquer Canada then...).

Mexico had been brought down several times, most dramatically in the U.S.-Mexican War, but they declined to annex the whole place because of the drastic effects on internal issues.

So which place would have been more likely to go?
 

MrP

Banned
Depends on the period and on politics, I'd say.There should be a reason for the expansion (whether military or civilian). If it's a military expansion, do make sure that America's capable of it both in terms of manpower, resources and finance.*

* For example, some of the problems with America doing well in any Trent Affair scenario are that a) she's already fighting one war, b) she hasn't enough gunpowder for a conflict longer than about a year once Britain shuts down trade routes, c) the USN is pitiful (please, please, don't let's hear the old Monitor stuff ;) ), d) America was operating on extensive European loans to finance the war - getting in a war with Britain (who also has very very large business interests in the US) is incredibly unwise. I'm not saying that the underdog never wins - just that it's important to address such issues in the interests of making a credible story. :)
 
Against Mexico, that will be a guerilla without end, and the US armies were always poor in this kind of combat (the US army is an army dedicated to the combat against similar troops, preferably with an air superiority, and is not able to adapt. On the contrary of armies of other countries, like the U.K. or France, which evolve after each combat).
The USA do not have the resources to hold such an important area

Against Canada... before 1900, the USA do not have the least hope to resist a decided attack of the English. To attack Canada, especially second once, is really the silly thing not to be made.
 
Last edited:

MrP

Banned
The time when the USA could allow this kind of thing is finished.

Against Mexico, that will be a guerilla without end, and the US armies were always poor in this kind of combat (the US army is an army dedicated to the combat against similar troops, preferably with an air superiority, and is not able to adapt. On the contrary of armies of other countries, like the U.K. or France, which evolve after each combat).
Moreover, the other countries of Latin America very badly risk to take it: If the USA want really to see them all linking itself, it is what it is necessary to do...

Against Canada, it is other thing. I know little about this country. It is a country more industrialized and more advanced than Mexico. If one adds his natural resources to it, the interest is not thin. The problem is that it is, this time, the remainder of the planet which is likely badly to take it. The USA are not likely any to resist the economic war which will be launched against them.

I must take issue with the idea that the US Army doesn't adapt. Granted, there are issues arising from the war in Iraq that seem to suggest an urgent review is in order in some areas. Nonetheless, it's both noteworthy that the US Army is not monolithic in its approach to guerrilla warfare (different divisional commanders have tried different tactics in Iraq), and, furthermore, that recent articles in the press suggest that the whole strategy of the suppression of the insurgency is changing. That doesn't suggest to me a military incapable of change.

But I do agree that modern American expansion using the military as a tool is somewhat implausible in the modern age. One can't go south because the voting population is already rattled enough by illegal immigration. One might eventually go north by way of economic treaties, and one could militarily overpower Canada's armed forces - but there's no real need.
 
This is like asking whether I'm more likely to spontaneously grow gills or grow wings.

I think Mexico is more likely but it would be a God awful mess that would probably wreck the US in the long term.
 
yeah, expcially with all the resources and money we would have to dump into Mexico just to make her worth having
 
Either one a possibility...

After the war with Mexico, there were some people suggesting that the USA should anex all of Mexico. At the time, there was no one with both the capability and the will to do anything about it, either.
Alternatively, the Zimmerman Telegram is never interecepted, and a foolish Mexican government falls for the bait. Any Mexican successes that were acompanied by attrocities--or anything the US could play up as attrocities--could lead to a big chunk of Mexico being taken over.
As for Canada, there's a few windows I can see.
1. Revolution--some small part of Canada decides to join with the colonies in revolt.
2. 1812: American invasion of Canada is more successful, combined with a series of French triumphs. Treaty of Ghent gives part of Canada to the US in exchange for both peace and open ports for trade with England
3. US Civil War. No Anglo-American war breaks out, but it's a close run thing. Additionl British support for the Confederacy leads to very hard feelings when the war is over, and the nations stumble into war.
The United States has continued to build up the navy after the CSA was defeated, due to the ongoing tensions.
The Royal Navy rules the high seas, but I don't think even the Royal Navy would want to poke its nose into waters filled with as many coast defence ships as the Union had. Perhaps the Union submarines might get a chance in action, too...

I rate all of these as low probability, but possible
 
Before the modern age, and the unfortunate power of the media, the U.S. was quite capable of supressing insurgencies, only the tactics used were not pretty. Note the Phillipine insurrection and the way it was crushed. As a matter of expansion, if the U.S. had been able to get over 1) Its fear of nonwhite/nonprotestant citizens, and 2) The divide between slave and free, nothing could have stopped U.S. expansion into Mexico and central America before 1900. U.S. internal politics prevented expansion, had that not been the case, Mexico certainly couldn't have put up any military resistance to annexation. True Guerilla warfare had not yet been invented, and in any case, before mass media, and without outside assistance, any attempt at insurrection would have been suppressed.
 

MrP

Banned
Before the modern age, and the unfortunate power of the media, the U.S. was quite capable of supressing insurgencies, only the tactics used were not pretty. Note the Phillipine insurrection and the way it was crushed. As a matter of expansion, if the U.S. had been able to get over 1) Its fear of nonwhite/nonprotestant citizens, and 2) The divide between slave and free, nothing could have stopped U.S. expansion into Mexico and central America before 1900. U.S. internal politics prevented expansion, had that not been the case, Mexico certainly couldn't have put up any military resistance to annexation. True Guerilla warfare had not yet been invented, and in any case, before mass media, and without outside assistance, any attempt at insurrection would have been suppressed.

Perhaps exterminated is a better term than suppressed, if I get your meaning.

I'm quite certain that the US Army is capable of suppressing an insurgency today. All that is required for a modern army (especially one of the size of the American military) to suppress an insurgency is to use the correct strategy and tactics. America has the men, she has the resources, she still has the political will. The key lies in making the insurgency not worth the cost. It's easy to assume that a strategy of overwhelming force eliminating every insurgent is the best method of securing victory. However, I'd say that destroying the will of insurgents to fight is the key. The fewer battles the better. It is, however, open to question whether the administration is a) giving the orders, and b) listening to the best advice.

Clearly, the reverse is true. If the insurgents can convince domestic politicians to withdraw by presenting a picture of a constantly deteriorating situation, then they will win - regardless of the success of US forces in inflicting casualties.
 
Perhaps exterminated is a better term than suppressed, if I get your meaning.

I'm quite certain that the US Army is capable of suppressing an insurgency today. All that is required for a modern army (especially one of the size of the American military) to suppress an insurgency is to use the correct strategy and tactics. America has the men, she has the resources, she still has the political will. The key lies in making the insurgency not worth the cost. It's easy to assume that a strategy of overwhelming force eliminating every insurgent is the best method of securing victory. However, I'd say that destroying the will of insurgents to fight is the key. The fewer battles the better. It is, however, open to question whether the administration is a) giving the orders, and b) listening to the best advice.

Clearly, the reverse is true. If the insurgents can convince domestic politicians to withdraw by presenting a picture of a constantly deteriorating situation, then they will win - regardless of the success of US forces in inflicting casualties.

You are certainly right in that breaking insurgent will is easier than extermination. However, if a country intends to permanently occupy a territory, extermination or assimilation is far more likely to succeed. Look at the British, the world's premier experts at breaking the will of rebels and ruling over vast native populations. But their empire is gone, because they ruled over the natives instead of exterminating/assimilating them, and the natives eventually learned Locke and Marx. (of couse, such a course was probably impossible for them) The U.S. on the other hand exterminated or assimilated all non-national populations, and as a result, the U.S. empire still stands and is likely to continue standing.
 
If the price of retaining the Empire was genocide then even I would have given the colonies their independence without a second thought.
 
If I were in a position to go back in time and dictate what happened, I'd opt for northward expansion and never look back. The combination of land, resources, a common language and a common heritage makes what is now Canada an obvious choice. Mexico may have resource but much of the land is arid or semiarid; there's too great a cultural divide and an obvious language divide; there's no heritage of self-government. To be sure the US could have conquered Mexico but it would never be integrated fully into the US: a permanent state of military occupation is more like it. The same cannot be said for Canada: the states of (just for illustration) Nova Scotia or Manitoba would be seamlessly interwoven, as much parts of the union as (say) Ohio or Wyoming.
 
If the price of retaining the Empire was genocide then even I would have given the colonies their independence without a second thought.

You don't have to exterminate, assimilation on the Roman model works just as well. If the Romans could get Greeks to become so Roman that they carried on the Roman empire for centuries after the fall of Rome, then the U.S. could certainly assimilate the Mexicans, especially early on, when there were almost no mexicans outside of central Mexico, and the Mexican elites regarded themselves as superior to the Mestizo peasantry as American plantation owners regarded themselves as superior to the slaves. Consider that for the U.S. to actually annex Mexico, american culture would have to be much more permissive towards Catholics, and slavery probably could not exist, so there really wouldn't be much of a barrier to assimilation.

The Brits could certainly have done a better job of assimilation, maybe not the Indians, since that is probably impossible, but keeping the Canadians and Australians thinking of themselves as Britons should have been easy if the Brits tried. They certainly could have done a better job of assimilating the Irish.
 

MrP

Banned
You don't have to exterminate, assimilation on the Roman model works just as well. If the Romans could get Greeks to become so Roman that they carried on the Roman empire for centuries after the fall of Rome, then the U.S. could certainly assimilate the Mexicans, especially early on, when there were almost no mexicans outside of central Mexico, and the Mexican elites regarded themselves as superior to the Mestizo peasantry as American plantation owners regarded themselves as superior to the slaves. Consider that for the U.S. to actually annex Mexico, american culture would have to be much more permissive towards Catholics, and slavery probably could not exist, so there really wouldn't be much of a barrier to assimilation.

The Brits could certainly have done a better job of assimilation, maybe not the Indians, since that is probably impossible, but keeping the Canadians and Australians thinking of themselves as Britons should have been easy if the Brits tried. They certainly could have done a better job of assimilating the Irish.

The problem is not so much thinking of oneself as British, as power and politics. Just as some Americans got annoyed about that whole representation doodah, so did everyone else eventually. The only way the British could've got the Indians onside* in the way you suggest would've meant ceding voting power to a vastly more numerous number of voters. ;)

* And, yes, I note you did say it was impossible.
 

Thande

Donor
The problem is not so much thinking of oneself as British, as power and politics. Just as some Americans got annoyed about that whole representation doodah, so did everyone else eventually. The only way the British could've got the Indians onside* in the way you suggest would've meant ceding voting power to a vastly more numerous number of voters. ;)

* And, yes, I note you did say it was impossible.

Perhaps it could have been done acceptably if India had been divided (back) into many small states, each of whom would be a voting bloc equal or smaller to that of Britain in any pan-Empire parliament. From a British point of view it would be best if such states were set up in such a way that they all have grudges with each other and thus can't unite to form a voting majority. ;)
 

Poison Frog

Banned
South. North has the issue of being ruled by Britain. its easier to hold down/assimilate a podunk latin unstable latin american what(even easier since in the 1840s 90% of mexico's population was concentrated in the old aztec heartland and outside of the central heartland most of mexico is frontier)
 

MrP

Banned
Perhaps it could have been done acceptably if India had been divided (back) into many small states, each of whom would be a voting bloc equal or smaller to that of Britain in any pan-Empire parliament. From a British point of view it would be best if such states were set up in such a way that they all have grudges with each other and thus can't unite to form a voting majority. ;)

Well, provided one can keep the lower orders down, it should be ok. The aristocracy will have to be exported, of course, to prevent that nefarious spread of the franchise. ;)
 
The Brits could certainly have done a better job of assimilation, maybe not the Indians, since that is probably impossible, but keeping the Canadians and Australians thinking of themselves as Britons should have been easy if the Brits tried. They certainly could have done a better job of assimilating the Irish.

I think then problem was that after a little problem to the south of Canada:) there was the view that any area of settlement would eventually develop a desire to become independent. Furthermore in pre-modern days and lacking the rapid transportantion we have now trans-continental states were not really too practical.

With Ireland possibly the single biggest problem was that that the British government never seemed to have a consistant policy. Other than the desperate need, at least pre-industrial period, to prevent Ireland falling into hostile hands. Unfortunately, given religious and national differencies this latter category also generally meant preventing it falling into Irish Catholic hands.

Steve
 
Top