United States...of Canada and Mexico?

Eurofed

Banned
I assumed that the rise of Catholicism in the South would increase it's desire for independence and that absurd promises from the Confederacy could create a dual front in the ACW.

By the time the ACW shows up, industrialization would have worked for many decades to make the Catholic, French-speaking and Protestant, English-speaking sides of the North tightly linked and close carbon copies of each other, socially, politically, culturally, and economically. Montreal and Toronto would have as many reasons to secede as New York or Chicago.

And as far as Mexican slavery is concerned I could also concede but I think I'd rather reiterate the desire of the wealthy and White Mexicans to integrate into Southern Society and the inability of the "poor and dark" to effectively stop it.

The wealthy white Mexican elites already had perfected quite fine and working systems of control and racial hierarchy for their native lower classes. Imposing Dixie chattel slavery on them would bring a massive upheaval on their heads for no discernible gain. The Southern planter elites would just care that the natives are kept cowed and submissive, which the peonage system would ensure until the ACW changes everything.

Also: "Now: French Intervention in Mexico is successful and Benito Juarez reluctantly accepts Maximilian I's offer for the Prime Ministry. A Franco-Spaniard sort of thing is taking root not just in what remains of The Empire of Mexico, but also in the American South.

By the time a very French Mexico gains its independence, America is unified (I like a John C. Fremont/Abraham Lincoln ticket in 1856 which ends in an earlier, bloodier, and longer Civil War, the assassination of Fremont in his first term, perhaps even first year, and a longer and more intense Lincoln Presidency. Perhaps some Marxism infiltrates the Union Party and watered down Republican Socialism could take root during Reconstruction.)

Of course, you'll probably have to wait until WWI for the Zimmermann Telegram to be accepted by a bitter Mexico bringing the CP to the West. U.S. gets Mexico after pummeling them and the Unites States of North America stretches from Canada to Panama."

You didn't touch this...

IMO Mexico gets annexed by the late 1830s-early 1840s at the latest, possibly in the 1820s if the USA intervene in its struggle for independence. When the ACW comes around, the Mexican core would be strongly pro-Union over the slavery issue in the latter variant, of a divided mind and trying to be neutral in the former variant. It is rather likely that Confederate expansionism (and possibly French intervention on the side of the CSA with an eye on Mexico) would throw Mexico back in the arms of the Union. French intervention is a distinct possibility but in the end this Union would still win the war. Again, we would likely see different names and faces, but a close Fremont/Lincoln analog (or hybrid) is in the cards.

The Secession would make the North and Mexico get closer, increase industrialization of both, and destabilize the peonage system (and make it politically taboo for its analogies to slavery). ITTL the Reconstruction goes more radical, it is longer and more arduous but it ends up destroying segregation and peonage, resulting in a more progressive and liberal Greater America. I would expect stronger and more successful Populist and Progressist movements by the turn of the century rather than more Socialism. The common struggle in the ACW and the Reconstruction shall dispel lingering bad blood between Mexico and the rest of America.

How changes in America would affect the European alliance systems and hence WWI depends on whether France or less likely Britain intervene in the ACW.
 
Last edited:
Many excellent observations, Eurofed. I enjoyed your input.

Also, great job on the 1984 thread! Check out my discussion on an Australian American Old West here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=162511

It's pretty quiet on there thus far. :D

Seriously though, you've sold me on Quebec and even chattel slavery (though perhaps the black slave trade would spread briefly to the former Mexican states...?) but I have my doubts on your timeline of Mexican assimilation. Mexico is famed for its revolutionaries and besides... the Juarez/Maximilian alliance is too tantalizing a butterfly to pass up.

Even if America could possess everything down to Panama by the 1820's, it's so much more interesting if they do not. A tiny and cowering French Mexican Empire just full of angry peasants, Francophile Mexi-Spaniards, Fat corrupt politicians, escaped Mayan, Black, and Mexican slaves/peons...

...just waiting to invite Germany to make its move in the Gulf...

Good stuff!

Also, France and England have even LESS motive for Confederate support here. The Union would pwn and from the outset, they would make clear that unless they want a war they can get their cotton from Egypt and India... as in OTL.

The Trent Affair might have even been avoided or handled with even more political tact given a bigger navy and a more experienced Lincoln.

What WOULD be interesting is the earlier unification of Germany and its vocal support and recognition of the Confederacy...

...but I'm trying to bait you into an idea for a different thread, I fear.

:cool:
 
IMO Mexico gets annexed by the late 1830s-early 1840s at the latest, possibly in the 1820s if the USA intervene in its struggle for independence.
This again? :rolleyes:
Where does the US get the military capability to intervene in Mexico in the 1820s? America could not even enforce the Monroe Doctrine by itself, and its major accomplishment in this period was securing Florida from a Spain which was dealing with the loss of its entire empire. I just can't see how the US soldiers would be able to take Mexico, or how they could expect to be welcomed there (and by which segment of Mexican elites?).
 

Eurofed

Banned
Seriously though, you've sold me on Quebec and even chattel slavery (though perhaps the black slave trade would spread briefly to the former Mexican states...?)

Rio Grande would most likely follow the same path as Texas ITTL and be set up as one (or more likely several; ITTL the slaveholders would be eager to set up as many states as they can, so even Texas is most likely to be split in several states). But the slave trade in the populated Mexican core would not flourish for similar reasons it did not in the North. The locals and their socio-economic system won't have it. And as soon as the Mexicans get territorial governments, they will outlaw it.

but I have my doubts on your timeline of Mexican assimilation. Mexico is famed for its revolutionaries and besides... the Juarez/Maximilian alliance is too tantalizing a butterfly to pass up.

Even if America could possess everything down to Panama by the 1820's, it's so much more interesting if they do not. A tiny and cowering French Mexican Empire just full of angry peasants, Francophile Mexi-Spaniards, Fat corrupt politicians, escaped Mayan, Black, and Mexican slaves/peons...

If you wish to pursue this course, I advice you to discard the 1820s idea, make America follow a similar course to OTL in the 1830s-1840s: Texas, Rio Grande, and perhaps California and Yucatan as well secede from Mexico, the US recognize and give financial and military support to the new republics. This brings immediate war with Mexico. The US wins it hands down and gives statehood to Texas and Rio Grande (or their partition states) as slaveholding states, California and perhaps Yucatan as free state. Baja, Chihuahua, Sonora, Durango, Zacatecas, SLP, and Sinaloa are annexed as US territories in addition to the OTL stuff. The rest of Mexico is set up as an independent protectorate which can later escape US influence when France makes moves on it. Or even more simply the USA neglect to bring rump Mexico under their sphere of influence (say they are distracted by the growring sectional strife), it falls to political chaos and later French influence.

Also, France and England have even LESS motive for Confederate support here. The Union would pwn and from the outset, they would make clear that unless they want a war they can get their cotton from Egypt and India... as in OTL.

The Trent Affair might have even been avoided or handled with even more political tact given a bigger navy and a more experienced Lincoln.

True as it concerns Britain (in USAO I give it different reasons for wanting to cripple America), but we can never rule out Napoleon III's ability to get France where it does not belong, if the story calls for it.

What WOULD be interesting is the earlier unification of Germany and its vocal support and recognition of the Confederacy...

You mean vocal support of the Union. Prussia, Russia, and Italy were thoroughly pro-Union. No reason this would change, quite the contrary, if France is expansionist in the Americas.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
This again? :rolleyes:
Where does the US get the military capability to intervene in Mexico in the 1820s?

You aware that the USA in the early 1800s could have afforded and had a rather bigger and better military if they had cared ? Keeping it undersized and underequipped was a political decision, which the right butterflies can easily reverse.

America could not even enforce the Monroe Doctrine by itself, and its major accomplishment in this period was securing Florida from a Spain which was dealing with the loss of its entire empire.

The variant would entail the USA making a military intervention to help the Mexican pro-independence forces (turning them pro-US in the process) against thay selfsame Spain in dire straits. Hardly an impossible task.
 
  • I agree that Canada would be merely a geographical term by the mid of the 19th century if annexed in 1812. Maybe not even that, or one of the North-Western states is named Canada (a bit analogueous to Louisiana). IMHO, the main catalyst of eradicating a distinct Canadian identity would be immigration. Nobody would decidedly migrate to Canada. They would go to America.
  • For that reason, you are right, Canadian secession is ASB. Mexican secession though...you never know, the annexation wouldn't be long ago. The US wouldhave to be an excellent occupator...
  • I also doubt that slavery would expand into Mexico, maybe even Texas would be spared the peculiar institution. Remember, Canada would topple the balance between slaveholding and free states already. I could imagine this annexation of Texas being the reason for the "Deep South" to secede already around 1850.
  • To underline it...these annexations will weaken the "Cause" considerably. I hate to disappoint you, but maybe the whole Civil War gets cancelled due to that.
  • By the way, annexation of Mexico prior to the 1840s? I would say we are in wank-territory, despite the theoretical possibility. It would require an almost Neo-Spartan USA. With such a premature expansion, overstretch is just around the corner!
  • On Party Politics, I still think that a 3rd or 4th party is viable if it can rely on a geographical stronghold. Look at the German Kaiserreich, despite a majority-voting-system it had several major parties.
  • Considering the trans-continental butterflies, I would say that the key question is whether an Anglo-American antagonism develops. I mean, a meaningful one, not as in our timeline. :)
 

Eurofed

Banned
I agree that Canada would be merely a geographical term by the mid of the 19th century if annexed in 1812. Maybe not even that, or one of the North-Western states is named Canada (a bit analogueous to Louisiana). IMHO, the main catalyst of eradicating a distinct Canadian identity would be immigration. Nobody would decidedly migrate to Canada. They would go to America.

Even more so if Canada joins the US by its own free will during the American Revolution. By 1850, it would be "that colder region of America where most guys speak French". It would keep a shade of distinct cultural identity owing to the prevalence of French and Catholicism, but otherwise the Atlantic states would be merged with New England as a cultural and socio-economic region, Quebec would be a New England/Middle Atlantic hybrid, Ontario would be a part of the Midwest, the Prairie provinces would be indistinguishable from the Prairie/Rockies states, and Columbia from Washington and Oregon.

As it concerns naming and state border issues, my basic assumption is that OTL Quebec, Southern Ontario, and Northern Ontario would become three separate states. It's a coin's toss whether the former state gets named Canada or Quebec, but perhaps Canada is slightly more likely. It could easily go both ways. As it concerns the latter two states, in all likelihood, they shall have quite different names. In any case, America shall absolutely need an handy regional name for the row of states north of the St.Lawrence and the Great Lakes. PEI is absolutely going to stay a part of NS, far too sparsely populated to ever earn statehood. OTL New Brunswick may stay a part of NS or earn separate statehood much like Maine, but in any case it shall stay named Acadia. The prairie states and Columbia may or may not keep the OTL names, and the borders might be a bit different ITTL. Yukon and Alaska in all likelihood would be merged in one state. "Canada" is an obvious option, especially if Quebec keeps its OTL name. Otherwise, they would have to devise something else, e.g. "Upper North".

For that reason, you are right, Canadian secession is ASB. Mexican secession though...you never know, the annexation wouldn't be long ago. The US wouldhave to be an excellent occupator...

Quite true. However, they would be no friends of the CSA, owing to the slavery issue. My basic assumption is that in the wake of the secession, the Mexicans would try to stay neutral: they might still have lingering resentment for the Union because of relatively recent annexation, but they would rightfully fear that the Confederacy (or France) would swallow them and remold them in its image if it gets half a chance. My most likely assumption is that ITTL the Confederates or their French allies would overstep themselves with some aggressive move on Mexico, which would make the Mexicans throw their bets with the Union. The common struggle would largely bury American-Mexican lingering antagonism.

I also doubt that slavery would expand into Mexico, maybe even Texas would be spared the peculiar institution.

For geographical reasons, most US immigrants to largely empty Texas and Rio Grande would be Southern slaveholders, which is why I expect Texas to go the OTL way. ITTL I also expect the South to be bolder with such expansion, and hence the Rio Grande republic to follow the path of Texas. I wholly agree that there is no real possiblity that the South would ever manage to impose slavery on the popolous southern core of Mexico, regardless of whether ITTL it becomes an annexed US territory or a protectorate puppet.

Just like OTL, only more so, the vicious sectional struggle shall be about the relatively scarcely populated former northern Mexican territories, in addition to the OTL Lousiana Purchase and Mexican Cession, which shall surely become US territories and geography makes an open race between Northern freesoiler and Southern slaveholding settlers. It is likely that at the federal level, some kind of "popular sovreignty, let hte locasl decide" compromise over the issue of slavery in the territories would be reached. Like OTL, the South would soon realize that in an open contest, freesoiler settlers are going to win the day in most of the West, and that Mexicans were hostile to chattel slavery, much as they fancied peonage. Disillusionement about the possibility to replenish their ranks with many new states in the West would turn the South to secession. Since the above factors would make the sectional struggle go vicious faster, and the South's position would already be worsened by the presence of the Canadian free states (although ITTL I expect that the South would have previously strived to replenish its own ranks: expect the USA to acquire Cuba and Santo Domingo before the ARW, admit West and East Florida as separate states, Texas and Rio Grande to be split in several states), the ACW shall come 5-10 years faster. My reasoned guess is after the 1856 election, but 1850-52 is wholly possible.

To underline it...these annexations will weaken the "Cause" considerably. I hate to disappoint you, but maybe the whole Civil War gets cancelled due to that.

I rather doubt that the South would give up without a fight ITTL. They would be thoroughly persuaded that an independent Dixie-Caribbean slaveocracy would be viable thanks to the revenues of Cotton and Sugar, and that their boys would easily defeat the North in a fight thanks to their superior fighting spirit.

By the way, annexation of Mexico prior to the 1840s? I would say we are in wank-territory, despite the theoretical possibility. It would require an almost Neo-Spartan USA. With such a premature expansion, overstretch is just around the corner!

Many people make the mistake to assume that the relative US military weakness, as shown by the War of 1812, was the high mark of what the USA could do before the Mexican-American War. It ain't so, by any means. Such weakness was largely self-imposed by political choices, especially by the influence of the Jeffersonian Democrats, which largely gutted US military. Butterfly the Federalists into remaining the other major party, and more success than OTL. They had ambitious but wholly affordable plans for military expansion and readiness, which would have made the USA rather more formidable militarily than OTL in 1800-1846. Not to mention that owning Canada is going to make the USA significantly stronger.

On Party Politics, I still think that a 3rd or 4th party is viable if it can rely on a geographical stronghold. Look at the German Kaiserreich, despite a majority-voting-system it had several major parties.

Once Mexican voters get reconciled with their destiny in America (which I see basically happen by the Reconstruction, and done for good by the Gilded Age), there do not seem to be strong motivators for keeping a Mexican regional party. The social and economic interests of the Mexican voters can be better fulfilled by closing ranks with like-minded voters of other North American regions. The Canadien precedent makes a separate political identity for the Mexican voters out of religious and linguistic issues rather implausible. ITTL Catholic French-speaker constituencies would have gotten themselves wholly entrenched in the two-party system, and if they do so, why not Catholic Spanish-speakers ? As always, the wild card here is the South, and how it would deal with the Reconstruction ITTL, whether racial segregation still arises or is snuffed out in the crib. Butterflies arising from that and from Mexico's presence could make a three-party system viable, most likely made up of the Federalists/Republicans, the Democrats, and the Populists/Progressists.
 
Here is a map i made

ameriwank.png
 
Top