US annexation of the Yucatan Republic

I'm currently writing a scenario where the US annexes the Yucatan Republic when the offer for military assistance in exchange for sovereignty was brought to the US government. While it passed the house, it didn't pass the senate, as they cited the on-going war in Mexico as being the main focus and not wanting to get dragged down in another conflict.

I have the un-edited and un-finished script below. The only major change that I have is President Polk dying in 1846 shortly after the war with Mexico starts and VP George M. Dallas assuming the role. How this would play out post 1850 I'm not really sure about and would like to know other opinions on the matter. Thanks.

Edit: I know this thread is a bit old and the discussion ended. But I just uploaded the video today, with a few changes from the suggestions. If anyone is willing to offer feedback on the video I'd very much appreciate it.

Manifest Destiny, the belief that American settlers were destined to expand across North America was an integral part of American culture in the 19th century. The destiny was vague, some viewed it as a mission to extent Republican Democracy to peoples across the continent, while others viewed it as gods wish to civilize the people of American institutions, spreading them across the new world. Various treaties were created to further this idea. Buying the Louisiana territory from France and Florida from Spain, as well as fixing boundaries to extend American influence from Sea to shining sea. In this episode, we will be looking at one more potential target for this belief system. The Yucatan peninsula. The Yucatan had appealed to the United States for annexation, as they desperately needed military assistance against a local Mayan uprising. When this was brought to the United States government, President James K Polk mildly approved of the offer and it passed the house of representatives, but was blocked by the senate, citing the war in Mexico as their primary concern. But for the sake of alternate history. Let's look at what would happen if the United States annexed the Yucatan republic. But first, some history.

The Yucatan was twice a Republic during the 19th century. The first in 1823, where it joined the Mexican Federation following independence. Mexico had gained its independence from Spain in 1821, as the First Mexican Empire. This empire, led by Emperor Augustin I quickly had massive stability issues. In August of the following year, a plan to overthrow Augustin was discovered which encompassed 16 members of congress. In late October of the same year, Augustin had dissolved congress as they were heavily criticizing him and his policies. This led to revolts all across the empire, and him eventually being deposed. This also led to the formation of the Central American Republic, which encompassed all lands between Mexico and Panama, who had been un-offical provinces in the empire. From their, Mexico was formed as a Republic, with a new constitutions put into place in 1824. This constitution was repealed in 1835, putting in the era of a centralist government. This centralist government caused a massive amount of rebellion and republic declarations within the following years. A rebellion started in the states of Zacatecas and Tabascos which, combined with the successful Texas Revolution in 35, heavily weakened the governments control in the outer regions of the country. When the French invaded Mexico in 1838, this only further weakened the centralist control over the country, sparking more rebellions in the Rio Grande, and another rebellion in Tabasco. The Yucatan declared their independence again in 1841, citing the stripping away of local autonomy as the main cause. The original centralist government had accepted the Yucatan independence in some capacity but when Santa Anna staged his coup in 1841, he radicalized the centralist government, and sent an army to re-take the territory. They managed to fight back against the Mexican army. But were facing severe economic issues due to the blocking of Mexican trade, and later blockade by the United States. And a war against the local Mayan. In desperation, The Yucatan government pleaded with various governments for military assistance in exchange for sovereignty.

But in this alternate scenario. What if the United States Senate passed the resolution to annex the Yucatan? For this scenario to work within reality, a few things would need to be changed.

First: President Polk dies in 1846, shortly after the war with Mexico starts, and vice president George M. Dallas takes power. This isn't that hard to see happening, as Polks health was rather poor at the time, and he had a habit of over-working himself. Once he left office at the end of the term, he died one month after. Dallas was much more of an expansionist and opportunistic in nature, so long as the Mexican American war is going on, he will likely claim that annexing the Yucatan is a vital goal in defeating Mexico.

Second: The US government would have to be partially blind in its understanding of the Mayan conflict. The Mayan were far more numerous then any of the native tribes that the United States had dealt with previously, and they were masters at Jungle/gurellia warfare. Once the Yucatan got some Mexican weaponry and small contentions of troops they managed to push back the Mayan from the major settlements but they still had large control over the territory. This would be a constant, and bloody conflict that would last for decades in the territory. IOTL, It wasn't until 1933 that the last Mayan uprising occurred, nearly 100 years from its start. Now, we know this in hindsight, but it is easily possible to imagine the U.S government seeing them as an easy enemy, and not taking the conflict as seriously as it should have been.

The USA stumbles into Yucatán sometime in late 1847/early 1848, and the supply of guns and a few troops allows the Yucatecos to do similarly to what they did in OTL and recapture significant parts of the peninsula (though the Maya still control large swathes of territory). That's enough for the USA to convince themselves, for a while, that the Yucatán is easily winnable. With that, come the 1850 Missouri compromise, the Yucatan would be allocated as a slave state, which would have the support of the local population to some degree. One of the large problems in their war against the Maya was that they wanted to use them as a labor force, to farm the cash crops of sugar and henequen. It would be unlikely that the Yucatan would be admitted as a state in whole, more then likely, either the it would be kept as a popular sovereignty territory, or admit the whole region as a state even if control is only nominal. It's possible for this as well, since the lands to the west of Texas, and even large parts of Texas itself, aren't very suitable for slavery crop production.
 
Last edited:
This is perhaps the best start, I've seen to a TL dealing with the Yucatan Republic and the Maya rebellion / Caste Wars; kudos on that!

One thing that you should consider, is that by this time the fledging Yucatan Republic had two rival governments (three if you count the Mayan in Chan Santa Cruz) vying for power. The "legitimate" government based in Merida, who in lieu of the problems plaguing the peninsula was asking for military assistance and was willing to give up sovereignty for it, and a much more staunchly independist faction based in Campeche. The Mexico City government was able to retake Yucatan by playing both factions against each other, assisting the Merida government to quell the Maya, and giving Campeche its own state (and a third state, Quintana Roo, was created out of the military district and later territory the Maya controlled). The US could then be facing, and likely confusing, the independist faction and the Maya rebellion.

As you note, I think the US will likely underestimate the enemy initially and the conflict could last decades. A state is unlikely, and re-instituting slavery won't be as easy with a rebellious native state next door frequently causing conflict.

If the Civil War still happens, its possible Yucatan would go its own way
 
This is perhaps the best start, I've seen to a TL dealing with the Yucatan Republic and the Maya rebellion / Caste Wars; kudos on that!
Thanks for that! I had originally intended to have this be just a quick scenario video but might turn it into a full-fledged timeline if I can get enough good info.

I wasn't aware of the two separate governments at the time. Just missed that paragraph when reading about them I guess. I wasn't exactly sure where to go past what I had written, I'm not the best versed about the 1850's in America so I honestly don't have much clue how much this would effect things.

Re-introducing slavery into the Yucatan would be easier then anywhere else in Mexico. It won't be simply by any means, but the local population (non native I mean) were much more open to the use of slavery then elsewhere in Mexico. Least in my readings. If the profits were high enough (which they likely would be) it'd be worth it to them.
 
I have the un-edited and un-finished script below. The only major change that I have is President Polk dying in 1846 shortly after the war with Mexico starts and VP George M. Dallas assuming the role. How this would play out post 1850 I'm not really sure about and would like to know other opinions on the matter. Thanks.

A President Dallas means the entirety of Mexico gets annexed.
 
A President Dallas means the entirety of Mexico gets annexed.

It didn't have enough support in the senate when the motion was suggested IOTL. The reality of trying to occupy the whole of Mexico are largely unrealistic for the US to accomplish at the time. Dallas doesn't strike me as that much of a fool, the northern Mexican states may very well be handed over, but I doubt he'd want to try to and occupy a nation with over 7 million people of a different culture and largely different religion.
 
There was a lot of resentment of the US by Mexico after the Mexican-American War. There is the possibility that a resentful Mexican government would provide support for the Yucatan rebels to hurt the Americans.
 
Re-introducing slavery into the Yucatan would be easier then anywhere else in Mexico. It won't be simply by any means, but the local population (non native I mean) were much more open to the use of slavery then elsewhere in Mexico. Least in my readings. If the profits were high enough (which they likely would be) it'd be worth it to them.

The form slavery took would also be a factor.

Slavery that involved imported slaves and the open selling of both indigenous and imported human beings at auction would be difficult to re introduce once banned. Serf slavery featuring permanent share cropping “contracts” with less common / more discreet “contract transfers” between “contract holders” would probably be less of a problem.
 
Last edited:
The form slavery took would also be a factor.

Slavery that involved imported slaves and the open selling of both indigenous and imported human beings at auction would be difficult to re introduce once banned. Serf slavery featuring permanent share cropping “contracts” with less common / more discreet “contract transfers” between “contract holders” would probably be less of a problem.

This. Central American encomienda-residue economies in the rural regions of their very similar neighbors were more or less the norm. Though it would create some very... interesting wrinkles in terms of the slavery debate, since it would throw some of the racial arguments into a dubious light while forcing a highlight on the "slavery is good for the slaves compared to free labor conditions in the same region and circumstances" position by creating a massive laboratory for it
 
Another factor would also be how foreign the the reintroducers from the USA were perceived.

Adventurous and aggressive Anglo Saxon whites with a dim view of Catholicism as a religion and a dim view of hispanic culture strutting around and engaging in largely small scale open air slave trading (observed directly by locals) would be very problematic.

But….

Large scale “contract holders” working through local middle men and largely from Louisiana or coastal Alabama sharing the same religion and to a pretty close degree, the same culture as the locals would be better received. A trick would be keeping the former group out. This could be done by tweaking re-introduction (serf style laws) to favor large scale uhmm.... "contract holders". Interested large scale holders would also need to work through a brokerage company headquartered in New Orleans thus favoring Louisiana and coastal Alabama.
 
Last edited:
This. Central American encomienda-residue economies in the rural regions of their very similar neighbors were more or less the norm. Though it would create some very... interesting wrinkles in terms of the slavery debate, since it would throw some of the racial arguments into a dubious light while forcing a highlight on the "slavery is good for the slaves compared to free labor conditions in the same region and circumstances" position by creating a massive laboratory for it

I wonder if there would be a chance of back fire. For example, abolitionists could claim that as it is clearly demonstrated that semi free share cropping in the Yucatan gives the planters what they want (profitable planter culture), then open slavery is simply not justifiable either morally or economically.
 
I wonder if there would be a chance of back fire. For example, abolitionists could claim that as it is clearly demonstrated that semi free share cropping in the Yucatan gives the planters what they want (profitable planter culture), then open slavery is simply not justifiable either morally or economically.

Perhaps. But I imagine this would create a big political rift between the moral abolitionists and Freesoilers that, ultimately, weaken their cause and message.
 
It didn't have enough support in the senate when the motion was suggested IOTL. The reality of trying to occupy the whole of Mexico are largely unrealistic for the US to accomplish at the time. Dallas doesn't strike me as that much of a fool, the northern Mexican states may very well be handed over, but I doubt he'd want to try to and occupy a nation with over 7 million people of a different culture and largely different religion.

Quoting from John D. P. Fuller's The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848:

Between October, 1847, and the following February the theme of the story underwent considerable alteration. By the latter date, as noted above, the National Era was advocating the absorption of Mexico, insisting that it would be free territory, and citing along with other evidence, Calhoun's opposition to annexation as proof that the anti-slavery interests had nothing to fear from extensive territorial acquisitions. In other words, the National Era was convinced that if there had been a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to acquire all Mexico, it could not realize its ends even though the whole country were annexed. This conviction seems to have come largely as a result of the propaganda, which was streaming from the northern expansionist press and the opposition of Calhoun.The editor probably reasoned that since Calhoun was opposing absorption the expansionists at the North must be correct. If the main body of the anti-slavery forces could be converted to this point of view, the movement for absorption which was growing rapidly at the time would doubtless become very strong indeed.

Care should be taken not to exaggerate the anti-slavery sentiment for all Mexico. It is evident that some such sentiment did exist, but there was not sufficient time for it to develop to significant proportions. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had already been signed in Mexico when the National Era took up the cry of all Mexico with or without the Wilmot Proviso. In a short while the war was over and whatever anti-slavery sentiment there was for all Mexico collapsed along with the general expansion movement. Had the war continued several months longer it is not improbable that increasing numbers from the anti-slavery camp would have joined forces with those who were demanding the acquisition of Mexico. Their action would have been based on the assumption that they were undermining the position of the pro slavery forces. It was, not to be expected that those abolitionists, and there were undoubtedly some, who were using the bogey of "extension of slavery" to cover up other reasons for opposition to annexation, would have ever become convinced of the error of their ways. They would hold on to their pet theory to the bitter end.

To summarize briefly what seem to be the conclusions to be drawn from this study, it might be said that the chief support for the absorption of Mexico came from the North and West and from those whose pro-slavery or anti-slavery bias was not a prime consideration. In quarters where the attitude toward slavery was all-important there was, contrary to the accepted view, a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to prevent the acquisition of all Mexico and the beginnings of an "anti-slavery conspiracy" to secure all the territory in the Southwest that happened to be available. Behind both these movements was a belief that expansion would prove injurious to the slavery interest. Had the war continued much longer the two movements, would probably have developed strength and have become more easily discernible. Lack of time for expansionist sentiment to develop was the chief cause of this country's, failure to annex Mexico in 1848. Even as it was, however, there might have been sufficient demand for annexation in February and March, 1848, to have wrecked the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had it not been for the opposition of pro-slavery Democrats led by Calhoun. Their attitude divided the party committed to expansion in the presence of a unified opposition. Whatever the motives which may be attributed to Calhoun and his friends, the fact remains that those who feel that the absorption of Mexico in 1848 would have meant permanent injury to the best interests of the United States, should be extremely grateful to those slaveholders. To them not a little credit is due for the fact that Mexico is to-day an independent nation.

As far as support in the Senate:

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.

Vice President Dallas was firmly in the Pro-Annexation camp as well, as was Secretary of State James Buchanan, and Secretary of the Treasury Robert Walker.
 
Top