It wouldn't. Even changing nothing else, higher U.S. standards of living will bring the birthrate in the Mexican territory down substantiall.It seems like a weird assumption to think that Mexico would have the same population growth rate as OTL.
It wouldn't. Even changing nothing else, higher U.S. standards of living will bring the birthrate in the Mexican territory down substantiall.It seems like a weird assumption to think that Mexico would have the same population growth rate as OTL.
These aren't "new immigrants" though. Mexico as a society has existed far longer than the US has. As I said, don't compare it to OTL immigrants, compare it to Quebec.I'm not assuming that the US would treat Mexico as if it were a colonial possession. Religious groups create schools in the US proper just as they do abroad. And if Anglo Protestants are setting up schools, they're likely going to be doing so in English. That's what they did in the US when it came to trying to win over new immigrants.
And adding tens of millions of catholics to the US strengthens the Church in the US as a whole. But a bunch of Americans going down to Mexico writ-large and promoting protestantism AND a US constitution that forbids there being an official religion (the Catholic Church being the official religion in Mexico in the 19th Century) would mean a much weaker catholic church in Mexico.
And Mexico didn't reach 10 million until ~1880. There were perhaps 7 million Mexicans in 1849. The US had 23 million in 1850, so Mexico would be about 23% of the US overall. A hefty amount for sure ... and actually about the same percentage as Quebec is to Canada.
As another matter, I wonder how Mexico would integrate into US politics. The traditionalist Conservatives probably would be more comfortable with the Democrats and the liberals like Juarez would probably be Whigs and Republicans.
As far as slavery goes, maybe 36-30 is extended to the pacific, but another line is established at the Tropic of Cancer with slavery banned south of that line.
The Mexican North (Chiahuahua, Coahuila, etc) would probably have a history similar to the OTL US Southwest. English language takeover, mixed Anglo-Spanish culture, cowboys, a libertarianish western spirit, etc etc.
The big question is the Mexican core: Veracruz, Mexico City, the Valley of Mexico, and the immediate environs of that area. That will likely be the most culturally resistant part of Mexico to the United States.
As another matter, I wonder how Mexico would integrate into US politics. The traditionalist Conservatives probably would be more comfortable with the Democrats and the liberals like Juarez would probably be Whigs and Republicans.
These aren't "new immigrants" though. Mexico as a society has existed far longer than the US has. As I said, don't compare it to OTL immigrants, compare it to Quebec.
It wouldn't. Even changing nothing else, higher U.S. standards of living will bring the birthrate in the Mexican territory down substantiall.
You're right, it would be a far higher growth rate. One more resistant to assimilation than people think since Mexico proper as a region is going to start being a huge moneymaker demanding labor intensive immigration. Living standards won't actually get higher as much as death rates would dramatically drop from war.It seems like a weird assumption to think that Mexico would have the same population growth rate as OTL.
I'm sure many Southern Democrats did indeed agree with Calhoun's racial rhetoric but that in of itself is not a mark against the prospects. As The Democratic Review noted at the time, one could hold Mexicans to be racially inferior to Anglo-Saxons but still believe in annexing Mexico in it's entirety given the "vigor of the Anglo-Saxon race". Indeed, this view was not limited just to the South; contemporary newspapers even in New England propagated such an idea and even went so far as to suggest miscegenation in a positive light. This explains the strong support for All Mexico that had emerged even by December of 1847, as recorded by The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48:
"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 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."
You lean fairly heavily on Fuller. David T has already dealt with Fuller and with All-Mexico in general.
Even most expansionists didn't want all of Mexico. In OTL, Jefferson Davis tried to have the treaty amended to add "the greater part of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, the whole of Coahuila and a large part of Chihuahua". The attempt failed by a vote of 44 to 11, with the "definite expansionist" Cass voting against it.
US birthrates in the 19th century were explosive in spite of the higher standard of living- demographic transition is far more of a 20th century phenomenon*, so shouldn't be extrapolated to mean that the Mexican population would necessarily be lower.It wouldn't. Even changing nothing else, higher U.S. standards of living will bring the birthrate in the Mexican territory down substantiall.
Also poverty rate actually increases the birth rate. Today poor families have more children than more well todo and higher educated people. Therefore a poorer Latino population will have larger families for longer than more educated and urban Europeans.US birthrates in the 19th century were explosive in spite of the higher standard of living- demographic transition is far more of a 20th century phenomenon*, so shouldn't be extrapolated to mean that the Mexican population would necessarily be lower.
*and it's probably no coincidence that demographic transition coincides with increased urbanization.
I always wonder if instead of African American President we would of had Latino president addressing the US in its majority working language Spanish.
I had stated that my premise was that a US that anexes Mexico would not stop at thT snd would extend their imperialism to most if not all the Caribbean . Plus the 3 Spanish speaking islands in Caribbean.This scenario probably is not enough to give the United States a Spanish-speaking majority by itself. Even literally adding the population of Mexico to the Hispanic and Latino population of the United States (some of which are actually of Portuguese or Brazilian ancestry, and in any case many people in the greater category only speak English) gives you a number smaller than that of non-Hispanic Americans, and even this does not take into account the strong possibility that an American Mexico might have gone through the demographic transition much sooner.
To give the United States a Latino majority, the country would have needed to annex the entirety of Central America and the Caribbean, as well as a substantial portion of South America. Not impossible, but not exactly likely.
I would say it must be, even allowing for a late start, because the Mexican standard of living is very, very much lower than the U.S. for the 20th Century. It might be higher than I'd think, on its face, but lower than OTL, even so.shouldn't be extrapolated to mean that the Mexican population would necessarily be lower.
I'm surprised not too many people are obsessing over probability here.
This scenario probably is not enough to give the United States a Spanish-speaking majority by itself. Even literally adding the population of Mexico to the Hispanic and Latino population of the United States (some of which are actually of Portuguese or Brazilian ancestry, and in any case many people in the greater category only speak English) gives you a number smaller than that of non-Hispanic Americans, and even this does not take into account the strong possibility that an American Mexico might have gone through the demographic transition much sooner.
To give the United States a Latino majority, the country would have needed to annex the entirety of Central America and the Caribbean, as well as a substantial portion of South America. Not impossible, but not exactly likely.
I have the feeling that you consider that TTL spanish speakers are going to be restricted to OTL Mexican territory, but I think that it is highly improbable. I think that spanish speaking settlers are going to start moving up north to OTL California in even greater numbers than the English speakers, railways connecting the Mexican Western Coast up to Texas and Louisiana are probably going to be prioritized over any other east-west railroad, it will be easier to mexicans go north.
Possibly, at the end of the 19th century what in OTL 1853 were the territories of Utah, Oregon, New Mexico and the State of California, could be majority spanish speaking, with many pockets of spanish speaking communities in Texas and the (OTL 1853) Unorganized territories.
The thing is, the United States has done a good job of assimilating folks into Anglophone culture historically