I expect it would be a tad difficult, seeing as how it had officially become a British possession in 1826...
US annexes all of Mexico in 1848: what does the US look like today?
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
Deleted member 92195
True, my mistake. Hate making mistakes but cannot possibly know or research everything. I was looking at direct British control as a crown colony in 1867 not as part of the strait settlements in 1826. Hong Kong might me be viable then as it was only Hong Kong Island. In all likelihood it’s the Oceanic Islands which are possible.
Deleted member 92195
You’d have to read my discussion with Masked Grizzly. Which starts here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-look-like-today.455285/page-11#post-19318063
It’s based on that US annex the Philippines in 1850-1853 instead of 1898-1901. 50 years previous annexation would give the US hard and soft power in the Pacific between 1865-1899. Someone proposed American Hong Kong but that is unlikely and so is Singapore. But a US Oceanic state is possible.
Lusitania
Donor
But the issue I have is that a US that captures half or all of Mexico or even just the land captured in iotl has no ability to project power that far to capture Spanish territory or any other territory in the Pacific. The US only attains a pacific port in the war with Mexico and that is not a port that can actively sustain a large enough American fleet.
Also declaring war on Spain in 1850s is in no way certain to lead to American victory. The political dynamics and alliances be different. If happens during Crimea war then chance both France and Britain sidelined but its Indian Ocean and pacific fleets would be much larger than Americans.
Lastly war against Spain not going to be a walk in park and US strength at this time pales in comparison to its strength in 1890 both in troops and ships.
I'd have to agree. I'm no expert on the strength of the U.S. Army in the 1850s, but I'd say, even at full mobilization of the nation, having an occupation force enough to control Mexico would preclude war with anybody much past Costa Rica, let alone Spain.
Deleted member 92195
Probably the reason why Polk would not declare war on Spain and only offered to buy it. Did not want to risk it, why would you?
Sam Houston is a completely different though because he is the most expansionist presidential candidate in the 1840s while having a realist view of politics, military capability, tactics and strategy. I can see Houston wanting Cuba really bad and if he or his advisors see the opportunities of grabbing the Philippines and what it would bring they'll try and get it. This would require years of military planning though, in this case of a stronger Spain, this would require, as I said in the previous post, for Houston to already have the idea and thought to at least conquer Cuba in 1844. When he gets presidential office he begins the military, logistical, naval and ground forces planning between 1845-50. This war would definitely require intelligent if not unorthodox naval and ground warfare strategy and tactics. If I remember correctly in the philippine war in 1898-1901 the Americans fought hours of hand to hand combat using Swiss army knives against the Philippine natives in jungles who were using spears and knives.
The Spanish American war would between 1850-1853.
Lusitania
Donor
But that would be really difficult to accomplish due to fact the states are still not happy about a strong federal force and will resist. The other issue is taxes required to build such a force since it cannot just be made up of reservists or volunteers and at the time excise and duties on imports which was opposed by southern states which imported British goods. Only northern states wanted high tariffs to make foreign goods more expensive and provide market for them.
Therefore I find it had to think it be hard for him to advance his agenda that would take 5-10 years to accomplish by which time he be voted out of office due to high taxes.
We are talking about 1840-1850. To even think if this the US would be only keeping iotl Mexico and not even take any further south for that would of required thousands of more troops as garrison and occupying while US gets no additional taxes or revenue.
Deleted member 92195
I assume everything you said is true. That would mean Houston would have to make a geopolitical calculated risk of what is actually feasible in relation to his goals. What is of more value? Obtaining Cuba or the Philippines in 1850-1853 or leave it for later president, or could he get Cuba and just obtain a mediocre island in the pacific like Palawan or Palau. Cuba and Palau sound like a feasible plan, don't go for the Philippines but a small island and use this as a far-flung US outpost in the pacific to colonize Oceanic islands. Don't ever need to invade and maintain the Philippines in the future which would save a lot of lives, supplies and money.
If Houston sees the avenue of future possibility (forethought) in obtaining Palau instead the Philippines to colonize the Oceanic Islands through minimal if no cost at all. Well, he would be considered a geopolitical genius because the gains of obtaining Palau in 1852 instead of the Philippines is far greater and less Philippine troubles to carry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Houston was a Unionist.
"Deprived of the protection of the Union, of the aegis of the Constitution, they would soon dwindle into petty States, to be again rent in twain by dissensions or through the ambition of selfish chieftains, and would become a prey to foreign powers. They gravely talk of holding treaties with Great Britain and other foreign powers, and the great advantages which would arise to the South from separation are discussed. Treaties with Great Britain! Alliance with foreign powers! Have these men forgotten history? Look at Spanish America! Look at the condition of every petty State, which by alliance with Great Britain is subject to continual aggression!" - Sam Houston
"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South." - Sam Houston
When asked to take an oath to support the CSA, Houston said "Fellow citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void."
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
So what about if Polk is for all-Mexico, has a negotiator on a short leash instead of Trist, and all-Mexico sentiment grows among Americans. But this causes worse sectional debate and northern insistence on the Wilmot proviso, leading to a secession based civil war in the US breaking out in 1848. So, the US has succeeded in taking down the government of Mexico, nothing coherent and new is in its place, and the internal debate engendered has sundered the US. Fun stuff!
Lusitania
Donor
But how would the US do that with the resources it deployed or even had at the time. We talking about 100,000 soldiers just to garrison a hostile population. The news of daily attacks against US troops would be carried in every newspaper and turn people against the government and the Mexicans. You have a civil war right then and there and US forced to withdraw from all of Mexico.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Exactly. There is No way all of the USA north, USA south and Mexico walk away from this in one piece. It’s just that the attempted American overreach kickstarts the us civil war to 12 years early.