US annexes all of Mexico in 1848: what does the US look like today?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by M79, Nov 4, 2018.

  1. Workable Goblin Chronicler of the Pony Wars

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Location:
    Canterlot
    No it doesn't. I literally just went through it sentence-by-sentence and demonstrated that every single thing it states as evidence of Puerto Rico's autonomy is also something that a state can do, or something which makes it less autonomous than a state. It's only common sense to say that if a political subdivision can do less than a state can it can't at the same time be more autonomous than a state. If you're going to persuade me that I'm wrong, I need to see some specific examples of how it's more autonomous than a state is. So far, all the evidence you've provided points in the exact opposite direction.

    No, you're completely misunderstanding me. The argument was that Puerto Rico resisted assimilation because it is more autonomous than a state would be, which I understand to mean more politically autonomous, that is more able to operate independently and without reference to the federal government than a state. In other words, it was you who was arguing that factors such as budgetary process rules could play a role in causing assimilation, at least in my understanding. The point of bringing them up in the first place was to show that Puerto Rico is not more politically autonomous than states and that therefore this could not be a factor in whether or not assimilation occurred; in other words, I was specifically setting out to show exactly the opposite of what you claim I was doing.

    Obviously everything else that differentiates Puerto Rico from the mainland United States than their political autonomy--in other words, culture, language, and so on--also exists. But that's also true in Mexico! Mexico will also have a large population with a culture extremely different from the mainland. They also have distinct languages--plural, since there are many indigenous languages spoken in different parts of the country. They have a distinct literature, distinct arts, a distinct history, everything that Puerto Rico has and even more, given that Mexico is one of the American cradles of civilization. So if those factors led to Puerto Rico resisting Anglicization, why would they suddenly fail in a country where they would be even stronger?

    There's hardly a bright line between them.

    There's a reason I said "perhaps in some cases". This would obviously be extremely rare, of course. However, as there is a (very small) Texas independence movement it seems highly likely to me that there are at least a handful of people out there who really do think of themselves as more "Texan" than "American".

    I don't see how it is irrelevant in the slightest, considering that you're the one who brought up the national symbols of Puerto Rico and have lectured me about focusing on political autonomy and ignoring other signs of identity. The point is that states as well as commonwealths can have distinct identities and cultures, so that the mode of political organization has no necessary impact on related characteristics such as the linguistic makeup of a region.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2018
    Rath, Fiver, phx1138 and 2 others like this.
  2. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    There another factor of language, culture and assimilation that would play hand in the adoption of English and that is immigrantion. In modern times we have Central Americans traveling through Mexico to US. This would drastically change. For a American-México with an even slight improvement or perceived improvement in standard of living would start becoming a magnet for Central Americans to come to US. This would start even in the 19th century.

    Só how would a US look like today with millions of more Spanish speakers? I have been working in Puerto Rico for last few months and can see how English education is here and while my co-workers can speak English fluently to me, it is not their mother tongue and even young educated people will revert to Spanish amongst themselves. This would pose a huge dilemma to American politicians for I see same issue in this alternative US with whole sections of US states /cities looking and feeling like Mexico instead of English America.
     
    Fiver likes this.
  3. VaultJumper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    We may even see the development of a hybrid language.
     
  4. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    My concern would be in the later part of 19th and first half of 20th century we would see reactionary politics which tries to limit Spanish speaking people from voting (like the blacks in south) but nationwide. With some states even banning permanent settlements of them (like Oregon against blacks). Anti catholic attacks might even be more pronounced.
     
  5. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Considering that latins aren't blacks, the perpetual bottom of the US social ladder that's a nonstarter even in the 19th century. That and the fact there'd be mexican/central american urban machines making sure votes in northern/dixie cities are available and ready for dealmaking.

    That said, we'd probably see several decades of language-based franchise limitaitons but it'd be in mexico/central america/the philippines for non english/spanish speakers.
     
  6. Rockydroid Monarch Butterfly Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2018
    I went to California last year to both LA and the surrounding suburbs...it looked like Mexico and felt like Mexico in the architecture and style alone.If the US wants to keep Mexico it's going to have to give up the idea of being exclusively an Anglo state.

    How would that come about? They'd have to destroy states rights to accomplish it. Remember that the US constitution gives the state's he rights to handle elections.
     
  7. Workable Goblin Chronicler of the Pony Wars

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Location:
    Canterlot
    This would likely be on a state-by-state basis, just like Jim Crow, with, as @interpoltomo said, the more Hispanophone states with larger Mexican populations probably being more aggressive in implementing such restrictions while northern states are more lenient. If this happens, it could have some interesting effects on internal migrations in the United States.
     
  8. Rockydroid Monarch Butterfly Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2018
    That makes more sense. I tought you meant that the restrictions would come from the Fed to the states.
     
  9. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    I said language restrictions against hispanophones would be nonstarters. Speakers of indian languages or tagalog would be more possible. My guess is we'd see yucatan/a bunch of southern mexican states say doing language tests for voters to make sure they speak english or spanish to screen out mayan or nahua speakers, for example.
     
  10. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Remember natives in the US only got the right to vote in around WW1. So we definite would see big push to designate who was native and who was “white”.
     
    Rath, Fiver, John I of Brazil and 3 others like this.
  11. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Yeah. That's where I got my logic from.
     
  12. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    So would we say 1/4 of Mexicans in the 19th century be classified as native?
     
  13. Workable Goblin Chronicler of the Pony Wars

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Location:
    Canterlot
    I'm not sure. In the existing states, sure. In the states being carved out of Mexico, I could see more or less subtle methods of preventing hispanophones from voting popping up in some areas, particularly places where the very great majority of the population is Hispanophone and the local Americans are concerned about losing control. Something somewhat analogous occurred in Hawaii following the coup against Queen Lili'uokalani and the establishment of the Republic (by New Englanders, mostly), where the voting laws were rewritten to exclude Asian and (to a lesser extent) Hawaiian involvement in the electoral process to ensure white control while they tried to get the United States to annex them. This actually got even stronger after Hawaii was annexed by the United States even though most of the explicitly discriminatory laws were removed, because most Asian residents hadn't been allowed to become citizens of Hawaii and weren't allowed to become citizens of the United States, and so couldn't vote (on the other hand, Hawaiians, who had of course been citizens, now were allowed to vote, and as a result made up a majority of the electorate but not the population for some time afterwards).

    Also, there was a ton of anti-Catholic prejudice in the antebellum United States, and while this ultimately didn't end up mattering much, I'm not sure to what extent that's because most Catholics were either immigrating to existing states or were in thinly-populated regions where they could be overwhelmed with Protestant migration. The situation in a region which is not a state yet has a large preexisting population is liable to be interesting.
     
    Fiver likes this.
  14. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Well, given the great migration of the 1860s-1890s as an analogy to OTL's US black great migration of the 1920s to 1950s there'd be votes in the north/dixie for urban machine politicians to exploit. As I mentioned in my big post this timeline would be a somewhat workable analogy, emphasis on 'somewhat' since it'd go at least a little bit smoother with latins moving north*. I adressed these kinds of issues in my post too so click the spoiler.


    * And not blacks. Remember, we're talking catholic brown people and not blacks or even in the case of the amerindians more settled/urbanized/"civilized"(19th century so) than OTL US 48 indians.
     
  15. Workable Goblin Chronicler of the Pony Wars

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Location:
    Canterlot
    Yes, and I agree that Mexicans in the pre-1848 United States would clearly get the right to vote. Where I think there might be more or less subtle voter suppression or disenfranchisement is in the ex-Mexican territories, especially central Mexico where there's enough people that they can't just rely on enough Anglos moving in eventually to displace Spanish. I'm not sure that machine politicians (or, to be honest, the voters themselves) in cities such as New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc. would either care enough about the voting rights of their compatriots at home or have sufficient political power to lead to the overturning of these laws in Mexico, at least not for a while, the same way that African Americans in northern cities weren't by themselves able to move the abolition of Jim Crow laws, at least not as quickly as they might like.

    This is basically what I was arguing might happen. Literacy tests in English to vote, with nod-nod, wink-wink corruption so that the American-aligned elite in the region of, say, Veracruz or Mexico City or similar highly Hispanicized areas can vote while still keeping out the majority, for example, at least in the immediate aftermath of 1848. I didn't see the original "late 19th or early 20th century" proposal, my apologies; I was thinking that these restrictions might come into being in the 1850s or 1860s in territories and states carved out of Mexico. Hence my comparison to Hawaii as it became American-controlled.
     
    phx1138 likes this.
  16. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    The US didn't tend to disenfranchise irish/italians OTL so no reason they'd do so for latins in former mexico. For likely treatment of latins ttl think more italians/greeks/bohemians/poles -- the latecomer and seen as harder to assimilate portion of the Ellis Island wave as the realistic analogy instead of assuming they'd be treated like blacks.
     
    Whiteshore likes this.
  17. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Not sure I agree. They put a hold on immigration from catholic countries. There was also attempts in several states most notable New York to bar Catholics from public office. For Protestants stayed thatbdince they were under pope authority they did not qualify to hold public office.

    I actually think that some would even feel more threatened by larger catholic presence in many cities.
     
  18. Workable Goblin Chronicler of the Pony Wars

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Location:
    Canterlot
    Which is why I brought up Hawaii, a case of disenfranchisement that didn’t involve blacks. Asians weren’t disenfranchised on the mainland but they were in Hawaii (well, sort of, because in Hawaii they were more likely to be non-citizen first-generation immigrants and couldn’t naturalize) I’m not sure that the acceptance of Catholics in established states is necessarily a reliable guide to the political arrangements of newly-established territories.
     
  19. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Some more thoughts, in no particular order:

    Assuming recognizable geopolitical configurations, expect a different way for Germany to get the US into *WWI since the US would be visibly bigger/richer* than OTL No venezuela crisis in 1895 with the UK *not* wanting to risk Canada to US attack in this scenario.

    * In total economic size, even if we assume only lower dixie level convergence for Mexico/central america/philippines at the time in question.

    TTL's version of the "war on drugs" is limited to coke/heroin and their derivatives, plus is likely less hardline/longlasting as OTL. Maybe coke/opium/some modified recreational drug derived from heroin is legal by now, maybe it's only legal in a state or two.

    Probably no less "racist" than OTL in terms of opinion, even if racial mixing(ok, this only applies to latins/filipinos mostly) becomes more acceptable well ahead of OTL amd the firm one drop rule isn't a thing. Basically "white" would be alot closer to the latin american definition: Not being either dirt poor or TOO dark/obviously black. Expect alot of ah "Amerimutt" types posting on the ATL versions of /pol/ claiming to be pure castillian.

    Abortion is probably illegal in alot of the country, with a more catholic electorate leading to the SC not touching *Roe equivelants. There's probably 30-35 states with it legal, 10-15 having OTL post-roe type laws while the rest have varying degrees off illegality. Illegality is probably more on the side of "illegal enough to prevent it from being openly avaialble", with only a few areas(Philippines, obviously. Some of Central America too) actively hardline on it.

    The US is probably 10-20 years behind on alot of "social issues" for a few specific reasons 1) less prudish mid-century to rebel against 2) adding the equivelant of a second south(relatively poor, more religious/rural, culturally distinct reason) to the equation. Gay marriage probably gets going a bit later than OTL for these reasons. Oddly, trans issues would probably be at OTL levels since they're not mentioned in the bible. Intersectional feminism? Forget about it, abortion's illegal in more than half the country so there's other priorities. Interestingly enough, you seem to get a US having many elements of Gonzo/NoFix's "no southern strategy": dixie dems, more social conservatism, bigger welfare state

    Earlier school prayer/christian symbolism in public places/"in god we trust", plus those either not being attacked on a national level or if attacked only in the bluest of blue states and sometime after 2000 combined with more gradualist social change leads to no religious right as we know it. Probably at worst a decade behind in terms of numbers of secular people, but more acceptance than say OTL 2009 due to more gradual growth.
     
    Rath, phx1138, FleetMac and 2 others like this.
  20. phx1138 Bocagiste troll

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Charlie Townsend's guest house
    That would be a bonanza for Northern U.S. industrial production.

    It would also seem to mean discovery of New Mexico & Arizona mineral wealth, not least silver, plus increase the population in those areas, so they'd gain statehood well ahead of OTL.

    OTOH, would the influx southward mean the California Gold Rush is butterflied? Or just minimized? It would appear the movement north would decrease, so the Fraser River, Barkerville, Yukon, & Alaska rushes would be later as a result, anyhow.

    Can I mention the broader cultural impact? It seems pretty likely something like Tejano or nordeño would arise much sooner.

    On population, IMO you'd never see 100 million. Given the standard of living rises anywhere near OTL U.S.'s, after an early spike due to better sanitation, the birth rate will drop subsantially as time goes on, just as it did elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019