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. phx1138 Bocagiste troll

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Charlie Townsend's guest house
    It seems there are some immediate effects. (The obvious, more acceptance of Tejano & Ritchie Valens being bigger than Elvis, I've already alluded to.)

    Given the U.S. succeeds, it's very likely future states will be given a "sovereignty vote" option, which OTL led to Bleeding Kansas, & it's likely to be in play in numerous ex-Mexican states. (Scant chance the North allows all Mexican states to be slave states just because they're south of Mason-Dixon.)

    That also means slavery is likely to expand into *New Mexico, *Arizona, & SoCal (IMO, NorCal joins as a separate state TTL), possibly as far as *Colorado, *Idaho, *Washington, & *Oregon.

    The increase in territory seems likely to push the U.S. toward either annexing Canada, too; buying Rupert's Land before Canada does in 1869; or both. (This seems supported by the Fenian Raids.)

    The spread of "Bleeding Kansas"-like circumstances, & the unavailability of the Army (committed in Mexico), suggests states forming militias thinly disguised as police agencies: akin to the NWMP, but masquerading as *Texas (or *Arizona) Rangers. Why? The internecine violence would call for it; there'd be Indians that need dealing with, & no cavalry to do it; & a notional police force can't be readily federalized (tho TBH, I'm not sure if that was a Thing, then).

    Does this set of circumstances mean the Know-Nothings or Free Soilers have better chances in U.S. politics? IDK. (IDK if they're actually the same thing, so don't take my word for it anyhow.:openedeyewink: )

    Does the greater, & wider, violence lead to the ACW happening sooner--instead of the OTL 1850 Compromise? That seems probable. It does seem to mean Lincoln isn't PotUS, so the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't happen, either. At war's end, *Reconstruction looks likely to be more brutal than OTL; less chance of Southern re-admission? Likely no 13th or 14th Amendments; certainly they don't much resemble OTL's. (Just having no 14th is a big deal. {Unabashed plug.:openedeyewink: } One long-tern benefit: no Citizens United.:cool::cool: )
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
    Zagan likes this.
  2. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    With more slave territory to do horsetrading with, why wouldn't the ACW be avoided or delayed?
     
  3. Fiver Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Delaying the Civil War would not accelerate the construction of a transcontinental railroad, it would delay it. In OTL, Southern politicians had obstructed building the railroad for years, without secession they would continue to obstruct it. Northern Mexican states would benefit from a southern route transcontinental railroad, but that's a small minority of the Mexican states, not enough to break the Congressional deadlock. Most of the Mexican sates would receive no direct benefit from any proposed transcontinental railroad route - they'd be far more interested in rails from Mexico City to Veracruz, San Diego, and New Orleans.
     
    VirginiaStronk likes this.
  4. M79 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Unless you just gave Northern businessmen a massive incentive to connect Mexico to the West and North with one railway instead of two. Much as California could be rendered from the nation without closer connections, so could Mexico - why not build one railway with a junction at Albuquerque or elsewhere instead of two railways that might not connect for another several years after the one could be done?

    Again, connect Mexico to the rest of the Union via the same railway linking West and East. Cheaper, faster, etc.
     
  5. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    How exactly does that support the US buying Rupert's Land?
    Seems more likely the British provide greater support to Canada getting it.
     
    VirginiaStronk likes this.
  6. phx1138 Bocagiste troll

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Charlie Townsend's guest house
    If you're going to have more slave states, you'll need to balance with more free states, & that means more territory.

    I'm not arguing (exactly) for a U.S. conquest, but it might be seen as reasonable in Congress. Plus, at the time, HMG wasn't really interested in taking on Rupert's Land (or even keeping BC), but might be willing to make a deal. Or maybe not, IDK.
     
  7. naraht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    The question that I'm not sure anyone has asked is, "for all of the concept of the golden circle", how much of mexico could support negro slave based agriculture? For all Texas was a slave state, I am not sure a significant amount of slave based agriculture was done west of Houston (>75% of the current land of the state). In order for a new slave state to come in out of previously mexican territory, the slave holders (or those who would like to own slaves, which I'm not sure *that* many of the mexicans there would qualify for) would have to represent a majority. I'm simply not sure that any state in Mexico would qualify for that within the 30 years necessary to make a difference. The states that are good for negro labor are too populated, the ones that aren't populated are pretty useless for slave based agriculture. (Yes, you could make a state with Slavery out of Baja California (plus San Diego), but what can you really grow there?)
     
    phx1138 and VirginiaStronk like this.
  8. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    HMG wouldn't have been keen on an expansionist US taking any of them either
     
  9. phx1138 Bocagiste troll

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Charlie Townsend's guest house
    Not keen, maybe, but by appearances not hostile. BC, at least, HMG seemed willing to let go that way (if Newman's Caesars of the Wilderness {IIRC} is to be believed, anyhow).
     
  10. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    >1840s or 1850s dixie fireeaters
    >applying economic logic or even if slavebasd agriculture is viable in a territory
     
    VirginiaStronk likes this.
  11. Arcvalons L'Internationale sera le genre humain.

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Location:
    Sozialistische Weltrepublik
    Aside from everything that's been said, this alternate America is likely to attempt the annexation of much of the caribbean and central america, if only for strategic defense purposes. America's southern neighbor would be Colombia, eventually.
     
    phx1138 and interpoltomo like this.
  12. VaultJumper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    I don't know about the entirety of Columbia But definitely of Panama and a few north parts of Colombia.
     
  13. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    While it is possible Mexico under the US would become much more stable compared to OTL, how would local corruption be dealt with or would certain regions still be notorious for local corruption like a number of OTL US states?

    BTH would be content with the US taking much of northern Mexico in return for the latter being more stable and prosperous compared to OTL.

    Do like the idea of the ATL US becoming both a significant soccer and cricket power as a result of annexation much of Mexico and the Caribbean (e.g. West Indies Cricket Team), just need to figure out a way for Fiji to become part of the US for the latter to move up the World Rugby Rankings from 15th to 9th (short of Rugby replacing American Football from the beginning).
     
    phx1138 likes this.
  14. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    why would annexing mexico make the us be a bigger player in cricket?
     
  15. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    In the event the US also seeks to annex much of the Caribbean in addition to Mexico.
     
  16. Soverihn Proud Tribalist

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Location:
    Cibao Wilayet, Caliphate of Quisqueya
    If there's one thing I can see that would bankrupt the United States, it would be trying to annex everything south to Colombia. Because the sheer amount of armed forces and logistical support necessary to occupy over 1.3 million sq km of land and (at the time of 1850) circa 12 million people would be a colossal strain on the budget. To say nothing of building the infrastructure from scratch to cover that territory and how the other powers that be will react to the Colossus of the North marching south unopposed.
     
    Fiver likes this.
  17. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    In addition I wonder if there would of been a backlash in terms of citizenship and voting franchise throughout the country and especially south of Rio grande. Would we of seen similar laws used to deny African-Americans their rights applied to Mexicans?

    We think that they were very gracious in granting all Mexicans north of Rio grande and westward because they soon where outnumbered by Ango-Saxons. This would not be case of south of Rio Grand and Carribean.
     
  18. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    Sorry for the late answer but in https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/polks-borders-a-stronger-mexico.433743/#post-16315279, user History Learner quotes a source that argues that All Mexico was plausible and he suggests that if the peace treaty negotations lasted longer, it would have happened. What do you think of that post?
     
    phx1138 and History Learner like this.
  19. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    I made a very detailed reply at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-more-hispanic-usa.466652/page-3#post-19080726
     
    Fiver likes this.
  20. M79 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Another question would be the fate of Central America and the Caribbean - instead of banana republics we might have a US stretching to Darien