US Annexes Mexico in Mexican-American War: How is the territory divided?

Thats easy. Mexico used to be the world’s leader in silver production, until independence and, as far as I understand, Spain cut them off from the raw materials necessary for production. As part of the US, that should be much less of a problem.

I thought that was Bolivia with Potosi instead of Mexico with San Luis Potosi? I could be wrong though - when was Mexico the leader in silver production?
 
I thought that was Bolivia with Potosi instead of Mexico with San Luis Potosi? I could be wrong though - when was Mexico the leader in silver production?

I believe Potosi’s production costs were lower, but Mexico’s output was higher. I don’t have anything handy to verify that, and I could be wrong - though Mexico does have the world’s current largest mine to the best of my knowledge.
 
I know the OP wants only discussion about state lines, but state lines are not drawn on a map without historical context and the influence of events contemporary with the drawing of said lines. That said...how would the US deal with the Church? The bulk of revolts against liberal governments in Mexico had a lot to do with the Church maintaining a stranglehold over society as a state religion and a monopoly on Education among other things. Post ACW and into incorporation of the 14th amendment we will run into those issues because all of that very clearly violates the 1st amendment. And should the US enforce that, you'd have the Cristero movement. And even before the ACW and 14th amendment, the territories would have to follow the 1st amendment which won't end well.
Well, south of the rio grande it'd mostly be combination of or in some cases retaining old state borders. Without the rio grande as national border, things might look different north of it in former mexico.
 
I know the OP wants only discussion about state lines, but state lines are not drawn on a map without historical context and the influence of events contemporary with the drawing of said lines. That said...how would the US deal with the Church? The bulk of revolts against liberal governments in Mexico had a lot to do with the Church maintaining a stranglehold over society as a state religion and a monopoly on Education among other things. Post ACW and into incorporation of the 14th amendment we will run into those issues because all of that very clearly violates the 1st amendment. And should the US enforce that, you'd have the Cristero movement. And even before the ACW and 14th amendment, the territories would have to follow the 1st amendment which won't end well.
I suspect Mexican Liberals would turn to the feds to help break the power of the church and I am pretty sure both southern and northern politicians would not mind weakening the catholic church for various reasons.
 
I suspect Mexican Liberals would turn to the feds to help break the power of the church and I am pretty sure both southern and northern politicians would not mind weakening the catholic church for various reasons.

Mind if I ask what breaking the power of the Church would mean in this context?
 
Civil War point is definitely going to be interesting, though I'm uncertain that Mexico in total would declare for the south, as the South would be very interesting in expanding into Mexico after a victory (and will have been attempting to filibuster in several bordering Mexican states, such as Coahuila specifically, in an attempt to have them become slave states. While you will certainly have some aligning with the Confederacy, I don't see it as a total guarantee.

If anything, i'd almost see an internal Civil War breaking out in Mexico during it, with one side being Unionists and the other side being Secessionists, same as with the mainland US. And that would more likely be the bordering states angling for union (bordering the US OTL), those most at risk of being annexed by the Confederacy (as they are claimed by them as well, while those near Mexico proper angling for independence, though wanting to reclaim all Mexican territory lost previously.

I'll also point out that this assertiveness by the Spanish speaking parts to expand their numbers will be met by identical attempts by the Northern States to expand into English speaking areas. 54 40? Canada? etc.

I'm pretty sure attempting to divide Mexico into slave/free states would trigger an earlier Civil War, since Mexico just doesn't fit into the free/slave state padagrim which has been so painstakingly maintained since 1789. The largely empty territory annexed previously was enough to set off sectarian squabbles, adding a couple million reluctant Catholics who are already opposed to slavery would make the problem worse.

If anything you get a three sided civil war with Mexicans rebelling to drive out the 'American occupiers' and Dixie rebelling to continue to enslave people to their hearts content. Absent the railroads linking the hubs of Northern industry and power to the South, the Union would be hard pressed to keep Mexico in line with its Mexican garrisons probably being overrun and loyalist forces being relegated to hiding on the coast while the interior would fall pretty swiftly to Mexican revolutionaries. Fun times as the Confederates and Mexicans probably end up duking it out on the Rio Grande. Heck, I could see European powers intervening more seriously just for a chance to break up the American hegemony in Mexico...

As for seeking more territory in the north...swallowing Mexico would be hard enough, taking on the British while also doing that would be damn near suicidal!
 
Heck, I could see European powers intervening more seriously just for a chance to break up the American hegemony in Mexico...

That does depend as well, though it could definitely occur. The US would have to assume Mexican debts, and the European powers would have to debate on whether a US that could better guarantee debt payment and access to the world market would be better or worse than unstable Mexican state that wouldn't be as successful and necessitate further interventions. It really does depend.

To get the Mexicans on the side of the Union during the war, the US would have to promise,essentially, immediate statehood for the various territories that are qualified, as free states, along with recognition in some states that Catholicism was the state religion (I still think a few states had state religion during this time). There would also be an understanding that no national language would be enacted, or a law passed that would state that there is no national language of the US.

Even in that idealized case, you'll still have tons of resistance to American rule, so it'd definitely be a three-way Civil War in some respects. Distance may be one saving grace, as American Anglos and American Mexicans can both be citizens but don't have to actually be near each other. If we throw in a Cuban bloc as well, and perhaps other Spanish-speaking nations, you have a large Spanish-speaking bloc within the US that will have definite repercussions on its policy.

Highly idealized, however.

As for seeking more territory in the north...swallowing Mexico would be hard enough, taking on the British while also doing that would be damn near suicidal!

Of course it'd be a horrible idea. Just pointing out that it would be the natural response to try and increase Anglo majority. And it doesn't mean it will be undertaken.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
San Luis Potosi came after and was partially named after Potosi, Bolivia, both being silver mining centers. San Luis Potosi was the source of the first colonization of Nuevo Mexico.

The US constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and separation of Church and State will result in a proto-Cristeros movement early. The result is anyone's guess. It may or may not result in rebellion at this early stage.

Antipathy towards slavery will not favor Southern hopes of vast slave states. The US did not grant wide ranging citizenship to brown skinned people in OTL. I can see some property and education based requirements before citizenship.
 
Antipathy towards slavery will not favor Southern hopes of vast slave states. The US did not grant wide ranging citizenship to brown skinned people in OTL. I can see some property and education based requirements before citizenship.

Relevant Text from the OTL Treaty...

Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo said:
ARTICLE VIII
Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.

Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

ARTICLE IX
The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.

Emphasis is mine.

Whether or not the US will allow them to establish their own voting laws is an issue, though if I recall correctly, voting laws are done on a state by state basis, so once the Mexican states are admitted, they will be able to make their own laws. This isn't like the South, where white majorities were allowed to disenfranchise the blacks. Here, in the Mexican states, those that establish voting powers will be the Mexican majority.

That will be an argument to prevent them admission of the territories into the Union, but in order to prevent major unrest and eventual rebellion, a schedule for admittance to the Union as states will have to be made. After all, continued military occupation is extremely expensive, and the US always disliked spending on the military unnecessarily. If we consider how New Mexico was nearly admitted in 1859 and 1875 OTL, when the entire New Mexico territory had a population of about 90k people, the majority of which were of the natives and New Mexicans. So we see how it nearly happened in OTL.

And, I will insist again, the US in OTL had no realistic chance of incorporating Mexico as a whole, so that a US that does decide to incorporate Mexico will invariably be of a different character from the one OTL, and one that will be more willing to face the costs of incorporating not only lightly populated land, but the densely populated Mexican metropole.
 
Antipathy towards slavery will not favor Southern hopes of vast slave states. The US did not grant wide ranging citizenship to brown skinned people in OTL. I can see some property and education based requirements before citizenship.

Considering some states tried to do the same to the white folks too...
 
Here you go: closer to what I was imagining:

View attachment 417885

So, before I go an start a conpletely new thread just focused on internal US politics, lets assume that the treaty gives us a map like this, and lets also assume that the treaty also stipulates that the more heavily populated of these territories gets to vote on staying in the Union or independence. Lets say the votes are held 6 years after the treaty.

How do they vote?
 
So, before I go an start a conpletely new thread just focused on internal US politics, lets assume that the treaty gives us a map like this, and lets also assume that the treaty also stipulates that the more heavily populated of these territories gets to vote on staying in the Union or independence. Lets say the votes are held 6 years after the treaty.

How do they vote?

I'd say independence, full out, unless the votes are heavily weighed or if voting is restricted to the landed class who see economic benefits of Union.
 
Going by how the traditional division has been white/black, they'd likely end up on the "white" side in pracyice. Of course "white" doesn't equal social acceptance as Italians or even the pale enough to have literal blue blood vessels visible Irish show.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
And this is based on what, EXACTLY?

Seems to have worked out okay for Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah

There were about 80k Mexicans in those territories. For example, he population of California in 1840, excluding free living Indians, was 9000. There were 7.5 million in the rest of Mexico. The two situations simply can't be compared.

That was at a time the US population was about 20 million. The US did not have the military capability to occupy Mexico, full stop. Settling it was out of the question.
 
Last edited:
Top