US Rio Grande state

JJohnson

Banned
My question is this: Suppose that the Republic of the Rio Grande succeeds in secession from Mexico, and joins the US. How could it achieve this, and what would the effect be on the United States, having another southern state at that point in time? Any effect today?
 
Well, it's a very overtly "Mexican" state ethnically as opposed to Texas and California which have sufficient numbers of Anglos, so it has a wall of racism and anti-Catholisism to overcome before the US of the time would let it in. Assuming it did, the US controls the Rio Grande and has Matomoros as a port. Not sure much else comes of this unless it sets some precident for US acceptance of non-white majority states. Perhaps the Dominican Republic is let in ITTL or the US gets more overtly imperialistic.
 

Eurofed

Banned
One way to accomplish is a) there is more Anglo immigration to the area before secession and/or b) Rio Grande takes a more pro-Texas/pro-US stance during its existence (IOTL it quarreled with Texas about its borders) so it gets Texan/US support in its independence war with Mexico.

Well, it's a very overtly "Mexican" state ethnically as opposed to Texas and California which have sufficient numbers of Anglos, so it has a wall of racism and anti-Catholisism to overcome before the US of the time would let it in.

Not really so. Rio Grande was much less populated by Mexicans back then. Like all the Mexican states on the border with the US, its population substantially swelled in recent decades as the maquiladora factories were established and attracted a large number of immigrants from the rest of Mexico. The Mexican population in the 1840s was low enough that its annexation would not cause serious prejudice concerns (if anything, racist ones. The influence of anti-Catholicism on US politics is all too often awfully overestimated on this board :() and/or that a feasible amount of US immigrants could overturn the demographic balance.

Nonetheless, the annexation of Northern Mexico (from Sonora to Rio Grande) was quite seriously discussed in the USA after the war with Mexico, and did not come through for reasons that have little to do with racist prejudice. It was that the rogue US diplomat who negotiated the peace treaty signed a more generous one than the President wanted on his own initiative, and that the northern states then opposed a revision for fear of excessive expansion of slavery. If the rogue diplomat is butterflied away, and/or the South makes some concessions to the North elsewhere, this more extensive annexation could be easily accomplished. Racist concerns were only raised by the South about the annexation of "all Mexico", including heavily-populated Central Mexico.

Assuming it did, the US controls the Rio Grande and has Matomoros as a port. Not sure much else comes of this unless it sets some precident for US acceptance of non-white majority states. Perhaps the Dominican Republic is let in ITTL or the US gets more overtly imperialistic.

Well, Rio Grande has some interesting agricultural (Neuvo Leon's "orange belt") and mineral (Coahuila's coal) resources. In all likelihood, it would become much like Arizona and New Mexico.

The main effect of US Rio Grande is that after the war with Mexico, it would be natural, and almost invitable, for the USA to annex the rest of Northern Mexico. This at the very least includes Baja, Sonora, and Chihuaua and quite possibly also Sinaloa, Durango, Zacatecas, and San Louis Potosi, as those states had valuable agricultural and mineral resources, most importantly gold and silver, known in the 19th century, and not so much Mexican population as to raise serious racist concerns.

A much bigger Mexican Cession most likely would cause an early onset of the Civil War, as the North and South would squabble more severely to settle the war booty. It would have little effect on the ACW itself, just like the OTL Southwest. As others have argued, it would be a strong precedent and incentive for annexing more Hispanic states (Dominican Republic and Cuba) during the Reconstruction, Gilded Age, and Spanish-American War.

Less likely, but still quite possible, developments are that a much more plentiful Mexican Cession would push the USA to a more annexationist-expansionist stance all-around, and so press its 1840s "54°40' or fight" claim on British Columbia much more forcefully (also as a way to appease the North about the Mexican Cession), and/or make a much more determined attempt to buy BC and Rupert's Land, or even annex all Canada, during the Reconstruction.

By itself, US Northern Mexico would obviously make for a more popolous and economically powerful USA, since the region is resource-rich and one of the more industrialized areas of Mexico (although the latter is largely due to the presence of maquiladoras).
 
Last edited:

JJohnson

Banned
Hmmm.....Very interesting ideas, for certain. How about a preliminary layout such as this:

1840: RRG secedes from Mexico, and in a treaty with Texas agrees to a Rio Grande Border in exchange for national recognition, settlers, troops, and aid for secession from Mexico. The capital moves from Laredo, TX to Monterrey, RG. More than 12,000 Americans and Texans move to the new land.
1840-Feb 1841: the RRG signs a treaty with Mexico setting their border, contemporaneously with their treaty with Texas setting up a Texan Embassy in Monterrey and a RRG Embassy in Austin. Free land is offered to any American who wishes to settle, and word is also sent to colonization societies in Europe.
1840: President Van Buren begins a revitalization of Alexandria, DC, with a number of his cabinet officials taking residence there, along with a number of foreign dignitaries as well. Alexandria begins an economic expansion that leads it to side with remaining in the district to this day.
1840-46: RRG, eager for settlers, passes similar legislation to Texas encouraging settlement, bringing in German, Swedish, Polish, English, French, Italian, Greek, and Russian settlers in varying numbers. In all, around 45,000 immigrants join the nation.
1842: Webster-Ashburton Treaty settles the Lake of the Woods, and the Maine / New Brunswick border, but defers the Oregon question for later (can Britain be otherwise occupied, or increased American presence press the Brits to not want to handle this now?)
1846: Mexican-American war starts with Mexicans firing on a contingent of US Troops along the RRG border. Secessionist movements all along northern Mexico had dogged Santa Anna, and the war was his shot to retake the RRG and Texas and expel the Anglos. The war lasts two years, and results in Santa Anna's defeat, and additional secessionist movements bringing in California, Nuevo Mexico, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Durango, Zacatecas, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, and the portion of Veracruz giving a coastline to SLP; the US military captures Mexico City and forces the treaty on Mexico, but they do pay $24 million to Mexico for the lands. Jefferson Davis' bill to annex the RRG wins 44-11. The Flag has 32 Stars (having added Texas, Rio Grande, Iowa, and Wisconsin)
1848: RG and TX are annexed into the US; this has an effect on the northerners, who press for the 54° 40' border as a counter the entire time. The British cede the land for little cost at the time, given the more pressing European matters at hand.
1850: The Compromise of 1850 brings California in as Free, organizes the South California Territory as a slave territory with its capital at San Diego, Sonora territory, Durango Territory, and Utah territory deciding via popular sovereignty. New Mexico Territory will allow slavery.
1862: Columbia Territory is split from Oregon Territory and Washington Territory.
1889: Washington becomes a state
1896: Columbia split into north and south Territories
1902: North and South Columbia join the Union


This might very well need tweaking, so feel free to tweak the specifics here. Let's say that the US gets the Mexican territory, and also all of Oregon country. Would it then be likely to get a treaty with Britain for a straight line up to the Arctic, thus bringing the Yukon into the US?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Hmmm.....Very interesting ideas, for certain. How about a preliminary layout such as this:

1840: RRG secedes from Mexico, and in a treaty with Texas agrees to a Rio Grande Border in exchange for national recognition, settlers, troops, and aid for secession from Mexico. The capital moves from Laredo, TX to Monterrey, RG. More than 12,000 Americans and Texans move to the new land.
1840-Feb 1841: the RRG signs a treaty with Mexico setting their border, contemporaneously with their treaty with Texas setting up a Texan Embassy in Monterrey and a RRG Embassy in Austin. Free land is offered to any American who wishes to settle, and word is also sent to colonization societies in Europe.
1840: President Van Buren begins a revitalization of Alexandria, DC, with a number of his cabinet officials taking residence there, along with a number of foreign dignitaries as well. Alexandria begins an economic expansion that leads it to side with remaining in the district to this day.
1840-46: RRG, eager for settlers, passes similar legislation to Texas encouraging settlement, bringing in German, Swedish, Polish, English, French, Italian, Greek, and Russian settlers in varying numbers. In all, around 45,000 immigrants join the nation.
1842: Webster-Ashburton Treaty settles the Lake of the Woods, and the Maine / New Brunswick border, but defers the Oregon question for later (can Britain be otherwise occupied, or increased American presence press the Brits to not want to handle this now?)
1846: Mexican-American war starts with Mexicans firing on a contingent of US Troops along the RRG border. Secessionist movements all along northern Mexico had dogged Santa Anna, and the war was his shot to retake the RRG and Texas and expel the Anglos. The war lasts two years, and results in Santa Anna's defeat, and additional secessionist movements bringing in California, Nuevo Mexico, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Durango, Zacatecas, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, and the portion of Veracruz giving a coastline to SLP; the US military captures Mexico City and forces the treaty on Mexico, but they do pay $24 million to Mexico for the lands. Jefferson Davis' bill to annex the RRG wins 44-11. The Flag has 32 Stars (having added Texas, Rio Grande, Iowa, and Wisconsin)
1848: RG and TX are annexed into the US; this has an effect on the northerners, who press for the 54° 40' border as a counter the entire time. The British cede the land for little cost at the time, given the more pressing European matters at hand.
1850: The Compromise of 1850 brings California in as Free, organizes the South California Territory as a slave territory with its capital at San Diego, Sonora territory, Durango Territory, and Utah territory deciding via popular sovereignty. New Mexico Territory will allow slavery.
1862: Columbia Territory is split from Oregon Territory and Washington Territory.
1889: Washington becomes a state
1896: Columbia split into north and south Territories
1902: North and South Columbia join the Union


This might very well need tweaking, so feel free to tweak the specifics here. Let's say that the US gets the Mexican territory, and also all of Oregon country. Would it then be likely to get a treaty with Britain for a straight line up to the Arctic, thus bringing the Yukon into the US?

Seems largely feasible, except I'm not convinced on the feasibility of slave South Calfornia (in USAO I made Dixie attempt the same trick, only for the Californians make an about-face and declare both Californias free when they got statahood). If the USA attempt to buy additional pieces of Canada, I'd make them go for broke, and purchase Rupert's Land (i.e. all Western Canada).
 
Would it then be likely to get a treaty with Britain for a straight line up to the Arctic, thus bringing the Yukon into the US?

Would the British give up Pacific access easily?

Or if they did, would they expand Belize across the continent where it's thinner?
 
A much bigger Mexican Cession most likely would cause an early onset of the Civil War, as the North and South would squabble more severely to settle the war booty. It would have little effect on the ACW itself, just like the OTL Southwest.

I think it would delay the Civil War. With that many more potential slave states, southern leadership won't have to worry about losing control of the Senate until later than in OTL.
 
One interesting way to handle it would be to have the Confederates intrigue with the Rio Grande's governor during the civil war; he sought to join the CSA, after all. So post war, the US occupies it, but the Mexican Civil War is still not over. The state's elites would probably prefer remaining in the US to dealing with the still uncertain outcome of the Mexican Civil War, and so the US occupation ends up being permanent.
 
Population by Mexican State

Does anyone know where I can get population numbers for each of the Mexican States between the founding of Mexico and 1900? I'm trying to get a feeling for the balance of the population of Mexico. For example, when does more than 20% of the Mexican population live north of a line E-W through the current southern point of Texas. Note, once Mexico gets more than 10 years into the Porfiriato the chances of additional US gains go significantly down...
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Does anyone know where I can get population numbers for each of the Mexican States between the founding of Mexico and 1900? I'm trying to get a feeling for the balance of the population of Mexico. For example, when does more than 20% of the Mexican population live north of a line E-W through the current southern point of Texas. Note, once Mexico gets more than 10 years into the Porfiriato the chances of additional US gains go significantly down...

http://www.populstat.info/ is generally a good source. For some areas they draw a lot of blanks but yeah.
 
Top