what if America had Annexed all of Mexico after the Mexican-American war

[Snake Featherston]

Mexico would likely draw OTL's filibusters, only perhaps more so since now US support is pretty explicit. There is going to be some brutal attempts at ethnic cleansing and forest-clearing since the filibusters were all gaga for King Cotton.

The populous southern Mexican states will have to be given local autonomy pretty damn fast. I could actually see the US redrawing the borders to create fewer, larger states that gives power to the criollo elite into the State apparatus. The other trick--which the US did in the Philippines--is to create a local constabulary of natives to repress the other natives.

Actually, the Philippines might be a good comparison because--while geographically dissimilar--its population at the time of the US occupation was 7,409,000 and its a heavily Catholic non-white society.

The one thing about that, though, is that brutality didn't end the uprisings against Nazi Germany, even when the Nazi response was to kill anything human within yea far a mile radius in retaliation. 1840s America had enough problems coughing up the troops for this war, hiring filibusters to go play Bleeding Oaxaca isn't going to be anything but one of the key elements in the rapid degeneration of the United States into a multi-sided civil war.

 

[Kome]

Did the US have capacity to occupy such a large area? Somehow I have trouble seeing the US army at the time becoming a successful occupying force in the more populous States of Mexico.

You could look at some of the other ocucpations the US did in that time period.

Indians: Use your superior population to colonize the area with a bit of genocide thrown in. Not an option here.

CSA: Standard military occupation. It required the South to be utterly exhausted by war and lacking the will to fight, deployment of military troops, and a large population of northern sympathizers.

The US doesnt have any of those in Mexico.

Latin American Interventions: This really isnt comparable to the situatioan at all.

Philippines: Put the population in concentration camps and put the nation to the torch to starve out the rebels.

Granted, they did manage to defeat 10:1 military odds against the US with that strategy (perhaps an exaggeration by Filipino historians). They cant exactly pull it off in Mexico tho.

And this isnt even talking about the domestic problems the US is facing.

So in summary, America's up a creek without a paddle.

 

[Falecius]

He might even go down in history as the last president of the United States and the spiritual father of Balkanized North America.

I don't think so, probably the whole mess would take till after his term to reach its possible fullest extent.

 

[Wolfpaw]

The one thing about that, though, is that brutality didn't end the uprisings against Nazi Germany, even when the Nazi response was to kill anything human within yea far a mile radius in retaliation.

Oh, I'm not saying they will. What I am saying is that the targets may shift from white occupation troops to local members of the Mexican Constabulary. The majority of the gringo grunts ship out, some (mostly Southern) officers who won't shut up about some sort of golden circle stick around to keep an eye on things for the federales and oversee/train the MCs.

1840s America had enough problems coughing up the troops for this war, hiring filibusters to go play Bleeding Oaxaca isn't going to be anything but one of the key elements in the rapid degeneration of the United States into a multi-sided civil war.

I don't think they'll even have to pay the filibusters; giving them some old materiel and providing a free berth to Mexico might be enough. I do agree, though, that it'll just make things that much worse.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Mexico would likely draw OTL's filibusters, only perhaps more so since now US support is explicit. There is going to be some brutal attempts at ethnic cleansing and forest-clearing (especially in the Yucatan) since the filibusters were all gaga for King Cotton.

The phrase "easier said than done" certainly comes to mind here. Attempts at ethnic cleansing tend to go smoother when the victims aren't very populous, armed to the teeth, and fully willing to butcher anyone who opposes them. Not to mention the way the Americans fought just isn't applicable here. I mentioned before that a contingent of US troops serving as mercenaries went to the Yucatan to fight the Maya. 30 minutes into their first engagement, their Yucateco allies were fully busy dragging the American dead and dying away from the fight. There's also the issue of massive insurrection/insurgency in the rest of Mexico and civil war brewing in America. Also, clearing the forest in this situation just strikes me as stupid, even filibusters wouldn't be that dumb, the Yucatecan forest is a money-trove for chicle and there were already plantations all over, albeit with a different cash crop that was still very profitable. The only difference between the Yucatan and the Antebellum South was that the slaves/serfs in Yucatan still had their independent ethnic identity and were more unified and the Southerners were smart enough not to start tossing guns to their angry slaves.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

All that happens is come next election cycle, candidates wanting to leave Mexico end up winning Congress and the Presidency.

 

[Socrates]

What are the possibilities for central Mexico to be such carnage they just make the populous areas one almighty Indian reserve? That could leave the North and the Gulf coase as white areas (after Indian removals) to become states?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What if the U.S. had annexed more of Mexico but not all of it? I don't know how much more. What would be a reasonable amount?

 

[Coyote Knight]

Annexing Mexico back then would have been utter folly. However, America could try and pull some kind of United States of America and Mexico type deal, but I also find that rather unlikely. A more "realistic" scenario would be several parts of Mexico being annexed due to their strategic/economic value, and leaving a rump Mexico that then becomes a Commonwealth a la Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

I'm not seeing such a big drive for white settlement in Mexico, not when there's plenty of 'empty' lands available out west.

 

[Tallest Skil]

What if the U.S. had annexed more of Mexico but not all of it? I don't know how much more. What would be a reasonable amount?

The original border was at the Tropic of Cancer. Our ambassador went way too easy on them, and the border was decided as the one we know today (sans Gadsden Purchase).

We absolutely could have taken that without much, if any, squabble.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I've made a new topic for my digression: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=241171

 

[Vault boy]

Please, please do that TL! North america with only 3 countries is lame... do we get a deseret as well, and independant texas could be cool!

I was thinking exactly on that, plus New England, California and more. Mexico would be divided between Río Grande, Mexico, Yucatan and . The only question here is "Who would want to join me in starting that Collaborative TL venture?"
It's going to be a dystopic nightmare, that I can vouch.

A decently sized contingent of US Marines couldn't beat a bunch of poorly organized Maya rebels armed with machetes and muskets that fired nails. And this is with local troops (who were actually more competent) supporting them. Something tells me this on a larger scale without local support would not end so well for the USA.

The wars in Yucatán ended up in 1900. That should tell you enough how good it is going to be for the U.S. should they try anything remotely funny there.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The original border was at the Tropic of Cancer. Our ambassador went way too easy on them, and the border was decided as the one we know today (sans Gadsden Purchase).

We absolutely could have taken that without much, if any, squabble.

No we would not have. Again, do you realize just how often Mexico has had problems holding onto Mexico? 1840s America that fell apart in a short span of time into a civil war that escalated from guerrilla violence to full-scale conscript armies hurled at each other to die in carload lots isn't going to be helped in those issues by having to hold down all of Mexico, too. It can't just impose slavery there, that guarantees the issues start immediately. It can't try to do that staggeredly, the civil war in the USA then produces a massive Mexican Rebellion.

This is the folly of 1967 on a scale that makes the West Bank and Gaza Strip look like dirt clods.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I've made a new topic for my digression: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=241171

Already put forth this opinion in your thread, but you could say that Decades of Darkness is possible, but probably not to the extent that it went there, just maybe with the acquisition of Mexico entirely over time. But you would probably end up fighting consistent wars down there, so you could explain American isolationism easily enough if Mexico was annexxed completely.

 

[The Uchronian]

Already put forth this opinion in your thread, but you could say that Decades of Darkness is possible, but probably not to the extent that it went there, just maybe with the acquisition of Mexico entirely over time. But you would probably end up fighting consistent wars down there, so you could explain American isolationism easily enough if Mexico was annexxed completely.

One idea I had considered over the past few years was Mexico being gradually annexed, peacefully, particularly if the nation was under significant economic duress and saw no other way to improve their financial situation but to ask for incorporation into American territory. And certainly, filibusters could prove to be very useful as well.

 

[Snake Featherston]

One idea I had considered over the past few years was Mexico being gradually annexed, peacefully, particularly if the nation was under significant economic duress and saw no other way to improve their financial situation but to ask for incorporation into American territory. And certainly, filibusters could prove to be very useful as well.

Peacefully annexing territory on that scale doesn't happen in the real world.

 

[anamarvelo]

Why would you even assume there would be Lincoln Presidency in this case? The problem here is that there are so many ways to fuck up ruling over Mexico that its not even funny, the Protestant whites already hated Catholics and natives there are so many ways they would mess up ruling a nation of largely catholic natives (for the most part the people of Mexico even spoke native languages still and there where many Mayan nationalist movements).

if they havent compltete screwd it up by 1865 than the lation and white mexicans get there rights
the inians still dont have them today

 

[Socrates]

The one thing about that, though, is that brutality didn't end the uprisings against Nazi Germany, even when the Nazi response was to kill anything human within yea far a mile radius in retaliation. 1840s America had enough problems coughing up the troops for this war, hiring filibusters to go play Bleeding Oaxaca isn't going to be anything but one of the key elements in the rapid degeneration of the United States into a multi-sided civil war.

I would love to see a Nazi victory timeline where the Reich then gradually collapses due to ever scaled up uprisings and guerilla warfare. That would be the most plausible outcome in my book.

 

[eliphas8]

if they havent compltete screwd it up by 1865 than the lation and white mexicans get there rights
the inians still dont have them today

So the small minority elite who already had power are returned to their former status? That totally wont cause the overwhelming majority mestizo population to get mad.