WI the United States had taken over Mexico and made it a state in the first war against them?

So instead of the US just defeating Mexico they had annexed it and made it part of Texas until they choose to be there own state if/when they choose to?

Would it have greatly boosted the GDP in the US over time as the new government improved and provided better services for those living there?

Would it have had a huge impact on the world wars manpower and production numbers for the United States?

Or would Mexico not really play a large roll in this ATL?
 
That is a huge amount of territory and people to annex. I think for an extremely long time there would just be a big guerrilla war, which would cause a financial drain and make the Civil War considerably harder for the Union. Which probably means Mexico regains independence around 1862.

The only way the US was able to get all the land in 1848 was because that land had virtually no people in it. If California had a few hundred thousand Mexicans in it, a lot of difficulty would have come from an attempted annexation.

- BNC
 
So instead of the US just defeating Mexico they had annexed it and made it part of Texas until they choose to be there own state if/when they choose to?

Would it have greatly boosted the GDP in the US over time as the new government improved and provided better services for those living there?

Would it have had a huge impact on the world wars manpower and production numbers for the United States?

Or would Mexico not really play a large roll in this ATL?
Mexicans may be divided and very messed up people at this point, however, faced with the consistent discrimination of a new government that sees them as "half Indian savages" and "mongrelized due to race mixing", who would only recognize a small fraction of them as citizens, not to mention the South inevitably attempting to force it's "peculiar institution" down their throats (and likely with the bulk of them on the receiving end), expect the bulk of the population to be in a permanent state of rebellion. Once the South seceedes, expect the Civil War to get MESSY...
 
Sonora, Chihuahua, etc. had more people in it than New Mexico or California, but were still very empty. They are easily capable of being annexed to the US. The next tier of states, like Sinaloa, Durango, Zacatecas, are possibly doable but a bit more difficult. Here lies a much greater potential for warfare against the natives. Anything further south is just begging for trouble, except for perhaps Yucatan, which had a prominent faction which wanted annexation from the US because of difficulties against the local Mayans. But that in of itself is an issue--first, the US has to raise an army to go to the jungles to kill a bunch of Maya in what's no doubt the hardest Indian War they've faced up to that point, and second, it's highly likely US policy will alienate the people of the Yucatan before long.

The one big thing this will require is the United States raising a much, much bigger army than OTL, both pre-Civil War and post-Civil War. Most of it will be kept garrisoning Mexico. This will cost a significant amount of resources from the US. Further, the US will have to respond to local labor demands in ways the Mexican government could safely ignore (through bullets). This means they can't exploit Mexico to the degree someone like Porfirio Diaz did.

Something like Oaxaca or elsewhere in southern Mexico could easily end up being like Mississippi, except worse. Sure, Mississippi is better off than Oaxaca, but the US only has one Mississippi--here, you want multiple Mississippis, and you give a racial incentive to ignore the place. But Mexico, if annexed, could be brought up to Puerto Rico standards--best in Latin America, worse than the rest of the country. It might end up a drag on the rest of the country, and probably highly controversial, since the senators from Mexican states will be a huge bloc, as will their inevitably high amount of representatives. The alternative to that is keeping most, if not all, of it as a territory, and thus no voting rights, which might run afoul of international law and opinion once decolonisation as a movement takes off.

Mexicans may be divided and very messed up people at this point, however, faced with the consistent discrimination of a new government that sees them as "half Indian savages" and "mongrelized due to race mixing", who would only recognize a small fraction of them as citizens, not to mention the South inevitably attempting to force it's "peculiar institution" down their throats (and likely with the bulk of them on the receiving end), expect the bulk of the population to be in a permanent state of rebellion. Once the South seceedes, expect the Civil War to get MESSY...

Would the South actually enslave Mexicans? Even if they wanted to, wouldn't US law carry the day to make sure slavery was essentially limited to blacks, since Mexicans--even black Mexicans--would be free people? Unless they can succeed in getting something passed which allows people to sell themselves or their family into slavery, which I believe would be popular amongst some plantation owners (and would also apply to poor whites).

If the CSA tries to claim Mexico, they'll end up fighting a huge Mexican insurrection which will be aiming to restore the Mexican Republic. They won't be able to keep much.
 
If you really want an oversized US, I suggest looking to this map for inspiration.

pwXoy.jpg


Whether the US could actually hold this is an interesting matter. You'd probably see the expansion of slavery into these areas, and this would tip the balance of power in favour of the slave states. That'd mean provisions such as escaped slaves having to be returned would eventually pass the house in Washington. This would lead to increasingly more situations where a man is a slave even in free states, until free states cease to exist in any meaningful way.

In short, a potentially very dystopian world compounded with the draconian messages that would surely be necessary to hold these Mexican territories.

Alternatively, the Northern states might insist on annexing Canada to even the balance. Whether they can withstand the might of the British Empire, especially considering they're lackluster performance in the war of 1812 even while the UK was busy fighting Napoleon, would be far from a forgone conclusion.

If the slave states had Mexico and the free states had Canada, that would lead to a very messy civil war. Especially if war fatigue from fighting Britain and Mexico post pones the final war until the 1880s, at which point both sides you won't soldiers won't got to war with muskets, they'll have maxim machine guns and mausers.
 
Last edited:
out of curiosity, what was the voting status of former Mexicans in the territories that the US seized in OTL? Allowed to vote, not allowed to vote?

There would be some extreme culture clash in the more heavily populated parts of Mexico. Southern plantation owners would find a lot in common with wealthy Mexican landlords, since the system of peonage wasn't all that much better than the out and out slavery of the USA. Also, those same wealthy Mexicans had out and out slaves too, although they were local natives, not blacks, and restricted to house servants; however, the bulk of the Mexican population despised the USA style slavery. The worst clash would be religious... the Mexicans were extremely devoted to the Catholic church and would be aghast at the whole 'freedom of religion/Protestants can build churches' idea...
 
So instead of the US just defeating Mexico they had annexed it and made it part of Texas until they choose to be there own state if/when they choose to?

Would it have greatly boosted the GDP in the US over time as the new government improved and provided better services for those living there?

Would it have had a huge impact on the world wars manpower and production numbers for the United States?

Or would Mexico not really play a large roll in this ATL?

The U.S. could have annexed more territory from Mexico without too much difficulty, but, TBH, Adding Mexico to Texas would be incredibly implausible-how would Austin handle all that extra territory? That said though, even just annexing northern Mexico probably would have significant effects on both American & Mexican history.
 
I doubt Mexicans would just sit and wait while their country is occuppied by a foreign power; they have been historically occuppied and they resisted every single time. They will not care iif Mexico stopped existing in paper, since most probably Mexicans would not be treated at all as equals in the new territories. Expect large-scale insurrections and guerrilla warfare to make the US wonder why they even bothered with annexation on the first place. Not to mention that the cultural differences between 1800s Mexico and USA will surely lead to conflict.

Even assuming a mostly tolerant USA administration, I think that representation would be slow to reach Mexico (historically, they haven't hurried too much in giving Spanish-speaking majority states full representation...) and the representatives will probably be seen as collaborateurs with the invaders; that is to say that they would not enjoy the support of the populace. And Americans will try to enforce their will over the new states, and the will of protestant, English speaking, planter aristocracts will not be well recieved in Mexico. Even if the elites fully support the USA, eventually guerrillas will gain enough popular support to make American occupation untenable. I think an scenario where Mexico is fully integrated to the USA to be very, very unlikely, to the point I would call it ASB.

I can easily see that the cost of occupying Mexico could bankrupt the USA, both financially and politically. Most likely they would release a semi-independent Mexico without its northern states (and perhaps Yucatán) that would be an economic satellite for decades to come (even if the common people depises the Americans); meanwhile the United States would be crippled but will eventually have their economic takeoff, given they still control much territory.

But there is also a very high possibilty that the USA would implode in civil war and Mexico would retake its former territories, at least up to the border of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty. If the USA decides to double down on its occupation, it will most probably end in bankrupcty and civil war and it is very likely that they would balkanize and never become a world superpower.
 
I doubt Mexicans would just sit and wait while their country is occuppied by a foreign power; they have been historically occuppied and they resisted every single time. They will not care iif Mexico stopped existing in paper, since most probably Mexicans would not be treated at all as equals in the new territories. Expect large-scale insurrections and guerrilla warfare to make the US wonder why they even bothered with annexation on the first place. Not to mention that the cultural differences between 1800s Mexico and USA will surely lead to conflict.

Even assuming a mostly tolerant USA administration, I think that representation would be slow to reach Mexico (historically, they haven't hurried too much in giving Spanish-speaking majority states full representation...) and the representatives will probably be seen as collaborateurs with the invaders; that is to say that they would not enjoy the support of the populace. And Americans will try to enforce their will over the new states, and the will of protestant, English speaking, planter aristocracts will not be well recieved in Mexico. Even if the elites fully support the USA, eventually guerrillas will gain enough popular support to make American occupation untenable. I think an scenario where Mexico is fully integrated to the USA to be very, very unlikely, to the point I would call it ASB.

I can easily see that the cost of occupying Mexico could bankrupt the USA, both financially and politically. Most likely they would release a semi-independent Mexico without its northern states (and perhaps Yucatán) that would be an economic satellite for decades to come (even if the common people depises the Americans); meanwhile the United States would be crippled but will eventually have their economic takeoff, given they still control much territory.

But there is also a very high possibilty that the USA would implode in civil war and Mexico would retake its former territories, at least up to the border of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty. If the USA decides to double down on its occupation, it will most probably end in bankrupcty and civil war and it is very likely that they would balkanize and never become a world superpower.

I am guessing if Mexico had joined the south in the civil war in this ATL then it would be to then later become independent and that is something I guess the Confederacy might have agreed to. Oddly I forgot how close this POD was to the civil war.
 
Side question- if the U.S. was to annex more lands that had the low number of Mexican population as Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/etc. did, what other areas could they have taken? At least Baja, right?
 
New lands were usually set up as a territory, then broken down into smaller territories. Given the population in Mexico, I imagine they would go straight to the latter option. California is a special case due to the influx of settlers and the Bear Flag ruse, so I don't see any of these new Mexican territories getting immediate statehood.
 
I am guessing if Mexico had joined the south in the civil war in this ATL then it would be to then later become independent and that is something I guess the Confederacy might have agreed to. Oddly I forgot how close this POD was to the civil war.

But they very likely wouldn't have joined the South because of slavery. From Mexico's pov the Confederacy is probably worse than the Union.
 
That is a huge amount of territory and people to annex. I think for an extremely long time there would just be a big guerrilla war, which would cause a financial drain and make the Civil War considerably harder for the Union. Which probably means Mexico regains independence around 1862.

The only way the US was able to get all the land in 1848 was because that land had virtually no people in it. If California had a few hundred thousand Mexicans in it, a lot of difficulty would have come from an attempted annexation.

- BNC

So right.

I'll just add that, in the late 1840's, Mexico's population was already close to 7 million people while the US was 21 million.

Mexico was too big, too concentrated and too distant for the US (whose population was still massively concentrated in the east) to swallow. And one could not easily settle massively territories taken away from Mexico even north of the cancer tropic. Air conditioning made these territories quite attractive but could not happen in the middle of the 19th century.
 
The mineral resources in northern Mexico would have been attractive to the US so if they did capture the areas above the Tropic of Cancer I could see them encouraging WASP/German immigration to those areas and a push for a RR down to Guaymas and the like in order to cement control over said resources.
 
Top