Would the US established a united Central America

In the timeline I am working on, the US severely loses the war of 1812. The loss of territory in the north leads them to instead look to the south for expansion, kind of like in Decades of Darkness. An alternate Mexican-American war see's the establishment of an independent Sonora Republic and Rio Grande as US client states and the cession of Yucatan. Following these wars, America begins to expand it's influence into Central America.

What I'm wondering is if following the US conquests in Central America, would the US simply establish these nations as clients, or might they unite them [reviving the former Federal Republic of Central America 1823-1839] for administrative purposes?
 
I don't belive that is feasible that The USA could control central América, no the conquest, that is easy, but The land is ideal for guerrilla and resistance war
 
I don't belive that is feasible that The USA could control central América, no the conquest, that is easy, but The land is ideal for guerrilla and resistance war

Good point. I think that the areas closeness to America would allow for america to have control, but there likely would be years of resistance guerilla warfare even after the war officially ends
 
I don't belive that is feasible that The USA could control central América, no the conquest, that is easy, but The land is ideal for guerrilla and resistance war
Guerrilla resistance is highly likely.

Guerrilla resistance which successfully forces out the US occupiers is much less likely.

There's a tendency to assume that guerrillas can force out any occupying power. That's mostly a reflection of post-Vietnam, televised era warfare, where the public will to sustain casualties is low and the reluctance to engage in harsh measures to suppress guerrillas is high.

Historically speaking, most guerrilla campaigns failed unless they had safe havens where they could not be pursued, or an outside power providing arms and other supplies. Preferably both.
 
Best from the US perspective to keep the nations separate. Divide and conquer. It prevents powerful individuals from resisting US rule as the head of a united Central America, and also keeps civil wars a localised affair instead of involving the entire region. OTL Central America was basically a collection of US client states anyway.

From what I know about the Yucatán they would probably ask for statehood.

They mainly did OTL because they had the immediate threat of the Caste War and the almost as bad threat of Mexico reannexing them.
 
Guerrilla resistance is highly likely.

Guerrilla resistance which successfully forces out the US occupiers is much less likely.

There's a tendency to assume that guerrillas can force out any occupying power. That's mostly a reflection of post-Vietnam, televised era warfare, where the public will to sustain casualties is low and the reluctance to engage in harsh measures to suppress guerrillas is high.

Historically speaking, most guerrilla campaigns failed unless they had safe havens where they could not be pursued, or an outside power providing arms and other supplies. Preferably both.

Well there are Spanish and Amerindian descent that we are speaking here, guerrilla warfare is in the DNA.

But more seriously, it´s all depend in what year this is Done, you have to remember that until 1838 the countries that constitutes Central america were in a federation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_America) that in case of a USA intervention or invasion during this period could galvanize his fractured nature and give the Federation a new life, nothing united more the people that a external threat.

If this was done in 1840-1850, these countries still have memories of the federation and when William Walker, the filibuster, tried to conquest Nicaragua, the countries automatically form a coalition to expel the invasion.

After that i see difficult that USA make and attempted invasion, as @metalinvader665 say most countries of C.A. after this age are client states anyway and a outright invasion will be meet with open hostility and weapons, instead the passive resignation that where the common state of the peasants in this epoch.

1860 is highly unlikely as the USA internal affair are in Boiling point so there is little interest and capacity to international Expedition and Affairs.

1870 is the reconstruction era, again the USA are immersed in his internal problems, international expeditions are unlikely

1880 there are open Hostility to every intervention from the USA in Central America, by Chile the Principal Sea power of the Pacific in this age strong enough, until 1891, to repel the invasion forces and supplies the resistance forces (http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pdf_tromben_english.pdf5)

After 1891, well USA could but Why they going to do it? this is the ages of the Spanish-american war, and you couldn´t at the same time be fighting for the liberty of the last colonies of America and trying to conquest Free countries to convert them in your colonies, well you could, but the backlash will be tremendous and the USA navy it´s not strong enough if France, England or even Germany decide to intervene
 
I assume that your timeline has the US remaining intact, and militarizing. Otherwise, they aren't 'easily' doing anything in the expansion department. If they get their butts kicked in 1812, Britain is going to look to continue pushing them around, and establishing complete hegemony in North/Central America, instead of treating US as a regional power as they did OTL. A butt whooping also curbs the rising sentiment that the US is destined to be masters of the continent, and they may be quite content in filling in the ample spaces they still have.
 
I assume that your timeline has the US remaining intact, and militarizing. Otherwise, they aren't 'easily' doing anything in the expansion department. If they get their butts kicked in 1812, Britain is going to look to continue pushing them around, and establishing complete hegemony in North/Central America, instead of treating US as a regional power as they did OTL. A butt whooping also curbs the rising sentiment that the US is destined to be masters of the continent, and they may be quite content in filling in the ample spaces they still have.

They get their butt kicked, but realistically. I don't see a fractured US as result of the war reaistic
 
weren't the northeastern states already threatening to secede over the war? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some regionalism ensues whereby some states decide that other regions/states are leading them to ruin and breaking up the union is in their best interest. they all banded together out of the notion of together being a good thing for protection/economics. If that notion is proven false, there could be a fracturing. OTL, the war unified the states. Losing, badly could do the opposite.
 
weren't the northeastern states already threatening to secede over the war? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some regionalism ensues whereby some states decide that other regions/states are leading them to ruin and breaking up the union is in their best interest. they all banded together out of the notion of together being a good thing for protection/economics. If that notion is proven false, there could be a fracturing. OTL, the war unified the states. Losing, badly could do the opposite.

No, this is a common misunderstanding on New England's views. They thought the war was stupid and refuse to participate in it. There was a conference in New England to decide whether or not secession should be considered, but only two states sent representatives. I agree it isn't beyond possibility, but the POD would require a much much worse war than even in my TL. Advantages would need to be given to the UK that border on ASB.

Also, do you have any references to the notion the war of 1812 unified the states? I'd imagine the near forty years [since declaration] of independence before the war contradict that idea.
 
Top