American Reform if More Territory Annexed?

I've been wondering about how staunch the American government in its earlier days was on the current federal structure. Suppose the US for whatever reason annexed all of Mexico - would they ever be able to create something of an autonomous region for the Spanish-speaking Catholic population? For example, keep Mexico a federal-based nation with different states etc. except with its own local Mexican government.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No

The nation's structure was defined by the Constitution and precedent - the Northwest Ordinance being the most obvious.

One could try and pass legislation in Congress, including amendments to the Constitution, that had to be signed by the executive, found to be legal by the judiciary, AND/OR adopted by the states, but doing so was a lengthy process by design.

Given the obvious demographic and political issues (much less military, as in the reality of Mexican opposition) there was absolutely no serious chance of anything beyond the Cession, anyway.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Well, honestly, considering how staunch the states' were in defending their prerogatives and how much the federal government tended to respect those prerogatives in the first century or so of the US, just maintaining that dynamic would achieve something fairly analogous to an autonomous region; the states themselves were generally fairly autonomous.

After all, until the doctrine of Incorporation was developed, the Bill of Rights was not held to apply to the states, so any that were carved out of Mexico wanted to establish different policies, that would certainly be possible. Of course, there's no national official language, so it would certainly be possible for the official language of any Mexican territories to remain Spanish.

Hell, as long as the Mexican government was considered republican by Congress, there's no reason why the structure couldn't be maintained wholesale upon the incorporation of Mexico as a territory and its admission as a state. In fact, I would not be surprised if, upon an annexation of the entirety of Mexico that Congress would want to keep the acquisition whole and undivided, so as to prevent them from having too much say in the Senate.
 

Lateknight

Banned
I've been wondering about how staunch the American government in its earlier days was on the current federal structure. Suppose the US for whatever reason annexed all of Mexico - would they ever be able to create something of an autonomous region for the Spanish-speaking Catholic population? For example, keep Mexico a federal-based nation with different states etc. except with its own local Mexican government.

You probably just end up with a Mexico that resembles Puerto Rico not radically different government type.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You do understand that representation in the House is based on population?

Well, honestly, considering how staunch the states' were in defending their prerogatives and how much the federal government tended to respect those prerogatives in the first century or so of the US, just maintaining that dynamic would achieve something fairly analogous to an autonomous region; the states themselves were generally fairly autonomous.

After all, until the doctrine of Incorporation was developed, the Bill of Rights was not held to apply to the states, so any that were carved out of Mexico wanted to establish different policies, that would certainly be possible. Of course, there's no national official language, so it would certainly be possible for the official language of any Mexican territories to remain Spanish.

Hell, as long as the Mexican government was considered republican by Congress, there's no reason why the structure couldn't be maintained wholesale upon the incorporation of Mexico as a territory and its admission as a state. In fact, I would not be surprised if, upon an annexation of the entirety of Mexico that Congress would want to keep the acquisition whole and undivided, so as to prevent them from having too much say in the Senate.

You do understand that representation in the House is based on population?

A single state of 7 million Spanish-speaking Catholics when the 1840 census population of the US was 17 million, including 2.4 million slaves, who counted as 60 percent of a free person for the purposes of represenatation?

Yeah, good luck with that.:rolleyes:

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No such thing as a commonwealth under US law in the 1840s

You probably just end up with a Mexico that resembles Puerto Rico not radically different government type.

No such thing as a commonwealth under US law in the 1840s...

States, territories, and the District of Columbia. That's it.

Anything else requires legislation, which requires political balance in Congress, which requires the free state-slave state issue to be re-opened, which requires 7 million Mexican Catholics to be both a) willing to become part of the US, and b) being accepted as part of the US.

In 1848 or thereabouts...:rolleyes:

With all due respect, this is more ASB than a sucessful Operation ZEELOWE.

Best,
 
Suppose the US for whatever reason annexed all of Mexico... ...an autonomous region... ...its own local Mexican government.

Then how is it annexed? No state can have power over any other state, so there can’t be a “local” government applying only to former Mexican (country) states. It’s only going to be new states in Mexico (region, like “midwest” or “dixie”).

No such thing as a commonwealth under US law in the 1840s...

There’s no such thing as a commonwealth now.
 

Lateknight

Banned
No such thing as a commonwealth under US law in the 1840s...

States, territories, and the District of Columbia. That's it.

Anything else requires legislation, which requires political balance in Congress, which requires the free state-slave state issue to be re-opened, which requires 7 million Mexican Catholics to be both a) willing to become part of the US, and b) being accepted as part of the US.

In 1848 or thereabouts...:rolleyes:

With all due respect, this is more ASB than a sucessful Operation ZEELOWE.

Best,

The commonwealth would come later much later. What I think they would do first is keep most of Mexico as one or more territories. Because there's no way America would annex Mexico and give them any say in national affairs right away.
 
You do understand that representation in the House is based on population?

A single state of 7 million Spanish-speaking Catholics when the 1840 census population of the US was 17 million, including 2.4 million slaves, who counted as 60 percent of a free person for the purposes of represenatation?

Yeah, good luck with that.:rolleyes:

Best,

I specifically referred to the Senate. I don't see how the House has any bearing on the issue at all; if Mexico was entirely annexed (as the premise of this challenge seems to indicate), there's going to be roughly the same number of representatives regardless of how many states Mexico is divided into. The entire point I was making at the end was that the US would want to keep a Mexican annexation confined into one state.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
The U.S. would just make Mexico a colony- like they did with the Philippines in the late 19th Century/early 20th Century- and call it a day.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Then how is it annexed? No state can have power over any other state, so there can’t be a “local” government applying only to former Mexican (country) states. It’s only going to be new states in Mexico (region, like “midwest” or “dixie”).



There’s no such thing as a commonwealth now.

Puerto Rico would like to have a word with you

Best
 
Bigger states would help. A lot easier to have states function autonomously if they have the population of small countries rather than that of small cities.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet such a status did not exist under US law

The U.S. would just make Mexico a colony- like they did with the Philippines in the late 19th Century/early 20th Century- and call it a day.

In the 1840s. The options were territory or statehood.

And seven million Spanish speaking Catholics, aside from the fact they had no interest in statehood or territorial status and presumably would fight over the possibility, were not going to be welcomed into the U.S. for obvious reasons.

First and foremost, the free state/slave state issue, which is especially not going to happen because Mexico was free already; secondly, the whole 7 million practicing Catholics thing...

Best,
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
How many are free states?

I specifically referred to the Senate. I don't see how the House has any bearing on the issue at all; if Mexico was entirely annexed (as the premise of this challenge seems to indicate), there's going to be roughly the same number of representatives regardless of how many states Mexico is divided into. The entire point I was making at the end was that the US would want to keep a Mexican annexation confined into one state.

How many are slave states?

Difficult, considering the treadeoff for peace in the Cession territories was observance of free status, while the idea the slave states in the US would welcome more free states makes about as much sense as the idea any of the U.S. would welcome 7 million Catholic voters.

Plus, of course, there is the minor issue that the Mexicans had very little interest in no longer being Mexican.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Last edited:
Puerto Rico would like to have a word with you

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated, organized territory, legally administered in no way different from any other unincorporated, organized territory not called “Commonwealth”.

Similarly, Virginia is officially the Commonwealth of Virginia but its administration differs in no way from any other state not called “Commonwealth”.

And seven million Spanish speaking Catholics, aside from the fact they had no interest in statehood or territorial status and presumably would fight over the possibility, we're not going to be welcomed into the U.S. for obvious reasons.

Wait, there were only 7 million people in Mexico in 1848? Man, things change quickly.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
In the 1840s. The options were territory or statehood.

And seven million Spanish speaking Catholics, aside from the fact they had no interest in statehood or territorial status and presumably would fight over the possibility, we're not going to be welcomed into the U.S. for obvious reasons.

First and foremost, the free state/slave state issue, which is especially not going to happen because Mexico was free already; secondly, the whole 7 million practicing Catholics thing...

Best,


I don't see why they can't just invent the new territorial distinction with this situation as they did in that one.
 

scholar

Banned
You do understand that representation in the House is based on population?

A single state of 7 million Spanish-speaking Catholics when the 1840 census population of the US was 17 million, including 2.4 million slaves, who counted as 60 percent of a free person for the purposes of represenatation?

Yeah, good luck with that.:rolleyes:

Best,
The first or second empire lasts longer, has troubles, descends into autocratic dictatorships with pretentions to empire, US settlers in the norther part of Mexico form a core resistance group, including notable Catholic pioneers from the northeast, and the rebel cause becomes identified with the US.

Eventually, with the toppling of the government, the Mexican people look towards the US expatriot leadership as representative of the true ideals of the Mexican people. Conservative and nationalistic Mexicans flee south, while the American alligned rebels take over the majority of Mexico.

The US itself doesn't really want all of Mexico, but if this is in the midst of Manifest Destiny many in Congress sell this as a second Louisiana Purchase and a sign of the destiny of American leadership across the continent.

Might work.

Not sure what this does for American Reform.
 
One could try and pass legislation in Congress, including amendments to the Constitution that had to be signed by the executive, found to be legal by the judiciary, AND adopted by the states, but doing so was a lengthy process by design.

Legislation must be passed by Congress and either signed by the President or enacted over his veto; it may be found unconstitutional by Federal Courts. States have nothing to say about it.

Constitutional amendments must be passed by Congress or a constitutional convention, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states; neither the President nor the judiciary have anything to say about it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Puerto Ricans are US citizens, as opposed to US nationals

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated, organized territory, legally administered in no way different from any other unincorporated, organized territory not called “Commonwealth”.

Similarly, Virginia is officially the Commonwealth of Virginia but its administration differs in no way from any other state not called “Commonwealth”.



Wait, there were only 7 million people in Mexico in 1848? Man, things change quickly.

Puerto Ricans are US citizens, as opposed to US nationals. They get the vote and everything (sort of):rolleyes:

Little different than the residents of the Phillippines when it was still a US possession.

Amazing what one can find on the internet:

http://www.populstat.info/Americas/mexicoc.htm

Best,
 
Top