What is this supposed to mean?
I find that an interesting possibility. I wonder if the Brits would build an early Nicaraguan canal?
Greater Mexican Cession to the United States
- Thread starter Politician
- Start date
What is this supposed to mean?
Not that I'm taking sides or anything, but in the event of a greater Mexican Cession, the territories taken would not be making any decisions as to whether to allow slavery or not. The territories taken wouldn't be making any decisions at all, wouldn't be exercising self rule, and the inhabitants probably wouldn't be accorded the same civil rights as the main US. I don't see them voting in Federal Elections, being accorded Congressmen or Senators, Electors in the Electoral College, etc. etc.
The decision with respect to whether slavery would be allowed in these territories would be up to the Federal Government, and likely those decisions would be made when the Southern States were in control of Congress.
The decision with respect to whether slavery would be allowed in these territories would be up to the Federal Government, and likely those decisions would be made when the Southern States were in control of Congress.
Wouldn't it more likely end up being up to the Supreme Court, rather than Congress? The OTL Insular Cases happened in the wake of the Spanish-American War, which is the closest parallel I can find to something like this.
Edit: I'm facing down this question as part of the election game I'm running, so this thread is really helpful.
The population of the OTL Mexican Cession was roughly 150,000 around the time of the Mexican-American War. When you include all territory down to the Tropic of Cancer, you're talking about an area that has been Mexican, or rather part of New Spain before it, for at least a century. The United States spent sixty years "assimilating" New Mexico, with a Hispanic population of 60,000. The United States won't be quick to give statehood to the likes of Sonora, Chihuahua or Coahuila, much less places like Zacatecas or San Luis Potosí, who had hundreds of thousands of Mexicans at the time of the Mexican-American War. With the treatment the occupied territories are bound to get from the Anglo-Americans, the Mexican populations will jump for independence the moment the opportunity arises.
Utter nonsense. I suppose we disintegrated with the tens of millions of immigrants in the early 1900s.
Wow, the comparison doesn't make any sense, but whatever.
Your mission if you chose to accept it... discuss and create an alternate time-line under these circumstances:
- The US having annexed Cuba before the Mexican American-war
- The US annexed a greater chunk of land at the end of the Mexican-American war
A) Not good for USA. Mexico has to go first.
B) USA could potentially take the whole thing. The US army did march into Mexico City. It would lead to no Civil War, because the Free States and Territories would outnumber the Slave States 3-1. The Slave issue would be resolved slower, probably being resolved in to 1880s to 1890s. Slavery was already on the decline. In the end Slavery would end not because it was morally wrong, but because of the pressure and shrinking slave market.
Also the illegal immigrant problem would be non-existent. I mean you can't jump a non-existent border.
The US would probably expand more south or at least try. This could lead to a coalition against the US (Britain, Spain, Brazil, other American countries, etc). With a coalition victory everything south of the Rio Grande liberated, and US falls into deep depression. US then starts isolation early.
Tallest Skil
Banned
You mean the treatment that happened OTL that resulted in absolutely nothing whatsoever that you have claimed?
Sure thing; it’s not like it’s completely relevant or anything.
Why?
First, the US wouldn’t have kept the old borders. Second, so?
The butterflies associated with taking more of Mexico–much less all (ASB)–make the modern illegal immigration problem nonexistent.
Now you’re just going on with nonsense.
Yes because Chican@s and other Latin@s never suffered from racism, despite...well all the racism we've suffered in the US.
Ah, but there was resistance in Texas and California. It never really got past the level of banditry though. There was also a lot of Mexicans who ran off with the Native tribes, which also resulted in Natives 'Mexicanizing' themselves to avoid being placed on the reservations later on.
I imagine with a greater population of Mexicans, there could have been bigger revolts depending on how the cards fell. Hell, if an ACW broke out, they could break away or support one side or the other and earn a better place in US society.
During the Inquisition, Jews were forced underground. Many of these Crypto-Jews emigrated to the New World for their own safety, and as the centuries progressed, most of them ended up becoming Catholics. New Mexico has a lot of them today, and I'm descended from New Mexican Crypto-Jews.
But we Crypt-Jews weren't well off, so I have no idea where the idea that we would aspire to be slavers comes from.
Adding to this, even if they were devout Catholics, laws against 'New Christians' kept them quite oppressed in Spain. In the colonies they could escape this.
You can check Populstat here - the population in question looks like somewhere around 2.1 million people to me.
But the Confederate would claim those territories as well so at best you get a three way conflict. One which would weaken the South much more than it does the North. The South is the one whose states directly border them. The North has to go through the South to even reach Mexico.
The Confederacy has many more people and vastly more industry than would the Mexican territories. If they are beaten, then the southwestern territories could be easily suppressed.
While I won't say that states with large Mexican populations would jump at every opportunity to revolt against the US, and many of the states with smaller Mexican populations simply would never be able to, I do have to mention that Mexicans done some rather violent things when they feel provoked.
A quick example of a point of contention could be the weakening of the Roman Catholic Church. Which was the source of an especially violent period of Mexican History called La Guerra Cristera.
The main point I want to raise is that Mexicans have had a long and storied history of being extremely violent and accepting massive casualties in the name of both ambition and idealism. There's a reason that the Mexican Revolutionary War had 150% more casualties than the US Civil War, despite the fact that Mexico had 65% of the population that the US had during its Civil War.
TLDR:
In OTL Mexicans proved to be very violent and very accepting of casualties. If a point of contention arose, what follows is likely to be extremely long and extremely costly.
A quick example of a point of contention could be the weakening of the Roman Catholic Church. Which was the source of an especially violent period of Mexican History called La Guerra Cristera.
The main point I want to raise is that Mexicans have had a long and storied history of being extremely violent and accepting massive casualties in the name of both ambition and idealism. There's a reason that the Mexican Revolutionary War had 150% more casualties than the US Civil War, despite the fact that Mexico had 65% of the population that the US had during its Civil War.
TLDR:
In OTL Mexicans proved to be very violent and very accepting of casualties. If a point of contention arose, what follows is likely to be extremely long and extremely costly.
Last edited:
First Tier
Baja Calfiornia 12,000
Sonora 139,400
Chihuahua 147,600
Coahuila 75,300
Nuevo Leon 133,400
Tamaulipas 100,100
Subtotal 607,800
2nd Tier
San Luís Potosí 368,100
Zactares 356,000
Durango 162,200
Sinola 160,000
Subtotal 1,046,300
Total 1,654,100
The border on that text bookish map dips further south than I thought at first, though it only takes half of Durango and Sinola. Add the Yucatan and its surprisingly high 504,600 and you do get 2,158,700.
Prior to the 14th amendment states were allowed to have their own state churches. That more than anything else will probably delay the entrance of Mexican states until at least reconstruction.
The US treated the Catholic church fairly well historically in the regions taken in the Mexican-American War. Churches weren't shuttered, church lands weren't seized, Catholic clergymen weren't arrested. Quite the opposite - US officials tended to try hard to cultivate good relations with the Catholic churches in the newly acquired territories. I don't see why that policy would change if more of Mexico was taken - one would imagine it would strengthen the arguments for accommodation.
That's interesting, I didn't know that, but it was just an idea for something that could have been a provocation. The issue of slavery, and treatment of land claims could very well serve as provocation as well.
I'm not sure why it would go to the Supreme Court. The issue of slavery in territories had been there and been an active bone of contention since at least the Missouri Comrpromise in 1820, was probably exacerbated by the Mexican-American war, and resulted in a further failing compromise in Congress in the Kansas/Nebraska Act. All of the compromises were hammered out in Congress.
In these terms, I can't see how the lower Mexican territories would be allowed any degree of self determination, either generally, or specifically on the issue of slavery.
I'd suggest another matter to keep in mind is that America during this period wasn't as democratic as it is now. It wasn't just that women couldn't vote, and slaves couldn't vote, and the suffrage was denied to persons without property, there's also the reality that in many states, democratic mechanisms were less than efficient and oligarchies ruled effectively. And like it or not, racism and xenophobia had their roles. I don't think that the Anglo establishment ruling the states and Washington was going to allow for or tolerate Hispanic governed states. These states were either not going to be allowed, ie, remain territories until assimilated. Or if these territories did become states, they'd do so under a legal framework that disenfranchised the Hispanics and franchised the ruling Anglos.
Just my opinion.
That's true, but I would imagine the church had more power in the more settled areas. The 1840s-50s were the high point of anti-catholic sentiment in the US, but it was most prominent in the northeast where the Irish were. The southerners who are likely to immigrate into the southwest weren't as agitated about the issue. Pragmatism may carry the day.