How Far the U.S. Would Have Annexed Mexico

[CthulhuFhtagn]

They were rebelling against another group, and got what they wanted. They also wanted U.S. annexation.

In 1847, the Mayans were rebelling against the Yucatan government, which was dominated by the mestizos and criollos. This was part of the reason why the President of the Yucatan, Santiago Mendez, offered Yucatan sovereignty in exchange for military assistance. There was no indication at any point that the Mayan rebels wanted to join the US.

 

[SpamBotSam]

....yes it did, otherwise I'm sorry but someone is lying to you. The free versus slave state debate didn't jump from a vacuum.

I dont see what annexing parts of Mexico has anything to do with slavery and the civil war.

 

[Viriato]

They were rebelling against another group, and got what they wanted. They also wanted U.S. annexation.

The creole elite of the Yucatan was in favour of US annexation, because the Mexican government was unable to protect their interests in the Yucatan. The creoles and mestizos were heavily outnumbered by the Mayans, especially in rural areas where creoles constituted around 6% of the population. The only reason they wanted this was because their situation as a dominant minority was so precarious. In addition they were seeking to expand the cultivation of agave and take indigenous lands.

Why would the Mayan insurgents support what the minority elite wanted? They would most likely see the US invaders as enemies (seeing that they were allied with the minority elites). The Mayans were largely fighting to control their own destiny and maintain their communal lands. The Spanish Crown had protected this land as communal, and left much of the social structure intact. However, in 1845 the Indians were ordered to pay taxes and cultivate their own land. In addition, prior to 1841 water rights were protected. Much of the new conflict was due to the expansion of henequen and sugar plantations. I cannot see the US government favouring the communal traditional agriculture in favour of cash crops.

In OTL, the Mexican government fought a war lasting over half a century, causing a dramatic decline in the Yucatan's population, it would not recover to 1845 levels for a century. Mexico was often plagued by internal turmoil and unable to effectively govern much of their territory though.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I dont see what annexing parts of Mexico has anything to do with slavery and the civil war.

In short, everything. The precarious balance between free and slave state was completely undone by the addition of an unprecedented amount of territory into American hands. The balancing act that the slavers tried to maintain through westward expansion was becoming tenuous enough as it was with what was annexed OTL, further annexation does not somehow make this problem go away, and a potential religious issue simply exacerbates it.

So yeah, kind of a powder keg.

 

[Japhy]

I dont see what annexing parts of Mexico has anything to do with slavery and the civil war.

Have you ever read on the topic before?

The number one, main drive for land in Mexico was to create more Slave States.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Alright, well, let’s figure out what the best point for that would be.

I should think that any scenario that allows the Republic of the Rio Grande to win its independence would eventually have them fall into the US sphere and then petition for annexation. Border skirmishes with Mexico down there would then be the catalyst for the Mexican-American War.

Either way, there's going to be a question of concern. Texas and the RRG both claim the area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.

Not really a big deal; as US territory, Congress would resolve disputes.

Er how is slavery boxed in?

RGR to the south doesn’t want slaves. Durango and Sinaloa wouldn’t, either. That just leaves the near empty land of the OTL Mexican Cession plus the new land for expansion.

How do you know president Polk wanted that much land? That map doesnt look realistic to me.

That map is totally far fetched and exaggerated. Getting Baja and the Yucutan is what Polk wanted-he didnt want 50% of Mexico.

I’ve read things to the contrary.

I dont see what annexing parts of Mexico has anything to do with slavery and the civil war.

Hoo boy...

 

[SpamBotSam]

I should think that any scenario that allows the Republic of the Rio Grande to win its independence would eventually have them fall into the US sphere and then petition for annexation. Border skirmishes with Mexico down there would then be the catalyst for the Mexican-American War.



Not really a big deal; as US territory, Congress would resolve disputes.



RGR to the south doesn’t want slaves. Durango and Sinaloa wouldn’t, either. That just leaves the near empty land of the OTL Mexican Cession plus the new land for expansion.




I’ve read things to the contrary.



Hoo boy...

Post a reliable source to support your claims about Polk.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Post a reliable source to support your claims about Polk.

Literally anything you can read about the history of the event...

Will this do?

I’m trying to find the rest of this letter, as well.

 

[Luminous]

I should think that any scenario that allows the Republic of the Rio Grande to win its independence would eventually have them fall into the US sphere and then petition for annexation. Border skirmishes with Mexico down there would then be the catalyst for the Mexican-American War.

That would be most likely. The US would be hugging the coast and refusing to move inland. Just like EU3 AI.

In all seriousness, it still comes down to how you extend it. Perhaps Santa Anna isn't injured as early in the Pastry war, and fighting continues long enough (and importantly, the blockade continues long enough) that the RRG could establish themselves. He could be injured later to have the same effect, or he could come out unscathed. If that happens, though, his efforts to return to power will have to be greater, as he used his war wound as part of creating his new image in his return to power.

Note that the US supported the French blockade, sending a token frigate to help interdict any ships trying to break it. So the US already had given France its support.

Not really a big deal; as US territory, Congress would resolve disputes

Actually, they'd enter the US as states, not territories, if they are independent and petitioning to join. It's the court's decision to adjudicate disputes between two sovereign states. Granted, I imagine that in any scenario that the Rio Grande would be granted Tampico and all territory north of the border west to Zacatecas, if that is the final eastern border line.


-

Edit: Found this in the Map Thread. It's relatively current, but it's a good map to get an idea on the distribution of Mexican urban areas.

 

[Luminous]

The creole elite of the Yucatan was in favour of US annexation, because the Mexican government was unable to protect their interests in the Yucatan. The creoles and mestizos were heavily outnumbered by the Mayans, especially in rural areas where creoles constituted around 6% of the population. The only reason they wanted this was because their situation as a dominant minority was so precarious. In addition they were seeking to expand the cultivation of agave and take indigenous lands.

Why would the Mayan insurgents support what the minority elite wanted? They would most likely see the US invaders as enemies (seeing that they were allied with the minority elites). The Mayans were largely fighting to control their own destiny and maintain their communal lands. The Spanish Crown had protected this land as communal, and left much of the social structure intact. However, in 1845 the Indians were ordered to pay taxes and cultivate their own land. In addition, prior to 1841 water rights were protected. Much of the new conflict was due to the expansion of henequen and sugar plantations. I cannot see the US government favouring the communal traditional agriculture in favour of cash crops.

In OTL, the Mexican government fought a war lasting over half a century, causing a dramatic decline in the Yucatan's population, it would not recover to 1845 levels for a century. Mexico was often plagued by internal turmoil and unable to effectively govern much of their territory though.

That is a lot of help there. Thanks for that. Do you know of any good resources for the Caste War that one can consult?

In all honesty, what would be the best in the Yucatan in this situation? How could you create a situation where the Mayans manage to create their own state separate from US/Mexico/Guatemala/UPCA/etc? The idea of the US retaining Yucatan is doubtful in the event of victory (extremely so) but perhaps the creation of a friendly ally to the south, akin to some of their plans for Cuba, would be possible?

It just comes down to finding a way for the US to side with the Mayans, or for the Mayans to get the upper hand so the US has less of a problem allying with them. ...Of course, I could have it all wrong. Just thinking.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

That would be most likely. The US would be hugging the coast and refusing to move inland. Just like EU3 AI.

In all seriousness, it still comes down to how you extend it. Perhaps Santa Anna isn't injured as early in the Pastry war, and fighting continues long enough (and importantly, the blockade continues long enough) that the RRG could establish themselves. He could be injured later to have the same effect, or he could come out unscathed. If that happens, though, his efforts to return to power will have to be greater, as he used his war wound as part of creating his new image in his return to power.

Note that the US supported the French blockade, sending a token frigate to help interdict any ships trying to break it. So the US already had given France its support.



Actually, they'd enter the US as states, not territories, if they are independent and petitioning to join. It's the court's decision to adjudicate disputes between two sovereign states. Granted, I imagine that in any scenario that the Rio Grande would be granted Tampico and all territory north of the border west to Zacatecas, if that is the final eastern border line.


-

Edit: Found this in the Map Thread. It's relatively current, but it's a good map to get an idea on the distribution of Mexican urban areas.

What time period?

 

[Viriato]

That is a lot of help there. Thanks for that. Do you know of any good resources for the Caste War that one can consult?

In all honesty, what would be the best in the Yucatan in this situation? How could you create a situation where the Mayans manage to create their own state separate from US/Mexico/Guatemala/UPCA/etc? The idea of the US retaining Yucatan is doubtful in the event of victory (extremely so) but perhaps the creation of a friendly ally to the south, akin to some of their plans for Cuba, would be possible?

It just comes down to finding a way for the US to side with the Mayans, or for the Mayans to get the upper hand so the US has less of a problem allying with them. ...Of course, I could have it all wrong. Just thinking.

There is quite a bit of literature in Spanish out there written by Mexican sources. I have my doubts about a successful Mayan state. Had the Mexican government been unable to protect the creole landed elites in Merida, they would have probably requested British or French assistance or annexation (if the US turned them down). Remember that the Caste War did spill over into British territory, with rebels initially taking asylum in the remote interior. The war could have become much worse, and caused the Legislative Assembly in Belize (dominated by merchants and landowners) to request for British troops to quell the rebellion. Keep in mind that these would most likely be blacks from coastal British Honduras and Jamaicans under British officers and therefore more acclimatized to tropical conditions.

The US could complain about the Monroe Doctrine, but at the time the Royal Navy makes that a moot point. The British could have annexed the area at the behest of the elites in Merida, alternately, the British can simply create a client state, by providing aid to the Yucatan Republic.

In OTL, by the 1850s Mayan rebels initially fled to British territory, establishing themselves in various villages and replicating their communal lifestyle. However, by the 1860s, logging in the region, mostly for mahogany increased, causing their situation to once again be precarious. This led to the Mayans in British Honduras taking loggers captive in 1867, and forcing British troops to intervene. Within a year, the British had destroyed the Mayan villages. However, they returned a year later and fighting continued until 1872. The British were largely successful in their pacification of the group, simply because they relied on colonial troops and did not face the constant instability that Mexico's central government did.

For those going on about how Mexican creoles and mestizos would be against slavery simply because of the Mexican constitution being against slavery, look a little closer at the forced labour imposed upon indigenous groups in Mexico and Guatemala into the twentieth century. Mayans fled from Guatemala to British Honduras in the 1880s and 1890s to flee forced labour in the coffee plantations there. In the Yucatan, forced labour was present under the sisal boom of 1900s and 1910s.

I doubt the US would ally with the Mayan rebels, because they offer nothing to the Americans. The creole elites on the other hand offer the promise of a source of raw materials for the expanding American economy.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Actually, they'd enter the US as states, not territories, if they are independent and petitioning to join. It’s the court’s decision to adjudicate disputes between two sovereign states.

Ah, but as with the foundation of the country, the states can cede their claims to the federal government in exchange for the assumption of debt. As the latter would happen by default, the former would be assumed. Then Congress would determine the border between the states.

Edit: Found this in the Map Thread. It's relatively current, but it's a good map to get an idea on the distribution of Mexican urban areas.

What time period?

That’s the key here. The north–particularly out west and certainly all of north Baja–wasn’t really populated until the Mexican Cession.

Baja California in 1850 (the entire peninsula together, not as two states as right now) had ~12,000. Chihuahua, ~200,000. Sonora, ~139,000. If you add Durango and Sinaloa, they were ~162,000 and ~160,000, respectively.

Consider, then, a timeline where the Rio Grande Republic joins of its own volition (and fights for the US in the subsequent Mexican-American War), the above would be the potential “hostile” population, in addition to the territories further north. Less than three quarters of a million, and nowhere near all of them would be hostile. Consider the US in 1850 had upwards of 23 million, population doesn’t really seem a concern here.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Ah, but as with the foundation of the country, the states can cede their claims to the federal government in exchange for the assumption of debt. As the latter would happen by default, the former would be assumed. Then Congress would determine the border between the states.





That’s the key here. The north–particularly out west and certainly all of north Baja–wasn’t really populated until the Mexican Cession.

Baja California in 1850 (the entire peninsula together, not as two states as right now) had ~12,000. Chihuahua, ~200,000. Sonora, ~139,000. If you add Durango and Sinaloa, they were ~162,000 and ~160,000, respectively.

Consider, then, a timeline where the Rio Grande Republic joins of its own volition (and fights for the US in the subsequent Mexican-American War), the above would be the potential “hostile” population, in addition to the territories further north. Less than three quarters of a million, and nowhere near all of them would be hostile. Consider the US in 1850 had upwards of 23 million, population doesn’t really seem a concern here.

Would all of northern Mexico acquiesce to American rule? I imagine that the southern areas of the northern ones wouldn't.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Would all of northern Mexico acquiesce to American rule? I imagine that the southern areas of the northern ones wouldn't.

Depends. The country had already fallen to the US in the war. Even in a scenario in which the RGR hadn’t become a state early, I don’t really see how taking more of the northern land would have created more unrest than OTL’s land did, particularly since there were provisions made to respect the people and property living in the Cession OTL anyway.

If there would be anything organized, it’d probably only be in southern Durango and Sinaloa until we got a fort or two down there, yeah? Border skirmishes for a while, maybe, but everything would settle down eventually, as OTL.

I wonder if it wouldn’t stop entirely when Dixie secedes... Free peoples banding together to stop the evil of slavery, etc.

 

[Luminous]

What time period?

About 5 years ago, thereabouts.

There is quite a bit of literature in Spanish out there written by Mexican sources. I have my doubts about a successful Mayan state. Had the Mexican government been unable to protect the creole landed elites in Merida, they would have probably requested British or French assistance or annexation (if the US turned them down). Remember that the Caste War did spill over into British territory, with rebels initially taking asylum in the remote interior. The war could have become much worse, and caused the Legislative Assembly in Belize (dominated by merchants and landowners) to request for British troops to quell the rebellion. Keep in mind that these would most likely be blacks from coastal British Honduras and Jamaicans under British officers and therefore more acclimatized to tropical conditions.

The US could complain about the Monroe Doctrine, but at the time the Royal Navy makes that a moot point. The British could have annexed the area at the behest of the elites in Merida, alternately, the British can simply create a client state, by providing aid to the Yucatan Republic.

In OTL, by the 1850s Mayan rebels initially fled to British territory, establishing themselves in various villages and replicating their communal lifestyle. However, by the 1860s, logging in the region, mostly for mahogany increased, causing their situation to once again be precarious. This led to the Mayans in British Honduras taking loggers captive in 1867, and forcing British troops to intervene. Within a year, the British had destroyed the Mayan villages. However, they returned a year later and fighting continued until 1872. The British were largely successful in their pacification of the group, simply because they relied on colonial troops and did not face the constant instability that Mexico's central government did.

For those going on about how Mexican creoles and mestizos would be against slavery simply because of the Mexican constitution being against slavery, look a little closer at the forced labour imposed upon indigenous groups in Mexico and Guatemala into the twentieth century. Mayans fled from Guatemala to British Honduras in the 1880s and 1890s to flee forced labour in the coffee plantations there. In the Yucatan, forced labour was present under the sisal boom of 1900s and 1910s.

I doubt the US would ally with the Mayan rebels, because they offer nothing to the Americans. The creole elites on the other hand offer the promise of a source of raw materials for the expanding American economy.

Thanks. I remember seeing that about the Mayans' troubles with British Honduras. The slavery doesn't surprise me, as a more rigid caste system would only seem to engender such a thing.

And that's the key point. You'd need the Mayans to have full control over the state, which would necessitate them winning the Caste War before Mexico can reassert its authority, which would be... difficult at best. It seems like the realistic option, assuming enforced independence of the Yucatan by the treaty, would be a failed state ruled by warfare until one of the local powers steps in to enforce order, be it the US or GB, or someone else. At least, that's all I can see.

Ah, but as with the foundation of the country, the states can cede their claims to the federal government in exchange for the assumption of debt. As the latter would happen by default, the former would be assumed. Then Congress would determine the border between the states.

-

That’s the key here. The north–particularly out west and certainly all of north Baja–wasn’t really populated until the Mexican Cession.

Baja California in 1850 (the entire peninsula together, not as two states as right now) had ~12,000. Chihuahua, ~200,000. Sonora, ~139,000. If you add Durango and Sinaloa, they were ~162,000 and ~160,000, respectively.

Consider, then, a timeline where the Rio Grande Republic joins of its own volition (and fights for the US in the subsequent Mexican-American War), the above would be the potential “hostile” population, in addition to the territories further north. Less than three quarters of a million, and nowhere near all of them would be hostile. Consider the US in 1850 had upwards of 23 million, population doesn’t really seem a concern here.

Touché on that first point! That would be part of the compromise between the two states, as they are going to sell land to the federal government anyway so that the feds take on their debts. I imagine that the borders of the Rio Grande get moved south to compensate them losing the strip, as the Union would be interested in the Anglo-dominant Texas retaining a large deal of land.

As for the point on the states, you've left out Zacatecas. As the last state to rebel against Mexico aside from the others mentioned (albeit in 1835) there might be enough sentiment there for them to join or to become more rebellious in the event of a surviving RRG. That, plus the RRG claims the state, so it'd have to be on the table in that scenario.

Baja's population isn't much to worry about. Sonora and Chihuahua probably have large populations of natives in that number. Do you have a breakdown? The natives weren't all Spanish-speaking yet, so while the language barrier is still present, it's multifaceted. That leaves Sinaloa, Durango, and Zacatecas for our purposes of large Spanish-speaking Catholic populations.

It also depends on where the border would be drawn. Say the conditions are this. The RRG joins about the same time Texas did, the border between the two is not settled. Border skirmishes eventually erupt into full-fledged violence and war between the two states about the same time as OTL. The results are about the same as OTL, barring small butterflies, but with the Yucatan rulers asking for annexation earlier, possibly due to being independent longer thanks to the breakdown in Mexican rule.

What would be the initial starting position for the US, what would be the maximum, (reasonable. not complete annexation) and what seems to be the most likely compromise between the two sides in that scenario?

 

[Tallest Skil]

As for the point on the states, you've left out Zacatecas. As the last state to rebel against Mexico aside from the others mentioned (albeit in 1835) there might be enough sentiment there for them to join or to become more rebellious in the event of a surviving RRG. That, plus the RRG claims the state, so it’d have to be on the table in that scenario.

Interesting. If nothing else, we could probably count them out as being rebellious in a ‘history proceeds as normal but the US takes more land’ scenario.

Sonora and Chihuahua probably have large populations of natives in that number. Do you have a breakdown?

Not off-hand, but I can look for one. Would the natives have been counted in official censuses?

What would be the initial starting position for the US, what would be the maximum, (reasonable. not complete annexation) and what seems to be the most likely compromise between the two sides in that scenario?

Hmm. Say Texas and RGR get independence at roughly the same time, the former asking for annexation and receiving it. Even with Mexico not recognizing US annexation, there’s no good access to a border over which they can skirmish, so that in itself doesn’t spark anything. But RGR would be plagued with it, yeah? Maybe Mexican refusal to acknowledge their sovereignty, coupled with positive sentiment from Texas, pushes them to accede to the Union. Then Mexico absolutely loses their marbles, refuses to acknowledge this as well, and then it’s incursions onto US soil, starting the war.

In a scenario with a surviving RGR, would Zacatecas (I don’t figure it would get independence) still harbor enough resentment toward Mexico those few years down the road to be supportive of the US in the Mexican-American War and want annexation (or at least independence from Mexico)? If so, I’d say the maximum would be the border states, Sinaloa, Durango, and Zacatecas. If not, I’d drop Zacatecas. Beyond that is untenable.

I wouldn’t touch the Yucatan, but that’s me.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Of course the U.S. Could establish Yucatan as a protectorate. A smaller Mexico, on the other hand, would allow Mexican troops to defeat more rebellions being smaller to manage.

 

[Viriato]

In terms of contemporary 19th century thinking, the Yucatan would be the most valuable prize, as much of the areas proposed here are largely considered arid wastelands, like the Great American Desert was.

However, the Yucatan would resemble a colony more than a territory or a state. The Mayans could be "pacified" to use a 19th century word that often equates with genocide. The British did this in their colony relatively quickly and efficiently by utilising troops of African descent, and also by destroying villages, sources of food and provisions. Finally, the survivors were placed into reservations where they could continue living a communal lifestyle under the auspices of the British Crown.

I imagine that the Americans to be successful would have to utilise local troops and have a scorched earth policy. They would destroy villages and force the Mayans onto shirking reservations as well. Also, until Porfirio Diaz came to power, arms and munitions for the Maya came largely from British Honduras, allowing the rebellion to last as long as it did. The British clamped down on this once British investments in Mexico were seen as far more important than extending their influence over the Yucatan. Seeing as British investments in the United States were already important at the time, the British government would most likely not want to provoke a diplomatic crisis over the Yucatan and ban merchants from Belize from selling munitions to the Mayans.

Once this was accomplished, I imagine a battle over whether or not this territory would allow slavery would ensue. I can't see many Americans settling in the territory, however a small number may begin to acquire land for plantations, perhaps bringing slaves with them from places like New Orleans. As for European immigrants, I imagine you may get French businessmen in small numbers like California and much of Latin America did after 1848. However, I cannot see this area being more than 10% Anglo-American by 1860, with the majority probably residing in Merida.

 

[Luminous]

In terms of contemporary 19th century thinking, the Yucatan would be the most valuable prize, as much of the areas proposed here are largely considered arid wastelands, like the Great American Desert was.

However, the Yucatan would resemble a colony more than a territory or a state. The Mayans could be "pacified" to use a 19th century word that often equates with genocide. The British did this in their colony relatively quickly and efficiently by utilising troops of African descent, and also by destroying villages, sources of food and provisions. Finally, the survivors were placed into reservations where they could continue living a communal lifestyle under the auspices of the British Crown.

I imagine that the Americans to be successful would have to utilise local troops and have a scorched earth policy. They would destroy villages and force the Mayans onto shirking reservations as well. Also, until Porfirio Diaz came to power, arms and munitions for the Maya came largely from British Honduras, allowing the rebellion to last as long as it did. The British clamped down on this once British investments in Mexico were seen as far more important than extending their influence over the Yucatan. Seeing as British investments in the United States were already important at the time, the British government would most likely not want to provoke a diplomatic crisis over the Yucatan and ban merchants from Belize from selling munitions to the Mayans.

Once this was accomplished, I imagine a battle over whether or not this territory would allow slavery would ensue. I can't see many Americans settling in the territory, however a small number may begin to acquire land for plantations, perhaps bringing slaves with them from places like New Orleans. As for European immigrants, I imagine you may get French businessmen in small numbers like California and much of Latin America did after 1848. However, I cannot see this area being more than 10% Anglo-American by 1860, with the majority probably residing in Merida.

That I can see. It is the most resource rich, and has a lot more immediate potential for wealth.

Without the arms trade from British Honduras, the rebellion would lose a lot of its teeth, especially as the arms trade would end so much sooner. I almost think that a lot of the Mestizos might leave for California once the gold rush begins, with them being replaced from settlers from the South. Considering that the natives wouldn't farm the land as they desired, they would probably bring slaves as well. Considering the population of Mayans are still so large, they'd be lucky to have 10% total by the time of the Civil War. Maybe if you count slaves on top of everything else, you'd end up with 10%.

They would probably have to allow slavery, as the Caste system did allow for practices nearly as bad, and for the number of free territories in the new south. The practice would be extended, and it would probably be kept to the coastal cities that are inhabited by the elites as before.

So, what comes of the Yucatan as of the Civil War? With the country fighting itself, would the Mayans rise up once more? Or would they wait for an opportune moment and declare for a side?

As an idle thought: I wonder how things might go if the Yucatan stays with the US until the Egyptian craze a few decades later. The US would have a few pyramids of their own, and the public might become enamored with "their" pyramids.