How Far the U.S. Would Have Annexed Mexico

[Luminous]

And in the vein of things, I have my map here.

General gist is that the Rio Grande joined the US after repeated provocation by Mexico and their inability to defend their borders adequately. The Mexican-American war comes around due to repeated Mexican attempts to subjugate their soil - not recognizing the Rio Grande's independence - and the results are similar to OTL.

Since the border is already further south than OTL, the US's initial demands are harsher. All of California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, and Sonora are not disputable. From there, the US presses hard, spurred on by the Rio Grande's desire to reclaim all of their disputed territory.

Sinaloa and Durango eventually are taken before any partitions are made. A small piece of Jalisco (modern Nayarit) is hewn off and given to Sinaloa (in particular, the northern piece between Sinaloa and Durango. Think of a straight line due east from the southernmost portion of Sinaloa. The border continues up Zacatecas until it reaches three miles south of the city center of Fresnillo. Zacatecas is then partitioned, with everything north of the line going to the US, and everything south staying with Mexico (most importantly, Zacatecas city itself stays Mexican)

Then, on the eastern side, the border follows Zacatecas's border until it reaches three miles south of the city center of San Luis Potosí. From there, the border runs on a straight line all the way towards the coast. (Here, San Luis Potosí remains in the US instead)

Later on, the Nueces dispute is resolved in favor of Texas. As compensation, Rio Grande is given all partitioned land that it borders, which it doesn't sell to the US for the country to take on its debts.

And... Here is the map before said sale. You can see if it is off the walls or not. It's about what we've discussed the whole time, though.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

And in the vein of things, I have my map here.

General gist is that the Rio Grande joined the US after repeated provocation by Mexico and their inability to defend their borders adequately. The Mexican-American war comes around due to repeated Mexican attempts to subjugate their soil - not recognizing the Rio Grande's independence - and the results are similar to OTL.

Since the border is already further south than OTL, the US's initial demands are harsher. All of California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, and Sonora are not disputable. From there, the US presses hard, spurred on by the Rio Grande's desire to reclaim all of their disputed territory.

Sinaloa and Durango eventually are taken before any partitions are made. A small piece of Jalisco (modern Nayarit) is hewn off and given to Sinaloa (in particular, the northern piece between Sinaloa and Durango. Think of a straight line due east from the southernmost portion of Sinaloa. The border continues up Zacatecas until it reaches three miles south of the city center of Fresnillo. Zacatecas is then partitioned, with everything north of the line going to the US, and everything south staying with Mexico (most importantly, Zacatecas city itself stays Mexican)

Then, on the eastern side, the border follows Zacatecas's border until it reaches three miles south of the city center of San Luis Potosí. From there, the border runs on a straight line all the way towards the coast. (Here, San Luis Potosí remains in the US instead)

Later on, the Nueces dispute is resolved in favor of Texas. As compensation, Rio Grande is given all partitioned land that it borders, which it doesn't sell to the US for the country to take on its debts.

And... Here is the map before said sale. You can see if it is off the walls or not. It's about what we've discussed the whole time, though.

I love your map-making skills Luminious. In my opinion, however, even if this is the proposal Congress comes up with it may not get through the Northern States because of the issue of slavery. Whether or not U.S. Politicians were aware of anti-slavery sentiment in Mexico is probably not known.

So if the U.S. Had Canada the Northern states would let the a South have free-reign.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Mexico's population would be way smaller than OTL, and due to its small size the French might have its chance.

 

[Tallest Skil]

As compensation, Rio Grande is given all partitioned land that it borders, which it doesn't sell to the US for the country to take on its debts.

And... Here is the map before said sale.

Did you mean “does sell”? Because it and Texas obviously wouldn’t be that big.

And in this scenario, here’s roughly where slavery could expand. Granted, the Civil War would happen before it had all been partitioned, much less states.

Mexico's population would be way smaller than OTL, and due to its small size the French might have its chance.

Then again, the US still wouldn’t accept French interference and Mexico would have even stronger ties to us than OTL.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Did you mean “does sell”? Because it and Texas obviously wouldn’t be that big.

And in this scenario, here’s roughly where slavery could expand. Granted, the Civil War would happen before it had all been partitioned, much less states.

Then again, the US still wouldn’t accept French interference and Mexico would have even stronger ties to us than OTL.

The U.S. Could have taken more of Mexico, up to the 21st parallel and the two provinces that border the Gulf of Mexico. Northern Mexico would acquiesce to U.S. Rule, but the southern portions would take years to accept U.S. acceptance.

Texas would probably stay in the Union since it would be surrounded by Union territories.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

And in the vein of things, I have my map here.

General gist is that the Rio Grande joined the US after repeated provocation by Mexico and their inability to defend their borders adequately. The Mexican-American war comes around due to repeated Mexican attempts to subjugate their soil - not recognizing the Rio Grande's independence - and the results are similar to OTL.

Since the border is already further south than OTL, the US's initial demands are harsher. All of California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, and Sonora are not disputable. From there, the US presses hard, spurred on by the Rio Grande's desire to reclaim all of their disputed territory.

Sinaloa and Durango eventually are taken before any partitions are made. A small piece of Jalisco (modern Nayarit) is hewn off and given to Sinaloa (in particular, the northern piece between Sinaloa and Durango. Think of a straight line due east from the southernmost portion of Sinaloa. The border continues up Zacatecas until it reaches three miles south of the city center of Fresnillo. Zacatecas is then partitioned, with everything north of the line going to the US, and everything south staying with Mexico (most importantly, Zacatecas city itself stays Mexican)

Then, on the eastern side, the border follows Zacatecas's border until it reaches three miles south of the city center of San Luis Potosí. From there, the border runs on a straight line all the way towards the coast. (Here, San Luis Potosí remains in the US instead)

Later on, the Nueces dispute is resolved in favor of Texas. As compensation, Rio Grande is given all partitioned land that it borders, which it doesn't sell to the US for the country to take on its debts.

And... Here is the map before said sale. You can see if it is off the walls or not. It's about what we've discussed the whole time, though.

How did Central America get that small part of Mexico?

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

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.

Freed African Americans could immigrate to Yucatan as well.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

If Mexico is under stronger French occupation and U.S. liberates it, could Mexico be a protectorate of the U.S. for how long?

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Taking more of Mexico would allow greater American influence in Central America. They could even become states.

 

[Luminous]

Taking more of Mexico would allow greater American influence in Central America. They could even become states.

Why would they? There was a lot of American influence in Central America OTL (United Fruit Company?) They hardly wanted to unite then. They wouldn't now.

It might actually make them unite once more, or at least form a closer association. They wouldn't be cowed as much by Mexico, assuredly. It depends on how Guatemala treats the rest of the countries.

The only thing that might happen is that the US keeps the Canal they build, whether it's Nicaragua or Panama, even assuming they build it.

If Mexico is under stronger French occupation and U.S. liberates it, could Mexico be a protectorate of the U.S. for how long?

I don't think the US would want to pick a fight with France just after they come off the Crimean War, and the US off the Civil War. Besides, the French Invasion might not even happen.

Freed African Americans could immigrate to Yucatan as well.

More likely it would be slaves that could later be freed. Unless you meant the free blacks that owned slaves?

How did Central America get that small part of Mexico?

It was claimed by Guatemala (formerly by the UPCA/UPSA/FRCA) until Santa Anna forcibly annexed it in 1842.

I left it as it wasn't of import to this part, but perhaps with the Pastry war extending longer, Santa Anna does not have the time to go out of the way to annex a corner of land in the southern part of the country, as he's too busy trying to get the Rio Grande back.

The U.S. Could have taken more of Mexico, up to the 21st parallel and the two provinces that border the Gulf of Mexico. Northern Mexico would acquiesce to U.S. Rule, but the southern portions would take years to accept U.S. acceptance.

Texas would probably stay in the Union since it would be surrounded by Union territories.

They could have, but there was enough political fallout from annexing as much as it did OTL. The basic thought was as OTL. Claim the disputed land and as much to the west. Just this time there is the Rio Grande in the union as well as Texas. As such, they claim disputed lands and adjoining territories.

Why stop at the 21st parallel, if we're arbitrarily picking lines?

Did you mean “does sell”? Because it and Texas obviously wouldn’t be that big.

And in this scenario, here’s roughly where slavery could expand. Granted, the Civil War would happen before it had all been partitioned, much less states.

Then again, the US still wouldn’t accept French interference and Mexico would have even stronger ties to us than OTL.

That I did. My bad. the lines look good for general zones, although you bet there will be settlers from both sides settling in areas they're not supposed to. Should I put together one for a potential Civil War? What year do you think it would start?

If there is an earlier Civil War, wouldn't the French still be caught up in the Crimean War or its aftereffects? By the time the French would be able to go and attack Mexico, the war might be over/nearly over.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

The French could always invade earlier, and also if the U.S. Had Canada more of Mexico would have been taken.

 

[Luminous]

The French could always invade earlier, and also if the U.S. Had Canada more of Mexico would have been taken.

But the US doesn't have Canada.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

But the US doesn't have Canada.

That can be a POD for why the U.S. Took so much of Mexico.

 

[Tallest Skil]

How did Central America get that small part of Mexico?

Chiapas voted to become part of the UPCA, I believe.

If Mexico is under stronger French occupation and U.S. liberates it, could Mexico be a protectorate of the U.S. for how long?

Depending on the timing, I would say only as long as it takes to kick the French out, no more.

Taking more of Mexico would allow greater American influence in Central America. They could even become states.

Why would they?

Same reason El Salvador asked for annexation OTL, maybe?

The only thing that might happen is that the US keeps the Canal they build, whether it's Nicaragua or Panama, even assuming they build it.

This is a certainty. Of course we build it; a canal between the Americas is too important not to build. We may even build both.

Should I put together one for a potential Civil War? What year do you think it would start?

Put together potential state and territory divisions, you mean? I see at least the California/Colorado split on the west coast. Perhaps Sonora Territory keeps its border at the Gila River. If so, Chihuahua tops off at around the same height with a single territory (New Mexico?) above them both. Maybe splitting into two when the South gets desperate.

That can be a POD for why the U.S. Took so much of Mexico.

But we’ve already established that the primary territory agreed upon in this thread was what he already wanted and WOULD have received had Trist been killed in an “unfortunate” accident. True, a successful assertion of claim on Columbia would have been greater “balance” to southern gains, but it’s not necessary.

Having said that, I support not “54º40’ or Fight!” but “54º40’; here’s some money for your war, I just need you to sign right here to revoke your claim to the land, thanks for doing business with you”.

 

[Luminous]

Chiapas voted to become part of the UPCA, I believe.

Depending on the timing, I would say only as long as it takes to kick the French out, no more.

Same reason El Salvador asked for annexation OTL, maybe?

This is a certainty. Of course we build it; a canal between the Americas is too important not to build. We may even build both.

Put together potential state and territory divisions, you mean? I see at least the California/Colorado split on the west coast. Perhaps Sonora Territory keeps its border at the Gila River. If so, Chihuahua tops off at around the same height with a single territory (New Mexico?) above them both. Maybe splitting into two when the South gets desperate.

But we’ve already established that the primary territory agreed upon in this thread was what he already wanted and WOULD have received had Trist been killed in an “unfortunate” accident. True, a successful assertion of claim on Columbia would have been greater “balance” to southern gains, but it’s not necessary.

Having said that, I support not “54º40’ or Fight!” but “54º40’; here’s some money for your war, I just need you to sign right here to revoke your claim to the land, thanks for doing business with you”.

I had forgotten how they had gotten in. Thanks for reminding. I had thought they had been in the UPCA from the start.

Again, earlier Civil War, the Crimean War is still going on. France may not have the window of opportunity to remain. They will still probably invade with Spain and GB, but if the US gets itself together by the time that is going on, France probably will have a hard time staying. The establishment of a new European Dominion in the New World is something the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed to prevent.

(This is regardless of whether the US has the will or the strength to back up the doctrine)

I... Did not know that one. I knew about the Sicilian vote, but not El Salvador. Thanks. Considering what I've seen, if Mexico is weaker (and gets invaded as per OTL) they may not be able to invade into Central America. Or, butterflies flap and revanchism sets into Mexico, and they head south to make up the losses.

I would imagine the US would, but, again, butterflies. One thing that I would find interesting, perhaps, if both canals are built and Costa Rica manages to join in. The US somehow acquiring the land west of the Panama Canal, and having that territory along with the two canal territories joined with Costa Rica. That might be enough of an incentive to tempt Costa Rica into joining. Revenue for the Panama Canal in 2009 was about 2 billion dollars with only 600 million in costs, which would be a nice addition, especially if compounded with a Nicaragua Canal.

The thing is, if the US had more northern territory, the slave states would want the Mason-Dixon pushed further north. Here, there are 3 more potential slave states and 3 more potential free states, so they come out even. If the free states got Columbia/New Caledonia/Vancouver, another one would have been pushed further north.

-

As it is, here is the map. I had forgot Wisconsin in the last map. My bad on that. In the south, Durango and Sinaloa stay as separate territories due to population, while Sonora/Chihuahua are merged. The Rio Grande gains the partitioned southern territories it borders. All borders in the north are as per OTL, save for California/Colorado. The only major difference is that Sonora (currently) has the Gila River as a border, while the New Mexico Territory has access to the sea. Looks like there will be some oceanfront property in Arizona.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

If both canals are built, it could also cause revenue for the Panama one to drop, and the influence in both countries could always be uneven depending which canal is preferred.

The USA Mexican population would be larger since the U.S. annexes more land. Could there be a Mexican Civil Rights Movement around the 20th Century?

Regarding to Canada, that can always be just a POD like the ambassador death or 54'40. Not like something is wrong with your suggestions, I think they are cool. I mean, an American acanada could lead to an American North America.

Regarding to the French invasion, if the U.S. does kick them or any Europeans out, Mexico and the U.S. could forget it's hostilities and would work together. They may not be the best of allies, but at least Mexico would be grateful for the USA stopping the Europeans.

 

[B_Munro]

Mexico's population would be way smaller than OTL, and due to its small size the French might have its chance.

Nah, most of the population is in the southern states at this time [1]. In 1850 this is a loss of less than a third of the population of Mexico.

[1] They still tend to be more populous today, due to so much of the north being desert and so on.

 

[Luminous]

If both canals are built, it could also cause revenue for the Panama one to drop, and the influence in both countries could always be uneven depending which canal is preferred.

The USA Mexican population would be larger since the U.S. annexes more land. Could there be a Mexican Civil Rights Movement around the 20th Century?

Regarding to Canada, that can always be just a POD like the ambassador death or 54'40. Not like something is wrong with your suggestions, I think they are cool. I mean, an American acanada could lead to an American North America.

Regarding to the French invasion, if the U.S. does kick them or any Europeans out, Mexico and the U.S. could forget it's hostilities and would work together. They may not be the best of allies, but at least Mexico would be grateful for the USA stopping the Europeans.

Well, since the US would own both the canals for a hundred years at least (leases) they wouldn't care about the profit. By having two canals, they can move equipment and military personnel more quickly. However, there probably only would be one built.

And the amusing idea was for the US to simply buy the western half of the Panamanian isthmus for that canal, have both built (maybe have competing canal companies to see which one could be done cheaper and for less cost?) and then Costa Rica joins, and have both of the canals and West Panama integrated into Costa Rica. The borders would be pretty, at least. That's the only reason I mention it.

There always could be a POD. I mentioned one earlier with the settlement of Rupert's Land. I don't think it would happen, as Great Britain would most certainly go out of its way to hold on to every territory.

Although, the developments in Mexico would certainly cause anxiety in the Great White North. I'm particularly fond of an independent Maritimes, possibly united with Newfoundland, with Ontario and Quebec forming Canada proper. Remember, though, that whenever mineral resources were discovered in Canada, Great Britain split that land off into a separate territory simply so that the Americans wouldn't move in and claim the land on their own.

In OTL, Canada complained about a lot of Great Britain's deals with the US, as they thought they were siding with the Americans too much. Great Britain may try to turn the US's eyes south towards the Caribbean and towards Spanish territory. (see Ostend Manifesto) Perhaps the US could look west towards the Pacific or east towards Africa. There's no telling what might happen. As it is, though, I don't see how the US could get much more territory towards the north, save perhaps a strip of land to connect to the US territory that is an exclave north of the current border.

As to Mexico, they lost a large part of their land, but they kept over 80% of their population. It really won't be easily subjugated. Even with simply those states, I believe that Mexico would still have about 100 million people, with OTL rates of growth.

In any case, it's not whether France can do it, it's simply whether or not France will have the window of opportunity to invade. This Mexico will probably never be friendly, as they are going to be boxed in on three borders, one with the US, one with Yucatan (US or not) and one with Central America, which may end up stronger. I don't see an alliance. I see an isolationist state which will be a problem for the US for decades, if not more. (They may invade during the Civil War to try and reclaim some land)

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Well, since the US would own both the canals for a hundred years at least (leases) they wouldn't care about the profit. By having two canals, they can move equipment and military personnel more quickly. However, there probably only would be one built.

And the amusing idea was for the US to simply buy the western half of the Panamanian isthmus for that canal, have both built (maybe have competing canal companies to see which one could be done cheaper and for less cost?) and then Costa Rica joins, and have both of the canals and West Panama integrated into Costa Rica. The borders would be pretty, at least. That's the only reason I mention it.

There always could be a POD. I mentioned one earlier with the settlement of Rupert's Land. I don't think it would happen, as Great Britain would most certainly go out of its way to hold on to every territory.

Although, the developments in Mexico would certainly cause anxiety in the Great White North. I'm particularly fond of an independent Maritimes, possibly united with Newfoundland, with Ontario and Quebec forming Canada proper. Remember, though, that whenever mineral resources were discovered in Canada, Great Britain split that land off into a separate territory simply so that the Americans wouldn't move in and claim the land on their own.

In OTL, Canada complained about a lot of Great Britain's deals with the US, as they thought they were siding with the Americans too much. Great Britain may try to turn the US's eyes south towards the Caribbean and towards Spanish territory. (see Ostend Manifesto) Perhaps the US could look west towards the Pacific or east towards Africa. There's no telling what might happen. As it is, though, I don't see how the US could get much more territory towards the north, save perhaps a strip of land to connect to the US territory that is an exclave north of the current border.

As to Mexico, they lost a large part of their land, but they kept over 80% of their population. It really won't be easily subjugated. Even with simply those states, I believe that Mexico would still have about 100 million people, with OTL rates of growth.

In any case, it's not whether France can do it, it's simply whether or not France will have the window of opportunity to invade. This Mexico will probably never be friendly, as they are going to be boxed in on three borders, one with the US, one with Yucatan (US or not) and one with Central America, which may end up stronger. I don't see an alliance. I see an isolationist state which will be a problem for the US for decades, if not more. (They may invade during the Civil War to try and reclaim some land)

The canals as well as the country's close proximity to the region could possibly allow the U.S. to take increasing control of Central America. Maybe even become states?

Quebec and Nova Scotia could rebel against the British, allowing all of Canada to secede. I mean, who would settle the Hudson Bay anyways? That does not really look appealing when you think about it. The Oregon Territory and Western Canada would be pretty hard for the British to explore.

After this ATL Mexican-American War, I bet Mexico would try to at least annex Guatemala to compensate for its loss of land. Maybe even the whole country if lucky.

I wonder if there would be a Scotland-uniting-with-England-like scenario for Mexico and the USA. Is it feasible if the French were more successful in Mexico assuming they do get their chance? If France doesn't try to take all of Mexico, Britain and Spain would still be involved in Mexico.

If USA does take the Gulf of Mexico Coast from Mexico though, I wonder how the European intervention might be different.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Would immigration for Mexicans be easier since the population centers are now closer to the American border?