The U.S. would be able to gain the way to the pink states shown in my previous map without any major issues.
How Far the U.S. Would Have Annexed Mexico
- Thread starter TickTock The Witch's Dead
- Start date
The only way we can make a productive discussion out of this thread is by first acknowledging that the whole thing will inevitably fall apart and then go from there. Without all the masturbatory Ameriwankism, its in fact a pretty interesting question with strong untapped potential.
TFSmith121
Banned
When did the US annex Greenland or Okinawa?
Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland was always recognized as de jure, even during WW II; Okinawa was (essentially) a trusteeship agreement between Japan and the US as an element of the Japanese surrender to (nominally) the United Nations (as in the WW II allies).
As far as the larger question, again 7 million Spanish-speaking Catholics would not go gently into that good night (metaphorically speaking) and there was no appetite in the US for trying to force them to...
Again, about the closest anything might have come is the Winfield Scott "receivership" concept, and even that was still-born.
Just sort of surprised this one keep ticking over, but oh well. The current ZEELOWE one on post-1900 is up past a dozen pages or more.
Best,
Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland was always recognized as de jure, even during WW II; Okinawa was (essentially) a trusteeship agreement between Japan and the US as an element of the Japanese surrender to (nominally) the United Nations (as in the WW II allies).
As far as the larger question, again 7 million Spanish-speaking Catholics would not go gently into that good night (metaphorically speaking) and there was no appetite in the US for trying to force them to...
Again, about the closest anything might have come is the Winfield Scott "receivership" concept, and even that was still-born.
Just sort of surprised this one keep ticking over, but oh well. The current ZEELOWE one on post-1900 is up past a dozen pages or more.
Best,
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Not necessarily. If the United States limits itself to only taking territory sparsely populated desert regions of northern Mexico*, which is basically what it did in OTL, then it's very likely that the country will remain stable.
But we all more or less agree that massive expansion (taking the Yucatan or, god forbid, the whole country) would be a disaster.
*Baja, Sonora, Chihuaha, Coahuila
No. Too many Mexicans for the US to handle.
Blue=OTL
Green=Can be annexed with only minor problems
Orange=Can be annexed with a major problem or two, but far from impossible
Red=NOPE NOPE NOPE
Last edited:
But the Maya aren't white, ergo, they'd be slaughtered by the superior U.S. forces. Even though by that logic the Mexicans would have been far successful against them.
I have to admit that I find the idea of a failed US attempt to annex the Yucatan to be intriguing. A salutary lesson in failed imperialism during the mid-nineteenth century would be interesting to explore. It would require a rather different political culture in the USA for them to be interested in sticking a finger in that meat grinder, though.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
>Be Federalist USA
>Go to war with Napoleonic France in 1798 and ally with Britain
>Take the Louisiana Territory
>Keep it after the war
>Go to war with Mexico 20-30 years later
>Win
>Manifest Destiny, baby
>Decide to annex the Yucatan
>Colonial quagmire begins
>mfw
Do you think it'd change the attitudes of some American politicians about intervening in Latin America?
Waited 'till we got to page 3 to post this.
Both of these, pretty much. It honestly doesn't really matter all that much how determined the Americans might be; even the Yucatan by itself would be a pain in the ass, and that's if some sympathetic foreign power didn't decide to start some at least covert intercession on their behalf(depending on the situation). To be fair, it could be theoretically possible under the right conditions, but even then, the Yucatan alone could take something on the order of 20-30 years to just sufficiently subdue, and that's assuming a rather modest insurgency of maybe 50,000 persons or so.
Both of these, pretty much. It honestly doesn't really matter all that much how determined the Americans might be; even the Yucatan by itself would be a pain in the ass, and that's if some sympathetic foreign power didn't decide to start some at least covert intercession on their behalf(depending on the situation). To be fair, it could be theoretically possible under the right conditions, but even then, the Yucatan alone could take something on the order of 20-30 years to just sufficiently subdue, and that's assuming a rather modest insurgency of maybe 50,000 persons or so.
Even if we had a TL where the American Army is occupying larger swathes of Mexico OTL, which is unlikely, I'd like to bring up a point not yet mentioned here:
Comanche, and Apache
With an over-stretched American military, it's going to be all the more beneficial to the plains tribes, particularly those in the Southwest who, though they won't have a border to hide behind any more, will find they don't need one, because the American military is tied up trying to suppress the inevitable Mexican rebellion against them. This could push American projections of power even further back that they were when the Mexican-American War even started. Sure, on the map the USA might look more impressive, but it would be a house of cards waiting to topple over.
Comanche, and Apache
With an over-stretched American military, it's going to be all the more beneficial to the plains tribes, particularly those in the Southwest who, though they won't have a border to hide behind any more, will find they don't need one, because the American military is tied up trying to suppress the inevitable Mexican rebellion against them. This could push American projections of power even further back that they were when the Mexican-American War even started. Sure, on the map the USA might look more impressive, but it would be a house of cards waiting to topple over.
At the time off the Mexican-American War, there were around 6-7 million people. Could anyone tell me how distributed the population was so I can have a clue? Or at least show me to a picture or graph?
TFSmith121
Banned
Well, couple of things:
There is certainly a possible parallel in terms of the resurgence of the Comanche in the 1860s, which was due largely to the general weakness of the CSA in West Texas; but in the 1840s and 1850s, the Comanche were largely dealt with, after Buffalo Hump's big raid - Hays and the Rangers managed it, after all, and Buffalo Hump himself and the Penateka signed for peace at Council Springs in 1846. So, not impossible for them to be (largely) dealt with in the 1840s or 1850s.
The Apache - the issues are the numbers are pretty small, and New Mexico is not exactly filled with people anyway in the 1840s; if anything, I could see a somewhat less confrontational policy from the US forces in the event of a (for example) protracted war in Mexico, for whatever reason.
I think the overall concept (a larger Cession, basically) is very unlikely, but there are far more significant reasons why then the possibility of border wars in New Mexico, Arizona, or West Texas.
Best,
There is certainly a possible parallel in terms of the resurgence of the Comanche in the 1860s, which was due largely to the general weakness of the CSA in West Texas; but in the 1840s and 1850s, the Comanche were largely dealt with, after Buffalo Hump's big raid - Hays and the Rangers managed it, after all, and Buffalo Hump himself and the Penateka signed for peace at Council Springs in 1846. So, not impossible for them to be (largely) dealt with in the 1840s or 1850s.
The Apache - the issues are the numbers are pretty small, and New Mexico is not exactly filled with people anyway in the 1840s; if anything, I could see a somewhat less confrontational policy from the US forces in the event of a (for example) protracted war in Mexico, for whatever reason.
I think the overall concept (a larger Cession, basically) is very unlikely, but there are far more significant reasons why then the possibility of border wars in New Mexico, Arizona, or West Texas.
Best,
Last edited:
Not necessarily. If the United States limits itself to only taking territory sparsely populated desert regions of northern Mexico*, which is basically what it did in OTL, then it's very likely that the country will remain stable.
But we all more or less agree that massive expansion (taking the Yucatan or, god forbid, the whole country) would be a disaster.
*Baja, Sonora, Chihuaha, Coahuila
No. Too many Mexicans for the US to handle.
Blue=OTL
Green=Can be annexed with only minor problems
Orange=Can be annexed with a major problem or two, but far from impossible
Red=NOPE NOPE NOPE
Can the Orange be a little more aligned to the bottom of Baja?
Oh, and assuming this is how the Mexican-American War, what are the odds of other wars like that in which the Mexican territory is gained little by little?
Last edited:
Deleted member 67076
No. In fact this will make the Mexicans even more willing to reform, as the war will come as such a shock to how weak they are. And due to their increased fear of their northern neighbor, they will fund the military more than OTL.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I'm not sure if that argument holds up. Wasn't the OTL Mexican-American War pretty shocking already?