How Far the U.S. Would Have Annexed Mexico

[Luminous]

Of course claiming some of the lands needs a POD to date back before the Civil War. Cariibean can be done through War of 1812 if the U.S. had Canada so the British Navy could be crippled without their source of wood.

Wouldn't such a timeline be so divergent that a War of 1812 would be unrecognizable from OTL? Besides, if the US had Canada, the British Loyalists would have to go somewhere. To where would they go? The old Carolina Colony? If that was the case, it would even be harder to go that far south.

If the US took the entire of British North America, (again, you'd have to have so many Patriots compared to Loyalists that the PoD would have to be much earlier) the war of 1812 would be drastically different and take place at a different time, if it occurs at all. The loss of Halifax would rid Great Britain of their best port in Canada, and they'd be heavily dependent upon Bermuda.

Granted, that also presumes that Britain cannot find another source of wood, or that its navy wouldn't simply attack the merchant marine where the US couldn't defend.

Anywho, any US gains into the Caribbean, you would have to wait a while. To address Tallest's point about the time of the Civil War, the Ostend Manifesto might be pursued by the Southern states even more than OTL. With Rio Grande being a free state, and most other states from the southern part of the Mexican session being free, save for Yucatan (perhaps), they would feel hemmed in, as he pointed out.

As such, they will try to make it official US policy that the island is to join the United States, quite possibly prompting even earlier and greater responses from the free staters. That could be the conflict that precipitates the Civil War, factoring into Bleeding Kansas (or TTL equivalent. ...might there be an equivalent event in the Rio Grande to try and turn it into a slave state?)

So, before the Civil War, there definitely won't be anything that happens. The US would be having trouble dealing with the Apache and other tribes, on top of integrating a foreign, Spanish-speaking, Catholic population centered around the former RRG, while also dealing with the Mayans in the Yucatan. There wouldn't be the energy for large investments in the Caribbean.

Now, after the war, there is no telling what might happen. If there is a Spanish-American war (Spain could possibly reform a bit in face of the US, considering how much more the US has expanded than OTL. Not likely, but it certainly would be possible) Cuba would be the major focus, as always. They might join if the Lower Southwest feels accepted and treated as equals by the rest of the US. If not, there is no way they would willingly join.

Something that might be interesting is, after decolonization, you have a few of the old British Colonies joining. If the Yucatan becomes a state, it might be interesting if Belize votes to join. I don't have a particular reason for this. I just think the borders would be pretty.

As for other pursuits, what happens to US foreign policy due to gaining that land? How quickly would the US grow. (would there be fewer immigrants than OTL, or more, again due to the Catholic factor) Would splendid isolation continue? How would the other colonial powers treat the US? How would the Central American nations and the South American nations? Would Guatemala take the opportunity to try and regain Los Altos and reform the UPCA? How would Great Britain deal with this US? Would they act the same as OTL, or would they attempt to strengthen Canada as much as they can?

An idle thought in my case, but what would become of the US lease of North Borneo? If the Civil War is earlier (and perhaps shorter, considering the southern free states) would the deal actually be made?

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Wouldn't such a timeline be so divergent that a War of 1812 would be unrecognizable from OTL? Besides, if the US had Canada, the British Loyalists would have to go somewhere. To where would they go? The old Carolina Colony? If that was the case, it would even be harder to go that far south.

If the US took the entire of British North America, (again, you'd have to have so many Patriots compared to Loyalists that the PoD would have to be much earlier) the war of 1812 would be drastically different and take place at a different time, if it occurs at all. The loss of Halifax would rid Great Britain of their best port in Canada, and they'd be heavily dependent upon Bermuda.

Granted, that also presumes that Britain cannot find another source of wood, or that its navy wouldn't simply attack the merchant marine where the US couldn't defend.

Anywho, any US gains into the Caribbean, you would have to wait a while. To address Tallest's point about the time of the Civil War, the Ostend Manifesto might be pursued by the Southern states even more than OTL. With Rio Grande being a free state, and most other states from the southern part of the Mexican session being free, save for Yucatan (perhaps), they would feel hemmed in, as he pointed out.

As such, they will try to make it official US policy that the island is to join the United States, quite possibly prompting even earlier and greater responses from the free staters. That could be the conflict that precipitates the Civil War, factoring into Bleeding Kansas (or TTL equivalent. ...might there be an equivalent event in the Rio Grande to try and turn it into a slave state?)

So, before the Civil War, there definitely won't be anything that happens. The US would be having trouble dealing with the Apache and other tribes, on top of integrating a foreign, Spanish-speaking, Catholic population centered around the former RRG, while also dealing with the Mayans in the Yucatan. There wouldn't be the energy for large investments in the Caribbean.

Now, after the war, there is no telling what might happen. If there is a Spanish-American war (Spain could possibly reform a bit in face of the US, considering how much more the US has expanded than OTL. Not likely, but it certainly would be possible) Cuba would be the major focus, as always. They might join if the Lower Southwest feels accepted and treated as equals by the rest of the US. If not, there is no way they would willingly join.

Something that might be interesting is, after decolonization, you have a few of the old British Colonies joining. If the Yucatan becomes a state, it might be interesting if Belize votes to join. I don't have a particular reason for this. I just think the borders would be pretty.

As for other pursuits, what happens to US foreign policy due to gaining that land? How quickly would the US grow. (would there be fewer immigrants than OTL, or more, again due to the Catholic factor) Would splendid isolation continue? How would the other colonial powers treat the US? How would the Central American nations and the South American nations? Would Guatemala take the opportunity to try and regain Los Altos and reform the UPCA? How would Great Britain deal with this US? Would they act the same as OTL, or would they attempt to strengthen Canada as much as they can?

An idle thought in my case, but what would become of the US lease of North Borneo? If the Civil War is earlier (and perhaps shorter, considering the southern free states) would the deal actually be made?

The Deep South is too American for Loyalists. They could go to Britain or the Caribbean territories or the Central American or its Guyana colonies.

Britain can get wood from Scandinavia, but of course it's precarious and the British could actually lose the Napoleonic Wars.

The U.S. could gain the Caribbean, Central American, and Guyana territories through wars with the British, Dutch, and a Republican France. British and Dutch probably during the Napoleonic Wars as the U.S. and Napoleon could work together.

The Northern States would rather let the South try to pursue its Manifesto to prevent any conflict. After all, Canada is equivalent to a motherload of free states. Of course no doubt the Civil War could come earlier.

Not all Mexicans would resent US rule, as some did want the country to annex them. Yucatan would be complicated as the government wanted annexation but the people's response would be difficult to figure out.

Assuming Cuba does join the USA earlier, then the only way those two countries can get into a war is through the Philippines. They still would gain Puetro Rico though.

Greater Catholic representation in Congress could change means in the country's attitude towards Catholics. More immigration due to more land being annexed obviously. Manifest Destiny could mean the pursuit of the entire North American continent. And if lucky enough the USA could. Britain/Netherlands and the U.S. would obviously not like each other after what these countries lost. France, while still reeling from the loss of its American colonies, could still like America for helping them out. Spain could eventually go sour with the U.S. if an ATL war between them happens. Isolation would still run its course other than its wars against Britain and the Netherlands in the Caribbean. I don't known how a bigger USA could affect Central America expect possible expansion. The U.S. could have a bigger influence in the Americas since it is bigger.

If the PODs are right, the U.S. Could see itself occupy North America and beyond (not the world, but places like North Borneo and the Philippines).

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

I did research and realized the French American colonies were actually occupied by Britain and other powers, so USA could go to war against those countries instead. And with the power of the British navy crippled the USA wouldn't have much trouble.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

I did research and realized the French American colonies were actually occupied by Britain and other powers, so USA could go to war against those countries instead. And with the power of the British navy crippled the USA wouldn't have much trouble.

Why does not having Canada=Royal Navy crippled? Most of the wood for the ships came from Britain itself or from the Baltic region. Like in 1801, Britain imported 1200 masts from the Baltics, but only 190 from Canada.

 

[Luminous]

But wouldn't such a war be in... 1812? And by not possessing Canada, the Royal Navy becomes so weak that it couldn't fight off a force that, at the start of the war, amounted to no more than twenty warships? That, combined with whatever French forces that would resist liberation.

Plus, you'd have to have a more powerful centralized government that could raise a navy and an army that could potentially fight these foes. And that was the last thing that was going to happen, especially right after the revolution. To create that sort of climate, you'd virtually eliminate the US as we know it.

Not to mention that the majority of the US's trade was with Britain, and it hurt them badly enough OTL. The US is not going to be wealthier enough to make a difference.

As it was, the US Navy acquitted itself well by winning the lakes and winning single battles. The volume of British ships, however, was something they could not fight. And if the US somehow managed to build enough ships, and recruit and train enough sailors, to fight the British evenly, they would simply send more ships once Napoleon fell.

In any case, the US was having enough of a problem with Tecumseh in the west. the US had just acquired Louisiana, and the old Northwest east of the Mississippi was still a major source of problems. How could the US sustain such and such control over the disparate areas of a far flung empire when it is still a young nation that was created near 30 odd years hence.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

But wouldn't such a war be in... 1812? And by not possessing Canada, the Royal Navy becomes so weak that it couldn't fight off a force that, at the start of the war, amounted to no more than twenty warships? That, combined with whatever French forces that would resist liberation.

Plus, you'd have to have a more powerful centralized government that could raise a navy and an army that could potentially fight these foes. And that was the last thing that was going to happen, especially right after the revolution. To create that sort of climate, you'd virtually eliminate the US as we know it.

Not to mention that the majority of the US's trade was with Britain, and it hurt them badly enough OTL. The US is not going to be wealthier enough to make a difference.

As it was, the US Navy acquitted itself well by winning the lakes and winning single battles. The volume of British ships, however, was something they could not fight. And if the US somehow managed to build enough ships, and recruit and train enough sailors, to fight the British evenly, they would simply send more ships once Napoleon fell.

In any case, the US was having enough of a problem with Tecumseh in the west. the US had just acquired Louisiana, and the old Northwest east of the Mississippi was still a major source of problems. How could the US sustain such and such control over the disparate areas of a far flung empire when it is still a young nation that was created near 30 odd years hence.

Of course the British navy could always be overstretched. The Americans could also work with Napoleon to attack British trade in exchange for trading with one another. Besides conquering Canada gives America access to wood and some northern ports. It would be real hard for the British to put up a land invasion, not that it's impossible.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Of course the British navy could always be overstretched. The Americans could also work with Napoleon to attack British trade in exchange for trading with one another. Besides conquering Canada gives America access to wood and some northern ports. It would be real hard for the British to put up a land invasion, not that it's impossible.

The Americans didn't need extra wood. Have you seen what the Eastern US looks like in 2014? We still have miles and miles of nothing but wood. Now imagine that, but hundreds of times larger.

And ultimately, the US Navy of 1812 isn't large enough to tip the balance in the Napoleonic Wars. The British had a clear numerical advantage since Trafalgar.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

The Americans didn't need extra wood. Have you seen what the Eastern US looks like in 2014? We still have miles and miles of nothing but wood. Now imagine that, but hundreds of times larger.

And ultimately, the US Navy of 1812 isn't large enough to tip the balance in the Napoleonic Wars. The British had a clear numerical advantage since Trafalgar.

Of course claiming the Caribbean could always take place later. The US Navy was capable of increasing in size still.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Of course claiming the Caribbean could always take place later. The US Navy was capable of increasing in size still.

How is the US going to claim the Caribbean? We barely did it in 1898, and that was against Spain. SPAIN. The naval equivalent of the Chicago Cubs.

And trying to increase the navy to the point where it can compete with Britain so early in the country's history would probably bankrupt the US.

 

[Luminous]

Of course the British navy could always be overstretched. The Americans could also work with Napoleon to attack British trade in exchange for trading with one another. Besides conquering Canada gives America access to wood and some northern ports. It would be real hard for the British to put up a land invasion, not that it's impossible.

Why would the US side with Napoleon? The US was allied with the French Monarchy. They fought against the Republic of France with Great Britain 15 years after the revolution. They took advantage of Napoleon's European focus to acquire Louisiana, but what could he possibly do that would overcome the natural animosity? Napoleon couldn't offer material support as he can't get past the Royal Navy. So really, it amounts to "distract the British for a couple of years" which is what happened OTL, to no effect.

If I remember correctly, they were more afraid of Napoleon reestablishing French America than the continued presence of British America.

That, and most of Canada as of OTL is still wilderness, and what was left was packed chock full of Loyalists. The Hudson bay isn't useful for most of the year. The only port that the US gets is Halifax, which merely screens for incoming fleets from the North Atlantic. Its loss hurts the Royal Navy, again, but how you keep it is the kicker.

I'm not saying the US could not get Canada, as it is. Say we're going from our PoD in this thread. Say you get that larger portion of OTL Northern Mexico. Your population is higher, as you won't have as many of the natives of California leaving, and Rio Grande is relatively highly populous. The Missouri compromise is passed, and Rio Grande, California, Colorado (SoCal) and Yucatan are admitted as states. Yucatan, while a state, is a mess, as the wars continue. The slave debate continues, anBleeding Kansas starts earlier. The war breaks out by 1858. Since there are more free states everywhere, some of the slave states may reconsider their chances and many may choose not to join.

The Union had a lot of advantages in the west already. With Rio Grande and the other former mexican states, they will have even more. Texas may be cautious about joining in. Tennessee and North Carolina may waver a bit more about joining, depending on how the timeline goes. If they do, the war may finish within 2-3 years, with the South divided deeply.

For the Canadian portion, simply have the union not start. Ontario and Quebec joined at the last minute OTL. So, simply have it limited to the Maritime Provinces. If the union is delayed long enough, the railway across Canada will be delayed or cancelled. The only easy access to Rupert's Land (Yearround, due to the freezing of the Hudson) would be through the US. So, most of the settlers of Rupert's Land would be American. The US may buy Rupert's land once it's obvious that the majority is American instead of Anglo/French-Canadian.

There you go. You'd have the US owning more of Mexico and Canada, the former through more aggressive negotiations and the latter through demographics. That would leave a small Mexico, Maritime Union, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador, British Columbia, and Alaska on the continent. Alaska may be bought if the Civil War isn't as damaging. And the rest would eventually be placed in that sphere, and would be assumed to eventually join within a century or two.

It's an incredible wank, but I think it's more plausible than the US achieving everything within the first fifty years of its existence.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

How is the US going to claim the Caribbean? We barely did it in 1898, and that was against Spain. SPAIN. The naval equivalent of the Chicago Cubs.

And trying to increase the navy to the point where it can compete with Britain so early in the country's history would probably bankrupt the US.

Or After 1900.

 

[Luminous]

How is the US going to claim the Caribbean? We barely did it in 1898, and that was against Spain. SPAIN. The naval equivalent of the Chicago Cubs.

And trying to increase the navy to the point where it can compete with Britain so early in the country's history would probably bankrupt the US.

Agreed. The US Navy fell to pieces after the Civil War. That's kinda why I'm interested in seeing if a North Borneo possession might keep the US Navy larger and more modern.

Either way, agreed. The US lost at least 300 merchant marine to France during the Quasi-War. (I've seen claims of up to 2k) I forget how many they lost during the war of 1812. And the US was a debtor nation until the aftermath of WW1. They wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Why would the US side with Napoleon? The US was allied with the French Monarchy. They fought against the Republic of France with Great Britain 15 years after the revolution. They took advantage of Napoleon's European focus to acquire Louisiana, but what could he possibly do that would overcome the natural animosity? Napoleon couldn't offer material support as he can't get past the Royal Navy. So really, it amounts to "distract the British for a couple of years" which is what happened OTL, to no effect.

If I remember correctly, they were more afraid of Napoleon reestablishing French America than the continued presence of British America.

That, and most of Canada as of OTL is still wilderness, and what was left was packed chock full of Loyalists. The Hudson bay isn't useful for most of the year. The only port that the US gets is Halifax, which merely screens for incoming fleets from the North Atlantic. Its loss hurts the Royal Navy, again, but how you keep it is the kicker.

I'm not saying the US could not get Canada, as it is. Say we're going from our PoD in this thread. Say you get that larger portion of OTL Northern Mexico. Your population is higher, as you won't have as many of the natives of California leaving, and Rio Grande is relatively highly populous. The Missouri compromise is passed, and Rio Grande, California, Colorado (SoCal) and Yucatan are admitted as states. Yucatan, while a state, is a mess, as the wars continue. The slave debate continues, anBleeding Kansas starts earlier. The war breaks out by 1858. Since there are more free states everywhere, some of the slave states may reconsider their chances and many may choose not to join.

The Union had a lot of advantages in the west already. With Rio Grande and the other former mexican states, they will have even more. Texas may be cautious about joining in. Tennessee and North Carolina may waver a bit more about joining, depending on how the timeline goes. If they do, the war may finish within 2-3 years, with the South divided deeply.

For the Canadian portion, simply have the union not start. Ontario and Quebec joined at the last minute OTL. So, simply have it limited to the Maritime Provinces. If the union is delayed long enough, the railway across Canada will be delayed or cancelled. The only easy access to Rupert's Land (Yearround, due to the freezing of the Hudson) would be through the US. So, most of the settlers of Rupert's Land would be American. The US may buy Rupert's land once it's obvious that the majority is American instead of Anglo/French-Canadian.

There you go. You'd have the US owning more of Mexico and Canada, the former through more aggressive negotiations and the latter through demographics. That would leave a small Mexico, Maritime Union, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador, British Columbia, and Alaska on the continent. Alaska may be bought if the Civil War isn't as damaging. And the rest would eventually be placed in that sphere, and would be assumed to eventually join within a century or two.

It's an incredible wank, but I think it's more plausible than the US achieving everything within the first fifty years of its existence.

Quebec joining in ATL without a Quebec Act would cut British access from Ontario, so Britain will have to let it go. And since Hudson Bay wasn't of much value beyond furs that would go as well. Soo the US has all of Canada.

Ok yes. I take back everything about US and France. I forgot what you said was the case.

So maybe the US doesn't have an advantage so much against the British Navy, but of course it does have a greater kick against it this time.

Even if it does take a lot longer the U.S. could take all of North America if the PODs are right.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Canada and northern Mexico (with Yucatan, Veracruz, and Tobasco) would be ruled by the U.S. prior to the Civil War. Cuba will also be bought since the Ostend Manifesto is put into action. French American territories could be seized during the war against Republican France. After the Civil War, the U.S. gains Alaska. They would also annex Haiti (due to military occupation) and the Dominican Republic around 1870. They could also ask to buy Puetro Rico. Then, through the Banana Wars the U.S. gains control of Central America. Any further gains would require PODs from Europe in which Britain is not as powerful as OTL if Napoleon makes the better choices.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Canada and northern Mexico (with Yucatan, Veracruz, and Tobasco) would be ruled by the U.S. prior to the Civil War. Cuba will also be bought since the Ostend Manifesto is put into action. French American territories could be seized during the war against Republican France. After the Civil War, the U.S. gains Alaska. They would also annex Haiti (due to military occupation) and the Dominican Republic around 1870. They could also ask to buy Puetro Rico. Then, through the Banana Wars the U.S. gains control of Central America. Any further gains would require PODs from Europe in which Britain is not as powerful as OTL if Napoleon makes the better choices.

1. The US can't occupy the Yucatan and fight the Civil War simultaneously. It didn't have the manpower for it back then.

2. Spain wouldn't sell Cuba to us. We tried buying it in OTL, they said no (and this was a scenario in which Spain was really weak and poor). And Puerto Rico was considered an integral part of Spain, so that wouldn't be sold either.

3. If Napoleon stayed in power, how is France a republic? And how did France keep any of its territory in America?

4. What would be the point of annexing Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Central America? It would be much more profitable and a lot less bloody to just make them protectorates.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

4. What would be the point of annexing Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Central America? It would be much more profitable and a lot less bloody to just make them protectorates.

You cannot have an Ameriwank unless the Caribbean becomes an American lake, of course.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

1. The US can't occupy the Yucatan and fight the Civil War simultaneously. It didn't have the manpower for it back then.

2. Spain wouldn't sell Cuba to us. We tried buying it in OTL, they said no (and this was a scenario in which Spain was really weak and poor). And Puerto Rico was considered an integral part of Spain, so that wouldn't be sold either.

3. If Napoleon stayed in power, how is France a republic? And how did France keep any of its territory in America?

4. What would be the point of annexing Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Central America? It would be much more profitable and a lot less bloody to just make them protectorates.

Yucatan actually wanted to be a part of the U.S.

Okay, so yes maybe OTL Spanish-American war occurs with USA annexing Cuba.

Republican France meant to be pre-Napoleonic France. Oh, yes I forgot France lost those territories in previous wars temporarily.

The Dominican Republic wanted annexation. Central America had so much Amerian influence the U.S. could annex it.

Could USA ruling North America be possible if the PODs are right? That is what I am not getting the answers to.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

You cannot have an Ameriwank unless the Caribbean becomes an American lake, of course.

Caribbean was an American lake.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Caribbean was an American lake.

A single island does not a lake make.

Interestingly enough, US Greater Antilles always seems to be more plausible than US Lesser Antilles...

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Yucatan actually wanted to be a part of the U.S.

No it didn't. A tiny minority of plantation owners requested US assistance to help them kill the indios, who, shockingly, didn't like the plantation owners very much.

Okay, so yes maybe OTL Spanish-American war occurs with USA annexing Cuba.

I guess. Still seems like a waste of money and soldiers, though.

Republican France meant to be pre-Napoleonic France. Oh, yes I forgot France lost those territories in previous wars temporarily.

So the US is supposed to take those territories pre-1798? That seems kind of tough.

The Dominican Republic wanted annexation. Central America had so much Amerian influence the U.S. could annex it.

A highly unpopular leader wanted annexation. Most people in the Dominican Republic were far less enthusiastic about it. More importantly, a majority of Congressmen didn't want to annex it, and with good reason.

As for Central America, influence does not equal annexation. Sure, the US could annex it. The US could annex a lot of places. Doesn't mean it would be a good idea or even remotely sustainable. Central America was (and is) a densely-populated, non-Protestant, non-English speaking tropical nightmare. Think of all the workers who died building the Panama Canal, then multiply that by 100 and imagine that the US has to deal with rebellions at the same time.

Could USA ruling North America be possible if the PODs are right? That is what I am not getting the answers to.

Not as a stable, prosperous, and democratic constitutional republic, no.