Say the the all the all Mexico movement succeed and the US gets to point of relative control where they could do infrastructure projects in a danger relative level of the rest of American west like when they were building the transcontinental rail road.
What would the states, cities and infrastructure look like in mexico if the US conquered it
- Thread starter VaultJumper
- Start date
agreed it would be very difficult to do no Disagreement there, but that is not what I am asking. I am asking how the states, cities and infrastructure would look like.
Hmmm I think this depends on how much the US wants to incorporate its new Mexican subjects/citizens.
If the new lands are made into states and given federal help then I don't see why settlement patterns and infrastructure would change in the southwest to a more southern orientation and become on par with the rest of the US.
If it stays as an unincorporated territory then the lands would basically be a giant colony solely used for good extraction and manpower like Puerto Rico.
If the new lands are made into states and given federal help then I don't see why settlement patterns and infrastructure would change in the southwest to a more southern orientation and become on par with the rest of the US.
If it stays as an unincorporated territory then the lands would basically be a giant colony solely used for good extraction and manpower like Puerto Rico.
otl northern Mexico was very much like how Mexican cession and Texas annexation were lightly populated and southern and central Mexico is where the majority of Mexico's 7 million population resided that could change how the rail roads and the cities around the Rio Grande develop.
I can't really see Northern Mexico being developed much more than OTL. The main reason for railroads was to connect populated areas and there's not much incentive to settle there to begin with. I would be interested in the Rio Grand Valley (the southern tip of Texas) would be affected since I grew up there. I guess a lot depends on the Rio Grande being made navigable for effective river traffic.
The SOuth would be much more interested in the railroads than OTL because of the expanded space for slavery. RR have a large customer base in central and southern Mexico, lots of resources to develop. Central American and the Nicaraguan canal also gets moved to the front burner. No Civil War, at present. Port facilities get improved in Tampico and Veracruz.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
They also had very little interest in investing large amounts of money in internal improvements.
It greatly depends on when exactly the whole of Mexico is annexed and under what circumstances exactly. Eg. If it is before 1860, what new 'states' would become slave states and what parts would be 'wilderness' to settle, how in that states the indigenous population would be viewed ad what would be done with them....
Still, overall I think the main cities would develop like the OTL cities in California while the lesser ones would be like the ones in Arizona and Nevada. With his history and culture, I could see Mexico City become a second New Orleans while most of Bahia California would become Florida 2.0
I am no expert on how navigable the Rio Grande is or could be made. But with the Texas oil boom extending south to Monterey, I can see it becoming a smaller Mississippi in terms of barge traffic and with it the commerce and growth of cities alongside its banks.
As for trains, with the right 'stimulus' in property rights and associated benefits as OTL was given to the railroad barrons, I can see a North-South transcontinental rail road from the East Coast to Mexico City being completed even before the OTL one from the East to California.
The same foes for the 1950's highway system: A great North-South axle just as important as the OTL east-west ones. And built at the same time or even earlier.
Of course, with maintenance of the infrastructure going mainly to the states, there is no telling what would be the condition of many of the 'Spanish South's roads, bridges, railroads and canals today...
Still, overall I think the main cities would develop like the OTL cities in California while the lesser ones would be like the ones in Arizona and Nevada. With his history and culture, I could see Mexico City become a second New Orleans while most of Bahia California would become Florida 2.0
I am no expert on how navigable the Rio Grande is or could be made. But with the Texas oil boom extending south to Monterey, I can see it becoming a smaller Mississippi in terms of barge traffic and with it the commerce and growth of cities alongside its banks.
As for trains, with the right 'stimulus' in property rights and associated benefits as OTL was given to the railroad barrons, I can see a North-South transcontinental rail road from the East Coast to Mexico City being completed even before the OTL one from the East to California.
The same foes for the 1950's highway system: A great North-South axle just as important as the OTL east-west ones. And built at the same time or even earlier.
Of course, with maintenance of the infrastructure going mainly to the states, there is no telling what would be the condition of many of the 'Spanish South's roads, bridges, railroads and canals today...
Brunaburh
Banned
That's not true at all. The population of the border states was 650k, the whole of northern Mexico was about 1.3 million. That is considerably more densely populated than the territories conquered by the US, which had a Mexican population of under 90k, and were about 8 times bigger than the border states. Yes the North was more sparsely populated than central or southern Mexico, but it was far from uninhabited and would have been exceptionally difficult to populate with anglos, without massive disenfranchisement of Mexicans and land confiscation. For reference, 650k was about 2.5% of the US population at the time.
I suppose Americans must get this impression because the border runs through a desert, but northern Mexico was not a savage backwater, it was a fully integrated part of the Mexican state.
They were interested enough to support the Gadsden Purchase hoping for the TCRR to run from New Orleans to Los Angeles...if you added all that land and population to the south...and allowed slavery (which is not a given) then even the knuckle dragging Planter class may have seen the economic sense in building RR to open the new West and South. And there's always the Brits with deep pockets...maybe rather than turning Buenos Aires into an Octopus they would spread the wealth around Mexico USA.
History Learner
Banned
Depends upon the improvements and even then there was not a unified bloc; planters fought with Yeoman farmers to industrialize Birmingham, for example.
did not know that it was that populated, thank you for that information and the terrain is wonderful for guerilla warfare. The US in 1917 had a horrible time trying to hunt down Pancho Villa and I doubt they would have an easier time in the 1840's not even mention the hell that be trying pacify central and southern Mexico. The question is would the US have any sympathizers and collaborators and would powerful enough to make a difference?
History Learner
Banned
Most serious consequence infrastructure wise is that the Vicksburg to San Diego railway, instead of the OTL Iowa to San Francisco route, gets built. Not only would the San Diego route probably eliminate Los Angeles as a major city, it'd likely do the same to San Francisco once the Gold Rush ends:
As to why the Southern route wasn't built first, the answer lies in the sectional disputes leading up to the Civil War. The North, quite obviously, favored the OTL route since it geographically favored them, while the South preferred the, well, Southern Route. The Southern Route was superior in terrain, as it didn't cut through the Rockies, and ultimately the momentum for it is what led to the Gadsden Purchase in 1854. The Civil War wrecked these plans, however, and by the time such could occur after the conflict the Central Pacific monopoly had emerged which strangled and hurt the effort.
Outside of San Diego emerging as the premier Pacific port of the United States to the detriment of LA and San Francisco, Vicksburg would obviously become a major city. This would likely make the Mississippi even more important than it already was, with likely knock on effects for St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans.
As to why the Southern route wasn't built first, the answer lies in the sectional disputes leading up to the Civil War. The North, quite obviously, favored the OTL route since it geographically favored them, while the South preferred the, well, Southern Route. The Southern Route was superior in terrain, as it didn't cut through the Rockies, and ultimately the momentum for it is what led to the Gadsden Purchase in 1854. The Civil War wrecked these plans, however, and by the time such could occur after the conflict the Central Pacific monopoly had emerged which strangled and hurt the effort.
Outside of San Diego emerging as the premier Pacific port of the United States to the detriment of LA and San Francisco, Vicksburg would obviously become a major city. This would likely make the Mississippi even more important than it already was, with likely knock on effects for St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans.
History Learner
Banned
Mexicans at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848
Winfield Scott also suggested this in his own correspondence:
The United States Army in Mexico City, by Edward S. Wallace (Military Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1949), pp. 158-166) also states a desire for annexation among the well off of Mexico City, and goes into detail about the relationships cultivated between American soldiers and Mexican civilians.
Mexicans at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848
Winfield Scott also suggested this in his own correspondence:
The United States Army in Mexico City, by Edward S. Wallace (Military Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1949), pp. 158-166) also states a desire for annexation among the well off of Mexico City, and goes into detail about the relationships cultivated between American soldiers and Mexican civilians.
It seems that the Mexican liberals could have had a powerful ally in the northern states but I could also see the slave states backing the elites and conservatives in Mexico if they were willing to accept an American annexation. this could lead to an interesting 3 way conflict in Mexico between the liberals backed by the Union, Conservatives willing to work with the Confederacy, and Nationalists.
P.S. thank you for the sources.
Brunaburh
Banned
Well, OTL, there was considerable guerrilla resistance in the bits of Mexico occupied. There was also civil disobedience and rioting in the cities. The US occupation of Mexico proper (not the cession) was reasonably efficient, in that they only occupied the route from New Mexico to Mexico city (Camino Real) and the route down the coast from Texas to Tampico and thence to DF, as well as form Veracruz to DF. This meant most of your potential Guerrilla territory was taken out of the equation, because there were no Americans to fight. Despite this there was a very effective Guerrilla in Veracruz. I would view the first 30 years of American rule as necessarily bloody, or necessarily failures, or necessarily bloody failures.
Collaborators will always exist, sympathisers would require very clever colonial government, which I'm not sure the US had the political skills to achieve at the time.
yeah I agree with you their America has always been more lucky then clever but it seems that they could had support from Mexico's liberals according to the sources on History Learners post. if annexation did happen I think the northern states would probably like the Mexico liberal's reforms and be willing to fund and support them but that could leave opening for the slaves states to support the conservatives that feel threaded and the issue who's troops would do the occupation and what parts is important to the differance between Northern and Slave state troops could be different. If the Northern and Slaves states build enough support it could very interesting around the civil because Mexico could have a 3 way conflict between Union and Confederacy supporters and Mexican nationalists.
what towns in the middle would be effected would the cattle trails look in the latter part of the century because Texan cowboys would have a much shorter trip then OTL?
History Learner
Banned
Not sure what towns/cities in the middle would be affected; lack of air conditioning I'd expect to keep growth low and by the time it emerges other railways will likely be in operation to keep growth relatively convergent to OTL. As far the cattle drives, I'd expect Chicago to be displaced as the meatpacking capital of the United States by locations within Texas or the Mississippi. Alternatively, of course, cattle can now be driven a relatively short distance to the railways and then sent up the Mississippi by boat. Could be a further boon to Memphis and STL while still help out Chicago as per OTL.
Last edited: