If America went on from Texas and took over all of Mexico, what effects would this have with foreign relations, etc etc
WI: Mexican Annexation
- Thread starter Pantsbucket
- Start date
It depends on how the Mexicans are treated. Mexican nationalism really did not exist yet, as people more identified with their state than the country as a whole, so there is an opportunity to make them "Americans." The problem is that 1840's America isn't the nicest place for non-white people, meaning they will most likely be mistreated and try to bail when the USA cracks apart in a couple of years.
How Lincoln responds to Mexican secession is anyone's guess. But even if he tries to keep them in, Europe might be so frightened by the USA's rapid expansion that it may try to assist in the breakup in this timeline.
You either get an Ameriwank or an Ameriscrew, no in between.
How Lincoln responds to Mexican secession is anyone's guess. But even if he tries to keep them in, Europe might be so frightened by the USA's rapid expansion that it may try to assist in the breakup in this timeline.
You either get an Ameriwank or an Ameriscrew, no in between.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Either the US manages to hang on to Mexico thanks to an extraordinary amount of luck (and later becomes an even bigger hyperpower than OTL) or the entire country collapses. "Go big or go home" sums it up nicely.
Tallest Skil
Banned
Stupidly quick map on my take on All Mexico.
Red: Doable with very little (if any) change in policy on the apportionment, et. al. of the land in question
Blue: Doable with explicit consideration taken for the citizens thereof and the fostering of a sense of equality and true unity between the new states created from these lands and the rest of the Union (Since these states minus Yucatan would be free states, that should be pretty easy. And, of course, Yucatan being slave would endear it to the rest of the states, so a win win).
Green: Hoo, buddy (read: *shrug*).
Really wish AH would allow direct image uploading and hosting.
Red: Doable with very little (if any) change in policy on the apportionment, et. al. of the land in question
Blue: Doable with explicit consideration taken for the citizens thereof and the fostering of a sense of equality and true unity between the new states created from these lands and the rest of the Union (Since these states minus Yucatan would be free states, that should be pretty easy. And, of course, Yucatan being slave would endear it to the rest of the states, so a win win).
Green: Hoo, buddy (read: *shrug*).
Really wish AH would allow direct image uploading and hosting.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Annexing Mexico would mean a long term commitment to occupy a large hostile territory. The US didn't have the force needed to do that.
Didn't the treaty at the end of the Mexican war offer to give away more territory, or was it negotiated?
Given the low population density of chihuahua, sonora, etc. it could be held easily, and increased settlement there would make it even easier to pacify.
I don't know how badly it'd change the civil war, but i can imagine the mexican population wouldn't want slavery to move in.
The Apaches would be a bigger problem earlier on though,
Given the low population density of chihuahua, sonora, etc. it could be held easily, and increased settlement there would make it even easier to pacify.
I don't know how badly it'd change the civil war, but i can imagine the mexican population wouldn't want slavery to move in.
The Apaches would be a bigger problem earlier on though,
"Here we go again"
For starters, how would the American military vanquish the Mexican forces throughout Mexico? There would be endemic rebellions and rebel attacks for some time, not even the might of the French artillery and steel made this go away. Let's ignore reality and suppose the Yanquis have toppled the entire Mexican edifice, how many garrisons are going to be needed? 50,000 Europeans under Maximilian didn't do the job, so it is doubtful that would change for the Yanquis.
Moving on, how would Mexico be intergrated into the Federal system? Undoubtily the issue of language would immedetately appear, along with relations with the Papacy (the chruch held a lot of land, privatising it was a key part in causing the Reforma war to happen)... Ignoring those basic problems, what about the fact that none of the provinces of Mexico were into slavery? You think electing Lincoln angered the South, what about trying to admit (forcibly, no doubt in this case) a fuck ton of states that would bolster the "free" side? sheeet.
Consuming the Mexico would cause the problems of the US come to a forefront and give a good chance for it to collapse. There would be a huge cost of military spending "pacifying" a populous that justly doesn't want to be in the political system. This wouldnt likely ever end either, meaning it to be a fruitless endevor. So try considering the matter at hand before suggesting a very over talked about idea that is simply ignorant on this forum (consider using search).
For starters, how would the American military vanquish the Mexican forces throughout Mexico? There would be endemic rebellions and rebel attacks for some time, not even the might of the French artillery and steel made this go away. Let's ignore reality and suppose the Yanquis have toppled the entire Mexican edifice, how many garrisons are going to be needed? 50,000 Europeans under Maximilian didn't do the job, so it is doubtful that would change for the Yanquis.
Moving on, how would Mexico be intergrated into the Federal system? Undoubtily the issue of language would immedetately appear, along with relations with the Papacy (the chruch held a lot of land, privatising it was a key part in causing the Reforma war to happen)... Ignoring those basic problems, what about the fact that none of the provinces of Mexico were into slavery? You think electing Lincoln angered the South, what about trying to admit (forcibly, no doubt in this case) a fuck ton of states that would bolster the "free" side? sheeet.
Consuming the Mexico would cause the problems of the US come to a forefront and give a good chance for it to collapse. There would be a huge cost of military spending "pacifying" a populous that justly doesn't want to be in the political system. This wouldnt likely ever end either, meaning it to be a fruitless endevor. So try considering the matter at hand before suggesting a very over talked about idea that is simply ignorant on this forum (consider using search).
Jasen777
Donor
You can upload from your computer to a post. Click "manage attachments" when making a post.
If that's what you mean.
All of Mexico? The US struggles for about a decade or so while it tries to keep central Mexico from revolting. It all comes undone with a presumably sooner ACW, which sees multiple fronts and more death. In other words, foreign relations will be a secondary concern...though in the immediate aftermath of the annexations Britain and France (I guess...) wouldn't like America growing so quickly.
As for that ridiculous map, not happening. OTL was about as far as the US could handle. Maybe the Baja peninsula with it's low population, but nearly all those states in the red have populations in excess of 100,000 each (save Coahulia with roughly 75,000). While I admit some of these areas could be absorbed into the US, don't expect this region to enter the Union as quietly as OTL's Mexican Cession.
The blue regions...that's where I really draw the line...these areas aren't gonna be able to be assimilated into the United States. The Bajio (Guanajuato, Jalisco, SLP and Zacatecas) had over 2 million people. This area has been Spanish-Mexican for centuries at this point...not to mention it's where independence first took root, and I'd figure most Mexicans would object to have this region taken away much like Americans would react to say, Massachusetts being invaded and subsequently incorporated into another country. As for the Yucatan, the US tried OTL there and failed spectacularly...if the US tries to annex it, it's just more white men that the Maya get to kill.
As for that ridiculous map, not happening. OTL was about as far as the US could handle. Maybe the Baja peninsula with it's low population, but nearly all those states in the red have populations in excess of 100,000 each (save Coahulia with roughly 75,000). While I admit some of these areas could be absorbed into the US, don't expect this region to enter the Union as quietly as OTL's Mexican Cession.
The blue regions...that's where I really draw the line...these areas aren't gonna be able to be assimilated into the United States. The Bajio (Guanajuato, Jalisco, SLP and Zacatecas) had over 2 million people. This area has been Spanish-Mexican for centuries at this point...not to mention it's where independence first took root, and I'd figure most Mexicans would object to have this region taken away much like Americans would react to say, Massachusetts being invaded and subsequently incorporated into another country. As for the Yucatan, the US tried OTL there and failed spectacularly...if the US tries to annex it, it's just more white men that the Maya get to kill.
Last edited:
Tallest Skil
Banned
Trist was explicitly told to take the red in my map above. He refused and was, of course, fired when he returned to Washington.
Same as any other state.
Let’s pretend “All Mexico”. Looking at the map above, Yucatan gets slavery, none of the green or blue does, and the red does on the basis of popular sovereignty like the rest of the country.
The red was what Congress agreed to take OTL.
I forgot we were on conventionalhistory.com.
This is a blatant lie told by American elementary school text books. Mexican nationalism did exists; a unity over what that nationalism meant, perhaps not (arguably there still isn't, but the same would go for any country).
There was no such thing a "state identity' except perhaps for Yucatan. The northern states rebelled as a way of sticking it to Santa Anna and the central government; the Republic of Rio Bravo was a protest not a sincere attempt at secession.
A few state governments did declare neutrality during the Mexican-American war. Again, mostly as a form of protest, or hopes of leaving the war unscathed but never as a request of annexation by the US or secession.
You either get an Ameriwank or an Ameriscrew, no in between.
Ameriscrew.
Tallest Skil
Banned
Nowhere in any textbook I have ever read–in school or out–has this ever been said.
But that’s also not what anything I’ve read about it has said.
Just to adress the issue that Im suprised nobody has nobody has raised, there was a movement to take all of Mexico during the Mexican American War and it was called the, you guessed it, The All Mexico Movement (you may have to scroll down alitlle)
I am happy to see none of the main points made by myself or Arkhangelsk answered. Some fairy dust or the wink of an asb and the perinent problems of this scenerario are solved, I suppose.
It would eventually end too. What were there? Seven million people in Mexico at the time? With millions of immigrants coming in from Europe, their population would be overwhelmed by people who are more inclined to the Union. It'd be the same with Canada, though Mexico having more people would mean it might take a couple generation for assimilation to be complete. It would be intigrated by 1900. Depending on how 'unstable' Mexico was in that other timeline, some regions might look more favorably on DC than MC. Of course those would likely be the periphery states and territories.
Of course, thanks to slavery, if the US annexed Mexico, the North would be screaming to annex Canada so there would be room for free States to grow and maintain that balance in the Senate. Up until the Civil War, both sides were obsessed with it.
I know right? Ameriwankers can't handle the notion that the United States can in fact succumb to imperial overreach *gasp!*
I know right? Ameriwankers can't handle the notion that the United States can in fact succumb to imperial overreach *gasp!*
If they magically dont offend the locals in any major way, systematically crush all rebellious armies, balance the addition of slave and free states, and spend oodles of money developing the economies of their new areas well looks like the seeds of the Second War of Mexican Independence are sown.
Say, in this TL the wet dream of Louis N. could be partially fullfilled: a friendly regime in Mexico AND a war against the Americans!
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Except it isn’t ASB to assume a change in attitude.
True, but it is ASB to assume that the US could successfully absorb the entire country of Mexico, which had 1/3 the population of the US, spoke a different language than most of the US, and had a clearly separate national identity. It's like Germany trying to annex Poland in 1939.
I like Ameriwanks as much as the next guy, but the All Mexico Movement failed for a reason.