Day 113: Mexico

[MasterJedi]

There really wasn't slavery in Mexico, I doubt they'd get many Mexicans to fight for the South at that time.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

That's why I put "slave" in quotaiton marks. On paper they'd be slave states which would placate the osuth long enough for its eocnomy to go down and make it to oweak to fight.

[ag]

The mexican states would provide extra land to provide enough "slave"(technically lsave states bu slavery doesn't take hold) to east southern fears so slavery enfds gradually.

The NE Mexican states, would have been very much like the US South. Of course, they did not develop that way under Mexican rule, but, once taken over, they'd provide lots of land for the expanded plantation and slave economy.  Yes, that would have strengthened the South - this is why taking just these areas would have been entirely unacceptable for the North (had this happened, chances are it would be the North that would have tried to secede - or else, the surviving Southern dominated super-US would have developed along the lines of modern Brazil).

Of course, annexing the "non-slave" Mexican heartland could have counterbalanced the Northern fears - but, assuming, as seems likely, that Mexicans would ally with the North on the abolition, it would have only sped up the Southern rebellion (with a third of the combined population in the new non-slave-owning states, the delicate balance would have been gone in a day).

The only way to prevent this last development would have been for the South to ally with Mexicans in a grand "anti-North" coalition - but that would mean supporting Mexican guerilla (that, in an optimistic scenario, would continue for decades).

To sum up, by 1860s US consists of two unreconcilable camps. Annexing Mexico would have made it three. Now, if with two opposed camps it is sometimes possible to get to a compromise, the three-camp situation is inherently unstable (take any formal political economy class - three-group models are a nightmare in every sense).  If anything, the Civil War would have started earlier, would have lasted longer, would have been more confused and much bloodier. As I said, I have strong doubts that the US would have come out of it intact even in its present borders.

But suppose, with luck, at the end of the decade or two of Civil Wars (with luck some time by the 1870s), the US/Mexico gets out as a single Union. This would have been an extremely different country - weakened, unstable, divided, much less industrialized and, most likely, never as industrialized as it was in fact to become. The European migration would have gone much more to the relatively stable South America (perhaps, today it would be Argentina, not the US, that would be the world's superpower). The internal politics would also have been different.

The population would be largely Catholic, and this would provide for a very strong electoral alliance (it is not for nothing that Mexicans had been able to form the Batallon de San Patricio from the US deserters in the actual war). With a large probability, by 1900 it would be nearly impossible for a pure Protestant ticket to be elected.

Culturally and linguistically things would also be different: given the dense Spanish-speaking population in the South, chances are that it would be the anglophone migrants from the North that would assimilate, not the other way around. It did not happen in Texas because the anglophone (or, at least, non-hispanic) population was numerically larger locally even at the secession from Mexico - the situation would be very different in the Bajio heartland, where even decades later anglophones would have no chance of overcoming the hispanohablantes in numbers. The European and Northern migrants coming to the far South of the combined Union would actually become Latin, not Anglo within a generation. While the assimilation of the Northern Anglo culture would happen a lot faster than it actually did (though, it happened at a fair rate anyway - you'd be surprised how "American" Mexico is compared to almost any country in the world that I know), English would never become the dominant language there.  Spanish (or, at least, Spanglish) would forever stay the regional identifier and a rallying point - exactly in the way the French is now in Quebec, but on a much larger scale. Any suggestion of proclaiming English the sole language of the Union would be viewed as an explosive invitation to rebellion.

In fact, a giant Quebec is not a bad comparison. Like in Quebec, it is very likely that a regional Partido Hispano would emerge at some point. Though the US presidential system is perfectly designed to block third parties, the regional appeal here might be simply too strong. Even if PH would be forced by the system to be in coalition for presidential elections, at the Congressional and local level it would likely be an independent player - displacing locally one of the national parties.  As a result, one wouldn't be surprised that no president would ever be able to rely on a majority in a three-way split Congress - think how much weaker the presidency would be.

I am not saying, all of it would be undesirable. What I am saying is, Mexico was just to big of a prey to be easily digested without affecting the very nature of the US. I am not sure I would not have liked the combination more than each of its parts today - but I am pretty sure, you wouldn't recognize your country if you were to wake up in such an alternative reality. The combined country would be very, very different, in the unlikely case it would survive.

[ag]

There really wasn't slavery in Mexico, I doubt they'd get many Mexicans to fight for the South at that time.

No. It would have been, at least, a three-way Civil War: North against South against Far Sourth (and, possibly, against West and against the Brits at the same time), with temporary alliances changing all the time.  It would not have been pretty.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I don't see the civil war as inevitable.

[ag]

I don't see the civil war as inevitable.

Civil war was not entirely inevitable of course, though annexation of Mexico would have made it a lot more so. But had it not happened, you wouldn't have recognized your country either. US could have split amicably, or it could have developed along the lines of something resembling modern Brazil more than it does the US.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I take the reverse position. With more land for dixie to at least have in theory asslave stastes in north mexico expect them to be less pushy/insistent and more iwlling to ocmpromise.

[ag]

I take the reverse position. With more land for dixie to at least have in theory asslave stastes in north mexico expect them to be less pushy/insistent and more iwlling to ocmpromise.

You'd have potentially slave states in the North of Mexico - and vehemently anti-slave states in the South, where the bulk of the population lived. Rememer, Mexican heartland wasn't empty, unless Mexicans were to be disenfranchised, it would not be possible to decide for them: "this is a slave state".  Of course, you could make this a condition for entering the Union, but once the state entered there was little that would prevent it from backtracking on a completely local affair: and the new migrants would not have become sufficiently numerous to dominate until decades later. So, to prevent a bunch of anti-slave states entering the Union, all of Mexican heartland would have to be designated territories for decades.  That is, a third of the Union population would have to be permanently disenfranchized. Do you think it would work?

In any case, it was not just the "pushyness" of one side or the other - it was the direction of the economic development (it was not just slaves, it was a lot more).  Unless a very fine ballance were to be maintained, one side had to win - if only NE of Mexico were to be annexed, it would have been the South, if all of Mexico - it would have been the North, unless the South prevented it by allying with Mexican independence demands (or else, so could the northerners).  Yes, the South didn't have to seced - it could have been the North - would that change things?

Instead of having 2 very finely ballanced adversaries, you'd get three - each desiring nothing less than the complete defeat of the other two. And all this in sight of the still mighty Brits. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced LA would have made a great Canadian city.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 The north of mexico and the indian south of mexico would make possible slave areas but the central region where most of meixco's population lived in 1848 had the most people.

Mexicans were anti-slavery so we'd see the north and far south uniting to destroy the southern states in exchange for some conessessions(US going bilingual, the civil war bieng made an anti-slavery crusade from the start and admission of the populated valley states of mexico)

[ag]

1 The north of mexico and the indian south of mexico would make possible slave areas but the central region where most of meixco's population lived in 1848 had the most people.

Mexicans were anti-slavery so we'd see the north and far south uniting to destroy the southern states in exchange for some conessessions(US going bilingual, the civil war bieng made an anti-slavery crusade from the start and admission of the populated valley states of mexico)

Yes, you might see the North and Far South Uniting to destroy the South, but the Northern concession would have to be letting the Far South go its way (and, possibly, with Texas as the spoil of the war). And if the North didn't offer this, the South always could - in which case, Mexicans would attack the local Union garrisons and, possibly, California to support the Southern rebellion.  Given that the South was seceding, do you think they'd mind that much another secession further South?

You should realize that Mexicans would have cared 10 times as much about their independence as they'd care about what would happen to the black slaves somewhere a 1000 miles to the North. There would not have been just one Civil War, but two, running simultaneously. The slave issue would have been really marginal, as far as the Far South was concerned - what they'd care about is driving back the Anglos. Neither the North nor the South would have been able to count on their loyalty - as long as the other side could still offer them more. Both US sides would have to pay them off w/ independence and more (the North could, for instance, pay them off w/ Texas, the South w/ California). In the end, both the South and the North would have been worse off - and the Brits might have been tempted to enter the fray (first, by arming Mexicans from the Carribean, later by going in along the West coast, reviving the Oregon country claims and more).  Wouldn't have been pretty.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Again a rebellion in central mexico could be contained. Northern and Southern mexico idn't have enough people to cause trouble.

[ag]

Again a rebellion in central mexico could be contained. Northern and Southern mexico idn't have enough people to cause trouble.

By whom?

You forget, that the Union troups would have to be recalled to fight the Confederacy - and would have likely been severely damaged fighting their way up North with the Mexicans attacking from the back, or else they'd have to deal with a major marine evacuation - with Mexicans shooting at the ships from the shore at Veracruz and the Southern Navy doing its best to disrupt the process. The only "safe" evacuation would have required going along the Pacific coast to California - by the time the troups would have arrived exhausted, a lot would have happened. Also, chances are Northern and Southern-origin US soldiers would have had a serious go at each other, further complicating the evacuation.

There is no way the bulk of the US Army would have been back home by the start of the Civil War. Leaving a small garrison to control Mexican heartland wouldn't have worked - it would have been annihilated within weeks of any major troup withdrawal.  Conquered Mexico would have required overwhelming US military strength for decades.  Chances are, that anywhere in central Mexico US would be in control only over the heavily garrisoned territories - anything else would be no-man's land, with competing Mexican armies and governments asserting authority the moment US would turn its back. It would be one hell of a continuous blood bath. Yes, it would mainly be happening in Mexican heartland - but you underestimate its size. It is much bigger than the entire US Northeast (and even more densely populated at the time).

As for the South (actually, you probably mean the Yucatan, since the South proper - Guerrero, Oaxaca, Morelos, etc. -  was fairly densely populated) - as a cosequence of that very war it took Mexicans 60 years to reestablish anything resembling full control of the Yucatan. It is true, Yucatecan Hispanics in Merida would have accepted US control - they, in fact, asked for it. But subduing the Mayans would have likewise required a major application of US power (and, most likely, a war with the Brits over what is now Belize).

All this would have been happening in the midst of the US Civil War.  As I said, we would have had a lot more states in what is now North America at the end of the blood bath.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you assume mexico would be so quick to rebel? Mexico was in a state of chaos and its people demoralized in the late 1840's so thw wil lto resist wouldn't be anytihngl ike how you say.

[ag]

Why do you assume mexico would be so quick to rebel? Mexico was in a state of chaos and its people demoralized in the late 1840's so thw wil lto resist wouldn't be anytihngl ike how you say.

Mexico wouldn't really rebell - the organized war would have gone into a low-level guerilla without stopping. Some sort of a "government in exile" would be formed somewhere in the highlands or in the jungle, probably a few of these in fact. Of course, to the extent that US would be able to project strength it all could be viewed as a minor nuisance. But the moment the US troops would leave a town, these guys would come out of the camp and have the local pro-US authority shot. And, once at the start of the Civil War a major US withdrawal starts, the pro-US administrations would either evacuate with the troops or be dead within months.

Just a few years after the war with the US, Mexico went through a major civil war (as it did just a few years before that war). And then, right as the US was busy with its own Civil War, Mexico had another one. This time it started with a Franco-British-Spanish invasion (though, after a few months only the French continued). Once they were serious about it, the French had no difficulty capturing Mexico City and controlling most of the country, including, in fact, most of the heartland.

Unlike the Americans they actually had a support of a major chunk of the local polity - the Conservatives, who had just been defeated in the Civil War. Unlike the Americans, they never considered disenfranchising Mexicans, or annexing Mexico - the monarch they imposed, Maximilian Habsburg, had a reasonable claim to be "invited" by a Mexican Congress, as well as a reasonable dynastic claim (Spanish Habsburgs had ruled Mexico for centuries) and he, from the start, was very serious about proclaiming his Mexican nationalism and sharing the power with the locals. Thanks to the Conservatives, he also could count on the support of most of the Mexican Army, or, at least, its professional officer corps. He was also a Catholic, and, thus, supported by the Church.
 
Nonetheless, the "rebellion" - and a bloody one, for that matter - never really stopped. And the moment the French troops started withdrawing because of domestic considerations (the war with Prussia was coming up), Maximilian had his days numbered. He survived for all of a three months after the French left.

Now, instead of the tricolor waiving, Spanish-speaking, Mexico-praising, Catholic, Virgin of Guadalupe-praying, Conservative-supported, Liberal-appealing Maximillian, what are you giving Mexicans? A promise at some future undertermined day of entering the Union as a bunch of separate states and assimillating? No independent Mexico, US garrisons all over, US settlers (Anglo, Protestant, etc.) going in? Give me a break! Both the Conservatives and the Liberals would have wanted nothing more than see you dead. The priests would start every cermon by cursing you and your offspring till the 70th generation. They wouldn't be able to fight you in battle - but they'd be ambushing you 24 hours a day, every day, every time you turn your back.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The settlers going into the empty north and the indian south would outflan kthe reels and allow for control to be consolidated.

[ag]

The settlers going into the empty north and the indian south would outflan kthe reels and allow for control to be consolidated.

Not really. The North - yes, it's all not that different from Texas and California. But annexing just the North of Mexico would have been entirely unacceptable to the Northern US, as I have mentioned. It would simply never have been ratified by the Senate (this is, actually, more than just a supposition, it's a fact - this is why Polk was forced not to renegotiate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that his renegade ambassador signed). 

Yucatan - possibly, but there wasn't anywhere to go, since half the peninsula was not controllable (even the Brits had to pay off the Mayans with guns to be left alone in Belize). Nor is that land very fertile - before the development of the tourist industry it wasn't good for much. So, the settlement would have only been possible around the cities of Merida and Campeche. In any case, Yucatecan problem would have been separate and would not have affected the conquest of the mainland (in most aspects, Yucatan was a separate country, anyway - there weren't many links, physical or political, between the two). So, here the problem would have been, mostly, between the US, the Mayans and the Brits. Yucatan did ask to be annexed - but the US simply concluded - probably, rightly -  it wasn't worth the trouble.

This leaves Mexico proper - from, roughly, Zacatecas south to the Guatemalan border (or, at least, to Chiapas - the Chiapanecan jungle fairly densely populated with hostile natives wouldn't have attracted many settlers, anyway. This is the territory with, at that point, almost the entire Mexican population and most of its resources, both in mining and in agriculture. It is also huge - much bigger than the entire US Northeast. I am not saying it was not possible to subdue - but it would have required a  full and undivided US military attention for over 50 years. Any US weakening in the interim (Civil War, Spanish War, WWI) would have witnessed major bloody revolts, with Mexicans actively supporting whoever the US opponent would be.

Don't forget: US only has, at that point, 13 years before the start of the Civil War. In fact, as I noted above, there is a significant chance the annexation would have accelerated it (though it might have started with a Northern, not Southern secession). There is no way in hell that in just 13 years or so the immigrant population of several million people settles in the fairly densely populated, extremely rugged, and bloodily rebelious Mexican heartland (there is, simply, nothing to attract the migrants there - unless, of course, you make your situation worse by expropriating the property of the locals and granting it to the migrants). So at the start of the war Mexico is still, culturally and politically, well, Mexico, and, still, determined to get rid of the Anglos. And once the war starts, Mexican participation almost guarantees that the US, as we know it, does not exist within a decade, torn asunder between the USA, CSA, Mexico and Britain.

To sum up, there is a reason Polk stopped where he did: politically, he couldn't annex anymore of Mexico without annexing the heartland, and he knew he could not annex the heartland.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I think you give mexico too much power.

[ag]

I think you give mexico too much power.

No. But a) I realise how far from preordained was the US survival as a single entity in the Civil War and b) how much more would Mexicans care about their independence then Americans about annexing Mexico.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 I agree that the US's survival wazs very much in quesiton i nthe civil war but I don't think its inevitable.

2 Guerilla warfare is more of the 20th century thing so your idea of a reovlution ods'nt seem likely to me

[ag]

2 Guerilla warfare is more of the 20th century thing so your idea of a reovlution ods'nt seem likely to me

You don't know Mexican history. Mexico had it very much on for at least half the time between 1810 and 1875. That was, pretty much, the normal state of affairs: a civil war after a civil war interspersed with foreign invasions. And civil wars involved very much the sort of the decade-long guerilla activity you find unlikely.  If anyone could do it, Mexicans could.