lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035 
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 1, 2018 20:56:18 GMT
Hmm... That's interesting. But that would defeat the whole purpose of Mexico being an American territory on the first place. When such an uprising occurs, it would mean the start of a civil war, in which the North took the first step. Now it's not the South seceding, but the North targeting its own colony and people. It would mean a very weird situation. This would also mean a big bunch of the fighting will occur in Mexico. Now, here, the South has the number superiority and way more resources. This would allow troops in the actual South to attack Washington without even seceding. This is starting to get strange. In any case, I still consider the South would win. Not enough Northern support can ever be mustered. Did some Googling an found these numbers: Mexico's population as of 1849 was 6,868,700. By 1850 it had reached 7,485,200. The US population of 1847 was 21,406,000. By 1850 it was 23,191,900. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 1, 2018 21:02:28 GMT
That's quite a jump. Most of the US population will be found across the Eastern Coast with little pockets across California. Texas is still mostly wilderness. Mexico achieved independence in 1821, and back then the population was mostly uneducated mestizos and indigenous people. On 20 years, you see even more uneducated people and even fewer educated Spaniards, who left Mexico following independence. The North has the educated minority on their side, while the South owns a great chunk of the uneducated majority.
Just not enough people nor support to countermine the Southerners in Mexico.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 1, 2018 21:08:44 GMT
That's quite a jump. Most of the US population will be found across the Eastern Coast with little pockets across California. Texas is still mostly wilderness. Mexico achieved independence in 1821, and back then the population was mostly uneducated mestizos and indigenous people. On 20 years, you see even more uneducated people and even fewer educated Spaniards, who left Mexico following independence. The North has the educated minority on their side, while the South owns a great chunk of the uneducated majority. Just not enough people nor support to countermine the Southerners in Mexico. Shifting Southerners from the Southern States to Mexico states who are most likely anti-slavery is going to benefit the North, as the Southerns in any civil war have to defend a much larger territory and with any fighting being mostly conducted in the North and South of the country i see the North having the advantages, also i still do not think the South is going to enslave free people, some European countries like Spain will not like it, and defiantly a lot of southern America countries are not going to like it. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 1, 2018 21:17:26 GMT
Just keep in mind the US--as the video mentioned--will absorb a tremendous debt, meaning they'll be financially unable to wage another war in the near future. Even though European nations disliked slavery, countries like France and the UK found the Southern enterprises quite lucrative. Even though they wouldn't openly support the South, they'll still make business with Southern plantations and invest on the Mexican industries. The US won't have the resources to cover the entire Mexican territory, and the Southerners will have an expanded access to the sea the US simply can't blockade.
The US is too economically devastated to wage a proper war, whereas the South is overflowing with cash from their new businesses. You can bet a sizable of Southerners won't pass on the opportunity to make millions exploiting the indigenous people. It's like having a cookie jar all for yourself and not eating one cookie because your neighbor doesn't like the crunching sound.
That analogy was perfect.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Apr 2, 2018 11:29:38 GMT
I'm not so sure. Mexico was appalling lead during much of the 19thC, especially under Santa Anna but when it comes to fighting for their freedom that is a different matter as the resistance to the American occupation during the war showed. Their a proud people and they would hate being occupied, especially by a Protestant Us seeking to establish slavery, which IIRC had already been made illegal in Mexico. The war was largely pushed by southern interest in the hope of expanding slavery. A lot of the army leaders who gained experience from there were from the south, including a certain Jefferson Davis. Ironically most of the land gained OTL was unsuitable to plantation slavery and the only region that might have been suitable, California, rejected it.  However there was also interest in parts of southern Mexico, especially around the Yucatan peninsula I think which the south thought would be suitable for new plantations. If all of Mexico was annexed then it would have been very much an area of interest for southern planters. However I think that they would have faced immense opposition, especially if they had tried to enslave the locals rather than bring in Negroes as slaves. In this case the civil war is very likely to occur and I think you would see most of Mexico very quickly in revolt against southern domination of the region. This is going to drain their manpower and other resources pretty damned quickly. If the leader of the north is wise he will quickly come to terms with Mexico and offer to respect its independence. [Although if the gold rush has occurred this will be without the northern territories taken OTL.] This will have an impact on the US in terms of it sets a precedent that forcible annexation is not a good idea. There will be some lasting distrust in Mexico but that will ease over time. If their stupid, then after the defeat of the south their going to try and 'retain' Mexico. Which will be an additional strain on the US, especially since stretching their forces so far might tempt continued resistance in the south to Washington. I would expect the latter to fail but that sooner or later the burden of trying to hold the core territories of Mexico will be accepted as too much of a burden, militarily, economically and socially. It is also likely to have longer term effects on the US because of the economic strain and because its likely to generate a prolonged opposition to imperial expansion, which could mean no later war with Spain over Cuba, or at least no/less annexations. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 8, 2018 23:00:45 GMT
I'm not so sure. Mexico was appalling lead during much of the 19thC, especially under Santa Anna but when it comes to fighting for their freedom that is a different matter as the resistance to the American occupation during the war showed. Their a proud people and they would hate being occupied, especially by a Protestant Us seeking to establish slavery, which IIRC had already been made illegal in Mexico. The war was largely pushed by southern interest in the hope of expanding slavery. A lot of the army leaders who gained experience from there were from the south, including a certain Jefferson Davis. Ironically most of the land gained OTL was unsuitable to plantation slavery and the only region that might have been suitable, California, rejected it. However there was also interest in parts of southern Mexico, especially around the Yucatan peninsula I think which the south thought would be suitable for new plantations. If all of Mexico was annexed then it would have been very much an area of interest for southern planters. However I think that they would have faced immense opposition, especially if they had tried to enslave the locals rather than bring in Negroes as slaves. In this case the civil war is very likely to occur and I think you would see most of Mexico very quickly in revolt against southern domination of the region. This is going to drain their manpower and other resources pretty damned quickly. If the leader of the north is wise he will quickly come to terms with Mexico and offer to respect its independence. [Although if the gold rush has occurred this will be without the northern territories taken OTL.] This will have an impact on the US in terms of it sets a precedent that forcible annexation is not a good idea. There will be some lasting distrust in Mexico but that will ease over time. If their stupid, then after the defeat of the south their going to try and 'retain' Mexico. Which will be an additional strain on the US, especially since stretching their forces so far might tempt continued resistance in the south to Washington. I would expect the latter to fail but that sooner or later the burden of trying to hold the core territories of Mexico will be accepted as too much of a burden, militarily, economically and socially. It is also likely to have longer term effects on the US because of the economic strain and because its likely to generate a prolonged opposition to imperial expansion, which could mean no later war with Spain over Cuba, or at least no/less annexations. the Mexicans won't like it. I have Mexican friends and believe me, they would be willing to die if some random fella tried to conquer Mexico. However, Mexico is too much of a good source of resources and the Southerners will do their best to exploit it. The consequences for them will be tremendous, and they'll eventually get kicked out, but you can expect some devastating action in the south's part. But as I said, their dominance is not to last. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 27, 2018 6:51:38 GMT
Some points of contention, if I may.
Logistics and Occupation -
By the time of the Treaty, Washington was already preparing for this possibility with funding for an additional 10 regiments having been made available while the general plan was for the garrisoning of strategic points within Mexico in order to build upon General Scott's COIN tactics; for those familiar with it, both resemble quite clearly 20th Century anti-insurgency strategy. Scott has also managed to achieve the neutralization of the lower classes vis-a-vis the Americans, while numerous sources recount the Upper classes were in favor of American occupation. Given this, I sincerely doubt any effort at partisan warfare would have much effect beyond a few years at most.
Political -
By the time the war ended the Northern States and Abolitionists were beginning to embrace the "All Mexico" movement for a variety of reasons, while the South was divided between the "Nationalists" like Sam Houston and Jefferson Davis (Yes, that Davis) in the West, and the "Calhounists" in the East. Given enough time, the political consensus would've firmly consolidated in favor of the movement.
As far as the social issues inherent, I think that's become an overstated issue in modern times; numerous contemporary publications approvingly of mixed-marriages between American Men and Mexican women as a way to "improve" the Mexican race, while such marriages did in fact turn out to be quite common in what territories were taken. The only ones real talking about the need to prevent the injection of "Half-Indians" into the United States were Calhoun and his supporters, and they were quite obviously using it as a tact to drum up support against a total annexation (Towards the end, they were against anything but solidifying Texas). The religious issues could also be dealt with in time, given that Mexico has proved fertile ground for Protestantism in the modern times, and the 1840s marked the Second Great Awakening and increase in missionary efforts by Americans; such could easily spread to Mexico.
Debts -
I personally don't foresee the United States assuming such debts, as they historically didn't with the Confederacy and the Anglo-French would be disinclined to fight a war over the issue with the United States at this juncture given the 1848 Revolutions and then the Crimean War of the 1850s. What debts are incurred can partially be alleviated by assumption of Mexican metals output, in particular the profitable mines of the North which could offset such costs.
|
|
However there was also interest in parts of southern Mexico, especially around the Yucatan peninsula I think which the south thought would be suitable for new plantations. If all of Mexico was annexed then it would have been very much an area of interest for southern planters. However I think that they would have faced immense opposition, especially if they had tried to enslave the locals rather than bring in Negroes as slaves.