Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 07:05:47 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History
| | |-+  Alternative History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  Mexico annexed after 1848
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Mexico annexed after 1848  (Read 6867 times)
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« on: June 25, 2006, 10:15:51 pm »
Ignore

So how would things have changed with mexico being part of the US from 1848 onwards(don't worry about the politicking needed to get that goal through. Just assume that Polk's veep George Dallas(one of the few supporters of the all mexico movement in a high enough place to have an impact) had more influence on the polk administration)? How would having 10-20 new states and 30-50 million more people(mexico would be first world so it wouldn't have our world's rapid growth. I'm also assuming the 20+ million mexicans in the US of OTL as part of the calculations to 50-70 million mexican-americans) change the US?

And now for the second part of the question: What would the culture of the US in 2006 be like? Since mexico in 1848 was 1/3 of the total US's population at the time, even if birthrates drop and the mexicans end up a smaller minority they'd still have a large influence(look at how much influence blacks have had and they're what 13% of the population). Other than cuisine which would obviously be affected(well moreso than in our world. In our world we have an explosion of mexican food the last few decades but that world would see mexican food popping up slower than in our world but in a slower transition). Salsa more popular than ketchup in 1930 instead of sometime in the early 2000s? American english would of curse adopt some spanish words(words like the spanish equivilant of boss, conquest etc) and pronounciations for words. The mexicans don't believe in the one drop rule so perhaps that attitude starts spreading to mainstream america earlier than OTL? The puritan influence on the US with regards to things like prohibtion is obviously reduced. That would likely kill off efforts to establish prohibition of at least alcohol/cannibis(remember in our world cannibis spread north to US blacks from mexico so in this world with a more
gradual introduction of it and a whiter group bringing it in) on a national level. Some midwest/new england states probably still do those kinds of laws. What other changes would american culture and society have in the 158 years after 1848?
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28446
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2006, 04:02:49 am »

With a territorial government of Baja California as well as Alto California, when California is admitted it is much smaller with the portion south of 36-30N placed in the Territory of Baja California and the remaining portion east of 120W placed in Utah Territrory. Texas is also slightly smaller, with the panhandle being part of the unorganized territory and the portion west of the Pecos being part of Chihuahua Territory.  Eventually 16 States will be formed from what is now Mexico, plus we get two states out of California, and the Southwestern boundaries are somewhat different from what we know.  The Mexican States (as a condition of statehood during the 19th century) by and large admitted as slave states, but save for the Rio Grande states of New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas (which includes our Nuevo Leon) it doesn't take root.  However, while the other Mexican states don't have widespread slavery, save for the Colorado River states of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Baja California (our Southern California), Cortez (Our  Baja California), and Sonora, none abolish it during the 19th century.  (The 18th amendment provides for a gradual emancipation after it is adopted in 1924.)

Enthusiasm for additional territory wanes during the mid part of the 19th century as the South realises less gain from the annexation of Mexico than it had expected, so Guatemala ends up keeping Chiapas instead of losing it to Mexico.

With Mexican labor readily availble to open up the West, the Chinese exclusion laws get passed in the late 1860's or early 1870's, at least a full decade earlier than they did.  They are also far more restrictive.  The result is that Chinese emmigration to Noth America is confined mainly to the Canadian provinces of Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

Prompted in part by anti-Catholic sentiment and in part by a desire to Anglify the Mexicans, hordes of Protestant missionaries decend upon Mexico in the latter half of the 19th century and far fewer American missionaries go abroad.  By 1900, less than half of all Mexican-Americans are practicing Catholics, and by 2000, less than a quarter are. Thanks to the infuence of the converted Mexicans, National Prohibition (the 14th Amendment) starts sooner and lasts longer before it is abandoned after World War II.

A more inward-looking United States stays out of World War I, but worries about Japanese exapansionism cause it to participate in the sequel, with the U.S acquiring Hawaii and Canada acquiring Alaska from the Japanese.  (The Chinese also regain the ancestral Manchurian lands of their imperial dynasty from the Japanese.)

After World War II, The victorious Trilateral Powers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany set up the League of Nations to try to avoid the scourge of war.  Unfortunately, war weary Russia and Brazil succumb to Luxembougian revolutions, and a Cold War soon settles in between the Trilateral Powers and the Triumvirate Powers of Russia, Brazil, and the Ottoman Empire (which had stayed neutral in WWII)  The Ottomans are essentially riding the tiger, allying with Brazil and Russia solely for reasons of realpolitik and when the uneasy Russo-Turkish alliance of convienence crumbles in 1956, Constantinople, Moscow, and seventy-three other Russian and Ottoman cities are scourged with atomic fire. Besides direct damage, the Eurasian continent suffers from the fallout, both nuclear and political of the war and the United States narrows it focus from the world to just the Americas and in particular Brzail.  Brazil had no nukes, but the Brazilian War bogs down into a protracted guerrilla war for the United States that lasted almost two decades before the last troops were withdrawn.

The United States has offered mostly moral support to the United Kingdom after the 9/11 attacks of November 9, 2001 which saw a Boeing 747 crash into Parliment during the Queen's Speech, despite calls from some quarters to actively participate in trying to establish democracy in Arabia, and concern that prominent Black Islamists such as Mohammed King Jr. have ties to Al-Qaeda.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2006, 07:48:35 am »
Ignore

1 MExico had chiapas before 1848 so it wouldn't change thebstatus of chiapas

1 Coahuila, Taumalipas, veracruz and nuevo leon are the big cotton areas so thodse would be the slave statres.

3 I don't think so. I see slavery going away the same time that it did in brazil or a bit earlier

4 I doubt it. I see the mexican population as having the influence of weakening the puritanical elements.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28446
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2006, 08:31:00 pm »

In colonial times Chiapas was part of the Captaincy General of Guatemala. Only the westernmost part of Chiapas was part of Mexico from independence.  The easternmost portions weren't annexed until the 1880's. Most was unilaterally annexed by Mexico in 1842 following the collapse of the Central American Federation, but rather than trying to enforce that claim, I think that a United States struggling with integrating and occupying Mexico would try to simplify things by ignoring the claim or negotiating it away when settling the border with Guatemala.

Vera Cruz may have cotton, but it was already well settled by the the 1840's.  Why bother importing negros when you can exploit the locals?  As for New Mexico and Chihuahua, you can use slaves for things other than cotton growing and those territories were sparsely settled and would have been populated mainly by Southern interests.  The Colorado River states were also sparsely settled, but would be heavily Mormon influenced and the Mormons weren't much interested in having either slave or free negroes living among them at that time.  A good deal of antebellum Northern anti-slavery sentiment wasn't due to being against slavery per se, they just didn't want any blacks around, and having no slaves greatly reduced the numbers of blacks.

With the United States not only remaining a slave owning country, but expanding the area it was used in, I think slavery is likely to persist in the U.S. until the mechanical cotton picker makes it practical for cotton plantations to replace their field hands.  Even so, I'm having to assume that with a South undevastated by a civil war, the cotton picker gets developed a couple decades earlier than in reality.  The only other reason to assume that slavery dies out as fast as 1889 would be the influence of the Third Great Awakening, but considering that the Second failed to do so, I doubt if the Third would.

You underestimate the power and attraction of religion.  With Mexico part of the United States, I see no reason that it would not be affected by the Third Great Awakening of the late 19th century.  If anything, it might be more receptive.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2006, 09:06:59 pm »
Ignore

This question periodically arises, and I once gave what I believe would have been the oucome: the US would not have survived the Civil War as a single entity. I guess, by 1880 the map of North America would have  looked something like this: a huge (still British) Canada (including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and a substantially more southerly border from there eastwards), the rump USA (Northeast and Midwest, possibly without Maryland and Delaware), CSA - the South + Maryland/Delaware and parts of southern Midwest + NE Mexico, California (including the entire Mexican NW, Arizona, New Mexico, etc.) and rump Mexico.

The reason I think this would have been the case is that annexation of Mexican heatland would create an extremely unstable situation, with three irreconcilable territorial entities uneasily united under a single government. Remember, Mexican heartland at that stage is densely populated and largely lawless even aside from the US invasion, while Mexican population is hostile to the Protestant Anglo invaders.  Assimilating this area by colonisation is impossible in the short term. The Mexican-American war would have gradually passed into a guerilla stage, with the US government control within Mexican heartland limited to actively occupied urban areas. While colonisation of the sparsely populated Northern Mexico would not be a problem by itself, it would create new problems elsewhere, since Tamaulipas, Coahuila and parts of Nuevo Leon would easily develop into new slave states, strengthening the South, increasing the unhappiness of the North. Some resolution would have to be found before they join the US as states - meaning likely earlier start of the Civil War. When hostilities would break out between the North and South, most of the Union army would find itself posted in Mexico, trying to control the guerilla. Both North and South would be tempted (in fact, would find it indispensible) to appeal for the support of the Mexicans, but the price of that support would inevitably be the recognition of Mexican independence.  The Southerners, being secessionist themselves, would find themselves readier to do this, meaning that the Union troups would find themselves attacked  on both sides as they try to retreat to join the battle.  Most likely, the Southern secession would succeed. US would find it extremely difficult to have a meaningful link with California, etc. suggesting a possible secession there as well.  Mexico would thus regain its independence, though in much abridged form (probably less than half of its current area, though most of its population), with the North split between California and CSA (or, possibly, some sort of an independent Texas state, separate from the CSA).  Of course, nobody would expect that Britain wouldn't react to the disappearance of a strong US by trying to extend its Canadian holdings (and it wouldn't find much effective opposition frome the defeated rump USA).

In the extremely unlikely case that the enlarged US would survive, it would be a dramatically different country. In 1848 Mexico's population is nearly half of that of the US. By the early 1900s the combined country would have a Catholic majority, implying a radically different politics (expect few if any Protestants ever elected President from 1900 on). The Mexican heartland (roughly from Guadalajara-Aguascalientes-Leon-Tampico line further south) would continue being substantially separate both culturally and politically, dominated by some sort of a local political party. The country would be very different both from today's Mexico and the US.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2006, 09:46:15 pm »
Ignore

Mexico had only 1/3 of the US's population in 1848. Sure its 19th century rate of population growth woudl be larger than our timeline but you forget that mexico would be in a first world nation so it wouldn't grow as much as it did in our 21st century(instead of 110 million mexicans plus 20 million more in the US making 130 mexicans we'd see abotu 1/2 of that). We'd have about 70 million mexican-americans in that timeline. Thanks to air conditioning/demand for labor we'd see mexicans move north like how the blacks did so only about 30-40 million mexicans in the mexican states
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11778
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2006, 11:50:34 am »
Ignore

Mexico had only 1/3 of the US's population in 1848. Sure its 19th century rate of population growth woudl be larger than our timeline but you forget that mexico would be in a first world nation so it wouldn't grow as much as it did in our 21st century(instead of 110 million mexicans plus 20 million more in the US making 130 mexicans we'd see abotu 1/2 of that). We'd have about 70 million mexican-americans in that timeline. Thanks to air conditioning/demand for labor we'd see mexicans move north like how the blacks did so only about 30-40 million mexicans in the mexican states

If you already know all the answers Straha why the hell did you ask us for our own opinions?
Logged

"God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America" - Otto Von Bismarck

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger

Quote from: Conservapedia
Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election.
MasterJedi
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18010
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.65, S: 6.43

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2006, 01:34:49 pm »
Ignore

Mexico had only 1/3 of the US's population in 1848. Sure its 19th century rate of population growth woudl be larger than our timeline but you forget that mexico would be in a first world nation so it wouldn't grow as much as it did in our 21st century(instead of 110 million mexicans plus 20 million more in the US making 130 mexicans we'd see abotu 1/2 of that). We'd have about 70 million mexican-americans in that timeline. Thanks to air conditioning/demand for labor we'd see mexicans move north like how the blacks did so only about 30-40 million mexicans in the mexican states

If you already know all the answers Straha why the hell did you ask us for our own opinions?

Becuase he wanted to.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2006, 04:06:52 pm »
Ignore

Well, first off, there are a few territorial changes.  Most of the Mexican states stay as is, with a few being incorperated into others.  The Arizona Territory encompases almost all areas West of the Rio Grande.  Texas consists of all OTL Texas east of where the Pecos meets the Rio Grande, then from that point, in a 15 degree angle to the Red River.  The new eventual state, consisting of all the land from OTL New Mexico (east of the Rio Grande) the remainder of OTL Texas and the Oklahoma Panhandle (admited in 1886) is eventually dubed "Amarillo" and its capital is situated in Amarillo City.  California is split into the "Baja California" territory, which consists of all the Baja Penninsula and Southern California up to just north of LA (the capital of which is San Diego), and "Norte California" which consists of all of the present Northern California, small parts of western Utah Territory and most of southern Oregon.  There is no "Nevada" as the remained remains in the Utah Territory.  Luckly... Las Vegas remains in Arizona.  Washington and the the remainder of Oregon are admited as the state of Oregon in 1862.

Now that all that is behind me...

The Civil War is averted due to a massive wave of Western Expansion that sends both Southerners and Northerners alike into the new territory, including Mexico.  Also, the effort needed to keep order in the new territories takes presedence over internal struggles.  Many Irish Catholic immigrants from Boston, New York and Philadelphia (about 30% of the total Irish Catholic population by 1900), move into the South West seeking religious tollerance.  As a result, Irish integration in the Northeast takes a bit longer, since they were not bonded to their country, nor did they gain any greater respect from their country men through the war, and they lack the same political power as in the OTL.  Other Catholic immigrants eventually follow in the foot steps of the Irish, and the former Mexican territories have substantial Polish, Austrian, German and esspecially Italian (who currently make up 15% of the overall population) minorities by the end of the 20th century, though about 40% of the population traces its roots back to Mexican and at least one other ethnic root.

Economically, there is a brief two year depression in the after math of 1848, which is then followed by nearly 30 years of almost constant economic expansion.  The Credit Mobiler scandal, and several other banking, business, and government corruption problems that arise eventually lead to an almost decade long depression in the 1880's, which is finally ended by government reforms, expansion of trade to the Orient, the adoption of the Silver Standard (aided by Mexican Silver loads), and the 14th Ammendment; Abolishing Slavery and esstablishing the "Reconstruction Act" aimed taking steps to reform the Southern economy, after the collapse of King Cotton, by President Grover Cleveland (Reformed Whig).

By 1890, English is the unofficial first language of the United States, spoken by almost all citizens, throughout all the land.

Eventually, historians seeking to put a better moral justification on the wa, and seeing the progress that the US has brought to Mexico rewrite the history books to claim that granting the Mexicans freedom from Santa Anna and spreading American Democracy to the Mexican people.  By the end of the 1890's, this is the commonly held view.  As such, when photos of the brutal treatment of Cubans under the Spanish regime cirrculate back to the United States, the US, under President William Jennings Bryan (Progressive-Populist), has no trouble justifying a war against Spain in 1897.  In so doing they sieze all Spanish territory ceeded in the OTL.

---------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... I gotta go... I'll finish this later.
Logged

ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2006, 06:53:15 pm »
Ignore

Mexico had only 1/3 of the US's population in 1848. Sure its 19th century rate of population growth woudl be larger than our timeline but you forget that mexico would be in a first world nation so it wouldn't grow as much as it did in our 21st century(instead of 110 million mexicans plus 20 million more in the US making 130 mexicans we'd see abotu 1/2 of that). We'd have about 70 million mexican-americans in that timeline. Thanks to air conditioning/demand for labor we'd see mexicans move north like how the blacks did so only about 30-40 million mexicans in the mexican states

Except, of course, that for the first hundred years after 1848 the natural growth rate in the US was far, far higher than in Mexico. Assuming, as you do, that Mexico would become "first world" (meaningless in the 19th century, but I take this to mean "like the US") after 1848, means assuming a much higher population growth rate among the hispanics. In 1900, the average life expectancy at birth in Mexico City was about 20-24 years. I believe it was over 40 years in the US. No fertility rate (and it wasn't higher in Mexico than in the US, anyway) would make up the difference.

You seem unaware of the basic fact, that extremely poor countries do not necessarily have large population growth. Most population growth occurs at the transition to development, which you imply, would have occured far earlier in Mexico than it did. For much of human existence, the high fertility rates were balanced by high death rates, meaning that population was stationary. Then, with mortality rates falling, the fertility rates lag behind, resulting in a population explosion over a couple of generations. If anything, these days the catch-up happens faster.  In Mexico it took barely a generation: 30 years ago Mexican women had 7 kids, today the fertility rates in Mexico and in the US are the same, at roughly 2.1 per woman.  I believe, the comparable fertility drop-off in the US took over 50 years. If the transition happened in Mexico at the same time and at the same rate as in the US, there would be many more (in fact, several times more) Mexicans in 1900 than there actually were, not fewer.
Logged
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2006, 07:35:51 pm »
Ignore

Mexico had only 1/3 of the US's population in 1848. Sure its 19th century rate of population growth woudl be larger than our timeline but you forget that mexico would be in a first world nation so it wouldn't grow as much as it did in our 21st century(instead of 110 million mexicans plus 20 million more in the US making 130 mexicans we'd see abotu 1/2 of that). We'd have about 70 million mexican-americans in that timeline. Thanks to air conditioning/demand for labor we'd see mexicans move north like how the blacks did so only about 30-40 million mexicans in the mexican states

Adding to what I just wrote. Talking about air-conditioning and the timeline to the 21st century is meaningless here. I have a hard time believing the combined state would have survived past 1870. Even if it did, it would have been radically different from the real US already by 1900. The key to my argument is that it would be extremely hard for the US to digest the Mexican heartland over the next few decades, implying an extremely unstable political configuration.

No massive migration of the Protestant Anglos into the Mexican heartland would be possible, unless the area was pacified, which I do not see happening, at least, for a couple of decades. Unlike all the other US conquests in the 19th century, the Mexican heartland was densely populated by the standards of the time - there was no space for the same type of settlement as happened along the Western frontier (unless, of course, the US government was willing to physically exterminate, say, three quarters of the local population, including the white hispanic community - which would be considered barbaric even by the sad standards of the period).

There was a reason even Polk never proposed annexing entire Mexico. What he wanted to do is to annex the North - say, 60% of the remaining Mexican territory, which only had a small proportion of the population. The reason he didn't do it (he could always disregard whatever his ambassador signed with representatives of some fleeing interim Mexican government of dubious legitimacy) is internal US politics. Annexation of such areas as Tamaulipas, Coahila, etc. was entirely unacceptable to the Northern politicians, since it would imply a sharp power shift towards the South.  In practice, the Northern Senators would have simply blocked the ratification of any such treaty. Had they yielded, chances are the secession would have happened earlier than it did - but it would have been the secession of the North. In case it were unsuccessful, the resultant South-dominated US would have resembled more modern Brasil, than it actual self - it would have never become the industrial powerhouse it did, it would remain dominated by plantation farming for decades to come. By the way, since plantation farming required less white labor, the European migration would have gone to Argentina to a much greater extent than it actually did.

Of course, the Mexico proper would have been anti-slave, and this would have made the complete gobbling up of Mexico on paper more acceptable to the North than the partial dismemberment I have just discussed. But the annexation of the entire Mexico presented different problems, that were much more apparent even at the time, and this is why this was never seriously contemplated. Even assuming US could somehow disenfranchise the pure-blooded Indians (over a half of Mexican population at the time), the remaining "ladino" population would still be sufficiently numerous to dominate local politics for generations to come (in fact, as I discuss in another post here, by 1900 it would have been larger than it was if the US project were to succeed). Furthermore, assuming this population agreed to participate in US politics (again, an optimistic assumption - I actually foresee a lengthy guerilla warfare ensuing) it would have likely formed an alliance with existing Catholic communities in the US proper (remember that quite a few of the Irish US soldiers sent to fight in that war defected to the Mexican side - enough of them to form the Batalion de San Patricio, which, until its defeat in battle and execution of its members formed one of the better Mexican fighting units). This would present a sizeable force in the US politics.

From this, assuming the extremely unlikely case the US is still around for more than 15 years after Mexican annexation, I see one of the two possible developments (and, without the benefit of hindsite, it seems the US politicians at the time had some vague idea of the same): either one of the two major US parties becomes a de facto Mexican/Catholic party (and, given the forthcoming German/Italian/Irish immigration, this becomes the dominant party by 1900), or, and I think this would be more likely, the Mexican states (again, by that time only the states south of the Guadalajara - Tampico line would be still properly Mexican, but they would have had substantially larger population than they actually had, due to the lower mortality and consequently higher population growth) would become the province of some sort of an autonomist "Partido Mexicano" or "Partido Hispano", with other parties only active in the Anglo states. This, in turn, would have a de facto impact of eliminating the popular election of the President: assuming there are still two Anglo parties, no party would be able to get an electoral majority. The election would be routinely decided in Congress, and, in practice, it would come from the negotiation between the party leaderships.

To sum up, assuming the what I believe to be an extremely unlikely eventuality of US successfully annexing Mexico and not disintegrating in the process, the US internal politics would be radically transformed and made dependent, to a substantial degree, on the preferences of the Mexican heartland. This was recognized at the time, and for that reason there was not serious discussion of annexing Mexican heartland. The proposals to that effect that were introduced were designed to sabotage the more limited annexation of the largely empty Mexican provinces beyond what actually was annexed.

The only parts of Mexico that could have been plausibly annexed and digested at the time were Baja California and, possibly, the rest of the Northwest (Sonora, parts of Chihuahua, may be Sinaloa and Nayarit, Durango etc.). I guess, nobody really wanted all that desert.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11778
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2006, 09:04:05 pm »
Ignore

That's quite interesting what you mentioned ag that the annexation of more area in Northern Mexico could have lead to a major shift to a southern power base. So the US becomes Brazil-like with the South like poor Northern Brazil and New England and the Midwest like richer Southern Brazil. What would we have in that inventuality? An Argentine superpower as Argentina gains a large number of the immigrants that would have gone to the United States? That to me sounds incredibly interesting. Of course Argentina would have to keep its internal political order to accomplish remaining a first world nation.
Logged

"God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America" - Otto Von Bismarck

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger

Quote from: Conservapedia
Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election.
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2006, 09:11:00 pm »
Ignore

All Argentina needed to remain a first world nation was to have anyone but peron in power.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11778
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2006, 09:15:58 pm »
Ignore

All Argentina needed to remain a first world nation was to have anyone but peron in power.

Well their decline began in the twenties with the socialist reforms of the Radicals and then got pregressively worse until Peron screwed things over royally.
Logged

"God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America" - Otto Von Bismarck

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger

Quote from: Conservapedia
Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election.
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2006, 01:16:54 am »
Ignore

That's quite interesting what you mentioned ag that the annexation of more area in Northern Mexico could have lead to a major shift to a southern power base. So the US becomes Brazil-like with the South like poor Northern Brazil and New England and the Midwest like richer Southern Brazil. What would we have in that inventuality? An Argentine superpower as Argentina gains a large number of the immigrants that would have gone to the United States? That to me sounds incredibly interesting. Of course Argentina would have to keep its internal political order to accomplish remaining a first world nation.

Given that US plantation-dominated economy in this case does not require as much labor as it actually did, and that in general US is less attractive for European migration, I guess, it could be plausibly argued that Argentina also gets a lot more of these immigrants, and, consequently, possibly different domestic policy. But I don't know enough about Argentina to do even educated guesses here.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2006, 09:17:53 am »
Ignore

All Argentina needed to remain a first world nation was to have anyone but peron in power.

Well their decline began in the twenties with the socialist reforms of the Radicals and then got pregressively worse until Peron screwed things over royally.
Peron was the person who pushed it over the edge. IF anyone else had been in powers the socialist "reforms" would hasve been survival.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
kashifsakhan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 515
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2006, 09:01:15 pm »
Ignore

All Argentina needed to remain a first world nation was to have anyone but peron in power.

Well their decline began in the twenties with the socialist reforms of the Radicals and then got pregressively worse until Peron screwed things over royally.
Peron was the person who pushed it over the edge. IF anyone else had been in powers the socialist "reforms" would hasve been survival.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Logged

Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2006, 01:57:45 pm »
Ignore

Basically argentina got peron and we got FDR.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines