I could definitely see this happening especially if the USA had gotten Canada beforehand as the push would be about keeping the balance of northern free states and southern slave states
They wouldn’t really take all of Mexico. In reality, had the USA annexed Canada, they could’ve really taken current day northern Mexico and the Yucatán. But allow central Mexico to remain independent. Just allowing the states that surround Mexico City to reign easily. Mexico is a mountainous country. They would make a rump Mexico as a trading partner and protectorate state of the USA. Also if France were to invade Mexico, the divided USA would drive the French out of Mexico and this would make problems with the French. Maybe perhaps they need to convince how serious the USA takes its Monroe Doctrine for. Show how no European nation must make moves into the Americas. This would definitely have Mexico spiral into calamity. And of course this would have Mexico to ask the USA for cooperation for law, order, and trade in North America. This would allow the USA to gain all of Mexico by the time the 19th century ended, and only took long after Polk and the us civil war ended to gain all of Mexico. The irony of this greedy president and it took only Canada to push for more land south of the Rio grande.
Best alternate history I'll see all day, it would be cool to see what would have happened if Winfield Scott had become the Mexican dictator. Maybe for the next one?
I like the scenario, but there's simply no way the USA returns anglo settled lands to a newly independent mexico in reality, its unlikely mexico can even muster the ability to gain independence without the americans giving up very prematurely, as american rule would be foreign, but it would be significantly more stable and would gradually bring democratization with it with the americans valuing self determination fairly highly. A more likely outcome is probably something closer to Canada and Quebec, where there's some fighting early on, followed by significant concessions to ensure the minority territory is retained without further conflict, leading to occasional peaceful calls for independence as it is very slowly assimilated.
The complete annexation of Mexico would have profoundly altered the demographics of the United States, resulting in a predominantly Roman Catholic, Spanish-speaking, and indigenous population.
@@mr.luisanthonydivito3585 US population 1846: ~20,000,000 Mexico population 1846: ~8,000,000 The American (successful) fertility rate was higher, far far more immigration (primarily Northern, North-Western Europeans, and Germans). The more native peoples would face the same fate as those in the US in our timeline, and it’s highly unlikely that American settlers would just let the Mestizos be, the Castizos maybe, but they would definitely move the Mestizos elsewhere.
However, 2,487,355 individuals in the US population were enslaved persons. Additionally, there were Irish Catholic immigrants sympathetic to the Mexican Catholic population and posed a threat within US Army ranks (San Patricios Battalion) . Winfield Scott and Nicholas Trist were so eager to secure a peace treaty due to the increasing Mexican resistance to the American occupation that they were willing to disregard President Polk's instructions to acquire Baja California, Sonora, Tampico, and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as spoils of war. They recognized the unattainability of the American occupation of Mexico. Trist was later fired upon learning the terms of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. Polk accepted it because of the growing anti-war movement in Congress. Moreover, Congress understood that annexing Mexico would also mean recognizing Mexicans as US citizens, who were predominantly Native American, Spanish-speaking, and Catholics and not enslaved. This idea posed a threat to the political status quo in Washington.@@sawyersprott
If there are any parallels, they can be observed in the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico maintains its distinct language, culture, and religion while benefiting from the rights and protections of US citizenship. Ironically, in recent times, there has been a noteworthy shift, with more Americans immigrating into Mexico than Mexicans immigrating into the United States. This trend includes retirees, digital nomads, and a growing number of industrial managers establishing nearshoring assembly plants for US manufacturers.
Only to people who like fireworks. Mexican patriotism is several leagues beyond American patriotism and their Civil War (called a Revolution) lasted 15 years and sent a tenth of the country northward or to their graves.
@@AAAAkaishicÌIÍ636 Not saying if it *could* as I understand the logistical and bureaucratic strain it would impose as the US would be stretched thin. That’s why I said the words “would” and “imagine”. So I reiterate the question: imagine how crazy powerful it would be if they annexed all the Americas.
Venezuela would have been much better off for sure instead of being in the mess it's in now because of that narcissistic idiot Maduro and his fellow socialist pals who have wrecked it
I could see it where America manages to pacify Mexico. Mexico if it wanted independence again might be a problem in the civil war. As The Lincoln didn't want the Union to break apart and if anything it is possible central Mexico would probably be trying to push for statehood. They two states that might be made from this point would be central a non slave state and north mexico a slave state. Either that or during the war Mexico might offer as a territory to prove itself and attempt to crush the south. So we might see a lot more fighting in the west in this timeline. However, Lincoln giving them all the right to vote would cement the Republicans as the main party for the Mexicans. Also, we would expect Central Mexico to become very very religious.
Slaves that risked their lives to cross the Mexican border to gain their freedom, seeing the place where their live in Northern Mexico become part of a slave state: 🙂
Why would Republicans have a harsher stance on the South? Does Lincoln not get killed in this timeline? Otherwise that does not make much sense. Johnson was a Southern Democrat, if he still succeded Lincoln, and the war was even quicker due to the help of the Mexicans, I see no reason why the U.S. would punish the South more harshly than they did in the OTL.
idk how often other people get into this, but considering how it's generally accepted that the US would have stomped Mexico if they agreed to the Zimmerman telegram (forgot it's name), I'd be curious to see how the post stomping situation would look for Mexico
"It's generally accepted that the US would have stomped Mexico". The people in the Mexican government at that time knew it was a total suicide to accept Zimmerman's telegram, lol.
imagine how much more oil America would have from annexing, America and Mexico produce so much oil but a certain group won't let America dig up the oil we have
@jackolanternrblx7679 Take a wild guess. They're the ones who killed the Keystone pipeline, and always ɓ!+çh and moan whenever any attempt to separate from OPEC happens. Which btw, just a few years ago we did exactly that, and became energy self-sufficient - and now we're back to "normal", and it sucks again.
Pemex was founded through Cárdenas's decree on June 7, 1938, in response to the perceived exploitation of Mexican oil by American interests. President Cárdenas portrayed the expropriation as a necessary national response to the perceived injustice of foreign companies operating on Mexican soil.
One of my best friends is of Mexican heritage, he once told me a story of when he was visiting family in Mexico, and during a family gathering some of the older family members were talking about how it would've been a great thing for Mexico and its people had the US annexed the whole country during the Mexican American War.
With the addition of Mexico I can see the short term agreement of adding slave states and free states continuing for the short term. Having a few extra years at least only could help the North and West to industrialize more. The US could simply leave Mexico into open rebellion tell after the war. Most close territory would have been Southern territory. It would force the Confederate government to send forces out west to fight Mexico. A more industrialized North and West plus being forced to send troops out west only weakens the Confederate forces. The US government just makes a deal with the rebels after the war. The Northern Mexican states stay with the US and Mexico gets the Yucatan back. It would be interesting to see how the future would look especially during ww1 and on.
I really don't think the south at the time had the population to affect the demographics or rather politics of north mexico in such a shorth time period i also feel like slave revolts wouldve been more common
I have an idea: what if the US never expanded past the Mississippi River and sticked with their original borders that Britain gave them after the revolution?
what if america purchased Baja and Yucatan peninsula's from Mexico. Purchased Greenland from Denmark. And actually settles the colonies it did have in the Carribean and Liberian
Baja California actively resisted the American military occupation for 18 months. It's the reason why Nicholas Trist didn't press on including it as a spoils of war in the Treaty.
ya thebusa would t give back borthern mexico to get mexico to help them against the csa. they would let lower mexico be free to get them to help and that would be it.
That would affect a lot of American elections and future politics😅 though I have to say if Trump became president in this timeline then he can actually go to war against the cartels without the people in government getting in his way
@bigz4302 the cartels grew in Mexico because Mexico is an easy jumping off point for flying cocaine into America. If Mexico was part of america this wouldn't be the case. Either the cartels would stay strong in Colombia or they'd grow in strength in Cuba.
1:26 The thing about Santa Anna being president 11 times is a misconception that needs some clarification. Santa Anna was elected president 3 times and was dictator once. The "eleven times" thing comes from the fact that Santa Anna was very Lazy so he frequently asked permissions to be absent. This example will explain this clearly: --Santa Anna was elected for the period 1833-1837 however he wasn't in Mexico City at the time so his vicepresident Valentin Gomez was the acting president for 90 days. --Santa Anna arrives and works for two weeks and then requests permission to be absent due to "poor health" Valentin Gomez replaces him during two weeks. --Santa Anna returns, he works for two weeks and again requests a second permission of absence due to "poor health", Gomez works for 4 months. --Santa Anna returns, he works for 90 days and then he leaves for the third time, Gomez works another 5 months. --Santa Anna returns and finally works for 9 months but he leaves again to lead the army against the Texan Revolution Santa Anna was also interim/provisional president three times. Being Interim president was not that strange, Nicolas Bravo was interim president three times and Valentin Gomez was interim president five times. In fact, if you sum the time Santa Anna was actually in the office you get something like 5 years. that is less than two presidential terms at the time.
I would rather have the US of A annex Juarez and add it to NM. Plus, I would love to see Baja California cede a bit of land to (Alta) California and make it its newest county.
the culture wouldnt have change much , considering mexican culture is already part of american culture because there are already many mexicans living here
What if the Mongol invasions and Empire happened earlier in this scenario this could happen in many points in history to the earliest during the Persian Empire till the latest the 8th or 9th century around the Viking age That would be interesting because the Mongols meeting the Vikings I think the Vikings would join them and help them in some other conquest and expansion maybe even some Mongols would join them to their invasion of Britain😅 But what do you think would happen if the Mongols invasion happened earlier and how that would affect certain parts of world history
It's been argued that the Mongols almost did conquer all or at least most of Europe, but they failed because their khan (king) died and the entire Mongol army had to return home to attend his funeral (yes, really). If the khan had just managed to live a little longer, Europe might well have become a Buddhist or (more likely) an Islamic continent rather than a Christian one.
Please do a video on what if titkourau didn't lose his suport in the new Zealand land wars (happy to help with this) and if you do this can you please learn the pronounceation, at least learn the word māori
During the Mexican-American War, a robust armed resistance against the American occupation in Baja California prevailed. The resistance found leadership among remnants of the Mexican army, Dominican priests, and Yaqui Indians. The 18-month insurgency against the American occupation strained the US Navy, leading to the constant redeployment of vessels away from the blockade of Pacific Ports. This resistance also likely influenced U.S. Envoy Nicholas Trist to disregard President Polk's request to annex Baja California, ultimately shaping the border towards the Pacific.
Much of Northern Mexico thought Mexico City was a bigger threat to them than Washington DC. Core Mexico couldn't have been brought into the USA. But Northern Mexico wanted to try.
i kinda wonder about what alot of mexicans think of this timeline they would probably enjoy less crime a Higher standard of living and more stability but at the same time their beloved nation would be more of a local identity apert of a much larger empire kinda like the deep south or texas rather then a independent society at the same mexico would likely have a history of being treated like second class citizans for some time for being mix raced catholics at least until America mellows out a bit then Mexicans would probably be seen as a core part of America's cultural identity
@@m.j.vazquez4720 how so, i stated that America would treat them as second class citizans which was the furthest extant of America's racism against hispanics and meso Americans.
@@m.j.vazquez4720 yeah in in the same way that post 1860s America after the end of the slave trade despite that fact that they suffered horribly thanks to systematic racism and hate groups like the kkk, in America many black American enjoyed a better safer more stable standered of living then they would have in africa where tribal wars usually meant the total extermination of the losing tribe just look at the dehomey conquests that in a brief period of time killed five times more poeple then the entire north American slave trade its the same case for mexico where idk if you know this but pre 1950s mexico wasn't a very pleasent place Mexico had endured brutal revolutions some of which killed over a million most of whom civilains well mexico dealt with many brutal despots such as santa anna or Garcia who where responsible for countless human rights violation aswell violance starvation corruption and opression where a fact of life at the same time for a large part of mexican history there goverment was never stable enough to deal or strong enough to rain in the bandits and rebels that raped and pilleged the countryside and aswell the the war with the cartels likely wouldn't be a major problem it is today either so yeah mexicans likely would have enjoyed a higher standered of living but at the same time they also most likely would have a vastly different culture and identity then today
@@emrysgeibhendach75721-pfff r u comparing this to africans slaves and africa ? 2- and ? the us had a brutal civil war that killed 620,000 mafias and corrupt gov oppressed people the gov forced people to destroy crops during the great depression treaties and promises were broken with minorities for decades 3- i dont know if you know this but america wasnt a great place for tejanos californios and hispanos
Can we get a scenario in which Frussia rebels against Kaiser Wilhelm’s terrorist regime with support from the Russian Empire and Khanate of Von Sternburg?
6:14 But it ultimately would be less bad than the Civil War, which most likely would be avoided as the South had much more territory in the South that was more suitable for slavery than the territories in the West which were not. It also help push the Whigs or Republicans to favor conquering Canada as more Northern Land would help balance against the Pro-Slavery South. As technology continued to advance, the favorability of slavery would died down and eventually all slave states would become conditionally emancipated until slavery was such a cost to maintain it was outright stamped out. This would happen by the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, so slavery would had been delayed longer to finally end, but there would no Jim Crow, albeit prejudice and discrimination in the free states towards blacks would still exist and persist all the same until 1960s. "But Core Spain would resist." LOL! Until their taxes increase to the point that Mexicans by large convert to Protestantism to decrease there taxes or the class divided between the White upper Class and the Black and Native Lower Classes end up allowing slavery to exist but other another name. Thus making it pointless to resist or even oppose.
More likely the Mexicans would have been put on reservations to starve, just like the indians. Our ancestors weren't afraid to break eggs when making omelets.
Somehow, this whole scenario ultimately worked out so well for Mexico in the long run. Yeah, they were under the foreign occupation for a decade. But when the American Civil War broke out, everything went Mexico's way. And it kept only getting better when the another civil war broke out within the U.S because it allowed Mexico to reclaimed the territories it lost back during the Mexican-American War.
8:05 I think that Mexico would accept the alliance with the United States since the president of Mexico in those years Benito Juárez had a great friendship with Abraham Lincoln (there is even a statue of Benito Juárez in Washington DC), in addition Benito Juárez was indigenous, which makes more sense for him to rebel against the Confederates 8:46 I think that nationalist dictator would be Victoriano Huerta because he is a politician, military man and dictator of Mexican history who in our real history had planned to accept the Zimmerman plan and his own plan to attack Texas. 10:00 If Mexico had had a war with the U.S., it would have had to be after the Agadir crisis and not with the assassination of Franzisco Fernando (in a different WW!) because Huerta died in 1916 and the Agadir crisis would have given him enough time in the war (1911-1916) For those who think that the revolution would have stopped Huerta, I would think not, because the beginning of the revolution was an interview between the president and an American journalist, and with the anti-American sentiment of this different Mexico, I don't think he would have accepted this interview, preventing Francisco I Madero from starting the revolution, and if he still did, he would imprison him just like in real life, only now without freedom. Viva Mexico!
I find it very weird that the Confederate government asked Mexico for help but since Mexico was against slavery they didn't join to help the southern states...
Maximillian assumed the throne because of Conservative pushes for a monarchy, which Napoleon III saw as an opportunity to gain influence in Latin America. It's not impossible that Napoleon III might try to prop up Maximillian again after Mexico gains independence, but I doubt it due to the nationalist sentiments in Mexico, probably not wanting a foreign ruler after having been under foreign occupation.
America conquered Mexico during the Mexican American war. It was so bad that America gave it back. Even Mexicans do not like Mexico, that is why so many try and entered the US, even illegally.
I don't see how. At the time, most Mexicans lived in the Valley of Mexico. Whatever State it became, it would probably be like Quebec. The rest of Mexico would be open to settlement and quite a few of them would be Southern planters and I don't see them speaking anything but English. After they go away, immigrants from all over would settle the better parts and just like elsewhere, they will eventually assimilate.
@@JoshSullivanHistory Hola Josh, qué pasaría si estallara una guerra de invasión de U.S a México actualmente?. Cada vez está tensa la situación geopolítica entre los políticos estadounidenses de considerar a los cartales mexicanos como grupos terroristas como los de oriente medio, si llegase a pasar, y de forma hipotética nadie ayuda México, ni China, ni Rusia, ni latinoamerica, con una población débil de México, sin casi armas que les hafa frente a U.S, devastada, derrotada luego de la invasión de U.S, U.S anexa a todo México, cómo se asimilaría al extinto México a U.S?. Use google translate.
1:55 it wasn’t largely unpopulated as the Tejanos had lived there, as well as the indigenous tribes in that region, descendants of Spanish and Pueblo exiles, and settlers from both the US and Mexico who went into those lands long before the Mexican gov’t decided to invite and incentivize people into settling into that territory in a bid to further their imperial goals. There were thousands of people living there already, all with mixed allegiances and agendas. The reason why Mexico did what they did was to expand further to establish borders before the US could get to it. It was a strategic and deliberate move.
The Mexican government, particularly after the Mexican-American war barely controlled anything outside of Mexico City. They were deeply divided politically between conservatives and reformists and particularly along class lines. This is what made it so easy for the French to take over Mexico. It is true that Mexico had banned slavery but this obscures the reality in Mexico, which is that indentured servitude to large land owners or Caudillos, little different than slavery was very common and widespread. It’s highly unlikely that Mexican nationalism would have found much purchase in Mexico, much less some sort of reconquista, even if/when the civil war came. Civil War in the US was inevitable, and as the southern states went to war over their inability to expand slavery into new territories, Mexico would have been the nexus of the war’s origin, much the way Kansas was. The U.S. would have inherited all of Mexico’s problems including it’s complete lack of infrastructure, desperate poverty and sharp regional divisions - and it’s hard to say if Mexican nationalism and an independence movement didn’t become a force later on, but Mexico’s economy would have been vastly better and presumably they’d have had better, more responsive leadership and maybe avoided a half century of dictatorship and stagnation followed by a ten year civil war that killed millions. “All Mexico” was simply never going to happen because of U.S. politics and anxiety more than Mexican resistance. Regardless, great and fun video!
