• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: Larger Mexican Cession?

Deceptacon

Dyke to Watch Out For
Location
the 520
Pronouns
they/she/he
As out of my field of interest as this is, I've been fascinated by the implications of a slightly larger Mexican Cession as a born-and-raised Tucsonian. Let's assume that Trist is out of the way and Polk ends up securing a cession encompassing OTL's Northern Mexico from Tamaulipas to Baja California, something like this:

1674943739777.png

I'm particularly fascinated in how these territories would develop along economic, cultural and political lines, how statehood would proceed (and when) as well as the implications on Mexican history (having been the hotbed of the Mexican Revolution, among many others). Unfortunately I really don't have much to add to this topic, which is why I'm turning it over to you all as a free-wheeling conversation--thoughts?
 
As out of my field of interest as this is, I've been fascinated by the implications of a slightly larger Mexican Cession as a born-and-raised Tucsonian. Let's assume that Trist is out of the way and Polk ends up securing a cession encompassing OTL's Northern Mexico from Tamaulipas to Baja California, something like this:

View attachment 65153

I'm particularly fascinated in how these territories would develop along economic, cultural and political lines, how statehood would proceed (and when) as well as the implications on Mexican history (having been the hotbed of the Mexican Revolution, among many others). Unfortunately I really don't have much to add to this topic, which is why I'm turning it over to you all as a free-wheeling conversation--thoughts?
We must make a distinction between the western part and the eastern part, read https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-northern-half-of-mexico.482197/post-20102977. The western part, Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua had a very small population and could be assimilated within a generation. Meanwhile, the eastern part, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas had a relatively high population and would remain Mexican dominated for at least one generation or two or even until the present day.
 
The US would need to rely on some of the locals if it wants to assert control over the area as a practical matter, rather than just on paper. Santiago Vidaurri tried to align himself with the Confederates OTL, so the prospect of Nuevo Leone and Coahuila (which were a single state from 1856 to 1864 OTL because Vidaurri sought that and controlled both) being admitted as a state seems possible to me. Tamaulipas is the only place where there is land that is suitable for slavery. Vidaurri's state would be slavery-aligned though, even if it does not have slavery within the state itself.

OTL the Californios aligned themselves politically with Southerners in Southern California and in New Mexico (Arizona Territory). Formerly Mexican hacienderos aligning with the wannabe-medieval-lord planter class seems possible. Especially since both would be opposed to the Free Soil movement.

Splitting California into two states would be even more likely now. Colorado (what the South California state proposed OTL was to be called) probably would be a Free State, but another one aligned with slave interests.

Mexico would be smaller and more centralized. As you mentioned, the revolts against Mexico City tended to come out of the country's north. There would be no Gadsden purchase (meaning less revenue for Santa Anna in the 1850s). It's possible that the French intervention in Mexico succeeds. Or, alternatively, France doesn't intervene because there's no Sonoran Silver to be gained (France tried to annex Sonora OTL, but Maximillian rebuffed this idea).
 
Last edited:
The inclusion of the Yucatan is going to be a huge mess- the Americans are going to be fighting a combination native insurgency/slave revolt, although there is at least a local collaborator-class with no real loyalty to a central Mexican government.
While the Yucatan is included in the map, it looks like the OP is only about Northern Mexico.
 
Could the US of the time actually enforce itself on that much land or are you going to see a lot of the new southern states paying lip service to what DC wants while going their own way for the first few decades?
In short- yes, but the efforts involved would massively change American society and development patterns and would greatly exacerbate existing regional/political tensions. The numbers would be in the Americans' favor, even in including Coahuila and Nuevo Leon. Yucatan is going to be extraordinarily difficult, I personally would think an independent Yucateco Republic to be far more likely than direct annexation or integration.
 
In short- yes, but the efforts involved would massively change American society and development patterns and would greatly exacerbate existing regional/political tensions. The numbers would be in the Americans' favor, even in including Coahuila and Nuevo Leon. Yucatan is going to be extraordinarily difficult, I personally would think an independent Yucateco Republic to be far more likely than direct annexation or integration.
Still, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas had a relatively high population and would remain Mexican dominated for at least a generation or two or even until the present day.
 
Still, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas had a relatively high population and would remain Mexican dominated for at least a generation or two or even until the present day.
I mean, I think each one of those territories (immediate statehood is completely out of the question) would be distinctly Hispanic (Mexican national identity being pretty complicated and still not firmly fixed in the time period) just like OTL's Southwest- but there are a few counterpoints- one of which is the unreliability of demographic estimates for Mexico in the time period (Mexico didn't accomplish their first national census until 1895, we have a smattering of state censuses for the time period but mostly further south, Coahuila as your one example doesn't seem to have been much more populous than New Mexico, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas almost certainly were- but even then, by 1895 when we actually have Census data- together they weren't even half as populous as Texas) and then the other is the possibility of widespread land theft and displacement, with large parts of Mexico not having been surveyed and land ownership firmly documented into the 20th century. There are a lot of different ways that demographic crush could develop, and likely a spectrum of Hispanicity for American territories in Mexico as a result (and that is before you get into the demographic and political impacts of what is likely to be even worse conflicts with natives- which the Nuevoleonese would gleefully support as IOTL, with a central government more willing/able to support their 'volunteers'.)
 
Could the US of the time actually enforce itself on that much land or are you going to see a lot of the new southern states paying lip service to what DC wants while going their own way for the first few decades?

The populated portion of the region is run by Vidaurri, who was happy to link his fate with whomever he thought would preserve his autonomy OTL - Juarez during the Reform War, Maximilian during the intervention, and even the Confederacy. I don't see any particular issue for him with the idea of being a US State, so long as he gets to run things in his domain as he sees fit.

The remaining territories are Tamaulipas, which I assume would get bought up by the planters fairly quickly, and mostly empty lands in the Mexican northwest.
 
How the area might be organized.

Nuevo Leone (comprised of Nuevo Leone and Coahuila), with some minor border adjustments (which I based off of adjustments made during the imperial Mexican period).

A "Sonora" based on the Forsyth line. The Yaqui River, then a line due east to the Rio Grande.

Tamaulipas, slightly enlarged.

Southern California.

Two other territories. Call them Chihuahua and Sonora-Durango I guess.
1675046602500.png
 
How the area might be organized.

Nuevo Leone (comprised of Nuevo Leone and Coahuila), with some minor border adjustments (which I based off of adjustments made during the imperial Mexican period).

A "Sonora" based on the Forsyth line. The Yaqui River, then a line due east to the Rio Grande.

Tamaulipas, slightly enlarged.

Southern California.

Two other territories. Call them Chihuahua and Sonora-Durango I guess.
View attachment 65202
Assuming your Southern California doesn't go any further North it is pretty close to being non-viable as a US state here. Other than that, pretty reasonable borders. That straight line border is going to be a huge pain to both the US and Mexico, which doesn't mean it couldn't/wouldn't happen.

EDIT: The 1850 proposal put it at latitude 35.30, a later proposal put it at Big Sur, CA.
 
Last edited:
Assuming your Southern California doesn't go any further North it is pretty close to being non-viable as a US state here. Other than that, pretty reasonable borders. That straight line border is going to be a huge pain to both the US and Mexico, which doesn't mean it couldn't/wouldn't happen.

EDIT: The 1850 proposal put it at latitude 35.30, a later proposal put it at Big Sur, CA.

I assume Southern California would include parts of OTL Southern California, but because I was working off of a map of today's Mexico I did not clarify that.
 
Not to criticize OP, but I think the map shown is probably a bit off from what Polk sought. It includes large portions of Durango, Zacatecas, and Sinaloa that I don't recall Polk seeking OTL. Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leone, and a line due west from Coahuila to the Gulf of California (the 25th parallel?) seems more likely.

1675109732091.png





If the Second Mexican Empire is a successful endeavor, I think it would be a very interesting - and dare-I-say successful - polity.

Maximilian is a figure I enjoy learning about, because he seems like a well-intentioned figure screwed over by other forces. He accepted the throne because he was presented with phony referendum results and opinion polls which told him the Mexican people actually wanted him - meaning he was suckered into moving to Mexico. He was brought in by Conservative reactionaries, but actually had very liberal politics that largely aligned with Benito Juarez (and even offered Juarez the Prime Ministership). He supported the formation of a liberal-democratic federation of Central American states. He was brought in by the French, but rebuffed French attempts to annex Sonora for themselves. He signed the Black Decree, but pardoned most of the people who were sentenced to death for it. He adopted the grandson of Agustín de Iturbide - Agustín de Iturbide y Green - as his own son and named Iturbide as successor (which is to say, he did not seek to supplant things in Mexico for the benefit of his own family lineage). He refused to abandon his generals and save his own skin when the opportunity presented itself. And his last words were a hope that his death that Mexico could know peace.

I imagine he would have set up a moderately liberal regime with many of the same policy goals as Juarez, but likely more accommodating of Conservative interests. Liberal reforms could perhaps go through if his regime survives - much to the chagrin of the Conservatives who brought him into the country. The construction of key railroads integrating Mexico City and Veracruz, and extending west to the Pacific, were initiated under Maximillian, for example.

Additionally, the attempted Confederate settlements in Carlota (halfway between Mexico City and Veracruz) and Cuernavaca might be successful. The Americans would loathe these emigre setting up shop in a monarchy on their southern border, but a class of able generals in Mexico with some experience in agricultural development (yes, they're rat-bastard slaveholders) and engineering and logistics (as most generals had at the time) could be a boon for Mexico militarily and economically. Following the fall of the Second French Empire, his country would be able to avoid throw off what French influence remains. Perhaps it would be a place where Bonapartist elites, now removed from power in France, could run off to as well - additionally providing other people who could help develop the country. Mexican history OTL after Juarez is a long line of local elites deciding to invite foreigners in to develop the country. Here, Mexico may perhaps have a cohort of people loyal to Mexico who can develop the country.
 
If the Second Mexican Empire is a successful endeavor, I think it would be a very interesting - and dare-I-say successful - polity.
This is really fascinating. Also apologies about the map, I got it from Howe's book.

How do you guys figure the territories will proceed with statehood? I know of post-statehood efforts to split the state, but up to initial statehood I find it hard to imagine a substantially large Southern California state being lobbed off given the circumstances of OTL, even with the presence of a substantially-sized peninsula--although my knowledge of this era is lacking, apologies if I'm mistaken. Yet even then I still can't imagine Congress assenting to a Californian state even larger than OTL. And what about the other states, assuming they mostly remain the same territorially aside from Vidaurri's Nuevo Leon and Coahuila?
 
A surviving Mexican monarchy with Bonapartist elites fleeing feels like you'd have a long-term problem, a lot of Mexico's power resting with a foreign elite and the general population chafing at it (esp. if things weren't going well).
Yeah- I feel like Mexico somewhat benefitting from the ability to have a more cohesive, central government is reasonable (although they also lose almost all of their oil- important to their 20th century development- and especially lose the earliest discoverable deposits, there are a lot of tradeoffs but this is a big one) but the idea that Mexico would be better off if it had more territorial humiliation AND an 'enlightened' monarch imposed by overseas forces gets into something uncomfortably close to apologism.
 
Yeah- I feel like Mexico somewhat benefitting from the ability to have a more cohesive, central government is reasonable (although they also lose almost all of their oil- important to their 20th century development- and especially lose the earliest discoverable deposits, there are a lot of tradeoffs but this is a big one) but the idea that Mexico would be better off if it had more territorial humiliation AND an 'enlightened' monarch imposed by overseas forces gets into something uncomfortably close to apologism.

Maximilian is a weird figure whose preferred policies were largely the same as Juarez's, he resisted French demands at points, and the French lose influence over the country within a decade of entering it in my speculation because Napoleon II will still be ousted from power after the Franco-Prussian war.

Franz Joseph II broke with Maximilian OTL and removed the latter from his position of Viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia because Maximilian wasn't reactionary; and Cavour was relieved when he heard Maximilian was removed from his position in Italy since Cavour viewed Maximilian's good governance and liberalism as a hindrance against the cause of Italian unification.

I'm gonna emphasize that Maximilian was suckered into being Emperor of Mexico. He conditioned his acceptance on the Mexican people actually wanting him, and he was presented with phony plebiscite results. He was invited by reactionaries, and ironically had something close to the opposite of his politics. I don't see why arguing that a government that hews closer to Juarez's policies than to the OTL Porfiriato is close to apologism.


Wikipedia (yes, I know, not the greatest of sources) describes the following about Maximilian:

1675188608579.png


Not having oil is a minus, but the economic wealth from the oil mostly went to the government and the wealthy.
 
Last edited:
Something I don't think has been mentioned yet in the thread is how this might impact domestic US politics in the immediate aftermath of the Mexican-American War.

Even before the treaty was ratified OTL you had the Wilmot Proviso submitted several times and Lewis Cass proposing popular sovereignty. So the debates of the 1850s will still be flung open over territory acquired from Mexico but now there's even more of it.

If there's slaveowners buying up land in Tamaulipas at the same time as OTL Narcisco Lopez is trying to filibuster Cuba even as Polk tries to buy it from Spain it might just galvanise the idea of a slavepower conspiracy.

Then there's the California factor if gold is discovered on schedule, and there's no real reason it wouldn't be in this scenario. If the influx of American-born settlers is still mostly Northern (again, no reason to believe otherwise) then it may apply for admission as a free state on schedule.

You'd have everything that went on OTL leading up to the Compromise of 1850 but with the added factor of much more land from Mexico, including potentially Coahuila-Nuevo Leon also applying for admission whilst slaveowners attempt to set up shop in Tamaulipas.

I think it possible this scenario increases the chances of violence erupting in 1850. Bleeding California, perhaps? The State of Texas occupying parts of New Mexico? Conflict between Hispanophone and Anglophones in Tamaulipas? Then there's the Mormons and Deseret.

Wider conflicts that could come from this scenario too such as a version of the American Civil War kicking off a decade early. Secession was discussed OTL at the Nashville Convention in 1850. There's also the prospect of a Spanish-American conflict if filibuster chicanery re: Cuba continues as part of a craze in ensuring there be enough slave states.

A lot depends of course on who is in the White House from 1849 onwards but if the Mexican-American War has gone as OTL except for the treaty this is still very likely to be Zachary Taylor or Winfield Scott. Neither of whom I can see putting up with much nonsense.
 
Back
Top