Which US candidate will either due idiocy or actual will make this reality faster?
feel the shill
Oh no you don't. If you take Texas, you're taking Oklahoma too. There's no room for negotiation on that one.
Shillary said she wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens after 90 days of them living here.
I don't think there's anything that annoys me more on /int/ than mexican smugness about Latino demographics
>>60175524
Yeah man I heard something about Hillary wanting to dissolve US border within 1 year of her presidency, I'm really curious about it
>>60175676
She's a shameless globalist who wants to be the American Merkel and import enough people to ensure her political party never loses an election.
Even the most Hispanics in the US are republicans - it's the blacks who are solid blue because of dat welfare
>>60175548
>not getting a latino gf to join the master race
>>60175548
Funny thing is it's all illusory from pointless one-drop rules. Fucking Geoff Hernandez from Houston turns lobster-red in half an hour of sunlight, thinks Taco Bell is ethnic food and patrols the border on weekends with his minuteman buddies but he's "latino" on the census.
>>60175676
>wanting to dissolve the border
That's hyperbole, but she wants to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and reduce our presence on the border.
>>60175435
the one that creates less mexcrement butthurt
>>60175548
There's no racial difference between White Americans and Mexicans except Americans have more Black blood. Mexican immigrants are what's going to save the US.
>>60176055
Which one would that be my dear American intellectual?
>>60175435
Clinton because of policy
Trump because of ironic backfiring
wew lad
>>60175435
Clinton because of policy
Trump because of ironic backfiring >>60175888
>Fucking Geoff Hernandez from Houston turns lobster-red in half an hour of sunlight, thinks Taco Bell is ethnic food and patrols the border on weekends with his minuteman buddies but he's "latino" on the census.
>"""""""""""white"""""""""" latinos
>>60176843
CHI
>>60176843
>There's no racial difference between White Americans and Mexicans except Americans have more Black blood. Mexican immigrants are what's going to save the US.
>>60175435
Trump never specified the wall would be on the current border.
:^)
Why wont the US just annex mexico already?
That would solve a lot of problems
>no more mexican butthurt cause they get their land back!
>no more large border to defend
>NO MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!
>>60178678
He is not wrong, you could argue that insted of black blood present in Americans Mexicans have native but in the end the phenotype in both nations is predominantly white.
Give Mexico back their rightful clay, Yanks
>>60176843
o ok
>>60178678
People say "non latino whites will soon be a minority in the US"
When that finally happens they'll just remove the "non latino" part from statistics so they can keep saying the US is still white.
ITT
CHI
>>60178627
They would pass as white Americans.
>>60176843
CHICANO
>>60176843
t. San Juan Diego
Mexico pls invade
>>60175941
Im mexican and she sounds fucking retardo
>>60180875
Spics look like Spics.
Most non-hispanic white Americans look like Europeans.
Also, it's a meme that white Americans are mixed with 10-15% African blood.
This is only concluded because mixed race "whites" were included in the results and then the percent was averaged out.
Most Northern Americans are as white and European as their ancestors from 1700-1900.
>>60181193
A chicano would deny any white blood in Mexicans tho.
>>60182098
?Que es este "Chicano"?
>>60175435
>Canada not taking Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
>>60175775
Except Trump now has the black vote sewn up because he's associated with tasteless displays of wealth, something black culture glorifies.
>>60180874
Same reason we didn't do it in 1848.
"We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake."
-- James Polk
>>60180911
Sure thing m8. Right after you give Gibraltar to Spain and the Malvinas to the Argies.
>>60182515
Or give Ulster to Ireland.
>>60182413
Well that's quite embarrasing reading it now.
Wonder how Polk would feel about this.
>>60182515
Both of those territories are rightfully Britain's.
Gibraltar was ceded in a war, and referendums have all overwhelmingly gone in the favor of the UK owning them.
The Falklands were colonized and occupied for centuries by Britain.
>>60182413
It's honestly refreshing to see the unironic racism of past presidents.
>>60182667
americucks
>>60182387
kek.
The only niggers who vote are women and they are 100% Hillary.
>>60182667
Probably would run as Trump's vice-President.
Isn't Polk known as the one president who actually did what he said he would and then left like he said he would?
>>60182667
A lot can happen between now and 2040.
>>60182740
Yeah We could have even less whites and more spics.
It goes both ways.
"As the war was winding down, President Polk faced increasing pressure from antiwar voices who said the entire conflict was a mistake and an act of European-style aggression and militarism along with extremists who favored annexing either Mexico's northern states or even the entire country. Some Whigs only supported the annexation of Texas while ignoring everything further west while most of the All Mexico advocates were pro-slavery Democrats. In the end, Polk stuck to his commitment that the US would annex Texas, Nueva Mexico, and California, but nothing south of the Rio Grande. He was in any case eager to end the war as fast as possible for logistical reasons (the war was extremely expensive) and political reasons (it would have become a major issue in the upcoming 1848 presidential election)."
>>60182740
But less whites is guaranteed.
Non-hispanic white Americans have been naturally declining since 2013.
What are you even mad about? You nerds won't have children anyway.
>>60182793
All the same, Mexico's birthrate is also shrinking fast.
>>60182832
Yeah but not the Mexicans up here.
>>60182814
Who you calling a nerd Hue?
>>60182413
John C. Calhoun said that
>>60182760
Polk purposefully didn't run for election in 1848 even though he would have won by large margins.
>>60182413
>>60182671
It's likely a fake quote tho, given that I've seen it attributed to polk, a senator and an ambassador, also paintings of the time portrayed Mexican soldiers as white.
>>60182760
>>60182949
It was actually very convenient that the war ended just before elections in the US started, which would have guaranteed that Polk were voted out due the American deaths being much higher than expected. It's almost as if Santa Anna have been on the side of the US all along :^)
>>60182832
Mexico != Chicanos
>>60182760
The key difference being that the Southwest was almost entirely an empty wilderness in 1848 with nothing but Indians and a few settlements in Nueva Mexico and California. These were inhabited by Spanish-descended settlers and the US immediately promised them citizenship. There was some resentment among them as they feared discrimination and cultural incompatibility with the Anglo/Protestant majority US. A few chose to move to Mexico, but most stayed put. Only in California was there a brief rebellion which was soon suppressed. The locals of Nueva Mexico quickly pressed claims against Texas, which was forced to give up its westernmost territories in 1850.
The total non-Indian population of the SW at the time was under 90,000 people. This stands in contrast to Mexico proper which had at least 7 million, including many pure-blooded Indians. Not only would it have been foolish to absorb approximately a quarter of the US population at the time (then about 20 million people), but they would have had to be represented in Congress and become an overnight major political influence, not factoring in the language, cultural, and other incompatibilities with the US, or the cost of occupying and pacifying Mexico.
Most All Mexico advocates were Democrats who wanted to establish slavery in Mexico, where it had already been illegal for 20+ years, but also the only part of Mexico suitable for cotton was the coastal plain around Veracruz, a heavily populated region.
>>60183040
>Mexicans still butthurt that they had a bad dictator while we had good ones
>>60183041
Chicanos are just a bunch of stoner college students in CA who wear Che Guevara T-shirts though.
>>60182857
They are as well. Birthrates for all races have dropped quite a bit since 2008.
>>60183071
Hillary or Bernie will change that you know.
>>60183155
FUCK
Why did you remind me?
I'm not a big Trump fan, but it speaks volumes when the democratic candidates are worse.
I love Bernie, but he would get hijacked by the SJW Democrats.
I dislike Clinton, who is a shill and corrupt.
>>60175775
Actually most black people I know vote republican because of welfare. They know it's just a way of keeping people voting blue.
"Although the Spanish-descended ruling class of Mexico were mostly pure-blooded Europeans, this did not necessarily make them equals in the eyes of WASP Americans. At that time, it was generally held that Latin Europeans, while higher than blacks and Indians, were less than northern Europeans. One of the first Mexican ambassadors to the US, a pure-blooded Spaniard, following independence in 1821 reported the condescending attitude with which he was received in Washington DC. The first US ambassador to Mexico, Joel Poinsett, spoke of Mexicans as "an ignorant, immoral" race. Even the upper class criolles were held in low esteem and accused of "constant intercourse with the aborigines, who were and still are degraded to the very lowest class of human beings .... [racial miscegenation] contributed to render the Mexicans a more ignorant and debauched people than their ancestors had been."
Annexation of the 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 colonization is impossible in the short term. The Mexican-American war would have gradually passed into a guerrilla stage, with the US government control within Mexican heartland limited to actively occupied urban areas. While colonization of the sparsely populated Northern Mexico would not be a problem by itself, it would create new problems elsewhere, since Tamaulipas,
The only parts of Mexico south of the Rio Grande at the time that could have reasonably been annexed were Baja California and the northern states like Sonora and Chihuahua, but what were we going to do with that empty desert anyway? Even New Mexico and the other areas in between Texas and California were mostly just desert and only interesting because they were between Texas and California.
>>60182760
That's fun. The Mayans will have fun decimating the Americans just like they decimated the Mexican and Yucateco armies. It'll be like an nineteenth century Vietnam.
>>60183873
It was under OTL anyway. The Mayans resisted the Mexican government for more than half a century before the rebellions were finally suppressed in 1901 and there was still scattered resistance as late as the 1930s.
>>60175435
Mexican politicians are actually dumber so never.
>>60175888
Your race is self-reported on the census so if Geoff Hernandez puts himself down as Latino that means he himself identifies as one.
I'd highly doubt the Mexicans were that different from the current U.S culture, Perhaps the US could handle them like the US handled white immigrants from Europe. Learn our language and assimilated and you'll be left alone. Settlers would largely settle in the northern area of Mexico (Sparsely populated). This may even result in the largely white north join the confederacy, and the South would join the Union assuming a later civil war- 1870 due to the expansion of slavery into Mexico.
>>60184111
That's the problem though, all this was completely incompatible with the racial and social ideologies of the 19th century which held that Mexicans were a lower race incompatible and unassimilable with WASP American society. In fact the main reason it wasn't annexed is because *drum roll* it was full of Mexicans.
>>60184111
That's the thing though, most Mexicans were Indians who didn't identify with European culture or values at all and even the Mexicans who were of European ancestry were still regarded as an inferior race as I noted in >>60183349
>>60182413
Waddy Thompson, a Whig who'd worked as a diplomat, said:
"A friend said to me today that we will not take the people, but the land. Precisely the reverse will be the case; we shall take the people, but no land. It is not the country of a savage people whose lands are held in common, but a country in which grants have been made for three hundred and twenty-five years, many of them two and three hundred miles square...it is all private property, and we shall get no public domain which will pay the cost of surveying it. I speak of the country beyond the Rio Grande. We shall get no land, but we shall add a large population, alien to us in feeling, education, race, and religion..."
>>60180874
>>60182080
we don´t want that, Mexicans are very nationalist and we won´t let our culture mix with the US (they are not an original culture, they are a mix of plenty of cultures)
sorry>>60182080
its for you haha>>60182413
>>60182080
Is this person you?
>>60184315
>(they are not an original culture, they are a mix of plenty of cultures)
Neither are you. You're a mongrelized mix of Spanish and natives.
>>60183099
This
Chicanos are spoiled White liberals.
>>60184160
>which held that Mexicans were a lower race incompatible and unassimilable with WASP American society
They were right.
See, he even admits it in here >>60184315
>>60183349
I guess the 20-30% of European blood African Americans have appeared of them by act of magic, because white americans are too aryan to fuck with them kek.
>>60184457
Yes back in the day slave owners did their slave girls. Your point?
>>60184445
He never said anything about being inferior.
The US in the mid-19th century simply did not have the logistical, financial, or cultural resources to absorb 7 million Mexicans.
>>60184510
Your guys are huge hypocrites. Perhaps the biggest ones in the continent.
>>60184528
Obviously if you weren't an Africa-level country, your own people wouldn't need a wall to keep them down there and out of here. You don't see the reverse with you needing a wall to keep out white people.
Unless you're that Mexico is white troll in which case your opinion goes in le trash.
>>60175435
Why didn't you use the facebook one
>>60184445
I know a bunch of Hispanics who are half WASP and half Mexican. They look the same(brown or blonde hair, light eyes) and have the same culture as WASP's ie pro-SJW shit.
>>60182413
>Same reason we didn't do it in 1848.
>American president in present day
"During the war, half of Mexico's states were in open revolt against the central government. Although there was initial hope that they would welcome annexation, this quickly dimmed when the occupying army of Zachary Taylor in Northern Mexico encountered considerable hostility from the locals."
>>60184604
Since when did Mexico ever own Louisiana? The Louisiana purchase was a good 20 years before Mexico was even a country.
>>60184693
Maybe it's somehow justified from when Napoleon's cousin or someshit owned Spain, so France and Spain's possessions in the new world were essentially combined? I really don't know. I'm shit at history desu.
>>60182935
He did and this was the entire speech.
"I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race--the free white race. To incorporate Mexico would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped--the Portuguese at least to some extent--and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project...Are you, any of you, willing that your States should be governed by these twenty-odd Mexican states, with a population of about only one million of your blood, and two or three millions of mixed blood, better informed, all the rest pure Indians, a mixed blood equally ignorant and unfit for liberty, impure races, not as good as Cherokees or Choctaws?"
You can see in the situation of Canada what happens when you try to shove two completely incompatible cultures who don't speak the same language under one roof.
>>60184834
There's the other thing - although Montreal is a major financial and cultural hub of Canada and has many English-speaking Canadians, the rural areas of Quebec are still solidly French and after many of them migrated to the city for work, they turned it into a bilingual city.
>>60184834
A first world nation that has stayed together fine for generations on generations.
Oh no anything but that senpai
>>60184834
But all the worse because Quebecois are still white people speaking a European language, not a bunch of Indians and half-breeds who don't have European values or culture at all.
The influx of Anglo settlers into the Southwest was nearly unstoppable anyway; although Mexico's birthrate was much higher than the US for most of the 20th century, back in the 19th century, the US birthrate was 2-3x higher. At the time of Mexican independence in 1821, there were about 9 million Americans against 5 million Mexicans. By the time of the war in the 1840s, Mexico stood at about 6-7 million people against almost 20 million Americans.
>>60185062
After the war, the Mexican government also pushed to settle its almost vacant northern states so they wouldn't be at risk of being cleaved off along with California.
Here's where it gets complicated: Mexico was unable to establish any kind of stable political structure post-independence as liberal and conservative factions battled for control, there were civil wars, internal revolts, economic collapse, and intervention from Spain and France.
Yucatan seceded from Mexico in 1840 and allied with the Republic of Texas, later on the local governing class offered annexation to the US. Given that most of Yucatan consisted of Mayans who fought their local overlords for three generations in a war to the death, one can hardly assume they would have been more accepting of US control.
Texas which independence was never recognized by Mexico was annexed by the US as another state in 1845. The short lived republic boundaries with Mexico were delimited by the Nueces River. However, the US claimed the border to be established at the Bravo River or Rio Grande.
The Federalist and the Centralist factions were in continuous clashes.
In 1844, General Jose Joaquin Herrera removed from office to Gen. Valentin Canalizo and exiled to Santa Anna to Cuba
President Jose Joaquin Herrera ordered to have dispatched troops to the limits with Texas, while Taylor established his headquarter on the region.
Gen. Paredes y Arrillgada revolted at San Luis Potosi against the government and used the troops under his command to stop the American invasion in order to remove from power to Pres. Herrera, claiming that he was negotiating with the US to give up the northern territories.
Mexico was expecting that the US and the UK could go to war in regards the US interest on Oregon. However, the US and the British government settled the terms for Oregon to be another US state.
Mexico also expected war between the US and Britain over Oregon, however that conflict was resolved peacefully.
Most Whites these days have Mexican ancestry or have Mexican family members. All these American flags hating on Mexico are Asian and Black posters.
>>60184420
you´re right, but we are really proud of our ancestors, our first cultures. serious question
what is the thing that makes you proud about your country? power? first economy? just say one im sure you have a lot
>>60185413
Dude, I already know you're that "Mexico is totally white, guise I swear!" poster. Who are you fooling.
>>60175548
We are doing a good job, then.
>>60185277
I'm pretty sure you are a CHI, but how do you know any of this? Most people here barely know the generals of this.
"Most of the Mexican army at this time consisted of illiterate Indian conscripts led by aristocratic Spanish officers. Medical care was nearly nonexistent and even a minor battlefield injury could lead to a protracted, painful death. Soldiers often had little more to eat than a handful of rice and beans. Every Mexican regiment was accompanied by a Catholic priest who prayed for the men before battle and offered last rites and absolution to the dying. In the absence of any real logistical system to support the men, a large flock of women followed the troops into battle to serve as cooks, seamstresses, and nurses. The Spanish-descended officer corps had a low opinion of enlisted men, mostly regarding them as bullet sponges and nothing more. Wounded soldiers were abandoned by the army and left to die on the field and officers were mainly looking for wealth and personal glory. Equipment was outdated, unreliable, and in short supply. Many men went into battle without guns, powder, or musket balls. Military discipline was cruel and often arbitrary, consisting of floggings, branding, shaving men's heads, and executions by hanging or firing squad."
>>60185661
Some of the best American soldiers and pilots are are Mexican. Just goes to show it wasn't Mexicans who were shitty fighters, it was their poor equipments.
>>60184930
>who don't have European values or culture at all.
I guess we would fit right in with you, then.
>>60185487
dude what?
"The regular US Army in 1846 was not highly regarded by the bulk of the population. For much of US history and in fact right up until WWII, peacetime army service was seen as something for social rejects unable to find a job elsewhere. Many enlistees were illiterate and others were soldiers of fortune/adventure seekers from Europe. Pay was around $8 a month. There were about 8400 men in the regular army in 1846, mostly garrisoning the frontier from Indians. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, Congress authorized the President to recruit 50,000 twelve month volunteers. The volunteers were considerably different than the regular army not in the least because of their much higher patriotic fervor, but also their more loose discipline."
"Medical treatment was primitive and limbs shattered by a cannon or musket ball had to generally be amputated. Disease caused most casualties, in fact the US Army lost more men in the Mexican conflict proportionate to its total numbers than any other war in US history. Food was poor, consisting of cornbread, salt pork, beans, rice, and dessicated vegetables washed down by coffee. Some soldiers tried sampling the local Mexican food, but most found it unpalatably spicy. Orchards and gardens were also raided. Anti-Catholic prejudice was strong and despite the best efforts of officers, it was impossible to stop the looting and vandalism of churches in Mexico, all of which did not help endear the US army to the locals."
>>60185803
https://desustorage.org/int/thread/59897407/#q59897407
>>60185915
He is not him, mate, the "Mexico is white guy" uses capital letters at the beginning of his sentences.
All Mexican posters who don't use them are equally bad, though.
>>60185989
>He is not him, mate, the "Mexico is white guy" uses capital letters at the beginning of his sentences.
Well then that would appear to cover the OP.
>>60175435
You could've Englished that a little better.
>>60183225
This unfortunately describes all of my feelings as well :/
>>60185277
>The Federalist and the Centralist factions were in continuous clashes.
Federalists advocated a highly centralized government with all power flowing from Mexico City while liberals wanted a federal system modeled after the US Constitution.
Problem? They underestimated how much work had gone into drafting the US Constitution in the first place, not in the least because it was based on American political traditions which involved a union of basically autonomous colonies with their own governments and regional differences.
Mexico on the other hand had been governed for 300 years by a centralized model, although local administrators had some autonomy and often disobeyed orders from the capital. The idea of a centralized state appealed strongly to conservatives as it was similar to a monarchy, although a monarch per se was unviable due to widespread opposition to the idea. Still, the idea of grafting the US Constitution onto Mexico was at best ludicrous. The two sides were also extremely polarized and would not give an inch on anything, which resulted in many years of civil wars with the army backing one faction and then another.
It is also important to stress that most Mexicans were Indians and had no sense of nationalism or of Mexico as a nation. Most were loyal to their tribe/village/region which they would defend from invasion, but few had any desire to defend Mexico as a whole from invasion.
The issue of determining what kind of nation Mexico would be was finally resolved when liberals won the decisive political battle with the expulsion of the French forces and the end of the Second Mexican Empire. Mexico was going to be a federal republic at least in appearance. Mexico has been run as a centrist government for the vast majority of its existence ever since, but keeping with federalist forms.
>>60175435
>mexican banter
>americans try to banter back but get their shit rekt
brits are right we really can't handle the banter.
>>60186248
What are you still doing up, Paco? Home Depot is closed, go drink some Corona and get to bed.
>>60185989
thanks
>>60185915
i didn't even know that page haha, im new to blogs, im on vacations.
do you know some other pages to waste time?
>>60186236
There was one Mexican general who said "It was only after the war with the French, when we expelled them, did we demonstrate that we were viable and worthy to be a nation."
>>60185887
It must be stressed that most looting and abuse of the locals occurred in outlying areas such as the depredations of Texas volunteers on the ranches of Tamaulipas and Nueva Leon, while the overall conduct of American troops in Mexico City was quite good and there was no vandalism of churches there.
>>60182413
you dumb fucking cunt it was John C Calhoun who said that
>>60182413
>>60184780
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement
> Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina had approved of the annexation of Texas, but he was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of manifest destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:
"We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake."
you're such a dumb fuck
>>60186290
weak sauce bro'migo
>>60187052
Yeah, I know. That's why they serve Corona cold, so you can tell it apart from piss.
>>60186236
The other problem, that Mexico was not a nation of equals. It was taken as writ when the US Constitution was drafted that most Americans were WASPs who could at least write their own name and had some civic spirit and desire to be a nation. This is quite unlike Mexico which for 300 years had been a nation of illiterate Indians whipped into obedience by their Spanish overlords. There was only a small white elite ruling over the Indian/meszito masses.
While we did have slavery, Africans were not the majority of the US and slavery only existed in any case in the South. A more proper analogy for Mexico would be South Africa pre-1994.
>>60184199
>>60184278
>>60184780
Yet 1/5 of your country was full black with many other mixed people going around as whites, this alll sounds like the fox and the grapes to me, the American generals at the time thought that was impossible to annex the entirely of Mexico due lack of logistics and resistance from the population.
>>60187027
It's true. Most Manifest Destiny promoters were Democrats seeking more land for slave agriculture (annexation of Cuba was a dream they especially lusted for) and the Whigs for the most part were against any territorial expansion of the US.
During the Civil War, the Confederate leadership had ambitious plans of creating a great slaveholding empire in the Caribbean.
>>60187202
>Yet 1/5 of your country was full black with many other mixed people going around as whites
What.
>this all sounds like the fox and the grapes to me
What.
>the American generals at the time thought that was impossible to annex the entirely of Mexico due lack of logistics and resistance from the population.
Was already covered above.
>>60187318
Like I said, the Mexico is white guy is an infamous troll who thinks his brown shithole is the purest Aryan race.
>>60184111
>>60184160
>>60182760
Actually most people who favored annexation from Mexico either lived on frontier regions where territorial expansion was popular or in the Northeastern cities which had lots of Catholic immigrants and assumed Mexicans were their papist brethren. The WASP majority of Americans however did not share these views and had considerable prejudice against Catholics and people not of Northern European descent.
>>60187318
That the founding fathers considered 3/4 white people as white and various such as Jefferson fathered non-whites, The US is a place that has always had conflicting ideologies and you seem to think that Mexico wasn't annexed due some superior and inferior race ideology uttered by fringe and relatively irrelevant figures (even though the history of the US has proven that economical interests always overpower any ideology, including racial ones) instead of the simple fact that it was impossible to annex Mexico and to win a war against the populated regions at the time.
>>60187381
I don't know what are you talking about but swap Mexico with USA and you p. much describe yourself.
>Mexican bro makes insightful comments and well thought out arguments backed up with facts
>retards dismiss him as a troll
>>60187592
>and you seem to think that Mexico wasn't annexed due some superior and inferior race ideology uttered by fringe and relatively irrelevant figures
Racial ideologies were very very much a mainstream belief back then, not a fringe thing at all.
>>60187648
Nice proxy samefag, Paco.
Could the US have gotten even more of Mexico out of OTL? Yes, and it's strange that more wasn't. The treaty that came to be was one of the more unintentional things the US has done, almost entirely an accident.
Now for the topic, could the US have annexed Mexico? Yes; it would have included a many year struggle against a small resistance army that was able to go into the Mexican mountains, and it would have had to overcome the numerous difficulties of an occupation of a people who don't share the same language or culture. Even worse was the geographical distance of Mexico from the US political and economic heartland in the Northeast.
Would it have been an Iraq? No. The makings of any sort of insurgency would be radically different from anything remotely resembling the Iraq insurgency. There wouldn't be IEDs, the firearms and supplies available to any resistance would be small and backwards in comparison to the relative supply of Iraqi insurgents, and there wouldn't be the foreign fighters and involvements that shaped the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts.
A lot of Mexicans were unhappy with Santa Anna's rollback of Church privileges, they certainly would not have been amused with US ideas on the place of religion and especially Catholicism in society.
>>60187745
Probably this is about the limit of what could have been realistically taken.
>>60187834
Yucatan? Hell no. They resisted the Mexican government for 70 years, what makes you think we'd fare any better?
>>60187856
Didn't Yucatan offer to be annexed to the US around that time?
>>60187883
Nonononono. The local crillo governors offered annexation to the US, but they =/= the majority of Yucatan's population who were Indians that bitterly resisted outside control for decades. Trust me, we really, really wanted nothing to do with that hornet's nest.
If Mexico enters the Union on democratic terms, then all of the populated parts will have to enter as Free states. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and as much as Texans hate to admit it, it was their insistence on practicing slavery that lead to the Texas War of Independence. That war only served to further Mexican opposition to slavery.
>>60187930
Mexico didn't have the American-style plantation slavery, but there was a thriving underground trade in house slaves (servant types) apparently, there was a demand for Native American children, who were kidnapped from their villages, and raised to be "exotic" domestic servants.
>>60187930
>Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and as much as Texans hate to admit it, it was their insistence on practicing slavery that lead to the Texas War of Independence.
This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. The reasons behind the Texas WOI were strikingly similar to the ARW: the American colonists had been managing their own affairs for a long time, and Mexico suddenly was going to lower the boom on them, taking away all of their special tax and customs waivers, stopping completely any further American immigration, and generally keeping a firmer grip on the place. The Americans protested, and Santa Anna practically guaranteed a rebellion by putting Stephen Austin into a jail and ruining his health. Santa Anna did make a lot of noise about freeing the slaves during his campaign in TX, but he freed very few of them.
>>60187692
That explains why having sex with blacks was so common that it had to be outlawed, and even then continued happening.
>>60185989
>the "Mexico is white guy" uses capital letters at the beginning of his sentences.
>If you use capitals at the start of your sentence one day you will do it all the time
stop this meme
>>60188039
>If you use capitals at the start of your sentence ALL days you will do it all the time
ftfy
>>60188065
>implying you have a catalog of every single one of his posts
>>60187745
You don't know what are you talking about, the war as it was was economically unviable and had to be ended as soon as possible, it was also extremely unpopular due the American deaths actually being higher than Mexican ones when you don't account deaths from Mexican civilians, the US never could establish any supply lines either, Americans were repeatedly expulsed of what is northern Mexico nowadays.
>>60188072
He posts every single day.
>>60171391
>>60188104
And you think those are the only posts he makes purely based on if the first letter is capitalized or not?
>>60175435
Mexicans support trump right? he only hates illegal Border jumpers not honest working guys like yourselves! dont promote the brain drain of your great county
>>60188120
That, and because of filenames/same thematics/arguments.
>>60187911
The Mayans resisted the Spanish until 1697. There was another rebellion in 1761 and then after Mexican independence, they were not completely subdued until the 1930s. Keep in mind that during all the US wars with Indians, we never had to fight in a tropical jungle.
>>60188156
I don't think you are understanding my point
>>60188177
I am.
>>60188182
Then why do you keep avoiding it? How do you know which posts are his that don't have an image?
>>60188168
>Keep in mind that during all the US wars with Indians, we never had to fight in a tropical jungle
Nor did we ever face a large, settled native population experienced in jungle warfare. Genociding/putting them in reservations was not really practical either and one of the big problems is that the Spanish wanted to keep the Mayans around as slave labor. And as an aside, the two big crops would be sisal/henequen and sugar. Sisal was seriously profitable - a very useful tropical fiber - and funded some major development of Yucatan. And even then it was sometimes grown with slave labor (see the fate of the Yaqui).
>>60188197
Because of the same thematics/arguments/recurrent phrases and words in his posts. Or because of the filenames. Or because of a lot of other sbubtle things.
Trust me, I'm pretty great at recognizing posters because of too much free time and autism.
>>60188249
I think that you believe you're really good at recognizing people on an anonymous imageboard.
>>60188257
They always confirm when I point it out.
I don't think the United States could absorb all of Mexico without fracturing or switching to an undemocratic system and treating the lower Mexican territories as colonies. Which would then end up fracturing. I suppose it might last for a few decades though.
Population of the US in 1850: 23 million
Population of Mexico: 7.5 million
The US wouldn't be able to just absorb an area with nearly a third of its population, and which have an entirely alien culture.
Canada could have been absorbed by the US relatively easily, however Mexico would be a different story altogether. The Mexicans were more numerous than the French Canadians and in territory much further from Washington. That and they sat on land which would be less than prime for settlers.
>>60188428
There's a BIG difference between CONQUERING a nation, and KEEPING it!
>Canada
Quebec has generally had a big-ish influence on the Rest of Canada (ROC) before, during and after its 1867 Conferation.
Despite this, Francophone Quebec has always sought more and more independence.
If their voices were ignored in a Washington-dominated English-speaking hegemony, the Quebecois would scream louder and more often.
France was always careful of messing with Quebec because of British sensibilities (at least before DeGaulle, but that was much later) in OTL, but their support of a doubly-conquered Quebec might have been greater and more overt.
>Mexico
As previous posters mentioned, Mexico's folk under 'white rule' has never worked out well for long. They seem better when they are oppressing themselves, so to speak.
The myth of the Great American Melting Pot is just that - a myth.
There have been, and still are, huge issues with different cultures in the USA.
Any nation as big as CanMexUsa would almost certainly fracture under its own divisions long before human rights acceptance caught up with politics, and there was no where near that in place in the 19th century. 3/5's of a person ring a bell?
>>60188505
On top of all those other issues, eating Canada AND Mexico is going to a) produce a country that is basically ungovernable with the technology of the time, and b) the debate on slavery is going to go hellofamonkey. Even beyond that, if the US grabs Canada in 1812, you're definitely going to see the other European powers with territory in North America to look sideways at the US. Russia is not going to be selling Alaska anytime soon, and is going to seriously fortify it's territory.
On top of that, one of the major factors that attracted immigrants to the US was the fact that it had avoided the major wars of Europe. If it's going on a conquering spree throughout the 1800s, a lot of them are going to stay home.
>>60175435
Filthy spic rat.
>>60184693
>>60184741
for a period of 40 years the spanish owned it. the french got it back and then sold it to the americans 3 years later lol
>>60175435
>annexed US land form stairs
>as mexicans climb further up north and social status
POTTERY
I've never been convinced that the US in the 19th century was capable of holding onto and controlling a large population who didn't want to be there.
IMO, this includes Quebec, whom hated and distrusted the American colonists far more than the British. I'm not saying that Quebec couldn't have joined the rebellion but only if it was made clear that they wouldn't forced to join (more of an "ally" than a future state).
As for Mexico, the US had even less capacity to hold such a large population in the 1840s. even without the impending Civil War (say slavery was banned early), the US couldn't forcibly hold it. Maybe some border territories (Baja, Chihuahua, Sonora, Durango, etc) but not the whole country. The US might have been better off supporting smaller chunk of Mexico to go independent (Republic of the Rio Grand, the Yucatan) to dilute Mexico's power.
Even if they'd offered Mexico the full benefits of US statehood immediately (they wouldn't), the majority of Mexicans would revolt. It was something of a national pastime for the first 50 years of the nation's existence. they US wouldn't want to stick its head in that hornet's nest.
>>60188584
>border territories
>Durango
Coahuila, you mean.
>>60188584
>>60188532
Canada wouldn't be a problem since it was 90% empty wilderness back then and most of the population lived close to the border. The English-speaking population could be absorbed with little difficulty and Quebec poses some problems, but they are already use to being ruled by Anglophones and would have a lot of autonomy as the Federal government existed by then. Quebec would be just one small exception of being French speaking, but otherwise would fit in.
The US could conceivably absorb the upper third of modern Mexico without issue. It's sparsely inhabited and could be culturally absorbed.
Mexico proper however would be a hornet's nest due to its non-English speaking population, radically different cultural and political traditions, and the political role of the RCC. The liberal-inclined crillos were Americaboos anyway and would be easy to absorb, but the conservative pro-Church faction would resist US control The ongoing feuds between them would be very disruptive in those lands if part of the US just as it was in Mexico. The region is also substantial enough that the US would need to accommodate itself culturally to such a large section of the population than it would with Quebec alone. Multilingualism would become the norm. The US would also become saddled with the issue of land reform and peonage that eventually exploded in the Mexican Revolution and still hobbles Mexico today.
I can't see most of Mexico staying within the US without it causing vast problems. It won't necessarily implode or fragment, but there will be ongoing political problems.
>>60188505
this, the quebecois would have had to been killed or deported living under a protestant, anglo government.
>>60188685
>Canada wouldn't be a problem since it was 90% empty wilderness back then and most of the population lived close to the border. The English-speaking population could be absorbed with little difficulty
I'm not so sure it would - Canadian identity was basically defined by not being the US, well before Confederation.
>>60188685
Most criollos were conservatives, though.
>>60188720
Movements for annexation of Canada in the 19th century never got any significant support from the population. The upper classes considered themselves loyal subjects of the British crown and there is little reason to suppose the lower classes disagreed with them. There was never widespread sympathy for republicanism in Canada so the idea that they'd abandon the crown for abstract revolutionary ideas is not very probable.
Keeping in mind that a large part of Canada is descended from cucks/traitors who fled the US during the Revolution rather than pick up a musket and fight King George. These were people who loved the British king's dick/cum filling their poop chute.
>>60188685
Your not wrong, but this is pre-Zapata Mexico were talking about here. Mexico was not a solidified nation state with a solidified national identity.
There still existed a strong sense of Spanish(Spain)-Exceptionalism among the rich and officer classes, with the poor being seen as very much native / "Indian"
The poor, given the option of land and opportunity I'd ague would jump at the chance and throw away any notions of Mexican identity to do so.
>>60188856
While true, the upper classes would have chafed at Anglo/Protestant rule and the Indians even more so. Conquest of Mexico would have solidified Mexican identity and hardened it as you're going to turn "Mexican" into "Anything that's not Anglo American" as people naturally try to differ themselves from their conquerors.
Second, I kinda have to ask why the US would aid in improving the lives of millions of Catholics in the mid-1800s when that land could be given to good, God fearing WASPs? If the Mexicans get aid, then Irish would want it. Then the Italians. The Nativists would see this as a slippery slope to erode America's culture.
So that'd be extremely unpopular- probably political suicide to suggest that.
>>60188875
We are just talking about citizenship here, which is de-facto upon annexation. That, coupled with the Homestead Act, would give the mass majority of Mexicans far better economic opportunities than the rigid class structure of 19th century Mexico. This has nothing to do with "aid".
Simply at this time it was economically opportunistic to be an American citizen compared to Mexican regardless of class or race.
And I'm confused about your first gripe about Mexican culture? The poor masses did not own their own land. In fact, the landed aristocracy, which served as the conservative Catholic voice within Mexico, owned it.
Given the option of staking their own claim or living forever impoverished by the yoke of aristocratic rule I think the choice in this scenario would have been very clear.
>>60175435
What's up with the demand for all that land anyway? I never heard of you guys doing anything with it.
>>60188893
>We are just talking about citizenship here, which is de-facto upon annexation
It's this part I find difficult to see as a plausible course of action.
>Simply at this time it was economically opportunistic to be an American citizen compared to Mexican regardless of class or race.
>And I'm confused about your first gripe about Mexican culture? The poor masses did not own their own land. In fact, the landed aristocracy, which served as the conservative Catholic voice within Mexico, owned it.
But again, this is completely non-compatible with American cultural norms of the time which held that Mexicans were a sub-race, ergo what makes you think we'd give them equal protection of the law or they wouldn't be subjected to serious discrimination. Even the Tejanos and Californios which the US inherited in 1848 (and who were pure-blooded Spaniards, not Indians) faced discrimination from Anglo settlers.
>And I'm confused about your first gripe about Mexican culture? The poor masses did not own their own land. In fact, the landed aristocracy, which served as the conservative Catholic voice within Mexico, owned it.
When people are conquered by another group they tend to distance themselves from the conquered group which in turn reinforces a distinct identity. See the Tutsis in Rwanda upon being conquered by the Belgians. In some cases its the opposite (i.e, the Goths upon taking Italy) but the case remains the same- upon a distinct group subduing another, there is nearly always an attempt for the two identities to harden and separate.
>Given the option of staking their own claim or living forever impoverished by the yoke of aristocratic rule I think the choice in this scenario would have been very clear.
None of this translates to giving up their own culture and assimilating to American identities. We must remember that quite a lot of the Midwest only spoke and acted German until they were forced to give up their culture in the paranoia of the First World War.
>>60188973
>But again, this is completely non-compatible with American cultural norms of the time which held that Mexicans were a sub-race, ergo what makes you think we'd give them equal protection of the law or they wouldn't be subjected to serious discrimination. Even the Tejanos and Californios which the US inherited in 1848 (and who were pure-blooded Spaniards, not Indians) faced discrimination from Anglo settlers.
This paragraph seems to answer its own question. The Tejanos and Californios were automatically considered citizens, as were the Catholics in Louisiana and Vermont, and Catholic immigrants. It would be the default policy, rather than some special exception.
Indeed I suspect it would take a fair bit of work to set up a system to categorically deny citizenship to all Mexicans (not to say it wouldn't happen). I think the main expedient we could predict for disenfranchising Mexicans would be the Utah route - indefinite territory status in cases where anglophones and/or ethnic Europeans wouldn't be able to maintain control (a majority isn't necessarily a qualifier). That and I am certain literacy tests (in English of course) would factor in.
The ability to conquer either is pretty much non-existent. In Canada you have a landmass that is four times bigger then what the conquerors already had and pissing off a major superpower.
Add that to Mexico which was of equal size to the United States at the start of the war. The U.S army had a very difficult time trying to maintain and supply the army they had, many soldiers had to buy supplies from the local population. Most of the volunteers (which made up 75% of the army) were Protestant against a Catholic Mexico, meaning that damage to church land and Catholic people in general would be rampant. This could lead to a holy war which both the Polk Administration and people in the upper ranks of the army feared would happen.
Mexico had a 80 million dollar debt to the U.K and France which they would expect the U.S to pay off and with the U.S economy not able to do so combined with the need of a massive occupation army and many other things. It would simply break apart.
>>60188973
And yet, hundreds of different cultures freely gave up citizenship in their
own countries of origin in order to obtain some modicum of economic opportunity by immigrating to the United States circa 19th-20th century.
It's fair to attack the term "assimilation" because it's arguable that many of these said cultures failed and continue to fail to assimilate into the American culture, but as been said they rather ADDED to the culture forcing WASP 19th century Americans to accept Catholicism, multi-ethnic cuisine, art, literature, etc. as norms.
Whose to say a large influx of Mexicans couldn't do so as well?
>>60189048
Because they're not immigrating to the US of their own free will, they're being forcibly annexed. It's called colonialism. Particularly if, as seems likely, the Mexican territories are not organized into states anytime soon and remain like a mega version of Puerto Rico before the Jones-Shafroth Act.
Isn't this a "not Nazi" type argument?
If only 19th century WASP cultures weren't deeply racist then they could create a hyperpower nation?
>>60189111
Well I argue that while many Democrats, especially southern democrats, we're racist, there were many middle-of-the-road Americans (immigrants, Republicans, abolitionists, free-staters) who would be fine with such an annexation, especially in a situation where Canada was annexed a few decades earlier.
Remember Cuba, and Hispanola were ALMOST annexed during the 19th century. That's at least 1 mil Spanish/French speakers who were Catholic being included into the WASP Union with full citizenship rights. And it were Democrat Congressmen who pushed for it!
>>60189129
FWIW Democrats wanted the land for slave agriculture, not necessarily the people in it.
>>60189155
What do you mean by this?
Again what are trying to say in relation to this statement?
>>60189174
That the political structure and society of the US in the mid-19th century was not capable of absorbing significant non-WASP populations.
To pretend that they could is like trying to say if the Nazis weren't anti-Semitic and treated Slav minorities as equals they could have destroyed the USSR.
Mexico is growing larger
Mexico has BIG plans
>>60188584
Then again, the Russian Empire at that time held onto a far bigger land area than the US, also Britain and France managed to control brown and yellow people on distant continents for 100 years.
Likewise there is nothing that is going to push the USA from dragging itself into Europe's wars as long as it was left alone, not only that but exactly would be that willing to establish a vast colony in North America after the 1830s? The British or French will not bother, the Russians were not exactly keen on retaining Alaska, the Germans were unifying and the rest were even further from the case.
>>60189031
>The ability to conquer either is pretty much non-existent. In Canada you have a landmass that is four times bigger then what the conquerors already had and pissing off a major superpower.
Again though, most of Canada was just wilderness that nobody lived in and the population almost entirely lived near the US border. We could have overrun the place easily long before Britain could do a thing about it.
>>60188973
>But again, this is completely non-compatible with American cultural norms of the time which held that Mexicans were a sub-race, ergo what makes you think we'd give them equal protection of the law or they wouldn't be subjected to serious discrimination.
Why wouldn't objection be on both race and religion? For Crissake, we were arguing about electing a Catholic president as late as the 1960s and a Mormon president as recently as 2012.
>>60184043
Zimmerman=non latino I get it now
>>60189384
Have you even read what I have been stating? By the 1960s I doubt many Americans would even care at all about Catholics becoming President.
>>60189402
The point is that the 1st Amendment was more a suggestion than the law of the land for a good deal of US history and minority religious groups especially Mormons faced huge discrimination back then.
>>60189423
It was still better than the Europe of that time where in many cases you were a non-citizen if you didn't follow the state religion.
>take back original mexican land
>it all becomes a shithole
what are you trying to accomplish
>>60189048
For the same reason the Russians never assimilated the Poles or the Austrians the Serbs. There's already methods to self-propagate the culture and little desire to adopt another.
>>60189129
When did the US ever decide to annex Haiti? Santo Domingo I know of, and I can point to many reasons why that would be a disaster in its own right if the annexation treaty passed in 1870 (and why that wouldn't work unless you want Vietnam a century earlier)
>>60189476
>take back original abbo land
>it all becomes a first world country
What are you trying to accomplish
>>60189510
>instantly get a butthurt reply
wew
>>60188813
Quebec isn't as hard as one might think - the US has absorbed and held Francophone regions before with little difficulty, and if anything, getting the considerable autonomy that comes with statehood could well solve much of the issues that came with Quebec joining the Canadian Confederation.
The west of Canada was just empty wilderness back then so no problem with that.
The rest of Canada could be troublesome but manageable. Acadia might integrate itself to New England fairly firmly, given the similar trades businesses and cultures. Ontario will raise a fuss, but carving off the Northern bits into a separate state/territory will leave a state/territory that will mostly protest but do little else.
Canada didn't even exist as a concept at this point in time - so long as the US can beat the British to take it, they can absorb Canada.
Northern Mexico could be held via the Southwest - statehood for parts, territorial status for a few decades for the rest.
Southern Mexico definitely would not work - too Catholic, non-English speaking, too Indian, and too densely populated.
>>60189442
and this is why the US failed
,, too many demands from yuropean colonists to be a "citizen" of this fucked up and dysfunctional secularist failed empire.
north america should have been left in peace to the natives
tis a Navajo curse I tells you.
it's a crying shame native americans didnt slaughter every yuropean that set foot on this continent.
>>60189536
Canada may have not existed as a concept, but British North America sure did. That's where all the traitor cuckbitches fled after the Revolution.
>>60189530
Wouldn't call that a butthurt reply
Thread started out as a b8, I don't know why you are taking this seriously, chill
>>60189423
>The point is that the 1st Amendment was more a suggestion than the law of the land for a good deal of US history and minority religious groups especially Mormons faced huge discrimination back then.
Compared to Europe, the US in the 19th century was positively enlightened on religious liberty. We always had plenty of Amish/Quakers/Mennonites who were left completely unmolested, also the Northeast had many Catholic immigrants who were never denied freedom to practice their religion. Mormons were persecuted mainly because they practiced polygamy.
>>60189563
>calls me butthurt
>is butthurt himself
>>60189612
This is true, but still, before Islam became an issue, Catholics were probably the least trusted religious group in the US.
>>60182669
>Gibraltar was ceded in a war
And so was the Mexican cession.
There was never any realistic chance at annexing Mexico. The All Mexico movement was mainly supported by Catholic Northeastern immigrants who thought Mexicans were their co-religionists. They definitely did not speak for the WASP majority of America.
As for Southern Democrats, they may have wanted to take Tamaulipas as it was a suitable cotton-growing region, but few would have wanted to absorb the Mexican heartland.
Just the very idea of taking over Mexico seems mad. It would require a war economy to maintain the occupation until enough of the locals reconciled themselves to being American. That could take a long time and why would the decentralized US of the 1840s be up for this kind of long term commitment?
The kind of countries that ended up with vast, sustainable empires like this usually either bit the territories off gradually (India), or conquered areas with large wildernesses (Australia, Canada) and few large population centers.
>>60189749
I suspect for years Southern Mexico would be American in name only, with local rule being dominant and observance to US laws being minimal.
>>60185277
>Here's where it gets complicated: Mexico was unable to establish any kind of stable political structure post-independence as liberal and conservative factions battled for control, there were civil wars, internal revolts, economic collapse, and intervention from Spain and France.
You forgot the point where the Empire of Mexico literally lost a war against Comanches.
Natives.
A "European colony" lost a war against fucking natives. Mexico is an embarrassing country that's worth less than spit on the ground and its people are locusts.
>>60188075
>it was also extremely unpopular due the American deaths actually being higher than Mexican ones
Attackers losing more lives than defenders?
Tell me more, military commander
In short: Canada= Yes (if the UK is somehow prevented from intervening or willingly cedes Canada), Mexico= No
Mexico would have too many people, none of them English-speaking or culturally compatible with WASP America.
As for Canada, the biggest problem would be Quebec but likely that could be overcome in simple fashion. Quebecois separatism was largely resolved by allowing the province greater autonomy where the French language is protected and its use encouraged, and Quebec is allowed to set its own immigration policy which prioritizes French-speaking immigrants. Since Quebecois no longer feel so threatened nowadays, butthurt has significantly decreased.
>>60189852
Most American deaths in the Mexican War were due to disease rather than battlefield casualties.
So a broadly homogeneous country that only held itself together through force of arms in OTL 19th century is going to triple in size, absorb 10 million unwilling minorities and be more stable?
Something doesn't add up and I think it's the part where the racists, slavers, and ethnic cleansers that controlled early 19th century American political discourse suddenly see the light of 21st century political correctness.
And I very much doubt a protracted revolt within Mexico proper.
Again it's very much about economic opportunities for the poor en masse within America, especially if voting rights and citizenship rights were granted upon annexation versus the yoke of corrupt Mexican rule.
In the case of an armed rebellion, which would in large part be spearhead by the landed class in southern Mexico, I'd argue most of the people would flee to the western territories rather than stay and fight for nationalist cause.
>>60189947
>>60189947
>And I very much doubt a protracted revolt within Mexico proper.
>Again it's very much about economic opportunities for the poor en masse within America, especially if voting rights and citizenship rights were granted upon annexation versus the yoke of corrupt Mexican rule.
Yeah no, there is literally no way the United States is going to enfranchise people who fit multiple group that were disliked (non-whites, non-English speakers and Catholics), let alone one that numbered in the millions and were predominantly poor; the US back at that time was (and still is, if less overtly now) a nation built on white supremacy and exploitation of brown/yellow/black people.
>In the case of an armed rebellion, which would in large part be spearhead by the landed class in southern Mexico, I'd argue most of the people would flee to the western territories rather than stay and fight for nationalist cause.
Which shows you know nothing about historic socio-politics, technology or about Mexican cultures; the peoples of Southern Mexico have traditionally been the most nationalistic and is too many cultures that have spent there entire existence fighting against white European imperialism and preserving their cultures.
Now for the record I was more than aware that Southern Congressmen and Senators pretty much opposed giving equal rights to non-white Mexicans and hence they were opposed to All-of-Mexico if that is what it resulted in. On the other hand though there might have been more willing to to annex Mexico and Central America if it meant not giving equal rights and have those regions as slaveholding.
>>60190039
Yes, but if Mexico entered as an economic colony of the South, as you surmise, then the Mexicans would have been that much more resistant, especially when the Southern imperialists began a campaign of ethnic cleansing and enslavement of the local population.
>>60175435
Go back to fucking chickens, Paco
The U.S. wanted the war over, so that the Army could go home and the war expenses would stop. Mexico's political situation was unstable, verging on chaos. Getting someone, anyone, to sign a treaty ending the war was getting more difficult every day, and the more the U.S. demanded, the harder it was also.
The U.S. negotiator was Nicholas Trist of the State Department. The U.S. commander in central Mexico was General Winfield Scott. Scott had thought that as ranking U.S. official in Mexico, he would negotiate the treaty, and was offended when Trist showed up. He refused to cooperate with Trist at first.
But Scott had to worry about the security of the U.S. forces in central Mexico. He had only about 20,000 men to occupy an area with about two million people. The de facto Mexican government had agreed to a truce while peace terms were negotiated, which kept U.S. outposts and supply columns safe from guerrilla attack (mostly). But if the Mexican government gave up too much in the treaty, there was a strong possibility that it would be repudiated, and the U.S. forces would face swarms of vicious guerrillas. I'm sure Scott remembered the fate of Napoleon in Russia. If there was no winter in Mexico, there was fever - perhaps even more dangerous.
Very soon he decided that it was more important to get the treaty signed quickly than to get every possible bit of land. Trist had a deal worked out which gave the U.S. over 900,000 square miles of new territory. If it wasn't everything the expansionists (including President Polk) had wanted, it was still a heck of a lot. Scott dropped his grudge and recommended acceptance of the treaty. As commander on the spot, he carried a lot of weight.
Polk was unhappy, but he didn't want to override Trist and Scott, and restart negotiations, which could extend the war by many months. The money payment to Mexico was a relatively cheap way to close out a war that was costing the U.S. tens of millions of dollars each year.
>>60190019
To an extent, but that can give you an exaggerated idea of how things actually were. In New Mexico, for instance, the Anglo elites and the Hispano elites interdigitated and intermarried quite quickly. Same with California.
>>60190221
True. Not Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant, however, these same elites were of Peninsular and Criollos descent and held the same racist attitudes of the other Castas that Americans had as well.
>>60190154
>starting a war
>wanting the war over
Faggots
The USA may easily annex Northern Mexico and shun the rest for a simple reason: because Central Mexico is densely populated and Northern Mexico is not. The former means a possibly unruly native population that Southern racists don't want to welcome onboard as equals. The latter is essentially empy land that holds some valuable resources (good agricultural land in the Rio Grande states, mineral resources including gold and silver) which Americans can freely exploit. US leaders perfectly understood the difference, which is why many Democrats (including Polk and Davis) wanted to annex Northern Mexico but not all of Mexico.
>>60181985
"traitor"
Annexing Sonoro and Nueva Leon was pointless because they were just empty desert in the 1840s and we already swallowed enough desert with the territory north of the Rio Grande. What it did not need for lack of a real reason was more of it. Logic dictates the border not on the tropic of cancer but with Guatemala and Belize. And yes, there were quite a few who took all-Mexico seriously. Never underestimate the American willingness to overstate what we are realistically capable of doing.
If you go with annexation of Alta California, Baja California, New Mexico, Rio Grande, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and Durango, that would be as far as I think the US could or should at most go; it's sparsely populated, and you also gain the silver mines in Penasquito and Fresnillo, some cropland in Durango and Sonora, bears, cougars, bison, oil in Reynosa for a while, and iron, lead, and coal.
IIRC part of the reason for not taking northern Mexico is precisely that it was empty desert - it afforded a buffer zone between the Mexican heartland and the US rather than having them a stone's throw from us.
They basically TRIED this and it totally fell on its ass. The most that the USA is going to annex is some of the Northeast, like the cotton/ranching belts. Maybe they can get a garrison in Veracruz if they're really tough.
Durango and Zacatecas is too much, to say nothing of Sinola.
Yucatan and Tabasco: no way Jose.
Sonora and Chihuahua aren't going anywhere, and the US was never truly interested in Baja; it had all the good parts of California.
>>60190454
Oh, there's an explanation, all right, but it has nothing to do with economics or politics. Simply put, White America was pretty racist then (people who think today's situation compares need to read more). Mexico being full of Mexicans was a problem. Too many brown shitskins, from that point of view.
>>60187745
Ask the French how was Spain for them. Ffs I understand now why /int/ has generals and talks shit about US all day. Apart from 3 guys here you dint know anything but US senanigans told History and think that all non americans are/were shit and inferior.
Jesus Christ what a f*** bunch of re***
>>60190525
>and think that all non americans are/were shit and inferior.
Didn't you try to genocide entire nations on the grounds that they were untermensch?
>>60190479
Interestingly, that is the opposite of true.
In fact the only accurate part is "it has nothing to do with economics or politics."
Nicholas Trist actually is the real hero here, he felt that the Mexicans had fought bravely and honorably in what he considered an unjustifiable war of aggression by the US, so he decided to disregard orders from Washington to take Sonora, Nueva Leon, et al, spare Mexico the humiliation of losing 75% of their territory, and instead limit the loss to slightly under 50%, and finally to pay them compensation for what we did take.
By the standards of the day, Trist comes off as unnaturally chivalrous and enlightened.
>>60190634
>me = german
>US acusin)somebody of "etnic cleaning"
Nice reasoning. People = Government = Nazis.
>>60175676
Yea I heard Hillary wants to have no male sports people after 2017
>>60190669
>orders from Washington to take Sonora, Nueva Leon, et al
No, only Baja California.
