Had the Union taken over all of Mexico and perhaps expanded further south into Central America and Cuba, could the American Civil War have been prevented by keeping the territories gained by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to appease abolitionists but also getting Southerners to get a good deal by having Cuba, the Caribbean, and Mexico/Central America to expand slavery into?
More broadly, would there have been any way to preserve the Union and prevent the American Civil War while preserving the institution of slavery?
The United States would have totally collapsed financially. Reinstating slavery in central america would come with pretty much full scale revolt from the populace, making occupation an absolute nightmare. Also you're suggesting the US would start the Spanish American war early, so in this scenario you somehow think the US would be able to deal with full blown 100% civilian involved insurrection in all former mexican/central american territory AND go in to full blown warfare with the Spanish Empire? Granted Spain was nowhere near its former glory, but considering the impact of the trent affair (if it still happens in this scenario), its likely the european powers will back each other up at the very least financially. If the US conquered all that land and re instituted slavery into it then it would trigger an anti american uprising so violent and so pervasive that the US as we know it would be crushed. The US would lose all ambition of settling the west for at least a few more decades, Florida would probably be returned to Spain, Oregon and Washington would go to Britain, chunks of if not all of Texas would go back to Mexico, as well as a great deal of California. If on top of all that the South still seceded, the Union would simply not have the strength to even bother trying to stop them and the US would devolve into two pretty weak nations with Mexico and British Canada as the regional powers.
Noah Gray
I didn't mean enslaving the Indians in Mexico or Mexicans, but expanding the system of African slavery into these territories while engaging the Mexicans as equals.
Would this be an achievable goal or would even pro-slavery politicians (who would presumably be arguing for an invasion of Central America/Mexico/Caribbean) be opposed to giving a group other than white protestants power?
Josiah Nguyen
Right but you're forgetting that part of the reason the US went to war with Mexico in the first place is because american settlers brought african slaves with them into Mexican Texas. If they would fight a war to resist it there, they certainly would again if the US tried to do it all across Mexico. This is a totally unacheivable goal. Well, it could be, but the US army would have to be unimaginably brutal in its occupation, and they probably had the capacity to do that but it would be extremely costly.
Nolan Watson
Also the ethnicity of Mexicans isnt as cut and dry as it is for most americans. A great deal of Mexicans are white, certainly nearly all of the elite were white. The fact that they were catholic would be a problem maybe but i dont think that aspect of it would really be an issue. Its everything else that wouldnt work out
Eli Moore
Wouldn't slavery have been incredibly profitable in the Caribbean/Central America? Couldn't the government have just given slaveholders cash to move down there, similar to what the British government did by buying the slaves off of slaveholders in the Caribbean?
"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." -John C. Calhoun, 1848
>Calhoun One, he never had the popularity to influence or lead America in any direction Two, this pretty much proves my point of americans having an extremely limited understanding about how ethnicity works outside the anglosphere
Asher Baker
I suppose that could have worked but that would be a lot of slaves to buy. Especially since the US would have their backs against the wall in pretty much every other front. In any case, to move into Cuba only means that the US basically takes on the responsibility of having to deal with the Cuban independence movement down the road, and that probably wouldnt go much differently than it did for Spain since journalism would probably kill american will to keep the island.
Jordan Cruz
I was curious if it was a popular position. I'm aware that white Mexicans exist. Was Calhoun's position popular, or would the Southern planters who would presumably be backing the effort to take Cuba, Central america, and Mexico, have been fine with white Hispanic slaveowners joining them?
Ryder Gomez
Most slave owners in the Caribbean would be white Spainards so presumably yes.
But this all hinges on if they would be able to actually take Cuba for a substantial amount of time nearly 40 years earlier than in real life and I do not believe they could. This scenario is simply too much at one time.
Mason Hall
If it went over progressively, perhaps first taking Mexico in the Mexican-American War, then expanding into Central America, and then later expanding into the Caribbean, would it have been enough to prevent the Civil War?
What if Cuba were replaced by Santo Domingo/the Dominican Republic, which was actively considered as an annexable territory? Had that area been annexed along with Mexico and Central America, would the resulting spread of slavery have been enough to prevent the Civil War?
Anthony Gomez
See , replace Cuba with Santo Domingo if it's more realistic
Lincoln Phillips
Also, what is the real challenge in taking Cuba at this time? I'm not too familiar with Cuban history.
Dominic Kelly
Its not like taking Cuba would be terribly difficult, its just that the political climate of Cuba was not prime for being taken. When the US took it in 1898 the Cuban independence movement was in full swing and Spain was pretty much on its way out already. The US just swooped in and liberated Havana so it could bully Cuba into giving them Guantanamo bay and a bunch of other ridiculous concessions. Its actually a pretty stupidly unfair thing for Cuba and its definitely something i recommend people read up on. Anyway, if the US takes over Cuba in say, 1848, or 1861, they are doing so before the independence movement. Whether Cuba was ruled by the US or by Spain it was going to want independence soon enough and thats a fight not really worth dealing with, which is why the US waited until 1898 in the first place.
Julian Jones
The real problem with this isnt the Carribbean so much as it is Mexico and Central America. If the Mexican Government was willing to engage in a war that they knew was impossible to win over losing Texas to slave owning settlers, the Mexican people surely would resist slave owning settlers expanding into their heartland. The farther south past the Rio Grande you go the harder it would be to occupy due to the environment. The US had to run a pretty horrific campaign to wear down the Philippines, so imagine that on a far far grander scale, and i just dont think its feasible even for the US to do. Were also talking about a time where the US is politically vulnerable. I mentioned the trent affair earlier and even though war with Britain was extremely unlikely it wasnt out of the question, and if were now throwing in the scenario of the US hemorrhaging money and men trying to buy off slaves in the Caribbean, repress massive uprisings all across Mexico/Central America, battling the Cuban independence movement, and fighting a war with Spain, they may not pass up the chance. If were going full Alternate History Hub mode it might actually encourage the Civil War. Southern politicians would be extremely dissatisfied with how difficult it would be to actually expand the practice back into Central America, meanwhile the North is reaping all the benefits because the land they get in the Continental US is giving them comparatively almost no trouble. The South could cut a deal with Britain to take the West Coast while the South seceded and left the Union to deal with what could only be described as an unmitigated disaster of an occupation in Mexico. And maybe they get to keep Cuba anyway, but probably not.
Noah Taylor
If he wasn't popular or influential how would what he said prove that about Americans?
Jack Campbell
That's a huge clusterfuck, Mexico and Central America would be too big to govern. Mexico as it is has been dealing with uprising and secessionist movements throughout it's history. If the Union somehow occupied Mexico and Central America and Cuba I would give it 20 years before it'd all collapse into a civil war.
Justin Smith
>Preserving the institution of Slavery Nope, there was already enough international pressure against it. Even if the south had won they would have had to give up slavery eventually to remain competitive economically. Whether they would have given it up, or decided to sink into a failed state is something we will never know.
Wyatt Jenkins
What about the further instances of slavery, such as the continued use of the institution in Brazil until the 1880s and stuff like King Leopold's Congo?
Makes sense. Would it be feasible for America to take bits and pieces of Central America, similar to the current territorial system that we have now to appease southern slaveholders? Kind of like the filibusterers or whatever they were called.
Okay yeah this makes sense. Also, if they were going to engage in such a conflict, wouldn't there be presumably a lot of tension against slaveholders? The Mexican-American War was already controversial with Whigs set against it and it basically being blamed on the slave lobby. If the United States had to occupy the shittiest parts of North America to appease the slaveholding South, we can see that there would be a lot more resentment in the North against slavery.
Ah okay. That makes sense.
Kevin Robinson
>Brazil The thing with Brazil is that slavery went out in a totally different way than in the US. When Brazil ended slavery there were less slaves than there ever had been before. When the US ended slavery it had its highest slave population ever. Brazil continuously and gradually diminished slavery until the point where there was pretty much no economic incentive for the nation to keep it.
I do think it would be feasible for America to colonize bits of Central America, but not for the purpose of appeasing slaveholders.
Michael Kelly
>filibusterers
This guys actually tried. They were btfo twice and raped to near death by the mexicans.
William Walker was a fool for trying to conquer nations that invented the term "Guerrilla". Fucking Napoleon lost Spain for the same reason.
Angel Nelson
>I do think it would be feasible for America to colonize bits of Central America, but not for the purpose of appeasing slaveholders.
Terrible idea. Those guys are crazy. There would be rebellions every fucking week and anyone stupid enough to try to govern them by force would be assassinated in less than a year.
Noah Watson
Giving the plantation aristocrats more land to expand slavery into would have only made the Civil War MORE likely and take place earlier. They would have felt much more secure in their ability to operate without the North and prop-up their failing societal model. The very existence of chattel slavery in as large a size as it did made the Civil War unavoidable.
Jacob Johnson
These guys have been cutting out hearts and flaying children for the past few thousand years, and they sure as hell ain't gonna take kindly to whitey moving in.
Nathan Turner
I'm gonna play devils advocate and say that to do it America: A) should've done it right after the C.A independence B) backed the wealthy rural landowners against the liberal city elites C) would've to make a lot of reforms, permitting a lot of leeway for the Catholic Church and most importantly make reform the institution of slavery to make race more "fluid" thus having permitting people with some black rifhtsy
Asher Martin
Mexico didn't actually have a weak army when the United States invaded, but because Santa Ana got rid of federalism and pretty much took a lot of power from the still powerful country nobility no one came to his aid. When Santa Ana arrived in Texas he had a modern European army but was weak without proper supply lines (remember Mexico as New Spain was an extremely rich country so he actually had a good army). There was no nationalism though, so unless the US had actually warred outside of Mexico city or the territories which belonged to the Government (all of the north) no one would have come out en-masse to fight the US. Had the US tried to invade the petty nobles and warlords outside of Mexico city they would have been wrecked, specially since the US was not yet a superpower. Probably the only time in history mexico could have wrecked a US invasion though.
Jack Wood
>engaging the Mexicans as equals The problem with that is that most Americans did not see Mexicans as equals as they were A) Not Anglo-Saxon and B) Catholic
So if America did end up conquering Central America, they would most certainly not treated them as equals.
Also, you have to remember that America had basically no military before the Civil War, as it had only 16,000 permanent members. So in order to actually take over Central America, a massive military build up would need to take place, which would have been deeply unpopular with the North if the war was solely so that America could acquire more slave territory. In fact, you might have even ended up with a reverse civil war with the north seceding from the south.
