America in the later 1800’s was quickly pulling itself together, after losing a humiliating war to Great Britain and their northern neighbors only a few decades ago America had dealt with its pesky neighbors down south winning their war against Mexico in outstanding fashion and successfully securing the west for further expansion. After getting it’s shit together with slavery and southern succession, America kicks in the teeth of one of Europe’s oldest empires in the spanish American war.
I’ve been told a joke by a few of my French and Italian friends that their teachers would call “manifest destiny” American for imperialism. With México and the spanish colonies in the poor state they were in why didn’t the US swoop in to get some more of that sweet sweet land and turn them into states?
To focus on Mexico, there was certainly an attempt. During the Mexican-American war, most of Mexico's major cities were occupied, and calls for annexation emerged. The All-Mexican Movement, as it became known, argued for the complete annexation of Mexico. This was in turn opposed, notably by senator C. Calhoun, quoted as saying:
"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"
Obvious racism aside, there were other reasons annexation was considered unsuitable:
-In the context of Manifest Destiny, annexation would mean violating the principle of not extending US citizenship to unwilling populations.
-Annexation would significantly alter the racial makeup of the USA.
-Annexation would significantly alter the religious makeup of the USA (considering the large numbers of catholics in Mexico.
These and other arguments prevailed, and in the eventual peace treaty, Mexico gave up Texas -with its predominantly white population- and sparsely populated northern territory.
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!