Joseph B asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 2 months ago

Would It Have Been Better for the United States to Acquire Mexico and Central America?

During the early to middle nineteenth century, many Americans believed that it was the "manifest destiny" of the United States to acquire as much territory in the Western Hemisphere as possible.  Part of the problem, of course, was that many of those same people were looking to acquire land that could be made into slave states. In the absence of slavery, though, would it not have been better for the United States to have acquired Mexico and Central America, so as to introduce the benefits of U.S. civilization to those places?  As it stands, Mexico, especially, is a cesspool of corruption.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    That's one of those questions historians like to extrapolate from (usually the "what ifs" we see here are childish). Of course we'll never know as Polk's vision was west to the Pacific. My opinion is, the US should have "land grabbed" to central America w/ a vision to connect the oceans. Eventually that happened w/ the Panama Canal. Today I look at Baja California ... how undeveloped that is and wonder WTH is wrong w/ Mexico. That's a gold mine of potential to be among most valuable land on earth. How did the US let that gem slip away?

  • 2 months ago

    No it would have ben better if the south had won Thus there would be a smaller USA and a Nicer CSA 

  • IIIII
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    It was possible when were negotiating our treaty with Mexico as President Polk wanted to basically annex half the country (much more than what we already took). Many in the government were against this though because the Mexicans were not Anglo Americans and so it couldn’t be conceived as possible to control these regions. So it didn’t happen. (I’m refering to the Mexican-American War. Mexicans in their history classes call it the North American Invasion). 

    There is also the infamous (depending on who you ask) filibuster William Walker, who shortly held control of Nicaragua. The neighboring nations shortly all forced him out of the country, after he betrayed Cornelius Vanderbilt to his competition in the region. There is also several attempts in which the US tried to invade Cuba in the 1800s through private mercenary bands, as it was seen to be a very desirable state to annex (look more into the Ostend Manifesto, back then contemporarily the issue was a main focus in political campaigns). 

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Nope. Different languages and cultures. Wouldn't have worked. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    I've been arguing (with some sarcasm) since 1998 that the US should take over Mexico for Mexico's own good. This is nature: Mexico is weak and inferior. The people there would rather be in the US anyway. Mexico is a headache for the US. If the US took over, everyone wins: US gets new territory, Mexico gets cleaned up, and Mexicans get better lives. The only problem would be for US citizens if Mexicans would vote, because they would immediately become a drain on the welfare state. So in the takeover, Mexico would have to be a territory (not a state) for a few generations until they get their act together.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.