Lady Amelia Windsor (age 22)

Quote: AZDuffman

A USA that took Canada and Mexico might have kept going to Panama.

It's possible.
If the USA took Mexico City, they may have just taken Central America as well.


The Niños Héroes , were six Mexican teenage military cadets. These cadets died defending Mexico City's Chapultepec Castle from invading U.S. forces in the 13 September 1847 Battle of Chapultepec, during the Mexican–American War. According to legend, in an act of bravery, Juan Escutia wrapped the Mexican flag around his body and jumped from the top of the castle in order to keep it from falling into the enemy's hands.

Independence day in Central American countries is celebrated as independence from Spain, but The Federal Republic of Central America existed from September 1823 to 1841, and was a republican democracy

Mexico September 16 1810 Independence from Spain declared in 1810. ("grito" ceremony at night of Sep 15; military parade at midday of Sep 16).
Costa Rica September 15 1821 Independence from Spain in 1821.
El Salvador September 15 1821 Independence from Spain in 1821.
Guatemala September 15 1821 Independence from Spain in 1821.
Honduras September 15 1821 Independence from Spain in 1821.
Nicaragua September 15 1821 Independence from Spain in 1821.

Panama November 3 1903 Panama was member of the "Gran Colombia" until 1903. The 1903 separation from Colombia is celebrated as an official holiday.
Belize September 21 1981 Independence from the United Kingdom in 1981.

Quote: Pacomartin

It's possible.
If the USA took Mexico City, they may have just taken Central America as well..

If we had done this, we wouldn't
be the success story we became.
Historians agree that a powerful
reason we rose so quickly is we
had one common language,
English. If we had taken over
Mexico and Central America,
the language barrier would have
been a hurdle that dragged us
down and held us back.

Other huge countries like China
and Russia have dozens of
languages and hundreds of
dialects. A huge problem that
we never had. 3000 miles of
just one language was a gigantic
benefit to us.

One of my history teachers in high school, Mr. Wilcoff (sp?), who was one of my favorite teachers ever, believed that the U.S. could have conquered all of north and south American in the late 1800's, especially if it didn't waste men and resources on the civil war.

Quote: Wizard

believed that the U.S. could have conquered all of north and south American in the late 1800's.

Absolutely, and it would have been
a huge mistake. We would have a
huge unweildly land mass like
Russia has. Different cultures that
have nothing in common and
aren't even joined by the same
language. To this day Russia
struggles to unite itself because
it has too much diversity. I think
it has like 6-7 time zones, which
is awful for commerce.

Quote: Wizard

Mr. Wilcoff (sp?)

Probably Wilcox. Wilcoff is a variation but a very unusual one.

Quote: Wizard

One of my history teachers in high school, who was one of my favorite teachers ever, believed that the U.S. could have conquered all of north and south American in the late 1800's, especially if it didn't waste men and resources on the civil war.

It's an interesting idea:
Population USA did not have an overwhelming majority of the population, but it was still a significant percentage. In particular the population of the USA was growing much faster than that of Latin America more than tripling when Latin America about doubled

Population 1850-1900
38 million 74 million: Latin America
23 million 76 million: USA
3 million 6 million: Canada

Industrial Revolution USA went into it's industrial revolution shortly after civil war , which , like Britain, gave it a great deal of power

Projection of power over long ranges Open question, but Britain was projecting military power into India, South Africa, and China. It might have been possible for the USA to project into South America, but our Navy was not nearly as well developed as Britain.

Political will Certainly from the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 the US declared themselves in charge of all of the Americas. If we had not been involved in the civil war when Napoleon conquered Mexico in 1860s, we would have responded more forcibly and might easily have taken over Mexico



The population of North and south America combined recently surpassed 1 billion. It would be interesting if all billion people were US citizens. Interestingly enough we would still be the world's third largest nation, just as we are today.

Quote: Wizard

One of my history teachers in high school, Mr. Wilcoff (sp?), who was one of my favorite teachers ever, believed that the U.S. could have conquered all of north and south American in the late 1800's, especially if it didn't waste men and resources on the civil war.

No doubt you'll take this as an insult.

The logistics suck. They'd have taken decades, if not longer, and would have had to contend with very unhappy, very concerned, European powers who still had possessions and colonies in the Americas. Not to mention trade relations. Then there's the way white people can't take tropical climates and diseases. But above all the logistics suck.

Quote: Nareed

The logistics suck.

I think you are countermanding the argument that the USA could have maintained it's Trans-American Empire for 150 years. Britain pretty much had to give up it's empire over people who don't look like Brits, but have kept it in place in mostly symbolic form over primarily British looking people.

I think you could make a case that USA unhampered by the civil war could have easily conquered all of the Americas, but I suspect the empire would have started to fall apart around WWI. As we said in 1850 all of the Americas had a population of 64 million at the same time China was an empire of over 400 million people.

But by 1900 population of Americas was 160 million, by 1950 population was 1/3 billion and in present day over 1 billion.

Quote: Pacomartin

I think you are countermanding the argument that the USA could have maintained it's Trans-American Empire for 150 years.

I don't think America could have conquered the whole hemisphere, civil war or no civil war. The logistics suck (I think I may have mentioned that).

They would have had to go slowly, building at least arms and munitions factories in conquered lands to even have a prayer of success. And that's if France and Britain don't get into it. Remember France invaded Mexico around that time, too.

There's an adage: amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

Quote: Pacomartin

I think you are countermanding the argument that the USA could have maintained it's Trans-American Empire for 150 years. Britain pretty much had to give up it's empire over people who don't look like Brits, but have kept it in place in mostly symbolic form over primarily British looking people.

I think you could make a case that USA unhampered by the civil war could have easily conquered all of the Americas, but I suspect the empire would have started to fall apart around WWI. As we said in 1850 all of the Americas had a population of 64 million at the same time China was an empire of over 400 million people.

But by 1900 population of Americas was 160 million, by 1950 population was 1/3 billion and in present day over 1 billion.

If the USA had actually tried to do that the difference between them and Germany did during WWI would be what? I don't think that South America was an option unless they could have really fast tracked a huge Navy build up. Small problem with Darien Gap for land support. Planes weren't an option yet but maybe could have been fast tracked.

Quote: kenarman

If the USA had actually tried to do that the difference between them and Germany did during WWI would be what?

I am not really dealing with the morality of the effort, just the possibility. Probably with Canada being outnumbered 10 to 1 the acquisition would have been relatively peaceful with maybe a few thousand loyalists being given passage back to United Kingdom

In 1850 the three biggest cities in the USA were:
1 New York city, NY *................ 515,547
2 Baltimore city, MD................. 169,054
3 Boston city, MA *.................. 136,881
Philadelphia City did not merge with Philadelphia County until 1855, but the county had a population of 408,762 in 1850. Chicago was in the top 25 cities but had fewer than 30K people.

By 1900 there were three cities in the USA with a population over a million
1 New York city, NY *................ 3,437,202
2 Chicago city, IL ................... 1,698,575
3 Philadelphia city, PA .............. 1,293,697

Mexico City had a population of roughly 200,000 and was probably the largest city in Latin America. The American assault lasted from September 8–15 1847 and Winfield scott took the city with ~1,651 killed or wounded.

The question is could the Americans have continued to overthrow the capitals of all the Latin American cities in the next 20-30 years given the MASSIVE LOGISTICS problems of extending warfare over that distance.

Quote: kenarman

Small problem with Darien Gap for land support.

I think land lines of that length in the years before mechanized vehicles would be a big problem even if there was a hundred foot road through the Darien Gap. Ocean transit was the only viable means of moving men and weapons.

It took Scott 6 months to march from Veracruz to Mexico City.

Quote: Nareed

I don't think America could have conquered the whole hemisphere, civil war or no civil war. The logistics suck (I think I may have mentioned that).

No doubt they did. I think Winfield Scott's march from Veracruz to Mexico City advanced an average of 2 km per day.

But how many cities would have surrendered with little or no fight.