en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_(proposed_country) >The Golden Circle (Spanish: Circunferencia de Oro) was an unrealized 1850s proposal by the Knights of the Golden Circle to expand the number of slave states. It envisioned the annexation of several areas—Mexico, Central America, northern South America, Cuba, and the rest of the Caribbean—into the United States in order to vastly increase the number of slave states (it was proposed that Mexico alone be divided into 25 new slave states) and thus the power of the slave holding Southern upper classes. After the Dred Scott Decision (1857) increased anti-slavery agitation, it was advocated by the Knights of the Golden Circle that southern U.S. states secede in their own confederation and invade and annex the area of the golden circle to vastly expand the power of the South.
No idea but in the long run it was mechanical cotton pickers with spic drivers.
Isaiah Butler
They didn't have that back then. The new world need labourers and white indentured labourers were to fucked up by the climate and pests and natives died out pretty quick. Africans were the only labour that could do the work in plantations and not get fucked instantly.
Liam Turner
>tfw no anglo mexico
Kevin Smith
The question is, could the South have taken the Caribbean let alone Mexico without the north carrying the team for them like always?
Evan Robinson
No, the Americans went as far as they could druing the Mexican American war knowing the territories of what is today Mexico were far too populated for asimilation, Also slavery had been abolished in Mexico and Amerindians had been exempt from it during colonial times.
This was never a viable plan and the sensible amongst Americans knew that, while arguably some more of northern Mexico could have been taken it risked creating a Mexican redentism that would have advocated for their eventual recovery.
As it is European states in the last half of the 19th century would have probably looked at such a land grab with hostility and would have found cause on enlightenment values which opposed slavery.
What north America did end up with was two countries divided by a vast stretch of desert, a relatively comfortable agreement until the Americans started aggresively settling the south West.
Jason Collins
The South probably couldn't even keep itself together, let alone take more land.
Adrian Gutierrez
There's like a ton of factors that woudl cause it to have internal strife if it went solo.
Thomas Richardson
It wasn't about having trouble assimilating the Mexicans, it was about not wanting to deal with Mexican guerrillas. There were already a ton of them and they would only increase if the US annexed Mexico.
Owen Perez
It's almost like founding a country based on slavery was a bad idea or something.
Lincoln Murphy
>The new world need labourers New laws allowed all classes (except the serfs) to own land, a privilege that was previously confined to the nobility. Serfdom was finally abolished by a decree issued by Tsar Alexander II in 1861.
Anthony Taylor
>gets rid of all the shit parts of America Why didn't this happen?
Levi Perez
> It's almost like founding a country based on slavery The main economy that England cared about was educated workers producing necessary goods for empire such as steel, boats, guns etc..
Samuel Lee
and you need slaves to do the plantation work in the Caribbean. The Trans-atlantic slave trade was the perfect opportunity to get the worker base they needed int those tropical climates. for those resource colonies
Brayden Phillips
>educated workers producing necessary goods for empire such as steel, boats, guns etc
In the South? What are you talking about?
Colton Scott
>and you need slaves to do the plantation work in the Caribbean. Who worked the fields in Europe?
Andrew Nguyen
the south was settled very much later on, the original 13 colonies were industrial productions for the Empire.
Michael Howard
Yeah in the North there was industrial production. The South was almost entirely agrarian. If you read the comment chain I was talking about the South not the country as a whole.
Landon Torres
Mexicans were far too many and organized to enslave and memes aside white enough it would've been a scandal in Europe. On the other hand they weren't white enough for Americans to be comfortable granting them citizenship. That was an asimilation problem.
Even after defeat Mexico insisted slavery be forbidden in its former territories which Americans refused, they did however, in the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty, make all Mexicans legally white as an assurance those who remained would not be enslaved.
You might argue the US did go back on it's word as darker skinned Mexicans did suffer discrimination, they were not however enslaved (at least not anymore than whites if you're counting exceptions) as this is something that could've not only provoked Mexico into war but create those very same guerrillas you speak of.
The short of it is one way or another is what remains of Mexico was too Mexican. Even areas of strategic value (the ports of Mazatlán and Tampico) were too connected to the historic core of Mexico.
And it's not like the Americans went home empty handed, you did fucking steal half our country.
Eli Gutierrez
the south had agriculture because it was expanding on shit tons of land, humongous amounts so of course agriculture would dominate as they have more land than people and more land than europe, doesn't mean industry was shunned, it's just they were milking all they could from the shit tons of land they had under control.
William Cook
Confederate States of America/Area Image result for area of confederacy 770,400 mi2
Confederate States of America/Population Image result for population confederacy 9.103 million
Caleb Sanchez
Mexico had roughly around 8 million inhabitants at the time of the Mexican-American war, I fail to see your point.
Jeremiah Peterson
It really didn't have anything to do with the amount of land. It was the climate that made cash crops possible and slavery lucrative. I mean the North had plenty of farmland, it just wasn't the main source of income.
>shunned Not really the word I would use. Plantation owners had most of the power and they had no reason to invest in industry. It was a bad idea in the long run it seems.
Parker Hernandez
In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. 5.5 million whites in 770k sq miles, blacks were easiest laborers to be found from the african slave trade.
Elijah Roberts
>enslave They never planned to enslave them. They would probably be in the same situation as the Tejanos.
Leo Bennett
>It really didn't have anything to do with the amount of land. Yes it did, they could rapidly expand, but many territories were unorganized, they had all the land Europe could dream of.
Brayden Nelson
Are you even reading my posts?
Carson Smith
France 1801 29,361,000 France/Area Image result for area of france 248,573 mi2
Confederates had 3x the land of France and 5.3x less population, as well as having extremely easy land to obtain from natives when ever they care to organize to obtain it, while Europeans would have to fight extremely costly wars for very little land.
David Rogers
bump
Alexander Martin
>And it's not like the Americans went home empty handed, you did fucking steal half our country
We didn't though, 80% of the Mexican population lived in the old Aztec heartland in 1848.
Adrian Smith
I know further, sir, that we have never dreamed 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.
Sir, it is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages—for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions.
Jacob Rivera
based as fuck HAIL JOHN C CALHOUN HAIL THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION for the free white race.
Xavier Rodriguez
You sure you wanna use that who lives where logic in 2016? It was territory which the US government had officially acknowledged belonged to Mexico.
Eli Lewis
For, what, 29 years during which time Mexico never established any kind of political or administrative control over the region? Spain had that clay 300 years, their claim would have been much more solid.
Kayden Richardson
Actually the only significant support for taking the entirety of Mexico came from a couple of Northeastern newspapers and Irish-Americans who imagined Mexicans as their co-religionists. The Southern states wanted more land for growing cotton, but the east coast of Mexico was the only part of the country suitable for that.
