That’s not a bad idea and I say this as a resident of the great Northeast. Those states send far more money to the federal government that they receive in return. Prosperity for the Northeast and let the slacking, government tit-sucking states of the South, and other red states, fall further into poverty and misery. Then they may start to figure out that they have been buying into a lie for far too long. No, they will never figure it out. Their education system is far too underfunded, corrupt and run by religious nuts to ever consider that they should educate the masses with fact and science rather than religious dogma.
If those Northeast states could quit sending welfare to the idiots in red states and invest it at home it would be an incredible opportunity. I’m all for it.
Tighter, maybe. Whiter, I doubt it. The Northeast is full if blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Eastern Europeans, Russians, South Americans, Puerto Ricans, Caribbeans and whatever. It’s so mixed that that white, black, yellow and everything in between is getting hard to define.
Yea, it’s not going to happen but I wish the red states would suck it up and realize they are the ones on welfare and are sucking the tit of the states they hate.
Ah, proud dweller in, umm, Delaware? Rhode Island? Don’t you realize the Red State/Blue State dichotomy has more to do with the Electoral College than the sentiments of every dweller in every state?
This is reality. And, yes. Wishing the border states away is quite racist…
Interesting question. While I think this over, let me give a few incomplete thoughts.
I’d imagine there would be a constitutional crisis. On the one hand, the President and Senate are empowered to enter into any treaty, such as a treaty to end the war. On the other hand, there is no mechanism to cede territory.
I would also imagine at a minimum that the residents in the ceded territory would have the option of retaining their citizenship in the United States, although they may be forced to emigrate into union control territory. This would lead to a Balkanization, as some states would become dominated by legislatures that welcome their new overlords, and others very resistant, depending on the emigration patterns.
The economy would also tank, as we are currently dependent on virtually unlimited trade across state borders. Adding an arbitrary national border at the line of conquest would be extremely disruptive in unpredictable ways. Ultimately, the weakened economy would weaken the control of the occupying force.
Basically, the nation would be so weak following such a defeat, that I don’t know what the “victors” would even gain by concurring integral parts of the United States.
Constitutional law is messy. Basically, it’s only unconstitutional if somebody challenges it (and prevails).
Texas might have a claim to contest the treaty, but presumably the Federal government got them to “buy in”, likely with offers of generous compensation. If Texas or another party with standing contested, it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide the matter.
Mexico imports about half of its gasoline. Most of this comes from the U.S. The price that Mexicans pay at the pump is a little less than the U.S. with the difference being that the U.S. government taxes gasoline sales while the Mexican government subsidizes it.
But think of the destruction that must have occurred for the United States of America to surrender… to Canada? Nuclear weapons would have to be involved! Canada would effectively have nuked its own economy for a few million barrels of oil a year.
The United States is not a magical source of stability. Northern Mexico would continue to experience high crime and poverty for many years following annexation. The United State’s strength is that it occupies most of a continent with a relatively homogenous population. Where this homogeneity breaks down, however, shows its weak points. Indian tribes, Appalachia, parts of the Deep South, and minority populations country wide still continue to experience higher rates of poverty. Even among the “white” population, there are significant pockets of poverty.
Adding Mexico would at a minimum over extend US resources. New federal infrastructure would be adapted from the Mexican bureaucracy, or built from scratch. The US budget, already operating on a huge deficit, would be overwhelmed with investment in Mexican infrastructure.
Even with new national investment change would be extremely slow and occur only over the course of a several generations. Barring an influx of US citizens, the governing class of each new Mexican state or territory would be largely unchanged. These people aren’t going to do things radically differently, although corruption may be slightly reduced. The general populations too would remain unchanged. It will take decades for a Mexican population educated in US ways to become fully self sufficient. It will take decades for Mexican history and culture to be taught in US schools so that the “North of the Border” population feels comfortable enough to freely travel and relocate into Mexico.
Meanwhile, Mexico is currently experiencing unparallelled prosperity. It already benefits from free trade with the United States, and gets protection in part by the US military. Law enforcement on both sides of the border already cooperate against the drugs lords (another problem that wouldn’t vanish with annexation). In the same time frame it would take Mexico to fully adapt within the United States, it could make similar progress as an independent nation.
As a collection of territories within the United States of America, or within the United Mexican States, the same collection of people would largely be responsible for its development and prosperity. Annexing it into the United States would likely weaken both nations by over extending US resources, and wasting existing Mexican resources. Vast cultural differences would would take generations to overcome. Continued and improved cooperation would be the way to strengthen and empower the Mexican people.
