The Mexican-American War & Decline of the American Empire

The Right Stuff recently ran an article which discusses the USA as a White empire, mostly in the old sense of the word as an expansive government, and traces its decline all the way back to the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. This starting point may surprise some, but the author argues:

A state can both increase and degenerate, which is the story of American history. While it may seem counterintuitive it has been transpiring for nearly two centuries. Our race has expanded greatly, but our ability to manage that expansion has atrophied and so we have had our destiny hijacked.

It goes on to assert that “The failure to completely annex a defeated country during a high tide of racial expansion and folkwandering marks our starting point.” It correctly blames Northern hostility towards the South and slavery for the lack of acquisition of much or all of Mexico. Though the expansionist Young America Movement arose in the 1840s, the high-point for American trans-regional concensus on southward expansion had by then already passed. As discussed in my book Our Southern Nation: Its Origin and Future there were several opportunities for US expansion into the tropics in the early to mid 1800s which were popular in the South and among Democratic voters of the North. They would have resulted in more Southern States and Dixie’s domination of the US Congress. Thus, opportunities to take the Yucatan Peninsula, Baja California, Nicaragua and Cuba were all rejected by Northerners opposed to Southern expansion. Even the acquisition of Texas was extremely unpopular in New England. Clearly, the multi-civilizational nature of the Union prevented it from acquiring nearby lands controlled by weak regimes and populated by less developed peoples. The article states:

… [T]he North did not want slavery to be expanded into Mexico as that would mean at least a dozen new slaveholder states and a permanent Southern orientation of the United States. The Golden Circle–the unification of the New World’s plantation societies under one banner–would have reduced New England and her Midwestern scions to a fiefdom. So the North prevailed against the expansion of White rule into Mexico because that would mean a government dominated by planters.

It concludes insightfully:

Today we live with the bitter, bitter irony that the United States is becoming a mostly black and brown country, but on New England’s terms of racial equality and miscegenation rather than the South’s, and with much less territory. Had the South prevailed and the United States became a significantly blacker and browner country, but on the terms of Aryan supremacy, we would live in a very different timeline indeed.

There was limited Southern opposition to the acquisition of Mexico and Central America on the grounds discussed in the article that it would make the USA more non-White and Catholic. However, most Southerners supported expansion for multiple reasons: it would have meant more political power for the South, more economic opportunies and a chance to spread civilization. The Democratic Party, behind which most of the South was united, favored expansion into the tropics.

This is a huge subject to tackle and one we have written about at length over the years. It is encouraging to see it discussed openly on a non-SN, pro-White website and in the contexts of race, sectional conflict and the plantation civilization.