Mexico wins in 1836

[Grey Wolf]

Mexico wins in 1836

Reading the details of the Mexican campaign against the Texians (Osprey 'The Alamo 1836') it becomes clear that Mexico could have won this war. General Urrea had a string of victories in the second thrust, whilst Santa Anna had successes but was always delayed in his decisiveness by political considerations rather than military ones.

If we have Santa Anna die from disease or injured in an accident, and command devolve upon his second in command, can we have the Mexicans win ? The assault on the Alamo was actually unnecessary, although it was a victory - the Mexicans could simply have starved them out and by-passed them. In addition the massacre at Goliad both added steel to the Texians (as well as garnering anger in the USA) and outraged his own soldiers as he ordered it to occur on Palm Sunday. Even the Mexican commander required to carry out the order tried to save as many prisoners as he could get away with, and it was hardly a move that had any positive effect within Tejas.

If Santa Anna's replacement shows himself as up t the calibre of Urrea, he would by-pass and starve out the Alamo, dump the prisoners in US territory and advance more swiftly. A victory over Houston would give them the campaign as the rest of the major units had already been destroyed.

If Mexico therefore wins this war, what are the long-term effects ?

Grey Wolf

[Norman]

Eventually the US would have gone to war with Mexico and grabbed Texas as part of its 'Manifest Destiny'. The war would have been driven by tales of atrocities of the Mexicans against the God-Fearing Texian Settlers.

It is an open question whether Great Britain would have supplied much aid the the Mexicans, but the possibility is certainly there as they sought to counter growing American power in the area.

If GB had sided more openly with the Mexicans, it probably would have delayed the war to around the same time as OTL, after the issues along the northern border were settled.

[Grey Wolf]

Eventually the US would have gone to war with Mexico and grabbed Texas as part of its 'Manifest Destiny'. The war would have been driven by tales of atrocities of the Mexicans against the God-Fearing Texian Settlers.

I decided to leave my thoughts until there were answers. One comment from the Osprey book is that without the Goliad Massacre, and especially if the priusoners were dumped on US territory the comparison that would be made would be between the TEXIAN leadership and the Mexican army. The Texian leadership had an almost disastrous war, only saved by San Jacinto and the capture of Santa Anna. Before that they were so riven by faction, and defeated in succession, that they did not paint a good picture as a viable authority at all. If Santa Anna's replacement had driven on hard and defeated Houston there would not have been a Texian leadership even worthy of the name. As for other massacres, when Urrea killed Ward's men he was mainly loosing upon them the rancheros whom Ward had been terrorising, letting the locals have their revenge on the Texian.

Grey Wolf

[Norman]

(I almost hate to ask this)

I still believe that the US would have eventually gone to war with Mexico over Texas (for the reasons in my earlier post), and the outcome of that war was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

What I find interesting to consider if the US goes to war,say in 1845, with Mexico, and saves Texas for the US, how would this change its annexation and the impact it has on the ACW?

Is it possible that without the legend of the Texas War of Independence, and with the fact that Texas was 'saved' by the United States, that the Texans would have been much less likely to join the Southern cause? If so, what impact would this have had on the ACW?

[Grey Wolf]

Well, the first thought that comes to my mind is that if Mexico has fought the Texians and defeated them they are not likely to encourage the same kind of emigration as before 1835. I fact they are far more likely to encourage more rancheros to move to Tejas, probably with some form of grant. The United States showed itself unwilling to directly intervene in 1836 so its not going to intervene in Mexico's internal affairs.

Without the spur of Texas being admitted to the Union what sparks war in the mid 1840s ? If Polk offers to buy the 'New Mexico Territory' and is told where to get off in Mexico City, there is not the same impetus for this to lead to war as in OTL. There simply will not be columns of Mexican troops advancing into disputed Texas and clashing with US forces. Only if the USA is going to declare war WITHOUT PROVOCATION is there going to be a war, and there was already heavy opposition in Congress to OTL's war - eg see the speeches of Lincoln on this.

However, I don't see the US election process going the same way in the first place. Without an independent Texas, there may well be more of a concentration on Oregon or even on California. A note about California, however, there was an incident in the early 1840s where a US naval commander msitakenly heard of war, rushed to Monterey and seized it, only to find out his mistake and have to apologise and retreat. Without war being officially declared elsewhere the US isn't going to be bringing forces into California even if the Bear Flag Republic becomes a reality

Grey Wolf

(I almost hate to ask this)

I still believe that the US would have eventually gone to war with Mexico over Texas (for the reasons in my earlier post), and the outcome of that war was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

What I find interesting to consider if the US goes to war,say in 1845, with Mexico, and saves Texas for the US, how would this change its annexation and the impact it has on the ACW?

Is it possible that without the legend of the Texas War of Independence, and with the fact that Texas was 'saved' by the United States, that the Texans would have been much less likely to join the Southern cause? If so, what impact would this have had on the ACW?

[David S Poepoe]

I think it is reasonable to consider that an unsuccessful Texian Rebellion would have seriously compromised the concept of 'manifest destiny'. The annexation of Texas was never completely in the cards and could have been thwarted by a Clay Administration.

Removing Santa Ana may certainly be the solution. On the whole I think any other leader wouldn't have been so harsh, particularly since it was Santa Ana who proved so pivotal in the breaking of relations between the Texians and the Mexican Government. The close proximity of Texas to the United States, on the other hand, does present a problem since one would have American 'patriots' flocking to the Texian side.

Should the Texian Revolt be crushed, by someone other than Santa Ana, I suspect that some effort to remedy the situation would be done. Tejas was a fairly profitable Mexican state if I remember right. Political reform and some form of autonomy for Tejas may be granted. Perhaps if completely being upshown by another would lead to Santa Ana's political demise. The flashpoint between the US and Mexico now moves to California, where I think nothing can be done following the discovery of gold to keep it Mexican.

One thing to consider in the end, if Texas was eventually annexed, would be that the border would not be at the Rio Grande, but rather at the Rio Nueces.

[Norman]

Grey-

Mexico had been actively encouraging colonization at the time, chances are this would not stop, but would change if Mexico won.

For example, European colonization might have increased, while stronger borders might have kept American settlers out. Additionally, Mexico would probably have sought more settlers from RC countries, because they would be considered easier to integrate into a North Mexico that was to remain Mexican.

GB might actually assist this by making it easier for the Irish to emmigrate to Mexico. Additionally, German and Central European settlers might also have come in, particularly after the unrests of 1848.

This having been stated, I think that even under these conditions, the chances are the US would eventually have gone to war with Mexico over Texas, if only because the South would see Texas as a 'natural' areas to expand into to counter the growing anti-slavery territories.

Additionally, with the US focussed more in the 1840's on the Oregon Territory, it is likely that the US would have insisted on a bigger piece of it, maybe most of British Columbia and Vancouver.

My real question is now this, we have the South actively encouraging westward movement to counter the number of free states, their focus is quite natuarlly going to be on Texas because of its proximity. Does the South or a group of Southerners force a war through the wide spread
publication of atrocities and incidents between American Citizens and Mexican Border Guards?

I think it does, at least eventually (maybe around 1855). This might provoke a war that included Great Britain, but I do not believe that GB will want to get involved in a North American war at this time, there is just too much on its plate. Therefore, it is probable in this scenario that a Mexican War would occur, the US would win it, and Texas would be part of the settlement of that war.

Conversely, this action is going to have a dramatic effect on the ACW for two reasons. First, neither the North nor the South would be willing to spill each other's blood after so recently serving together, and second, a Texas more heavily settled by Irish/German/Mexican farmers is very different than OTL Texas of the same period.

Therefore all action on the slavery issue is put off for a while, as the US continues to keep itself together with compromise after compromise on the issue. When it finally does erupt into the open, say between 1870 and 1875, the Northern juggernaut is just to much, particularly if the West (read Texas) is much less sympathetic to the "Great Cause".

[Grey Wolf]

One thing to look at is the slave trade - quite what its status was in Tejas I am not sure; after all if slavery is illegal in Mexico, how come it is legal in Tejas ? Several of the leaders of the Texians (eg Fannin) had made a living from the slave trade, but after a Mexican victory would we have seen it being stamped out ? I would think its quite possible, especially if we see an increased closeness to Britain, and also because with the borders to the US more closed then the chances to trade across borders would be diminished

If Tejas succeeds in eradicating slavery, and there is more immigration form outside of the USA, is it going to be attractive to the South as it was OTL? Might they not instead focus their attention more on the existing territories such as Kansas which could become slave-holding states ?

If you have a greater Southern movement into the mid-West....

Also, if there is no war with Mexico what of the commanders from both the Union and the Confederacy who learned their trade there ?

But, I think California will be the main hot-spot

Grey Wolf

[zoomar]

Not to make light of an otherwise excellent thread, it is interesting to imagine the political/cultural difference if Texas had been annexed directly from Mexico after most of the Anglo immigrants had either been killed or kicked out of Mexico rather than as an independent "American"-led republic. This would have created first a "Texas Territory", which might well have not been given statehood until the end of the 19th century, or at least after the ACW (assuming it still ocurred as in OTL). Also, the possibility exists that more than one state would be formed from the Texas Territory, much as New Mexico Territory and Dakota Territory were broken up. Finally, Texans would be just like New Mexicans or Oklahomans - they would lack the exceptionalism (and arrogance) which comes from being the only US state to have first been an independent republic. Finally, and most importantly for anyone driving I-40 (or old Route 66) to California, No Big Texan Steakhouse in Amarillo and its 72 ounce steak free if you can eat it in an hour. Only OTL Texans could have created that!

[Nosb]

I actually came up with a timeline that deals with this and posted it on the old board (http://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/messages/4/5911.html), but I stopped after part one because of a like of replies.

[Grey Wolf]

I actually came up with a timeline that deals with this and posted it on the old board (http://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/messages/4/5911.html), but I stopped after part one because of a like of replies.

Very interesting NOSB - I am not sure why a Texian defeat leads to demands for war, when a load of Texian setbacks didn't in OTL ? Also, what is the Panic of 1837 ?

Grey Wolf

[DuQuense]

Paniic is the old term for a Recession. comes from the run on the banks that useally started the recessions.

[Nosb]

Very interesting NOSB - I am not sure why a Texian defeat leads to demands for war, when a load of Texian setbacks didn't in OTL ?

It was a mix of the total destruction of the of Texas, the freeing of former American-owned-slaves, the murder of hundreds of American settlers, and the semi-forced exodus of thousands of others.

Also, what is the Panic of 1837?
Panic is the old term for a Recession. comes from the run on the banks that useally started the recessions.

[Grey Wolf]

It was a mix of the total destruction of the of Texas, the freeing of former American-owned-slaves, the murder of hundreds of American settlers, and the semi-forced exodus of thousands of others.

Are you sure this would happen, even under Santa Anna ? I can see the massacre of forces in rebellion, he certainly believed in that. And the freeing of the slaves - but how would that be a cassus belli for another country ? The slaves are Texian not American, despite the cross-border trade. And the exodus of others - is this a likelihood ?

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

Are you sure this would happen, even under Santa Anna ? I can see the massacre of forces in rebellion, he certainly believed in that. And the freeing of the slaves - but how would that be a cassus belli for another country ? The slaves are Texian not American, despite the cross-border trade. And the exodus of others - is this a likelihood ?

It would be cassus belli for the US. Most of the non-Hispanics and non-slaves in Texas were Americans. The "exodus" would be more a return to the US than anything else.

[Grey Wolf]

It would be cassus belli for the US. Most of the non-Hispanics and non-slaves in Texas were Americans. The "exodus" would be more a return to the US than anything else.

Yes but the freeing of the slaves is a Mexican decision, at the very least a Tejas decision after victory in 1836. Why it would anger the USA is not clear?

Now the exodus might annoy them, but it does have to be remembered that alot of the people who moved to Tejas were either failures at home running away from something or complicated people who had a real mixed up existence. This is especially true for the second line people who became the leaders etc - eg Bowie or Fannin

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

Yes but the freeing of the slaves is a Mexican decision, at the very least a Tejas decision after victory in 1836. Why it would anger the USA is not clear?

In the 1830s, the American government would view infractions on the rights (here, in the 1830s, the right to own slaves) of US settlers anywhere in North America as US business. Thus, the stripping of "property" from American citizens would be grounds for war. Not to mention the executions and forced exodus...

[Grey Wolf]

In the 1830s, the American government would view infractions on the rights (here, in the 1830s, the right to own slaves) of US settlers anywhere in North America as US business. Thus, the stripping of "property" from American citizens would be grounds for war. Not to mention the executions and forced exodus...

I dont agree. Instinctively some may have felt that, but legally it is absoutely not true - Mexico is another country and they swore allegiance to it when they left


Grey Wolf

[Norman]

Grey-

Understand that there was almost a mystical belief in the 1830's to the earlier part of the 20th century about what it meant to be an american. If atrocities are committed against the class of people that would be defined as 'americans', there would be war.

[Nosb]

Yes but the freeing of the slaves is a Mexican decision, at the very least a Tejas decision after victory in 1836. Why it would anger the USA is not clear?
Grey Wolf

The slaves are the property of American citizens, it doesn't matter if they are living abroad or in open rebellion or in connection to a rebellion. They're still American citizens. And don't forget who the President of United States was. When the state threatened to secede, Jackson almost took 20,000 men to Charlestown, South Carolina and promised to hang half the male population from the lampposts.

[Grey Wolf]

Grey-

Understand that there was almost a mystical belief in the 1830's to the earlier part of the 20th century about what it meant to be an american. If atrocities are committed against the class of people that would be defined as 'americans', there would be war.

But there WASN'T

Thats the point - in 1836 the USA did NOT join in the war, so I cannot see how or why they would when this war they didnt want to be in reaches a conclusion for the other side

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

But there WASN'T

Thats the point - in 1836 the USA did NOT join in the war, so I cannot see how or why they would when this war they didnt want to be in reaches a conclusion for the other side.

They didn't join the war because they didn't have to. The Americans in Texas (the slave-holding Texians) won on their own and, thus, there was no reason for the United States proper to get involved.

[Grey Wolf]

They didn't join the war because they didn't have to. The Americans in Texas (the slave-holding Texians) won on their own and, thus, there was no reason for the United States proper to get involved.

Well, they almost didnt win - it wasn't until San Jacinto

I really doin't think that if Mexico had won the USA would suddenly have come in on the side of the defeated

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

Well, they almost didnt win - it wasn't until San Jacinto

I really doin't think that if Mexico had won the USA would suddenly have come in on the side of the defeated

You're not looking at it right. They would just be the "defeated" but mistreated, defeated Americans. The view of Texians in the USA would change from them being a different people with their own agenda, to them being former Americans mistreated and underpriveledged by a hostile Mexican government.

[David Howery]

concerning slavery in Mexico: technically, it was illegal, but there were ways around it. The most common was to have the slave become an indentured servant with a 99 year contract (this was perfectly legal). Even with the slavery ban, there were out and out slaves in Mexico. One reason the Apaches and other natives of the SW hated Mexicans so is that there was a thriving underground trade in native american children, who were stolen by Mexicans and sold to wealthy families to be exotic house servants. From what I've read, slavery in Texas was never a huge concern to the Mexican government. It was a big deal in America though, as it was feared that a Texas that became independent would quickly join the US as a slave state.....

[wkwillis]

Santa Anna is kicked in the head by a horse, Urribe successfully beats the Texans and liberates the slaves. The Mexican government figures out that Texas is going to be settled by somebody and decides to settle lots of freed slaves there? There were around 250,000 freed slaves in the US and lots more in the Caribbean. The exslaves are certainly motivated to defend the border against more Anglo immigrants. The northern states aren't enthusiastic about fighting a war for slavery and conquering more territory for slave owners.
Without the Mexican cession California is settled by the Swiss or other Europeans to the extent that they outnumber the Americans? So it's sort of like America, but different? British? Would some blacks from Texas go by land? There was gold and other minerals in Colorado along the way.
When the Civil war happens the Union has an ally on the south, important for stopping smuggling of military supplies, and as a base for blockader warships. The Confederacy has to mount an invasion a long way over unsupported land, with no river or sea transport, in the face of the Union navy. They try, but not very successfully. Maybe the Union accepts Texas as a number of black states and they they wind up with a monopoly of most oil in the lower 48?