Wendell said:
This is not our timeline. Here, Mexico is a power of sorts, and stands out as the leader of Latin America.
Seven million people with a ramshackle economy does not a power make (I would back Ireland to take them in a one on one fight), they can be stable as they like but they aren’t going to be able to do that much militarily without falling apart at the seams.
Instead of internal struggles, Mexico can now commit armies to defend its borders.
Yes I imagine they would have to in order to keep the Americans in texas from trying anything, however juts because they have some troops doesn't mean they have enough troops to march a couple thousand miles into Oregon from their central population area, especially when they have to also conquered British Honduras and make sure the British don't attack Mexico city, Texas or California amphibiously (landing then marching).
The logistics or marching any army of sufficient size two thousand miles through largely unsettled territory is also dubious.
Mexico could reignite old Spanish claims to parts of what was the Oregon Country.
Spain had no such claims, they gave them up to Britain (and then sold them to the US a decade or so later).
After seeing the War of 1812, the Mexicans would be concerned about European powers interfering in the Western hemisphere.
Only if the Mexicans were interested in invading British possessions, otherwise they would know that Britain didn't seem particularly interested in North America.
Any sensible Mexican President is going to realise that the greater threat to Mexico isn't Britain but the US, the US has Anglos it is sympathetic to all over Texas grumbling away, the US has shown its desire for further land (its going to war with the worlds super power over few acres of forest what would they for prime grazing land in Texas) and the US is sitting right on Mexico’s border.
It is quite clear that Britain likes the idea of independent nations in South and central America so why would Mexico have undue reason to fear them?
That explains why Britain rolled over on the Oregon dispute (okay, the U.S. did not get all that it sought), and allowed such a favorable border in the Maine deal
It was roughly split 60-40 and Britain got the better link up with Canada they desired.
You are essentially arguing here that just because Britain could win a war they should automatically have waged won, you are overlooking the fact that wars are expensive and Britain would rather not spend the money over few acres of forest (they had plenty of that in Canada), they wanted a better link of the Maritimes to Canada and that is what they achieved.
Let me flip the question a round for you, if the US could so easily conquer Canada at this juncture then why didn't they?
Of course I don't really need an answer because I have looked at the situation involved, I suggest you look a little more closely at that instead of just assuming that desire not to fight a war means you can't win (if you think about it a little you argument clearly doesn’t hold up under its own logic because the US was also willing to roll over on the issue).
To sum up, you don’t address my points showing Britain would win and instead try to say they aren’t true because otherwise Britain wouldn’t have gone for a peaceful solution this ignores Britain’s established pattern of behaviour and does nothing to address the core issue.
Elaborate how this would be impossible if the U.S. and Mexico did in fact win.
I'm saying they couldn't win (certainly not to those extents) therefore them taking those territories is ASB.
How so?
Simply, Britain uses its much larger forces to smash the US forces, the US forces then have to rush into service militia which are no match for British regulars and they get hammered.
Meanwhile more and more British troops are turning up in Canada, in addition to Canadians being trained as provincials and Indians being recruited.
On the sea the bulk of the Royal navy is parked off shore and a tight economy crippling blockade is under way, the US economy begins to feel the heat as merchant/fishermen/whalers go unemployed and farmers find themselves driven to near subsistence farming because the market is flooded with their product (this is the point they start trying to smuggle their produce to the enemy).
In order to pay their soldiers and equip them the US government needs money, however tariffs aren't of much use when your trade has collapsed, so the government starts printing money which means peoples savings becomes worthless and they start demanding even more money to be soldiers which means more money is printed and so on, the US can also try for the income tax rout which will be deeply unpopular with those who can no longer pay it because of the economic situation.
The US misses recruitment target after recruitment target whilst the British occupy plenty of US territory, these are the areas they want ( a few in Oregon, a few in Maine, Minnesota ) as well as important positions on the coast (New Orleans, Savannah maybe) the main army deploys in Ohio and upstate New York and moves on from them as troops numbers increase.
It becomes evident the war can't be won, Southern planters want to get back to selling their products and aren't interested in forests over a thousand miles away, those states occupied just want their territory ensured and Maine who started the whole mess is under British occupation.
Those we get a treaty based upon the ground each side controls, Britain trades back what it doesn't want for some sparse real estate on the Great Plains.
The US decides it was foolish to take on Britain in this manner and should have settled.
By pure number of troops, the American War of Independence would have been a failure. It wasn't, however.
If you mean Britain had more troops in the 13 colonies than the Rebels (and their allies) did then you are mistaken, Britain did not commit that many troops at first and by the time they had built up troop numbers sizeable chunks were having to defend Florida form Spain and Canada from everyone.
However of course troops aren't everything, naval superiority is important as well (the French provided the rebels with access to this at the crucial moment) and economics (which the rebels just barely survived upon with French, Dutch and Spanish aid).
That is why I included not just facts about troop numbers but also pointed out Britain’s naval superiority and economic and technological leads.
If you want a strong Mexico out of this scenario I would recommend that they cosy up to Britain (not necessarily declaring war on the US though) and Britain in turn backs them up to ensure the US doesn’t expand at Mexico’s expense.
