AHC: avoid the Mexican American War

samcster94

Banned
With a POD of 1821, the Mexican American War cannot happen nor can any of the land Mexico has be taken. What would become Texas can be settled ofc. The U.S. can even fight any country it wants to except Mexico. What can be done to do this?
 
Well, one good way is to remove the problem as its root. Mainly, Americans coming in to settle Texas.

This can be done in various way, but for a 1821 POD, I have something in mind... but it's a bit of long trek, so here it goes:

One thing to chance is at July 7, 1821. At that point, Santa Anna would launch an attack at Veracruz. His goal was the house of governor José García Dávila. During the attack, the cavalry panicked and went into disarray. This disrupted the rest of the soldiers' movements, and made a hasty retreat. SO, have the attack go through. Kill Dávila. This might not change much by itself, but...

Another thing to chance is during September. Santa Anna was at Xalapa/Jalapa preparing to attack royalist strongholds at Perote and another assault at Veracruz. During that time, a woman approached him, asking for help. Her husband had a debt that could not be paid, so the Town Council was in route to confiscate their goods. Santa Anna tried to have the council's actions denied, pointing out the couple were allowed to make an appeal. The council, however, would refuse on grounds that Santa Anna was in no position to challenge their decisions or was even capable of ordering them. Further issues were Santa Anna insulting one of the members. What would change here is the woman going to Santa Anna earlier. Enough for the council to not have reached a decision, and for Santa Anna to suggest to make the appeal.

Now, these two events might seem unconnected, but they area. In OTL, when Santa Anna was again at Veracruz during late October, he was facing Dávila again. Dávila made an offer to Iturbide saying he would surrender the port peacefully (the royalists would still fall back to San Juan de Ulúa) if Santa Anna wasn't the one leading the troops. You see, Santa Anna considered Dávila as a father figure, because he had helped him a lot in the years before the war began. Such was his admiration for the man that during both times Santa Anna was going to attack Veracruz, he tried to convince Dávila to surrender. Santa Anna switching sides to the insurgents, however, had Dávila angry. He also had appointed José Rincón, a man Santa Anna had enmity with, in charge of the troops against Santa Anna. So, the condition of surrender in exchange for Santa Anna to be removed from his post was another move to spite him. OTL, Iturbide accepted, but in my scenario, Dávila would be dead, so this won't happen. Santa Anna likely gets another glory moment in liberating the town thorugh actual combat.

Basically, cases like that of Dávila convincing Iturbide to put someone else in charge and the dispute with the council of Xalapa were key causes for Santa Anna to be against the Empire. Yes, my idea here is to chip away at the snowball effect that led to the Plan of Casa Mata.

This is just a start, though.

But, if you want for me to get to the point, is that a good way to avoid the M-A War is to eliminate the loss of Texas. And avoiding the loss of Texas is doable with a surviving Empire. You see, in November of 1822, Cherokee delegate Richard Fields arrived to Mexico City to seek land grants. Hundreds of natives had arrived to Texas fleeing the US. In OTL, the instability of the Casa Mata revolt prevented Iturbide to accept his request, and later on it also kept being denied. A stable Mexico, however, would give the grants. Fields already had Texas governor Trespalacios in guarding the border from American incursions inexchange for the grants. With them, it's now the natives coming over to Texas to populate, and loyal to Mexico. Add that the 1824 Immigration Act would not happen either, then that avoids thousands of Americans coming over. With the Empire, you also avoid the Federalist vs Centralist conflict that gave the Texans (both Anglo and Hispanic) the desire to break away.

So no Texas, you avoid the border dispute that led to the M-A War. At least for now , you avoid it happening for quite some times. Who knows if the US would really drop the idea entirely. Only if Mexico gets to populate the north and gets strong neough. So avoid the decades of instability. And one way I see it, is for the Empire to survive.

That's my take on the matter.
 
So long Texas had broken off, I'm not sure you can avoid a conflict. Though that's just my opinion. It's best to just remove the problem altogether, not mitigate it.
I mean, Clay didn't want a war, and Mexico certainly didn't want a war. Neither would want one enough to be the aggressor, anyways, though there may be threats. There's no reason to think that Texas couldn't just stay independent as a US satellite.
 
I mean, Clay didn't want a war, and Mexico certainly didn't want a war. Neither would want one enough to be the aggressor, anyways, though there may be threats. There's no reason to think that Texas couldn't just stay independent as a US satellite.

Well, Clay won't remain president forever. There's also the fact that if not Texas, you would have something like the Bear Flag Republic instead.

Besides, even as a satellite, Texas still has its border dispute. And as a satellite, the US would go to war on their behalf, and then why not snatch the other side fo the Rio Bravo then? SO yeah, better safe than sorry.
 
For an argument that Clay could indeed have avoided a war, see Gary Kornblith's "Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise"
https://web.archive.org/web/2017082...te/assets/documents/02_JAH_2003_kornblith.pdf

"The key to peace in my counterfactual scenario is a victory by Henry Clay over James K. Polk in the very close presidential election of 1844. Had Clay won 5,107 more votes in New York State (out of more than 485,000 cast there), he would have become president. As a result Texas would almost certainly have remained an independent republic in 1845, and the United States would not have gone to war with Mexico the following year. Based as it is on a highly plausible turn of events, this counterfactual scenario promises to advance our understanding of thecauses of the Civil War...

"Having established that a Clay victory in 1844 was thoroughly plausible, we can, proceeding with our thought experiment, consider the implications of such a victory for American political and social development. First, we must ponder the fate of Texas. Unable to point to the electoral outcome as an endorsement of his policies, Tyler would not have succeeded in pushing through Congress a joint resolution authorizing annexation before he left office. At the urging of the president-elect, Whigs in the Senate—southern as well as northern—would have cited Clay’s victory to justify their continued opposition to annexation. Had Henry Clay taken office as president on March 4, 1845, he would have enjoyed a good deal of flexibility in crafting his policy toward the Lone Star Republic...

"In 1843 George Gordon, Lord Aberdeen, the British foreign secretary, floated a proposal coupling Mexican recognition of Texan independence with abolition and British assistance. Sam Houston, then president of the Texas republic, briefly displayed some interest. But Aberdeen withdrew the suggestion of a quid pro quo the following year, and thereafter he temporized on the question of Texan abolition for fear of encouraging American annexation. Given competing foreign policy priorities, the British were unprepared to risk major involvement in Texas in the face of American opposition. A President Clay would have objected to any British effort to promote abolition in Texas for the same reason he opposed annexation of Texas: his overriding concern was the maintenance of sectional harmony and American political stability.

"In all likelihood, Aberdeen and Clay would have joined diplomatic forces in support of Texan sovereignty. In early 1845 the British and French undertook a new initiative to convince Mexico to recognize Texan independence, and Mexican authorities reluctantly agreed. Although the Mexican government would have felt less compelled to comply had Clay rather than Polk been elected, it could not have comfortably ignored the combined pressure of Great Britain, France, and the United States. We may postulate that sooner or later during Clay’s presidency Mexico would have recognized Texan independence and entered into international arbitration over boundary issues. Even had the Mexican government continued to refuse official recognition, it would probably have shrunk from open warfare and allowed the Lone Star Republic to consolidate authority and power further..."

As for California, Kornblith writes:

"The destiny of California under a Clay presidency is harder to project with confidence. Even without the advent of war with the United States, Mexico would have sustained its claims to sovereignty only with difficulty. In early 1844 the beleaguered governor of California, Manuel Micheltorena, recommended to his superiors in Mexico City that they consider handing the province over to British creditors rather than let it fall into the hands of American immigrants and californios (Californians of Hispanic descent). 'In August 1844,' wrote David J. Weber, 'a group of californios met secretly with British vice consul James Forbes in Monterey and told him they were ready to drive Micheltorena out of California, declare independence, and ask for British protection.' Without instructions from London, Forbes was stymied, but the rebels nonetheless succeeded in ousting Micheltorena in early 1845. They stopped short of declaring independence, however, and soon divided among themselves. Meanwhile, Americans in California prepared to take matters into their own hands, and in June 1846 they staged the Bear Flag Revolt. 'Even if [the Mexican-American War] had not occurred,' Weber asserted, 'Americans in California had become numerous enough to think they could play the 'Texas game' and win.'

"Whether the discovery of gold in 1848 would have prompted President Clay to show more enthusiasm for annexing California than he did for annexing Texas is hard to know. Fellow Whig (but political rival) Daniel Webster had long hoped to acquire San Francisco and the surrounding area for the United States. Yet Clay was more sensitive than Webster to sectional tensions and to the explosive consequences of adding new territory to the federal domain. As with Texas, Clay might well have preferred strong commercial ties with California to the national and international controversies sparked by annexation. For this reason, he would probably have encouraged California to remain independent so long as it avoided an open alliance with Great Britain or another foreign power. Certainly, the possibility that California could have flourished as a separate nation deserves serious consideration. The historical geographer D.W. Meinig has written, 'Was there ever a region better designed by Nature for separate geopolitical existence than Alta California--a land so distinctive and attractive, set apart by the great unbroken wall of the Sierra Nevada backed by desert wastelands, fronting on the world's greatest ocean, focused on one of the world's most magnificent harbors?'

"Alternatively, under pressure from Democratic expansionists in Congress, a President Clay might have proposed pairing the annexation of Texas and California--a reprise of the Missouri Compromise with its coupling of Missouri and Maine. But that scenario seems less probable than the establishment of an independent California because it presupposes Mexico's peaceful acquiescence, a most unlikely development. In keeping with past policy, Britain would have supported Mexican objections to American annexation (as distinct from Texan or Californian independence) and Clay would have backed away from a war for territorial expansion. His commitment to diplomacy, rather than force of arms, would almost surely have curtailed the country's westward growth for the duration of his presidency..."

Kornblith argues that with Clay as president and no Mexican War, US political parties would continue to divide on economic issues (banks, tariffs, etc.) with the slavery issue muted. The whole Wilmot Proviso controversy of OTL would not take place, and it was this controversy which gave birth to the Compromise of 1850 with the application of "popular sovereignty" to the newly acquired southwestern territories. It was this same doctrine of "popular sovereignty" that was applied to Kansas-Nebraska in 1854, with fatal results to the second party system, and the emergence of a new party, the Republicans, whose victory would lead to southern secession.

(There are all sorts of problems with this scenario, as Kornblith recognizes. For one thing, the expansionist Democrats, having lost in 1844, might win in 1848...)
 
What about screwing Mexico post-Texas Independence so badly that they simply acquiesce when California and Texas are annexed?

The prompt is for Mexico to not loose any land. So no, that's not acceptable.

Personally, the only way I see it happening is for Mexico to get way stronger so the US doesn't get any funny ideas, since the challenge is for no war to happen, as well.

Hmm, I could explain further on about how I could butterfly away Casa Mata or an equivalent... but perhaps I should just write a TL for it... maybe...
 
Have the Adams-Onis Treaty give the US a border that's further west. Madrid allowed the negotiators to cede territory up to the Colorado River (Central Texas), and eastern Texas is where most of the American settlers were.

A Colorado-Pecos boundary would give the US more territory and avoid the Texan secession and eventual war between the US and Mexico.
 
What about screwing Mexico post-Texas Independence so badly that they simply acquiesce when California and Texas are annexed?
With what, the Black Plague? Mexico OTL comes "pre-screwed" by that point. Writing TL where Mexico gets screwed worse feels like kicking puppies.
 
Have the Adams-Onis Treaty give the US a border that's further west. Madrid allowed the negotiators to cede territory up to the Colorado River (Central Texas), and eastern Texas is where most of the American settlers were.

A Colorado-Pecos boundary would give the US more territory and avoid the Texan secession and eventual war between the US and Mexico.

Too late for Adam-Onís, POD needs to be in 1821.

And that's a cheap cop-out, even if it was allowed. It defeats the purpose of avoiding the war. But that's just me...
 
Too late for Adam-Onís, POD needs to be in 1821.

And that's a cheap cop-out, even if it was allowed. It defeats the purpose of avoiding the war. But that's just me...

I don't think it's a cop out. The bulk of the Texas Republic's claimed territory here remains Mexican.
 
If you don't wanna go with my proposal, I think you'd need to avoid the American desire for war.

Have the US get into a tussle with the British (1837 Rebellions, Arostook Conflict, Oregon dispute, take your pick) or with the Spanish and lose. The desire for war will be neutered.

Alternatively, have President Clay opt against annexing Texas but okay an annexation of the Yucatan Republic. The US, busy with the Caste War, decides that fighting Mexico on top of an insurgency in a newly annexed state isn't in the cards.
 
I don't think it's a cop out. The bulk of the Texas Republic's claimed territory here remains Mexican.

It is because it boils down to "Okay, the US won't take land from Mexico... but it will totally be taking land from New Spain before it becomes Mexico". Even so, Texas would still be lost (plus a good chunk of Alta California), even if their claims are nonexistent now.

If you don't wanna go with my proposal, I think you'd need to avoid the American desire for war.

Have the US get into a tussle with the British (1837 Rebellions, Arostook Conflict, Oregon dispute, take your pick) or with the Spanish and lose. The desire for war will be neutered.

Alternatively, have President Clay opt against annexing Texas but okay an annexation of the Yucatan Republic. The US, busy with the Caste War, decides that fighting Mexico on top of an insurgency in a newly annexed state isn't in the cards.

Judging from what I've seen here, that would simply leave America with a desire for a Round Two.

As for annexing Yucatan... it's practically the same cop-out as earlier.
 
Okay then make it a war with Spain. US picks a fight with Spain, loses, and has to cede the Florida Keys to the Spanish. The Spanish end up being enemy number one to the Americans and the yanks never get around to picking a fight with Mexico.

It's really really hard to avoid Mexico losing territory. It was just easier for Americans to get to the Mexican North than Mexicans and northern Mexico (the whole cession) only had 50k-60k people.

I would say any situation where Mexico ends up on net with more territory than OTL is a win for Mexico.
 
Okay then make it a war with Spain. US picks a fight with Spain, loses, and has to cede the Florida Keys to the Spanish. The Spanish end up being enemy number one to the Americans and the yanks never get around to picking a fight with Mexico.

It's really really hard to avoid Mexico losing territory. It was just easier for Americans to get to the Mexican North than Mexicans and northern Mexico (the whole cession) only had 50k-60k people.

I would say any situation where Mexico ends up on net with more territory than OTL is a win for Mexico.

It's not hard. I just brought up a first step in how the Plan of Casa Mata could be avoided, which can leave a stronger country that could deal better with holding the north. And an way for the north to not get filled with Americans. There are ways, it's just that it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong, then) many still want the US to win, even if they loose. I mean, just look at this suggestion:

What about screwing Mexico post-Texas Independence so badly that they simply acquiesce when California and Texas are annexed?

Where it has the US still acquiring the land... but fulfills the challenge of not having to fight Mexico for it. Again, try to prove me wrong on this, please.
 
The issue is, I think Americans would move into Mexico's north illegally no matter what. It's just so easy to do so from the perspective of a US settler. Casa Mata didn't apply to California, but plenty of Americans (among others) made it there and outnumbered the Californios IIRC.
 
The issue is, I think Americans would move into Mexico's north illegally no matter what. It's just so easy to do so from the perspective of a US settler. Casa Mata didn't apply to California, but plenty of Americans (among others) made it there and outnumbered the Californios IIRC.

Perhaps, but it can be controlled. As I mentioned, have Richard Fields succeed in getting the land grants. The Cherokee had a deal with Governor Trespalacios that they would guard the Sabine River in exchange for the grants. Avoid Stephen Austin in renewing the deal his father made to move settlers into Texas. Avoid the 1824 Colonization Act that attracted many Americans in the first place. Avoid the ceasement of the tribute paid to the Comanche so they won't start raiding the Hispanic settlements and make deals with Americans to sell what they stole, leaving the chance to move more Mexicans north and not loose the loyalty of the northern Hispanics.

During the Texan revolt, the Americans received support from many Hispanics because the latter thought it was a revolt against Centralism, and the Cherokee and other tribes remained neutral as they had to obtain their land grants. Avoid that and even if Americans still come and the revolt happens, it will be crushed. Heck, OTL, Texas could've still lost. They only got lucky they captured Santa Anna during the chaos that was San Jacinto. Anything else, and there would be no Treaty of Velasco, which validated their claims to the entire River as the border.

And it applies the same for California. Get Mexico less tangled with itself, it can focus more on the north so they're more loyal and avoid an American takeover.

As I said, it's possible. It's doable. It's not really that hard. Mexico was simply unlucky OTL. Doesn't have to the case always.
 
somehow get lots of Mexican settlers to immigrate into those lands. A lot of the appeal of those lands to the US was that they were thinly populated. The US did have a 'Manifest Destiny' dream to stretch from coast to coast, but they'd already achieved that with the Oregon territory settlement.. nothing in MD says they gotta have the Mexican lands too...
 
Top