AHC: Mexico loses California and Texas but not New Mexco

[Ricardolindo]

Is there any way, that, Mexico could have lost California and Texas but kept New Mexico? At the time of the Mexican-American War, New Mexico had a larger Hispano population than California and Texas had and there was less Anglo migration there so they remained a very big population. They are known as Hispanos of New Mexico or Neomexicanos.

 

[cloistered scholar]

I think the problem is that the US would want New Mexico for a southern transcontinental railway.

 

[Bear Flag Oligarch]

Do they keep all of New Mexico, or just the parts that aren't claimed by Texas?

 

[Agra]

Kind of weird borders there.

 

[Rockydroid]

I imagine this would involve keeping southern OTL California? Mexico would need to keep Mexico City out of Scott's hands and maybe push Taylor back into Texas to get the leverage to keep that territory. On possibility is to have Santa Ana die during the independence war, get one bad leader out of the way. That guy kept coming back like a crazy girlfriend/boyfriend no matter how much he messed up Mexico each time.

 

[Umbric Man]

New Mexico briefly considered independence and used these river boundaries for its potential borders:

https://books.google.com/books?id=b... mexico" "republica" "arkansas river"&f=false

You could probably get Mexico to keep New Mexico based on some form of those riverine lines, even if chunks are lost to make things look nicer/transportation easier for America.

 

[jycee]

It would have some really odd borders, but it could work, following the Colorado River to the 38th parallel from there to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and the Pecos River. in this case Mexico might actually end up keeping Southern California (keep a 35th parallel border west of the Colorado) as well.

 

[marathag]

It would have some really odd borders, but it could work, following the Colorado River to the 38th parallel from there to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and the Pecos River. in this case Mexico might actually end up keeping Southern California (keep a 35th parallel border west of the Colorado) as well.

Fewer US immigrants than Mexican Citizens in CA at the time, but most were what could be called today as 'Fighting Age Males' vs. around 700 Mexican Citizens(Californios) with around 6000 overall population in their families had land grants to 800M Acres, over widely spaced Ranches. Californios were not concentrated, while Anglos were.

and this, for Military forces. From the wiki
Prior to the Mexican–American War, preparations for a possible conflict led to the U.S. Pacific Squadron being extensively reinforced until it had roughly half of the ships in the United States Navy. Since it took 120 to over 200 days to sail from Atlantic ports on the east coast, around Cape Horn, to the Pacific ports in the Sandwich Islands and then the mainland west coast, these movements had to be made well in advance of any possible conflict to be effective. Initially, with no United States ports in the Pacific, the squadron's ships operated out of storeships that provided naval supplies, purchased food and obtained water from local ports of call in the Sandwich Islands and on the Pacific coast. Their orders were, upon determining "beyond a doubt" that war had been declared, to capture the ports and cities of Alta California.

Commodore John Drake Sloat, commander of the Pacific Squadron, on being informed of an outbreak of hostilities between Mexico and the United States, as well as the Bear Flag Revolt in Sonoma, ordered his naval forces to occupy ports in northern Alta California. Sloat's ships already in the Monterey harbor, the USS Savannah, USS Cyane, and USS Levant, captured the Alta Californian capital city of Monterey in the "Battle of Monterey" on July 7, 1846 without firing a shot. Two days later on July 9, USS Portsmouth, which had been berthed at Sausalito, captured Yerba Buena (present-day San Francisco) in the "Battle of Yerba Buena", again without firing a shot. On July 15, Sloat transferred his command to Commodore Robert F. Stockton, a much more aggressive leader. Convincing news of a state of war between the U.S. and Mexico had previously reached Stockton. The 400 to 650 marines and bluejackets (sailors) of Stockton's Pacific Squadron were the largest U.S. ground force in California. The rest of Stockton's men were needed to man his vessels.

To supplement this remaining force, Commodore Stockton ordered Captain John C. Frémont, on the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers survey, to secure 100 volunteers (he received 160) in addition to the California Battalion he had earlier organized. They were to act primarily as occupation forces to free up Stockton's marines and sailors. The core of the California Battalion was the approximately 30 army personnel and 30 scouts, guards, ex-fur trappers, Indians, geographers, topographers and cartographers in Frémont's exploration force, which was joined by about 150 Bear Flaggers.

The American marines, sailors, and militia easily took over the cities and ports of northern California; within days they controlled Monterey, San Francisco, Sonoma, Sutter's Fort, New Helvetia, and other small pueblos in northern Alta California. Nearly all were occupied without a shot being fired. Some of the southern pueblos and ports were also rapidly occupied, with almost no bloodshed.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

It would have some really odd borders, but it could work, following the Colorado River to the 38th parallel from there to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and the Pecos River. in this case Mexico might actually end up keeping Southern California (keep a 35th parallel border west of the Colorado) as well.

The fly in the ointment here would likely be the right of navigation/control of commerce on the Colorado though. Give the difficulty in traveling over the Rockies for the sake of bulk commerce, its too valuble a resource to Utah for the US to not eventually be contesting the river. If you can work out some deal though, I could easily see this solution coming about as a result of a peacefully negotated, rather than military, solution to the issues of Texas and California (And, of course, the large standing debt by Mexicans to Americans that was hovering around that). Perhaps its agreement by Mexico to accept Texas's independence with the Rio Grande border ot the south in exchange for more generious borders to the west, and the surrendering of North California and the Salt Lake Basin in lue of cash payments for standing debts. Make it the result of Polk adopting the approach so he can play a stronger hand in Oregon due to the British being more stubborn there, for instance, over the Columbia River.

I imagine this would involve keeping southern OTL California? Mexico would need to keep Mexico City out of Scott's hands and maybe push Taylor back into Texas to get the leverage to keep that territory. On possibility is to have Santa Ana die during the independence war, get one bad leader out of the way. That guy kept coming back like a crazy girlfriend/boyfriend no matter how much he messed up Mexico each time.

Mexican Centeralists loved the guy, and he had plenty of connections among people who had access to alot of monetary resources. Having legacy control of the Vera Cruz custom's house; Mexcio City's main revenue source, was a real advantage here.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Have the boundary be set at the 37th parallel, Pecos River and Colorado River and you'll more or less do it. The inhabited bits of New Mexico thus all remain Mexican.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Have the boundary be set at the 37th parallel, Pecos River and Colorado River and you'll more or less do it. The inhabited bits of New Mexico thus all remain Mexican.

View attachment 425341

This is probably your best bet. Wonderful work good sir!

Though, in this case I imagine you'd see the Panhandle and remainder of New Mexico remain as part of Texas (That strip would never look like a perspective state to jutify keeping it a seperate territory). Utah Territory is also probably organized earlier as perspective Transcontinental route, since you won't have the southern possability and so Dizie will probably be pressing for a St. Louis-Denver-Salt Lake City-Los Angelse or San Fransisco Route

 

[stevej713]

The US considered New Mexico essential in order to get a southern rail connection to Los Angeles and San Diego, along with unrestricted access to the Colorado River. Otherwise, the United States would have considered its hold on California to be too tenuous. A big fear the US had towards the end of the war was that California would simply become an independent nation due to its distance and difficult terrain.

 

[Ricardolindo]

The US considered New Mexico essential in order to get a southern rail connection to Los Angeles and San Diego, along with unrestricted access to the Colorado River. Otherwise, the United States would have considered its hold on California to be too tenuous. A big fear the US had towards the end of the war was that California would simply become an independent nation due to its distance and difficult terrain.

However, the US was reluctant to let New Mexico become a state, partially because it feared, that, the Hispano population would not integrate well.

 

[Legofan4]

However, the US was reluctant to let New Mexico become a state, partially because it feared, that, the Hispano population would not integrate well.

Annexation and not allowing the territory to become and state but under American control is different than not taking the territory at all.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

This is probably your best bet. Wonderful work good sir!

Though, in this case I imagine you'd see the Panhandle and remainder of New Mexico remain as part of Texas (That strip would never look like a perspective state to jutify keeping it a seperate territory). Utah Territory is also probably organized earlier as perspective Transcontinental route, since you won't have the southern possability and so Dizie will probably be pressing for a St. Louis-Denver-Salt Lake City-Los Angelse or San Fransisco Route

Yes, I believe that eastern New Mexico South of the 36-30 line would be Texan.

BUT, it is also possible that Texas has to cede western portions of OTL Texas to the Federal Government if it wants its debts assumed.

Perhaps something like this?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Yes, I believe that eastern New Mexico South of the 36-30 line would be Texan.

BUT, it is also possible that Texas has to cede western portions of OTL Texas to the Federal Government if it wants its debts assumed.

Perhaps something like this?

View attachment 426075

I don't see how *New Mexico is remotely viable in these circumstances. It's all Badlands and dry prarie, with no major settlements and no good place to put them,and the only real river outlet is an international border. I suppose it could be an extension of Indian Territory though in a world where the US maintains that system rather than turn to assimilatist reservations: the Dakota might be sent down that way post-war, for example, get lumped in with the Comache and such.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

I don't see how *New Mexico is remotely viable in these circumstances. It's all Badlands and dry prarie, with no major settlements and no good place to put them,and the only real river outlet is an international border. I suppose it could be an extension of Indian Territory though in a world where the US maintains that system rather than turn to assimilatist reservations: the Dakota might be sent down that way post-war, for example, get lumped in with the Comache and such.

The northern bits around the cimarron river could be settleable I think. The badlands and wastes would just be added on because they've gotta be made part of some state (like with the Oklahoma Pandhandle OTL).

 

[John Farrier]

Let's say that the anti-war sentiment is sufficiently strong that President Polk (or an alternate timeline President Clay) decides to only enforce the Texas border at the Rio Grande. California revolts successfully and declares independence. It later joins the Union without Mexican interference.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

The northern bits around the cimarron river could be settleable I think. The badlands and wastes would just be added on because they've gotta be made part of some state (like with the Oklahoma Pandhandle OTL).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isent the Panhandle an artifact of the Missouri Compromise line? And it's that line that's a real issue here: it limits *New Mexico's bounds to that tall narrow band who's economic prospects are extremely poor at best, and would look highly unlikely to be capable of self-sustaining a state government apperatus and provide security: especially while Indian Territory still exists and the only likely rail system connection would be a massive spur down from the Kansas City-Denver line (No company operating a line in Texas would want to build out into the Western praries if there's no prospect of it reaching out to the Pacific). That means it's highly unlikely the line would be drawn there on the territory when it's organized, barring some outside political footballs.

Maybe draw the line straight down from the Western boundry of Oklahoma? Have it be "West Texas" or something. Than it would at least have an connection to the Rio Grande and navigable river port on the Brazos that could become a suitable market point for ranchers. Or if we aren't looking at a Wilmont Proviso push (quite possible in this scenario, give the lack of New Mexico territory makes the prospect of splitting off South California as a slave state dead on arrival as it's isolated from any direct route to other slave regions), you extend the Missouri Compromise line (The parts to the north of it going into Kansas Territory, slightly alterting the later shape of some of the Great Plains states) and draw the line on the borders of old Mexican Tejas (of course extending down to the Rio Grande as well). The western claims would be split off in exchange for the assumption of the state debts, with the understanding the territory would be a slave state, backed in a "two birds with one stone" clause that put the sale of public lands there under the control of a Texan-lead commission will the proceeds set aside specifically for paying off the former Republic's bonds (Who would, of course, favor selling to Texans and other Southerners rather than peddling homesteads in say Boston or Philidelphia)

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I don't think anyone mentioned that the US government went through the trouble of purchasing what is now southern Arizona from Mexico AFTER the Mexican-American War for the railway.

Also, the takeover of New Mexico was not a big problem for the Americans. I'm not sure if there was any Mexican garrison at all, and Americans were already traveling to Santa Fe along the Santa Fe trail for business. A detachment of cavalry rode down the trail from Fort Leavenworth and took over New Mexico without fighting.

Technically this scenario isn't ASB but it makes no sense at all given the realities of the 1840s and 1850s. Even if the cavalry does not show up in Santa Fe, the USA will just buy the place at either the treaty ending the war or at some later date. You can keep Santa Fe in Mexico, but they would either have to win the war or there be no war, in which case they keep California too.

The best I can think of is that California successfully revolts from Mexico and forms its own independent country well before 1847. There is no Mexican-American War. At some point later in the nineteenth century both California and Texas join the Union voluntarily. And the Americans are fine with the only rail connection to southern California being dependent on a line going across the High Sierras and then south. Maybe the POD is that oceanic shipping gets alot faster alot earlier while no one is interested in investing in trans-continental railways.