AHC/WI: Mexican-American War a stalemate

jycee's Mexican Victory TL has a POD in which General Paredes stays in the north instead of staging a coup. More troops near the Rio Grande could stall General Taylor and the capture of Monterrey.

Bogging down Winfield Scott in central Mexico would be essential.

Also, have a stronger Californio resistance to Fremont's Bear Flag Revolt and Kearny's invasion in southern California. If things are dragged out there longer and the Americans lose, it might actually influence the treaty conditions.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Mexicans did not have the

What POD(s) will make the Méxican-American War a stalemate, with México retaining California?


As of 1846, the Mexicans did not have the resources to wage multiple campaigns in theaters as distant as central/eastern Mexico, northeastern Mexico, New Mexico and the Southwest, and California.

As is demonstrated by the US successes in all four of those theaters.

Mexico also did not have a navy, which leaves California wide open to combined operations - which is how the US took it, in concert with the overland expeditions.

To get Mexico to a place where it can sucessfully defend both its heatland (Veracruz to Mexico City) as well as the northeastern, northwestern, and Pacific Coast frontiers requires a vastly stronger Mexico (in terms of economic, political, and military strength), which in turn requires a stable Mexico going back to the Mexican Revolution of 1810 or so, which presumably requires something other than the de facto victory of the Mexican conservatives (most of whom were former Spanish loyalists).

All in all, it is a very tall order.

If the Mexicans (under Santa Ana or otherwise) had staked everything on facing Scott - including, presumably, withdrawing in the face of Taylor's expedition, which is almost self-defeating from an internal Mexican political point of view - they possibly could have stopped Scott's invasion at Puebla or somewhere similar - same strategy as 1862 against the French.

The problem there, of course, is the French came back in 1863-64 and won...

In 1846-48, however, the Mexican tried to defend just about everything, and as a consequence, they lost just about everywhere.

California and New Mexico are pretty much impossible for the Mexico of 1846 to hold; once the US was in Texas, the overland approaches were actually simpler (can't really say easier) from the east as from the south, and American sea power was a capabilty the Mexicans could never match, much less overcome.

Best,
 
I think an outright stalemate is a tall order, but it's easier to find a way to make American casualties high enough that the war comes to an end without major American gains. Go too far back though and you run the risk of an vastly different war between the US and Mexico.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure, but the problem there is the sheer scale of

I think an outright stalemate is a tall order, but it's easier to find a way to make American casualties high enough that the war comes to an end without major American gains. Go too far back though and you run the risk of an vastly different war between the US and Mexico.


Sure, but the problem there is the sheer scale between what the Mexico of 1846-48 could actually defend (Central Mexico, more or less) and what they tried to defend (Central Mexico against Scott, northeastern Mexico against Taylor, New Mexico against Kearny and Doniphan et al, California against Stockton and Sloat et al)...

The Americans (of 1846-48) could wage a multi-front offensive war; the Mexicans (of 1846-48) could - perhaps - have waged a sucessful military defense of Central Mexico.

To do so, however, they have to write off northeastern Mexico (much less New Mexico and California), which gives the US what they want; don't forget, when Scott's invasion was launched, the US was already in control of what (esentially) became the Mexican Cession and then some...

Best,
 
Top