AHC/WI: No Mexican-American War

What it says on the tin. We've seen TL's where Mexico does better against the US, but I feel like avoiding the war entirely is a (relatively) unexplored idea. What would the consequences be of the US and Mexico avoiding war altogether? Does Texas still gain its independence without US involvement? With the "southern" basically stopped at the Arkansas River, how does this affect the expansion of slavery? What does the map of North America eventually look like?
 
Mexico will probably be wealthier and more stable than OTL, and will receive a larger amount of inmigrants, both for the Californian gold rush, as well as from catholic European inmigrants.

The US will either be more Atlantic focused, or more isolationist. Hawaii may remain independent or taken by the British. No Panama Canal as we know it. The US will still be a premiere economic power, but may never reach a superpower status, just a Great Power one.

Big butterflies for the 20th century. Who knows, maybe both Mexico and the US will be allied in order to intervene in the rest of the world. The possibilities are inmense.
 
What it says on the tin. We've seen TL's where Mexico does better against the US, but I feel like avoiding the war entirely is a (relatively) unexplored idea. What would the consequences be of the US and Mexico avoiding war altogether? Does Texas still gain its independence without US involvement? With the "southern" basically stopped at the Arkansas River, how does this affect the expansion of slavery? What does the map of North America eventually look like?

Best POD is that Martin Van Buren gets the Democratic nomination in 1844, leading to Tyler standing as a pro-annexation candidate (as he planned to in OTL). The states that went Clay in OTL stay Clay, whilst the Van Buren states split between VB and Tyler, with the exception of New York, which goes for Clay to elect him president.

Now there's no chance of admitting Texas as a state through normal methods, and Clay's not going to push for annexation by joint resolution. Texas continues an independentish existence in the shadow of the United States. Sectional tensions are cooler, since there's no crisis (and Compromise) of 1850. The Missouri Compromise means no more slave states, whilst the north is steadily expanding into Nebraska. This might be the best chance to avoid the Civil War.
 
Best POD is that Martin Van Buren gets the Democratic nomination in 1844, leading to Tyler standing as a pro-annexation candidate (as he planned to in OTL). The states that went Clay in OTL stay Clay, whilst the Van Buren states split between VB and Tyler, with the exception of New York, which goes for Clay to elect him president.

Now there's no chance of admitting Texas as a state through normal methods, and Clay's not going to push for annexation by joint resolution. Texas continues an independentish existence in the shadow of the United States. Sectional tensions are cooler, since there's no crisis (and Compromise) of 1850. The Missouri Compromise means no more slave states, whilst the north is steadily expanding into Nebraska. This might be the best chance to avoid the Civil War.

I had in mind an even earlier POD of Harrison not dying of Pneumonia, and then being succeed by Clay in '44.

Would European investment/backing of Mexico continue/be ramped up as a check on the US?
 

jahenders

Banned
One option would be in 1845 over the disputed territory bordered by the Nueces River. Mexico notionally claimed all of Texas, but the fighting only started when both the US and Mexico sent troops into the disputed territory. Up until that point, the US could likely have avoided war and settled a treaty along those lines, with Texas being a somewhat smaller state.

If peace is retained on those borders, the US still advances West, but is limited by Mexican territory in the SW. It's quite likely that either some kind of war would ultimately arise or that Mexico would sale some of this land.

In any case, without the Mexican War, both armies are far less prepared for the ACW as it was the prime source of battlefield experience for leaders on both sides. Instead, the main leaders (at least initially) might have been men whose main experience was fighting native american tribes.

What it says on the tin. We've seen TL's where Mexico does better against the US, but I feel like avoiding the war entirely is a (relatively) unexplored idea. What would the consequences be of the US and Mexico avoiding war altogether? Does Texas still gain its independence without US involvement? With the "southern" basically stopped at the Arkansas River, how does this affect the expansion of slavery? What does the map of North America eventually look like?
 
Get rid of Santa Anna.

OTL it was him that started the whole thing. His ridiculous lifestyle (a military funeral for his left foot!) and Centralist policies angered a lot of the population.
Texas didn't rebel because they were Americans (at least not completely). They did it because Santa Anna refused to grant them statehood and had I believe Houston arrested for it.

So get rid of Santa Anna and that gives you over a decade of peace-ish. There'll still be coups, but none of the civil unrest that came with his reign.
 
texas was already independent.

getting rid of Santa Anna does wonders for Mexico. doesn't do anything for the expansionist aims of the US. this was a war of expansion.

no war: discovery of gold/minerals in Cali/southwest means lots of reasons for the US to want it. also means Mexico wants to keep it. it's hard to diminish the US' ability to take it. don't know if it's realistic to have Mexico enhance it's ability to keep it. I'd guess the war just takes a different form in a different year, with the same basic result. Only caveat is Santa Anna. but there's a reason such a bonehead was able to keep power for so long.
 
One option would be in 1845 over the disputed territory bordered by the Nueces River. Mexico notionally claimed all of Texas, but the fighting only started when both the US and Mexico sent troops into the disputed territory. Up until that point, the US could likely have avoided war and settled a treaty along those lines, with Texas being a somewhat smaller state.

If peace is retained on those borders, the US still advances West, but is limited by Mexican territory in the SW. It's quite likely that either some kind of war would ultimately arise or that Mexico would sale some of this land.

In any case, without the Mexican War, both armies are far less prepared for the ACW as it was the prime source of battlefield experience for leaders on both sides. Instead, the main leaders (at least initially) might have been men whose main experience was fighting native american tribes.

Would the ACW still touch off? If there are no new slave states that can be added to the Union (since the soutwestern border is now fixed along the Missouri Compromise), would the CSA even be able to get off the ground?
 
Mexico isn't going to be able to hold onto California in the long term and pretending that it can is wishful thinking. The Ranchero class and the Californios were incredibly disloyal to Mexico and had zero desire to be brought under the sway of Mexico city. California was already far more in the United State's economic orbit than it was Mexico's and that wasn't going to change any time soon. That's why Alvarado's revolt was so successful and that's why the Californios tossed Governor Micheltorena out on his ass. The whole region was on the brink of a civil war that likely would have turned into a war for independence, had it not been for the Mexican-American war.
 
Last edited:
Mexico isn't going to be able to hold onto California in the long term and pretending that it can is . The Ranchero class and the Californios were incredibly disloyal to Mexico and had zero desire to be brought under the sway of Mexico city. California was already far more in the United State's economic than it was Mexico's and that wasn't going to change any time soon. That's why Alvarado's revolt was so successful and that's why the Californios tossed Governor Micheltorena out on his ass. The whole region was on the brink of a civil war that likely would have turned into a war for independence, had it not been for the Mexican-American war.

So no War means that the US could get two puppet states (Texas and whatever Republic of California breaks away from Mexico)?
 
So no War means that the US could get two puppet states (Texas and whatever Republic of California breaks away from Mexico)?

Texas is going to be part of the US no matter what, but California has the potential for surviving. Though I'm not sure it will given that a majority of the rising American population of California wanted to become part of the US. The Californios liked American money, but they weren't to inclined to trade Mexico City for Washington so they might be able to hold of annexation.
 
Texas is going to be part of the US no matter what, but California has the potential for surviving. Though I'm not sure it will given that a majority of the rising American population of California wanted to become part of the US. The Californios liked American money, but they weren't to inclined to trade Mexico City for Washington so they might be able to hold of annexation.

I don't think the annexation of Texas is as done a deal as you make it out. If the war is avoided and the pro-annexation parties kept out of the White House, the movement might fizzle out. The longer Texas remains an independent country, the less likely it is the US will gobble it up (or that Texas will let itself be gobbled up).
 

Deleted member 67076

Mexico isn't going to be able to hold onto California in the long term and pretending that it can is wishful thinking. The Ranchero class and the Californios were incredibly disloyal to Mexico and had zero desire to be brought under the sway of Mexico city. California was already far more in the United State's economic orbit than it was Mexico's and that wasn't going to change any time soon. That's why Alvarado's revolt was so successful and that's why the Californios tossed Governor Micheltorena out on his ass. The whole region was on the brink of a civil war that likely would have turned into a war for independence, had it not been for the Mexican-American war.

The Californios can be flooded with loyal Mexicans. There were only a few thousand of them.
 
The Californios can be flooded with loyal Mexicans. There were only a few thousand of them.

No they can't. The Mexican government wasn't in any position to do anything like that during this period and civil war in California was a year or two away by 1846 there is no where near enough time to swamp the Californios and the whites that would undoubtedly be their allies in the course of just a couple of years. The Mexican government had tried and failed to impose it's will upon California for two decades. The only reason California was still part of Mexico was because Alvarado decided that he didn't want to be president of an independent California. The Mexicans were defeated every time that they tried to invade California and impose stronger central control over the region. The Centralist attitude in Mexico City isn't going to go away and it's only going to make the issue get worse and worse.
 

Deleted member 67076

No they can't. The Mexican government wasn't in any position to do anything like that during this period and civil war in California was a year or two away by 1846 there is no where near enough time to swamp the Californios and the whites that would undoubtedly be their allies in the course of just a couple of years. The Mexican government had tried and failed to impose it's will upon California for two decades. The only reason California was still part of Mexico was because Alvarado decided that he didn't want to be president of an independent California. The Mexicans were defeated every time that they tried to invade California and impose stronger central control over the region. The Centralist attitude in Mexico City isn't going to go away and it's only going to make the issue get worse and worse.

And who said anything about an 1846 POD? I'm talking 1830 or so
 
And who said anything about an 1846 POD? I'm talking 1830 or so

They did try and impose stronger central authority in the 1830s and they failed miserably at it. The Era of Coups and the Centralist Wars were being waged throughout the 1830s and the Mexican government was already struggling to put out revolts all across Mexico. If they force the issue, even more so than they did in OTL by maybe killing Castro instead of letting him go then the Californios will proclaim independence, and the is no reason to believe that the logistically strained Mexican army will be able to do any better against them then they did in OTL.
 

Deleted member 67076

They did try and impose stronger central authority in the 1830s and they failed miserably at it. The Era of Coups and the Centrist Wars were being waged throughout the 1830s and the Mexican government was already struggling to put out revolts all across Mexico. If they force the issue, even more so than they did in OTL by maybe killing Castro instead of letting him go then the Californios will proclaim independence, and the is no reason to believe that the logistically strained Mexican army will be able to do any better against them then they did in OTL.

So prevent the Centrist Wars and the Coups? Kill off Santa Anna and keep the 1824 constitution.
 
Mexico isn't going to be able to hold onto California in the long term and pretending that it can is wishful thinking.

A bold statement for a website dedicated to offer plausible alternatives to the course of history.

That's why Alvarado's revolt was so successful and that's why the Californios tossed Governor Micheltorena out on his ass. The whole region was on the brink of a civil war that likely would have turned into a war for independence, had it not been for the Mexican-American war.

You mean that force of less than a thousand revolters? If the Federales didn't have a fuck ton of domestic issues flaring I doubt that would ultimately be an issue. Sure, it'd be costly and the Gov. is perpetually broke, but that wouldn't stop a Santa Anna figure or any man determined enough to stop that/

No they can't. The Mexican government wasn't in any position to do anything like that during this period

Ok, again with the historical determinism, I must say, I love it! If I didn't know any better I'd say you don't know about the (failed) attempt by Gomez Farias to send up a few hundred educators and craftsmen to the distant province. It faltered from two major reasons. The more important one was Santa Anna being, well, Santa Anna and revolting against his own government... The other posing issue was that the Federales had decreed the incoming colonists had the authority to secularise the valuable missions of Alta California, properties long coveted by the Californios.

How could we get the colonist Californio population more craftsmen and educators? The secularisation of the missions is easily the most important and divisive political issue of Alta California. A less hamfisted implementation of a programme giving particular areas to the surviving Mission Indigenous tied to others being divided between the incoming Mexican colonists, the residing Californio colonists and perhaps a few portions given to prominent British or American nationals who very, very typically intergrated into the colonial Mexican social life by adopting Spanish names, wives and language. As for a Federal military force to keep tabs on the Californios you vastly overestimate the military capabilities of, I'd say start with Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo. He created alliances with two Indigenous leaders in the San Francisco Bay area, even getting these men formal land grants on portions of their traditional homelands. The process of alliance making got hindered for a variety of reasons, but if the Federals are spending far more on their erstwhile province, he'd likely get more financial support for such ventures.

the Californios and the whites that would undoubtedly be their allies in the course of just a couple of years.

Ahaha, so the Mexican nationals weren't whites to you? I can see this is going to be fruitful discussion.
 
So prevent the Centrist Wars and the Coups? Kill off Santa Anna and keep the 1824 constitution.

Possibly, but Santa Anna was a symptom, not the problem. He was one of several military leaders and politicians responsible for the overthrow of the President in 28 and several of the coups that followed had little to nothing to do with him. You will still have the conflict between Liberals vs. Conservatives, and Federalists Vs. Centralists. And it's not like the issues in California were caused by the Santa Anna. The first revolt against a Mexican appointed governor took place under the 1824 constitution, a full two years before Santa Anna became president in 1833.
 
Top